No preview available
2019 Jul 16 - CC PACKETAGENDA EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL WEST CONFERENCE ROOM - 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, JULY 16, 2019 — 4:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMUNICATION — (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. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 1. Appoint Council Members Nicol and Pimentel as real property negotiators for purposes of negotiating with TopGolf USA EI Segundo, LLC and ES CenterCal, LLC with respect to lease terms regarding the Lakes golf course and driving range located at 400 S. Pacific Coast Highway, EI Segundo, California, for purposes of having the driving range operated as TopGolf facility and the golf course being operated as a public golf course (Council Members Nicol and Pimentel were previously appointed to a subcommittee for the purpose of making a recommendation as to which entity the City should negotiate with and for purposes of proceeding with negotiations. This is being placed on the agenda to ensure all Brown Act requirements are met before the Council discusses this matter in closed session). Recommendation — 1) Appoint Council Members Nicol and Pimentel; 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. 2. Consideration and possible action to interview candidates of the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee. (Fiscal Impact: None) Recommendation — 1) Interview candidates; 2) Announce appointment(s) at the 6:00 PM, August 6, 2019 City Council Meeting, if any; 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. 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): -0- matters CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2): -0- 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. Performance Review E E Position: 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): -1- matters Property: The Lakes golf course and driving range located at 400 S. Pacific Coast Highway, EI Segundo, California. Agency negotiator: Council Members Nicol and Pimentel Negotiating parties: TopGolf USA EI Segundo, LLC, and ES CenterCal, LLC. Under Negotiation: Price and terms of payment. CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6): -4- matters 1. Employee Organizations: Police Management Association; Police Support Services Employees Association; Supervisory, Professional Employees Association; and Executive and Management/Confidential Employees (unrepresented groups). Agency Designated Representative: Irma Moisa Rodriquez, City Manager, Scott Mitnick and Human Resources Director, David Serrano. 3 3 AGENDA EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBER - 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, JULY 16, 2019 - 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION — Pastor Lee Carlile, United Methodist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Boy Scout Troop 267 PRESENTATIONS ROLL CALL 4 n PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (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. 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. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA B. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda by title only. Recommendation — Approval. C. 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. 1. Warrant Numbers 3026500 through 3026648 and 9000988 through 9000988 on Register No. 18a in the total amount of $960,690.78 and Wire Transfers from 6/10/19 through 6/16/19 in the total amount of $2,339,929.89. Warrant Numbers 3026649 through 3026730 and 9000989 through 9000989 on Register No. 18b in the total amount of $255,442.33 and Wire Transfers from 6/17/19 through 06/23/19 in the total amount of $417,127.14. Warrant Numbers 3026731 through 3026827 on Register No. 19a in the total amount of $683,877.83 and Wire Transfers from 6/24/19 through 6/30/19 in the total amount of $290,209.62. 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. 2. Special City Council Meeting Minutes (Budget Study Workshop #1) of June 14, 2019 and Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2019. Recommendation —1) Approval 3. Consideration and possible action regarding approval of an amendment to Environmental Assessment No. EA -1154, amendment to Specific Plan No. SP 16-01, amended and restated conditions of approval and a Second Amendment to Development Agreement No. DA 16-01, amending the requirement that the developer provide six affordable units for low, very low and extremely low qualified households within the residential 5 6i development to increase the number of affordable units to eight and to allow the eight units to be purchased by qualified moderate income households. An Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the development project was certified by the City Council on September 28, 2016. (Applicant: DR Horton CA2, Inc.). (Fiscal Impact: As part of the proposed amendment, the developer has agreed to provide the City an additional $100,000 for the City's costs of administering the program for two additional units.) Recommendation — 1) Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1586, and amendment to the 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan, amendment to the Development Agreement, and approval of the addendum to the EIR; 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other possible actions related to this item. 4. Consideration and possible action regarding a request for an operation permit at 150 South Pacific Coast Highway for Bitcar an automobile transportation service focused on serving travelers from China. EA -1251 and MISC 19-01. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15301 as a Class 1 categorical exemption (Existing Facilities). Applicant: George Qiao on behalf of Bitcar (Fiscal Impact: None) Recommendation — 1) Receive and file this report without objecting to the issuance of a permit for Bitcar; 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. 5. Consideration and possible action to adopt a Resolution approving Plans and Specifications for Construction of American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliant Parking Facilities Improvements for the Community Development Block Grant Project (CDBG Project 602064-18). Project No. PW 19-28. Parking lot locations; City Hall Employee Parking Lot, Fire Station #2 Employee Parking Lot, City Hall Public Parking (Holly Avenue), Fire Station #1 Employee Parking Lot, Joslyn Center Public Parking Lot, Gordon Clubhouse Public Parking (Pine Avenue) and EI Segundo Public Library Parking (Mariposa Avenue). (Fiscal Impact: $93,608.00 in CDBG grant funds) Recommendation — 1) Adopt attached resolution approving Plans and Specification for the Construction of American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliant Parking Facilities Improvements for the Community Development Block Grant Project (CDBG Project 602064-18), Project No. PW 19-28; 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. 6. Consideration and possible action authorizing the City Manager to purchase one new Caterpillar Wheel Loader to replace the existing unit in Public Works that is overdue for replacement and can no longer be used in California after 2019. (Fiscal Impact: $172,693.99) Recommendation — 1) Pursuant to EI Segundo Municipal Code §1-7-11, waive the bidding process and purchase one (1) new Caterpillar Wheel Loader with C -J C: equipment replacement funds; 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to make the purchase; 3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. 7. Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution authorizing the submittal of an application for competitive grant funds through the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (Prop 68) for the Acacia Park and Pool Project (600 Block of West Acacia). (Fiscal Impact: None) Recommendation — 1) Approve a resolution of the City Council of the City of EI Segundo authorizing submittal of application for the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program Grant (Prop 68) for the Acacia Park and Pool Project; 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. 8. Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to sign an amendment to an existing professional services agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the purchase of background review services for potential new employees with Lawles Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $60,000 per fiscal year (Fiscal Impact: None) Recommendation — 1) Authorize the City Manager to sign an amendment to an existing professional services agreement for an additional $10,000 per fiscal year for background services from Lawles Enterprises, Inc., not to exceed $60,000.00; 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Consideration and possible action regarding an amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to change the site's land use and zoning designations from Commercial Center to Urban Mixed -Use South, Approve a 10 -year Development Agreement and Certify an Environmental Impact Report and adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations. The project site is located at 2041 Rosecrans Avenue, El Segundo, California 90245. (Fiscal Impact: TBD) Recommendation — 1) It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing and take public testimony on the proposed project, close the public hearing and consider the evidence; 2) After considering the evidence: (a) adopt a Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Environmental Assessment No. EA -1201), adopting a statement of overriding considerations, amending the General Plan and General Plan Map (No. GPA 17-01), And (b) waive first reading, of an Ordinance adopting and (b) amending the zone and zoning map (No. ZC-17-01) and approving a Development Agreement (No. DA 17-02); 3) Schedule second reading and adoption of the Ordinance for August 6, 2019; 4) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. 7 7 10. Consideration and possible action regarding introduction of an Ordinance amending Title 3 of the EI Segundo Municipal Code to establish a Cultural Development Fund and Cultural Development Fee (otherwise known as a "Percent for Arts" fee). The proposed 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 can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. (Fiscal Impact: Approximately $1,000,000 in fee revenues per year) Recommendation — 1) Receive and file presentation by Arts and Culture Advisory Committee and City staff; 2) Open public hearing; 3) Take testimony and other evidence as presented; 4) Introduce by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance amending Title 3 of the EI Segundo Municipal Code to establish a Cultural Development Fund and Cultural Development Fee; 5) Schedule second reading and adoption of the Ordinance for August 20, 2019; 6) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11. Police recruitment marketing campaign update. Recommendation — 1) Receive and file. F. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS 12. Consideration and possible action to announce an appointment to the Recreation and Parks Commission. (Fiscal Impact: None) Recommendation — 1) Announce the appointees; 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. G. NEW BUSINESS 13.2019 Mid -Year -Crime Summary Report Recommendation — 1) Receive and file report. H. REPORTS — CITY CLERK I. REPORTS — CITY TREASURER J. REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY K. REPORTS — CITY MANAGER L. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PQ 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 agenda. 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 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. REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (if required) ADJOURNMENT 001.1"A 93 DATE: TIME:le� NAME: 0' ���// . M EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 16, 2019 AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Committees, Commissions and Boards AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to interview candidates of the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee. (Fiscal Impact: $None) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Interview candidates; 2. Announce appointment(s) at the 6:00 p.m., August 6, 2019 City Council meeting, if any; 3. 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 Assistant REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager A/�c t s BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Arts and Culture Advisory Committee — Six positions Candidate 1. Jeff Cason (4:00 pm) 2. Maureen Kingsley (4:12 pm) 3. Mark Knight (4:24 pm) 4. Marcia Friel (4:36 pm) 5. Natalie Strong (4:48 pm) Applying to: CCBs Arts and Culture Advisory Committee — Incumbent Arts and Culture Advisory Committee Arts and Culture Advisory Committee Arts and Culture Advisory Committee Arts and Culture Advisory Committee — Incumbent 10 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO WARRANTS TOTALS BY FUND 3026500 - 3026648 9000988 9000988 DATE OF APPROVAL: 001 GENERAL FUND 309,291.92 104 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND . 108 STATE GAS TAX FUND 12,878.56 105 ASSOCIATED RECREATION ACTIVITIES FUND 109 ASSET FORFEITURE FUND 14,727 32 111 COMM DEVEL BLOCKGRANT 112 PROP'A' TRANSPORTATION 888.62 114 PROP "C" TRANSPORTATION 5,651,50 115 AIR QUALITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 116 HOME SOUND INSTALLATION FUND 117 HYPERION MITIGATION FUND 116 TDA ARTICLE 3- SS 821 BIKEWAY FUND 11,875.00 119 MTA GRANT 121 FEMA 120 CO P.5 FUND - 122 L A W -A. FUND - 123 PSAF PROPERTY TAX PUBLIC SAFETY 202 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT S73 301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 302 INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT FUND - 405 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE - 501 WATER UTILITY FUND 8,410.12 502 WASTEWATER FUND 445,478.12 503 GOLF COURSE FUND - 601 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 141,831.83 602 LIABILITY INSURANCE 603 WORKERS COMP RESERVEIINSURANCE - 701 RETIRED EMP, INSURANCE 702 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND - DEVELOPER FEES 2874 703 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND - OTHER 1,750.00 708 OUTSIDE SERVICES TRUST - TOTAL WARRANTS $ _91�690.78 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Information on actual expeMlturas Is available in the Director of Finance's office in the City of El Segundo, I certify as l0 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: R = Computer generated checks for all non-emergencylurgency payments for materials, supplies and services In support of City Operations For Ralir"Ition: A = Payroll and Employee Benefit checks AS OF 07/02!'19 VOID CHECKS DUE TP ALIGNMENT: IA VOID CHECKS DUE TO INCORRECT CHECK DATE: VOX) CHECKS DUE TO COMPUTER SOFTWARE ERROR: B - F - Computer generated Eery Release dks6ur5emonts andlar adtustments approved by Me City Manager. Such as- payments far utility sorvicee, petty cash and amptoyea travel expense NOTES /j re,mbursemerds. varkws refunds, contract emptay" services ro(LAMOnt with current ONractual 1 1L1 ] agzeemenis. +�zs[arerns where prompt payment discounts can be Wtainad or late payment ponaliies J Can be avoided or when a shualion arises Ihal the City Manager apprevos. H = H"miitten Early Re:aasaA5bu(s6mants andfor adtuslments approved by the City Manager. PENANCE DIRECTOR �y �� CITY MANAGER DATE: ' ] `` OATS: ,. REGISTER a 10a CITY OF EL SEGUNDO PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER 6/10119 THROUGH 6116119 Date Payee Description 6/10/2019 Cal Pers 7,556.23 EFT Retirement Safety-Fire-PEPRA New 25020 6/10/2019 Cal Pers 10,906.99 EFT Retirement Safety-Police-PEPRA New 25021 6/1012019 Cal Pers 28,857.33 EFT Retirement Misc - PEPRA New 26013 6/10/2019 Cal Pers 48,192.55 EFT Retirement Misc. - Classic 27 6/10/2019 Cal Pers 71,271.04 EFT Retirement Safety Police Classic - 1 st Tier 28 6/10/2019 Cal Pers 48,912.41 EFT Retirement Safety Fire- Classic 30168 6/10/2019 Cal Pers 4,134.99 EFT Retirement Sfty Police Classic -2nd Tier 30169 6/10/2019 West Basin 2,082,601.74 H2O payment 6/3/19-6/9/19 Workers Comp Activity 36,135.00 SCRMA checks issued 6/3119-6/9119 Liability Trust - Claims 399.00 Claim checks issued 6/3/19-6/9/19 Retiree Health Insurance 0.00 Health Reimbursment checks issued 613119-619/19 Flexible Spending Card 962.61 Employee Health and DCA card charges 2,339,929.89 DATE OF RATIFICATION: 6114119 TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE: Certified as to the accuracy of the wire transfers by: Deputy � DeP u City Treas fer li ❑a e 1. Direc f ante Date Citana er Date Information on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of EI Segundo. 2,339,929.89 PACtty Treasured ire Transfers\Copy of Wire Transfers 10-01-18 to 9-30-19 6/14/2019 1/1 12 3026649 3026730 90011989 - 9000989 661 GENERALFUND 104 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 106 STATE GAS TAX FUND 106 ASSOCIATED RECREATION ACTIVITIES FUND 109 ASSET FORFEITURE FUND 111 COMM, LEVEL. BLOCK GRANT 112 PROP "A" TRANSPORTATION 114 PROP"C"TRANSPORTATION 115 AIR QUALITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 116 HOME SOUND INSTALLATION FUND 117 HYPERION WrIGATION FUND 11e TDA ARTICLE 3-S8 821 BIKEWAY FUND 119 MTA GRANT 121 FEMA 120 C.O.P.S. FUND 122 L A W -A. FUND 123 PSAF PROPERTY TAX PUBLIC SAFETY 202 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 073 301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 302 INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT FUND 405 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 501 WATER UTILITY FUND 502 WASTEWATER FUND 503 GOLF COURSE FUND e01 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 602 LIABILITY INSURANCE _ 603 WORKERS COMP- RESERVEIINSURANCE 761 RETIRED EMP. INSURANCE 702 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND -DEVELOPER FEES 703 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND -OTHER 708 OUTSIDE SERVICES TRUST TOTAL WARRANTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Information on actual expenditures Is available in the Director of Finance's office in the City of 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: CITY OF EL SEGUNDO WARRANTS TOTALS BY FUND 214,220 21 550,00 55.60 3,923.50 4,38761 3,697-06 1,363.66 R = Computer generated checks for all non-emergencylurgency payments for materials, supplies and services in Support of City Operations For Retdication: A = Payroll and Employee Benefit checks DATE OF APPROVAL: 106,77 187.41 5 255.442.33 V 8 - F = Computer generated Early Release disbursements and/or adjustments approved by the City gManager. Such as: Payments for utility services, petty cash and h"p,1,00 travel expense /, reimbursements, various refunds, contract employee services consislem wnh Wrenr conlracivat `J/ agreements, instances where prompt payment discounts can be obtained or late payment penalties can be avoided or when a situation arises that the City Manager approves_ If = Handm*un eay 14104 a disbursumeri% arnd7ur adjustments approved by the City Manager. FINANCE DIRECTOR �f- CITY MANAGEI OATE: w ' DATE: 401 W AS OF 07/92119 VOID CHECKS DUE Tp ALIGNMENT: (y/A VOID CHECKS DUE TO INCORRECT CHECK DATE: VOID CHECKS DUE TO COMPUTER SOFTWARE ERROR: CITY OF EL SEGUNDO PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER 6/17119 THROUGH 6123119 Payee Description 6/17/2019 IRS 278,971.61 Federal 941 Deposit 6/17/2019 Employment Development 4,509.76 State SDI payment 6/1712019 Employment Development 62,324.82 State PIT Withholding 6/17/2019 State of CA EFT 1,383.68 EFT Child support payment 6/17/2019 Joint Council of Teamsters 4,905.00 Vision Insurance payment 712019 6120/2019 Lane Donovan Golf Ptr 25,666.61 Payroll Transfer 6/10/19-6116/19 Workers Comp Activity 37,551.18 SCRMA checks issued 6110/19--&16/19 Liability Trust - Claims 0.00 Claim checks issued 6/10/19-6/16119 Retiree Health Insurance 0.00 Health Reimbursment checks issued 6/10/19-6/16/19 Flexible Spending Card 1,814.48 Employee Health and DCA card charges 417,127.14 DATE OF RATIFICATION: 6124/119 TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE: Certified as to the accuracy of the wire transfers by: 1 6Ip -/,�/9 Deputy City Treasur r II Date City Date Date on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of EI Segundo. PACily Treasurer%Wire TransferslCopy of Wire Transfers 10-01-18 to 9-30-19 417,127.14 6/24/2019 1/1 14 3025731 - 3026027 DO1 GENERALFUND 1G4 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 106 STATE GAS TAX FUND IDS ASSOCIATED RECREATION ACTIVITIES FUND 100 ASSET FORFEITURE FUND lit COMM- REVEL. BLOCK GRANT 112 PROP"A"TRANSPORTATION 114 PROP `C TRANSPORTATION 115 AIR QUALITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM lie HOME SOUND INSTALLATION FUND 117 HYPERION MITIGATION FUND tie TDA ARTICLE 3 - SB B2I BIKEWAY FUND 119 MTA GRANT 121 FEMA 120 C.O P.S. FUND 122 LA.WA. FUND 123 PSAF PROPERTY TAX PUBLIC SAFETY 202 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 873 301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 302 INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT FUND 405 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE Sol WATER UTILITY FUND 502 WASTEWATER FUND 503 GOLF COURSE FUND 601 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 602 LIABILITY INSURANCE 603 WORKERS COMP- RESERVEIINSURANCE 701 RETIRED EMP. INSURANCE 702 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND - DEVELOPER FEES 703 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND -OTHER 708 OUTSIDE SERVICES TRUST TOTAL WARRANTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Information on eclual expenditures is evaileble in the Director of Finance's office in the City of El Segundo I cerlify 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: CITY OF EL SEGUNDO WARRANTS TOTALS BY FUND DATE OF APPROVAL 646,757.37 10,904.26 424.35 4,68319 4,645.19 1,150.79 3,03662 4,723.18 $ 683,877.83 t/ R = Computer generated Alecks for all non-emergenoyrurgency payments for materials, supplies and services in support of City Operations For Rallfication: A = Payroll and Employee Benefit checks AS OF 97118119 VOID CHECKS DUE T9 ALIGNMENT: fA VOID CHECKS DUE TO INCORRECT CHECK DATE: VOID CHECKS DUE TO COMPUTER SOFTWARE ERROR: B - F - Computer generated Early Release disbursements andlor adustments approved by the City Manager. Such as, payments for utility services, pally cash and employee travat expense NOTES /�j� raimbweemenis, visows refunds. Contract employee services consistent with current Centraclual Cogfeements, Instances where prompt payment discounts can be obtained Or late payment penalties can be avoided or when a situation arises that the City Manager approves. 1 /� H = Handwritten Early Release disbursements and/or adJusimems approved by the City Manager FINANCEDIRECTOR J CITY MANAGER DATE: DATE: 3-a-19 -7 �Ct BgGISTER i/ 19a CITY OF EL SEGUNDO PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER 6124119 THROUGH 6130119 Date Payee Description 6/24/2019 Cal Pers 7,556.23 EFT Retirement Safety-Fire-PEPRA New 25020 6/24/2019 Cal Pers 10,906.99 EFT Retirement Safety-Police-PEPRA New 25021 6/24/2019 Cal Pers 29,555.30 EFT Retirement Misc - PEPRA New 26013 6/24/2019 Cal Pers 48,448.39 EFT Retirement Misc - Classic 27 6/24/2019 Cal Pers 71,329.80 EFT Retirement Safety Police Classic - 1 st Tier 28 6/24/2019 Cal Pers 48,845.80 EFT Retirement Safety Fire- Classic 30168 6/24/2019 Cal Pers 4,134.99 EFT Retirement Sfty Police Classic -2nd Tier 30169 6124/2019 Cal Pers 476.77 EFT Retirement Misc - PEPRA New 26013 6/24/2019 Cal Pers 1,179.66 EFT Retirement Misc - Classic 27 6/24/2019 Cal Pers 1,348.33 EFT Retirement Safety Police Classic - 1 st Tier 28 6/24/2019 Cal Pers 5,913.99 EFT Retirement Safety Fire- Classic 30168 6/17/19-6/23/19 Workers Comp Activity 58,358.56 SCRMA checks issued 6117/19-6/23/19 Liability Trust - Claims 0.00 Claim checks issued 6/17/19-6/23/19 Retiree Health Insurance 0,00 Health Reimbursment checks issued 6/17/19-6/23119 Flexible Spending Card 2,154.81 Employee Health and DCA card charges 290,209.62 DATE OF RATIFICATION: 711119 TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE: 290,209.62 Certified as to the accuracy of the wire transfers by: Deputy City Treas4�rer I I Date _a _ 0, Director o inancl Date F C Sal ;City Manager Date Information on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of EI Segundo. PAClty TreasurerlWire TransferskCopy of Wire Transfers 10-01-18 to 9-30-19 7/1/2019 1/1 16 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL FRIDAY, JUNE 14, 2019 EL SEGUNDO COUNCIL CHAMBER 350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA 90245 8:00 AM (Budget Study Workshop #1 for FY 2019-20) 8:OOAM. SESSION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Mayor Boyles — Present Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk — Present Council Member — Nicol Present Left at 10:47am Council Member — Pimentel Present Arrived at 8:16am Left at 11:50am Council Member — Brann Absent PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to Citv Business Onlv) — 5 minute limit per person, 30 minute limit total None SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS: 1. Consideration and possible action regarding a budget study workshop resulting in City Council receiving and filing of staff's discussion, analysis, and recommendations in preparation for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019-2020 budget. Staff will present on the following matters: A. Introduction: Review Agenda and Session Objectives B. Comments from the City Manager C. Recap of the June 11, 2019 Strategic Planning Study Session D. Economic Overview (Treasury Department) E. Overview of Preliminary FY 2019-20 Budget F. Department Overviews (changes, work plan highlights, enhancements, & discussion on department vacancies) G. Council Feedback on Allocation of General Fund Unallocated Reserves for FY 2018-19 H. Discussion and possible action on City Council policy objective to limit the General Fund expenditures related to total personnel costs (salaries and benefits) to: (1) a maximum dollar amount, (2) a maximum percentage of the overall General Fund expenditure budget, or (3) an alternative policy directive that limits the City's projected future deficits by strategically managing the City's projected deficit exposure I. City Council additional priorities and direction J. Wrap Up and Next Steps r-� G MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2019 1 1 P a g e 17 2. Council may raise other issues relating to staff's preparation of the FY 2019-2020 Budget Study Session. City Manager, Greg Carpenter introduced Budget Workshop with brief overview Finance Director, Joe Lillio introduced budget agenda primary purpose today was to focused on General Fund City Manager, Greg Carpenter set objects for today's workshop reviewing budget options for future decisions, staff is not requesting Council action today. Departments to present their needs for Council review. Mayor Boyles requested anything on agenda discussed during Strategic Planning to skip. Skipped items C and item D briefly discussed. Deputy City Treasurer, Dino Marsocci gave brief economic overview Finance Director, Joe Lillio provided overview City Council asked questions and discussed with staff. The following individual departments gave department overviews: City Clerk City Manager included; Communications & Economic Development, Emergency Management Fire Police Council adjourned for a ten minute break at 9:50am Council reconvened at 10:05am Recreation & Parks Library City Council asked questions and discussed with staff. Finance Director, Joe Lillio stopped department presentations and took out of order to discuss with Council fiscal policy discussion for FY 2019-20. This was due to Council request the meeting end at 10:45am. City Council asked questions and discussed with staff directional options that should be brought back to Council for consideration. The department overviews continued: Information Systems Council Member Scot Nicol left 10:47am MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2019 21 Page UP Finance Human Resources Council Member Chris Pimentel left 11:50am Recommendation: 1) City Council consider and discuss input regarding objectives for the FY 2019-2020 Budget Study Workshop; and 2) alternatively, take such additional, related, action that may be desirable. We no longer had a quorum Council to continue meeting items G through J to the July 17, 2019, 8am Special Council Meeting (2nd Budget Study Session) ADJOURNMENT 11:50am Mona F. Shilling, Deputy City Clerk II MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 14, 2019 3 1 P a g e W MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2019 — 4:00 PM Mayor Boyles and Council Member Chris Pimentel participated in the meeting via teleconference 4:00 P.M. SESSION CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk at 5:00 PM (Due to lack of quorum at 4:00 PM). ROLL CALL Mayor Boyles Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk Council Member Brann Council Member Pimentel Council Member Nicol - Via teleconferencing - Present - Present - Via teleconferencing - Present PUBLIC COMMUNICATION — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30 minute limit total) None SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: Police Chief Whalen introduced Nelson Merino, the department's new Property Officer and recognized Sergeant Ed Villarreal for his work with the department on officer recruitment, Sgt. Villarreal's last day with the department is Thursday, July 18, 2019, Meredith Petit, Recreation and Parks Department Director, introduced Jeannine Houchen, new Recreation Supervisor (Aquatics). 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): -1- matters Earthnell Buckner v. City of EI Segundo, Workers Compensation Appeals Board Case No. ADJ9913996 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2): -0- matters. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 18, 2019 PAGE 1 OF 9 WE Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 (d)(4): -1- matters DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957): -1- matters Performance Review Position: City Attorney APPOINTMENT OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE (Gov't. Code § 54957): -1- matter PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT (Gov't Code § 54957) -1- matter City Manager CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8): -0- matters CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6): -5 - matters 1. Employee Organizations: Police Management Association; Police Support Services Employees Association; Supervisory, Professional Employees Association; and Executive and Management/Confidential Employees (unrepresented groups). 2. Agency Designated Representative: Irma Moisa Rodriquez, City Manager, Greg Carpenter and Human Resources Director, David Serrano. Labor Negotiator: Gary Phillips Unrepresented Employee: City Manager Candidates Adjourned at 5:55 PM MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 18, 2019 PAGE 2 OF 9 21 REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 2019 - 6:00 P.M. Mayor Boyles and Council Member Chris Pimentel participated in the meeting via teleconference 6:00 P.M. SESSION CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk at 6:00 PM INVOCATION — Pastor Dina Ferguson, St. Michael Episcopal Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Brann PRESENTATIONS Proclamation read by Council Member Brann, proclaiming July 2019 as Parks and Recreation Month. Meredith Petit, Recreation and Parks Department Director accepted the Proclamation on behalf of the Recreation and Parks staff. ROLL CALL Mayor Boyles Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk Council Member Brann Council Member Pimentel Council Member Nicol - Via teleconferencing - Present - Present - Via teleconferencing - Present PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30 minute limit total) Paula Cook, resident, commended Jeff Gurney, Firefighter, for an excellent CERT program and thanked the City for continuing to support the program financially. 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 ROLE CALL VOTE. 5/0 ITEM MOVED UP TO #1 ON THE AGENDA 3. Consideration and possible action to appoint a city manager and approve an employment agreement with the appointed city manager (Fiscal Impact: To Be Announced) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 18, 2019 PAGE 3OF9 22 Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item. Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk introduced our new City Manager, Scott Mitnick. Council welcomed Mr. Mitnick to EI Segundo. Council Discussion MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Council Member Nicol to appoint Scott Mitnick as City Manager and approve Agreement No. 5720. MOTION PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE. 5/0 Scott Mitnick, new City Manager as of July 1, 2019, introduced himself. B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS (PUBLIC HEARING) Consideration and possible action regarding approval of an amendment to Environmental Assessment No. EA -1154, amendment to Specific Plan No. SP 16-01, amended and restated conditions of approval and a Second Amendment to Development Agreement No. DA 16-01, amending the requirement that the developer provide six affordable units for low, very low and extremely low qualified households within the residential development to increase the number of affordable units to eight and to allow the eight units to be purchased by qualified moderate income households. An Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the development project was certified by the City Council on September 28, 2016. The requested revision to the affordable housing requirement does not introduce new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the environmental impacts that previously were identified and analyzed in the certified EIR Addendum. Additionally, the project does not include changed circumstances or new information, which were not known at the time the EIR was certified, that would require the preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. (Applicant: DR Horton CA2, Inc.). (Fiscal Impact: As part of the proposed amendment, the developer has agreed to provide the City an additional $100,000 for the City's costs of administering the program for two additional units.) Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk stated this was the time and place to continue the Public Hearing from April 16, 2019, regarding approval of an amendment to Environmental Assessment No. EA -1154, amendment to Specific Plan No. SP 16-01, amended and restated conditions of approval and a Second Amendment to Development Agreement No. DA 16-01, amending the requirement that the developer provide six affordable units for low, very low and extremely low qualified households within the residential development to increase the number of affordable units to eight and to allow the eight units to be purchased by qualified moderate income households. City Clerk Weaver stated that proper notice had been given in a timely manner and that no written communication has been received in the City Clerk's office. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 18, 2019 PAGE 4OF9 23 Sam Lee, Planning, Building and Safety Director and Eduardo Schonborn, Principal Planner, reported on the item. The following two (2) DR Horton CA2, Inc., employees gave a presentation on the item, Keltie B. Cole, Senior Vice President, City Manager, Los Angeles/Ventura Division and Marianne Adriatico, Vice President and Division Council, Southern California. Public Comment: Kelsey Stewart, resident and active duty dependent, asked a question regarding a 3 person household versus a 4 person household of which the affordable price is based and clarified a question asked from Council Member Pimentel regarding active duty possibly retiring and renting the home once purchased. MOTION by Council Member Nicol, SECONDED by Council Member Brann to close the public hearing. MOTION PASSED BY ROLE CALL VOTE. 5/0 Council Discussion Greg Carpenter, City Manager, answered Council questions. Mark Hensley, City Attorney, read by title only: RESOLUTION NO. 5155 A RESOLUTION OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 1154 AND A SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO AMEND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE FOR EIGHT AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR QUALIFIED MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. MOTION by Council Member Nicol, SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk to adopt Resolution No. 5155, Amendment No. 5200-1A and 5200B. MOTION PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE. 3/2 YES: Boyles Nicol Pirsztuk NO: Brann Pimentel Mark Hensley, City Attorney, read by title only: ORDINANCE NO. 1586 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 540 FAST IMPERIAL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AND A SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 16-01, TO AMEND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE FOR EIGHT AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR QUALIFIED MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk introduced the Ordinance. Second reading of the Ordinance is scheduled for the regular City Council of July 16, 2019. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 18, 2019 PAGE 5OF9 24 C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS E. NEW BUSINESS 2. Consideration and possible action regarding the City Council to receive and file the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for fiscal year ending September 30, 2018. (Fiscal Impact: $0) Greg Carpenter, City Manager, introduced the item. Joe Lillio, Finance Manager, reported on the item. Kenneth Pun, CPA, CGMA, Engagement Partner with Pun Group, gave a presentation. Council Consensus to receive and file the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for fiscal year ending September 30, 2018. 3. Item moved to #1 on the agenda F. CONSENT AGENDA All items listed are to be adopted by one motion without discussion and passed unanimously. If a call for discussion of an item is made, the item(s) will be considered individually under the next heading of business. 4. Approve Warrant Numbers 3026343 through 3026426 and 9000950 through 9000950 on Register No. 17a in the total amount of $222,164.23 and Wire Transfers from 05/20/19 through 05/26/19 in the total amount of $632,023.20 and Wire Transfers from 5/27/19 through 06/02/19 in the total amount of $69,625.92. Warrant Numbers 3026427 through 3026499 and 9000951 through 9000987 on Register No. 17b in the total amount of $429,438.12 and Wire Transfers from 06/03/19 through 06/09/19 in the total amount of $1,015,294.15. 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 4, 2019, Special City Council Meeting Minutes of June 4, 2019 and EDAC/Council Joint Minutes of May 15, 2019. 6. Accept as complete the Library Wi-Fi and Reading Lounge Renovation Project and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion in the County Recorder's Office. Project No. PW18-04. (Fiscal Impact: $152,445.90) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 18, 2019 PAGE 6 OF 9 25 7. Adopt Ordinance No. 1584 amending Chapter 2 (Garbage and Rubbish) of Title 5 of the EI Segundo Municipal Code in its entirety in order to meet current State mandated requirements. (Fiscal Impact: N/A) 8. PULLED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PIRSZTUK 9. Approve the revision of the Tree Maintenance Worker job classification to modify the requirement for an applicant to possess the certification, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Tree Worker/Climber Specialist, to be "preferred" rather than "required" at the time of application. (Fiscal Impact: None) 10. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with RHA Landscape Architects -Planners, Inc. for additional work related to Washington Park construction documents and observation and authorize the expenditure not to exceed $36,730. (Fiscal Impact: not to exceed $36,730) 11. Authorize the City Manager to execute a standard professional services agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Raftelis, Agreement No. 5724, in an amount not to exceed of $98,845, for the water and wastewater rate study for the City of EI Segundo. (Fiscal Impact: $98,845) MOTION by Council Member Nicol, SECONDED by Council Member Brann to approve Consent Agenda items 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11. MOTION PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE. 5/0. PULLED ITEM: 8. Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to execute a 3 year agreement with Lanair Group LLC to provide hardware, software and professional services to implement the Storage Area Network and Blade Systems. (Fiscal Impact: $822,040.00 FY 2019-20) Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk introduced the item Charles Mallory, IT Director, answered Council questions. MOTION by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk, SECONDED by Council Member Brann authorizing the City Manager to execute Agreement No. 5731 for 3 years, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with Lanair Group LLC, using a Federal government cooperative agreement, General Services Administration (GSA) as an exemption to the City's formal bidding requirements pursuant to EI Segundo Municipal Code § 1-7-9(C), to purchase hardware, software, training and professional services for execution of the MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 18, 2019 PAGE 7OF9 26 Storage Area Network and Blade Systems. MOTION PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE. 5/0. G. REPORTS — CITY MANAGER — Thanked the employees who will be working over the 4th of July holiday and thanked all those he has worked with throughout his career and his family for their support over the years, this is Mr. Carpenter's last meeting as the City Manager of EI Segundo. He will retire as of June 28, 2019. H. REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY — Congratulated Greg on his retirement and commented on their working relationship over the years. REPORTS — CITY CLERK — Congratulated Greg on his retirement on behalf of the Clerk's office. 12. Consideration and possible action regarding Council consensus to cancel the Tuesday, July 2, 2019 City Council Meeting. (Fiscal Impact: None) Tracy Weaver, City Clerk, introduced the item Council Discussion MOTION by Council Member Nicol, SECONDED by Council Member Brann to approve cancellation of the July 2, 2019 City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE. 5/0. J. REPORTS — CITY TREASURER — Congratulated Greg on his retirement. K. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Pimentel — Congratulated Greg on his retirement. Council Member Nicol — Congratulated Greg on his retirement and reminded the community of the upcoming Art Walk that begins on Thursday, June 20, 2019 and runs through August. Council Member Brann — Congratulated Greg on his retirement and mentioned the summer is near and so Hawaiian shirts will be worn beginning at the next meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk — Congratulated Greg on his retirement, congratulated all those who graduated this past week and reminded the community that the Summer Concert Series has begun and wished everyone a Happy 4th of July. Mayor Boyles — Congratulated Greg on his retirement. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 18, 2019 PAGE 8OF9 27 PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30 minute limit total) Jim Cook, resident, commented on his concerns for the future of the Lakes at EI Segundo. MEMORIALS — Donna McCarthy ADJOURNMENT at 8:23 PM Tracy Weaver, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 18, 2019 PAGE 9OF9 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: July 16, 2019 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Consideration and possible action regarding approval of an amendment to Environmental Assessment No. EA -1154, amendment to Specific Plan No. SP 16-01, amended and restated conditions of approval and a Second Amendment to Development Agreement No. DA 16-01, amending the requirement that the developer provide six affordable units for low, very low and extremely low qualified households within the residential development to increase the number of affordable units to eight and to allow the eight units to be purchased by qualified moderate income households. An Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the development project was certified by the City Council on September 28, 2016. The requested revision to the affordable housing requirement does not introduce new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the environmental impacts that previously were identified and analyzed in the certified EIR Addendum. Additionally, the project does not include changed circumstances or new information, which were not known at the time the EIR was certified, that would require the preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. (Applicant: DR Horton CA2, Inc.). (Fiscal Impact: As part of the proposed amendment, the developer has agreed to provide the City an additional $100,000 for the City's costs of administering the program for two additional units.) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Waive second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 1586, and amendment to the 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan (EA -1154, Revision A); and/or, 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. 1586 FISCAL IMPACT: As part of the proposed amendment, the developer has agreed to provide the City an additional $100,000 for the City's costs for administering the affordable housing program for two additional units. Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: N/A Objective: N/A PREPARED BY: Eduardo Schonborn, AICP, Principal Planney REVIEWED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager ! Sam Lee, Planning and Building Safety D re 29 APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager 'H �tA 1-:>%% BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On June 18, 2018, the City Council introduced an Ordinance amending the 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan; specifically, modifying the affordable housing requirement to provide eight units affordable to moderate income households rather than six units affordable to extremely low, very low, and low income households. The Council may waive second reading and adopt the Ordinance. If the Ordinance is adopted by the City Council at its July 16th meeting, the effective date of the Ordinance will be August 15, 2019, which is thirty (30) days from the adoption date. 30 ORDINANCE NO. 1586 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING AND ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 540 EAST IMPERIAL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN AND A SECOND AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 16-01, TO AMEND THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE FOR EIGHT AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR QUALIFIED MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL 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. On March 20, 2012, the City Council approved the "540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan" (Specific Plan 10-03) and other entitlements, to allow for the construction of one of two possible conceptual options on a 5.65 -acre surplus school site then -owned by the EI Segundo Unified School District. Option 1 consisted of a three-story, 150 unit assisted living complex and a 154 -unit senior apartment/condominium complex. Option 2 consisted of 34 multi -family dwelling units taking access from Imperial Avenue (six of which would be designated for low, very low and extremely low affordable units), and 24 single-family dwelling units taking access from Walnut Avenue, for a total of 58 units; B. On September 28, 2016, the EI Segundo City Council adopted Resolution No. 4999, approving Environmental Assessment No. EA 1154, an amended to the 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan, and the First Amendment to Development Agreement No. 16-01 for the development of Option 2 described above; C. Pursuant to the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 4999, which were agreed to by D.R. Horton CA2, Inc. (the "Applicant"), the approved residential development must set aside six multi -family units as affordable units, for sale to qualified lower income households. Specifically, two units must be affordable to extremely low income households, two units affordable to very low income households, and two units affordable to low income households. The City Council also conditioned the project on members of the military being given priority for the affordable housing units; D. On August 6, 2018, the Applicant filed an application to amend the affordable housing requirement for the residential development; 31 E. On September 5, 2018, the application was deemed incomplete pending the submittal of additional information, including details about what amendments are being requested; F. On January 10, 2019, a notice was provided to 119 property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the 540 East Imperial Avenue project site, and a notice was also published in the EI Segundo Herald on January 10, 2019, indicating that a public hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission on January 24, 2019; G. On January 22, 2019, the applicant submitted a request to continue the item to a future date; H. On January 24, 2019, the Planning Commission continued the hearing and directed that notice be provided for the Planning Commission hearing; On February 11, 2019, the Applicant submitted a letter to amend the affordable housing requirement for the residential development, requesting that the affordability be changed to provide eight units at the moderate income level; J. On February 14, 2019, a notice was provided to 119 property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the 540 East Imperial Avenue project site, and a notice was also published in the EI Segundo Herald on February 14, 2019, indicating that a public hearing was scheduled with the Planning Commission on February 28, 2019; K. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on February 28, 2019, at which time all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence regarding said amendments as set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report of that date and to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the proposed amendments, including, without limitation, information provided to the Planning Commission by City staff and public testimony; L. On February 28, 2019, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the proposed amendments, and adopted PC Resolution No. 2858 recommending the City Council approve this ordinance amending Environmental Assessment No. EA -1054, 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan and Development Agreement No. 16-01; M. On April 4, 2019, a notice was provided to 119 property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the 540 East Imperial Avenue project site, and a notice was also published in the EI Segundo Herald on April 4, 2019, indicating that a public hearing was scheduled with the City Council on April 16, 2019; 32 N. On April 16, 2019, the City Council conducted a public hearing to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the applications including, without limitation, information provided to the City Council by City staff and public testimony, and the applicant; O. On April 16, 2019, the City Council requested additional information from the applicant and continued the item to May 21, 2019; P. On May 21, 2019, the City Council continued the item to the June 18, 2019 City Council meeting; Q. On June 18, 2019, the City Council received additional public testimony and other evidence regarding the applications including, without limitation, information provided to the City Council by City staff and public testimony, and the applicant; and, R. This Ordinance and its findings are made based upon the testimony and evidence presented to the City Council at its April 16, and June 18, 2019 hearings including, without limitation, the staff reports submitted by the Planning and Building Safety Department. SECTION 2: Environmental Assessment. An Addendum to the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the development project was certified by the City Council on September 28, 2016. The requested amendment to the affordable housing requirement does not introduce new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the environmental impacts that previously were identified and analyzed in the certified EIR Addendum. Further, the project does not include changed circumstances or new information, which were not known at the time the EIR was certified, that would require the preparation of a subsequent environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 3: General Plan and Specific Plan Findings. After considering the above facts, the City Council finds as follows: A. Following a Specific Plan Amendment, the General Plan Land Use Designation of the project site will remain unchanged; 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan (EIASP). This designation is intended for multi- family housing units consisting of market rate and affordable apartments or condominiums. B. The General Plan contains a number of relevant Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the Land Use Element. Implementation of the proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU3-2.1 to "promote high quality Multi -Family Residential developments with ample open space, leisure and recreational facilities." If approved, the development will be 33 built and maintained in accordance with these requirements and regulations and the requirements and regulations of the 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan. C. The proposed project is consistent with Housing Element Goal 2 to "Provide sufficient new, affordable housing opportunities in the City to meet the needs of groups with special requirements, including the needs of lower and moderate income households," in that the project will provide eight units (14% of the development) set aside of much-needed housing for moderate income households. The City acknowledges, however, that due to the approval of the amendment, additional sites will need to be identified to accommodate the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) by income level, as discussed in Section 6 below. SECTION 4: Amendment to Development Agreement Findings. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 3268 and Government Code §§ 65857.5 and 65858, the City Council finds that: A. The proposed amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan as described above and the 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan (540EIASP), as amended by this ordinance. B. The proposed amendment to the Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located. C. The proposed amendment to the Development Agreement conforms with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice. The Development Agreement, as amended, provides the following public benefits: Increasing housing, in particular much-needed market rate and affordable housing for area residents. 2. Developing a property that includes affordable housing for the community with a 14% set aside for moderate income qualified households. D. The proposed amendment to the Development Agreement will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare. The Development Agreement includes reimbursement to the City for its set up and oversight of the affordable housing component. E. The proposed amendment to the Development Agreement will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation 34 of property values. This project is surrounded by previously -developed neighborhoods and will help improve the value of neighboring properties. The proposed Development Agreement, as amended, will ensure that the project will be developed in an orderly fashion. SECTION 5: Specific Plan. The City Council makes the following findings: A. Specific Plans create "mini -zoning" regulations for land uses within particular areas of the City. All future development plans and entitlements within the Specific Plan boundaries must be consistent with the standards set forth in the adopted Specific Plan, even when they may be different from the general regulations within the ESMC. B. The proposed specific plan amendment is in the public interest, and there will be a community benefit resulting from the specific plan. The Specific Plan will continue to require that six affordable housing units be provided at the development, but affordable to qualified moderate income households. SECTION 6: "No Net Loss" Finding. The project site was identified as a pending project in the City's certified Housing Element, which would have provided enough affordable housing units to address the City's RHNA allocation of 29 affordable units in the lower income categories. By adopting this resolution, the City is allowing development of the property with fewer units by income category than identified in the Housing Element. Based on a review of the Housing Element, the City does not find that the remaining sites in the Housing Element are adequate to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need by income level. Accordingly, pursuant to Government Code § 65863(c)(2), the City will, within 180 days, identify and make available additional adequate sites to accommodate the City's share of the regional housing need by income level. SECTION 7: Approvals and Authorization. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the amendment to 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan, as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A-11"; and the Second Amendment to Development Agreement No. 16-01, attached to this ordinance as Exhibit "A-2".— Upon the effective date of this Ordinance, the Mayor is authorized to execute the amendment on behalf of the City. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to perform all acts and execute all documents needed to effectuate this Ordinance, including but not limited to, execution of an amendment to the Affordable Housing Agreement between the City and the applicant. SECTION 8: Technical Corrections. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to make technical corrections, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to maps, diagrams, tables, and other, similar, documents (collectively, "Maps") that may be required to reconcile the changes made by this Ordinance with amendments made to the Zoning Map by other City Council action in unrelated land use applications. 35 SECTION 9: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Ordinance 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 10: 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 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 11: 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 12: Effectiveness of ESMC. Repeal or amendment of any provision of the ESMC will 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 13: Recordation. 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 it to be published or posted in accordance with California law. SECTION 14- 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 15: Effective Date. This Ordinance will go into effect and be in full force and effect on the thirty-first (31st) day after its passage and adoption. 36 PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of .2019. 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 Ordinance No. 1586 was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2019, 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 2019, 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 37 ORDINANCE NO. 1586 Exhibit A-1 AMENDMENT TO 540 EAST IMPERIAL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN Section 4.2 (Development Standards) and the paragraph titled "Affordability" on Page 17 of the 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan is modified as follows. The proposed revisions to these conditions of approval are illustrated with StFikethrn 19 for existing language that is proposed for elimination and underlined for proposed new language. Except as otherwise modified below, the Plan remains unchanged and in effect: AFFORDABILITY The City of EI Segundo 2013 Housing Element identified a need for affordable housing to provide for low- and moderate income first-time homebuyers, senior citizens on fixed incomes, extremely low -,very low-, low-, and moderate -income residents, the disabled, military personnel, and the homeless segments of the population. As envisioned in the element and based on that need, for Option 1, fifteen (15) percent of the total units will be set aside as affordable units; for Option 2, either (A) ten (10) percent of the total units will be set aside as affordable units for extremely low. very low. and low-income residents ("Option 2-A"]. or (B) fourteen (14) taercent of the total units will be set aside as affordable units for moderate income residents ("Option 2-B"). Based on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), EI Segundo is required to provide 69 additional housing units during the current housing cycle (2013-2021). The allocation of the 69 units is broken down into five categories as follows: 9 extremely low income households, 9 very low income households, 11 low income households, 12 moderate income households, and 28 above moderate income households. The units in this project will be used to meet a portion of the need in the extremely low, very low, aglow. and moderate income household categoryies. denendinq upon the affordable housina Droaram Option chosen by the Developer which represent a proportional total of 31 percent, 31 percent, and 38 percent. and 17 percent} respectively, of the total RHNA allocation for the household tower income categories specified above (41 2-9 units). These same percentages were applied to the unit totals for this project under Option 1 and Option 2-A. Thus, if 304 units are built under Option 1, a total of 46 units would be required as follows: 14 units (31% of the total 15%) for the extremely low income senior household category; 14 units (31 % of the total 15%) for the very low income senior household category; and 18 units (38% of the total 15%) for the low income senior household category to be split equally between the assisted living and town home/apartment units. If all 58 units are built under Option 2-A, a total of 6 units comprised of 2 units in each income category would be required (extremely low — 31% of the total 10%; very low — 31 % of the total 10%; and low — 38% of the total 10%). Alternatively. under Option 2-B. the Developer must set aside 14% of the 58 total units constructed for moderate income households (i.e.. 8 units). The Developer must still provide a 15% set aside for the total number of units constructed for Option 1, a and 10% set aside for the total number of units constructed for Option 2-A. and a 14% set aside for the total number of units constructed for Option 2-B, should fewer units than the maximum allowed be constructed. The units must be distributed in the same percentage ratios as specified above in the low, very low, and extremely low income categories. Percentages for the total number of units and for each income category must be calculated by rounding to the nearest whole number not to exceed the maximum required percentage. Any affordable housing units that are required based on the single-family component of Option 2-A or Ootion 2-B may be satisfied by developing the requisite number of units in other components of the project. The developer must submit an income and verification monitoring plan to the Director of Planning and Building Safety or designee before building permits are issued. M ORDINANCE NO. 1586 Exhibit A-2 Second Amendment to the Development Agreement ME RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF EL SEGUNDO 350 Main Street El Segundo, California 90245 Exempt from recorder's fees Pursuant to Govt. Code §6103 THIS SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER'S USE SECOND AMENDMENT OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND D.R. HORTON CA2, INC. (540 E. IMPERIAL AVENUE SITE) This Second Amendment of Development Agreement ("Second Amendment") is entered into this day of August, 2019, by and between the CITY OF EL SEGUNDO ("City"), a municipal corporation and the D.R. HORTON CA2, INC. ("Developer"). RECITALS A. City and the El Segundo Unified School District entered into that certain Development Agreement dated May 4, 2012 (City Agreement No. 4271, hereafter "Development Agreement"), which was recorded on May 30, 2012, in the Official Records of Los Angeles County as Document No. 20120798461. B. On or about September 28, 2016, the City Council approved a First Amendment to the Development Agreement, which was recorded on January 23, 2017, in the Official Records of Los Angeles County as Document No. 20170088928. C. On or about September 30, 2016, the El Segundo Unified School District sold the 540 E. Imperial Avenue site to Developer. The District assigned all of its interests in the property, including its obligations under the Development Agreement and First Amendment, to Developer. The assignment took effect upon the close of escrow, September 30, 2016. D. City and Developer entered into that certain Affordable Housing Agreement dated October 16, 2018, which was recorded on October 16, 2018, in the Official Records of Los Angeles County as Document No. 20181051979. E. Concurrent with consideration of this Second Amendment, City is processing an Amendment to the 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan ("Specific Plan Amendment") to 41 modify the affordable housing requirements for the project site and Resolution No. modifying the Conditions of Approval to Resolution No. 4999. City and Developer desire to enter into this Second Amendment to ensure that the affordable housing units are economically feasible for qualified households. AGREEMENT Amendment of Develotament Aareement. The following sections and exhibits of the Development Agreement are hereby amended as follows: A. The definition of "Applicable Rules" set forth in Section 1 is hereby amended to also include the Specific Plan Amendment and Resolution No. B. The definition of "Project Approvals" set forth in Section 1 is hereby amended to also include the Specific Plan Amendment, Resolution No. _ , and this Second Amendment to the Development Agreement. C. All references in subsections 2.3 and 4.6.3 to the "540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan" are hereby amended to include the Specific Plan Amendment. D. All references in subsection 4.6.4 to the "Specific Plan" are hereby amended to include the Specific Plan Amendment. E. Section 5.3 is amended to read as follows: "5.3 Affordable Housing!. Developer must provide for a 14% set aside for moderate income qualified households as represented in Exhibit D. The Affordable Housing Agreement entered into by and between the City and the Developer, must be amended to reflect the same and must be recorded with the Los Angeles County Register -Recorder's office." F. Subsection 5.3.1 is amended to read as follows: "5.3.1 Preferences for U.S. Military. Developer agrees that, all other considerations being equal and as permitted by law, it will give preference to prospective purchasers of the affordable housing units who are active members or veterans of the U.S. military at the time of the purchase." G. Subsections 5.3.2 and 5.3.3 are hereby deleted in their entirety. H. Paragraph 4 of Subsection 5.9 is amended to read as follows: "4. Developer will contribute Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) to reimburse the City for its estimated costs of administering and enforcing the affordable housing component of the Project, with Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) to be contributed to the City before the first Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the first affordable unit and Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000) to be contributed to the City before the eighth Certificate of FA W Occupancy is issued for the final affordable unit. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the total amount of $400,000 must be contributed to the City no later than five years from the date of the First Amendment." I. Exhibit "D-1" of the Development Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit "D-2" attached hereto and incorporated herein. 2. Good Faith Compliance. This Second Amendment shall constitute the City's Periodic Review pursuant to Section 8.1 of the Development Agreement and City's determination that Developer is in substantial compliance with the terms and provisions of the Development Agreement. 3. Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly provided in this Second Amendment, the Development Agreement shall not be amended or otherwise modified. In the event there is a conflict between the terms of the Development Agreement, as amended, and the terms of this Second Amendment, the terms provided in this Second Amendment shall control. On and after the date hereof, each reference in the Development Agreement to "this Agreement," "hereunder," "hereof," "hereto," "herein," or words of like import referring to the Development Agreement shall mean and be a reference to the Development Agreement as amended by the First and Second Amendments. 4. Recordation. This Second Amendment shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of Los Angeles by the City Clerk of City. 5. Countemarts. This Second Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which, taken together, shall constitute one fully executed original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Developer and City of El Segundo have executed this Second Amendment on the date first above written. ralik'f CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a municipal corporation Drew Boyles, Mayor ATTEST: Tracy Weaver, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: 43 Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney DEVELOPER: D.R. HORTON CA2, INC. Its: A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of On , before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of On. , before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature -5- 45 EXHIBIT "D-2" 540 EAST IMPERIAL AVENUE SPECIFIC PLAN HOUSING SET ASIDE —14% Option (Option 2-B) 14% OPTION (58 Total Units) 8 units total Mixed Residential Moderate income Total 14% Set Aside INI Units Required 8 Units EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL REVISED AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: July 16, 2019 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda Consideration and possible action regarding a request for an operation permit at 150 South Pacific Coast Highway for Bitcar an automobile transportation service focused on serving travelers from foreign countries. EA -1251 and MISC 19-01. The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations §15301 as a Class 1 categorical exemption (Existing Facilities). (Fiscal Impact: None) Applicant: George Qiao on behalf of Bitcar. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Receive and file this report without objecting to the issuance of a permit for Bitcar; and/or 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1. Letter of request from George Qiao, received on May 9, 2019. 2. Parking analysis. 3. Site plan. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal 5: Promotes economic growth and vitality for businesses and the community. Objective: Encourages a vibrant business climate that is accessible, user-friendly and welcoming to all residents and visitors. PREPARED BY: Maria Baldenegro, Assistant Planner ORIGINATED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager REVIEWED BY: Sam Lee, Planning and Building Safety Director APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager W-Izv S'� Bitcar is requesting approval of a Vehicle for Hire Permit, which pursuant to ESMC Chapter 4-4, which was adopted in 1945 and slightly amended in 1973, requires City Council's discretionary approval. Bitcar proposes to operate a chauffeured transportation service based at 150 South Pacific Coast Highway. Bitcar will primarily serve foreign tourists that do not have a license to drive in the United States and are visiting for business or pleasure. Bitcar will provide foreign tourists with a driver who is licensed to drive in California, and knows how to navigate through traffic in Los Angeles. All vehicles used for the business will be parked in the site's parking lot. Eleven vehicles are proposed at this time and will have designated spaces clearly marked with signs. Bitcar will lease a 1,205 square -foot tenant space that is currently vacant for their office and the parking associated with the business operation at 150 South Pacific Coast Highway. The subject property requires a minimum of 73 parking spaces for the uses on site but contains 110 parking spaces resulting in 37 excess spaces available. This use, therefore, still complies with the minimum parking requirements. No maintenance of vehicles will occur on the premises. The zoning designation of the property is General Commercial (C-3), which permits office uses. The business operation includes overnight storage of 11 vehicles on-site, but will be transporting passengers during most of the day. Thus, since the subject property contains excess parking that can be used for vehicle storage associated with the business and the vehicles are anticipated to be used during the day, staff believes that the permit will not be detrimental to the site or the area. Environmental Review The project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations § 15301 as a Class 1 categorical exemption (Existing Facilities). Conclusion Staff recommends approval of the Bitcar request for a Vehicle for Hire permit at 150 South Pacific Coast Highway as required by ESMC §§ 4-4-3, 4-4-4, and 4-4-9 and as determined by the City Council as a public convenience and necessity per ESMC § 4-4-2. Additionally, staff recommends that the approval be subject to the condition that all the vehicles for hire must be stored in the parking lot and limited to a maximum of 11 vehicles. If the operation permit is approved, Bitcar must also obtain a business license. The operation permit shall remain in effect until revoked or suspended by the City Council per ESMC § 4-4-5. Additionally, if an operation permit is approved, Bitcar will have to provide evidence of valid driver's license, vehicle registration and insurance per ESMC §§ 4-4-7, 4-4-10, and 4-4-11. Staff is currently drafting a wide -reaching municipal code amendment that will, among many other changes, delete obsolete regulations and permits such as the Vehicle for Hire permit. The permit was already identified as one to be eliminated when Bitcar made their application. However, since the code amendment will not be ready for a public hearing until August at the earliest, Staff commenced processing this application. Pursuant to ESMC Chapter 4.4, a Vehicle for Hire permit requires a City Council discretionary permit approval. Bitcar is an automobile transportation service focused primarily on the foreign business and pleasure traveler from China to the United States. As this segment of the tourist market continues to grow the need for services to accommodate culture and language barriers increases. Considering over 700 of Chinese tourist to the United States do not have driver's license, and US public transportation trailing China's, there is a need for private car services to facilitate ease of movement throughout the region for these travelers. In addition, even licensed tourists have difficultly navigating US cities as the language barrier is distinct. Bitcar maintains a fleet of vehicles to provide these travelers with a solution -based service where these travelers can hire a driver who speaks fluent Chinese, is licensed in the US, and knows the area to provide them ease of movement, communication and private transportation. Due to Bitcar being a Chinese based company and providing more culture and language -based options familiar to the customer, such as plush lounges, documentation in different languages, Chinese fluent staff members and concierge services, Bitcar does accommodate some non -driver automotive only rental services estimated at less than 15% of their total sales. Bitcar views their business as: 1. Bridging the gap between China and US 2. Providing ease of movement to a city that has a poor Public transportation network 3. Increasing safety on the roads by reducing unskilled and/or unfamiliar drivers Bitcar through a strategic alliance with CTRIP, China's largest on-line travel agency and the World's second largest overall travel agency, is experience strong business growth and looks forward to remaining in the City of EI Segundo. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. George Qiao, President, Bitcar Inc. (626) 406-8886. .• City of EI Segundo Required Parking for All Tenants at 150 S. PCH 73.14 Total Spaces Provided at 150 S. PCH 110.00 Excess Parking spares Available at 1565. PCH 36.86 = Bitcar Car Storage Needs in Excess of City Requirements' 11.00 - Excess Parking Spaces Available at 150 S. PCH 25.86 = • These car storage spaces shall be designated as "Reserved" and clearly marked. For Any additional information or questions, please contact property ownership - Mike Brent (310) 850-8343 L•IVA Proposed Vehicle for Hire Use Proposed Tenant: Bitcar Proposed Location: 150 S. Pacific Coast Highway, EI Segundo, CA North Village Shopping Center Total SF 10,101 Tenant Status Tenant So. Ft. Tenant Use Space Allocation Allocation Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. / Space Required Cars/ Tenant .lust Massage Existing Tenant 1,528 General Office 300.00 509 Mandovi Indian Existing Tenant 2,200 Full -Service Restaurant Dining 1,021.00 75.00 13.61 Non -Dining 1,179.00 250.00 4.72 :Sushi Boat & Thai Existing Tenant 2,439 Full -Service Restaurant Dining 1,024.00 75.00 13.65 Non -Dining 1,415.00 250.00 5.66 H&R Block Existing Tenant 1,000 General Office 300.00 3.33 'Valentino Pizza Existing Tenant 1,729 Fast Food Restaurant 75.00 23.05 Bitcar Proposed Tenant 1,205 General Office 300.00 4.02 City of EI Segundo Required Parking for All Tenants at 150 S. PCH 73.14 Total Spaces Provided at 150 S. PCH 110.00 Excess Parking spares Available at 1565. PCH 36.86 = Bitcar Car Storage Needs in Excess of City Requirements' 11.00 - Excess Parking Spaces Available at 150 S. PCH 25.86 = • These car storage spaces shall be designated as "Reserved" and clearly marked. For Any additional information or questions, please contact property ownership - Mike Brent (310) 850-8343 L•IVA North Village Shopping Center Proposed New Tenant: Sitcar 150 S Pacific Coast Highway,,'! Segundo CA �' — Bitcar's Unit j GRAPHIC SCALE + j VICINITY MAP _ rr .�r ��p.v' Designated "Reserved Parking" Area Allocating 11 Vehicles (w/ expansion up to 19 vehicles)it I 2 93 �r M•• Wil`. f� .l — �$ . � � i lU ' _ �-� F l I4r p. Recent Renamed — Pacific Cn�st Highway SEPULVEDA BOULEVARDY.•'•"� "' '• Further Questions: Mike Brent 310-850-8343 mikebrent@Hotmail conn j 51 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 16, 2019 AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to adopt a Resolution approving Plans and Specifications for Construction of American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliant Parking Facilities Improvements for the Community Development Block Grant Project (CDBG Project 602064-18). Project No. PW 19-28 (Fiscal Impact: $93,608.00 in CDBG grant funds) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Adopt attached resolution approving Plans and Specification for the Construction of American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliant Parking Facilities Improvements for the Community Development Block Grant Project (CDBG Project 602064-18), Project No. PW 19-28; or, 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible actions related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Resolution FISCAL IMPACT: $93,608 in anticipated Community Development Block Grant funding Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A ($93,608 will be proposed for fiscal year 2018-2019 budget in account 111-400-2781-8441, CDBG Capital Projects) Account Number(s): As noted above STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 4 Develop Quality Infrastructure and Technology Objective: (a) El Segundo's physical infrastructure supports an appealing, safe, and effective City ORIGINATED BY: Orlando Rodriguez, Senior Civil EnaineerbC REVIEWED BY: Ken Berkman, Public Works Director APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager b� BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Each year, the City of El Segundo applies for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Federal funding from the County of Los Angeles Community Development Authority (County). This funding is available for projects that meet national objectives to benefit low- and moderate - income individuals, address slums or blight and/or meet a particular urgent community development need. The proposed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Parking Facilities Improvement Project meets this funding criteria and will construct new ADA -compliant parking spaces as well as replace non-compliant parking spaces to current standards at six (6) City 52 parking facilities. Improvements will be provided at City Hall, the Police and Fire Stations, the Library and Recreation Park, and will include the installation of parking spaces, detectable warning surfaces (truncated domes), curb ramps, signing and striping. $93,608 is the estimated cost to complete the project. The City is required to pay for all construction costs and will be reimbursed once the documentation is provided and approved by the County. Staff respectfully recommends that City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the plans and specifications for the project and authorize advertising for bids. With approval, staff estimates the following timeline for the project: Advertise for bids July 2019 Award by City Council August 2019 Construction Start September 2019 Construction End November 2019 53 RESOLUTION NO. _ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DESIGN AND PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) PARKING FACILITIES IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROJECT (CDBG PROJECT 602064- 18) PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 830.6 AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT PAYMENT ACCOUNT. The City Council of the City of EI Segundo does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. The City Engineer prepared specifications and plans requesting Construction of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Parking Facilities Improvements for the Community Development Block Grant Project (CDBG Project 602064-18) (the "Project"). These plans are complete. Bidding for construction of the Project may begin; B. The City Council wishes to obtain the immunities set forth in Government Code § 830.6 with regard to the plans and construction of the Project. SECTION 2: Design Immunity, Authorization. A. The design and plans for the Project are determined to be consistent with the City's standards and are approved. B. The design approval set forth in this Resolution occurred before actual work on the Project construction commenced. C. The approval granted by this Resolution conforms withthe City's General Plan. D. The City Engineer, or designee, is authorized to act on the City's behalf in approving any alterations or modifications of the design and plans approved by this Resolution. E. The approval and authorization granted by this Resolution is intended to avail the City of the immunities set forth in Government Code § 830.6. SECTION 3: Project Payment Account. For purposes of the Contract Documents administering the Project, the City Council directs the City Manager, or designee, to establish a fund containing sufficient monies from the current fiscal year budget to pay for the Project ("Project Payment Account") following receipt of construction bids. The Project Payment Account will be the sole source of funds available for the Contract Sum, as defined in the Contract Document administering the Project. Page 1 of 2 54 SECTION 4: The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution. SECTION 5: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2019. Drew Boyles, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney -32 David H. King, Assistant City Attorney Page 2 of 2 6� EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: July 16, 2019 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda Consideration and possible action authorizing the City Manager to purchase one new Caterpillar Wheel Loader to replace the existing unit in Public Works that is overdue for replacement and can no longer be used in California after 2019. (Fiscal Impact: $172,693.99) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Pursuant to El Segundo Municipal Code §1-7-11, waive the bidding process and purchase one (1) new Caterpillar Wheel Loader with equipment replacement funds; 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to make the purchase; or, 3. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Sourcewell National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) quote FISCAL IMPACT: Included in Adopted FY 2018-19 Budget Amount Budgeted: $179,306 Additional Appropriation: No Account Number(s): 601-400-4202-8105 (Equipment Replacement) STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 4 Develop Quality Infrastructure & Technology Objective: (a) El Segundo's physical infrastructure supports an appealing, safe, and effective City ORIGINATED BY: Ron Fajardo, General Services Manager REVIEWED BY: Ken Berkman, Public Works Director APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Managery'�� BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The Public Works Street Division is currently using a Wheel Loader that was purchased in 2002. At that time, the unit had a recommended life expectancy 15 years and was budgeted for replacement in 2018. Due to its age, the loader is starting to experience more frequent breakdowns and significantly higher repair costs. hydraulic leak earlier this year at a cost of $4,100. The most recent repair performed was for a In addition, in 2013 we received notice from the AQMD that due to its age, this loader had been identified as a "Tier 1 Dirty Diesel Polluter", according to their emissions standards. Based upon this determination, the unit can no longer be legally operated in California after 2019 unless it is 56 repowered to a "Tier 4" diesel emissions level standard. The cost to replace the loader engine with a "Tier 4" compliant model is estimated to be over $30,000. Aside from the fact that the unit is now operating past its programmed service life, given the higher repair and maintenance costs, the cost to repower this loader to current AQMD emissions standards, and the potential for other breakdowns to occur with further use, staff recommends replacement of the loader rather than attempting to extend its useful life. Staff has secured a quote from Sourcewell, also known as the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) contract for government pricing, and is respectfully recommending City Council waive the bidding process under El Segundo Municipal Code §1-7-11 and opt to use government pricing through NJPA. 57 QUINN Quote 132324-03 July 1, 2019 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO ATTN FINANCE DEPT 150 ILLINOIS ST EL SEGUNDO California 90245-3813 Attention: Gary Mullins Dear Sir, We would like to thank you for your interest in our company and our products, and are pleased to quote the following for your consideration. Sourcewell #032515 -CAT CATERPILLAR INC. Model: 918M Wheel Loader with MP Bucket and Ripper STOCK NUMBER: NS0009785. NOTE: Subject to prior sale SERIAL NUMBER: OH2600546 YEAR: 2018 We wish to thank you for the opportunity of quoting on your equipment needs. This quotation is valid for 30 days, after which time we reserve the right to n3 -quote. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Tony Mykris Governmental Sales Page 1 of 5 WP Quinn Group Quote 132324-01 CATERPILLAR INC. Model: 918M Wheel Loader with MP Bucket and Ripper STANDARD EQUIPMENT POWERTRAIN Cat C4.4 ACERT Engine Hydrostatic transmission, -Common rail fuel injection 20 km/h (12.5mpr/h -U.S. EPA Tier 4 Final/ EU Stage 4 Lube for life universal joints Caterpillar NOx Reduction System Forward - Neutral - Reverse on joystick Fuel: Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel @ <15ppm 100% locking differentials, whilst Engine Oil: q-4 moving Electric fuel pump with 4 micron Air cleaner, radial seal, dual filters filtration Cooling fan, hydraulic on demand S.O,S port, transmission oil Intergrated Cyclone pre -cleaner HYDRAULICS Two valve, single lever joystick SOS port, hydraulic oil Diagnostic pressure taps Variable displacement piston pump ELECTRICAL 150 Amp alternator 12 volt direct electric starting One 850 CCA maintenance free battery Battery disconnect switch Roading lights OPERATOR ENVIRONMENT ROPS/FOPS cab, pressurised and sound - Hydraulic oil filter bypass suppressed - Action indicator Hydraulic control lever lockout Seat Electrohydraulic implement controls - Fabric or Vinyl Gauges - adjustable height, backrest, armrest - Engine coolant temperature - Seat belt, retractable - Hydraulic oil temperature Heater/defroster - Fuel level Wiper/washer (front and rear) - Speedometer Tinted front glass, laminated - Digital Hour meter Adjustable steering column - DEF Rear window defrost Operator warning system indicators: Lockable Storage box with cup holder - Brake charge pressure low Internal 12V power source - Engine malfunction External 12V power source - Park brake applied Product Link - Electrical system voltage flow FLUIDS Extended life coolant antifreeze Cat advanced Hydo 10 Page 2 of 5 WE Quinn Group Protected to -36C (-33F) hydraulic oil OTHER STANDARD EQUIPMENT Parallel lift, Optimised Z -Bar loader Fenders, front and rear Engine enclosure - lockable Recovery hitch Vandalism protection - locked service points REGIONAL STANDARDS(as required) City EI Segundo Base Model 918M Stock # NS9785 Options ENGINE, C4.4 T4F POWERTRAIN, HI RIMPULL, 24 MPH VALVE, DRAIN, ECO LOADER ARR, STD LIFT HYDUALICS, 3V/1 L 3VF QUICK DISCONNET SCREW FIT LIGHTS, ROADING, RH PRODUCT LINK, CELL STEERING, SECONDARY CAB, DELUXE, SINGLE BRAKE CAMERA, REAR VIEW FEATURE, PACKAGE ROAD LOAD SEAT BELT, RETRACTABLE 3" HEATER AND AIR CONDITIONER SECURITY SYSTEM, NONE TIRES, 17.5R25, MX, L2, XTLA FENDERS, FULL COVER ENGINE COOLANT, STANDARD HYDRAULIC OIL, STANDARD INST, ANSI SERIALIZED TECH MEDIA HEATER, ENGINE COOLANT LIGHTS, CAB, WORKING LED ALARM, BACKUP BLIND, REAR Chocks, bucket tooth or edge Decals, roading speed Reflectors, roading Back-up alarm Beacon Camera, Rear View SOURCEWELL #032515 - CAT Part # 457-1488 462-7421 396-2519 308-0189 472-2513 451-4344 486-3774 423-5544 508-0797 464-9683 463-2090 504-4835 471-6764 236-8015 462-7111 433-3258 385-5826 469-5853 450-5406 450-5405 476-2741 421-8926 474-1982 496-9971 474-1980 279-0643 Quote 132324-01 5/6/2019 List Price 136,590 0 4,710 150 1,990 3,080 292 720 0 1,210 7,320 1,485 3,555 235 4,035 0 5,840 605 201 1,100 0 0 191 795 190 295 Page 3 of 5 Wk Quinn Group TOOLBOX PLATE, LIC SEAT DELUXE RORO FUEL, STANDARD RADIO, AM/FM BLUETOOTH BATTERY HEAVY DUTY Sub Total Member Disc 24%, DLR 4% Machine / Option Price Work Tools / Attachments Sub Total Member Disc 15% Work Tool / Attachments Price Customer Invoice Machine / Option Price Work Tool / Attachments Price Pre -Tax Total Pre -Prep Total Delivery Machine Prep DMV Rockland 2 cyd, PIN -ON MP bucket Bucket ripper, COI Weld shop Q75286 Manuals Total 28.0% 15.0% 471-6921 450-4690 539-7204 OG -3117 524-5098 541-4413 462-7340 Quote 132324-01 595 253 750 304 0 530 201 177,222 (49,622) 127,600 0 0 0 127,600 0 127,600 127,600 600 1,200 200 12,200 7,689 1,200 150,689 Page 4 of 5 61 Quinn Group Sourcewell Sell Price County Sales Tax (2.25%) State Sales Tax (7.25°/x) After Tax Balance WARRANTY Standard Warranty: F.O.B/TERMS Delivered / Net 30 Days Accepted by 12 Months Full Machine on Signature Quote 132324-01 $160,689.00 $3,390.50 $10,924.95 $166,004.46 Page 5 of 5 IA QUINN Uj Quote No: 75286 -1-1 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO ATTN FINANCE DEPT 150 ILLINOIS ST EL SEGUNDO 90245-3813 f CUSTOMER NO. QUOTE NO. DATE CONTACT 204611 75286 7/1/19 GARY MULLINS PHONE NO. FAX NO. EMAIL 310 524 2709 gmullinsa-elsequndo.orq MODEL MAKE SERIAL NO. 918M AA H2600456 UNIT NO. I WO NO. P.O. NO. SEGMENT: 01 FABRICATE MULTIPURPOSE BUCKET (761 6104) NOTES: (Bucket Ripper Mounts) Fabricate Ripper Mounts to Back of Bucket. Reinforce and weld (2) mounts, one on each side of Multipurpose Bucket, using one reversible Shank with Tip, Pin, and Retainers. Repaint Cat Yellow. Parts Part Number Description Qty Unit Price Discount% Ext Price 114-0358 PIN 1 6.57 0 6.57 114-0359 RETAINER AS 1 11.42 0 11.42 313-5325 PIN-COTTER 2 3.53 0 7.06 5K-7748 HOLDER-BIT 2 957.27 0 1,914.54 6Y-0352 TIP-RIPPER 1 113.78 0 113.78 8J-2190 PIN 1 84.01 0 84.01 9J-8923 SHANK-RIPPER 1 1,042.15 0 1,042.15 Total Estimated Parts: 3,179.53 Labor Item Number Description Qty Unit Price Discount% Ext Price WLD-1"-81-"` LABOR WELD SHOP 32 130.00 0 4,160.00 Total Estimated Labor: 4,160.00 Misc Item Number Description Qty Unit Price Discount% Ext Price Total Estimated Misc: 350.00 Segment 01 Total: 7,689.53 Total Segments: 7,689.53 Sub Total (before taxes) 7,689.53 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO 75286-1 Pagel 63 THIS ESTIMATE IS BASED ON LABOR RATES, PARTS PRICES, AND CONDITION OF THE MACHINE EXISTING ON THE DATE OF THE ESTIMATE INDICATED ABOVE. THE CUSTOMER KILL BE INFORMED OF ANY REVISIONS IN LABOR RATES, PARTS PRICES OR ADDITIONAL WORK REQUIRED BEFORE THE WORK IS STARTED. UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, THIS ESTIMATE DOES NOT INCLUDE TRAVEL TIME AND MILEAGE, FREIGHT, SHIPPING CHARGES, ENVIRONMENTAL FEE OR TAXES WHERE APPLICABLE. THIS ESTIMATE IS EFFECTIVE FOR 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE INDICATED ABOVE. ESTIMATED REPAIR TIME: from start date Thank you for giving QUINN the opportunity to quote your service repair options. My Signature below indicates I have read, understand and agree with the attached terms and conditions. Issued PO#: Authorized Name Please Print Date -- / / (Signature) Prepared V: T9nv Ri4sbV Phone: (562) 577-1154 Finail: Erigsby(a)ouiniiupmoarv.com Fax: CITY OF EL SEGUNDO 75286-1 Page 2 •E EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: July 16, 2019 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda Consideration and possible action to approve a resolution authorizing the submittal of an application for competitive grant funds through the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program (Prop 68) for the Acacia Park and Pool Project. (Fiscal Impact: None) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Approve a resolution of the City Council of the City of El Segundo authorizing submittal of application for the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Program Grant (Prop 68) for the Acacia Park and Pool Project; and/or, (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: (1) Community FactFinder Report — Acacia Park (2) Resolution No. FISCAL IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 5B El Segundo approaches its work in a financially strategic and responsible way Objective: 2 The City will maintain a stable, efficient, and transparent financial environment ORIGINATED BY: Meredith Petit, Director of Recreation and Parks REVIEWED BY: Meredith Petit. Director of Recreation and Parks APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick City ManagerN Toi 5g\ BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: In 2018, California voters approved Proposition 68, which authorized $2.6 billion for financing a program for the acquisition, development, restoration, protection, rehabilitation, stabilization, reconstruction, preservation, and interpretation of park, coastal, agricultural land, air, and historical resources. The State Department of Parks and Recreation (CA Parks) has been delegated the responsibility for administering Prop 68 grant funds, which will be a highly competitive grant program, with funding issued to approved projects in multiple rounds. Jurisdictions may apply for one or more projects under separate grant applications and, if a jurisdiction does not receive funding for this first round, it may reapply for the next round. Cities, local agencies, special districts and joint power authorities are all eligible to apply for grant funding. Grants may be awarded in the amounts from $200,000 to $8.5 million per project. Eligible projects must first meet one of two initial criteria. First, the project site must be in a location that is deemed to have a critical lack of park space within a half -mile radius of the site, under 3 acres per 1,000 residents. The second eligibility criteria is related to median household income within proximity of the project site. In order to determine eligible project sites within the City, California 65 State Parks has a tool called the Community FactFinder in which a pin can be dropped onto a map and the data is revealed. Based on these initial eligibility criteria, the City of El Segundo has very few sites that are considered eligible. Additional requirements include community based planning, employment/volunteer opportunities, partnerships/funding, environmental design, use fees and project type and benefits. After a comprehensive review of potential opportunities, staff recommends applying for funds equal to $1.7 million to accomplish the Acacia Park and Pool Renovation Project. As a component of the grant application package, the applicant must provide an approved resolution from the governing body of the agency to (1) demonstrate that the governing body of the agenda is aware of the terms of the contract and that the applicant has the funding and resources necessary to complete the proposed project if the grant is awarded, and (2) designate an authorized representative by position title to represent the agenda on all matters regarding the application and the project. Grant applications are due August 5, 2019, and selected projects are expected to be announced by the end of the calendar year. This is your project report for the site you have defined. Please refer to your Project ID above in any future communications about the project. PROJECT AREA STATISTICS County: Los Angeles City: EI Segundo Total Population: 4,607 Youth Population: 1,110 Senior Population: 417 Households Without Access to a Car: 15 Number of People in Poverty: 480 Median Household Income: $112,330 Per Capita Income: $53,791 Park Acres: 8.37 Park Acres per 1,000 Residents: 1.82 REPORT BACKGROUND The project statistics have been calculated based on half mile radius around the point location selected. Only park acres within the project area's half mile radius are reported. Population and people in poverty are calculated by determining the percent of any census block -groups that intersect with the project area. The project area is then assigned the sum of all the census block -group portions. An equal distribution in census block -groups is assumed. Rural areas are calculated at a census block level to improve results. Median household and per capita income are calculated as a weighted average of the census block- group values that fall within the project area. PROJECT AREA MAP More information on the calculations is available on the M thods pacie » Demographics—American Community Survey (ACS) 5 - year estimates 2012-2016; Decennial 2010 Census; the margin of error (MOE) was not analyzed. Parks—California Protected Areas Database 2017a CFF adjusted (5/2018) - more information at ht1p:i/www.CALands.arrl. Parks and park acres area based on best available source information but may not always contain exact boundaries or all parks in specific locations. Parks are defined further in the 2015 SCORP (pg. 4). Users can send updated information on parks to SCORPO)parks.ca.gov SCORP Community FactFinder created by Crranlnin Network www.greeninfo.org Greenlnto in consultation with CA Dept. of Parks and Rec Network 67 5 SCORP Community FactFinder is a service of the California Department of Parks and Recreation www.parks.ca.gov PROJECT AREA MAP More information on the calculations is available on the M thods pacie » Demographics—American Community Survey (ACS) 5 - year estimates 2012-2016; Decennial 2010 Census; the margin of error (MOE) was not analyzed. Parks—California Protected Areas Database 2017a CFF adjusted (5/2018) - more information at ht1p:i/www.CALands.arrl. Parks and park acres area based on best available source information but may not always contain exact boundaries or all parks in specific locations. Parks are defined further in the 2015 SCORP (pg. 4). Users can send updated information on parks to SCORPO)parks.ca.gov SCORP Community FactFinder created by Crranlnin Network www.greeninfo.org Greenlnto in consultation with CA Dept. of Parks and Rec Network 67 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR STATEWIDE PARK DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION PROGRAM GRANT FUNDS The City Council of the City of EI Segundo does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: Recitals: A. The State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility by the Legislature of the State of California for the administration of the Statewide Park Development and Community Revitalization Grant Program, setting up necessary procedures governing the application; B. Said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant to certify by resolution the approval of the application before submission of said application to the State; and C. Successful Applicants will enter into a contract with the State of California to complete the Grant Scope project. SECTION 2: Approval. The EI Segundo City Council hereby approves the filing of an application for the Acacia Park and Pool Project; and 1. Certifies that the City has or will have available, prior to commencement of any work on the project included in this application, the sufficient funds to complete the project; 2. Certifies that if the project is awarded, the City has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project; 3. Certifies that the City has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the contract shown in the Grant Administration Guide; 4. Delegates the authority to the City Manager to conduct all negotiations, sign and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the Grant Scope; 5. Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines; and 6. Will consider promoting inclusion per Public Resources Code § 80001(b)(8)(A)- (G). SECTION 3: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption and will remain effective unless repealed or superseded. SECTION 4: The City Clerk will certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution; will enter the same in the book of original Resolutions of said City; and will make a minute of .: the passage and adoption thereof in the record of proceedings of the City Council of said City, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 2019. 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 16th day of July 2019, 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 We EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: July 16, 2019 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Consideration and possible action to authorize the City Manager to sign an amendment to an existing professional services agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the purchase of background services with Lawles Enterprises, Inc., in the amount of $60,000 per fiscal year (Fiscal Impact: None) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1) Authorize the City Manager to sign an amendment to an existing professional services agreement for an additional $10,000 per fiscal year for background services from Lawles Enterprises, Inc., not to exceed $60,000; 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1) Amendment 5480A FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: Additional Appropriation: Account Number(s): STRATEGIC PLAN: $60,000 001-400-3101-6206 - $44,000 001-400-3201-6214 - $6,000 001-400-3201-6214 - $10,000 Goal: 2 El Segundo is a safe and prepared City Objective: 1 The City has a proactive approach to risk and crime that is outcome focused and are prepared to respond appropriately when called upon with positive outcomes. ORIGINATED BY: Carol Lynn Urner, Senior Management Analyst REVIEWED BY: Chris Donovan, Fire Chief APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager �� �pr CN\ BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The El Segundo Fire Department currently contracts with Lawles Enterprises, Inc. for personnel applicant backgrounds for both the Police and Fire Departments. The term of this agreement is for one (1) year, and will automatically renew, on an annual basis, on its anniversary date unless otherwise terminated. The contract was approved administratively by staff because, at the time it was executed, it did not exceed the City Manager's signature authority of $50,000 per fiscal year. These backgrounds are based on City policies and in alignment with the California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) requirements. The current contract primarily covers the Police E43 70 Department with Fire only utilizing this contract in alignment with firefighter recruitments. Due to internal promotional opportunities and natural attrition, the Department is recruiting to fulfill upcoming vacancies. At this time the Fire Department has expended their current purchase order amount and is needing to process additional recruits through the background process resulting in an increase to the contract. Staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to sign an amendment to the existing professional services agreement to increase the contract amount by $10,000 per fiscal year to accommodate this increase in background services. The Department currently has savings to cover the costs of these expenses. 71 Agreement No. 5480A FIRSTAMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICESAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND LAWLES ENTERPRISES, INC. This FirstAmendment is entered into this 14'hday of June, 2019, by and between the CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a municipal corporation and general law city ("CITY") and LAWLESENTERPRISES, a General Partnership("CONSULTANT"). The parties agree as follows: I . Pursuant to Section 33 of Agreement No. 5480, the parties desire to amend Section 1(C) of the Agreement to increase the total amount of the Agreement not -to -exceed $60,000 per fiscal year. 2. This Amendment may be executed in any number or counterparts, each of which will be an original, but all of which together constitutes one instrument executed on the same date. 3_ Except as modified by this Amendment, all other tenns and conditions of Agreement No. 5480 remain the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Amendment the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF EL SEGUNDO Scott Mitnick, City Manager ATTEST: Tracy Weaver, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney -1- LAWLES ENTERPRISES, IN Edward P. Eccles President / CEO Taxpayer ID No. 95-4489689 72 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 16, 2019 AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action regarding Environmental Assessment No. EA -1201 to: • Approve an amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to change the site's land use and zoning designations from Commercial Center to Urban Mixed -Use South ■ Approve a 10 -year Development Agreement • Certify an Environmental Impact Report and adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations The project site is located at 2041 Rosecrans Avenue, El Segundo, California 90245. Applicant and Property Owner: Rosecrans -Sepulveda Partners 4, LLC RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing and take public testimony on the proposed project, close the public hearing and consider the evidence, 2. After considering the evidence: (a) adopt a Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (Environmental Assessment No. EA -1201), adopting a statement of overriding considerations, amending the General Plan and General Plan Map (No. GPA 17-01), And (b) waive first reading, of an Ordinance adopting and (b) amending the zone and zoning map (No. ZC-17-01) and approving a Development Agreement (No. DA 17-02). 3. Schedule second reading and adoption of the Ordinance for August 6, 2019; and 4. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: N/A Objective: N/A ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1. Exhibit A — Draft City Council Resolution No. a. Exhibit A-1 — Final Environmental Impact Report — FEIR b. Exhibit A-2 — Environmental Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations c. Exhibit A-3 — FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2. Exhibit B - Draft City Council Resolution No. a. Exhibit B-1 —General Plan Map Amendment 3. Exhibit C — Draft City Council Ordinance No. a. Exhibit C-1 -Development Agreement b. Exhibit C-2 — Zoning Map Amendment 4. Exhibit D — Planning Commission Staff Report without exhibits rte, ORIGINATED BY: Ethan Edwards, AICP, Contract Planner and Gr McClain, Planning Manager REVIEWED BY: Sam Lee, Director of Planning and Building Safety APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager &4fof SYK 73 INTRODUCTION The Planning Commission staff report dated May 23, 2019 provide a detailed explanation regarding the Rosecrans -Sepulveda Partners 4, LLC (RSP4) application for the Beach Cities Media Campus Project ("BCMC"), a 6.39 -acre site located at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue (see Figure 1, Project Location). The project includes the development of an approximately 240,000 square foot creative office building with the option to incorporate a roof deck, a 66,000 square foot studio and production facilities building, and 7,000 square feet of retail uses. In total, the Project would include approximately 313,000 square feet of floor area with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.13. The Project also includes a general plan amendment and zone change to amend the land use designation and change the zoning from Commercial Center (C- 4) to Urban Mixed Use South (MU -S). In conjunction with the general plan amendment and zone change, RSP4 is also seeking a 10 -year development agreement (DA). In exchange for the vested land use regulations, the terms of the development agreement will limit the envelope of development that could be built upon the project site as specified above. Furthermore, the development agreement will provide that the following uses shall be prohibited: 1) drive-through restaurants; 2) adult businesses; 3) catering services/flight kitchens; 4) freight forwarding; and 5) service stations. On May 23, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2861 that recommended that the City Council approve the project. 2 74 Figure I Project Localion PROJECT APPLICATIONS The application includes the following: 1. Environmental Assessment No. EA -1201 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State Clearing House (SCH) No. 2017121035. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for EA -1201 was prepared pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City Council cannot approve the project without adopting findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations. 2. General Plan Amendment and General Plan Map Amendment No. GPA 17-01— Amend the General Plan to Re -designate the project site from Commercial Center (C-4) to Mixed Use South (MU -S) (see Exhibit B-1). Zone Change No. ZC 17-01 - Amend the Zoning Map to rezone the project site from Commercial Center (C-4) to Mixed Use South (MU -S) (See Exhibit C-1). The requested rezoning will allow for consistency with the proposed General Plan Amendment 3 75 Fi;rnre 2 Sile Plan Site Plan Site Plan / Rosecrans Elevation = EXISTING ARCLIGHT THEATER PARKING UPTO 990SACES17 LEVELS EXISTING PMKING RETAIL 5 000 GSF SA{I RETAIL � - - -.000 GSF EXISTING OFFICE 'T - RRETAIL �_I Only two topics were brought up as concerns during the Planning Commission's consideration of the Project: traffic on Rosecrans Avenue and only one proposed electric vehicle charger for the project. However, the Commissions concerns were adequately addressed by the applicant's description of traffic mitigation measures. The applicant also agreed to add more than one EV charger per the California Building Code. The Commission also addressed a comment letter received by Lozeau Drury LLP on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental (SAFER) on May 21, 2019. The Commission concluded that the comment letter contained no evidence requiring recirculation of the EIR nor further environmental review or action by the City. The FEIR includes a response to all comments received during the 45 -day DEIR review period. A response was also mailed to all commenters. On June 21, 2019, staff received an additional comment via email from City of Manhattan Beach concerning MM F-2, the proposed traffic signal at driveway 1. A response to this comment was not incorporated into the FEIR for the following reasons: a) the traffic signal will not be approved by any action as part of this application; b) the exact traffic signal location will be determined following further study and as part of the site plan review process; c) the traffic signal will require review and approval from the City of El Segundo, Los Angeles County Public Works and the City of Manhattan Beach; and d) the comment was received after the 45 -day comment period. The City will coordinate with the City of Manhattan Beach to determine if a traffic signal is warranted when the exact proposed location of the traffic signal is determined during future stages of the Project's design process. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council to approve the project for the foregoing reasons. A review of the record demonstrates that there is substantial evidence for the City Council to make the findings needed to adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations; certify the EIR (and adopt the MMRP); and make the land use approvals (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Development Agreement). 4 76 The FEIR includes a response to all comments received during the 45 -day DEIR review period. A response was also mailed to all commenters. On June 21, 2019, staff received an additional comment via email from City of Manhattan Beach concerning MM F-2, the proposed traffic signal at driveway 1. A response to this comment was not incorporated into the FEIR for the following reasons: a) the traffic signal will not be approved by any action as part of this application; b) the exact traffic signal location will be determined following further study and as part of the site plan review process; c) the traffic signal will require review and approval from the City of El Segundo, Los Angeles County Public Works and the City of Manhattan Beach; and d) the comment was received after the 45 -day comment period. The City will coordinate with the City of Manhattan Beach regarding the exact location traffic signal during the next stages of the Project's design process. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council to approve the project for the foregoing reasons. A review of the record demonstrates that there is substantial evidence for the City Council to make the findings needed to adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations; certify the EIR (and adopt the MMRP); and make the land use approvals (General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Development Agreement). 5 77 Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA -1201) FOR THE BEACH CITIES MEDIA CAMPUS PROJECT; MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. The City Council of the City of EI Segundo does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that: A. On September 15, 2017, Rosecrans -Sepulveda Partners 4, LLC ("RSP4"), filed an application for Environmental Assessment No. EA -1201 for a General Plan Amendment and General Plan Map Amendment, Zone Change and Development Agreement to develop office, retail, and studio and production facilities on an approximately 6.39 -acre site located at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue (the "Property"); B. The applications were reviewed by the City of EI Segundo Planning and Building Safety Department for, in part, consistency with the General Plan and conformity with the EI Segundo Municipal Code ("ESMC"); C. The City analyzed the project's potential environmental impacts in accordance with 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") and an environmental impact report ("EIR") was prepared; D. The Planning and Building Safety Department completed its review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before the Planning Commission for May 23, 2019. On May 23, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed project. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. recommending that the City Council certify the Project's EIR, adopt the General Plan Amendment and General Plan Map Amendment, adopt the Zone Change and Zoning Map Amendment, and approve the draft Development Agreement; E. On July 16, 2019, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing in the Council Chamber of the EI Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the applications including, without limitation, information provided to the Council by City Staff, members of the public, and representatives of RSP4. F. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the totality of the evidence in the record. SECTION 2: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The Council finds that the following facts exist: A. The Property is a 6.39 -acre multi -use site located on the north side of Rosecrans Avenue, between Continental Boulevard and Nash Street at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue. B. The property is currently a vacant lot with a screened chain-link security fence running along the perimeter of the site and along the adjacent roadway. C. The General Plan land use designation and zoning of the Property will be amended from Commercial Center (C-4) to Urban Mixed Use South (MU -S). D. The Beach Cities Media Campus (The "Project") would include the development of an approximately 240,000 square foot creative office building with the option to incorporate a roof deck, a 66,000 square foot studio and production facilities building, and 7,000 square feet of retail uses. E. The applicant is seeking a 10 -year Development Agreement which would vest the applicant's right to develop the Beach Cities Media Campus or any of the alternatives described therein and analyzed in the EIR in accordance with the zoning regulations in effect as of the date the project is approved by the City. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR include the following: Alternative 3: Mixed Use Alternative with Studio and Production Facilities; Alternative 4: Mixed Use Alternative with Research and Development; Alternative 5: All Creative Office Space Alternative. F. In exchange for the vested land use regulations, the Development Agreement would limit the maximum allowable development envelope that could be built upon the Project Site. The MU -S zone permits a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.3, 361,844 square feet of floor area and a maximum height of 175 feet. However, the Project Development Agreement will limit the FAR to 1.13, the floor area to 313,000 square feet and the height to 140 feet. Furthermore, the Development Agreement will provide that the following uses are prohibited: (i) drive-through restaurants; (ii) adult businesses; (iii) catering services/flight kitchens; (iv) freight forwarding; and (v) service stations. G. Project parking for the would be provided in multiple areas, including the following: 980 parking spaces in a seven -story above grade parking structure; 120 executive parking spaces in one semi -subterranean level beneath the Office Building; and in surface parking areas elsewhere on the site. 2 79 H. Approval of a subsequent Site Plan Review is necessary to accommodate the proposed project or any of the alternatives. SECTION 3: Exhibits. There are three exhibits attached to this Resolution: Exhibit A-1 (Final Impact Report ("FEIR")); Exhibit A-2 (Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations); and Exhibit A-3 (Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP")). These exhibits are incorporated into this Resolution by reference. SECTION 4: Environmental Assessment. The City Council makes the following findings based on the whole of the administrative record: A. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064 and 15081, and based upon information contained in the Initial Study, the City ordered the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") for the Project. The City contracted with independent consultants for the preparation of the technical studies for the EIR and on December 5, 2017, prepared and sent a Notice of Preparation of the EIR to responsible, trustee, and other interested agencies and persons in accordance with Guidelines Section 15082(a). Comments on the Notice of Preparation were accepted during the 30 -day comment period ending on January 3, 2018. During the scoping period, the City held an advertised public meeting on December 18, 2017, to facilitate public input regarding the scope of the EIR. B. The City completed the Draft EIR, together with those certain technical studies (the "Appendices"), on March 1, 2018. The City circulated the Draft EIR and the Appendices to the public and other interested parties from March 1, 2018 through April 15. Advertisement of the public commenting period was provided by a Notice published in the EI Segundo Herald, a Notice mailed to all property owners within a 300 -foot radius, and a Notice was posted on the City's website. C. During the Draft EIR public comment period the City received numerous letters and comments. Responses to each of the individual comments were prepared and made available on June 25, 2019. The comments and responses are part of section II of the Final EIR, and are incorporated herein by reference. The written responses to comments were made available for public review in the Planning and Building Safety Department, at the EI Segundo Public Library and on the City's website. After reviewing the responses to comments, the revisions to the Draft EIR, and the Final EIR, the City Council finds that the information and issues raised by the comments and the responses thereto do not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation of the EIR. D. The Final EIR is comprised of the Draft EIR, comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, a list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, the City's Responses to Comments, Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 3 80 A. The Final EIR, which is attached as Exhibit "A-1," and incorporated by reference, was reviewed by the City Council and the information contained in the Final EIR was considered by the City Council before approving or denying the project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15090; B. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15090 the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the FEIR. The FEIR is an accurate and complete statement of the potential environmental impacts of the project. The Final EIR was prepared under the City's direction and reflects its independent judgment and analysis of the environmental impacts and comments received on the Draft EIR; C. The FEIR generally identifies, for each potentially significant impact of the project, one or more corresponding mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level of insignificance, with the exception of population, housing, and employment, and transportation, traffic and parking. The City Council finds that nearly all of the potentially significant impacts identified in the Draft EIR are mitigated by corresponding mitigation measures to the extent set forth in the Draft EIR; D. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15091, the City Council has considered written findings regarding each of the significant environmental effects identified in the DER before certifying the Final EIR. Each finding includes a rationale of how mitigation measures have lessened identified significant environmental effects to a less than significant level for those effects that have been identified as mitigatable. For the environmental effects that have been identified in the DER as not mitigatable to a less than significant level, the findings provide a rationale on how proposed mitigation measures have substantially lessened these four environmental effects; E. The DER states that the City Council must adopt a Statement of Overriding Consideration if it wishes to approve the project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15093 a Statement of Overriding Consideration was included in the project's record for City Council consideration. This statement identifies specific reasons why to support approval of the project based on information in the EIR and in the project's record; and E. The specific issues included in the Statement of Overriding Considerations considered by the City Council are: a) the Project would return a previous industrial site to productive use by constructing state-of-the-art facilities for entertainment production, studio facilities, office and corporate headquarters that will contribute to job creation and balance growth with local resources and infrastructure capacity; b) the Project would create a development that would be compatible with and complementary to adjacent land uses; c) the Project would generate complementary economic activity by providing new businesses and services and by providing an employee base that could 4 81 patronize adjacent retail uses and restaurants; d) the Project will help foster economic development in the City by contributing to a strong business climate, with positive outcomes such as business retention and attraction, as well as effective levels of City services to all members of the community; e) the Project will improve the City's tax base by generating business, property, and sales tax revenues; f) the Project will provide traffic mitigation measures that will generally improve traffic circulation in this area of the City and will observe automobile trip caps to ensure that the Project does not result in traffic impacts beyond those identified in the environmental analysis; g) the Project will reduce vehicle miles travelled, air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, and maximize the public investment in transit by developing an under-utilized site adjacent to several bus lines; h) the Project will be developed within one-half mile of the existing Metro Green Line rail station, which would be consistent with regional planning programs and plans, and EI Segundo General Plan land use policies that help improve mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability; and i) the Project will provide environmentally sensitive development, by incorporating sustainable and green building design and construction that reduces waste, manages water use efficiently and conserves energy, and by providing employment opportunities within easy access of established public transit. SECTION 4: Actions. A. The City Council certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report of Environmental Impacts for Environmental Assessment No. EA -1201 as set forth in Exhibit "A-1 "; B. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit "A-2" which is incorporated herein by reference; C. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit "A-3" to ensure implementation of all feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIR. The City Council finds that these mitigation measures are fully enforceable and binding conditions of approval of the project. SECTION 5: Reliance On Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution is 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 Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. SECTION 6: Limitations. The Council's analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. SECTION 7: Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings, which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of 5 82 any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. SECTION 8: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution. SECTION 9: The City Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to any person requesting a copy. SECTION 10: This Resolution is the City Council's final decision and will become effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 2019. ATTEST: Tracy Sherrill Weaver, City Clerk Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney go Drew Boyles, Mayor 6 83 Exhibit A-1 THIS EXH 1 BIT IS AVAI L_AE3L_E 1 THE CITY CLERKS roposed Beach Cities Media Campus Project Final Environmental Impact Report State Clearinghouse No.: 2017121035 PREPARED FOR: The City of EI Segundo Planning and Building Safety Department Planning Division 350 Main Street EI Segundo, California 90245 PREPARED BY: EcoTierra Consulting 633 W. 5th Street, 26th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 235-4770 June 20, 2019 /40 EcoTierra c o n s u l t i n g PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2861 EXHIBIT E CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A-2 FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING BEACH CITIES MEDIA CAMPUS PROJECT STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO: 2017121035 After receiving, reviewing, and considering all the information in the entire administrative record for Beach Cities Media Campus (the "Project") including, without limitation, the factual information and conclusions set forth in this Resolution, the City Council finds, determines, and declares as follows: I. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines § 15090 require the City to certify and the City so certifies that: 1. The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) which includes the Draft EIR dated March 1, 2019, the Final EIR dated June _2019, and the entire administrative record for this matter. has been completed in compliance with CEQA; 2. The FEIR was presented to the decision-making body of the lead agency and that that decision-making body reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR before approving the Project; and 3. The FEIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. II. FINDINGS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT., A. Imnacts Found To Be Insignificant in the Initial Studv.. The Initial Study for the Beach Cities Media Campus Project, dated December 8, 2017, identified the following environmental effects as not potentially significant. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the Initial Study, the FEIR, and the record of proceedings for the Project do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to the areas listed below. 1. Agriculture and Forest Resources (all subtopics); 2. Biological Resources (all subtopics); 3. Cultural Resources (historical resources); 4. Geology and Soils (seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, landslides, and septic tanks); 5. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (proximity to schools, public and private airports, and wildland fires); Page 1 85 6. Hydrology and Water Quality (100 -year flooding, significant risk due to flooding, and seiche/tsunami/mudflow); 7. Land Use and Planning (community division and habitat conservation plans); 8. Mineral Resources (all subtopics); 9. Noise (public and private airports/airstrips); 10. Population, Housing and Employment (displacement of existing housing or people); and 11. Transportation, Traffic and Parking (air traffic patterns and hazardous design features). B. Impacts Identified as Less Than Significant in the Initial Study. The Initial Study identified the following environmental effects as less than significant. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the Initial Study, the FOR, and the record of proceedings for the Beach Cities Media Campus Project do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to the areas listed below. 1. Aesthetics (all subtopics); 2. Air Quality (objectionable odors); 3. Geology and Soils (liquefaction); 4. Public Services (schools, parks, and public facilities); 5. Recreation (all subtopics); and 6. Utilities and Service Systems (compliance with statutes and regulations). C. Impacts Identified as Potentially Significant in the Initial Study, But Which Did Not Exceed Significance Thresholds in the DEIR. The following environmental effects were identified as Potentially Significant in the Initial Study. The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings in this matter do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to the areas listed below: Air Quality a) Facts/Effects: (1) AQMP. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two key indicators of consistency: Criteria 1 — Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Violations, and Criteria 2 — Exceed Assumptions in the AQMP. Based on the air quality modeling analysis, short-term construction impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD regional and local thresholds of significance. This analysis also found that long-term operations impacts will not result in significant impacts based on the SCAQMD local and regional thresholds of significance. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not projected to contribute to the exceedance of any air pollutant concentration standards and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the first criterion. Page 2 86 The Project Site is currently designated as Commercial Center in the City of EI Segundo General Plan and per the EI Segundo Municipal Code the site is zoned Commercial Center (C-4). The Project includes a general plan amendment and a zone change from Commercial Center (C-4) to Urban Mixed Use South (MU -S). The primary differences in the development standards between the C-4 zone and the MU -S zone, are the MU -S zone allows greater height (175 feet), greater density (1.3 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)), and minor differences in setbacks. The C-4 zone has a height of 65 feet and a density of 0.275 FAR. The total allowable buildable square footage under the MU -S zone would be 361,844 square feet, however the Development Agreement limits buildout to 313,00 square feet, limits FAR to 1.13, limits height to 140 feet, and limits or prohibits certain uses. Additionally, there is a greater variety of uses allowed under the MU -S zone. With the General Plan land use and zoning changes, the Project Site can be developed with a mix of commercial uses aimed at promoting economic development within the City of EI Segundo in addition to completing development of the Rosecrans Avenue corridor. Therefore, as both land uses allow for commercial development of similar intensity, with the general plan amendment and zone change, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to exceed the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) assumptions for the Project Site and is found to be consistent with the AQMP for the second criterion. Based on the above, the Proposed Project will not result in an inconsistency with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) AQMP. Therefore, a less than significant impact will occur. (2) Air Qualitv Violation. The mass daily emissions generated by Project construction -related activities would not exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD. Furthermore, the mass daily operational emissions generated by the Project would not exceed thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx ). Therefore, construction and operation of the Project would not contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The impact would be less than significant. (3) Criteria Pollutants. The mass daily emissions generated by Project construction -related activities would not exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD. Furthermore, the mass daily operational emissions generated by the Project would not exceed thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD for VOC and NOx. Therefore, operation of the Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable increase of criteria pollutants. The impact would be less than significant. (4) Sensitive Receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors to the Project Site are the Manhattan Senior Villas apartments located approximately 0.18 miles southwest and the multi -family attached and single-family detached residential dwelling units located approximately 0.2 miles south of the Project Site. Single-family detached residential dwelling units are also located approximately 0.32 miles southwest and approximately 0.64 miles east of the Project Site. Vistamar School is located approximately 0.48 miles northeast of the Project Site. Emissions generated by the Project would not expose receptors in the vicinity of the Project Site to substantial pollutant concentrations. The impact would be less than significant. (5) Cumulative Impacts. The Project area is out of attainment for ozone and in 2014 was out of attainment for particulate matter (PM10). Construction and operation of cumulative projects will further degrade the local air quality, as well as the air quality of the Salton Sea portion of the South Coast Air Basin. The greatest cumulative impact on the quality Page 3 87 of regional air will be the incremental addition of pollutants mainly from increased traffic volumes from residential, commercial, and industrial development and the use of heavy equipment and trucks associated with the construction of these projects. Air quality will be temporarily degraded during construction activities that occur separately or simultaneously. However, in accordance with the SCAQMD methodology, projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD criteria or can be mitigated to less than criteria levels are not significant and do not add to the overall cumulative impact. With respect to long-term emissions, this Project would create a less than significant cumulative impact. Since the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is currently in non -attainment for ozone, PM1o, and PM2.5, cumulative development could violate an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. This would be considered a significant cumulative impact. According to SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook, individual construction projects that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for Project -specific impacts would cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in non -attainment. Construction emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of significance. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Project's construction emissions would be considered less than significant. With respect to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs), the greatest potential for TAC emissions at related projects would involve diesel particulate emissions associated with trucks and heavy equipment. The construction activities associated with the Project and related projects would be similar to other development projects in the City, and would be subject to the regulations and laws relating to toxic air pollutants at the regional, State, and federal level that would protect sensitive receptors from substantial concentrations of these emissions. In addition, and similar to the Project, related projects construction activity would not result in long-term substantial sources of TAC emissions and would not combine with the Project to generate ongoing TAC emissions. Therefore, cumulative TAC emissions from the Project and related projects would be less than significant. With respect to operational emissions, SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook has indicated that, if an individual project results in air emissions of criteria pollutants (CO, VOC, NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx,) PM1o, and PM2.5) that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for Project -specific impacts, then it would also result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of these criteria pollutants for which the Project region is in non -attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. The maximum mass daily construction -related emissions and localized construction - related and operational emissions associated with the Project would not exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD. Furthermore, the mass daily operational emissions generated by the Project would not exceed thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD for VOC and NOx. Therefore, the cumulative operational air quality impact would be less than significant. b) Mitigation. No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: Page 4 88 The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to AQMP, construction and operational air quality emissions, and cumulative air quality emissions. GeoloQv and Soils a) Facts/Effects: (1) Earthouake Fault Ruoturel Seismic Ground Shakine. The closest fault to the Project Site is the Charnock Fault, which is located approximately 1.47 miles north east of the Project Site. The closest major active fault near the Project Site with surface expression includes the Newport -Inglewood Fault Zone, located approximately 6.73 miles to the east of the Project Site. Based on the available geologic data, active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are not known to be located beneath or projecting toward the Project Site. The potential for fault rupture at the site is low due to its location outside of a designated earthquake fault zone, and impacts would be less than significant. With compliance with the regulatory requirements of the California Building Code and City of EI Segundo Building Code, and the site-specific recommendations in the Geotechnical Study and final design -level geotechnical report approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, impacts associated with geologic hazards (including earthquake fault rupture, and seismic ground shaking) would be less than significant. (2) Soil Erosion, The Project Site is located in an urbanized area of EI Segundo. Construction activities would involve excavation from the Project Site of approximately 35,000 to 49,400 cubic yards of soil to the maximum potential depth of approximately 15 feet below ground surface to construct the proposed subterranean parking and associated shoring. Although Project development has the potential to result in the erosion of soil during site preparation and construction activities, erosion would be reduced by implementation of all appropriate erosion controls during grading. With compliance with the regulatory requirements of the California Building Code and City of EI Segundo Building Code, and the site-specific recommendations in the Geotechnical Study and final design -level geotechnical report approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, impacts associated with sedimentation or soil erosion would be less than significant. (3) Expansive Soils. Expansive soils generally result from specific clay minerals that have the capacity to shrink or swell in response to changes in moisture content. The ability of clayey soil to change volume can result in uplift or cracking to foundation elements or other rigid structures, such as sidewalks or slabs, founded on these soils. The expansion potential for soils on the Project Site is anticipated to be low. With compliance with the regulatory requirements of the California Building Code and City of EI Segundo Building, as well as the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Study and a final design -level geotechnical report to be approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. (4) Cumulative Impacts. Geologic, soils and seismicity impacts are typically confined to contiguous properties or a localized area (generally within a 500 -foot radius) in which concurrent construction projects in close proximity could be subject to the same fault Page 5 89 rupture system or other geologic hazards or exacerbate erosion impacts. The Project Site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. In addition, City regulations and building codes require the consideration of seismic loads in structural design, which must be approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety before a building permit may be issued for a project, including those related projects defined in Section III (Environmental Setting) of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). For these reasons, Project implementation is not expected to result in a considerable contribution to cumulatively significant impacts related to substantial damage from fault rupture or seismic ground shaking to structures, infrastructure, or human safety. The nearest related projects that could potentially be under construction concurrently with the Project are Related Projects No. 21 (located on Rosecrans Avenue) and 33 (located on North Sepulveda Boulevard). However, these related projects are far enough away from the Project Site that they would not contribute to cumulative soil erosion impacts. Moreover, both of these related projects are under construction and grading and excavation activities that would temporarily expose soils are already completed. Thus, concurrent development of this project would not contribute to cumulative geologic hazards related to soil erosion, shoring and other soil and foundation issues. Additionally, similar to the Project, EI Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) standards for shoring, SCAQMD's requirements for dust control, and Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations pertaining to surface water runoff and water quality (which would require Best Management Practices (BMPs) for construction projects greater and smaller than one acre of disturbance), would prevent significant cumulative impacts related to erosion and other geological impacts. Therefore, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to earthquake fault rupture, seismic ground shaking, soil erosion, or expansive soils. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Facts/Effects: (1) Hazards From Routine Transport. During excavation, on-site grading and building construction, hazardous materials, such as fuel, and oils associated with construction equipment, as well as coatings, paints, adhesives, and caustic or acidic cleaners, would be used, and therefore, would require proper handling and management and, in some cases, disposal. All hazardous materials on the Project Site would continue to be acquired, handled, used, stored, and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, State and local requirements. Therefore, with implementation of appropriate hazardous materials management protocols at the Project Site and continued compliance with all applicable local, State, and federal laws and regulations relating to environmental protection and the management of hazardous materials, as well as adherence to manufacturer's Page 6 90 instructions for the safe handling and disposal of hazardous materials, potential impacts upon people, the environment, associated with the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials during operation of the Project would be less than significant. Operation of the Project would use potentially hazardous materials typical of those used in office, retail, and studio and production facilities, including cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, and other materials used for landscaping. Activities involving the handling and disposal of hazardous wastes would occur in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local requirements concerning the handling and disposal of hazardous waste. Therefore, with compliance with relevant regulations and requirements, operational activities would not expose people, the environment, to a substantial risk resulting from the release or explosion of a hazardous material, or from exposure to a health hazard, in excess of regulatory standards. Thus, impacts associated with hazardous waste generation, handling, and disposal during operation of the Project would be less than significant. (2) Hazardous Materials Database. None of the database listings that include the Project Site are considered to be an environmental concern as no violations/releases were identified and the databases on which the Project Site appears are for permitting/documentation purposes rather than for a noted hazardous release. Therefore, the Project Site does not consist of a hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Furthermore, the Project would not exacerbate the current environmental conditions so as to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. As such, any impacts during construction or operation would be less than significant. (3) EmerRencv Evacuation Plan. The construction of the Project would occur within the property boundaries of the Project Site. However, it is expected that construction fences will encroach into the public right-of-way (e.g., sidewalk and roadways) adjacent to the Project Site on Rosecrans Avenue in order to accommodate deliveries, haul trucks, concrete trucks and other equipment. The Construction Management Plan would include measures to ensure pedestrian safety along the affected sidewalks and temporary sidewalks (e.g., use of directional signage, maintaining continuous and unobstructed pedestrian paths, and/or providing overhead covering). As such, the construction of the Project would not substantially nor permanently impede public access, travel upon a public right-of-way, or interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Therefore, Project impacts would be less than significant. Emergency access to the Project Site would be maintained at all times. While the Project is anticipated to affect the level of service of roadways in the Project vicinity, the increases in traffic would not greatly affect emergency vehicles because the drivers of emergency vehicles normally have a variety of options for avoiding traffic, such as using their sirens to clear a path of travel or driving in the lanes of opposing traffic. Further, the Project Applicant is required to submit the Project plot plan to the ESFD for review to ensure compliance with applicable EI Segundo Fire Code, California Fire Code, City of EI Segundo Building Code, and National Fire Protection Association standards, thereby ensuring that the Project would not create any undue fire hazard or obstacle to emergency access or response. Compliance with this ESMC requirement and implementation of the Construction Management Plan would ensure that Project impacts associated with emergency access and response would be less than significant. Page 7 91 b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FOR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. Hvdrologv and Water Quality a) FactS/EffectS ll Hvdroloev. The Project would not include new injection or supply wells. The Project construction activities would not result in significant impacts related to the availability of groundwater and would not result in the alteration of groundwater flows. Therefore, Project construction activities would result in less -than -significant impacts related to groundwater and would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies in a manner that would result in a net deficit in aquifer volume or lowering of the local groundwater table. The subterranean level of the Project would be designed such that it is able to withstand hydrostatic forces and incorporate comprehensive waterproofing systems in accordance with current industry standards and construction methods. As such, permanent dewatering operations are not expected. Therefore, the Project's potential impact during operation on groundwater level would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. ll Drainage Patterns. Construction activities for the Project would include site preparation, grading, excavation, and building construction. These activities have the potential to temporarily alter existing drainage patterns and flows on the Project Site by exposing the underlying soils and modifying flow direction. The Project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations that require necessary measures, plans, and inspections to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Thus, through compliance with all NPDES General Construction Permit requirements and implementation of BMPs, the Project would not substantially alter the Project Site drainage patterns in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, construction -related impacts to surface water hydrology drainage patterns with respect to potential for erosion or siltation would be less than significant. The Project Site is relatively flat with a gentle slope towards the southeast. The elevation at the Project site is approximately 100 feet above mean sea level. The Project Site's grade descends to the southeast. Drainage across the site is by sheetflow (i.e., along the surface) to Rosecrans Avenue to the south. Although the Project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the site, the proposed buildings or other hardscape would cover almost the entire Project Site, and there would be no bare soils on-site with the potential to erode or contribute silt to surface runoff. Therefore, operational impacts to surface water hydrology drainage patterns with respect to potential for erosion or siltation would be less than significant. Page 8 92 u Alter Drainage Pattern. The Project Site is relatively flat, and there are no streams or rivers present. The Project would require construction and excavation activities. However, these activities would not cause any flooding during construction because the Project would implement a SWPPP as well as construction -specific BMPs to reduce the amount of runoff to minimize flooding. Adherence to standard compliance measures during construction activities would ensure that the Project would not cause flooding that would have the potential to harm people or damage property; substantially reduce or increase the amount of surface water flow from the Project Site into a water body; or result in a permanent, adverse change to the movement of surface water to produce a substantial change in the current or direction of water flow during construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. The Project would not modify the surrounding streets with respect to the manner in which they convey storm runoff to the City storm drain system, and would have no effect on regional facilities. The Project would increase the amount of impermeable surfaces at the Project Site compared to existing conditions. However, the flow direction of storm water would remain similar to existing conditions because runoff from the Project would continue via sheetflow towards Rosecrans Avenue. Therefore, the operational impact on drainage patterns with respect to the potential for flooding would be less than significant. u Runoff. Currently, runoff from the Project Site drains via sheetflow (i.e., flows overland along the ground) and discharges the stormwater into the local storm drain system. Stormwater runoff from the Project Site discharges into the curb and gutter which conveys stormwater into nearby street catch basins. The stormwater infrastructure within the public right-of-way has sufficient capacity to accept the stormwater runoff from on-site existing conditions. Thus, the Project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and impacts would be less than significant. The construction and operation of the Project would not introduce substantial sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant. ll Deerade Water Quality. The Project would be subject to the requirements of the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, which controls the quality of runoff entering municipal storm drains in the County. Accordingly, a SWPPP would be developed in compliance with SWRCB requirements and implemented during construction, which would outline BMPs and other measures to minimize the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff. BMPs would include appropriate disposal of waste; immediate clean up of leaks, drips, and spills; street sweeping; limiting the amount of soil exposed at one time; covering haul trucks; proper maintenance of construction equipment; and installation of sediment filters during construction activities. During operation, the Project would be required to prepare and implement a project - specific SUSMP meeting the requirements of the County -wide SUSMP adopted by the LARWQCB, and implement BMPs designed to address runoff and pollutants. Furthermore, as the Project would manage, capture, and treat runoff as required through regulatory compliance and PDFs, implementation of the Project would represent an improvement in water quality from the existing condition as runoff currently sheet flows untreated to the drainage system. Therefore, through compliance with regulatory requirements and the PDFs, construction- and operation -related impacts to water quality would be less than significant. Page 9 93 b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. Land Use and Planning a) Facts/Effects: (1) Apolicable Land Use Plans and Policies. The development of the Project would be subject to numerous City land use plans, policies, and regulations, including the development regulations in the ESMC. The Project would be consistent with the goals in the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), the principles of the Compass Growth Vision, the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the EI Segundo General Plan Land Use Element, and Title 15 of the ESMC. Based on the analysis, the Project would be generally consistent with applicable goals, policies, and objectives in local and regional plans that govern development on the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not be in substantial conflict with the General Plan, zoning, or the whole of relevant environmental policies in other applicable plans, including regional plans. As such, impacts related to land use consistency would be less than significant. (2) CLIMUlatlVe impacts. The study area forthe land use cumulative impacts analysis includes the Project Site and the Southeast Quadrant of the City. The Project would be generally consistent with all applicable land use regulations and policies. The closest related projects to the Project Site include related project numbers 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 26, 33, 35, and 36. These related projects, located in the vicinity of the Project Site, when developed in combination with the Project would intensify the land usage in the immediate project area. The Project would be generally consistent with all applicable land use regulations. Similar to the Project, the related projects would be required to comply with relevant land use policies and regulations, and would be subject to specific findings and conditions, which are based on maintaining general conformance with the land use plans applicable to the area. In addition, such related projects are not expected to fundamentally alter the existing land use relationships in the Southeast Quadrant of the City. As such, development of the Project and related projects is not anticipated to substantially conflict with the intent of the City's General Plan regarding the future development of the Southeast Quadrant, or with other land use regulations required to be consistent with the General Plan, such Title 15 of the ESMC. Development of the Project, in combination with the related projects, would not be expected to result in cumulatively considerable effects with respect to land use regulations. Page 10 94 Noise b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to applicable land use plans and policies. a) Facts/Effects: (1) Noise. Although construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels above the existing within the Project vicinity, it is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours according to the City's Municipal Code. The City's Municipal Code also specifies a maximum construction noise levels of 65 decibel (dBA) plus the limits specified in subsection 7-2-4C of the municipal code for residential structures. However, no residential uses are located in close proximity to the Project Site, the site is surrounded by commercial uses. Therefore, construction -related noise impacts are considered to be less than significant. The Proposed Project would result in a substantial increase in ambient noise levels if the existing ambient noise level increases by 5 dBA at a residential use or 8 dBA at a commercial or industrial use. Existing traffic noise levels range between 66.8-79.5 dBA Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and the modeled Existing Plus Project traffic noise levels range between 66.8-79.5 dBA CNEL at the property line of the nearest receptor to each modeled road segment. Future (2020) traffic noise levels range between 67.1-80 dBA CNEL and the modeled Future (2020) Plus Project traffic noise levels range between 67.2-80 dBA CNEL at the property line of the nearest receptor to each modeled road segment. All modeled roadway segments are anticipated to change the noise a nominal amount (between approximately 0.00 to 0.12 dBA CNEL). Therefore, a change in noise level would not be audible and would be considered less than significant. Future vehicle traffic noise from Rosecrans Avenue is expected to result in noise levels ranging between 48 and 75 dBA on the Project Site. The proposed buildings shield the proposed outdoor uses areas from vehicle traffic noise. The proposed office buildings would fall into a "conditionally acceptable" category and construction would be acceptable as long as they are provided with air conditioning and/or fresh air supply systems to allow a "windows closed" condition. Impacts related to future traffic noise impacts to the Proposed Project would be less than significant. (2) Vibration. Construction activities associated with the proposed parking structure may occur within 25 feet of the existing parking structure to the east. Buildings with steel or reinforced concrete, such as factories, retaining walls, bridges, steel towers etc. withstand much higher vibration levels than a typical home. The adjacent parking structure is expected to withstand a PPV of at least 2.0 (California Department of Transportation Page 11 95 2013). Temporary vibration levels associated with Project construction would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Project -related ground -borne vibration would be from trucks making deliveries to the Project Site and garbage trucks picking -up Project -related refuse material. The vibration levels associated with these trucks would be less than the levels associated with large construction equipment. Therefore, the operational impacts associated with ground - borne vibration would be less than significant at nearby sensitive uses. (3) Ambient Noise. Although construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels above the existing within the Project vicinity, it is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours according to the City's Municipal Code. The City's Municipal Code also specifies a maximum construction noise levels of 65 dBA plus the limits specified in subsection 7-2-4C of the municipal code for residential structures. However, no residential uses are located in close proximity to the Project Site, the site is surrounded by commercial uses. Therefore, construction -related noise impacts are considered to be less than significant. Future vehicle traffic noise from Rosecrans Avenue is expected to result in noise levels ranging between 48 and 75 dBA on the Project Site. The proposed buildings shield the proposed outdoor use areas from vehicle traffic noise. The proposed office buildings would fall into a "conditionally acceptable" category and construction would be acceptable as long as they are provided with air conditioning and/or fresh air supply systems to allow a "windows closed" condition. Impacts related to future traffic noise impacts to the Proposed Project would be less than significant. (4) Temporary or Periodic Ambient Noise. Although construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels above the existing level within the Project vicinity, it is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours according to the City's Municipal Code. The City's Municipal Code also specifies a maximum construction noise levels of 65 dBA plus the limits specified in subsection 7-2-4C of the municipal code for residential structures. However, no residential uses are located in close proximity to the Project Site, the site is surrounded by commercial uses. Therefore, construction -related noise impacts are considered to be less than significant. (5) Cumulative Impacts. The nearest related projects to the Project Site include related project numbers 21 and 35. Related project number 21 is located at 2171-2191 Rosecrans Avenue, to the east of the Project Site. Related project number 35 is located at the following addresses: 700-860 South Sepulveda Boulevard, 2001-2015 East Park Place, and 700-740 Allied Way Boulevard; which is to the north east of the Project Site. Existing adjacent retail uses to the west and east of the Project Site as well as the retail uses located south of the Project Site (across Rosecrans Avenue) may be temporarily affected by short-term noise impacts associated the Project construction. Ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity range between 52.4 and 64.3 dBA Leq. Project construction noise may reach up to 87.4 dBA Leq at the Project line during grading activities. At 50 - feet from the property line, construction noise levels would drop to 77.5 dBA Leq, at 100 feet from the property line, construction noise levels would drop to 73.0 dBA Leq, and at 500 feet from the property line, construction noise levels would drop to 60.6 dBA Leq. There are no currently proposed construction projects within 500 feet of the Project Site. Therefore, the incremental contribution of project construction noise would not be cumulatively considerable. Page 12 96 Project on-site operational noise is expected to range between 52.0 and 64.0 dBA Leq at nearby commercial land uses, including the new proposed on-site commercial buildings. Project operational noise at off-site adjacent properties would range between 52.0 to 54.0 dBA Leq, and would not be audible over the existing noise environment. The incremental contribution of Project on-site operational noise would not be cumulatively considerable. The Noise Technical Report quantified the increase in ambient noise levels that can be expected with Project buildout along roadways affected by Project generated vehicle traffic. New vehicle trips associated with the Proposed Project are expected to result in a nominal increase in ambient noise levels along affected road segments (up to 0.12 dBA CNEL). These increases would nominally add to ambient noise levels as the area and would be consistent with what has been planned for and analyzed in the City's General Plan and General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Thus, Project operational noise would not contribute to a cumulative noise impacts at adjacent land uses. b) Mitip-ation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to noise, vibration, ambient noise, and/or temporary or periodic ambient noise. Population. Housing and Employment a) Facts/Effects: (1) Population. Housing and Employment. While the Project would increase employment in the City of EI Segundo, the Project is consistent with employment, population, and housing forecasts. Impacts with respect to substantial population growth would be less than significant. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding- The indin : The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to population, housing, and employment. Public Services: Fire a) Facts/Effects: (1) Deed for a New or Phvsically Altered Fire Station. Construction activities on the Project Site have the potential to result in accidental on-site fires by exposing combustible materials (e.g., wood, plastics, sawdust, coverings and coatings) to fire risks from Page 13 97 machinery and equipment sparks, and from exposed electrical lines, chemical reactions in combustible materials and coatings, and lighted cigarettes. The implementation of "good housekeeping" procedures by the construction contractors and the work crews would minimize these hazards. The transport, use, and disposal of construction -related hazardous materials would occur in conformance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations governing such activities. The Project would be required to implement standard BMPs set forth by the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) which would ensure that wastes generated during the construction process are disposed of properly. Construction activities also have the potential to affect fire protection services, such as emergency vehicle response times, by adding construction traffic to the street network and potentially requiring partial lane closures during street improvements and utility installations. These impacts are considered to be less than significant for the following reasons: emergency access would be maintained to the Project Site during construction through marked emergency access points approved by the EI Segundo Fire Department (ESFD) (see PDF J-1); partial lane closures, if determined to be necessary, would not greatly affect emergency vehicles; and the Project would be required to prepare a Construction Management Plan. Moreover, construction impacts are temporary in nature and do not cause lasting effects to impact ESFD fire protection services. Accordingly, Project construction would not affect firefighting and emergency services to the extent that new, expanded, consolidated, or relocated fire facilities would be needed in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives of the ESFD. Therefore, construction -related impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant. The Project would be expected to generate 1,033 net new full- and part-time jobs. The increase in 1,033 net new employees and visitors to the Project Site during operation would create demand for additional fire protection services at the Project Site. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, including ESFD's fire/life safety plan review and fire/life safety inspection, would ensure that adequate fire prevention features would be provided in order to reduce the demand on ESFD facilities and equipment. In addition, in accordance with the fire protection -related programs set forth in the General Plan Public Safety Element, and PDF's, as well as ESFD's continued evaluation of existing fire facilities, Project impacts with regard to ESFD facilities and equipment would be less than significant. The final fire flow required for the Project would be established by the ESFD during its review of the Project plot plan, prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City. The plot plan would be required to identify the minimum fire flow requirements and the location of fire hydrants. Approval of this plot plan, and implementation of the applicable regulatory requirements would ensure the requisite fire flow for the Project Site. Therefore, impacts related to fire flow would be less than significant. Emergency response times would potentially be affected. However, upon completion of the Project, the ESFD would be provided with a diagram of each portion of the property, and this diagram would include access routes and any additional information that may facilitate ESFD response to the Project Site. Therefore, with the implementation of additional information that may facilitate ESFD response to the Project Site, Project impacts related to response times would be less than significant. Page 14 98 Based on the Project's proposed circulation plan, it is anticipated that the ESFD would be able to respond to emergency calls within the established response time. Therefore, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant. (2) Cumulative Impacts. The geographic scope of the cumulative fire protection analysis encompasses the service area for the ESFD in general, and Fire Stations 1 and 2, in particular. The Project, in combination with the construction and operation of the related projects located within the service areas of these stations, would result in additional residential, industrial, educational, and commercial land uses within these service areas. It is anticipated that the additional population and commercial activity would increase the demand for fire protection in the service areas for ESFD Fire Stations 1 and 2. Specifically, there would be increased demand for additional ESFD staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. However, each of the related projects regardless of location or size would be subject to ESFD review of site plans, hydrant locations, and fire flow requirements, to ensure compliance with fire and life safety standards. In addition to the capabilities of the local fire stations serving the Project Site and surrounding areas, including the related projects, growth in residential and student population and industrial and commercial development throughout the City could increase demand for ESFD staffing, equipment, and facilities. These demands are met by ESFD within the constraints of available resources, as well as through the allocation of resources between ESFD and other City departments, which is accomplished through the City's annual programming and budgeting processes. Through implementation of the existing management and regulatory requirements, the cumulative demand for fire protection is identified and addressed to the satisfaction of the City's elected leadership. Therefore, the Project, in combination with demand for fire protection services Citywide, would not result in a significant cumulative effect. Further, the Project impact analysis determined the impact on fire protection would be less than significant; thus, Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Based on the above analysis, cumulative impacts related to fire protection would be less than significant. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) Findin_ The City Council finds that the FOR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to fire services, and /or the need for a new or physically altered fire station. Public Services: Police a) Facts/Effects: (1) Need for a New or Phvsically Altered Police Station. Construction sites can be sources of nuisances and hazards and invite theft and vandalism. When not properly secured, construction sites can contribute to a temporary increased demand for police protection services. With compliance with state law and local regulations, construction -related impacts would be minimized and would not generate a demand for additional police protection services that would substantially exceed the capability of the EI Segundo Police Page 15 99 Department (ESPD) to serve the Project Site. Project construction would not necessitate the provision of new or physically altered facilities in order to maintain the ESPD's capability to serve the Project Site; accordingly, the Project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of new or altered facilities. Therefore, impacts on police protection services during Project construction would be less than significant. Although there is no direct proportional relationship between increases in land use activity and increases in demand for police protection services, the number of calls for police response to commercial and vehicle burglaries, damage to vehicles, traffic -related incidents, and crimes against persons could increase with the increase in on-site activity and increased traffic on adjacent streets and arterials. Such calls are typical of problems experienced in nearby neighborhoods and do not represent unique law enforcement issues specific to the Project. Design features that deter crime, including adequate and strategically positioned functional lighting to enhance public safety, minimizing visually obstructed and infrequently accessed "dead zones," and limiting public access to properly patrolled public areas, reduce the demand for police services. The design of the Project would also include crime prevention features, such as nighttime security lighting and secured parking facilities. With implementation of these features, in coordination with the ESPD, the Project would result in a less -than -significant operational impact on police protection services. Overall, no new or expanded police station is anticipated to be needed as a result of the Project. Therefore, Project impacts on police service ratios would be less than significant. Response times would not be substantially affected, given that there would be significant traffic impacts at limited locations and given the availability of alternative routes within the street pattern in the area surrounding the Project Site. In addition, the police have a variety of options to avoid traffic, such as using sirens to clear a path of travel or driving in the lanes of opposing traffic. Furthermore, upon completion of the Project, the ESPD would be provided with a diagram of each portion of the property, and this diagram would include access routes and any additional information that may facilitate police response to the Project Site. Therefore, Project impacts related to response times would be less than significant. Emergency vehicle access to the Project Site would continue to be provided from major roadways adjacent to the Project Site including Rosecrans Avenue and South Nash Street. The Project would be designed and constructed in accordance with ESMC requirements to ensure proper emergency access. Therefore, as traffic impacts would not result in the need for expanded, consolidated, or relocated police facilities during operation of the Project, and impacts to emergency service would be less than significant. (2) Cumulative Impacts. The geographic scope of the cumulative police protection analysis encompasses the service area for the ESPD. The Project, in combination with the construction and operation of the related projects located within the service area of the East Command area, would add residential, schools, industrial, and commercial land uses to the service area. It is anticipated that the additional population would increase the demand for police protection services in the East Command area. Specifically, there would be increased demand for additional ESPD staffing, equipment, and facilities over time. Page 16 100 The ESPD determines the adequacy of police protection using the existing number of police officers in the Project's police service area, the number of persons currently served in the area, the adequacy of the existing officer -to -population ratio in the area, and the number of persons that the Project would introduce to the area and the geographic distribution of crimes within the area. ESPD works with developers of projects to minimize demand for police services through review and coordination of project design, provision of adequate light, and on-site security measures, as warranted. The related projects are expected to have access to the expertise of the ESPD to benefit their design and operational planning, and each of the related projects would be subject to ESPD review of site plans, and security measures. Through this process, cumulative demand for police services within the East Command area would be managed, and the Project, in combination with related projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. In addition to the capabilities of the East Command area to serve the Project Site and surrounding areas, including the related projects, growth in daytime population and development throughout the City could increase demand for ESPD staffing, equipment, and facilities Citywide. These demands are met by ESPD through the allocation of available resources by ESPD management to meet varying needs throughout the City, as well as through the allocation of City resources between ESPD and other City departments, which is accomplished through the City's annual programming and budgeting processes. Through implementation of these existing management and regulatory processes, the cumulative demand for police protection is identified and addressed to the satisfaction of the City's elected leadership. Therefore, cumulative impacts related to police protection would be less than significant. b) M itiRatlon: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) FiE1dinL: The City Council finds that the FOR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to police services, and /or the need for a new or physically altered police station. Transraortation, Traffic and Parkinp, a) Facts/Effects: (1) Conflict With an Applicable Plan Construction. Construction activities would involve temporary heavy truck traffic for the transport of building debris and cement trucks. Additionally, construction worker vehicles, materials deliveries, and other construction - related trips are expected to add heavy truck trips per day. Construction activities may affect adjacent streets, including Rosecrans Avenue, and Nash Street. Construction trucks could disrupt traffic flows, limit turn lane capacities, and generally slow traffic movement. Other potential construction -related impacts include equipment staging, equipment idling, parked or queued heavy trucks that could potentially obstruct visibility, traffic flows and interfere with pedestrian and bicycle flows; parking usage by construction workers; temporary or extended closure of traffic lanes and sidewalks. During Page 17 101 construction staging, the storage of construction equipment may require the use of street parking and temporary closure of portions of adjacent streets. The Construction Management Plan would address individual phases of construction including site preparation, and on-going construction activities for each individual project. Implementation of PDF K-1 would reduce construction traffic impacts to less than significant. (2) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) and Transit Service. Study intersection #1, Sepulveda Boulevard & EI Segundo Boulevard, is also a CMP monitoring location. Based on the Project trip distribution and trip generation, the Project is expected to add approximately 33 trips in the AM peak hour and 30 trips in the PM peak hour through the CMP arterial monitoring station. It is not expected to add enough new traffic to exceed the arterial analysis criteria of 50 vehicle trips at the above-mentioned location. Therefore, no further CMP arterial analysis is required. The next nearest CMP monitoring location to the south of the Project is located at Sepulveda Boulevard & Artesia Boulevard, over two miles away. It is expected that the monitoring station will not have more than 50 trips during either peak hour. The next nearest CMP monitoring location to the north of the Project is located at Sepulveda Boulevard & Lincoln Boulevard, also over two miles away. It is expected that the monitoring station will not have more than 50 trips added during either peak hour. Since fewer than 150 trips would be added during the AM or PM peak hours in either direction at the freeway segments in the vicinity of the study area, no further analysis of the freeway segments is required for CMP purposes. The Project and other related projects will cumulatively add new ridership to the transit system. However, as noted, the Project Site and the greater EI Segundo area in general are served by a considerable amount of transit service, including the Metro Green Line, numerous Metro bus routes, and local Beach Cities service. Transit service providers routinely adjust service up to two times a year to reflect future cumulative demand. Additional transit riders would also increase farebox recovery on transit lines, and therefore the Project generated transit riders would help to fund the service. At this level of increase, Project -related impacts on the regional transit system would not be significant. (3) Adopted Policies or Plans. The Project would not conflict with adopted polices, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. (4) Emereencv Vehicle Access. Emergency vehicle access to the Project Site would continue to be provided from major roadways adjacent to the Project Site, including Rosecrans Avenue and Nash Street. All circulation improvements that are proposed for the Project Site would comply with the Fire Code, including any additional access requirements of the ESFD. Emergency access to the Project Site would be maintained at all times. While the Project is anticipated to affect the LOS of roadways in the Project vicinity, the increases in traffic would not greatly affect emergency vehicles because the drivers of emergency vehicles normally have a variety of options for avoiding traffic, such as using their sirens to clear a path of travel or driving in the lanes of opposing traffic. Based on the Project's proposed circulation plan and the above considerations, it is anticipated that Page 18 102 the ESFD would be able to respond to emergency calls within the established response time. Therefore, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to transportation, traffic and parking. Utilities and Service Svstems: Water a) Facts/Effects: (1) Need for a New or Expanded Water Treatment Facilities. Prior to ground disturbance, Project contractors would coordinate with West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD) to identify the locations and depth of all lines. Further, WBMWD would be notified in advance of proposed ground disturbance activities to avoid water lines and disruption of water service. Therefore, Project impacts on water infrastructure associated with construction activities would be less than significant. A Utility Plan showing existing and proposed utility improvements would be submitted to the City of EI Segundo Public Works Department for review and approval. These plan checks and consultations would ensure that available water supply and pressure would be sufficient to serve the Project requirements. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the need for new or additional water treatment facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (2) Sufficient Water Supplies. While Project construction activities would create a demand for some non -potable (recycled) water, construction activities would be temporary such that any associated water use would be temporary, and the construction activities requiring water use would not create substantial water demand. Therefore, Project construction activities would generate minimal potable water demand, and would not require water supplies that could not be met by existing City water entitlements and resources. Accordingly, impacts related to water demand during construction would be less than significant. According to the City Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), water demands are projected to be 17,299, 17,457, 17,618, 17,782 and 17,942 AFY for the years 2020, 2025, 2030, 2035, and 2040, respectively. The Project's estimated consumption of 59 acre feet per year (AFY) would represent 0.34, 0.34, 0.33, 0.33, and 0.33 percent of the projected demands for these years, respectively, and would therefore, not be a significant increase in water demand. In addition, the potable water demand estimates for the Project are conservative because they do not take into future water conservation requirements, and the Project would comply with the water efficiency standards of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and the City's UWMP, General Plan, and Municipal Code. The City would be able to meet Project operational water demand while meeting its existing and planned projected future water demands through at least 2040, and would Page 19 103 not require new City water entitlements or resources. Therefore, Project operational water supply impacts would be less than significant. (3) Cumulative Impacts. The geographic context for the cumulative impact analysis on water supply is the WBMWD service area, which includes the entirety of the City. As identified in Section III, Environmental Setting, of the EIR, there are 37 related projects located in the project vicinity. With respect to cumulative water supply impacts, the Project -specific analysis presented above also represents the cumulative analysis because it considers water demand and supply within the whole of the City through the 2035 planning horizon of the City's 2015 UWMP. Sixteen of the 37 related projects are located within the City and are anticipated to have been included in the overall growth projections utilized in the City's UWMP. Furthermore, those related projects that meet the SB 610 criteria for requiring the preparation of a water supply assessment (WSA) would have WSAs prepared to demonstrate that adequate water supply is available to serve them, and only those related projects where their WSA's conclude that adequate water is available would be approved. The types of projects that are subject to the requirements of Senate Bill 610 tend to be larger projects that may or may not have been included within the growth projections of the 2015 UWMP. Lastly, even if the cumulative water supply impacts would be significant (for example, if multiple related projects are not assumed in the water demand estimates in the City's UWMP through year 2035), the Project contribution to any such impact would not be cumulatively considerable. The Project's water demand would represent 0.44 percent of the City's projected water demand for the year 2035. Additionally, the 21 projects located outside of the City (and thus have not been included in the City's projected demand), all are located within the service area of the WBMWD. WBMWD, as a public water service provider, is required to prepare and periodically update an Urban Water Management Plan to plan and provide for water supplies to serve existing and projected demands. The 2015 UWMP prepared by WBMWD accounts for existing development, as well as projected growth in its service area through the year 2035. The Project would represent 0.29 percent of the surplus supply (i.e. water supply available above projected demand) reported in the WBMWD UWMP. Further, the estimates of water demand for the Project are conservative because they do not account for increases in Project water conservation required by Senate Bill (SB) x7-7 and other existing and future legislation through year 2035. Compliance of the Project and future development projects with regulatory requirements that promote water conservation such as the ESMC, Ordinance No. 1433, and the Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), would also assist in assuring that adequate water supply is available on a cumulative basis. Based on the related project list and projections provided in adopted plans (e.g., the City UWMP and the WBMWD UWMP), it is anticipated that WBMWD would be able to meet the water demands of the Project and future growth through 2035 and beyond. The WBMWD UWMP forecasts adequate water supplies to meet all projected water demands in the City through the year 2035. Accordingly, the Project's incremental increase in water demand would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact. The geographic context for the cumulative impact analysis on water infrastructure is the vicinity of the Project Site (i.e., the water infrastructure that would serve both the Project and specific related projects). Development of the Proposed Project in conjunction with Page 20 104 the 37 related projects in the City would incrementally increase the demand for capacity in the City's existing potable water infrastructure system. However, like the Proposed Project, most of the related projects would be subject to CEQA review, and they would all be subject to City review, to assure that the existing public utility facilities would be adequate to meet the domestic and fire water demands of each project. Developers are required to improve facilities where appropriate, and development cannot proceed without appropriate verification and approval. Furthermore, City's Public Works Department conducts ongoing evaluations to ensure that water infrastructure in the City is adequate, and undertakes infrastructure system improvements when required. Therefore, cumulative impacts on the water infrastructure system would be less than significant. b) Mitipation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to water, the need for a new or expanded water treatment facilities, and/or sufficient water supplies. Utilities and Service Svstems: Wastewater a) Facts/Effects: (1) Exceed Wastewater Treatment. Construction and operation of the Project would rely on existing stormwater drainage facilities. The Project would be required to prepare a SWPPP to prevent runoff and water quality impacts during construction, and appropriate BMPs to manage stormwater runoff and pollutants from the Project Site. Accordingly, construction of the Project would not introduce substantial sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant. With respect to Project compliance with the wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (LARWQCB), the Project would include office uses that would generate standard domestic/commercial wastewater. Project wastewater that discharges to the local wastewater collection system would comply with applicable County -wide waste discharge requirements (e.g., National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit requirements). Therefore, Project operation would not interfere with the ability of the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) to meet the effluent limitations and waste discharge requirements set forth in its discharge permit (e.g., NPDES Permit No. CA0053813, Order No. R4-2011-0151). (2) Construction of New Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The Project would require improvements to the existing on-site wastewater collection system and connections to the existing off-site wastewater collection system. These improvements would be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable City regulations. Overall, when considering impacts resulting from the installation of any required wastewater infrastructure, all impacts are of a relatively short-term duration (i.e., months) and would cease to occur once the installation is complete. Thus, Project construction impacts to wastewater treatment and collection facilities would be less than significant. Page 21 105 Project Average Daily Wastewater Generation, the Project is estimated to generate an increase of approximately 70,075 gallons per day (gpd) of wastewater. The JWPCP currently treats approximately 261.1 million gpd of wastewater, and has a total permitted capacity of 400 million gpd. Thus, the plant is currently operating at approximately 65 percent of capacity and has approximately 138.9 million gpd of available capacity. The Project's net increase in wastewater of 70,075 gpd would represent approximately 0.03 percent of this available capacity. Accordingly, adequate available sewage treatment capacity exists at the JWPCP to serve the Project. (3) Construction of a New Stormwater Drainage Facility. Construction and operation of the Project would rely on existing stormwater drainage facilities. The Project Site is currently a vacant dirt lot. Currently, runoff from the Project Site drains via sheetflow (i.e., flows overland along the ground) and discharges the stormwater into the local storm drain system. The Project would not substantially increase the amount of surface runoff or waste discharge from the Project Site. Therefore, stormwater runoff from the Project Site would not exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater drainage systems and impacts would be less than significant. (4) Determination by a Waste Treatment Provider. An increase in wastewater flow from the Project Site during construction would be negligible and temporary. The operational increase in wastewater of 70,075 gpd would represent approximately 0.03 -percent of the available capacity of JWPCP. Accordingly, adequate available sewage treatment capacity exists at the JWPCP to serve the Project. As such, the Project would have a less than significant impact on the capacity of the wastewater treatment provider. (5) Cumulative Impacts. The available treatment capacity of the JWPCP is based on projected growth associated with the adopted South California Association of Governments (SCAG) growth forecasts, which, in turn, are based on the growth projections of those portions of the County and those cities within the JWPCP service area. The 37 cumulative projects involve new developments that, along with the proposed Project, would increase the demand for treatment at the JWPCP. While it is likely that the majority of the related projects would be consistent with the adopted SCAG and growth forecasts of their respective cities, and thus consistent with the facility planning for the JWPCP, there is the potential that some of these projects could include populations greater than that projected/planned, thus resulting in greater demand for treatment capacity than accounted for in the JWPCP's facility planning. Therefore, there is the potential that the related projects could result in a significant impact on wastewater treatment facility capacity. However, as is the case for the Project, wastewater estimates are generally conservative. Related projects would also be required to implement water conservation features pursuant to City ordinances, and thus could have lower wastewater generation than projected. In addition, the related projects would also be subject to the provisions of the applicable jurisdiction's Municipal Code requiring provision of on-site infrastructure, improvements to address local capacity issues and payment of fees for future sewerage replacement and/or relief improvements. Thus, the Project would not contribute to a cumulative significant impact with regard to wastewater facilities. The proposed Project, together with the related projects, would increase the demand for the conveyance of sewage by the local wastewater collection system. However, only those related projects that would utilize the twelve -inch vitrified concrete pipe (VCP) along Rosecrans Avenue would combine with the wastewater collection facility impacts of the proposed Project. As shown in Figure III -7, Location of Related Projects, in Section Page 22 106 III, Environmental Setting, of the EIR, only related project No. 21 (2171-2191 Rosecrans Avenue) could potentially share this pipe. The preparation of the Sewer Study would ensure that adequate capacity exists in these sewer lines to serve the Project. In accordance with existing City/LACSDs requirements, each of the related projects that would utilize these same sewer lines would be required to demonstrate that adequate capacity exists in these lines to serve them and would be required to provide additional capacity should their flow analyses indicate that adequate capacity does not exist. Therefore, cumulative impacts on the wastewater collection system would be less than significant. Future development of the related projects could affect the amount, the rate, the velocity, and the quality of runoff within their respective local drainage areas. Whether the effects would be beneficial or adverse depends on a number of factors including the amount of pervious/impervious surfaces that would change, the duration of the construction period, the drainage improvements and BMPs that would be incorporated into the design, etc. for each of those projects. However, similar to the Project, the related projects would be subject to NPDES permit requirements for both construction and operation, including development of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans(SWPPPs), compliance with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements during operation, and compliance with other local requirements pertaining to runoff volume and surface water quality. Each of the related projects would be required to undergo a preliminary review by the City to determine what, if any, drainage improvements and BMPs would be required to ensure that no significant runoff volume or water quality issues would result. Thus, cumulative construction impacts that may result from concurrent construction of the Project and the related projects, particularly those nearest to the Project Site, would be less than significant through the regulatory requirements of the City's planning permit review processes, which would address potential runoff volume and water quality issues priorto issuance of permits on a project - by -project basis. In addition, as discussed in Section IV.F, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would not result in any significant water quality impacts. Therefore, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to water quality impacts, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding- The indin : The City Council finds that the FOR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to wastewater, exceed wastewater treatment, construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, construction of a new stormwater drainage facility, and or determination by a waste treatment provider. Utilities and Service Svstems: Solid Waste a) Facts/Effects: (1) Landfifl Capacity. The minor amount of Project -generated demolition debris and construction waste would represent a very small percentage of the inert waste disposal Page 23 107 capacity in the region. Therefore, the Project would not create a need for additional solid waste disposal facilities to adequately handle project construction -generated inert waste and impacts would be less than significant. Based on the number of employees the Project would employ (see Section IV.I, Population and Housing), the Project would generate approximately 1,725 net tons per year (tpy) (4.7 tons per day (tpd)) of solid waste. Project -generated waste would not exacerbate the estimated landfill capacity requirements addressed for the 15 -year planning period ending in 2031, or alter the ability of the County to address landfill needs via existing capacity and other options for increasing capacity. Therefore, impacts on solid waste disposal from Project operations would be less than significant. (2) Cumulative Impacts. The solid waste cumulative impacts study area is the County of Los Angeles because the landfills open to the City of EI Segundo serve the entire County. County planning for future landfill capacity addresses cumulative demand over 15 -year planning increments. The Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Plan, 2016 Annual Report anticipates a 9.66 percent increase in population growth within the County of Los Angeles between 2016 and 2031 and an increase of 16.37 percent in employment. The Project, in combination with the related projects and other reasonably foreseeable growth within the City, would increase solid waste generation during construction and operation. Similar to the Project, the 37 related projects and other reasonably foreseeable growth within the City would generate inert construction and demolition waste. Also similar to the Project, the related projects and reasonably foreseeable growth's construction and demolition waste would be recycled to the extent feasible. The remaining disposal capacity for the County's Class III landfills is estimated at approximately 103.18 million tons as of December 31, 2016. In addition to in -County landfills, out -of -County disposal facilities are also available to the City. Aggressive waste reduction and diversion programs on a Countywide level have helped reduce disposal levels at the County's landfills, and based on the Los Angeles County Integrated Waste Management Plan (CoIWMP), the County anticipates that future Class III disposal needs can be adequately met through 2031. Given this future capacity, it is expected that all construction and debris waste can be accommodated during that time, and cumulative impacts regarding the disposal of construction and debris waste would not occur. Project analysis determined its impact on construction solid waste would be less than significant; thus, Project impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative impacts due to demolition and construction waste would be less than significant. As with the Project, the 37 related projects would participate in regional source reduction and recycling programs, significantly reducing the number of tons deposited in area landfills. Whereas in the past, solid waste disposal occurred solely within landfills located in the County, the trend in recent years is increased solid waste disposal at landfills located outside of the County. The use of out -of -County landfills will increase in the future given the difficulties associated with permitting new or expanded landfill facilities within the County. As such, the appropriate context within which to view the Project's potential solid waste impacts is total disposal capacity available at landfills located within, as well as outside of, the County. In addition, in order to satisfy the disposal capacity requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 939, the County is developing facilities utilizing conversion technologies (defined as a wide array of biological, chemical, thermal Page 24 108 [excluding incineration] and mechanical technologies capable of converting post -recycled residual solid waste into useful products and chemicals, green fuels, such as hydrogen, natural gas, ethanol and biodiesel, and clean, renewable energy such as electricity). Pursuant to CCR Section 18755.5, the County prepared a Countywide Siting Element in June 1997. The Countywide Siting Element has identified goals, policies, and strategies to maintain adequate permitted disposal capacity on an ongoing basis through a 15 -year planning period, and for the long term. To provide this needed disposal capacity, the Countywide Siting Element identified sites that may be suitable for development of new or expansion of existing Class III landfills. The Countywide Siting Element also identified out -of -County landfills that may be available to receive waste generated in the County. Additionally, the Countywide Siting Element includes goals and policies to facilitate the use of out -of -County and remote landfills and foster the development of alternatives to landfill disposal. The County will continually address landfill capacity through the preparation of Annual Reports. The preparation of each Annual Report provides sufficient lead-time (15 years) to address potential future shortfalls in landfill capacity. Therefore, combined cumulative operational waste disposal impacts would be less than significant. It is also anticipated that related projects and other reasonably foreseeable growth would be subject to environmental review on a case-by-case basis to ensure that they would not conflict with AB 939 waste diversion goals or the solid waste policies and objectives in the County's Summary Plan, Siting Element, as well as the City's Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and its updates, the Solid Waste Management Policy Plan (CiSWMPP), and the General Plan Framework. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with solid waste regulations, plans, and programs would be less than significant. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to solid waste, and landfill capacity. Utilities and Service Svstems: Enerev a) Facts/Effects (1) Wasteful, Inefficient or Unnecessary Consumption of Enerev. The Project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation. The Project's energy requirements would not significantly affect local and regional supplies or capacity. Electricity generation capacity and supplies of natural gas and transportation fuels would also be sufficient to meet the needs of Project -related construction and operations. During operations, the Project would comply with existing energy efficiency requirements such as California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) as well as include energy conservation measures consistent with Federal, State, and local conservation and reduction goals. In summary, the Project's energy Page 25 109 demands would not significantly affect available energy supplies and would comply with existing energy efficiency standards. Therefore, Project impacts related to energy use would be less than significant during construction and operation. (2) Substantial Increase in Demand or Transmission Service Resulting in New or Expanded Sources of Enerpv. Construction and operation of the Project would not result in an increase in demand for electricity or natural gas that exceeds available supply or distribution infrastructure capabilities that could result in the construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, Project impacts related to energy infrastructure capacity would be less than significant during construction and operation. (3) Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts occur when impacts that are significant or less than significant from a proposed project combine with similar impacts from other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects in a similar geographic area. As presented in Section III, Environmental Setting, of the EIR, there are 37 related projects located within the vicinity of the Project Site. The geographic context for the cumulative analysis of electricity is Edison's service area and the geographic context for the cumulative analysis of natural gas is SoCalGas' service area. The 37 related projects are all located within the service areas for Edison and SoCalGas. While the geographic context for transportation - related energy use is more difficult to define, it is meaningful to consider the Project in the context of County -wide consumption. Growth within these geographies is anticipated to increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, and transportation energy, as well as the need for energy infrastructure, such as new or expanded energy facilities. Buildout of the Project, 37 related projects, and additional forecasted growth in Edison's service area would cumulatively increase the demand for electricity supplies and infrastructure capacity. Edison's forecasted total energy consumption in 2019 (the Project buildout year) will be 111,220 gigawatt per hour (GWh) of electricity. As such, the Project -related net increase in annual electricity consumption of 6,378,694 kilowatt per hour (kWh) per year would represent approximately 0.006 percent of Edison's projected consumption in 2019. Although future development would result in the irreversible use of renewable and non-renewable electricity resources during Project construction and operation which could limit future availability, the use of such resources would be on a relatively small scale and would be consistent with growth expectations for Edison's service area. Furthermore, like the Project, during construction and operation, other future development projects would be expected to incorporate energy conservation features, comply with applicable regulations including CALGreen and State energy standards under Title 24, and incorporate mitigation measures, as necessary. As such, the Project's incremental increase in electricity consumption would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. Cumulative impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of electricity would be less than significant. Buildout of the Project, 37 related projects, and additional forecasted growth in SoCalGas' service area would cumulatively increase the demand for natural gas supplies and infrastructure capacity. Based on the 2016 California Gas Report, the California Energy and Electric Utilities estimates natural gas consumption within Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas') planning area will be approximately 2,581 million cf per day in 2019 (the Project's buildout year). As such, the Project would account for approximately 0.0003 percent of the forecasted consumption of natural gas in SoCalGas' planning area for 2019. SoCalGas forecasts account for projected population growth and development Page 26 110 based on local and regional plans. Although future development would result in the use of natural gas resources, which could limit future availability, the use of such resources would be on a relatively small scale, would be reduced by measures rendering the Project more energy-efficient, and would be consistent with regional and local growth expectations for SoCalGas' service area. Furthermore, future development projects would be expected to incorporate energy conservation features, comply with applicable regulations including CALGreen and state energy standards under Title 24, and incorporate mitigation measures, as necessary. As such, the Project's incremental increase in natural gas consumption would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. Cumulative impacts related to wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary use of natural gas would be less than significant. Buildout of the Project, 37 related projects, and additional forecasted growth would cumulatively increase the demand for transportation -related fuel in the state and region. At buildout, the Project would consume a total of 366,643 gallons of gasoline and 64,066 gallons of diesel per year, or a total of 430,709 gallons of petroleum-based fuels per year. For comparison purposes, the estimated transportation energy consumed during construction of the Project would represent approximately 0.009 percent and 0.009 percent of the 2016 annual on -road gasoline- and diesel -related energy consumption, respectively, in Los Angeles County. Additionally, petroleum currently accounts for 90 percent of California's transportation energy sources; however, over the last decade the State has implemented several policies, rules, and regulations to improve vehicle efficiency, increase the development and use of alternative fuels, reduce air pollutants and GHGs from the transportation sector, and reduce vehicle miles traveled which would reduce reliance on petroleum fuels. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), gasoline consumption has declined by 6 percent since 2008, and the CEC predicts that the demand for gasoline will continue to decline over the next 10 years and that there will be an increase in the use of alternative fuels, such as natural gas, biofuels, and electricity. As with the Project, other future development projects would be expected to reduce vehicle- miles traveled (VMT) by encouraging the use of alternative modes of transportation and other design features that promote VMT reductions. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with the energy efficiency policies emphasized by the 2016 RTP/SCS. Specifically, the Project would be well -served by existing public transportation, including Metro and Torrance Transit bus lines and the Metro Green rail line. The Project also would introduce new job opportunities within a HQTA, which is consistent with numerous policies in the 2016 RTP/SCS related to locating new jobs near transit. These features would serve to reduce VMT and associated transportation fuel consumption. By its very nature, the 2016 RTP/SCS is a regional planning tool that addresses cumulative growth and resulting environmental effects. Since the Project is consistent with the 2016 RTP/SCS, its contribution to cumulative impacts related to wasteful, inefficient and unnecessary use of transportation fuel would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would be less than significant. Based on the analysis provided above, energy consumption (i.e., electricity, natural gas, and fuel) related to development of the Project and 37 related projects and would not result in a cumulatively considerable effect related to the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation. As such, the Page 27 111 Project's incremental impacts would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact; therefore, cumulative energy impacts are concluded to be less than significant. Electricity infrastructure is typically expanded in response to increasing demand, and system expansion and improvements by Edison are ongoing. Edison is expanding and upgrading transmission and distribution networks to meet demand increases within its service area and improve grid performance, while meeting California's ambitious renewable -power goals. Edison's planned improvements account for future energy demand, advances in renewable energy resources and technology, energy efficiency, conservation, and forecast changes in regulatory requirements. Development projects within the Edison service area would also be anticipated to incorporate site-specific infrastructure improvements, as necessary. Each of the 37 related projects would be reviewed by Edison to identify necessary power facilities and service connections to meet the needs of their respective projects. Project applicants would be required to provide for the needs of their individual projects, thereby contributing to the electrical infrastructure in the Project area. As such, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts with respect to electricity infrastructure would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would be less than significant. Natural gas infrastructure is typically expanded in response to increasing demand and system expansion and improvements by SoCalGas occur as needed. It is expected that SoCalGas would continue to expand delivery capacity if necessary to meet demand increases within its service area. Development projects within its service area, including the Project and related projects also served by the existing SoCalGas infrastructure, would also be anticipated to incorporate site-specific infrastructure improvements, as appropriate. As such, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts with respect to natural gas infrastructure would not be cumulatively considerable and, thus, would be less than significant. Based on the analysis provided above, the Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to energy consumption (i.e., electricity, natural gas) would not result in a cumulatively considerable effect related to available supply or distribution infrastructure capabilities that could result in the construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. As such, the Project's impacts would not be cumulatively considerable; therefore, cumulative energy infrastructure impacts are concluded to be less than significant. b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FOR and the record of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying significant environmental effects of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project with respect to energy, wasteful, inefficient or unnecessary consumption of energy, or a substantial increase in demand or transmission service resulting in new or expanded sources of energy. D. Impacts Identified as Potentially Significant in the Initial Study, But Which Can Be Reduced to Less - Than -Significant Levels with Mitigation Measures. Page 28 112 The City Council finds that the following environmental effects were identified as Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated in the FEIR, and implementation of the identified mitigation measures would avoid or lessen the potential environmental effects listed below to a level of significance. Cultural Resources Paleontological Resources a) Facts/Effects: (1) Paleontological Resources. Surface deposits on the Project Site consist of older Quaternary dune sands. These types of deposits typically do not contain significant vertebrate fossils in the uppermost layers, but in older sedimentary deposits at depth there may be significant fossil vertebrate remains. Findings of the paleontological resource records search (from the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County) revealed that there are no known fossil records associated with the Project Site; however, six vertebrate fossil localities, LACM 2035, 3264, 7332, 3789. 1180, and 4942 were collected from depths between 13 feet and 40 feet below the surface from nearby locations. These locations were northwest, north, and northeast of the Project Site. The closest vertebrate fossil locality from older Quaternary deposits is LACM 2035, just northeast of the Project Site near the intersection of Prairie Avenue and 139^Street, that produced fossil mammoth bones at an unrecorded depth. The paleontologist resource records search concluded that surface grading or very shallow excavations in the Quaternary dune sands would be unlikely to encounter significant vertebrate fossils. However, deeper excavations that extend into older deposits may encounter paleontological resources, including significant vertebrate fossils. To ensure impacts to potential paleontological resources would be less than significant, mitigation measure MM B-1 is recommended, in which a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavation and grading activities of the Project Site. In the event paleontological materials are encountered, the paleontologist shall be allowed to temporarily divert or redirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed material to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. Therefore, implementation of mitigation measure MM B-1 would ensure that any potential impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant. (2) Cumulative Imt)acts. The study area for cumulative impacts to paleontological resources is the extent of the related project sites (as listed in Section III, Environmental Setting of the EIR). The paleontological resource records search, for the Project Site and area, concluded that very shallow excavations in the Quaternary dune sands would be unlikely to uncover significant vertebrate fossils. However, deeper excavations into older deposits may encounter paleontological resources, potentially including significant vertebrate fossils. Therefore, development of the related projects could have impacts if paleontological resources were found during construction activities. However, it is unknown whether or not significant resources will be found. The potential for an individual project to affect significant paleontological resources is unknown, but given the number of related projects, it is probable that development of the related projects could have impacts on significant paleontological resources (i.e., Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 21083.2). However, similar to the Project, it is anticipated that these related projects would comply with the existing regulatory requirements related to the discovery of previously unknown paleontological resources. In addition, as part of the environmental review process for related projects, like the Project, it is expected that Page 29 113 mitigation measures would be established to address the potential for uncovering paleontological resources. In addition, compliance with the existing regulatory requirement and implementation of mitigation measure MM B-1 would avoid Project -related impacts related to paleontological resources. This includes monitoring, recovery, treatment, and deposit of fossil remains in a recognized repository should a previously unknown paleontological resource be discovered at the Project Site during construction activities. Therefore, Project impacts to paleontological resources would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. b) Mitijzation: Mitigation Measure MM B-1, as set forth in the EIR and MMRP. C) Finding: The City Council finds that Mitigation Measure MM B-1 will be imposed as a condition of approval which will avoid or substantially lessen the paleontological resource impact to a less than significant level. Cultural Resources Archaeological Resources a) Facts/Effects: (1) Archaeological Resources. The results of the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) archaeological records search for the Project Site indicate that there are no known archaeological resources on the Project Site. As such, the Project Site has not yielded, nor is it likely to yield, information important in prehistory. Therefore, the Project Site would not be considered a historical resource in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3)(D). Nevertheless, construction activities would involve excavation below existing grade up to depths of approximately 15 feet to construct the subterranean level at the Project Site and, thereby, create a potential to disturb any previously undiscovered archaeological resources. The archaeological records search recommends that, in order to identify any previously unidentified cultural resources, an archaeological monitor should be in place for ground -disturbing activities. Mitigation Measure MM B-2 provides that a qualified professional archaeologist shall monitor all ground disturbing activities of the Project. If a unique archaeological resource were to be discovered during construction of the Project, adherence to regulatory requirements, and the ceasing of all ground disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist has evaluated the find in accordance with federal, State, and local guidelines would ensure that potentially significant impacts would not result. Therefore, impacts on archaeological resources would be less than significant. (2) Human Remains. No known human burials have been identified on the Project Site or in recorded resources located within one-half mile of the Project Site. The Project would require excavation to potential depth of 15 feet below the existing grade to construct the subterranean parking level and foundation elements of the Project. As such, it is possible that human remains could be discovered during construction activities. Since human remains could be located subsurface, impacts to these resources would be unknown until encountered during excavation. Mitigation Measure MM B-2 provides that a qualified professional archaeologist shall monitor all ground disturbing activities of the Project. If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during construction demolition and/or Page 30 114 grading activities, compliance with regulatory requirements would ensure that significant impacts do not result. Therefore, impacts on human remains would be less than significant. (3) Cumulative Impacts. The study area for cumulative impacts to archaeological resource and human remains are the extent of the related project sites (as listed in Section III, Environmental Setting of the EIR). In this area, Project construction activities could disturb or destroy previously unknown archaeological resources and, thereby, contribute to the progressive loss of these resources, or may discover previously unknown human remains. Development of the related projects could have impacts if archaeological resources and/or human remains were found during construction activities. However, it is unknown whether or not significant archaeological resources and/or human remains will be found. The potential for an individual project to affect significant archaeological resources and/or human remains is unknown, but given the number of related projects, it is possible that development of the related projects could have impacts on significant archaeological resources as well as human remains. However, similar to Project, it is reasonably anticipated that the related projects would comply with the existing regulatory requirement related to the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources at a project site, and the existing State law related to discovery of human remains. Certain related projects may also be required to incorporate mitigation measures if there is a high potential for such resources to occur at that site in order to minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible. Compliance with existing regulatory requirements and Mitigation Measure MM B-2 related to archaeological resources or human remains would avoid Project -related impacts. The existing regulatory requirement related to archaeological resources includes monitoring, treatment of any discovered cultural resources, preparation of a final report, and curation of discovered materials in an approved facility. The existing regulatory requirement related to discovery of human remains includes halting work at the site and immediately contacting the coroner. With compliance with the existing regulations and Mitigation Measure MM B-2, Project impacts to archaeological resources would not be cumulatively considerable, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. b) Mitigation: Mitigation Measure MM B-2, as set forth in the EIR and MMRP. c) Finding The City Council finds that Mitigation Measure MM B-2 will be imposed as a condition of approval which will avoid or substantially lessen the archaeological resources and human remains impacts to a less than significant level. Greenhouse Gas Emissions a) Facts/Effects: (1) Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Conflict with Applicable Plan. The Project's mitigated Project -Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions, at a level of 3.55 Million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (MTCO2e/SP/year), do not exceed the tier 4 SCAQMD 2020 Target Service Population Threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year and is in compliance with the Page 31 115 reduction goals of the City of EI Segundo CAP, AB -32 and SB -32. Furthermore, the Project will comply with applicable Green Building Standards and City of EI Segundo's policies regarding sustainability (as dictated by the City's General Plan and Climate Action Plan). Therefore, with incorporation of MM D-1 through MM D-4, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and impacts are considered to be less than significant. (2) Cumulative Impacts. Emitting greenhouse gas (GHGs) into the atmosphere is not itself and adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change; the consequences of which may result in adverse environmental effects. The State has mandated a goal of reducing Statewide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, even though Statewide population and commerce is expected to grow substantially. Currently, there are no applicable CARB, SCAQMD, or City of EI Segundo quantitative significance thresholds at the project or cumulative levels. Therefore, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064h(3), the City, as lead agency, has determined that the Project's contribution to cumulative GHG emissions and global climate change would be less than significant if the Project is consistent with the applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions: Climate Change Scoping Plan, 2016 RTP/SCS, and the Green Building Standards. All projects in the state and City, which include the related projects, are subject to policies and regulations which work to achieve the state's GHG reduction goals, and include state and local green building standards, along with other statewide programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, such as mobile source emissions reductions, fuel standards, and conversion of electricity generation from carbon fuel sources to renewable sources. For these reasons, and since the Project is consistent with GHG reduction goals and policies, the contribution of the Project to the cumulative effect of global climate change is not considered to be cumulatively considerable. b) Mitigation: Mitigation Measures MM D-1, MM D-2, MM D-3, and MM D-4, as set forth in the EIR and MMRP. c) Finding: The City Council finds that Mitigation Measures MM D-1, MM D-2, MM D-3, and MM D-4 will be imposed as a condition of approval which will avoid or substantially lessen the air quality impacts to a less than significant level. Hazards and Hazardous Materials a) Facts/Effects: (1) Hazardous Release. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) noted that all structures have been removed from the existing Project Site, and no asbestos or asbestos - containing materials (ACMs) were found in the soil. Therefore, the potential for the presence of asbestos or ACMs to be located in the soil of the Project Site is considered to be low. However, based on these investigations, on-site soil was found to be impacted with Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), lead, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). An investigation report and remedial action workplan was prepared on behalf of Air Products Page 32 116 and Chemicals and submitted to the RWQCB, and 504 cubic yards of impacted soil was reportedly excavated and disposed off-site as non -hazardous waste at Azusa Land Reclamation, Azusa, California. Based on the data collected and work performed by Air Products and Chemicals, the RWQCB issued a NFA determination for soil on August 31, 2017. Thus impacts from the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant. There is a Standard Oil Company and Standard Gasoline Company pipe line easement located along the Project Site frontage. The easement includes an existing 3" Chevron oil line and an existing 4" Chevron oil line. Furthermore, there is an easement that runs along the backside of the Project Site, parallel with the railroad tracks. This easement contains a 16" crude oil pipeline for the Four Corners Pipe Line company and was recorded on March 21, 1958. Thus, excavation of the Project could result in the accidental release of oil from one of the pipelines, which would result in potentially significant impacts. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM E-1, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Routine cleaning supplies used on the Project Site during operations could contain hazardous materials. However, usage of these supplies is subject to county, State, and federal requirements to minimize exposure to people and to ensure safe use, storage, and disposal of any chemicals, including common cleaning and maintenance materials. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure that routine cleaning solvents would not pose a risk from hazardous materials. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. u Cumulative Impacts. The geographical scope of the cumulative hazards and hazardous materials analysis is the Project vicinity. Adverse effects of hazards and hazardous materials tend to be localized; therefore, the area near the Project Site would be most affected by project activities (generally within a 500 -foot radius). Development of the Project in conjunction with the development of the related projects has the potential to increase the risk for accidental release of hazardous materials. The nearest related projects to the Project Site include related project numbers 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 26, 33, 35, and 36. These related projects in combination with the Project would intensify the land usage in the immediate project area. However, mitigation measure MM E-1 would reduce the potential impacts associated with the Project to a less than significant level. Furthermore, each of the related projects would require evaluation for potential threats to public safety, including those associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment during construction and operation, transport/use/disposal of hazardous materials, and hazards to sensitive receptors (including schools). Because hazardous materials and risk of upset conditions are largely site-specific, this would occur on a case-by-case basis for each individual project affected, in conjunction with the development proposals on these properties. In addition, each related project would be required to follow local, State, and federal laws regarding hazardous materials. With mitigation, the Project would have less than significant impacts. Therefore, the Project, in conjunction with the related projects and other planned and/or approved projects, would not have a cumulatively considerable impact on hazards and hazardous materials, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Page 33 117 b) Mitigation: Mitigation Measures MM E-1, as set forth in the EIR and MMRP. c) Finding: The City Council finds that Mitigation Measure MM E-1, will be imposed as a condition of approval which will avoid or substantially lessen the hazard and hazardous materials impacts to a less than significant level. Hvdrolopv and Water Qualitv a) Facts/Effects: (1) Violate Water Qualitv Standards or Waste Discharee Requirements. The Project would be subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit. Through compliance with NPDES requirements, the Project would be required to comply with the Los Angeles County M54 Permit, which controls the quality of runoff entering municipal storm drains in the County. In accordance with these requirements, a SWPPP would be developed and implemented during Project construction, and an Erosion Control Plan (under the SWPPP) that specifies BMPs and erosion control measures to be used during construction to manage runoff flows and prevent pollution. Furthermore, construction of the Project would not result in discharges that would cause regulatory standards to be violated. With the compliance of the regulatory requirements and implementation of BMPs, and Mitigation Measures MM F-1 through MM F-6, construction -related impacts to surface water quality would be reduced to a level of less than significant. However, groundwater depths in the vicinity of the Project Site range from 62 to 78 feet bgs, and the historically highest groundwater level on the Project Site is on the order of 40 feet below ground surface (bgs). Excavation for the Project would reach a depth of 15 feet bgs and it is, therefore, not expected that groundwater would be encountered during construction that would require either temporary or permanent dewatering operations. The Project would not result in any substantial increase in groundwater contamination through hazardous materials releases. Accordingly, impacts on groundwater quality would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required. As the Project would manage, capture, and treat runoff as required through regulatory compliance and project design features (PDFs), implementation of the Project would represent an improvement in water quality from the existing condition as runoff currently sheet flows untreated to the drainage system. With compliance with regulatory requirements and PDFs incorporating BMPs, and a project -specific SUSMP, and Mitigation Measures MM F-1 through MM F-6, operation -related surface water quality impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Operation of the Project would not require extraction from the groundwater supply based on the depth of excavation for the proposed uses and the depth of groundwater below the Project Site. Therefore, impacts on groundwater quality would be less than significant. (2) Cumulative inioacts. The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis on surface water hydrology and water quality impacts is the Dominquez Channel and Los Angeles Harbor Watersheds which are located in the southern portion of the Los Angeles Basin. The Project, in conjunction with the future development of the 37 related projects, could Page 34 118 affect the amount, the rate, the velocity, and the quality of runoff within their respective local drainage areas. Whether the effects would be beneficial or adverse depends on a number of factors including the amount of pervious/impervious surfaces that would change, the duration of the construction period, the drainage improvements and BMPs that would be incorporated into the design, etc., for each of those projects. The nearest related projects include related project numbers 14, 17, 19, 20, 21, 26, 33, 35, and 36. However, similar to the Project, the related projects would be subject to NPDES permit requirements for both construction and operation, including development ofSWPPPs, compliance with SUSMP requirements during operation, and compliance with other local requirements pertaining to hydrology and surface water quality. Each of the related projects would be required to undergo a preliminary review by the City to determine what, if any, drainage improvements and BMPs would be required to ensure that the storm drain capacity of the system serving each of the related projects is adequate, that no downstream flooding would occur as a result of exceedance of storm drain capacity, and that no significant water quality issues would result. Thus, cumulative construction impacts that may result from concurrent construction of the Project and the related projects, particularly those nearest to the Project Site, would be less than significant through the regulatory requirements of the City's planning permit review processes, which would address potential hydrologic and water quality issues prior to issuance of permits on a project -by -project basis. In addition, with implementation of the regulatory requirements, PDFs, and mitigation measures, the Project would not result in any significant hydrology or water quality impacts. Therefore, the Project would not have a cumulatively considerable contribution to hydrology and water quality impacts, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. The geographic scope of the cumulative impact analysis on groundwater level and quality is the Gage Aquifer. The Project in conjunction with forecasted growth above the Gage Aquifer could cumulatively increase groundwater demand. Grading is expected to consist of excavations as deep as 15 feet bgs for the construction of the proposed subterranean parking level, foundation elements, and removal and recompaction of existing unsuitable soils for the at -grade portion of the Project. Groundwater depths in the vicinity of the Project Site range from 62 to 78 feet bgs, and the historically highest groundwater level on the Project site is on the order of 40 feet bgs. Excavation for the Project would reach a depth of 15 feet bgs and it is, therefore, not expected that groundwater would be encountered during construction Development of the related projects could result in changes in impervious surface area within their respective project sites. However, the related projects would be subject to review and approval pursuant to all applicable regulatory requirements, including any required mitigation of potential groundwater hydrology impacts. In addition, as the related projects are located in an urban area, any potential reduction in groundwater recharge due to the overall net change in impervious area within the area encompassed by the related project sites would be minimal in the context of the regional groundwater basin and, thus, would not result in a significant cumulative effect to groundwater hydrology and cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Future growth in the vicinity of the Project Site would be subject to LARWQCB requirements relating to groundwater quality. In addition, since the Project Site is located in an urban area, future land use changes or development are not likely to cause substantial changes in regional groundwater quality. The Project would not have a Page 35 119 significant impact on groundwater quality. Also, it is anticipated that, like the Project, other future development projects would also be subject to LARWQCB requirements and implementation of measures to comply with total maximum daily loads in addition to requirements of California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4, Chapter 15 and the Safe Drinking Water Act. Therefore, based on the fact that the Project does not have an adverse impact on groundwater quality and through compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations, cumulative impacts to groundwater quality would be less than significant. b) Mitigation: Mitigation Measures MM F-1, MM F-2, MM F-3, MM F-4, MM F-5, and MM F-6, as set forth in the EIR and MMRP. c) Finding: The City Council finds that Mitigation Measures MM F-1, MM F-2, MM F-3, MM F-4, MM F-5, and MM F-6 will be imposed as a condition of approval which will avoid or substantially lessen the hydrology and water quality impacts to a less than significant level. Tribal Cultural Resources a) Facts/Effects: (1) Tribal Cultural Resources. The City commenced tribal notification for this Project in accordance with AB 52 on November 7, 2017, via a mailing to tribal representatives of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation, the only tribe which had requested notification of projects within the area including the Project Site. Consultation under AB 52 with the Gabrielen"o Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation formally concluded on January 30, 2018. Based on the records search conducted for the Project and documentation/information provided by Mr. Andrew Salas, on behalf of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation, the Project Site is considered sensitive for potential tribal cultural resources. Project grading activities may encounter these resources and impacts may be potentially significant. With the implementation of MM L- 1, which would provide for Native American Monitor during Project grading and excavation activities, impacts on tribal resources would be reduced to less than significant. (2) Cumulative Impacts. The study area for cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources is the extent of the geographic area with which the identified tribes are traditionally and culturally affiliated. Although the Project Site is located near tribal lands, villages, L.A. Salt Works and Salt Pond, and the Old Salt Road trade route, the Project Site does not contain any known tribal cultural resources, nor did search results by SCCIC, provide substantial evidence as to the presence of tribal cultural resources on the Project Site. However, the Project Site is considered sensitive for potential tribal cultural resources. Projects within this area requiring the preparation of an IS/ND, IS/MND, or EIR are subject to the requirements of AB 52, which includes notifying tribes to solicit consultation and to analyze potential impact of tribal cultural resources. Compliance with existing regulatory measures safeguarding tribal cultural resources would ensure potential impacts from inadvertent discovery would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. Any project sites that contain tribal cultural resources would be required to comply with regulations and/or safeguard mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to the greatest extent Page 36 120 feasible. Nonetheless, as impacts related to tribal cultural resources within the Project Site would be less than significant, the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact. b) Mitigation: Mitigation Measure MM L-1, as set forth in the EIR and MMRP. c) Finding: The City Council finds that Mitigation Measure MM L-1 will be imposed as a condition of approval which will avoid or substantially lessen the tribal cultural resource impact to a less than significant level. E. Significant Unavoidable Effects that Cannot be Mitigated to a Level of Insignificance. The City Council finds that the following environmental effects were identified as Significant and Unavoidable in the FEIR. Implementation of the identified mitigation measures would lessen the potential environmental effects to the extent feasible but not below a level of significance. Poqulation. Housing and Employment a) Facts/Effects: (1) Cumulative Impacts. The geographic scope of the cumulative employment analysis is the City of EI Segundo. Table IV.I-3 of the EIR presents the estimated increase in employment, housing, and population associated with the 37 related projects identified in Section III, Environmental Setting, of the EIR. As shown in Table IV.I-3 of the EIR, the Project in conjunction with the related projects would result in an increase in employment of approximately 15,709 jobs, an increase of 77 residential units and a population increase of 196 people. Employment projections contained in the SCAG forecasts are based upon land uses designated in the General Plan. The related projects and other potential development projects that may occur throughout the City of EI Segundo are expected to be largely consistent with their respective General Plan land use designations. According to projections extrapolated from the adopted 2016 growth forecast, the City is projected to increase in employment opportunities by approximately 3,700 jobs from 2012 to 2020 (8.8 percent growth) and increase by approximately 7,000 jobs from 2012 to 2040 (15.4 percent growth). Implementation of the Project in conjunction with the various related projects identified in Section III, Environmental Setting of the EIR, would further increase employment opportunities in the City of EI Segundo and surrounding areas. As indicated in Table IV.I-3 of the EIR, the Project in conjunction with the related projects would cumulatively generate approximately 15,680 new jobs. Job growth is considered a beneficial effect, and while the project's incremental contribution to regional job growth would be considered cumulatively considerable, such job growth would not be considered an adverse cumulative impact, as discussed below. Based upon the foregoing, SCAG employment forecasts clearly underestimate the potential employment growth in the City of EI Segundo, and to a lesser extent, in the South Bay Cities Subregion as well. While the provision of employment is generally considered a beneficial effect of a project, this discrepancy in employment forecasts may adversely affect SCAG's regional planning efforts. SCAG's regional forecast "maintains the Page 37 121 balance between employment, population, and households due to their interrelationship, assuming that employment growth is a driving force of regional population and household growth". To the extent that employment forecasts are used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies, underestimates of future employment in the City of EI Segundo and the South Bay Cities Subregion may hinder planning for the timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems. However, the Regional Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed, and those sections that are found to be out of date are to be updated as needed. Furthermore, SCAG utilizes the "employment -population -household (EPH) forecast framework which is the basis for developing the regional growth forecast for the SCAG region". Therefore, the self- correcting nature of the forecasts would ensure that ongoing infrastructure planning efforts will remain consistent with regional growth trends. In addition, as discussed in Section IV.G of the EIR, Land Use and Planning, the Project would be consistent with the applicable City of EI Segundo General Plan policies and would not include inappropriate uses for the Project Site nor would any inconsistency regarding cumulative growth occur. Based upon this consistency, the Project and other cumulative growth within the City of EI Segundo have been accounted for in the City's long range planning. Furthermore, because SCAG's regional planning incorporates the City of EI Segundo's General Plan into its growth forecasts, this cumulative growth may be deemed consistent with SCAG's forecasts and growth policies. Therefore, no significant impacts to the City of EI Segundo (or to SCAG's regional planning) due to cumulative employment growth are anticipated. The employment generated by the Project in conjunction with the related projects would have the potential to increase the resident population in the City of EI Segundo, the South Bay Cities Subregion and surrounding areas, and consequently, the City and subregional demand for housing. As can be seen from Table IV.I-1 in the EIR, both population and employment in the City and South Bay Cities Subregion and surrounding area are expected to rise faster than housing between the years 2012 and 2040. This suggests that housing availability will become increasingly tight, and the average number of residents per dwelling can be expected to increase. A review of the related projects listed in Table IV.I-3 of the EIR, confirms the projections for slow housing growth in the region; only 77 new housing units are currently proposed. In addition, approximately 15,680 jobs would be created by the same list of cumulative projects. However, between 2015 and 2040, the number of households in the South Bay Cities Subregion will increase by 23,532 households. Based on the substantial disparity between projected job growth and housing construction locally, it is concluded that there will be a significant cumulative impact on population growth and housing demand. However, because the type of jobs that would be generated by the Project are of a similar nature to jobs found in the area, the Project would not likely result in the relocation and addition of permanent residents to fill the jobs generated by the Project, the incremental contribution of the Project would not contribute substantially to this significant impact. b) Mitigation: No Project -level impacts related to population, housing, and employment have been identified, therefore no mitigation measures are required. There are no available mitigation Page 38 122 measures to address the incremental contribution of the Project to the significant cumulative impact related to population growth and housing demand. c) Finding; The cumulative city and regional population and housing demand impacts of the Project cannot be mitigated below the threshold of significance. Transportation, Traffic and Parkinp, a) Facts/Effects: (1) Conflict With an Applicable Plan Operation. As shown in Table IV.K-6 and Table IV.K-7 of the EIR, after applying the aforementioned significant impact criteria for the different jurisdictions, it is determined that the Project would result in significant impacts under Existing plus Project conditions at seven of the study intersections during the AM and/or the PM peak periods. The Project results in significant impacts at the following seven intersections: 12. Douglas Street & Park Place (PM) 14. Sepulveda Boulevard & Rosecrans Avenue (AM) 20. Aviation Boulevard & Rosecrans Avenue (AM and PM) 21. Isis Avenue & Rosecrans Avenue (AM) 22. Hindry Avenue & Rosecrans Avenue (PM) 24. Northbound 1-405 On -/Off -Ramp & Rosecrans Avenue (AM) 30. Aviation Boulevard & Marine Avenue (AM) None of the other study intersections would be significantly impacted under Existing plus Project conditions. As shown in Table IV.K-10 and Table IV.K-11 of the EIR, after applying the aforementioned significant impact criteria for the different jurisdictions, it is determined that the Proposed Project would result in significant impacts under Future (year 2020) plus Project conditions at six of the 34 study intersections during the AM or the PM peak periods. The significant impacts are found at the following intersections: 12. Douglas Street & Park Place (AM and PM) 20. Aviation Boulevard & Rosecrans Avenue (AM and PM) 21. Isis Avenue & Rosecrans Avenue (AM) 22. Hindry Avenue & Rosecrans Avenue (AM and PM) 24.1-405 Northbound On -/Off -Ramp & Rosecrans Avenue (AM) 30. Aviation Boulevard & Marine Avenue (AM) None of the other intersections would be significantly impacted under Future plus Project conditions for the proposed Project. Page 39 123 Intersection 12. Douglas Street & Park Place. The Mitigation Measure MM K-3 would mitigate the significant impact under Existing and Future plus Project conditions. Installation of the signal would require approval from the City of EI Segundo. Intersection 21. Isis Avenue & Rosecrans Avenue. The Mitigation Measure MM K-4 would require the approval of the City of Hawthorne. With approval from the City of Hawthorne, the measure would mitigate the significant impact under Existing and Future plus Project conditions. Intersection 24.1-405 Northbound On -/Off -Ramps & Rosecrans Avenue. The Mitigation Measure MM K-5 would require approval by Caltrans. With the approval of Caltrans, the measure would mitigate the significant impact under Existing and Future plus Project conditions. Due to physical constraints or potential secondary impacts, mitigation measures to the following intersections have been determined by to be infeasible. Thus, impacts on these intersections remain significant and unavoidable. Intersection 14. Sepulveda Boulevard & Rosecrans Avenue. This mitigation would involve restriping the northbound lane from two left, four through, and one right to two left, four through, and one through right. This would require the northern portion of the intersection to be restriped to create an additional receiving through lane. However, restriping the northern portion will create an offset of approximately 10 feet for the northbound and southbound travel lanes making this mitigation infeasible. Since this measure is infeasible, the impact under Existing plus Project conditions would be considered significant and unavoidable. Since this measure is infeasible, the impact under Existing plus Project conditions would be considered significant and unavoidable. Intersection 20. Aviation Boulevard & Rosecrans Avenue. This mitigation would involve adding capacity to the westbound lanes from two left, four through, and one right to two left, five through, and one right. The western portion of the intersection would have to be widened to accommodate the additional through lanes. There is no right of way available to widen the road, therefore this mitigation has been deemed infeasible. Since this measure is infeasible, the impact under Existing and Future plus Project conditions would be considered significant and unavoidable. Intersection 22. Hindry Avenue & Rosecrans Avenue. This mitigation would involve adding capacity to the westbound lanes from two left, three through, and one shared through right to two left, four through, and one shared through right. The western portion of the intersection would have to be widened to add an additional receiving lane for the westbound through movements. There is no right of way available to widen the road, therefore this mitigation has been deemed infeasible. Since this measure is infeasible, the impact under Future plus Project conditions would be considered significant and unavoidable. Intersection 30. Aviation Boulevard & Marine Avenue. This mitigation would involve adding capacity to the northbound lanes from two left, two through, and one shared through/right to two left, three through, and one shared through/right. The northern portion of the intersection would have to be widened for an additional receiving lane. There is no right of way available to widen the road, therefore this mitigation has been Page 40 124 deemed infeasible. Since this measure is infeasible, the impact under Existing plus Project conditions would be considered significant and unavoidable. (2) Vehicular Access. Vehicular access to the Project Site is proposed to be provided by three driveways along two streets, Rosecrans Avenue and Nash Street. These driveways may be gated to create a secure campus for the Beach Cities Media Campus Project. Driveway 1, along Rosecrans Avenue, is proposed as a full -access entrance and exit allowing vehicular movements in and out of the Project Site from all directions. Driveway 2 will be right-in/right-out for vehicles traveling westbound on Rosecrans Avenue. Driveway 3 is an entrance and exit off the Nash Street & Park Place stop -controlled intersection. All three driveways are proposed as unsignalized. As a result, a majority of the traffic traveling eastbound from the Project Site will use Driveway 3 due to its proximity to the signalized Rosecrans Avenue & Nash Street intersection, which allows for protected and controlled turning movements. There are not really LOS standards for driveways, however, the EIR did identify the driveway as significant and unavoidable impact. Two of the three driveways are projected to operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) under Existing plus Project (2017) and Future plus Project (2020) conditions. Driveway 1 is projected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak period under both Existing and Future plus Project scenarios and LOS E in the AM peak period under the Future plus Project scenario. With the implementation of MM K-2, which proposes for Driveway 1 to become a signalized access point for the Project, the intersection would remain full access, but the installation of a signal would allow for more controlled and efficient movements. It is proposed that the installation of the signal would not only provide better access to the Beach Cities Media Campus, but also to the Kinecta Federal Credit Union business center to the south of the Project Site. The driveway into and out of the Kinecta Federal Credit Union parking lot would be repositioned to align with Driveway 1 and become the southern leg of the intersection. The signal being proposed for Driveway 1 would include a protected left turn phase into the Project Site from the eastbound direction. Southbound access out of the site would include a left -only turning lane, and a shared through/right lane. This similar configuration would be used for the northbound movements, which would share the same signal phase and have permissive left turns. The LOS was rerun with the implementation of a signal at Driveway 1 and the resulting shift in project trips leaving and entering the site. Thus, with the implementation of the mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. To the extent that these mitigation measures are not approved or adopted by relevant jurisdictions, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (3) Cumulative Impacts. A total of 37 related development projects have been identified in the Project area. Although these projects are in varying stages of development (proposed, planned, approved, or under construction), and many may not ultimately be constructed there likely would be some overlap of construction activities between the projects. The 37 related projects are dispersed throughout the Project area. Although the Project would result in less -than -significant construction -related traffic impacts, cumulative construction impacts would be significant and unavoidable due to the potential for concurrent and/or overlapping construction activities of the related projects and the Project. The Project's contribution to this significant cumulative impact would be cumulatively considerable. Page 41 125 The growth in traffic due to the combined effects of continuing development, intensification of development, and related projects in conjunction with the Project is incorporated into the traffic impacts analysis above. In combination with the traffic of related projects, the increased traffic generated by the Project would result in significant cumulative impacts, as shown in Table IV.K-10 and IV.K-11 of the EIR. The Project's contribution to this significant cumulative impact would be cumulatively considerable. b) Mitigation; Mitigation Measure MM K-1, MM K-2, MM K-3, MM K-4, and MM K-5, as set forth in the EIR and MMRP. c) Finding: The City Council finds that after applying the mitigation measures, a total of four significant and unavoidable impacts would remain in Existing plus Project and a total of three significant and unavoidable impacts would remain in Future plus Project, and cumulative construction traffic. The traffic impacts of the Project cannot be mitigated below the threshold of significance. F. Growth Inducing Impacts. The City Council finds on the basis of the FEIR and the record of proceedings in this matter that there are no significant growth inducing impacts. G. Alternatives To The Project G.1 Alternatives Considered but Rejected as Infeasible a) Description: In accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(c), an EIR should identify any alternatives that were considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the reasons for their rejection. According to the CEQA Guidelines, among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration are the alternative's failures to meet most of the basic project objectives, the alternative's infeasibility, or the alternative's inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. One Alternative was considered and rejected, an Alternative Sites Alternative. G.2 Alternative Sites a) Description Alternate sites within the City of EI Segundo were considered for development of the Project. Such sites would need to be large enough to accommodate the proposed studio facilities and commercial uses (6.39 acres or greater), and be undeveloped or underdeveloped (e.g. surface parking lot). Very few sites within the City of EI Segundo are large enough to accommodate the Project and even fewer lie within the Transit Adjacent Zone. Alternate locations in the City may also be constrained (e.g., presence of historic resources, hazardous material site, etc.) in ways that would not permit the development of the Project with fewer potential impacts. Furthermore, because of their locations within the City, the overall traffic impacts of developing the Project on these sites would be comparable to the Project. Because these locations are constrained in ways that would not permit the development of the Project with fewer potential impacts, and the alternate sites are not under the control of the project applicant and are not currently available for development, alternate Page 42 126 locations in City were determined not to be viable. Therefore, these sites were discarded from further consideration. G.3 Project Alternatives 1. Alternative 1: No Proiect Alternative a) Description: CEQA requires the alternatives analysis to include a No Project Alternative. The purpose of analyzing a No Project Alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the Project with the impacts of not approving the Project (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(1)). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2): The "no project" analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans, and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. In the event the Project is not approved, it is expected that the Project Site would remain in its current condition and no new development would occur for the foreseeable future. The existing vacant lot, totaling approximately 6.39 -acres, would remain. The No Project Alternative assumes the development of the related projects listed in Section III. (Environmental Setting) of the EIR. The potential environmental impacts associated with the No Project Alternative are compared to the environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of the Project, as described in Section IV of the EIR. The No Project Alternative would avoid the Project's significant and unavoidable impacts regarding Population, Housing and Employment cumulative impacts, Transportation, Traffic and Parking intersections, and Transportation, Traffic and Parking cumulative construction because no construction would occur on the Project Site. b) Finding: The City Council finds that the No Project Alternative would not attain the Project's basic objectives. It would not contribute to the Project's objective to create job opportunities or increase the City's economic base. However, the No Project Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable Project -related impacts because no new development would occur on the Project Site. 2. Alternative 2: Reduced Proiect a) Description: Under Alternative 2, Reduced Project, the Project would be reduced by approximately 33 percent. This would result in the construction of a mixed use project with approximately 160,800 sf office uses, 44,220 sf of studio and production facilities, and 4,690 sf of retail uses, as shown in Table VI -1, Alternative 2 Reduced Project of the EIR. The office, studio and retail uses would be provided in three separate buildings. Development of this Alternative also includes the construction of an approximately five -story parking structure with 656 parking spaces. Page 43 127 The design and configuration of this alternative would be similar to the Project. The main difference would be the total square footage and building height, resulting in a mixed-use development with approximately 67 percent of the mass of the Project. Alternative 2 assumes the development of the related projects listed in Section III. Environmental Setting of the EIR. The potential environmental impacts associated with the Alternative 2 are compared to the environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of the Project, as described in Section IV (Environmental Impact Analysis) of the EIR. b) Finding; The City Council finds that the Reduced Project Alternative would mostly satisfy the Project Objectives, as listed in Section II (Project Description) of the EIR, although to a lesser degree than the Project. The Reduced Project Alternative would reduce, but not avoid the significant and unavoidable Project -related impacts. However, the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Alternative would be lower than the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project. Furthermore, the reduction in size makes the Project infeasible because it eliminates economies of scale, resulting in unachievable pricing, reduces the attractiveness of the project to large users, and results in a building scale which is not compatible with the adjacent buildings in Continental Park. The reduction in size would also reduce the ability to provide for on-site amenities that would allow trip reductions. 3. Alternative 3: Mixed Use Alternative with Studio and Production Facilities a) Description: Alternative 3: Mixed Use Alternative with Studio and Production Facilities, is the same as Alternative 1, described in the Traffic Report, as shown below. • Alternative 1 - 25,000 square feet of retail space, 100,000 square feet of general office space, and 188,000 square feet of studio and production facilities. Alternative 3, Mixed Use Alternative with Studio and Production Facilities, would develop the Project Site with the following uses: up to 25,000 square feet of retail space, up to 100,000 square feet of general office space with an option to incorporate a roof deck, up to 188,000 square feet of studio and production facilities, and a parking structure, as shown in Table VI - 6 Alternative 3 Mixed Use Alternative with Studio and Production Facilities of the EIR. No buildings on the Project Site would exceed 140 feet in height. Parking would be in an amount which meets the EI Segundo Municipal Code and would be located in a combination of surface parking, underground parking, and a parking structure. As shown in Figure VI -1, Alternative 3 of the EIR, access to the Project Site would be similar to the Project and would be provided by three driveways. Two entry/exit driveways would be located on Rosecrans Avenue and one driveway to the Project Site would be accessed through the rear of the existing adjacent commercial property to the east that provides access to South Nash Street. Alternative 3 assumes the development of the related projects listed in Section III. Environmental Setting. The potential environmental impacts associated with the Alternative 3 are compared to the environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of the Project, as described in Section IV (Environmental Impact Analysis) of the EIR. Except where otherwise indicated, mitigation measures identified for the Project are also applicable to the Alternative. Page 44 128 b) Finding: The City Council finds that the Mixed Use Alternative with Studio and Production Facilities would have similar impacts to the Project and would mostly satisfy the following Project Objectives, as listed in Section II (Project Description) of the EIR: • To obtain a change in the General Plan and zoning designation to allow development of an economically viable project for the Project Applicant by increasing the diversity of business that can locate on the Project Site. • To create a development that would be compatible with and complementary to adjacent land uses in the Continental Park Development, Plaza EI Segundo, and The Point. ■ To create the opportunity to develop new uses such as state-of-the-art facilities for entertainment production, studio facilities, office and corporate headquarter space for major technology and entertainment companies. • To reduce VMT and pollution emission, and maximize the public investment in transit by developing an under-utilized site adjacent to several bus lines. • To create economic vitality in the City of EI Segundo by creating construction jobs and permanent full-time on-site jobs. • To generate significant local and regional revenues through business, property, and sales tax revenues. • To obtain vested rights to develop the Project Site under the Mixed Use South zoning in exchange for a limit on the number of peak vehicle trips that may occur. The Mixed Use Alternative with Studio and Production Facilities would satisfy the following project objectives to a lesser degree than the Project: ■ To stabilize and improve the City's tax base by providing new businesses and services and by providing an employee base that could help support adjacent retail uses and restaurants which further stabilizes the City's tax base. Comparatively, the Mixed Use Alternative with Studio and Production Facilities would reduce, but not avoid the significant and unavoidable Project -related traffic impacts and would have the same impacts with relation to housing growth. Specifically, Alternative 3 would result in three fewer significantly impacted intersections before mitigation for the Existing plus Project scenario, and two fewer significant impacted intersections before mitigation under Future plus Project conditions. After mitigation, the Alternative would have one less significant and unavoidable impact compared to the Proposed Project mitigation for both the Existing plus Project and Future plus Project conditions. Although the Alternative may reduce the LOS impacts at two of the studied intersections, the difference is pretty insignificant and, therefore, the Alternative does not substantially lessen any significant impact. Thus, impacts would be less than the Projects' significant and unavoidable impacts on traffic. 4. Alternative 4: Mixed Use Alternative with Research Development a) Descrimion: Alternative 4: Mixed Use Alternative with Research and Development, is the same as Alternative 2 in the Traffic Report, as shown below. Page 45 129 Alternative 2 - 100,000 square feet of research and development, 10,000 square feet of retail, and 100,040 square feet of creative office space. Alternative 4, Mixed Use Alternative with Research and Development, would develop the Project Site with the following uses: up to 100,000 square feet of research and development space, up to 10,000 square feet of retail space, up to 100,040 square feet of creative office space with an option to incorporate a roof deck, and a parking structure as shown in Table VI - 28, Alternative 4 Mixed Use Alternative with Research and Development of the EIR. No buildings on the Project Site would exceed 140 feet in height. Parking would be in an amount which meets the EI Segundo Municipal Code and would be located in a combination of surface parking, underground parking, and a parking structure. As shown in Figure VI -2, Alternative 4 of the EIR, access to the Project Site would be similar to the Project and would be provided by three driveways. Two entry/exit driveways would be located on Rosecrans Avenue and one driveway to the Project Site would be accessed through the rear of the existing adjacent commercial property to the east that provides access to South Nash Street. Alternative 4 assumes the development of the related projects listed in Section III. Environmental Setting of the EIR. The potential environmental impacts associated with the Alternative 4 are compared to the environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of the Project, as described in Section IV (Environmental Impact Analysis) of the EIR. Except where otherwise indicated, mitigation measures identified for the Project are also applicable to the Alternative. b) Finding. The City Council finds that the Mixed Use Alternative with Research and Development would have lower impacts than the Project. The Mixed Use Alternative with Research and Development would achieve the following Project Objectives, as listed in Section II (Project Description) of the EIR, to a similar degree as the Project. • To obtain a change in the General Plan and zoning designation to allow development of an economically viable project for the Project Applicant by increasing the diversity of business that can locate on the Project Site. • To create a development that would be compatible with and complementary to adjacent land uses in the Continental Park Development, Plaza EI Segundo, and The Point. • To create the opportunity to develop new uses such as state-of-the-art facilities for entertainment production, studio facilities, office and corporate headquarter space for major technology and entertainment companies. • To reduce VMT and pollution emission, and maximize the public investment in transit by developing an under-utilized site adjacent to several bus lines. • To create economic vitality in the City of EI Segundo by creating construction jobs and permanent full-time on-site jobs. To generate significant local and regional revenues through business, property, and sales tax revenues. ■ To obtain vested rights to develop the Project Site under the Mixed Use South zoning in exchange for a limit on the number of peak vehicle trips that may occur. Page 46 130 The Mixed Use Alternative with Research and Development would achieve the following Project Objectives, as listed in Section II (Project Description) of the EIR, to a lesser degree than the Project: • To stabilize and improve the City's tax base by providing new businesses and services and by providing an employee base that could help support adjacent retail uses and restaurants which further stabilizes the City's tax base. Comparatively, the Mixed Use Alternative with Research and Development would reduce, but not avoid the significant and unavoidable Project -related traffic impacts and would have the same impacts with relation to housing growth. Alternative 4 would result in three fewer significantly impacted intersections before mitigation for the Existing plus Project scenario, and two fewer significantly impacted intersections before mitigation for Future plus Project conditions. After mitigation, the Alternative would have one less significant and unavoidable impact compared to the Proposed Project mitigation for both the Existing plus Project and Future plus Project conditions. Although the Alternative may reduce the LOS impacts at two of the studied intersections, the difference is pretty insignificant and, therefore, the Alternative does not substantially lessen any significant impact. Thus, the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Alternative would be less than the significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project. 5. Alternative 5: All Creative Office Space Alternative a) Description: Alternative 5: All Creative Office Space Alternative is the same as Alternative 3 in the Traffic Report, as shown below. • Alternative 3 - 261,990 square feet of creative office space. Alternative 5, the Creative Office Space Alternative, would develop the Project Site with the following uses: up to 261,990 square feet of creative office space with an option to incorporate a roof deck and a parking structure as shown in Table VI -50, Alternative 5 Creative Office Space Alternative of the EIR. No buildings on the Project Site would exceed 140 feet in height. Parking would be in an amount which meets the EI Segundo Municipal Code and would be located in a combination of surface parking, underground parking, and a parking structure. As shown in Figure VI -3, Alternative 5 of the EIR, access to the Project Site would be similar to the Project and would be provided by three driveways. Two entry/exit driveways would be located on Rosecrans Avenue and one driveway to the Project Site would be accessed through the rear of the existing adjacent commercial property to the east that provides access to South Nash Street. Alternative 5 assumes the development of the related projects listed in Section III. Environmental Setting of the EIR. The potential environmental impacts associated with the Alternative 5 are compared to the environmental impacts that would result from the implementation of the Project, as described in Section IV (Environmental Impact Analysis) of the EIR. Except where otherwise indicated, mitigation measures identified for the Project are also applicable to the Alternative. Page 47 131 b) Finding: The Creative Office Space Alternative would have lower impacts than the Project. The Creative Office Space Alternative would achieve the following Project Objectives, as listed in Section II (Project Description) of the EIR, to a similar degree as the Project. • To obtain a change in the General Plan and zoning designation to allow development of an economically viable project for the Project Applicant by increasing the diversity of business that can locate on the Project Site. ■ To create a development that would be compatible with and complementary to adjacent land uses in the Continental Park Development, Plaza EI Segundo, and The Point. • To stabilize and improve the City's tax base by providing new businesses and services and by providing an employee base that could help support adjacent retail uses and restaurants which further stabilizes the City's tax base. • To reduce VMT and pollution emission, and maximize the public investment in transit by developing an under-utilized site adjacent to several bus lines. • To create economic vitality in the City of EI Segundo by creating construction jobs and permanent full-time on-site jobs. • To generate significant local and regional revenues through business, property, and sales tax revenues. • To obtain vested rights to develop the Project Site under the Mixed Use South zoning in exchange for a limit on the number of peak vehicle trips that may occur. The Creative Office Space Alternative would achieve the following Project Objectives, as listed in Section II (Project Description) of the EIR, to a lesser degree than the Project. ■ To create the opportunity to develop new uses such as state-of-the-art facilities for entertainment production, studio facilities, office and corporate headquarter space for major technology and entertainment companies. Comparatively, the Creative Office Space Alternative would be the same as the significant and unavoidable Project -related impacts. III. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council finds on the basis of the FEIR which includes the Draft EIR dated March 1, 2019, the Final EIR dated June _2019, and the entire administrative record for this matter, that the unavoidable significant impacts of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project as discussed in Section 11.1.E. above are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the Project. The City Council finds that the following environmental effects were identified as Significant and Unavoidable in the FEIR. Implementation of the identified mitigation measures would lessen the potential environmental effects to the extent feasible but not below a level of significance. Population, Housing, and Employment (City and regional population and housing demands), and Page 48 132 • Transportation, Traffic and Parking (After applying the mitigation measures, a total of four significant and unavoidable impacts would remain in Existing plus Project and a total of three significant and unavoidable impacts would remain in Future plus Project, and cumulative construction traffic. The traffic impacts of the Project cannot be mitigated below the threshold of significance). Population, Housinp- and Emplovment The geographic scope of the cumulative employment analysis is the City of EI Segundo. Table IV.I-3 of the EIR presents the estimated increase in employment, housing, and population associated with the 37 related projects identified in Section III, Environmental Setting, of the EIR. As shown in Table IV.I-3 of the EIR, the Project in conjunction with the related projects would result in an increase in employment of approximately 15,680 jobs, an increase of 77 residential units and a population increase of 196 people. Employment projections contained in the SCAG forecasts are based upon land uses designated in the General Plan. The related projects and other potential development projects that may occur throughout the City of EI Segundo are expected to be largely consistent with their respective General Plan land use designations. According to projections extrapolated from the adopted 2016 growth forecast, the City is projected to increase in employment opportunities by approximately 3,700 jobs from 2012 to 2020 (8.8 percent growth) and increase by approximately 7,000 jobs from 2012 to 2040 (15.4 percent growth). Implementation of the Project in conjunction with the various related projects identified in Section III, Environmental Setting of the EIR, would further increase employment opportunities in the City of EI Segundo and surrounding areas. As indicated in Table IV.I-3 of the EIR, the Project in conjunction with the related projects would cumulatively generate approximately 15,680 new jobs. Job growth is considered a beneficial effect, and while the project's incremental contribution to regional job growth would be considered cumulatively considerable, such job growth would not be considered an adverse cumulative impact, as discussed below. Based upon the foregoing, SCAG employment forecasts clearly underestimate the potential employment growth in the City of EI Segundo, and to a lesser extent, in the South Bay Cities Subregion as well. While the provision of employment is generally considered a beneficial effect of a project, this discrepancy in employment forecasts may adversely affect SCAG's regional planning efforts. SCAG's regional forecast "maintains the balance between employment, population, and households due to their interrelationship, assuming that employment growth is a driving force of regional population and household growth". To the extent that employment forecasts are used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies, underestimates of future employment in the City of EI Segundo and the South Bay Cities Subregion may hinder planning for the timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems. However, the Regional Comprehensive Plan is to be periodically reviewed, and those sections that are found to be out of date are to be updated as needed. Furthermore, SCAG utilizes the "employment -population -household (EPH) forecast framework which is the basis for developing the regional growth forecast for the SCAG region". Therefore, the self-correcting nature of the forecasts would ensure that ongoing infrastructure planning efforts will remain consistent with regional growth trends. In addition, as discussed in Section IV.G of the EIR, Land Use and Planning, the Project would be consistent with the applicable City of EI Segundo General Plan policies and would not include inappropriate uses for the Project Site nor would any inconsistency regarding cumulative growth occur. Based upon this consistency, the Project and other cumulative growth within the City of EI Segundo have been accounted for in the City's long range planning. Furthermore, because SCAG's regional planning incorporates the City of EI Segundo's General Plan into its growth forecasts, this cumulative growth may be deemed Page 49 133 consistent with SCAG's forecasts and growth policies. Therefore, no significant impacts to the City of EI Segundo (or to SCAG's regional planning) due to cumulative employment growth are anticipated. The employment generated by the Project in conjunction with the related projects would have the potential to increase the resident population in the City of EI Segundo, the South Bay Cities Subregion and surrounding areas, and consequently, the City and subregional demand for housing. As can be seen from Table IV.I-1 in the EIR, both population and employment in the City and South Bay Cities Subregion and surrounding area are expected to rise faster than housing between the years 2012 and 2040. This suggests that housing availability will become increasingly tight, and the average number of residents per dwelling can be expected to increase. A review of the related projects listed in Table IV.I-3 of the EIR, confirms the projections for slow housing growth in the region; only 77 new housing units are currently proposed. In addition, approximately 15,680 jobs would be created by the same list of cumulative projects. However, between 2015 and 2040, the number of households in the South Bay Cities Subregion will increase by 23,532 households. Based on the substantial disparity between projected job growth and housing construction locally, it is concluded that there will be a significant cumulative impact on population growth and housing demand. However, because the type of jobs that would be generated by the Project are of a similar nature to jobs found in the area, the Project would not likely result in the relocation and addition of permanent residents to fill the jobs generated by the Project, the incremental contribution of the Project would not contribute substantially to this significant impact. The cumulative city and regional population and housing demand impacts of the Project cannot be mitigated below the threshold of significance. Transportation. Traffic and Parking Conflict With an ADDlicable Plan ❑aeration. As shown in Table IV.K-6 and Table IV.K-7 of the EIR, after applying the aforementioned significant impact criteria for the different jurisdictions, it is determined that the Project would result in significant impacts under Existing plus Project conditions at seven of the study intersections during the AM and/or the PM peak periods. The Project results in significant impacts at the following seven intersections: 12. Douglas Street & Park Place (PM) 14. Sepulveda Boulevard & Rosecrans Avenue (AM) 20. Aviation Boulevard & Rosecrans Avenue (AM and PM) 21. Isis Avenue & Rosecrans Avenue (AM) 22. Hindry Avenue & Rosecrans Avenue (PM) 24. Northbound 1-405 On -/Off -Ramp & Rosecrans Avenue (AM) 30. Aviation Boulevard & Marine Avenue (AM) None of the other study intersections would be significantly impacted under Existing plus Project conditions. As shown in Table IV.K-10 and Table IV.K-11 of the EIR, after applying the aforementioned significant impact criteria for the different jurisdictions, it is determined that the Proposed Project would result in significant impacts under Future (year 2020) plus Project conditions at six of the 34 study intersections during the AM or the PM peak periods. The significant impacts are found at the following intersections: 12. Douglas Street & Park Place (AM and PM) Page 50 134 20. Aviation Boulevard & Rosecrans Avenue (AM and PM) 21. Isis Avenue & Rosecrans Avenue (AM) 22. Hindry Avenue & Rosecrans Avenue (AM and PM) 24.1-405 Northbound On -/Off -Ramp & Rosecrans Avenue (AM) 30. Aviation Boulevard & Marine Avenue (AM) None of the other intersections would be significantly impacted under Future plus Project conditions for the proposed Project. Intersection 12. Douglas Street & Park Place. The Mitigation Measure MM K-3 would mitigate the significant impact under Existing and Future plus Project conditions. Installation of the signal would require approval from the City of EI Segundo. Intersection 21. Isis Avenue & Rosecrans Avenue. The Mitigation Measure MM K-4 would require the approval of the City of Hawthorne. With approval from the City of Hawthorne, the measure would mitigate the significant impact under Existing and Future plus Project conditions. Intersection 24.1-405 Northbound On -/Off -Ramps & Rosecrans Avenue. The Mitigation Measure MM K- 5 would require approval by Caltrans. With the approval of Caltrans, the measure would mitigate the significant impact under Existing and Future plus Project conditions. Due to physical constraints or potential secondary impacts, mitigation measures to the following intersections have been determined by to be infeasible. Thus, impacts on these intersections remain significant and unavoidable. Intersection 14. Sepulveda Boulevard & Rosecrans Avenue. This mitigation would involve restriping the northbound lane from two left, four through, and one right to two left, four through, and one through right. This would require the northern portion of the intersection to be restriped to create an additional receiving through lane. However, restriping the northern portion will create an offset of approximately 10 feet for the northbound and southbound travel lanes making this mitigation infeasible. Since this measure is infeasible, the impact under Existing plus Project conditions would be considered significant and unavoidable. Since this measure is infeasible, the impact under Existing plus Project conditions would be considered significant and unavoidable. Intersection 20. Aviation Boulevard & Rosecrans Avenue. This mitigation would involve adding capacity to the westbound lanes from two left, four through, and one right to two left, five through, and one right. The western portion of the intersection would have to be widened to accommodate the additional through lanes. There is no right of way available to widen the road, therefore this mitigation has been deemed infeasible. Since this measure is infeasible, the impact under Existing and Future plus Project conditions would be considered significant and unavoidable. Intersection 22. Hindry Avenue & Rosecrans Avenue. This mitigation would involve adding capacity to the westbound lanes from two left, three through, and one shared through right to two left, four through, and one shared through right. The western portion of the intersection would have to be widened to add an additional receiving lane for the westbound through movements. There is no right of way available to widen the road, therefore this mitigation has been deemed infeasible. Since this measure is infeasible, the impact under Future plus Project conditions would be considered significant and unavoidable. Page 51 135 Intersection 30. Aviation Boulevard & Marine Avenue. This mitigation would involve adding capacity to the northbound lanes from two left, two through, and one shared through/right to two left, three through, and one shared through/right. The northern portion of the intersection would have to be widened for an additional receiving lane. There is no right of way available to widen the road, therefore this mitigation has been deemed infeasible. Since this measure is infeasible, the impact under Existing plus Project conditions would be considered significant and unavoidable. Vehicular Access. Vehicular access to the Project Site is proposed to be provided by three driveways along two streets, Rosecrans Avenue and Nash Street. These driveways may be gated to create a secure campus for the Beach Cities Media Campus Project. Driveway 1, along Rosecrans Avenue, is proposed as a full - access entrance and exit allowing vehicular movements in and out of the Project Site from all directions. Driveway 2 will be right-in/right-out for vehicles traveling westbound on Rosecrans Avenue. Driveway 3 is an entrance and exit off the Nash Street & Park Place stop -controlled intersection. All three driveways are proposed as unsignalized, however it should be noted that MM K-2 proposes a signal at Driveway 1 as mitigation. As a result, a majority of the traffic traveling eastbound from the Project Site will use Driveway 3 due to its proximity to the signalized Rosecrans Avenue & Nash Street intersection, which allows for protected and controlled turning movements. There are not really LOS standards for driveways, however, the EIR did identify the driveway as significant and unavoidable impact. Two of the three driveways are projected to operate at acceptable LOS (LOS D or better) under Existing plus Project (2017) and Future plus Project (2020) conditions. Driveway 1 is projected to operate at LOS F in the PM peak period under both Existing and Future plus Project scenarios and LOS E in the AM peak period under the Future plus Project scenario. With the implementation of MM K-2, which proposes for Driveway 1 to become a signalized access point for the Project, the intersection would remain full access, and would allow for more controlled and efficient movements. It is proposed that the installation of the signal would not only provide better access to the Beach Cities Media Campus, but also to the Kinecta Federal Credit Union business center to the south of the Project Site. The driveway into and out of the Kinecta Federal Credit Union parking lot would be repositioned to align with Driveway 1 and become the southern leg of the intersection. The signal being proposed for Driveway 1 would include a protected left turn phase into the Project Site from the eastbound direction. Southbound access out of the site would include a left -only turning lane, and a shared through/right lane. This similar configuration would be used for the northbound movements, which would share the same signal phase and have permissive left turns. The LOS was rerun with the implementation of a signal at Driveway 1 and the resulting shift in project trips leaving and entering the site. Thus, with the implementation of the mitigation measure, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. To the extent that these mitigation measures are not approved or adopted by all relevant jurisdictions, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Imoacts. A total of 37 related development projects have been identified in the Project area. Although these projects are in varying stages of development (proposed, planned, approved, or under construction), and many may not ultimately be constructed, there likely would be some overlap of construction activities between the projects. The 37 related projects are dispersed throughout the Project area. Although the Project would result in less -than -significant construction -related traffic impacts, cumulative construction impacts would be significant and unavoidable due to the potential for concurrent and/or overlapping construction activities of the related projects and the Project. The Project's contribution to this significant cumulative impact would be cumulatively considerable. The growth in traffic due to the combined effects of continuing development, intensification of development, and related projects in conjunction with the Project is incorporated into the traffic impacts analysis above. In combination with the traffic of related projects, the increased traffic generated by the Page 52 136 Project would result in significant cumulative impacts, as shown in Table IV.K-10 and IV.K-11 of the EIR. The Project's contribution to this significant cumulative impact would be cumulatively considerable. The City Council finds that after applying the mitigation measures, a total of four significant and unavoidable impacts would remain in Existing plus Project and a total of three significant and unavoidable impacts would remain in Future plus Project, and cumulative construction traffic. The traffic impacts of the Project cannot be mitigated below the threshold of significance. This determination is based on the following substantial public and social factors as identified in the FEIR and the record of proceedings in the matter. Each Project objective/benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. The Project would return a previous industrial site to productive use by constructing state-of-the-art facilities for entertainment production, studio facilities, office and corporate headquarters space for major technology and entertainment companies that will contribute to job creation and balance growth with local resources and infrastructure capacity. Full build out of the Project is estimated to accommodate 1,033 new permanent jobs and numerous temporary construction jobs. 2. The Project would create a development that would be compatible with and complementary to adjacent land uses in the Continental Park Development, Plaza EI Segundo, and The Point. 3. The Project would generate complementary economic activity by providing new businesses and services and by providing an employee base that could patronize adjacent retail uses and restaurants in the Continental Park Development, Plaza EI Segundo, and The Point. 4. The Project will help foster economic development in the City by contributing to a strong business climate, with positive outcomes such as business retention and attraction, as well as effective levels of City services to all members of the community. 5. The Project will improve the City's tax base by generating business, property, and sales tax revenues, thereby providing the City with resources to provide high-quality services to residents and the daytime population. 6. The Project will provide traffic mitigation measures and signalization that will generally improve traffic circulation in this area of the City and will observe automobile trip caps to ensure that the Project does not result in traffic impacts beyond those identified in the environmental analysis. 7. The Project will reduce vehicle miles travelled, air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions, and maximize the public investment in transit, compared to a less beneficially sited project, by developing an under-utilized site adjacent to several bus lines. 8. The Project will be developed within one-half mile of the existing Metro Green Line rail station, which would be consistent with regional planning programs and plans, and EI Segundo General Plan land use policies which identify where investing planning efforts and resources will yield the greatest progress toward improving mobility, livability, prosperity and sustainability. 9. The Project will provide environmentally sensitive development, by incorporating sustainable and green building design and construction that reduces waste, manages water use efficiently and conserves energy, and by providing employment opportunities within easy access of established public transit. IV. RECIRCULATION A. Facts: Page 53 137 1. The City received comments on the DEIR from public agencies in written form. The FEIR contains written responses to all comments ("Responses to Comments") received on the DEIR as of May 22, 2019. Some comments were incorporated into the FEIR as factual corrections and minor changes. The FEIR includes all factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR. All comments and testimony received prior to and at the City Council's public hearing have been considered. B. Finding: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15088.5 and Public Resources Code § 21092.1, and based on the FEIR and the record of proceedings for the Beach Cities Media Campus Project, the City Council finds that: 1. Factual corrections and minor changes are set forth as additions and corrections to the DEIR; and 2. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR are not substantial changes in the DEIR that would deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Beach Cities Media Campus Project, a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect, or a feasible Project alternative; and 3. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR will not result in new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the severity of the significant effects previously disclosed in the DEIR; and 4. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR will not involve mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the DEIR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment; and 5. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR do not render the DEIR so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment would be precluded. Thus, the City Council finds that none of the conditions set forth in CEQA Guideline § 15088.5 or Public Resources Code § 21092.1 requiring recirculation of a draft environmental impact report were met. The City Council further finds that incorporation of the factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR into the FEIR does not require that the FEIR to be recirculated for public comment. V. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE The City Council finds and declares that substantial evidence for each and every finding made herein is contained in the FEIR, which is incorporated herein by this reference, and in the record of proceedings in the matter. Page 54 138 Exhibit A-3 IV. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROCEDURES Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a Lead Agency to adopt a "reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment" (Mitigation Monitoring Program, Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines provides additional direction on mitigation monitoring or reporting). The Planning and Building Safety Department for the City of EI Segundo is the Lead Agency for the Beach Cities Media Campus Project. An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Project. Where appropriate, this environmental document identified project design features or recommended mitigation measures to avoid orto reduce potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) is designed to monitor implementation of mitigation measures identified for the Project. The required mitigation measures are listed separately and categorized by impact area, with an accompanying identification of the following: Monitoring Phase, the phase of the Project during which the mitigation measure must be monitored; - Pre -Construction, including the design phase - Construction - Post -Construction The Implementing Party, the agency with the power to implement the mitigation measure; The Enforcement Agency, the agency with the power to enforce the mitigation measure, and The Monitoring Agency, the agency to which reports involving feasibility, compliance, implementation and development are made. The MMRP for the Proposed Beach Cities Media Project will be in place throughout all phases of the Project. The Applicant shall be responsible for implementing all mitigation measures unless otherwise noted. The Applicant shall also be obligated to provide certification, as identified below, to the appropriate monitoring agency and the appropriate enforcement agency that compliance with the required mitigation measure has been implemented. The City's existing planning, engineering, review, and inspection processes will be used as the basic foundation for the MMRP procedures and will also serve to provide the documentation for the reporting program. The substance and timing of each certification report that is submitted to Planning and Building Safety Department shall be at the discretion of the Planning and Building Safety Department. Generally, each report will be submitted to the Planning and Building Safety Department in a timely manner following completion/implementation of the applicable mitigation measure and shall include sufficient information to reasonably determine whether the intent of the measure has been satisfied. The Planning and Building Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -1 139 City of EI Segundo June 2019 Safety Department in conjunction with the Applicant shall assure that Project construction occurs in accordance with the MMRP. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) shall be responsible for the implementation of corrective actions relative to violations of SCAQMD rules associated with mitigation. Departments listed below are all departments of the City of EI Segundo unless otherwise noted. 2. MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES A. Aesthetics No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to aesthetics. No mitigation measures are required. B. Agricultural and Forestry Resources No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to agricultural and forestry resources. No mitigation measures are required. C. Air Quality No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to air quality. No mitigation measures are required. D. Biological Resources No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to biological resources. No mitigation measures are required. E. Cultural Resources i) Project Design Features No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to cultural resources. ii) Mitigation Measures MM B-1: A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavation and grading activities at the Project Site. The frequency of inspections shall be based on consultation with the paleontologist and shall depend on the rate of excavation and grading activities, the materials being excavated, and if found, the abundance and type of fossils encountered. If paleontological materials are encountered, the paleontologist shall temporarily divert or redirect grading and excavation activities in the area of the exposed materials to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage. The paleontologist shall then assess the discovered material(s) and prepare a survey, study or report evaluating the impact. The Project Applicant shall then comply with the recommendations of the evaluating paleontologist, and a copy of the paleontological survey report shall be submitted to the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum. Ground -disturbing activities may Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -2 140 City of EI Segundo F. June 2019 resume once the paleontologist's recommendations have been implemented to the satisfaction of the paleontologist. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department MM B-2: A qualified professional archaeologist shall monitor all ground disturbing activities of the Project. If buried unique archaeological resources are discovered during ground -disturbing activities, work shall cease within 50 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, invoke appropriate treatment measures. Such measure(s) may include avoidance, preservation in place, Phase III data recovery and associated documentation, or other appropriate measures. The City shall determine the appropriate and feasible measure(s) that will be necessary to mitigate impacts, in consideration of the measure(s) recommended by the Monitor. The Applicant shall implement all measure(s) that the City determines necessary, appropriate and feasible. Within 60 days after grading activities are completed, the Monitor shall prepare and submit a final report to the City and the State Office of Historic Preservation. The report shall include documentation of any recovered unique archaeological resources, the significance of the resources, and the treatment of the recovered resources. In addition, the Monitor shall submit the monitoring log and photo documentation, accompanied by a photo key, to the City. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Geology and Soils i) Project Design Features PDF C-1: A Project design -specific geotechnical and engineering report is required to be prepared by a California -licensed geotechnical engineer, California - certified engineering geologist, and civil engineer with expertise in geotechnical issues registered in the State of California during Project design and prior to Project construction in compliance with the most current City of EI Segundo Department of Public Works guidelines. The investigation is required to address the proposed Project foundation and structure design to minimize effects from adverse soil conditions including any liquefiable or otherwise unstable/consolidation-prone soils; bedrock characteristics; subsidence; earthquake ground shaking; slope instability; subsurface gas; Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -3 141 City of EI Segundo June 2019 groundwater; and/or other geotechnical and engineering geologic hazards. The design and construction recommendations will be incorporated into the foundation and structural design of Proposed Project components, implemented in accordance with the design, and subjected to on-going inspection by the relevant entities/agencies. Prior to Grading Plan approval and issuance of permits, all construction/development plans will be approved by the City for construction of such improvements. Construction will occur in accordance with the approved plans. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: ii) Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. G. Greenhouse Gas Emissions i) Project Design Features Pre -Construction, Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department, Public Works Department Planning and Building Safety Department, Public Works Department No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. ii) Mitigation Measures MM D-1: The Project applicant shall provide sidewalks within the Project boundary connecting off-site. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Pre -Construction, Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department Planning and Building Safety Department MM D-2: The Project applicant shall require that all faucets, toilets and showers installed in the proposed structures utilize low -flow fixtures that would reduce indoor water demand by 20% per CalGreen Standards. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department Planning and Building Safety Department Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IVA 142 City of EI Segundo June 2019 MM D-3: The Project applicant shall require that ENERGY STAR -compliant appliances are installed wherever appliances are required on-site. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Construction Applicant Planning and Department Planning and Department Building Safety Building Safety MM D-4: The Project applicant shall require that high -efficiency lighting (such as LED lighting that is 34 percent more efficient than fluorescent lighting) be installed within buildings on-site. Monitoring Phase: Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department H. Hazards and Hazardous Materials i) Project Design Features No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to hazards and hazardous materials. ii) Mitigation Measures MM E-1: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit final design plans and a design -level geotechnical engineering report to the City of EI Segundo Building and Safety Division for review and approval. The design - level geotechnical engineering report shall provide the location of the Standard Oil Company and Standard Gasoline Company pipe line easement. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: I. Hydrology/Water Quality i) Project Design Features Pre- Construction, Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department Planning and Building Safety Department PDF F-1: Construction BMPs will be designed and maintained as part of the implementation of the local SWPPP (which includes an Erosion Control Plan) Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -5 143 City of EI Segundo PDF F-2: June 2019 in compliance with the General Permit. The Erosion Control Plan shall be implemented when construction commences and before any site clearing or demolition activity. During construction, the Erosion Control Plan will be referred to regularly and amended as changes occur throughout the construction process. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Construction, Post -Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department, Public Works Department Planning and Building Safety Department, Public Works Department The Project shall implement the following construction -specific BMPs: • Disposing of waste in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations; • Cleaning up leaks, drips, and spills immediately; • Conducting street sweeping during construction activities; ■ Limiting the amount of soil exposed at any given time; ■ Covering trucks; ■ Keeping construction equipment in good working order; and ■ Installing sediment filters during construction activities. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Construction, Post Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department, Public Works Department Planning and Building Safety Department, Public Works Department PDF F-3: The Project shall meet the applicable requirements of the SUSMP adopted by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board through the preparation and implementation of a Project -specific SUSMP. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Construction, Post Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Planning and Building Safety Department, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -6 144 City of EI Segundo PDF F-4: June 2019 The Project shall comply with all NPDES Permit and waste discharge requirements. Monitoring Phase: Construction, Post Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board PDF F-5: The Project shall comply with the requirements of the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, which controls quality of runoff entering municipal storm drains in Los Angeles County. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Construction, Post Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Planning and Building Safety Department, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board PDF F-6: The Project shall comply with City grading permit regulations, which require necessary measures, plans (including a wet weather erosion control plan if construction occurs during the rainy season), and inspection to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Construction, Post Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Planning and Building Safety Department, Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board PDF F-7: The Project shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Pre -Construction, Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department Planning and Building Safety Department Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -7 145 City of EI Segundo PDF F-8 ►i) June 2019 All trash facilities shall be covered and isolated from stormwater runoff. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Mitigation Measures Pre -Construction, Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department Planning and Building Safety Department MM F-1: The applicant must prepare a hydrology study of the development on the Project Site. Such study must be reviewed and approved by the City of EI Segundo and any other applicable agency. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Pre -Construction, Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department Planning and Building Safety Department MM F-2: The applicant must prepare runoff studies for the development on the Project Site so that the runoff from the Project area would not flow onto another area without the owner's consent. Such studies must be reviewed and approved by the City of EI Segundo and any other applicable agency. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department MM F-3: The applicant must prepare a master drainage plan for the development on the Project Site. This plan must include detailed hydrology/hydraulic calculations and drainage improvements, showing quantitatively how the Project will eliminate the potential for downstream flooding due to increased storm water runoff. This plan will also identify the proposed BMPs to be implemented in compliance with the requirements of the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan and the ESMC. Such plan must be reviewed and approved by the City of EI Segundo and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -8 146 City of EI Segundo Monitoring Agency: June 2019 Planning and Building Safety Department, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works MM F-4: The applicant must design a conveyance and detainment system to meet the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works limits on the storm drains that would convey the Project Site's discharge for the development on the Project Site. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Pre -Construction, Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Planning and Building Safety Department, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works MM F-5: The Project must comply with City of EI Segundo Ordinance No. 1347 and No. 1348, which establishes storm water and urban pollution controls. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Pre -Construction, Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department Planning and Building Safety Department MM F-6: The Project owner/developer must maintain all structural or treatment control BMPs for the life of the project. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Construction, Post -Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department, Public Works Department Planning and Building Safety Department, Public Works Department Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -9 147 City of EI Segundo J. Land Use/Planning June 2019 No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to land use/planning. No mitigation measures are required. K. Mineral Resources No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to mineral resources. No mitigation measures are required. L. Noise No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to noise. No mitigation measures are required. M. Population, Housing, and Employment No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to population, housing, and employment. No mitigation measures are required. N. Public Services iJ Fire Protection 1) Proiect Design Features PDF J-1: The Project shall implement a Construction Management Plan ("CMP") that would include street closure information, a detour plan, haul routes and a staging plan. The CMP would formalize how construction would be carried out and identify specific actions that would be required to reduce effects on the surrounding community. The CMP shall be based on the nature and timing of the specific construction activities and other projects in the vicinity of the Project Site and shall include, but not be limited to: prohibition of construction worker parking on nearby residential streets; worker parking would be provided on- site or in designated off-site public parking areas; temporary traffic control during all construction activities adjacent to public rights-of-way to improve traffic flow on public roadways (e.g., flag men); scheduling of construction -related deliveries, haul trips, etc., so as to occur outside the commuter peak hours to the extent feasible, to reduce the effect on traffic flow on surrounding streets; construction -related vehicles shall not park on surrounding public streets; and safety precautions for pedestrians and bicyclists through such measures as alternate routing and protection barriers as appropriate, especially as it pertains to maintaining safe routes to schools. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -10 148 City of EI Segundo Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: June 2019 Applicant Public Works Department Planning and Building Safety Department PDF J-2: Provide an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout each office/studio building, installed in accordance with California Fire Code Chapter 9 and the currently adopted edition of the NFPA 13. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Fire Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department PDF J-3: Provide a manual fire alarm system throughout each building, installed in accordance with California Fire Code Chapter 9 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 72. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Fire Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department PDF J-4: Provide a manual standpipe system in each stairwell of the proposed parking garage, installed in accordance with California Fire Code Chapter 9 and the currently adopted edition of NFPA 14. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Fire Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -11 149 City of EI Segundo June 2019 21 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. ii) Police Protection No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to police protection. No mitigation measures are required. iii) Schools No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to schools. No mitigation measures are required. iv) Parks No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to parks. No mitigation measures are required. v) Other Public Facilities No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to other public facilities. No mitigation measures are required. O. Recreation No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to recreation. No mitigation measures are required. P. Transportation/Traffic i) Project Design Features PDF K-1: Prior to the start of construction, the Project Applicant shall prepare a Construction Traffic Management Plan and submit it to the City of EI Segundo Traffic Division for review and approval. The Construction Management Plan shall include a Worksite Traffic Control Plan, which will facilitate traffic and pedestrian movement, and minimize the potential conflicts between construction activities, street traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Furthermore, the Construction Traffic Management Plan and Worksite Traffic Control Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures: Maintain access for land uses in the vicinity of the Project Site during construction; ■ Schedule construction material deliveries during off-peak periods to the extent practical; • Minimize obstruction of traffic lanes adjacent to the Project Site to the extent feasible; Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -12 150 City of EI Segundo June 2019 ■ Organize Project Site deliveries and the staging of all equipment and materials in the most efficient manner possible, and on-site where possible, to avoid an impact to the surrounding roadways; ■ Coordinate truck activity and deliveries to ensure trucks do not wait to unload or load at the Project Site and impact roadway traffic, and if needed, utilize an organized off-site staging area; • Control truck and vehicle access to the Project Site with flagmen; ■ Prepare a haul truck route program that specifies the construction truck routes to and from the Project Site; • Limit sidewalk and lane closures to the maximum extent possible, and avoid peak hours to the extent possible. Where such closures are necessary, the Project's Worksite Traffic Control Plan will identify the location of any sidewalk or lane closures and identify all traffic control measures, signs, delineators, and work instructions to be implemented by the construction contractor through the duration of demolition and construction activity; and/or • Parking for construction workers will be provided either on-site or at off- site, off-street locations. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Public Works Department, Traffic Division Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department ii) Mitigation Measures MM K-1: Transportation Demand Management Program. A TDM program will be implemented as part of the mitigation package for the Project. Several TDM program elements are project design features that are currently proposed for implementation. Other TDM program elements would be developed as part of preparation of a detailed TDM plan, to be approved by City of EI Segundo prior to approval of a final certificate of occupancy for the Project. City approval will be contingent upon submission of an accompanying analysis based on CAPCOA and latest available relevant research confirming that the elements in the TDM plan will yield the intended 6.5% reduction in weekday peak hour trips that the traffic analysis was based on. TDM strategies are aimed at discouraging single -occupancy vehicle trips and encouraging alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -13 151 City of EI Segundo June 2019 transit, walking, and biking. Strategies that are suggested as appropriate for this site, as targeted for the office land use, include: • Commuter Trip Reduction (CTR) Program, Voluntary —The Project could implement a CTR program that encourages alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The voluntary program does not require monitoring and reporting and no performance standards are established. The CTR program would provide employees with assistance in the following. • Carpool encouragement, • Ride -matching assistance, • Preferential carpool parking, • Flexible work schedules for carpools, • Half time transportation coordinator; and • Vanpool assistance. • Due to the importance of information sharing and marketing, marketing strategies to reduce commute trips would be included as part of the CTR Program. Some marketing strategies may include: • New employee orientation of trip reduction and alternative mode options, • Event promotions; and • Publications. ■ Car Share Program —This Project could implement a car -sharing program to allow people to have on -demand access to a shared fleet of vehicles on an as -needed basis. User costs are typically determined through mileage or hourly rates, with deposits and/or annual membership fees. The car -sharing program could be created through a local partnership or through one of many existing car -share companies. Employer -based programs provide a means for business/day trips for alternative mode commuters and provide a guaranteed ride home option. ■ Site Design — Project site will be designed to encourage walking, biking, and transit. Amenities could include new, wider sidewalks and street trees along the site perimeter and bicycle parking, showers, and secure lockers. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Public Works Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -14 152 City of EI Segundo June 2019 MM K-2: Driveway 1. A proposed mitigation for the Project is to signalize Driveway 1. Currently proposed as a full -access unsignalized intersection, adding a signal will improve operations and increase safety (see the site access analysis in Chapter 6 of the Traffic Study). The intersection would remain full access, but the installation of a signal would allow for more controlled and efficient movements. Installation of the signal would require approval from both the City of EI Segundo and City of Manhattan Beach. With the proposed mitigation of a signal at Driveway 1, Project related vehicular traffic would shift. Intersections directly affected by this shift would include those in close proximity to Driveway 3, such as Intersection 11: Nash Street & Park Place and Intersection 16: Nash Street & Rosecrans Avenue. Other intersections east of the Project Site would see minor changes in vehicular volume due to the shifting of Project traffic from primarily using Driveway 3 to access the site and instead using Driveway 1. The mitigation analysis takes into account this shift in traffic due to the proposed signal. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Public Works Department, City of Manhattan Beach Public Works Department Monitoring Agency: Public Works Department, City of Manhattan Beach Public Works Department MM K-3: Intersection 12. Douglas Street & Park Place. The mitigation involves signalizing the intersection that is currently stop -controlled. Special attention would be needed in the signal design for the westbound movement, which currently consists of two separate driveways. Signals may be needed that accommodate two separate westbound phases, or coordination with the private property owners may be needed to consolidate the two driveways. The measure would mitigate the significant impact under Existing and Future plus Project conditions. Installation of the signal would require approval from the City of EI Segundo. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Public Works Department Monitoring Agency: Public Works Department MM K-4: Intersection 21. Isis Avenue & Rosecrans Avenue. This mitigation involves restriping the southbound lanes from one shared through left and one right to a left -only lane and a shared through/right lane. The southern portion of the intersection has one receiving through lane. This intersection is in the City of Hawthorne and the improvement would require approval of Hawthorne. Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -15 153 City of EI Segundo al June 2019 The measure would mitigate the significant impact under Existing and Future plus Project conditions. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Public Works Department, City of Hawthorne Public Works Department Monitoring Agency: Public Works Department, City of Hawthorne Public Works Department MM K-5: Intersection 24.1-405 Northbound On -/Off -Ramps & Rosecrans Avenue. This mitigation involves restriping the northbound off -ramp lanes from two lefts and one right to two left and one shared left/right. The western portion of the intersection has three receiving lanes for the left -turn movement. The existing median along Rosecrans Avenue may need to be cut back in order to accommodate the third left turning movement. This intersection is under Caltrans jurisdiction and the improvement would require approval of Caltrans. The measure would mitigate the significant impact under Existing and Future plus Project conditions. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Tribal Cultural Resources iJ Project Design Features Pre -Construction, Construction Applicant Public Works Department, Caltrans Public Works Department, Caltrans No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to tribal cultural resources. ii) Mitigation Measures MM L-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall retain a qualified Native American Monitor (Monitor) from the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation to monitor all grading and excavation activities within the Project Site. The Monitor shall photo -document the grading and excavation activities and maintain a daily monitoring log that contains descriptions of the daily construction activities, locations and mappings of the graded areas, soils, and documentation of any identified tribal cultural resources. On-site monitoring shall end when the Project Site grading and excavation activities are completed, or when the Tribal Representatives and Monitor have indicated that the Project Site has a low potential for archaeological resources. If tribal cultural resources are encountered during monitoring, all ground -disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease and the Monitor shall evaluate the significance of the find, and if significant, recommend a formal treatment plan and appropriate measure(s) to mitigate impacts. Such measure(s) may include avoidance, preservation in place, archaeological data recovery and associated laboratory documentation, or Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -16 154 City of EI Segundo R. June 2019 other appropriate measures. The City shall determine the appropriate and feasible measure(s) that will be necessary to mitigate impacts, in consideration of the measure(s) recommended by the Monitor. The Applicant shall implement all measure(s) that the City determined necessary, appropriate and feasible. Within 60 days after grading and excavation activities are completed, the Monitor shall prepare and submit a final report to the City and the California Native American Heritage Commission. The report shall include documentation of any recovered tribal cultural resources, the significance of the resources, and the treatment of the recovered resources. In addition, the Monitor shall submit the monitoring log and photo documentation, accompanied by a photo key, to the City. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Utilities/Service Systems 0 Water 11 Proiect Desien Features PDF M.1-1: Any existing water meters, potable water service connections, fire backflow devices and potable water backflow devices shall be upgraded to current City Water Division standards. These devices shall be placed or relocated onto private property. In addition, any unused water laterals shall be abandoned and properly capped at the City main. The Contractor shall obtain necessary permits and licenses, and provide traffic control plans and shoring plans. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Public Works Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -17 155 City of EI Segundo ii) June 2019 21 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Wastewater 11 Proiect Design Features PDF M.2-1: The Project Applicant shall submit a Utility Plan to the City of EI Segundo Public Works Department for review and approval. The Utility Plan shall show all existing and proposed utility improvements (sewer, water, gas, storm drain, electrical, etc.), their sizes and associated easements around the Project Site, and traffic control plans for work in the public right-of-way. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Public Works Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department PDF M.2-2: The Project Applicant shall submit a Sewer Study to the City Engineer for review and approval. Any capacity deficiencies identified in the Sewer Study shall be addressed through upgrades. In addition, any unused sanitary sewer laterals shall be abandoned and properly capped at the City main. The Contractor shall obtain necessary permits and licenses, and provide traffic control plans and shoring plans. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: 2) Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Solid Waste 1) Proiect Design Features Pre -Construction, Construction Applicant Public Works Department Planning and Building Safety Department PDF M.3-1: During construction, the Project would implement a construction waste management plan to recycle non -hazardous construction debris. Off-site recycling centers, such as asphalt or concrete crushers, would be utilized to provide crushed materials for roadbed base. Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -18 156 City of EI Segundo June 2019 Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department PDF M.3-2: All structures constructed or uses established within any part of the Project shall be designed to be permanently equipped with clearly marked, durable, source sorted recycling bins at all times to facilitate the separation and deposit of recyclable materials. Monitoring Phase: Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department PDF M.3-3: Primary collection bins shall be designed to facilitate mechanized collection of such recyclable wastes for transport to on- or off- site recycling facilities. Monitoring Phase: Construction, Operation Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department PDF M.3-4: The Applicant or its successor shall continuously maintain in good order clearly marked, durable, and separate recycling bins on the same lot or parcel to facilitate the deposit of recyclable or commingled waste metal, cardboard, paper, glass, and plastic therein; maintain accessibility to such bins at all times for the collection of such wastes for transport to on- or off-site recycling plants; and require waste haulers to utilize local or regional material recovery facilities as feasible and appropriate. Monitoring Phase: Construction, Operation Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -19 157 City of EI Segundo June 2019 ,2J Mitiaation Measures No mitigation measures are required. iv) Energy No specific Project Design Features are proposed with regard to energy. No mitigation measures are required. Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -20 158 City of EI Segundo June 2019 Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -21 159 Exhibit E3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT NO. GPA 17-01 MODIFYING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF THE 6.93 -ACRE PROPERTY AT 2021 ROSECRANS AVENUE FROM COMMERCIAL CENTER (C-4) TO URBAN MIXED USE SOUTH (MU -S) The City Council of the City of EI Segundo does resolve as follows: SECTION 1; The City Council finds and declares that: A. On September 15, 2017, Rosecrans -Sepulveda Partners 4, LLC ("RSP4"), filed an application for Environmental Assessment No. EA -1201 for a General Plan Amendment and General Plan Map Amendment, Zone Change and Development Agreement to develop office, retail, and studio and production facilities on an approximately 6.39 -acre site located at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue (the "Property"); B. The applications were reviewed by the City of EI Segundo Planning and Building Safety Department for, in part, consistency with the General Plan and conformity with the EI Segundo Municipal Code ("ESMC"); C. The City analyzed the project's potential environmental impacts in accordance with 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") and an environmental impact report ("EIR") was prepared; D. The Planning and Building Safety Department completed its review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before the Planning Commission for May 23, 2019. On May 23, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed project. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. recommending that the City Council certify the Project's EIR, adopt the General Plan Amendment and General Plan Map Amendment, adopt the Zone Change and Zoning Map Amendment, and approve the draft Development Agreement; E. On July 16, 2019, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing in the Council Chamber of the EI Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the applications including, .e without limitation, information provided to the Council by City Staff, members of the public, and representatives of RSP4. F. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the totality of the evidence in the record. SECTION 2: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The Council finds that the following facts exist: A. The Property is a 6.39 -acre multi -use site located on the north side of Rosecrans Avenue, between Continental Boulevard and Nash Street at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue. B. The property is currently a vacant lot with a screened chain-link security fence running along the perimeter of the site and along the adjacent roadway. C. The General Plan land use designation and zoning of the Property is currently Commercial Center (C-4). D. The Beach Cities Media Campus (The "Project") would include the development of an approximately 240,000 square foot creative office building with the option to incorporate a roof deck, a 66,000 square foot studio and production facilities building, and 7,000 square feet of retail uses. E. The applicant is seeking a 10 -year Development Agreement which would vest the applicant's right to develop the Beach Cities Media Campus or any of the alternatives described therein and analyzed in the EIR in accordance with the zoning regulations in effect as of the date the project is approved by the City. The alternatives analyzed in the EIR include the following: Alternative 3: Mixed Use Alternative with Studio and Production Facilities; Alternative 4: Mixed Use Alternative with Research and Development; Alternative 5: All Creative Office Space Alternative. F. In exchange for the vested land use regulations, the Development Agreement would limit the maximum allowable development envelope that could be built upon the Project Site. The MU -S zone permits a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.3, 361,844 square feet of floor area and a maximum height of 175 feet. However, the Project Development Agreement will limit the FAR to 1.13, the floor area to 313,000 square feet and the height to 140 feet. Furthermore, the Development Agreement will provide that the following uses are prohibited: (i) drive-through restaurants; (ii) adult businesses; (iii) catering services/flight kitchens; (iv) freight forwarding; and (v) service stations. G. Project parking for the would be provided in multiple areas, including the following: 980 parking spaces in a seven -story above grade parking structure; 120 executive parking spaces in one semi -subterranean level 2 161 beneath the Office Building; and in surface parking areas elsewhere on the site. H. Approval of a subsequent Site Plan Review is necessary to accommodate the proposed project or any of the alternatives. SECTION 3: Exhibits. There are two exhibits attached to this Resolution: Exhibit B-1 (General Plan Map Amendment). These exhibits are incorporated into this Resolution by reference. SECTION 4: General Plan Findings. The proposed project is compatible with the goals, objectives and policies of the general plan and will not frustrate their attainment. Specifically: A. The General Plan land use designation and zoning of the Property will be amended from Commercial Center (C-4) to Urban Mixed Use South (MU -S). The General Plan, as amended, will remain internally consistent. B. The General Plan contains several relevant Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the Land Use Element. Implementation of the proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU1-2.2: "Prevent deterioration and blight; properties should be maintained at all times in accordance with City of EI Segundo codes." By developing a currently vacant lot, the Project Site would be transformed into an attractive property and the potential for blight on the site and surrounding area would be minimized. C. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU4-1.1: "Require landscaping, its maintenance, and permanent upkeep on all new commercial developments." The Project would provide landscaping in accordance with the ESMC requirements. In addition, the proposed Development Agreement between the Project Applicant and the City provides assurance that landscape would be of high quality and well-maintained. D. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU4-1.2: "All commercial facilities shall be built and maintained in accordance with Health and Safety Code requirements and shall meet seismic safety regulations and environmental regulations." All proposed facilities would be constructed to meet all current building requirements and would mitigate all environmental impacts to the extent feasible. E. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU4-1.4: "New commercial developments shall meet seismic safety standards and regulations, as well as comply with all noise, air quality, water, and environmental regulations." The Project would be built in accordance with the current edition of all applicable building codes. F. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU4-3.6: "Require landscaping, its maintenance, and permanent upkeep in all new office and 3 162 mixed-use developments." The Project would provide landscaping in accordance with the ESMC requirements. In addition, the proposed Development Agreement between the Project Applicant and the City provides assurance that landscape would be of high quality and well-maintained. G. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU4-4.5: "The City shall require submittal and implementation of a Transportation Management Plan (TMP) for all projects within the Urban Mixed -Use area, and shall encourage a TMP for all projects within the northeast quadrant." The proposed Project will implement a Transportation Demand Management Program as a mitigation measure. The TDM strategies will be aimed at discouraging single -occupancy vehicle trips and encouraging alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The Project is located in an area where there can be a mix of land uses that could create a synergistic relationship between uses that could be developed on the Project Site and nearby existing land uses. Additional businesses would provide additional employee population to support nearby commercial businesses at Plaza EI Segundo, The Point, and restaurants along Rosecrans Avenue. The close proximity of these businesses would encourage people to walk instead of drive, thereby reducing traffic. H. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU4-4.6: "Promote mixed-use development near transit nodes and encourage modes of transportation that do not require an automobile." The Douglas Green Line Station is located approximately one-half mile from the Project Site. In addition, Metro local bus line 125, Beach Cities Transit bus line 109, and the Amtrak California Throughway have stops at the Douglas Greenline Station. Beach Cities Transit bus line 125 also has a stop one block (approximately 500 feet) to the east of the Project Site (at the corner of Rosecrans Avenue and Nash Street). Also, the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, which has been adopted by the City, shows a proposed Class II bike lane on both Rosecrans Avenue and on Douglas Street. This proposed bike lane will allow people to use the light rail in conjunction with a bicycle for access to work. Furthermore, the Project would comply with the requirements of Title 24 and the City's Transportation Demand Management requirements to provide bicycle racks. The proposed office development would also include showers and lockers to encourage bicycle use. I. The proposed project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LU7-2.3: "All new development shall place utilities underground." The project is consistent as all utilities on the Project Site would be placed underground. J. The General Plan contains several relevant Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the Air Quality Element. Implementation of the proposed project is consistent with Air Quality Element Policy AQ4-1.1: "It is the policy of the City of EI Segundo that the City actively encourage the development and maintenance of a high quality network of pedestrian and bicycle routes, linked to key locations, in order to promote non - motorized transportation." The proposed Project will implement a Transportation Demand Management Program as a mitigation measure. The TDM strategies will be aimed at discouraging single -occupancy vehicle trips and encouraging 4 163 alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. K. The proposed project is consistent with Air Quality Element Policy AQ13-1.1: "It is the policy of the City of EI Segundo that the City continue to implement the programs proposed in the City's Solid Waste Management Plan, concurrent with California Assembly Bill 939, to achieve a 25 percent reduction in residential solid waste requiring disposal by 1995, and a 50 percent reduction by the year 2000." All solid waste -generating activities within the City, including the Project, would continue to be subject to the requirements set forth in AB 939. Therefore, it is estimated that the Project would divert 50 percent of its solid waste generated, thereby diverting this waste from landfills. L. The proposed project is consistent with Air Quality Element Policy AQ14-1.1: "It is the policy of the City of EI Segundo to protect residents and others from exposure to toxic air pollutants by identifying major sources of toxic contaminants in and around the City and insuring that the sources comply with all federal, state, regional, and local regulations." The proposed Project mobile air sources comply with all federal, state, regional, and local regulations. M. The General Plan contains several relevant Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the Noise Element. Implementation of the proposed project is consistent with Noise Element Policy N1-2.1: "Require all new projects to meet the City's Noise Ordinance Standards as a condition of building permit approval." The proposed Project will be required to meet the City's Noise Ordinance Standards. N. The General Plan contains several relevant Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the Circulation Element. Implementation of the proposed project is consistent with Circulation Element Policy C1-1.13: "Require a full evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with proposed new developments prior to project approval. Further, require the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures prior to, or in conjunction with, project development." Mitigation measures shall be provided by or paid for by the project developer. The proposed Project's DEIR evaluated potential impacts at 34 intersections in and around the City and will implement mitigation measures at seven of these intersections. O. The General Plan contains several relevant Goals, Objectives, and Policies in the Economic Development Element. Implementation of the proposed project is consistent with Economic Development Element Policy ED1-2.2: "Maintain and promote land uses that improve the City's tax base, balancing economic development and quality of life goals." The proposed project will add retail, office, and studio and production uses to the City, providing fiscal benefits to City's general fund in terms of increased employment and utility, business license, property and other tax revenues, which are anticipated to exceed $390,000 annually. SECTION 5: Approvals. A. The City Council approves General Plan Amendment and General Plan Map 5 164 Amendment No. GPA 17-01, B. The City Council amends the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the change of land use designation for the Property at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue from Commercial Center (C-4) to Urban Mixed Use South (MU -S). The corresponding changes to the Land Use Map are set forth in attached Exhibit "F," which is incorporated into this Resolution by reference. SECTION 6: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution is 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 Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. SECTION 7: Limitations. The Council's analysis and evaluation of the project is based on the best information currently available. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. 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 not become effective until and unless Ordinance No. approving Zone Change and Zoning Map Amendment No. ZC 17-01 and Development Agreement No. DA 17-02 becomes effective. SECTION 10: The City Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to any person requesting a copy. ATTEST: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of July, 2019. Drew Boyles, Mayor 6 165 Tracy Sherrill Weaver, City Clerk Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney In 166 Exh i bit E3-1 PROJECT AREA City of EI Segundo EXHIBIT G Beach Cities Media Campus 1 2021 Rosecrans Avenue �1 Proposed General Plan Amendment Ir -7 Exh i bit C ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONE CHANGE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. ZC 17-01 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DA 17-02 FOR THE BEACH CITIES MEDIA CAMPUS PROJECT AT 2021 ROSECRANS AVENUE. The City Council of the City of EI Segundo does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: Recitals A. On September 15, 2017, Rosecrans -Sepulveda Partners 4, LLC ("RSP4"), filed an application for Environmental Assessment No. EA - 1201 for a General Plan Amendment and General Plan Map Amendment, Zone Change and Development Agreement to develop office, retail, and studio and production facilities on an approximately 6.39 -acre site located at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue (the "Property"); B. The applications were reviewed by the City of EI Segundo Planning and Building Safety Department for, in part, consistency with the General Plan and conformity with the EI Segundo Municipal Code ("ESMC"); C. The City analyzed the project's potential environmental impacts in accordance with 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")) and an environmental impact report ("EIR") was prepared; D. The Planning and Building Safety Department completed its review and scheduled a public hearing regarding the application before the Planning Commission for May 23, 2019. On May 23, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed project. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. recommending that the City Council certify the Project's EIR, adopt the General Plan Amendment and General Plan Map Amendment, adopt the Zone Change and Zoning Map Amendment, and approve the draft Development Agreement; E. On July 16, 2019, the City Council held a duly advertised public hearing in the Council Chamber of the EI Segundo City Hall, 350 .: Main Street to receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the applications including, without limitation, information provided to the Council by City Staff, members of the public, and representatives of RSP4. SECTION 2: Environmental Assessment. On July 16, 2019, the City Council adopted Resolution No. certifying a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) for this Project which, among other things, properly assesses the environmental impact of this Ordinance, and the Project, in accordance with CEQA. The findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations set forth in Resolution No. are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 3: Exhibits. There are two exhibits attached to this Ordinance: Exhibit C-1 (Development Agreement) and Exhibit C-2 (Zoning Map Amendment.) These exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 4: Zone Change/Zoning Map Amendment Findings. The City Council finds as follows: A. The proposed zone change and zoning map amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. MU -S zoning is compatible with the surrounding properties and uses, including the project to the east. B. ESMC Title 15 implements the goals, objectives and policies of the EI Segundo General Plan. By way of Resolution No. , the City Council amended the General Plan land use designation of the Property from Commercial Center to Urban Mixed Use South. The zone change proposed by this ordinance will maintain consistency between the General Plan, as amended, and the Zoning Map. C. The City Council finds that the Zoning Map amendment is consistent with General Plan, as amended. There is no specific plan applicable to the Property. SECTION 5: Development Agreement Findings. Pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 3268, adopted June 26, 1984, the City Council finds that: A. The project is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the general plan. There is no applicable specific plan for this project. Considering all of its aspects, the provisions of the Development Agreement will further the goals, 2 objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment. The Development Agreement would provide the following public benefits in exchange for vested development rights: 1. Fulfilling long-term economic and social goals for City and the community; 2. Providing fiscal benefits to City's general fund in terms of increased employment and utility, business license, property and other tax revenues, which are anticipated to exceed $390,000 annually; 3. Providing both short-term construction employment and long- term permanent employment within City; 4. Eliminating blighted areas; 5. Facilitating environmental remediation on and around the Property; 6. Creating significant offsite public improvements, including streets, signals, medians and landscaping; 7. Property owner voluntarily waiving its right to develop the Property with certain uses which are allowed or conditionally allowed in the MU -S zone. B. The Project is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use district in which the real property is located. The proposed uses are compatible with those allowed in the MU -S district. The Development Agreement further limits the FAR to 1. 13, the floor area to 313,000 square feet and the height to 140 feet, which are less intensive than the development standards in the MU- S zone. C. The project conforms to public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice. The Project includes a range of uses that will contribute to short and long-term job creation while balancing growth with infrastructure capacity. D. The project will not be detrimental to health, safety and general welfare. 3 170 An EIR was completed to evaluate the project. The following subject areas were screened out and the Initial Study evaluation was deemed to be sufficient: Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forest Resources, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, and Mineral Resources. All feasible project design features and/or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce impacts to a level of less than significant, with the exception of Population, Housing, and Employment, and Transportation, Traffic and Parking impacts. A Statement of Overriding Considerations will be adopted for all significant and unavoidable impacts. None of the significant, unavoidable impacts associated with the project would be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. E. The project will not adversely affect the orderly development of property or the preservation of property values. The Project site is surrounded by land already developed with commercial uses to the south, east and west, therefore the project's proposed production studio, office and retail uses are consistent with the adjacent development and will not adversely affect the neighboring properties. The development standards prescribed in the MU -S zone and project development agreement will result in the orderly development of the project. All mitigation measures will be implemented at the time and place impacts occur. SECTION 5: Actions. The City Council takes the following actions: A. The zoning designation of the Property is amended from "Commercial Center" to "Mixed Use South." B. The City's Zoning Map is amended to change the zoning designation of the Property from "Commercial Center" to "Mixed Use South." The corresponding changes to the Zoning Map are set forth in attached Exhibit "I," which is incorporated into this Ordinance by reference. C. The Development Agreement by and between the City of EI Segundo and Rosecrans -Sepulveda Partners 4, LLC, as set forth in attached Exhibit "H," and incorporated into this Ordinance by reference, is approved. The Mayor is authorized to execute the Development Agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. D. The City Council approves Zone Change and Zoning Map Amendment No. ZC 17-01 and Development Agreement No. DA 17-02. 4 171 SECTION 7: Technical Corrections. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to make technical corrections, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to maps, diagrams, tables, and other, similar, documents (collectively, "Maps") that may be required to reconcile the changes made by this Ordinance with amendments made to the Zoning Map by other City Council action in unrelated land use applications. SECTION 8: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Ordinance 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 9: 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 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 10: 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 11: Effectiveness of ESMC. Repeal or amendment of any provision of the ESMC will 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 12: Recordation. 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 it to be published or posted in accordance with California law. SECTION 13: Effective Date. This Ordinance will become effective 30 days from the date of final passage. 5 172 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of July, 2019. Drew Boyles, Mayor ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF EL SEGUNDO ) I, Tracy Sherrill 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 16th day of July 2019, 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 16th day of July, 2019, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES.- NOES: YES:NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Tracy S. Weaver, City Clerk M APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney PAPlanning & Building Safety\0 Planning - Old\PROJECTS (Planning)\901-925\EA-905\Planning Comm iss io n\EA-905 Draft CC Ordinance.docx A 173 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF EL SEGUNDO 350 Main Street El Segundo, California 90245 Exhibit C—1 EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES Pursuant to Government Code § 6103 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND ROSECRANS-SEPULVEDA PARTNERS 4, LLC (FORMER AIR PRODUCTS SITE) THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE RECORDED WITHIN TEN DAYS OF EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES HERETO PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT CODE §65868.5 174 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Definitions .............................................. 2. Recitals...............................................................................................................................................4 3. Binding Effect....................................................................................................................................5 3.1 Constructive Notice and Acceptance....................................................................................................... 5 3.2 Rights to Assign and Transfer.................................................................................................................. 5 3.3 Liabilities Upon Transfer......................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Resumption of Rights............................................................................................................................... 6 4. Development of the Property............................................................::..........:................I................... 6 4.1 Permitted Uses, Design and Development Standards and Dedication of Land for Public Purposes ...... 6 4.2 Entitlement to Develop............................................................................................................................. 6 4.3 Additional Restrictions............................................................................................................................. 6 4.4 Reserved....................................................................................................................................................7 4.5 Building Regulations................................................................................................................................. 7 4.6 Subsequent Rules...................................................................................................................................... 7 4.7 Fees, Exactions, Mitigation Measures, Conditions, Reservations and Dedications .................................. 7 4.8 Use of Easements..................................................................................................................................... 7 4.9 Timing of Development............................................................................................................................ 8 4.10 Moratorium......................................................................................................................................... 8 4.11 Term........................................................................................................................................................ 8 4.12 Term of Map(s) and Other Project Approvals........................................................................................ 9 4.13 Future Approvals.................................................................................................................................... 9 4.13.1 Minor Modifications to Project...................................................................................................................9 4.13.2 Modifications Requiring Amendment to this Agreement............................................................................9 4.14 Site Plan Review................................................................................................................................... 10 4.15 Issuance of Building Permits................................................................................................................ 10 5. Developer Agreements.................................................................................................................11 5.1 General.................................................................................................................................................. 11 5.2 Development Fees.................................................................................................................................. 11 5.3 Maintenance Obligations...........................................................................................,........................... 11 5.4 Sales and Use Tax.................................................................................................................................. 11 6. City Agreements..............................................................................................................................12 6.1 Expedited Processing............................................................................................................................. 12 M 175 6.2 Processing Cooperation and Assistance.................................................................................................. 12 6.3 Processing During Third Party Litigation............................................................................................... 12 6.4 Performance of Director Duties.............................................................................................................. 13 7. Modification/Suspension.................................................................................................................13 8. Demonstration of Good Faith Compliance......................................................................................13 8.1 Review of Compliance............................................................................................................................ 13 8.2 Good Faith Compliance......................................................................................................................... 13 8.3 City Report - Information to be Provided to Developer......................................................................... 13 8.4 Developer's Report ................................................................................................................................. 14 8.5 Notice of Non-Compliance; Cure Rights........ _..................................................................................... 14 8.6 Public Notice of Findings....................................................................................................................... 14 8.7 Failure of Periodic Review...................................................................................................................... 14 9. Excusable Delays.....................................................................:....:.:...:............................................14 10. Default Provisions.......................................................................................................................... 14 10.1 Default................................................................................................................................................... 14 10.2 Content of Notice of Violation..........................................................................................................•.... 15 10.3 Remedies for Breach............................................................................................................................. 15 10.4 Resolution of Disputes............................................................................................. ........................ 15 10.5 Attorney's Fees and Costs..................................................................................................................... 15 11. Mortgagee Protection.....................................................................................................................16 11.1 Mortgage Not Rendered Invalid............................................................................................................ 16 11.2 Request for Notice to Mortgagee.......................................................................................................... 16 11.3 Mortgagee's Time to Cure................................................................................................................. 16 11.4 Cure Rights........................................................................................................................................... 16 11.5 Bankruptcy............................................................................................................................................17 11.6 Disaffirmation....................................................................................................................................... 17 12. Estoppel Certificate........................................................................................................................17 13. Administration of Agreement............................................................................. ...17 13.1 Appeal of Staff Determinations............................................................................................................ 17 13.2 Operating Memoranda.......................................................................................................................... 17 13.3 Certificate of Performance................................................................................................................. 18 14. Amendment or Termination by Mutual Consent...........................................................................18 15. Indemnification/Defense................................................................................................................18 15.1 Indemnification..................................................................................................................................... 18 15.2 Defense of Agreement.......................................................................................................................... 19 fl 176 16. Cooperation in the Event of Legal Challenge................................................................................ 19 16.1 Third Party Challenges......................................................................................................................... 19 16.2 Third Party Challenges Related to the Applicability of City Laws..................................................... 19 17. Time of Essence.............................................................................................................................20 18. Effective Date................................................................................................................................ 20 19. Notices....................................... :.::... :............................................................................................ 20 20. Entire Agreement..................................................................-----•...................................................22 21. Waiver............................................................................................................................................22 22. Supersession of Subsequent Laws of Judicial Action.................................................................... 22 23. Severability.................................................................................................................................... 22 24. Relationship of the Parties.......................................................................................................... 22 25. No Third-Party Beneficiaries.........................................................................................................23 26. Recordation of Agreements and Amendments.............................................................................. 23 27. Cooperation Between City and Developer....................................................................................23 28. Rules of Construction.................................................................................................................... 23 29. Joint Preparation............................................................................................................................ 23 30. Governing Law and Venue............................................................................................................ 23 31. Counterparts................................................................................................................................... 23 32. Weekend/Holiday Dates................................................................................................................ 23 33. Not a Public Dedication................................................................................................................. 23 34. Releases.................. ...................................................................................................................... ..24 35. Consent........................................................................................................ ................. I............ 2 iv 177 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Development Agreement (the "Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a municipal corporation (referred to hereinafter as "City") and ROSECRANS-SEPULVEDA PARTNERS, 4 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter as "Developer") as of this day of , 2019. City and Developer are referred to hereinafter individually as "Party" and collectively as "Parties". In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement, City and Developer agree as follows: 1. Definitions. Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the following definitions govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this Agreement. Words and phrases not defined in this Section will have the meaning set forth in this Agreement, the El Segundo Municipal Code, or in common usage. "Applicable Rules" means: The El Segundo General Plan, as it existed on the Approval Date, as modified by the Project Approvals; The El Segundo Municipal Code, as it existed on the Approval Date, as modified by the Project Approvals; Such other laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, and official policies governing permitted uses of the property, density, design, improvement, development fees, and construction standards and specifications applicable to the development of the Property in force at the time of the Effective Date, which are not in conflict with this Agreement. "Approval Date" means , 2019, the date on which the last of the Project Approval applications was approved by the City. "Approved Plans" means a plan for any aspect of the Project, including, without limitation, the Site Plan, signage plans, and landscaping and irrigation plans, which are approved by the City in accordance with the Applicable Rules, and Project Approvals. "Beach Cities Media Campus" or "Media Campus" means development of the Property with a development of a mixture of creative office, retail/cafd, and studio and production facilities that would consist of a maximum of. 240,000 square feet of creative office with the option to incorporate a roof deck; 66,000 square feet of studio and production facilities building; 7,000 square feet of retail/cafe uses for a total of 313,000 square feet of floor area with an associated FAR of 1.13 to 1; and the provision of 1,100 parking spaces in a combination of surface parking, underground parking, and a parking structure all as shown in the Conceptual Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B. "Building Regulations" means those regulations set forth in Title 13 of the ESMC. 178 "CEQA" means the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq. "CEQA Guidelines" means the regulations implementing CEQA which have been adopted by the State and found at Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, § 150000 et seq. "City Council" means the City Council of the City of El Segundo. "Developer" means Rosecrans Sepulveda Partners 4 LLC and its transferees, assigns and successors in interest. "Development Constraints" means all of the following: • No building shall exceed 140 feet in height; • Parking shall be in an amount which meets the El Segundo Municipal Code and may be located in a combination of surface parking, underground parking, and a parking structure; and • Access shall be taken from two driveways along Rosecrans Boulevard and one driveway accessing the Property off of Nash Street, consistent with the Site Plans for the Media Campus. "Development Standards" means the Site Development Standards set forth in the ESMC for the Urban Mixed -Use South zone, as well as those provisions of the ESMC relating to such things as landscaping, off-street parking and loading spaces, and signs. The Development Standards are part of the Applicable Rules. "Director" means the Director of Planning and Building Safety, or his designee. "Effective Date" means the date on which the Enabling Ordinance becomes effective in accordance with Government Code § 36937. "ESMC" means the El Segundo Municipal Code. "Enabling Ordinance" means Ordinance No. 17-02, approving this Development Agreement. "Future Approvals" means such subsequent discretionary and ministerial entitlements, including permits, which are required to develop the Project in addition to the Project Approvals, and which are applied for by the Developer and approved by the City. Once approved, a Future Approval becomes part of the Project Approvals. "Alternatives" means Alternatives 1, 2, or 3 as described below: 179 Alternative 1 shall consist of the following development components: (a) 25,000 square feet of retail space; (b) 100,000 square feet of general office space with the option to incorporate a roof deck; and (c) 188,000 square feet of studio and production facilities, as shown in the Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit C. Alternative 2 shall consist of the following development components: (a) 100,000 square feet of research and development; (b) 10,000 square feet of retail; and (c) 100,040 square feet of creative office space with the option to incorporate a roof deck, as shown in the Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit D. Alternative 3 shall consist of the following development component: (a) 261,990 square feet of creative office space with the option to incorporate a roof deck, as shown in the Site Plan attached hereto as Exhibit E. "Party" means the City or the Developer. "Parties" shall mean both the City and the Developer. "Person" means a natural person or any entity. "Project" means the development of the Property for the Beach Cities Media Campus or one of the Alternatives in substantial conformance with the site plans attached hereto as Exhibits B through E, in accordance with the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules. "Project Approvals" means: ■ Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) No. EA -1201, as certified by Resolution No. 2861 on ; ■ Mitigation Monitoring Program for FEIR No. EA -1201, as adopted by Resolution No. 2861 on ; + General Plan Amendment No. 17-01, as approved by Resolution No. 2861 on , including a change in the Land Use Map; + Zone Change No. 17-01, as approved by Ordinance No. 17-01 on , including a change in the Zoning Map; ■ This Development Agreement as approved by Ordinance No. 17-02 on "Property" refers to that 6.37 acres which is described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. "Site Plan" refers to the conceptual development plans for the Beach Cities Media Campus and each of the three Alternatives as shown on Exhibits B through E, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. "Subsequent Rules" means any changes to the Applicable Rules, including, without limitation, any change by means of an ordinance, initiative, resolution, policy, order or moratorium, initiated or instituted for any reason whatsoever and adopted by the City Council, the Planning Commission or any other board, agency, commission or department of the City, or any officer or employee thereof, or by the electorate, which would, absent this Agreement, otherwise apply to the Property. "Transferee" means a Person which assumes in whole or in part the rights and obligations under this Agreement with respect to all or a portion of the Property. "Zone" means the Urban Mixed -Use South (MU -S) zone. 2. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and for the following purposes, each of which is acknowledged as true and correct by the Parties: 2.1 Pursuant to Government Code § 65865 et seq., the City is authorized to enter into a binding contractual agreement with any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the development of such property. 2.2 Developer is the owner of the Property. 2.3 Developer desires to redevelop the Property, which is a former industrial site located on Rosecrans Boulevard, with a mix of commercial uses in order to complete the Rosecrans Corridor. 2.4 By this Agreement, each Party desires to obtain the binding agreement of the other Party to develop the Property in accordance with the Project Approvals, Applicable Rules and this Agreement. In consideration thereof, the City agrees to limit the future exercise of certain of its governmental and proprietary powers to the extent specified in this Agreement. The Developer agrees to waive its rights, if any, to challenge legally the limitations on density and use imposed upon development of the Property and other restrictions and obligations set forth in this Agreement and the Project Approvals. 2.5 City and Developer have acknowledged and agreed that the consideration that is to be exchanged pursuant to this Agreement is fair, just and reasonable. 2.6 This Agreement is intended to provide flexible entitlements to develop the Media Campus or one of the three Alternatives, within the parameters set forth herein and subject to the terms and conditions hereof, to meet the changing market demands that are likely to occur throughout the Term of this Agreement. 2.7 The Project uses are consistent with the City's General Plan, as amended, (the "General Plan"). 181 2.8 Development of the Project has, and will continue to, further the comprehensive planning objectives contained within the General Plan, and will result in public benefits, including, among others, the following: 2.8.1 Fulfilling long-term economic and social goals for City and the community; 2.8.2 Providing fiscal benefits to City's general fund in terms of increased utility, business license, property and sales tax revenues, which are anticipated to exceed $390,000 annually; 2.8.3 Providing both short-term construction employment and long-term permanent employment within City; 2.8.4 Eliminating blighted areas; 2.8.5 Facilitating environmental remediation on and around the Property; 2.8.6 Giving up the right to develop the Property with certain uses which are allowed or conditionally allowed in the MU -S zone. 2.9 On , 2019, the Planning Commission of the City commenced a duly noticed public hearing on the Project Approvals. At the conclusion of the hearing the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Project Approvals. 2.10 On '2019, the City Council commenced a duly noticed public hearing on the Project Approvals. Prior to approving this Agreement by the Enabling Ordinance, the City Council adopted Resolution No. approving the FEIR. 2.11 All of the Property is subject to this Agreement. 3. Binding Effect. The burdens of this Agreement are binding upon, and the benefits of the Agreement inure to the City and the Developer and each successive transferee, assign and successor in interest thereto and constitute covenants that run with the land. Any and all rights and obligations that are attributed to the Developer under this Agreement shall run with the land. 3.1 Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Property in which the Developer has a legal interest is, and shall be, conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to be bound by this Agreement, whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired such right, title or interest. 3.2 Rights to Assign and Transfer. Developer may assign or transfer its rights and obligations under this Agreement with respect to the Property, or any portion thereof, to any person at any time during the term of this Agreement without approval of the City. For purpose of this Y, Agreement, the Transferee must be considered the "owner" of that portion of the Property which is covered by such transfer. 3.3 Liabilities Upon Transfer. Upon the delegation of the duties and obligations under this Agreement and the sale, transfer or assignment of all or any portion of the Property, Developer will be released from its obligations under this Agreement with respect to the Property, or portion thereof, so transferred arising subsequent to the effective date of such transfer, if. (i) Developer has provided to the City prior or subsequent written notice of such transfer; and (ii) the Transferee has agreed in writing to be subject to all of the provisions hereof applicable to the portion of the Property so transferred by executing an Assignment and Assumption Agreement in the form of Exhibit F attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Upon any transfer of any portion of the Property and the express assumption of Developer's obligations under this Agreement by such Transferee, the City agrees to look solely to the Transferee for compliance by such Transferee with the provisions of this Agreement as such provisions relate to the portion of the Property acquired by such Transferee. Any such Transferee shall be entitled to the benefits of this Agreement as "Developer" hereunder and shall be subject to the obligations of this Agreement applicable to the parcel(s) transferred. A default by any Transferee shall only affect that portion of the Property owned by such Transferee and shall not cancel or diminish in any way Developer's rights hereunder with respect to any portion of the Property not owned by such Transferee. The Transferee shall be responsible for satisfying the good faith compliance requirements set forth in Section 8 below relating to the portion of the Property owned by such Transferee, and any amendment to this Agreement between the City and a Transferee shall only affect the portion of the Property owned by such Transferee. 3.4 Resumption of Rights. If Transferee defaults with respect to any provision of this Agreement, developer may, but is not obligated to, resume Transferee's obligations upon written notification to City. 4. Develoarnent of the Property. The following provisions, in addition to the Applicable Rules, shall govern the development and use of the Property. 4.1 Permitted Uses. Design and Development Standards. and Dedication of Land for. Public Purposes. The permitted, administratively permitted, and conditionally permitted uses of the Property as well as the Development Standards and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes are set forth in the Project Approvals and Applicable Rules. 4.2 Entitlement to Develop. The Developer is granted the vested right to develop the Project subject to the Applicable Rules, the Project Approvals, and any Future Approvals.. 4.3 Additional Restrictions. In addition to the Applicable Rules, the Project Approvals, and this Agreement, Developer shall record a restriction against the Property prohibiting the following uses: (i) drive-through restaurants; (ii) adult businesses; (iii) catering services/flight kitchens; (iv) freight forwarding; and (v) service stations. This restriction shall survive the termination of this Agreement and the restrictions shall not be removed without the written consent 183 of the City. 4.4 [Reserved] 4.5 Building Reeulations. Notwithstanding Section 4.6 below, all construction on the Property shall adhere to the Building Regulations in effect at the time an application for a building permit is submitted and to any federal or state building requirements that are then in effect at such time. Additionally, nothing in this Agreement prevents the City from applying "standard specifications" for public improvements (e.g., streets, storm drainage, parking lot standards, driveway widths), as the same may be adopted or amended from time to time by the City, provided that the provisions of any such standards and specifications apply only to the extent they are in effect on a Citywide basis. 4.6 Subsequent Rules. Subsequent Rules cannot be applied by the City to any part of the Property unless the Developer gives the City written notice of its election to have such Subsequent Rule applied to the Property, in which case such Subsequent Rule is deemed to be an Applicable Rule. 4.7 Fees. Exactions. Mitigation Measures. Conditions. Reservations and Dedications. 4.7.1 Subject to sections 4.7.2, 4.7.3, and 5.2, all fees, exactions, mitigation measures, conditions, reservations and dedications of land for public purposes that are applicable to the Project are set forth in the Applicable Rules, the Project Approvals, and this Agreement. 4.7.2 Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, and specifically excluding fees set by entities not controlled by the City that are collected by the City, the City can only charge and impose those fees and exactions, including, without limitation, dedication and any other fee relating to development or the privilege of development, which are in effect on a City-wide basis as of the Effective Date. 4.7.3 The Developer must pay the amount of the impact fees that are in effect at the time of application for the building permit pursuant to City Council Resolution Nos. 4443 and 4687, or such subsequent resolutions as may be adopted by the City Council in accordance with applicable procedures, but shall not be required to pay any new impact fees that are not in effect at the time of Project Approvals. 4.7.4 This Section shall not be construed to limit the authority of the City to charge normal and customary application, processing, and permit fees, including legal and environmental processing costs, for land use approvals, building permits and other similar permits, for Future Approvals, which fees are designed to reimburse City's actual expenses attributable to such application, processing and permitting and are in force and effect on a City-wide basis at such time as applications for such approvals are filed with the City. 4.8 Use of Easements. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Applicable Rules, easements dedicated for vehicular and pedestrian use shall be permitted to include easements for underground drainage, water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, cable, and environmental remediation and other utilities and facilities so long as they do not unreasonably interfere with pedestrian and/or vehicular use. 4.9 Timing of Development. In Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (Pardee), 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), the California Supreme Court held that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing or rate of development resulted in a later -adopted initiative restricting the rate of development to prevail against the parties' agreement. City and Developer intend to avoid the result in Pardee by acknowledging and providing that Developer shall have the right, without obligation, to develop the Property in such order and at such rate and times as Developer deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment subject to the terms of this Agreement. In furtherance of the Parties' intent, as set forth in this Section, no future amendment of any existing City ordinance or resolution, or future adoption of any ordinance, resolution or other action, that purports to limit the rate or timing of development over time or alter the sequencing of development phases, whether adopted or imposed by the City Council or through the initiative or referendum process, shall apply to the Property. However, nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit City's right to enforce Developer's obligation pursuant to this Agreement to provide all infrastructure required by the Project Approvals and this Agreement. 4.10 Moratorium. 4.10.1 The City shall not impose a moratorium on the Property unless such is necessary to protect a significant threat to the health, safety and welfare of the City. 4.10.2 Except as provided in Section 4.10.1 above, no City -imposed moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the rate, timing or sequencing of the development or construction of all or any part of the Property, whether imposed by ordinance, initiative, resolution, policy, order or otherwise, and whether enacted by the City Council, an agency of the City, the electorate or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative, or final), building permits, occupancy certificates, or other entitlements to use or service (including, without limitation, water and sewer), approved, issued or granted within the City, or portions of the City, applies to the Property to the extent such moratorium or other limitation is in conflict with this Agreement. However, the provisions of this Section do not affect the City's compliance with moratoria or other limitations mandated by other governmental agencies or court -imposed moratoria or other limitations. 4.11 Term. This Agreement shall be in effect for a period of 10 years from the Effective Date of the Enabling Ordinance. However, the Developer or the City shall be entitled to, by written notice to the other Party prior to the Agreement's expiration, one (1) five (5) -year extension, provided that the requesting Party is not in material default of this Agreement at such time beyond any applicable period to cure provided for by Section 8.5 below. Before the expiration of the five (5) year extension, the Parties may mutually agree to further extensions. In the event of litigation challenging this Agreement, the Term is automatically suspended for the duration of such litigation 185 and resumes upon final disposition of such challenge and any appeal thereof upholding the validity of this Agreement. In the event that a referendum petition concerning this Agreement is duly filed in such a manner that the ordinance approving this Agreement is suspended, then the Term is deemed to commence upon City Council certification of the results of the referendum election approving this Agreement. 4.12 Term of Mai (s) and Other Project Approvals. Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66452.6(a) and 65863.9, the term of any subdivision or parcel map that has been or in the future may be processed on all or any portion of the Property and the term of each of the Project Approvals shall be extended for a period of time through the scheduled termination date of this Agreement as set forth in Section 4.11 above, including any extensions thereto. 4.13 Future Approvals. 4.13.1 Minor Modifications to Project. The Developer may make minor changes to the Project and Project Approvals ("Minor Modifications") without the need to amend this Agreement upon the administrative approval of the Director. (a) Minor Modifications include: (i) A modification to the Site Plan for the Media Campus, or the Alternatives, provided the Director determines, in his/her discretion, that the Site Plan is substantially similar to the approved Site Plans attached hereto as Exhibits B through E; the modification complies with the Development Constraints; and there is no change which would qualify as a Major Modification under section 4.13.2 below; (ii) A different mix of retail space, general or creative office space, studio and production facilities, or research and development uses provided that it meets the Development Constraints and the Director determines that no subsequent or supplemental EIR is required and any new impacts can be mitigated; and (iii) any other change that does not qualify as a Major Modification as defined below. (b) The City shall not unreasonably withhold or delay approval of any Minor Modification. The City shall have the right to impose reasonable conditions in connection with Minor Modifications, provided, however, such conditions shall not be inconsistent with the Applicable Rules, the Project Approvals or with the development of the Project as contemplated by this Agreement. (c) Minor Modification of Project Approvals A Minor Amendment approved by the City shall continue to constitute the Project Approvals as referenced herein. 4.13.2 Modifications Reauirin Amendment to this Aereement. Any proposed modification to the Project which results in any of the following shall constitute a Major Modification and shall require an amendment to this Agreement pursuant to Section 14 below: (a) Any decrease in the required building setbacks of the MU -S Zone; (b) Any increase in the total developable square footage of the entire Property in excess of a maximum FAR of 1.13; above 140 feet; MU -S Zone; (c) Any increase in height of buildings or structures on the Property (d) Any decrease in the minimum required lot area as set forth in the (e) Any decrease in the minimum required lot frontage as set forth in the MU -S Zone; (f) Any increase in the maximum number of A.M. and P.M. peak hour vehicle trips for the Project as specified in the conditions of approval and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), unless a subsequent traffic report has been prepared to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director that identifies potential impacts and proposes feasible mitigation measures to mitigate such impacts and otherwise complies with CEQA; (g) Any change to the access of the Property from having two driveways on Rosecrans Boulevard and one driveway accessing the Property off of Nash Street; (h) Any decrease to the amount of parking below that required by the El Segundo Municipal Code; (i) Any change which creates a new environmental impact which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance; 0) Any change in use to a use which is not permitted under this Agreement, but is otherwise permitted in the MU -S Zone. 4.14 Site Plan Review. Site Plan Review approval shall be required in accordance with Chapter 15-30 of the El Segundo Municipal Code. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to limit the applicability of the Site Plan Review requirement in Chapter 15-30 of the ESMC. 4.15 Issuance of Building Permits. No building permit, final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy will be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed from the Developer if all infrastructure required to serve the portion of the Property covered by the building permit, final inspection or Certificate of Occupancy is in place or is suitably guaranteed to be completed (by to 187 covenant, bond, letter of credit or otherwise) to the reasonable satisfaction of the City prior to completion of construction and all of the other relevant provisions of the Project Approvals, Future Approvals and this Agreement have been satisfied. Develmer Aereements. 5.1 General. The Developer shall comply with: (i) this Agreement; (ii) the Project Approvals, including without limitation all mitigation measures required by the determination made pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; and (iii) all Future Approvals for which it is the applicant or a successor in interest to the applicant. 5. 1.1 In the event that any of the mitigation measures or conditions required of Developer hereunder have been implemented by others, Developer shall be conclusively deemed to have satisfied such mitigation measures or conditions, consistent with CEQA. If any such mitigation measures or conditions are rejected by a governmental agency with jurisdiction, the Developer may implement reasonably equivalent substitute mitigation, consistent with CEQA, to the City's satisfaction, in lieu of the rejected mitigation measures or conditions. Such substitution shall be deemed to be a Minor Modification pursuant to Section 4.13.1 above. 5.2 Develonment Fees. Subject to the provisions of Section 4.7 above, Developer shall pay the development fees in effect at the time of building permit application. The Developer shall be entitled to credits against the City's traffic mitigation fees to the extent off-site traffic improvements that are required by the Project Approvals are included in any subsequent traffic fee mitigation program adopted by the City pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq. Such credits shall be based upon the actual audited costs and shall only be granted to the extent such improvements are constructed in accordance with all applicable state and local laws. The Developer waives any and all rights it may have to challenge development fees that are in effect at the time of the Effective Date and the City's right to amend its current development fees. However, the Developer retains the legal right to challenge the amount of any such amended or increased development fees to the extent such are not in compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 66000, et seq. as well as its right to receive credits against such amended or increased fees. 5.3 Maintenance Qblintions. The Developer shall maintain all portions of the Property in its possession or control, and any improvements thereon, in a first class clean, neat and orderly manner. The Parties' respective maintenance obligations shall survive any termination or expiration of this Agreement. 5.4 Sales and Use Tax. 5.4.1 In the event the contract price for any work on the Project is valued at five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) or more, Developer agrees to report, on a State Board of Equalization Tax Return, any purchases of tangible personal property made in connection with the finishing of and/or installation of materials, or fixtures for the Project, when such purchases were made without sales or use tax due. Developer shall indicate the City as a registered job site location 11 on the State Board of Equalization Tax Return. In such event, Developer shall also obtain a permit or a sub -permit from the State Board of Equalization indicating the City as the registered job site location, in accordance with Revenue and Taxation Code § 7051.3 or State Board of Equalization Compliance Policy and Procedure Manual § 295.060. 5.4.2 Developer further agrees that if Developer retains contractors or subcontractors to perform a portion of work in the Project, and said contracts or subcontracts are valued at five million dollars ($5,000,000) or more, said contracts or subcontracts shall contain the provisions set forth in Subsection (a) above. 5.4.3 The Director of Finance of the City is authorized to relieve Developer, and Developer's contractors and subcontractors, from the requirements set forth in this Section 5.4 upon proof to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director of Finance that Developer and/or its contractors or subcontractors have made good faith efforts to obtain said permit or sub -permits, but were denied the same by the State Board of Equalization. 6. Citv Agreements. 6.1 Exaedited Processing. The City shall process, at Developer's expense, in an expedited manner all plan checking, excavation, grading, building, encroachment and street improvement permits, Certificates of Occupancy, utility connection authorizations, and other ministerial permits or approvals necessary, convenient or appropriate for the grading, excavation, construction, development, improvement, use and occupancy of the Project in accordance with the City's accelerated plan check process under the Applicable Rules. Without limiting the foregoing, if requested by Developer, the City agrees to utilize private planners and plan checkers (upon Developer's request and at Developer's cost) and any other available means to expedite the processing of Project applications, including concurrent processing of such applications by various City departments. 6.2 Processing Cooveration and Assistance. To the extent permitted by law, the City shall reasonably cooperate with the Developer in securing any and all entitlements, authorizations, permits or approvals which may be required by any other governmental or quasi -governmental entity in connection with the development of the Project or the Property. Without limiting the foregoing, the City shall reasonably cooperate with the Developer in any dealings with federal, state and other local governmental and quasi -governmental entities concerning issues affecting the Property. The City shall keep the Developer fully informed with respect to its communications with such agencies which could impact the development of the Property. The City must not take any actions to encourage any other governmental or quasi -governmental entities from withholding any necessary approvals and any such contrary actions on the part of the City must be considered a breach of this Agreement by City. 6.3 Processing During Third Partv Litigation. The filing of any third party lawsuit(s) against the City or the Developer relating to this Agreement, the Project Approvals, any Future Approvals or to other development issues affecting any portion of the Property or the Project shall not hinder, delay or stop the development, processing or construction of the Project, approval of 12 :• the Future Approvals, or issuance of ministerial permits or approvals, unless the third party obtains a court order restraining the activity. The City must not stipulate to or cooperate in the issuance of any such order. 6.4 Performance of Director Duties. The City shall ensure that a person or persons are designated at all times to carry out the duties of the Director set forth in this Agreement. 7. Modification/Suspension. 7.1 Pursuant to Government Code Section 65 869.5, in the event that any state or federal law or regulation, enacted after the Effective Date, precludes compliance with any provision of this Agreement, such provision shall be deemed modified or suspended to the extent practicable to comply with such state or federal law or regulation, as reasonably determined necessary by City. Upon repeal of said law or regulation or the occurrence of any other event removing the effect thereof upon the Agreement, the provisions hereof shall be restored to their full original effect. 7.2 In the event any state or federal resources agency (i.e., California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regional Water Quality Control Board/State Water Resources Control Board), in connection with its final issuance of a permit or certification for all or a portion of the Project, imposes requirements ("Permitting Requirements") that require modifications to the Project, then the parties will work together in good faith to incorporate such changes into the Project; provided, however, that if Developer appeals or challenges any such Permit Requirements, then the Parties may defer such changes until the completion of such appeal or challenge. 8. Demonstration of Good Faith Compliance. 8.1 Review of Compliance. In accordance with Government Code Section 65865.1, this Section 8 and the Applicable Rules, once each year, on or before each anniversary of the Effective Date ("Periodic Review"), the City Planning and Building Safety Director shall review the extent of the Developer's good faith substantial compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement as well as the performance by the City of its obligations under this Agreement. 8.2 Good Faith Compliance. During each Periodic Review, the Developer shall demonstrate by written status report that, during the preceding twelve (12) month period, that it has been in good faith compliance with this Agreement. For purposes of this Agreement, the phrase "good faith compliance" shall mean that the Developer has demonstrated that it has acted in a commercially reasonable manner (taking into account the circumstances which then exist) and in good faith in and has substantially complied with the Developer's material obligations under this Agreement. 8.3 Citv Renort - Information to be Provided to Develooer. At least 14 days before the annul anniversary of the Effective Date, the City must deliver to the Developer a copy of all staff reports prepared in connection with a Periodic Review, any prior staff reports generated during the review period, written comments from the public, and, to the extent practical, all related exhibits 13 190 concerning such Periodic Review. This information shall be known as the "City Report." 8.4 Developer's Revort. No later than the annual anniversary of the Effective Date, Developer must submit a written status report to the Director addressing the good faith compliance issue and any issues raised by the City Report provided to the Developer in accordance with section 8.3 above. 8.5 Notice of Non -Compliance: Cure Rights. If, after reviewing the Developer's Report, the Director reasonably concludes on the basis of substantial evidence that as to any parcel or parcels comprising the Property, Developer has not demonstrated that it is in good faith compliance with this Agreement, the Director may issue and deliver to the Developer a written Notice of Violation as set forth in Section 10 below. 8.6 Public Notice of Finding. Any appeal of the Director's determination (including any appeal by the Developer) must be filed within twenty (20) days following such decision. Filing such an appeal tolls the cure period specified in the Notice of Violation. Notwithstanding Section 13. 1, an appeal regarding the Notice of Violation shall be heard directly by the City Council at a duly -noticed public hearing and the City Council must issue a final decision. Developer retains the right to challenge the City's issuance of any final decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5 without complying with the procedures set forth in Section 10.4 below. 8.7 Failure of Periodic Review. The City's failure to review, at least annually, compliance by the Developer with the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not constitute or be asserted by any Party as a breach by any other Party of this Agreement. If the City fails to provide the City Report by the Effective Date, Developer will be deemed to be in good faith compliance with this Agreement. 9. Excusable Delays. Performance by any Party of its obligations hereunder shall be excused during any period of "Excusable Delay," as hereinafter defined, provided that the Party claiming the delay gives notice of the delay to the other Party as soon as reasonably possible after the same has been ascertained. For purposes hereof, Excusable Delay shall mean delay that directly affects, and is beyond the reasonable control of, the Party claiming the delay, including without limitation: (i) act of God; (ii) civil commotion: (iii) riot: (iv) strike, picketing or other labor dispute; (v) shortage of materials or supplies; (vi) damage to work in progress by reason of fire, flood, earthquake or other casualty; (vii) reasonably unforeseeable delay caused by a reasonably unforeseeable restriction imposed or mandated by a governmental entity other than City; (viii) litigation brought by a third party attacking the validity of this Agreement, a Project Approval, a Future Approval or any other action necessary for development of the Property; (ix) delays caused by any default by City or the Developer hereunder; or (x) delays due to the presence or remediation of hazardous materials. The term of this Agreement, including any extensions, shall be extended by any period of Excusable Delay. 10. Default Provisions. 10.1 [7el'atilt. Either Party to this Agreement shall be deemed to have breached this 14 191 Agreement if it materially breaches any of the provisions of this Agreement and the same is not cured within the time set forth in a written notice of violation (the "Notice of Violation") from the non -breaching Party to the breaching Party, which period of time shall not be less than ten (10) days for monetary defaults, and not less than sixty (60) days for non -monetary defaults from the date that the notice is deemed received, provided if the breaching Party cannot reasonably cure a non -monetary default within the time set forth in the notice, then the breaching Party shall not be in default if it commences to cure the default within such time limit and diligently effects such cure thereafter. If the City determines that a default may have occurred, the City shall give written notice to the Developer of its intention to terminate this Agreement and comply with the notice and public hearing requirements of Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868. At the time and place set for the hearing on termination, the Developer shall be given an opportunity to be heard. If the City Council finds based upon the evidence that the Developer is in breach of this Agreement, the City Council may modify or terminate this Agreement. If Developer initiates a resolution of dispute in accordance with the provisions of Section 10.4 below within 60 days following the City Council's determination that Developer is in breach of this Agreement, the City Council's decision to modify or terminate this Agreement is stayed until the issue has been resolved through informal procedures, mediation, or court proceedings. 10.2 Content of Notice of Violation. Every Notice of Violation shall state with specificity that it is given pursuant to this Section of the Agreement, the nature of the alleged breach, (including references to the pertinent provisions of this Agreement), the portion of the Property involved, and the manner in which the breach may be satisfactorily cured. The notice shall be deemed given in accordance with Section 19 hereof. 10.3 Remedies for Breach. The Parties agree that the remedies for breach of this Agreement shall be limited to the remedies expressly set forth in this section. Developer's remedies for any breach of this Agreement by City shall be limited to injunctive relief and/or specific performance. 10.4 Resolution of Disputes. The City and the Developer agree to attempt to settle any claim, dispute or controversy arising from this Agreement through consultation and negotiation in good faith and in spirit of mutual cooperation. If those attempts fail, the dispute may be mediated by a mediator chosen jointly by the City and the Developer within 30 days after notice by one of the parties demanding non-binding mediation. Neither Party may unreasonably withhold consent to the selection of a mediator. The City and the Developer will share the cost of the mediation equally. The Parties may agree to engage in some other form of non-binding alternate dispute resolution ("ADR") procedure in lieu of mediation. Any dispute that cannot be resolved between the Parties through negotiation or mediation within two months after the date of the initial demand for non-binding mediation may then be submitted to a court of competent jurisdiction in the County of Los Angeles, California. 10.5 Attornev's Fees and Costs. Each Party to this Agreement agrees to waive any entitlement of attorney's fees and costs incurred with respect to any dispute arising from this Agreement. The parties will each bear their own attorney's fees and costs in the event of any dispute. 15 192 11. Mortizaaee Protection. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit the Developer, in any manner, at Developer's sole discretion, from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvements thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device. The City acknowledges that the lender(s) providing such financing ("Mortgagee") may require certain Agreement interpretations and agrees, upon request, from time to time, to meet with the Developer and representatives of such lender(s) to provide within a reasonable time period the City's response to such requested interpretations. The City will not unreasonably withhold its consent to any such requested interpretation, provided that such interpretation is consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of a mortgage or a beneficiary of a deed of trust or any successor or assign thereof, including without limitation the purchaser at a judicial or non judicial foreclosure sale or a person or entity who obtains title by deed -in -lieu of foreclosure on the Property shall be entitled to the following rights and privileges: 11.1 Mortaaae Not Rendered Invalid. Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the priority of the lien of any mortgage or deed of trust on the Property made in good faith and for value. No Mortgagee shall have an obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform the Developer's obligations, or to guarantee such performance, prior to taking title to all or a portion of the Property. 11.2 Reauest for Notice to Mort-aaaee. The Mortgagee of any mortgage or deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, who has submitted a request in writing to the City in the manner specified herein for giving notices, shall be entitled to receive a copy of any Notice of Violation delivered to the Developer. 11.3 Morteaeee's Time to Cure. The City shall provide a copy of any Notice of Violation to the Mortgagee that has requested such copy within ten (10) days of sending the Notice of Violation to the Developer. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default for period of sixty (60) days after receipt of such Notice of Violation, or such longer period of time as may be specified in the Notice. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if such default shall be a default which can only be remedied by such Mortgagee obtaining possession of the Property, or any portion thereof, and such Mortgagee seeks to obtain possession, such Mortgagee shall have until sixty (60) days after the date of obtaining such possession to cure or, if such default cannot reasonably be cured within such period, to commence to cure such default, provided that such default is cured no later than one (1) year after Mortgagee obtains such possession. 11.4 Cure Rie1►ts. Any Mortgagee who takes title to all of the Property, or any part thereof, pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or a deed in lieu of foreclosure, shall succeed to the rights and obligations of the Developer under this Agreement as to the Property or portion thereof so acquired; provided, however, in no event shall such Mortgagee be liable for any defaults or monetary obligations of the Developer arising prior to acquisition of title to the Property by such Mortgagee, except that any such Mortgagee shall not be entitled to a building permit or occupancy certificate until all delinquent and current fees and other monetary or non - monetary obligations due under this Agreement for the Property, or portion thereof acquired by such Mortgagee, have been satisfied. 16 193 11.5 Bankruptcy. If any Mortgagee is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings in the nature of foreclosure by any process or injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings involving the Developer, the times specified in Section 10 above shall be extended for the period of the prohibition, except that any such extension shall not extend the term of this Agreement. 11.6 Disaffirmation. If this Agreement is terminated as to any portion of the Property by reason of (i) any default or (ii) as a result of a bankruptcy proceeding, and this Agreement is disaffirmed by a receiver, liquidator, or trustee for the Developer or its property, the City, if requested by any Mortgagee, shall negotiate in good faith with such Mortgagee for a new development agreement for the Project as to such portion of the Property with the most senior Mortgagee requesting such new agreement. This Agreement does not require any Mortgagee or the City to enter into a new development agreement pursuant to this Section. 12. Estoppel Certificate. At any time and from time to time, the Developer may deliver written notice to City and City may deliver written notice to the Developer requesting that such Party certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying Party: (i) this Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding obligation of the Parties; (ii) this Agreement has not been amended, or if amended, the identity of each amendment; and (iii) the requesting Party is not in breach of this Agreement, or if in breach, a description of each such breach. The Party receiving such a request shall execute and return the certificate within thirty (30) days following receipt of the notice. The failure of the City to deliver such a written notice within such time shall constitute a conclusive presumption against the City that, except as may be represented by the Developer, this Agreement is in full force and effect without modification, and that there are no uncured defaults in the performance of the Developer. The City Planning and Building Safety Director shall be authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, any Estoppel Certificate requested by the Developer. City acknowledges that a certificate may be relied upon by successors in interest to the Developer who requested the certificate and by holders of record of deeds of trust on the portion of the Property in which that Developer has a legal interest. 13. Administration of Agreement. 13.1 AnoeaI of Staff Determinations. Any decision by City staff concerning the interpretation or administration of this Agreement or development of the Property in accordance herewith may be appealed by the Developer to the Planning Commission, and thereafter, if necessary, to the City Council pursuant to the El Segundo Municipal Code. The Developer shall not seek judicial review of any staff decision without first having exhausted its remedies pursuant to this Section. Final determinations by the City Council are subject to judicial review subject to the restrictions and limitations of California law. 13.2 Doeratinp- Memoranda. The provisions of this Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between City and Developer. During the Term of this Agreement, clarifications to this Agreement and the Applicable Rules may be appropriate with respect to the details of 17 194 performance of City and Developer. If and when, from time to time, during the term of this Agreement, City and Developer agree that such clarifications are necessary or appropriate, they shall effectuate such clarification through a memoranda approved in writing by City and Developer (the "Operating Memoranda"), which, after execution, shall be attached hereto and become part of this Agreement and the same may be further clarified from time to time as necessary with future written approval by City and the Developer. Operating Memoranda are not intended to and shall not constitute an amendment to this Agreement but are mere ministerial clarifications, therefore public notices and hearings are not required. The City Attorney shall be authorized, upon consultation with, and approval of, the Developer, to determine whether a requested clarification may be effectuated pursuant to this Section or whether the requested clarification is of such character to constitute an amendment hereof which requires compliance with the provisions of Section 14 below. The authority to enter into such Operating Memoranda is hereby delegated to the Director, and the Director is hereby authorized to execute any Operating Memoranda hereunder without further City Council action. 13.3 Certificate of Performance. Upon the completion of the Project, or the completion of development of any parcel within the Project, or upon completion of performance of this Agreement or its earlier revocation and termination, the City shall provide the Developer, upon the Developer's request, with a statement ("Certificate of Performance") evidencing said completion or revocation and the release of the Developer from further obligations hereunder, except for any ongoing obligations hereunder. The Certificate of Performance shall be signed by the appropriate agents of the Developer and the City and shall be recorded in the official records of Los Angeles County, California. Such Certificate of Performance is not a notice of completion as referred to in California Civil Code § 3093. 14. Amendment or Termination by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise set forth herein, this Agreement may only be amended or terminated, in whole or in part, by mutual consent of City and the Developer, and upon compliance with the provisions of Government Code § 65867. 15. Indemnification/Defense. 15.1 Indemnification. The Developer agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney's fees), injuries, or liability, arising from the City's approval of the Project, this Agreement, Developer's performance of this Agreement, and all procedures with approving this Agreement (collectively, "Discretionary Approvals"), except to the extent such is a result of the City's sole negligence or intentional misconduct. Should the City be named in any suit, or should any claim be brought against it by suit or otherwise, whether the same be groundless or not, arising out of the Discretionary Approvals, Developer agrees to defend the City (at the City's request and with counsel satisfactory to the City) and will indemnify the City for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise, except to the extent such action is a result of the City's sole negligence or intentional misconduct. For purposes of this Section, "the City" includes the City of El Segundo's elected officials, appointed officials, officers, consultants, and employees. 18 195 15.2 Defense of .Aizreement. If the City accepts Developer's indemnification and defense as provided in Section 15.1 above, the City agrees to and shall timely take all actions which are necessary or required to uphold the validity and enforceability of this Agreement, the Discretionary Approvals, Project Approvals, Development Standards, and the Applicable Rules. This Section 15 shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 16. Cooperation in the Event of Leeal Challenge. 16.1 Third Partv Challenees. In the event of any administrative, legal or equitable action or other proceeding instituted by any person or entity not a party to the Agreement challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement, challenging any Approval, or challenging the sufficiency of any environmental review of either this Agreement or any Approval under CEQA (each a "Third Party Challenge"), each party must cooperate in the defense of such Third Party Challenge, in accordance with this Section. Developer agrees to pay City's costs of defending a Third Party Challenge, including all court costs and reasonable attorney's fees expended by City (including the time and cost of the City Attorney) in defense of any Third Party Challenge, as well as the time of City's staff spent in connection with such defense. Developer may select its own legal counsel to represent Developer's interests in any Third Party Challenge at Developer's sole cost and expense. City agrees that it will not enter into a settlement agreement to any Third Party Challenge without Developer's written consent. Developer's obligation to pay City's costs in the defense of a Third Party Challenge shall not extend to those costs incurred on appeal if Developer notifies the City is writing that it does not wish to pursue the appeal. 16.2 Third Partv ChalienEes Related to the ADDlicability of Citv Laws. The provisions of this Section will apply only in the event of a legal or equitable action or other proceeding, before a court of competent jurisdiction, instituted by any person or entity not a party to the Agreement challenging the applicability to the Project or Project Site of a conflicting City Law (a "Third Party Enforcement Action"): 16.2.1 In the event of a Third Party Enforcement Action, City must: (i) promptly notify Developer of such action or proceeding; and (ii) stipulate to Developer's intervention as a party to such action or proceeding unless Developer has already been named as a respondent or real party in interest to such action or proceeding. In no event will City take any action that would frustrate, hinder, or otherwise complicate Developer's efforts to intervene, join or otherwise participate as a party to any Third Party Enforcement Action. As requested by Developer, City must use its best efforts to ensure that Developer is permitted to intervene, join or otherwise participate as a party to any Third Party Enforcement Action. If, for any reason, Developer is not permitted to intervene, join or otherwise participate as a party to any Third Party Enforcement Action, the parties to this Agreement agree to cooperate, to the maximum extent permitted by law, in the defense of such action or proceeding. For purposes of this Section, the required cooperation between the parties includes, without limitation, developing litigation strategies, preparing litigation briefs and other related documents, conferring on all aspects of the litigation, developing settlement strategies, and, to the extent permitted by law, jointly making significant decisions related to the relevant litigation, throughout the course thereof. 19 .T 16.2.2 City's costs of defending any Third Party Enforcement Action, including all court costs, and reasonable attorney's fees expended by City (including the time and cost of the City Attorney) in defense of any Third Party Enforcement Action, as well as the time of City's staff spent in connection with such defense (the "Enforcement Action Defense Costs), will be paid in accordance with this Agreement. The Enforcement Action Defense Costs shall extend to, and Developer will be obligated to pay, any costs incurred on appeal unless Developer notifies the City in writing that it does not wish to pursue the appeal. 16.2.3 City must not enter into a settlement agreement or take any other action to resolve any Third Party Enforcement Action without Developer's written consent. City cannot, without Developer's written consent, take any action that would frustrate, hinder or otherwise prevent Developer's efforts to settle or otherwise resolve any Third Party Enforcement Action. 16.2.4 Provided that City complies with this Section and provided that Developer is a party to the relevant Third Party Enforcement Action, Developer agrees to be bound by any final judgment (i.e., following all available appeals) arising out of a Third Party Enforcement Action and further agrees that no default under this Agreement will arise if such final judgment requires City to apply to the Project or Project Site a City Law that conflicts with Applicable Law or this Agreement. 17. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this Agreement of which time is an element. 18. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become operative on the date the Enabling Ordinance approving this Development Agreement becomes effective (the "Effective Date") pursuant to Government Code Section 36937. 19. Notices. Any notice that a party is required or may desire to give the other must be in writing and may be sent by: i) personal delivery; or ii) by deposit in the United States mail, postage paid, registered or certified mail, return receipt requested; or iii) by overnight delivery using a nationally recognized overnight courier, providing proof of delivery; or iv) by facsimile, evidenced by confirmed receipt; or v) by electronic delivery, evidenced by confirmed receipt, addressed as follows: If to City: City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Attention: City Manager Phone: 310/524-2301 Fax: 310/322-7137 E-mail: acamenter@elseeundo.ora With a Copy to: City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 20 197 Attention: Director of Planning and Building Safety Phone: 310/524-2346 Fax: 310/322-4167 E-mail: sleeaa,elseaundo.ore, With a Copy to: Hensley Law Group 3655 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, California 90503 Attention: Mark D. Hensley, Esq. Phone: Fax: E-mail: mhenslevOthensievlawuour).com If to Developer: Rosecrans -Sepulveda 4, LLC Richard L. Lundquist President Continental Development Corporation 2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: 310/640-1520, ext. Fax: 310/414-9279 E-mail: rlundquist@continentaldevelopment.com With a Copy to: Rosecrans -Sepulveda 4, LLC Alex Rose Senior Vice President Continental Development Corporation 2041 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: 310/640-1520 Fax: 310/414-9272 E-mail arose@continentaldevelopment.com With a Copy to: Allan Mackenzie c/o Mar Ventures, Inc. 721 N. Douglas Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Phone: Fax E-mail: allan.mackenzier7a marventures.com With a Copy to: Lisa Kranitz Wallin, Kress, Reisman & Kranitz, LLP 21 W. 11355 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: 310/450-9585 Fax: 310/450-0505 E-mail: lisa@,wkrklaw.com Either City or Developer may change its mailing address at any time by giving written notice of such change to the other in the manner provided herein at least ten days prior to the date such change is affected. Any notice given by mail is deemed to have been given as of the date of delivery (whether accepted or refused) established by the United State Post Office, return receipt, or the overnight carrier's proof of delivery as the case may be. Notices given in any other manner are effective only if and when received by the party to be notified between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., local time of the recipient, of any business day with delivery made after such hours deemed received the following business day. 20. Entire A,reement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter hereof, and supersedes in its entirety all prior agreements or understandings, oral or written. This Agreement shall not be amended, except as expressly provided herein. 21. Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other provision, whether or not similar; nor shall any such waiver constitute a continuing or subsequent waiver of the same provision. No waiver shall be binding, unless it is executed in writing by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of the waiver is sought. 22. Sunersession of Subseauent Laws of Judicial Action. The provisions of this Agreement must, to the extent feasible, be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with any new law or decision issued by a court of competent jurisdiction, enacted or made after the effective date which prevents or precludes compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement. Immediately after enactment of any such new law, or issuance of such decision, the parties must meet and confer in good faith to determine the feasibility of any such modification or suspension based on the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Agreement. 23. Severabilitv. If any provision of this Agreement is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall be effective to the extent the remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform, taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. 24. Relationshin of the Parties. Each Party acknowledges that, in entering into and performing under this Agreement, it is acting as an independent entity and not as an agent of any other Party in any respect. Nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as creating the relationship of partners, joint ventures or any other association of any king or nature between City and Developer, jointly or severally. 0076 199 25. No Third -Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole benefit of the Parties and their successors in interest. No other person or party shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 26. Recordation of Agreement and Amendments. This Agreement and any amendment thereof shall be recorded with the County Recorder of the County of Los Angeles by the City Clerk of City. 27. Cooneration Between City and Develoner. City and Developer shall execute and deliver to the other all such other and further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of this Agreement. Upon satisfactory performance by Developer, and subject to the continuing cooperation of the Developer, City will commence and in a timely manner proceed to complete all steps necessary for the implementation of this Agreement and development of the Project or Property in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 28. :Mules of Construction. The captions and headings of the various sections and subsections of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only, and they shall not constitute a part of this Agreement for any other purpose or affect interpretation of the Agreement. Should any provision of this Agreement be found to be in conflict with any provision of the Applicable Rules or the Project Approvals or the Future Approvals, the provisions of this Agreement shall control. 29. Joint Preparation. This Agreement shall be deemed to have been prepared jointly and equally by the Parties, and it shall not be construed against any Party on the ground that the Party prepared the Agreement or caused it to be prepared. 30. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement is made, entered into, and executed in the County of Los Angeles, California, and the laws of the State of California shall govern its interpretation and enforcement. Any action, suit or proceeding related to, or arising from, this Agreement shall be filed in the appropriate court having jurisdiction in the County of Los Angeles. 31. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which constitute one and the same instrument. 32. Weekend/Holiday Dates. Whenever any determination is to be made or action to be taken on a date specified in this Agreement, if such date shall fall upon a Saturday, Sunday or holiday specified in Government Code § 6700, the date for such determination or action shall be extended to the first business day immediately thereafter. 33. Not a Public Dedication. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, nothing herein contained shall be deemed to be a gift or dedication of the Property, or of the Project, or any portion thereof, to the general public, for the general public, or for any public use or purpose whatsoever, it being the intention and understanding of the Parties that this Agreement be strictly limited to and for the purposes herein expressed for the development of the Project as private property. The Developer shall have the right to prevent or prohibit the use of the Property, or the Project, or any portion thereof, including common areas and buildings and improvements located thereon, by any 23 200 person for any purpose which is not consistent with the development of the Project. Any portion of the Property conveyed to the City by the Developer as provided herein shall be held and used by the City only for the purposes contemplated herein or otherwise provided in such conveyance, and the City shall not take or permit to be taken (if within the power or authority of the City) any action or activity with respect to such portion of the Property that would deprive the Developer of the material benefits of this Agreement, or would in any manner interfere with the development of the Project as contemplated by this Agreement. 34. Releases. City agrees that upon written request of Developer and payment of all fees and performance of the requirements and conditions required by Developer by this Agreement, the City must execute and deliver to Developer appropriate release(s) of further obligations imposed by this Agreement in form and substance acceptable to the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office or as otherwise may be necessary to effect the release. 35. Consent. Where the consent or approval of City or Developer is required or necessary under this Agreement, the consent or approval will not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Developer and the City of El Segundo have executed this Development Agreement on the date first above written. CITY: City of El Segundo, a municipal corporation By: Mayor ATTEST: Tracy Weaver City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney 24 201 DEVELOPER: ROSECRANS-SEPULVEDA PARTNERS 4, LLC, A Delaware limited liability company By: Continental Rosecrans -Sepulveda, Inc. a California corporation By: Richard L. Lundquist, President 25 202 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of El Segundo, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as follows: THE SURFACE AND THAT PORTION OF THE SUBSURFACE WHICH LIES ABOVE A PLANE 450 FEET BELOW THE MEAN LOW WATER LEVEL OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN (AS SAID MEAN LOW WATER LEVEL IS ESTABLISHED BY U.S. COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY BENCH MARKS ALONG THE SHORE LINE) OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO WIT: PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 2341, IN THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 32, PAGE 99 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN SAID OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, TOGETHER WITH THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 2341, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 32, PAGE 99 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER, LYING WESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: BEGINNING AT THE WESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL, SOUTH 89° 57'34" EAST, 291.05 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 00° 02'26" EAST, 183.15 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1. EXCEPTING ALL OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUM AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES AND OTHER MINERALS, WHETHER SIMILAR TO THOSE HEREIN SPECIFIED OR NOT, WITHIN OR THAT MAY BE PRODUCED FROM SAID LAND; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND SHALL NEVER BE USED FOR THE EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, EXTRACTION, REMOVAL OR STORAGE OF SAID OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUM, AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES AND OTHER MINERALS, AND FURTHER PROVIDED NO INSTALLATION CONSTRUCTED THEREIN SHALL BE DISTURBED IN ANY MANNER IN EXTRACTING SAID RESERVED MINERALS, AS RESERVED IN DEED FROM STANDARD OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED DECEMBER 20, 1960, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1622, IN BOOK D-1069, PAGE 898, OFFICIAL RECORDS. SAID LAND IS ALSO SHOWN AS PARCEL 2 OF LLA NO. 13-04 OF THAT CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT RECORDED DECEMBER 30, 2013 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20131816582 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. LWOREA 26 203 EXHIBIT B STIE PLAN FOR BEACH CITIES MEDIA CAMPUS 133�iSHSVN r jj ,.kj No �d su N 27 204 EXHIBIT C SITE PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE I 133d1S 14SYN . w "M, GlITUL11111111 =UFT -L LH 1."al I 28 5 205 ❑ Z I 28 5 205 EXHIBIT D SITE PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 13381S HSYN a�W igip= I yyyyyy 11 ]�iIIIIJIII�IIIIIIIII �I -10 zi12 y 29 KIM EXHIBIT E SITE PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 f 133815 HSVN I� w z� '�' r V Y MNryMM.NMk.V V Y Yh!!M Y NJ! Y. Y V'! �"�11f111111111111111111 t; 6a E 30 N L1 S 9 207 EXHIBIT F ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT Recording Requested By and When Recorded Mail To: Rosecrans Sepulveda Partners 4 LLC ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT This ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is made and entered into by and among ROSECRANS-SEPULVEDA PARTNERS 4, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation ("RSP4") ("Assignors"), and, a ("Assignee"). RECITALS A. The City of El Segundo ("City") and Assignor entered into that certain Revised and Restated Development Agreement dated , 20 (the "Development Agreement"), with respect to the real property located in the City of El Segundo, State of California more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "Project Site"), and B. Assignor has obtained from the City certain development approvals and permits with respect to the development of the Project Site, including without limitation, approval of for the Project Site (collectively, the "Project Approvals"). C. Assignor intends to sell, and Assignee intends to purchase that portion, of the Project Site more particularly described in Exhibit `B" attached hereto (the "Transferred Property"). D. In connection with such purchase and sale, Assignor desires to transfer all of the Assignor's right, title, and interest in and to the Development Agreement and the Project Approvals with respect to the Transferred Property. Assignee desires to accept such assignment from Assignor and assume the obligations of Assignor under the Development Agreement and the Project Approvals with respect to the Transferred Property. THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Assianment. Assignor hereby assigns and transfers to Assignee all of Assignor's right, title, and interest in and to the Development Agreement and the Project Approvals with respect to the Transferred Property. Assignee hereby accepts such assignment from Assignor. 31 I 2. Assumption. Assignee expressly assumes and agrees to keep, perform, and fulfill all the terms, conditions, covenants, and obligations required to be kept, performed, and fulfilled by Assignor under the Development Agreement and the Project Approvals with respect to the Transferred Property, including but not limited to those obligations specifically allocated to the Transferred Parcel as set forth on Exhibit "C" attached hereto. 3. Effective Date. The execution by City of the attached receipt for this Agreement shall be considered as conclusive proof of delivery of this Agreement and of the assignment and assumption contained herein. This Agreement shall be effective upon its recordation in the Official Records of Los Angeles County, California, provided that Assignee has closed the purchase and sale transaction and acquired legal title to the Transferred Property. 4. Remainder of Proiect. Any and all rights or obligations pertaining to such portion of the Project Site other than the Transferred Property are expressly excluded from the assignment and assumption provided in sections 1 and 2 above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the dates set forth next to their signatures below. "ASSIGNOR" Rosecrans -Sepulveda Partners 4 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company RECEIPT BY CITY The attached ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT is received by the City of El Segundo on this day of , CITY OF EL SEGUNDO Planning and Building Safety Director or Designee 32 209 Exh i bit C-2 A- PROJECT AREA City of EI Segundo EXHIBIT H Beach Cities Media Campus 2021 Rosecrans Avenue Proposed Zoning Map Amendment EL SEGUNDO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT Exhibit ID MEETING DATE: May 23, 2019 AGENDA HEADING: Public Hearing AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action regarding Environmental Assessment No. EA -1201 to: • Recommend Amendment of the General Plan to change the land use designation on the Site from Commercial Center to Urban Mixed -Use South • Recommend a Zoning Map Amendment from C-4 to MU -S • Recommend approval of a 10 -year Development Agreement • Recommend certification of an Environmental Impact Report and adoption of Statement of Overriding Considerations The project site is located at 2041 Rosecrans Avenue, El Segundo, California 90245. Applicant and Property Owner: Rosecrans -Sepulveda Partners 4, LLC RECOMMENDED PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: It is recommended 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. 2861 recommending approval of Environmental Assessment No. EA -1201 and recommending that the City Council amend the General Plan and zoning of the site, and approve a Development Agreement. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1. Exhibit A — Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2861 A-1. Draft Conditions of Approval 2. Exhibit B — Site Plan B-1 Site Plan, Alternative 1 B-2 Site Plan, Alternative 2 B-3 Site Plan, Alternative 3 3. Exhibit C — Final Environmental Impact Report — FEIR 4. Exhibit D — FEIR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5. Exhibit E — Environmental Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 6. Exhibit F — Development Agreement 7. Exhibit G — General Plan Land Use Map Amendment 8. Exhibit H — Zoning Map Amendment ORIGINATED BY: Ethan Edwards, AICP, Contract Planner REVIEWED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager APPROVED BY: Sam Lee, Director of Planning and Building Safety 211 Rosecrans -Sepulveda Partners 4, LLC (RSP4), the Project Applicant, proposes to develop office, retail, and studio and production facilities on an approximately 6.39 -acre site located at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue, to be known as the Beach Cities Media Campus (BCMC). The project includes the development of an approximately 240,000 square foot creative office building with the option to incorporate a roof deck, a 66,000 square foot studio and production facilities building, and 7,000 square feet of retail uses. In total, the Project would include approximately 313,000 square feet of floor area with an associated floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.13 to 1 based on the lot area. The Project would also provide 1,100 parking spaces to accommodate the proposed uses in a combination of surface parking, semi -subterranean parking, and a parking structure. The Project also includes a general plan amendment and zone change to amend the land use designation and change the zoning from Commercial Center to Urban Mixed Use South. In conjunction with the general plan amendment and zone change, RSP4 is also seeking a 10 -year development agreement. In exchange for the vested land use regulations, the terms of the development agreement will limit the envelope of development that could be built upon the project site as specified above. Furthermore, the development agreement will provide that the following uses shall be prohibited: 1) drive-through restaurants; 2) adult businesses; 3) catering services/flight kitchens; 4) freight forwarding; and 5) service stations. These requests require review by the Planning Commission. Figitre 1 Prgjecl Localion 2 212 BACKGROUND The relatively flat Site was previously developed with an industrial gas manufacturing plant owned and operated by Air Products and Chemicals. The site consists of approximately 6.39 acres bounded by a vacant lot to the north; a parking structure, surface parking lots, and commercial uses to the east; Rosecrans Avenue, the Kinecta Credit Union building and parking lot is located project site to the south; and a surface parking lot and commercial uses to the west. The project site is located in an urban area and is surrounded by a mix of uses, including: commercial, office, and vacant industrial lots. Nearby structures vary in building style and construction. See Figure 1, Project Location. The property to the north and adjacent to the project site is the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad with a vacant industrial lot, formerly occupied by Honeywell beyond. The area to the west and northwest of the project site is occupied by retail uses, consisting of the Plaza El Segundo shopping center, the Point retail center, and associated surface parking lots. The property to the east and adjacent to the project site is the Continental Park development. This development consists of office uses, restaurants, a multi -screen movie theater, retail development, a surface parking lot, and a parking structure. The property to the south, across Rosecrans Avenue is located in the city of Manhattan Beach, and consists of office buildings and parking lots. The Kinecta Credit Union building and parking lot is located directly south of the project site. Further southwest of the project site is the Manhattan Beach Towers office buildings and parking areas. The Manhattan Village Mall and the Fry's retail store are located further southwest. Southeast of the project site is a retail shopping center and the Marriott Plaza Hotel. Site Plan Site Plan / Rosecrans Elevati Figure ? Sile Plan 213 �R[LIGHT LkIftWO iN FwTER 11 •A[iWG WW _ M WINGOEEICE vn>r muL - QD 213 TABLE 1 SURROUNDING LAND USES Land Uses Zones North Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad; Industrial C-4 South Office Manhattan Beach East Continental Park retail development MU -S West Plaza El Segundo shopping center, The Point retail center C-4 ANALYSIS The Beach Cities Media Campus proposal includes the development of approximately 313,000 square feet of floor area including: a. Creative office building at 240,000 SF b. Studio and production facilities building with 66,000 SF c. Retail with 7,000 SF The project will also provide 1,100 parking spaces to accommodate the uses in a combination of surface parking, semi -subterranean parking, and a parking structure. The MU -S zone permits a maximum FAR of 1.3, a total floor area of 361,844 square feet, and a maximum height of 175 feet. However, the project development agreement will limit the FAR to 1. 13, the floor area to 313,000 square feet and the height to 140 feet. Building occupancies include B (office), M (Market and Retail) and S-2 (Open Parking Garage). Vehicular access to the site will be provided by three driveways, which may be gated to create a secure campus. Two entry/exit driveways are proposed for Rosecrans Avenue and one driveway would be accessed through the rear of the existing adjacent commercial property to the east, which is accessed off South Nash Street. Parking for the project will be provided in multiple areas, including a seven -story above grade parking structure with approximately 980 spaces, a subterranean level beneath the office building containing 120 spaces; and in surface lots elsewhere on the site. The sidewalk on Rosecrans Avenue will provide improved pedestrian access between Continental Park and the shopping areas to the west. Rosecrans Avenue frontage will be dedicated to facilitate the execution of the City's bike plan. Additionally, vehicle parking spaces would comply with the requirements set forth in the ESMC and preferential parking would be provided for carpool vehicles in accordance with the ESMC and California Green Building Standards (CalGreen) requirements. Per the ESMC, the minimum number of bicycle spaces require four spaces for buildings up to 15,000 square feet, plus a minimum of five percent of the required vehicle spaces for the building area above 15,000 square feet, resulting in a minimum requirement of 25 bicycle spaces. The project meets or exceed these requirements. In addition, bicycle racks will be installed in accordance with the ESMC and CalGreen requirements. 4 214 Project lighting includes architectural lighting, interior lighting visible through windows, and low-level exterior security and wayfinding lighting. These exterior lights are typically wall- or ground -mounted and shielded from illuminating adjacent land uses. Building security lighting will be used at all entries and exits and must remain on from dusk to dawn. The lighting would be similar to other sites in the vicinity and not generate artificial light levels that are out of character with the surrounding area. General Pian and Zoning Consistenev The General Plan land use designation and zoning of the Property will be amended from Commercial Center to Urban Mixed Use South. The Zoning designation and zoning of the Property will be amended from Commercial Center (C-4) to Urban Mixed Use South (MU -S) to match the new land use designations. The primary differences in the development standards between the C-4 and MU -S zones are that MU -S allows greater height, greater density, and minor differences in setbacks. The C-4 zone has a height of 65 feet and a density of 0.275 FAR, while MU -N allows 175 feet and 1.3 FAR. The total buildable square footage under the MU -S zone is 361,844 square feet, however the development agreement limits build -out to 313,000 square feet, FAR up to 1. 13, height to 140 feet, and limits or prohibits certain uses. Additionally, there is a greater variety of uses allowed under the MU -S zone. See Table 1 for comparison of permitted uses and Table 2 for the development standards comparison. 215 Table 1 Comparison of Permitted Uses Uses not effected by proposed changes Alcohol sales (AUP or CUP) Daycare centers Financial institutions General offices Medical or dental offices Restaurants and cafes Retail Uses that become permitted by proposed changes Assembly halls (CUP) Data centers Fitness centers Hotels and motels Light industrial uses (AUP) Massage establishments (CUP) Motion picture/television production facilities (indoor only) Outdoor dining larger than 200 square feet (CUP) Commercial parking facilities (CUP) Helicopter landing facilities (CUP) Hospitals (CUP) Research and development Uses that become prohibited by proposed change or the DA Animal hospitals and veterinary services Day spas Farmers' market Drive-through restaurants (prohibited by DA) Catering services and flight kitchens (prohibited by DA) Freight forwarding (prohibited by DA) Indoor vehicle and parts sales Micro -brewery Multi -media offices Personal services Public assembly, including theaters and museums Service stations (prohibited by DA) Uses that become permitted by different means by proposed change Recreational facilities (from by -right to CUP) li 216 Table 2 Development Standards Comparison Lot area Height (sq. ft.) (ft.) Project 278,348 <140 MU -S (new) >10,000 <175 C-4 (existing) >10,000 <65 IV. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The applicant is seeking a 10 -year development agreement which will allow the Beach Cities Media Campus or any of the alternatives. In exchange for the vested land use regulations, the development agreement limits the envelope that could be built upon the project site. Furthermore, the development agreement provides that the following uses shall be prohibited: drive- through restaurants; adult businesses; catering services/flight kitchens; freight forwarding; and service stations. Public Benefits The Project's public Benefits, as proposed by the applicant, are as follows: • Fulfilling long-term economic and social goals for City and the community; • Providing fiscal benefits to City's general fund in terms of increased employment as well as increased utility, business license, property and other tax revenues, which are anticipated to exceed $390,000 annually; • Providing both short-term construction employment and long-term permanent employment within City; • Eliminating a blighted area; • Facilitating environmental remediation on and around the Property; • Creating significant offsite public improvements, including streets, signals, medians and landscaping; • Property owner voluntarily waiving its right to develop the Property with certain uses which are allowed or conditionally allowed in the MU -S zone. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Initial Studv and Scooina In accordance with 14 California Code of Regulations § 15063, an initial study was prepared in December, 2017, to identify if the project could have any potentially significant impacts on the environment. A Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was published in the El Segundo Herald, posted at City Hall, and mailed to property owners in the project's vicinity as well as identified interested parties on December 8, 2017. The prepared Initial Study underwent the CEQA required 30 -day public review period between December 8, 2017 and January 6, 2018. A public scoping meeting was held on December 18, 2017. 7 217 Setbacks (ft.) Front Sides Rear Frontage (ft.) 30 20 5 626 30 20 5 >100 25 0 15 >_100 IV. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The applicant is seeking a 10 -year development agreement which will allow the Beach Cities Media Campus or any of the alternatives. In exchange for the vested land use regulations, the development agreement limits the envelope that could be built upon the project site. Furthermore, the development agreement provides that the following uses shall be prohibited: drive- through restaurants; adult businesses; catering services/flight kitchens; freight forwarding; and service stations. Public Benefits The Project's public Benefits, as proposed by the applicant, are as follows: • Fulfilling long-term economic and social goals for City and the community; • Providing fiscal benefits to City's general fund in terms of increased employment as well as increased utility, business license, property and other tax revenues, which are anticipated to exceed $390,000 annually; • Providing both short-term construction employment and long-term permanent employment within City; • Eliminating a blighted area; • Facilitating environmental remediation on and around the Property; • Creating significant offsite public improvements, including streets, signals, medians and landscaping; • Property owner voluntarily waiving its right to develop the Property with certain uses which are allowed or conditionally allowed in the MU -S zone. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Initial Studv and Scooina In accordance with 14 California Code of Regulations § 15063, an initial study was prepared in December, 2017, to identify if the project could have any potentially significant impacts on the environment. A Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was published in the El Segundo Herald, posted at City Hall, and mailed to property owners in the project's vicinity as well as identified interested parties on December 8, 2017. The prepared Initial Study underwent the CEQA required 30 -day public review period between December 8, 2017 and January 6, 2018. A public scoping meeting was held on December 18, 2017. 7 217 The following agencies and groups submitted Notice of Preparation comment letters: State of California Department of Transportation (CalTrans); State of California Native American Heritage Commission;; Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro); and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). City Department comment letters included letters from the El Segundo Fire Department; the Building Division, Crime Prevention and the Public Works Department. The primary issues raised in the agency comment letters were included in the EIR analysis. One member of the public, Lozeau Drury, LLP, also commented during the public scoping period. All of the issues raised in these letters are included in the EIR analysis. Circulation of Draft EIR In accordance with 14 California Code of Regulations §§ 15085-15087, the Notice of Completion and Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Report and Notice of Public Hearing was published in the El Segundo Herald, posted at City Hall and mailed to property owners in the vicinity of the project site as well as to identified interested parties on March 1, 2019. This notice identified a 45 -day public comment period on the completed Draft EIR from March 1 to April 15, 2019. Environmental Findines The draft Planning Commission Resolution (Exhibit A) includes the proposed CEQA findings. The Resolution also includes a draft Statement of Overriding Considerations that finds that the project's unavoidable significant impacts are acceptable to the City when balanced against the project's benefits. Surnmery of Draft EIR Conclusions The Initial Study for the Beach Cities Media Campus identified certain CEQA subject areas as having less than significant potential impacts, and therefore analysis of these subject areas are not included in the EIR. The following subject areas were screened out and the Initial Study evaluation was deemed to be sufficient: aesthetics, agricultural and forest resources, biological resources, cultural resources, and mineral resources. The following is a summary of the analysis and findings for environmental issue areas included in the EIR: Air Quality (DEIR Section IV. A). Project construction and operational air quality standards would not be significant based on the air quality analysis in the DIER based on short-term and long-term air quality impacts associated with the following potential conflicts: Conflict with Air Quality Plan: The project is not anticipated to exceed the most recent SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan's (AQMP) assumptions for the project site and is found to be consistent with that plan. Violation ofAir Quality Standards: Construction: A less than significant air quality impact will occur as a result of emissions for individual construction phases, overlapping construction phases, or analyzed criteria pollutants exceeding the calculated local emissions thresholds at the nearest sensitive receptors. Operations: None of the SCAQMD regional thresholds would be exceeded. Cumulative Considerable Net Increase of Criteria Pollutant: The mass daily construction -related emissions generated by the project would not exceed any of the thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD, localized construction -related and operational emissions would not exceed the 8 218 SCAQMD's LSTs, and the mass daily operational emissions generated by the project would not exceed thresholds of significance recommended by SCAQMD. Exposure to Sensitive Receptors: The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the Manhattan Senior Villas apartments approximately 0.18 miles southwest and residential dwelling units located approximately 0.2 miles to the south. Residential units are also located 0.32 miles southwest and 0.64 miles east of the project site. Vistamar School is 0.48 miles to the northeast. Construction: Project construction -source emissions would not conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan and the project will comply with all applicable SCAQMD construction -source emission reduction rules and guidelines. Project construction source emissions would not cause or substantively contribute to violation of the California or National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Construction source odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would not result in persistent impacts that would affect substantial numbers of people. Potential construction -source odor impacts are therefore considered less than significant. Operation: The Project operational -sourced emissions would not exceed applicable regional thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. Additionally, project -related trips will not cause or result in CO concentrations exceeding applicable state and/or federal standards. Cultural Resources (DEIR Section IV. B) Paleontological Resources: The Project will require excavation to a depth of approximately 15 feet below the existing grade to construct subterranean parking and the foundation. Thus, the possibility exists that paleontological artifacts that were not recovered during prior construction or other human activity may be discovered. To ensure impacts to potential paleontological resources would be less than significant, mitigation measure (MM) B-1 is required, in which a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perform periodic inspections of excavation and grading activities on the project site. Archaeological Resources: Because the project site has been previously developed and the archaeological records search does not identify any potential resources, an on-site archaeological survey has not been conducted specifically for the project site. Nevertheless, the archaeological records search recommends that, in order to identify cultural resources, an archaeological monitor should be in place for ground -disturbing activities, which is addressed in MM B-2 Human Remains: No known human burials have been identified on the project site or in recorded resources located within one-half mile. It is possible that human remains may be discovered during construction, so MM B-2 addresses this possibility as well as general archaeological resources. Geology and Soils (DEIR Section IV. C) Geologic Hazards: Earthquake Fault Rupture - The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on the available geologic data, active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are not known to be located beneath or projecting toward the project site. Seismic ground shaking could damage buildings, and utility infrastructure, however, project construction would be consistent with all applicable provisions of the California Building Code. This requires that prior to the issuance of any construction permits, a final design -level geotechnical report will be prepared for the project and approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety as described in Project Design Feature (PDF) C-1. Soil Erosion: Construction — With compliance with regulatory and permitting requirements discussed below, construction and operational impacts related to soils erosion will be less than significant. 219 Construction activities will involve excavation of approximately 35,000 to 49,400 cubic yards of soil to construct the subterranean parking and associated shoring. Construction activities would be in accordance with all applicable erosion control requirements, including grading and dust control measures, imposed by the City pursuant to its grading permit regulations. The project will be required to have an erosion control plan approved by the Director of Planning and Building Safety, as well as a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. As part of the SWPPP, Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented during construction to reduce sedimentation and erosion levels to the maximum extent possible. In addition, project construction contractors are required to comply with City grading permit regulations, which require necessary measures, plans and inspections to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Operation - The Project is required to have a Standard Urban Storm water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) in place during the operational life of the project. Expansive Soil: With compliance with the California Building Code and Project Design Feature (PDF) C-1, which includes design requirements appropriate to site-specific conditions, impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. Greenhouse Gas Emissions (DEIR Section IV. D) The project's unmitigated emissions are about 6,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year, resulting in 5.82 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per service population per year (MTCO2e/SP/year). This is above the SCAQMC's 3,000 metric tons threshold for cumulative global climate change impacts for all land uses, as well as the 2020 target service population (TSP) threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year. Therefore, mitigation is required. The project's mitigated emissions would be reduced to about 4,000 MTCO2e per year resulting in 3.55 MTCO2e/SP/year. With incorporation of mitigation, and incorporation of the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA)-based land use and transportation measures related to increased density, increased diversity, improved destination accessibility, and site design and transportation measure to address an improved pedestrian network, the project's emissions would no longer exceed the tier 4 SCAQMD 2020 TSP threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year. Therefore, with incorporation of MMs D -I through D-4, the project's greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions are considered to be less than significant. Additionally, as the project complies with the goals of the EI Segundo Climate Action Plan and the project would be in compliance with the goals of SB -32. The Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and impacts are considered to be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (DEIR Section IV. E) Significant Hazard: Construction: During excavation, on-site grading, and building construction, hazardous materials such as fuel and oils associated with construction equipment, as well as coatings, paints, adhesives, and caustic or acidic cleaners could be used, handled, and stored on the project site. This could increase the opportunity for releases and, exposure of people and the environment to hazardous materials. The Project would be in full compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the use, storage, and management of hazardous materials. Therefore, impacts related to the use and storage of hazardous materials during construction would be less than significant. Operation: Operation of the Project could use potentially hazardous materials typical of those used in office, retail, and studio and production facilities, including cleaning agents, paints, pesticides, and for 10 220 landscaping. With implementation of appropriate hazardous materials management protocols and continued compliance with all relevant applicable local, state, and federal laws and regulations and adherence to manufacturers' instructions for the safe handling and disposal, potential impacts upon people, the environment, associated with hazardous materials during operation of the Project would be less than significant. Release of Hazards: Construction: The Phase I study noted that all structures have been removed from the project site, and no asbestos or asbestos containing materials were found in the soil. However the soil was found to be impacted with hydrocarbons, lead, and PCBs. An investigation report and remedial action work plan was prepared, and 504 cubic yards of impacted soil was reportedly excavated and disposed off-site as non -hazardous waste. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issued and No Further Action determination (NFA) for soil on August 31, 2017. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant. Excavation of the Project could result in the accidental release of oil from one of the on-site pipelines, which would result in potentially significant impacts. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure MM E-1, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Operation: There is no evidence of hazardous materials present in soils on the site that would pose a possible health risk to the occupants of future buildings. Routine cleaning supplies used on the site during operations could contain hazardous materials, so compliance with county, state, and federal requirements for their usage would ensure that such chemicals would not pose a risk. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Hazardous Materials Site: Construction and Operation: The project site appears on haz mat materials databases strictly for permitting/documentation purpose. Therefore, the site does not consist of a hazardous material site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and the project would not exacerbate the current environmental conditions so as to create a significant new hazard. As such, any impacts during construction or operation would be less than significant. Emergency Response Plan: Construction — The construction of the Project would occur within the property boundaries, however, it is expected that construction fences will encroach into the public right- of-way on Rosecrans Avenue to accommodate deliveries and construction vehicles. Temporary traffic controls would be provided to direct traffic around any closures as required in the Construction Management Plan. Travel lanes would be maintained in each direction throughout the construction period, and emergency access would not be impeded. As such, the construction of the Project impacts would be less than significant. Operation: Emergency vehicle access to the project would continue to be provided from major roadways adjacent to the site. While the project is anticipated to affect the level of service of roadways in the vicinity, the increases in traffic would not greatly affect emergency vehicles. Further, the project applicant is required to submit the project plot plan to the El Segundo Fire Department for review to ensure compliance with applicable standards, thereby ensuring that the Project would not create any undue fire hazard or obstacle to emergency access. Project impacts associated with emergency access and response would be less than significant. 11 221 Hydrology and Water Quality (DEIR Section IV. F) Water Quality Standards: Construction: Based on the site being greater than one acre, the project would be subject to the NPDES Construction General Permit, which requires a SWPPP and an Erosion Control Plan. With compliance to applicable regulatory requirements, implementation of SWPPP BMPs, and Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-6, construction -related impacts to surface water quality would be reduced to a level of less than significant. The Project is not expected to impact groundwater hydrology during construction and would not result in any substantial increase in groundwater contamination through hazardous materials releases. Accordingly, impacts on groundwater quality would be less than significant. Operation: The project will be required to implement BMPs for managing storm water runoff. As the project would capture, and treat runoff as required through regulatory compliance and PDFs, implementation would represent an improvement in water quality from the existing conditions. With compliance with regulatory requirements, PDFs, BMPs, a project -specific SUSMP, and Mitigation Measures F-1 through F-6, operation -related surface water quality impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. No underground storage tanks are currently operated or would be operated by the project and operation would not require extraction from the groundwater supply. Therefore, impacts on groundwater quality would be less than significant. Groundwater Supplies: Construction: The project would not include injection or supply wells. Therefore, project construction activities would result in less -than -significant impacts related to groundwater. Operation: Development of the project would not include the installation or operation of water wells, or any extraction or recharge system that is in the vicinity of the coast. The project would develop hardscape and structures that cover virtually the entire project site with impervious surfaces with the exception of the landscaped court yards and areas around the buildings. Therefore, the groundwater recharge potential would be minimal. The storm water that bypasses the BMP systems would discharge to an approved discharge point in the public right-of-way and not result in infiltration of a large amount of rainfall that would affect groundwater hydrology, including the direction of groundwater flow. Also, the pervious surfaces (such as landscaping) on the site will drain into a controlled and managed drainage system that discharges into the storm drain system and not into the ground. Therefore, the Project's potential impact on groundwater recharge would be less than significant. The subterranean level of the Project would be designed such that it is able to withstand hydrostatic forces and incorporate comprehensive waterproofing systems in accordance with current industry standards and construction methods. As such, permanent dewatering operations are not expected. Therefore, the Project's potential impact during operation on groundwater level would be less than significant. Drainage Pattern with Respect to Erosion or Siltation: Construction: The project would implement BMPs to be used during construction to manage runoff flows and prevent pollution. The BMPs are designed to reduce runoff and pollutant levels in runoff flow and volumes during construction.. 12 222 In addition, the project would be required to comply with all applicable regulations that require necessary measures, plans, and inspections to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Thus, through compliance with all NPDES General Construction Permit requirements and implementation of BMPs, the Project would not substantially alter the site drainage patterns in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding. Therefore, construction -related impacts to surface water hydrology drainage patterns with respect to potential for erosion or siltation would be less than significant. Operation: Although the project would alter the existing drainage pattern because the proposed buildings will cover nearly the entire project site and there would be no bare soils with the potential to erode or contribute silt to surface runoff. Therefore, operational impacts to surface water hydrology drainage patterns with respect to potential for erosion or siltation would be less than significant. Drainage Patterns: Construction: The project will require construction and excavation, however, these activities would not cause any flooding during construction because the project will implement a SWPPP as well as construction -specific BMPs to reduce the amount of runoff. Also, through compliance with all NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, and all applicable City grading regulations, the project would not substantially alter the drainage patterns in a manner that would result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding. Furthermore, adherence to standard compliance measures would ensure that the project would not cause flooding that would have the potential to harm people or damage property; substantially reduce or increase the amount of surface water flow into a water body; or result in a permanent, adverse change to the movement of surface water to produce a substantial change in the current or direction of water flow during construction. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Operation: The project would be required to comply with the requirements of the SUSMP and MS4 permit, which would control the volume of runoff from the project site after the project is constructed. The project will not modify the surrounding streets with respect to the manner in which they convey storm runoff to the storm drain system, and would have no effect on regional facilities. The project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces compared to existing conditions, however, the flow direction of storm water would remain similar to existing conditions because runoff from the Project would continue towards Rosecrans Avenue. The operational impact on drainage patterns with respect to the potential for flooding would be less than significant. Runoff Capacity with Respect to Storm water Drainage Systems: The storm water infrastructure within the public right-of-way has sufficient capacity to accept the storm water runoff from on-site existing conditions. This project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems and impacts would be less than significant. The project would be required to prepare a SWPPP to prevent runoff and water quality impacts during construction, and appropriate BMPs to manage storm water runoff and pollutants from the site. As the project would manage, capture, and treat runoff, in compliance with these regulatory requirements, implementation of the project would represent an improvement in water quality from the existing conditions. The construction and operation of the Project would not introduce substantial sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant. Degrade Water Quality: Construction associated with the project would be subject to the requirements of the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, which controls the quality of runoff entering municipal storm drains. Accordingly, a SWPPP would be developed in compliance with State Water Resources Control Board requirements and implemented during construction. During operation, the project will be required to prepare and implement a project -specific SUSMP meeting the requirements of the County -wide 13 223 SUSMP adopted by the Los Angeles RWQCB, and implement BMPs designed to address runoff and pollutants. Furthermore, as the project would manage, capture, and treat runoff as required through regulatory compliance and PDFs, implementation of the project represents an improvement in water quality from the existing condition as runoff currently flows untreated to the drainage system. Therefore, through compliance with regulatory requirements and the PDFs, construction- and operation -related impacts to water quality would be less than significant. Land Use and Planning (DEIR Section IV. G). The project would be consistent with to the goals in the 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan and the Compass Growth Vision goal to improve mobility for all residents. In addition, the project would be consistent with the applicable goals in the 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/SCS, by locating the project within close proximity to a regional transportation hub and within a jobs rich area. The project would be consistent with the applicable goals, objectives, and policies in the General Plan Land Use Element by developing a mix of land uses, which would contribute to the diversity of land uses in the El Segundo area. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with the standards and provisions set forth in Title 15 of the ESMC. Therefore, the proposed zone change would be consistent with Title 15 of the ESMC. The Project would be generally consistent with applicable goals, policies, and objectives in local and regional plans that govern development on the project site. Therefore, the Project would not be in substantial conflict with the General Plan, zoning, or the whole of relevant environmental policies in other applicable plans, including regional plans. As such, impacts related to land use consistency would be less than significant. Noise (DEIR Section IV. H). Exposure of Excessive Noise: Construction: Although construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels above the existing within the vicinity, it is anticipated to occur during the permissible hours according to the City's Municipal Code. Therefore, construction - related noise impacts are considered to be less than significant. Operational noise levels associated with the project are expected to not be readily noticeable over the existing measured noise levels during daytime hours. Therefore, operational noise impacts to sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Exposure of Excessive Ground -borne Vibration: Construction: Buildings with steel or reinforced concrete, such as factories, retaining walls, bridges, steel towers etc. withstand much higher vibration levels than a typical home. Temporary vibration levels associated with project construction would be less than significant. Operation: The project does not include uses that are expected to generate measurable levels of ground - borne vibration during operation of the office, studio and retail uses, and the greatest regular source of project -related ground -borne vibration would be from delivery and garbage trucks. Therefore, the operational impacts associated with ground -borne vibration would be less than significant at nearby sensitive uses. Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels: The impact for this threshold would be identical to that which is described under the impact above. Therefore, construction -related noise impacts are considered to be less than significant. Impacts related to future traffic noise would be less than significant. 14 224 Temporary or Periodic Increase in Ambient Noise: The City's Municipal Code also specifies a maximum construction noise level for residential structures. However, no residential uses are located in close proximity to the project, the site is surrounded by commercial uses. Therefore, construction -related noise impacts are considered to be less than significant. Population, Housing and Employment (DEIR Section IV. I) Construction of the project would result in temporary construction workers on site daily, which could potentially increase residential population and demand for housing in the vicinity of the project site. However, the employment patterns of construction workers in Southern California are such that it is not likely that they would relocate their households as a consequence of the construction employment associated with the project. Therefore, housing, population, and employment impacts associated with construction of the project would be less than significant. Operation: The project would not induce substantial population growth by introducing unplanned infrastructure or accelerating development in an undeveloped area. As the project would be supported by the existing infrastructure, indirect population growth impacts would be less than significant. The project would generate a net increase that would be well within SCAG's forecasts of additional jobs in El Segundo between 2012 and 2020, as well as between 2012 and 2040 as it represents approximately 8.8 percent and 15.4 percent of the total jobs, respectively. Therefore, the project would be within SCAG's citywide projections for housing unit growth. As such, impacts related to housing growth would be less than significant. As such, impacts related to housing growth would be less than significant. As discussed previously, the project does not propose the development of residential units. Therefore, impacts related to population growth would be less than significant. Public Services (DEIR Section IV. J) Fire Protection: Construction: Impacts to fire protection services are considered to be less than significant for the following reasons: Emergency access would be maintained to the project site during construction through marked emergency access points approved by the ESFD (see PDF J-1); partial lane closures, if determined to be necessary, would not greatly affect emergency vehicles because they normally have a variety of options for avoiding traffic such as using their sirens to clear a path or driving in the lanes of opposing traffic; and the project would be required to prepare a Construction Management Plan (see PDF PS -1) that would address traffic and access control during construction. Accordingly, project construction would not affect firefighting and emergency services to the extent that new, expanded, consolidated, or relocated fire facilities would be needed in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives of the ESFD. Therefore, construction - related impacts on fire protection services would be less than significant. Operation: Increase in 1,033 net new employees and visitors to the project site during operation would create demand for additional fire protection services. Compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, including ESFD's fire life safety plan review and inspection, would ensure that adequate fire prevention features are provided in order to reduce the demand on ESFD facilities and equipment. In addition, in accordance with the fire protection -related programs set forth in the General Plan Public Safety Element, PDF's, as well as ESFD's continued evaluation of existing fire facilities, project impacts with regard to ESFD facilities and equipment would be less than significant. Emergency vehicle access to the project site would continue to be provided from major roadways adjacent to the site including Rosecrans Avenue and South Nash Street. Emergency access to the project site would be maintained at all times. 15 225 Based on the Project's proposed circulation plan, it is anticipated that the ESFD would be able to respond to emergency calls within the established response time. Therefore, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant. Police Protection Services: Construction: The project applicant would implement temporary security measures such as security fencing and lighting during construction. With implementation of these measures, potential impacts associated with theft and vandalism during construction activities would be less than significant. Project construction would not necessitate the provision of new or physically altered facilities in order to maintain the ESPD's capability to serve the project site; accordingly, the project would not result in adverse physical impacts associated with the construction of new or altered facilities. Therefore, impacts on police protection services during Project construction would be less than significant. Operation — The design of the Project would also include crime prevention features, such as nighttime security lighting and secured parking facilities. Implementation of Project Design Features, in coordination with the ESPD will result in a less -than -significant operational impact on police protection service. Since the current officer to daytime population ratio within the ESPD service area is one officer per approximately 1,607 persons, it is assumed that the addition of 1,033 employees would create the demand for one additional officer. However, since the population increase from the project is due to employees, not permanent residents and, as such, any increase in the ratio would be overstated. Therefore, the project would not represent a significant change in the officer -per -daytime ratio of the service area. Emergency vehicle access to the project site would continue to be provided from major adjacent roadways, including Rosecrans Avenue and South Nash Street. The project would be designed and constructed in accordance with ESMC requirements to ensure proper emergency access. Traffic impacts would not result in the need for expanded, consolidated, or relocated police facilities during operation of the project, and impacts to emergency service would be less than significant. Transportation, Traffic and Parking (DEIR Section IV. K) Conflict with Applicable Plan, Ordinance or Policy: Construction: Project Design Feature K-1 would require preparation of a construction management plan, which would address construction traffic routing and control, vehicular and pedestrian safety, pedestrian/bicycle access and parking, street closures, construction parking on a development -by -development basis. Implementation of PDF K-1 would reduce construction traffic impacts to less than significant. Operation: The project is projected to generate an estimated net increase of 2,833 daily trips during the AM peak hour and 309 trips during the PM peak hour. It is anticipated that the Project would result in significant impacts under existing plus project conditions at seven of the study intersections during the peak periods. Congestion Management Plan: The CMP arterial monitoring station closest to the proposed project site is at Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue (intersection #14), located to the west of the project. Study intersection #1, Sepulveda Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard, is also a CMP monitoring location. Based on the project trip distribution and trip generation, the project is expected to add approximately 33 trips in the AM peak hour and 30 trips in the PM peak hour through the CMP arterial monitoring station. It is not expected to add enough new traffic to exceed the arterial analysis criteria of 50 vehicle trips . Therefore, no further CMP arterial analysis is required. 16 226 Based on Project distribution patterns, approximately 26 percent of office related project traffic (of which studio is included) and 13 percent of retail related project traffic is expected to travel through the I-405 freeway monitoring station at Marine Avenue. The project is projected to result in an increase of 86 trips in the morning and 79 trips in the evening peak hour at this location. Based on the predicted distribution patterns, approximately 2 percent of project traffic is expected to travel through the 1-105 freeway monitoring station at Imperial Highway. The project is projected to result in an increase of seven trips in the morning and six trips in the evening peak hour. Since fewer than 150 trips would be added during the peak hours in either direction at the freeway segments in the vicinity, no further analysis of the freeway segments is required for CMP purposes. Public Transit: With a total estimated seating capacity of approximately 8,000 in the peak hours, the project would utilize approximately only about one-third of one percent of available transit capacity during the peak hours. The project and other related projects will cumulatively add new ridership to the transit system. However, the project site and the greater El Segundo area in general are served by a considerable amount of transit service, including the Metro Green Line, numerous Metro bus routes, Torrance Transit and the Beach Cities Transit service. Transit providers routinely adjust service up to two times a year to reflect future demand. Additional transit riders would also increase farebox recovery on transit lines, and therefore the project generated transit riders would help to fund the service. At this level of increase, project -related impacts on the regional transit system would not be significant. Emergency Access and Public Transit: Construction activities have the potential to affect emergency access, by adding construction traffic to the street network and requiring partial lane closures during street improvements and utility installations. These impacts are considered to be less than significant for the following reasons: • Emergency access would be maintained to the project site during construction through marked emergency access points approved by the ESFD. ■ Construction impacts are temporary in nature and do not cause lasting effects to impact ESFD services. • Partial lane closures, if determined to be necessary, would not greatly affect emergency vehicles. Additionally, if there are partial closures to streets surrounding the project site, flagmen would be used to facilitate the traffic flow until construction is complete. • The Project would be required to prepare a Construction Staging and Traffic Management Plan (see PDF K-1) that would address traffic and access control during construction. Operation: Emergency vehicle access to the project site would continue to be provided from major adjacent roadways. All circulation improvements that are proposed would comply with the Fire Code, including any additional access requirements of the ESFD. Emergency access to the site would be maintained at all times. Based on the project's proposed circulation plan, it is anticipated that the ESFD would be able to respond to emergency calls within the established response time. Therefore, impacts related to emergency access would be less than significant. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Bicycle storage would be provided on the project site, sidewalks are generally present throughout the project area, and marked crosswalks are provided at all major arterial intersections. 17 227 Pedestrian access to the project is provided along all of the surrounding roadways. Because the project would not modify or conflict with any alternative transportation policies, plans, or programs, impacts to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. The parking code requirement is 768 vehicle spaces for the project. The project is proposing to provide 1,100 parking spaces. Therefore, impacts on parking would be less than significant. Tribal Cultural Resource (DEIR Section IV. L) The project site is located near the Old Salt Road trade route, and is 4.3 miles north of the L.A. Salt Works salt pond and Indian village. Consultation under AB 52 with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians—Kizh Nation formally concluded on January 30, 2018. Based on the records search conducted for the Project and documentation provided by Mr. Andrew Salas, on behalf of the Kizh Nation, the project site is considered sensitive for potential tribal cultural resources. Project grading activities may encounter these resources and impacts may be potentially significant. With the implementation of MM L-1, which would provide for Native American monitor during project grading and excavation activities, impacts on tribal resources would be reduced to less than significant. Utilities and Services Systems (DEIR Section IV. M) Water: Water Treatment Facilities: Construction: The project would require construction of new, on- site water distribution lines to serve the new building. Construction impacts associated with the installation of water lines would primarily involve trenching in order to place the lines underground and would be limited to on-site and minor off-site work associated with connections to the public main. Prior to ground disturbance, project contractors would coordinate with West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD) to identify the locations and depth of all lines. Further, WBMWD would be notified in advance of proposed ground disturbance activities to avoid disruption of service. Therefore, project impacts on water infrastructure associated with construction activities would be less than significant. Operation: In accordance with ESFD Regulation H -2-a, design of the project would include installation of private fire hydrants for buildings or structures where any portion of the building is more than 150 feet from the public right-of-way. The location and water pressure available to these hydrants would be in compliance with City requirements and their installation would be conducted in coordination and under the approval of the ESFD. In addition, as detailed in PDF M-1, all water service meters, connections, and devices would be upgraded to current Water Division standards and all necessary permits and licenses would be obtained. A utility plan showing existing and proposed utility improvements would be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Accordingly, implementation of the project would not result in the need for new or additional water treatment facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Water Supplies: Construction: Non -potable water would be used for soil compacting and dust control purposes and would represent the majority of the water used during construction. Project construction activities would generate minimal potable water demand, and would not require water supplies that could not be met by existing City water entitlements and resources. Accordingly, impacts related to water demand during construction would be less than significant. Operation: Currently, there is no water demand in the project site as the structures on the site were demolished. The project's average daily demand would be approximately 52,556 gallons per day. There is a recycled water pipeline near the project, which can be tapped for landscape irrigation to offset potable 18 228 water demand. The City would be able to meet project operational water demand while meeting its existing and planned projected future water demands through at least 2040 and would not require new City water entitlements or resources. Therefore, project operational water supply impacts would be less than significant. Wastewater: Water Treatment Requirements: Construction: The project would be required to prepare a SWPPP to prevent runoff and water quality impacts during construction, and appropriate BMPs to manage storm water runoff and pollutants from the project site. Accordingly, construction of the project would not introduce substantial sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant. Operation: With respect to project compliance with the wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles RWQCB, the project would include office uses that would generate standard domestic/commercial wastewater. Project wastewater discharges to the local wastewater collection system would comply with applicable County -wide waste discharge requirements. Therefore, project operation would not interfere with the ability of the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) to meet the effluent limitations and waste discharge requirements set forth in its discharge permit. Wastewater Infrastructure: Construction: Construction workers would utilize portable restrooms, which do not contribute to wastewater flows to the wastewater system. Thus, wastewater generation from project construction activities is not anticipated to cause any increase in wastewater flows. The project would require improvements to the existing on-site wastewater collection system and connections to the existing off-site wastewater collection system. The design of these facilities and connections would be developed by a professional engineer and provided to the City's Public Works Department for review and approval as part of the utility plan required under PDF M.2-1. In addition, as required under PDF M.2-2, a sewer study would be prepared and submitted to the City Engineer prior to design of the wastewater connections. In the event that on-site sewer lines were found to be substandard or in deteriorated condition during the sewer study or construction, the applicant would be required to make necessary improvements to achieve adequate service pursuant to applicable City requirements, and PDFs M.2-1 and M.2-2. All impacts are of a relatively short-term duration and would cease to occur once the installation is complete. Project construction impacts to wastewater treatment and collection facilities would be less than significant. Operation: The project's net increase in wastewater would represent approximately 0.05 percent of the available capacity. Accordingly, adequate available sewage treatment capacity exists at the JWPCP to serve the project. The operation of the project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities. As described under PDF M.2-1 and PDF M.2-2, a sewer study and utility report would be prepared and submitted to the City as part of project approvals. Thus, impacts to wastewater collection facilities during operation would be less than significant. Storm water Drainage Facilities: Construction and operation of the project would rely on existing storm water drainage facilities. The project would not substantially increase the amount of surface runoff or waste discharge from the site. Therefore, storm water runoff from the site would not exceed the capacity of the existing storm water drainage systems and impacts would be less than significant. Wastewater Capacity: An increase in wastewater flow from the project site during construction would be negligible and temporary. The operational increase in wastewater would represent approximately 0.05 -percent of the available capacity of JWPCP. Accordingly, adequate available sewage treatment capacity exists to serve the project. As such, the project would have a less than significant impact on the capacity of the wastewater treatment provider. 19 229 Solid Waste: Landfill Capacity: Construction: Project development would generate minor amounts of construction debris compared to most construction projects, as the site is currently an undeveloped dirt lot. In accordance with PDF M.3-1, the project would be required to implement a construction waste management plan to achieve a minimum 65 percent diversion from landfills. Therefore, the project would not create a need for additional solid waste disposal facilities to adequately handle construction - generated inert waste and impacts would be less than significant. Operation: All solid waste -generating activities within the city, including the project, would continue to be subject to the requirements set forth in AB 939. Therefore, it is estimated that the project would divert 50 percent of its solid waste generated from landfills. It is assumed that all of the Project's solid waste would be disposed of at regional landfills. Project -generated waste would not exacerbate the estimated landfill capacity requirements addressed for the 15 -year planning period ending in 2031, or alter the ability of the County to address landfill needs via existing capacity and other options for increasing capacity. Therefore, impacts on solid waste disposal from project operations would be less than significant. Local Statues and Regulations: The project would comply with AB 939 requirements and approximately 50 percent of the project's waste would be diverted for reuse or recycling. The remaining solid waste generated during operations would be disposed of in landfills. Since the project is not anticipated to substantially increase solid waste generation in the city or the amount disposed into the landfills, the project would comply with AB 939 and impacts would be less than significant. In accordance with PDF M.3-1, the project would be required to implement a construction waste management plan to achieve a minimum 65 percent diversion from landfills. Much of this material would be recycled and salvaged to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Following AB 1327, CalRecycle adopted a model ordinance requiring adequate areas for collection and loading of recyclable materials in development projects. The project would comply with this requirement and have sufficient containers to accommodate the amount of solid waste and recycling generated by the premises, and landscape waste would be placed in designated bins (see project design features PDF M.3- 2, PDF M.3-3, and PDF M.34). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The construction and demolition waste materials diversion requirements of SB 1374 assists jurisdictions with diverting construction and demolition waste material. Much of this material would be recycled and salvaged to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The requirements of mandatory commercial recycling, pursuant to AB 341, helps meet California's recycling goal of 65 percent by the year 2020. The project would comply with the Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan to reduce the amount of solid waste being disposed into landfills by promoting diversion techniques that increase recycling of solid waste, consistent with AB 939. Impacts would be less than significant. The Countywide Siting Element identifies goals, policies, and strategies to maintain adequate permitted disposal capacity on an ongoing basis through a 15 -year planning period. Aggressive waste reduction and diversion programs on a County -wide level helped reduce disposal levels at the County's landfills and the County anticipates that future disposal needs can be adequately met through 2029. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. The project would comply with the Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan to reduce the amount of solid waste being disposed into landfills by promoting diversion techniques that increase recycling of solid 20 230 waste, consistent with AB 939. Since the project is not anticipated to substantially increase solid waste generation in the city or the amount disposed into the landfills, the project would comply with AB 939. Impacts would be less than significant. The project would comply with the Solid Waste Integrated Resources Plan to reduce the amount of solid waste being disposed into landfills by promoting diversion techniques that increase recycling of solid waste, consistent with AB 939. Since the project is not anticipated to substantially increase solid waste generation in the city or the amount disposed into the landfills, the project would comply with AB 939 and will be less than significant. In accordance with PDF M.3-1, the Project would be required to implement a construction waste management plan to achieve a minimum 65 percent diversion from landfills. Much of this material would be recycled and salvaged to the maximum extent feasible. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Energy: Energy Consumption: Construction: Based on Edison's 2017 California Energy Demand Updated Forecast, Edison's high annual electrical demand in 2019, the construction -related electricity consumption would represent approximately 0.7 percent of Edison's projected demand. Natural gas would not be supplied to support project construction activities. Construction vehicles would consume an estimated 45,010 gallons of gasoline and approximately 120,369 gallons of diesel fuel throughout the project's construction. The estimated transportation energy consumed during construction represents approximately 0.001 percent and 0.02 percent of the 2016 annual gasoline- and diesel -related energy consumption, respectively, in Los Angeles County. Operation: Following compliance with Title 24 standards and CALGreen requirements, build -out of the project would result in a projected net increase in the on-site demand for electricity. Based on the California Energy Commission's Energy Demand Updated Forecast, the project -related net increase in annual electricity consumption would represent approximately 0.006 percent of Edison's projected sales in 2019. With compliance with Title 24 standards and applicable CALGreen requirements, build -out of the project is projected to generate a net increase in the on-site demand for natural gas. Based on the 2016 California Gas Report, the project's estimated natural gas consumption will account for approximately 0.0004 percent per day, and .014 percent per year of the forecasted consumption of natural gas in the Southern California Gas Company's planning area for 2019. The project's siting would minimize transportation fuel consumption through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The project's estimated annual petroleum-based fuel usage would represent approximately 0.009 percent and 0.009 percent of the 2016 annual gasoline- and diesel -related energy consumption, respectively, in Los Angeles County. The project would not cause wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation. The project's energy requirements would not significantly affect local and regional supplies or capacity. Electricity generation capacity and supplies of natural gas and transportation fuels would also be sufficient to meet the needs of project -related construction and operations. During operations, the project would comply with existing energy efficiency requirements such as CalGreen, as well as include energy conservation measures consistent with Federal, State, and 21 231 local conservation and reduction goals. The project's energy demands would not significantly affect available energy supplies and would comply with existing energy efficiency standards. Therefore, project impacts related to energy use would be less than significant during construction and operations. Increase Demand or Transmission Service: Construction: The applicant would be required to coordinate electrical infrastructure removals or relocations with Edison and comply with their site-specific requirements. As such, construction of the project is not anticipated to adversely affect the electrical infrastructure serving the surrounding uses or utility system capacity. Natural gas would not be supplied to support project construction activities. However, the project would involve installation of new natural gas connections to serve site operations. Since the project site is located in an area already served by existing natural gas infrastructure, it is anticipated that the project would not require extensive off-site infrastructure improvements. Construction impacts associated with the installation of natural gas connections are expected to be confined to trenching in order to place the lines underground. Therefore, construction of the project would not result in an increase in demand for natural gas to affect available supply or distribution infrastructure capabilities and would not result in the construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Operation: The project's operational electricity usage would be approximately 0.006 percent of Edison's projected sales in 2019. Therefore, during project operations, it is anticipated that Edison's existing and planned electricity capacity and electricity supplies would be sufficient to support the project's electricity demand. The project would consume approximately 0.0003 percent of the forecasted consumption of natural gas within the planning area for 2019. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Gas Company's existing and planned natural gas supplies would be sufficient to support the project's net increase in demand. Construction and operation of the project would not result in an increase in demand for electricity or natural gas that exceeds available supply or distribution infrastructure capabilities that could result in the construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, Project impacts related to energy infrastructure capacity would be less than significant during construction and operation. Sienificant and Unavoidable Impacts that Cannot be Mi(Wated to a Level of Insienificance The Draft Final EIR generally identifies, for each potentially significant impact of the project, one or more corresponding project design features or mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level of less than significant, with the exceptions of population, housing, and employment, and transportation, traffic and parking impacts, as stated above. Nearly all the potentially significant impacts identified in the Draft Final EIR are mitigated by corresponding mitigation measures to the extent set forth in the Draft Final EIR. However, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, certain significant or potentially significant environmental effects caused by the modified project directly, or cumulatively, will remain. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council issue and approve a Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, which is included as Exhibit E. Alternatives The alternatives analyzed in the DEIR include the following: 22 232 Alternative 1: No Project: In the event the project is not approved, it is expected that the project site would remain in its current condition and no development would occur for the foreseeable future. The project site is currently a vacant lot with a screened chain-link security fence running along the site perimeter and along the adjacent roadway. The No Project Alternative would avoid the project's significant and unavoidable impacts because no construction would occur. Alternative 2: Reduced Project: The purpose of Alternative 2, the Reduced Project Alternative, is to reduce the overall commercial and office floor area as compared to the project. Under Alternative 2, the project's building envelope and density would be reduced by approximately 33 percent. The Reduced Project Alternative would result in the construction of approximately 160,800 square feet of office, approximately 44,220 square feet of studio and production facilities, and approximately 4,690 square feet of retail for a total of approximately 209,710 square feet. Approximately 650 parking spaces would be required on site in one subterranean level and five aboveground levels. The design and configuration of this alternative would be similar to the project, but the main difference would be the total square footage, resulting in a mixed-use development with approximately 67 percent of the mass of the project. Alternative 2 would reduce, but not avoid, the significant and unavoidable impact to operational transportation and traffic that would occur under the project because this alternative would generate fewer vehicle trips. Alternative 3: Mixed Use Alternative with Studio and Production Facilities (Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 1, described in the traffic report): Alternative 3, Mixed Use Alternative, with studio and production facilities, would develop the project site with up to 25,000 square feet of retail, up to 100,000 square feet of general office with an option to incorporate a roof deck, up to 188,000 square feet of studio and production facilities, and a parking structure. No buildings on the project site would exceed 140 feet in height. Parking would be in an amount which meets the El Segundo Municipal Code and would be located in a combination of surface parking, underground parking, and a parking structure. Under Alternative 3, access to the site would be similar to the project and would be provided by three driveways. Two driveways would be located on Rosecrans Avenue and one would be accessed through the rear of the existing adjacent commercial property to the east that provides access to South Nash Street. Alternative 3 would reduce, but not avoid the significant and unavoidable project -related impacts. However, the significant and unavoidable impacts of the alternative would be lower than the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project. Alternative 4: Mixed Use Alternative with Research and Development (Alternative 4 is the same as Alternative 2 described in the traffic report): Alternative 4, Mixed Use Alternative with Research and Development, would develop the project site with up to 100,000 square feet of research and development, up to 10,000 square feet of retail, up to 100,040 square feet of creative office with an option to incorporate a roof deck, and a parking structure. No buildings on the site would exceed 140 feet in height. Parking would be in an amount which meets the El Segundo Municipal Code and would be located in a combination of surface parking, underground parking, and a parking structure. Under Alternative 4, access to the project site would be similar to the project and would be provided by three driveways. Two driveways would be located on Rosecrans Avenue and one would be accessed through the rear of the existing adjacent commercial property to the east that provides access to South Nash Street. 23 233 Alternative 4 would reduce, but not avoid the significant and unavoidable project -related impacts. Thus, the significant and unavoidable impacts of the alternative would be similar to the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project. Alternative 5: All Creative Office Space Alternative (Alternative 5 is the same as Alternative 3, described in the traffic report): Alternative 5, All Creative Office Space Alternative, would develop the project site with up to 261,990 square feet of creative office with an option to incorporate a roof deck and a parking structure. No buildings on the site would exceed 140 feet in height. Parking would be in an amount which meets the El Segundo Municipal Code and would be located in a combination of surface parking, underground parking, and a parking structure. Under Alternative 5, access to the site would be similar to the project and would be provided by three driveways. Two on Rosecrans Avenue and one accessed through the existing adjacent commercial property that provides access to South Nash Street. Alternative 5 would reduce, but not avoid the significant and unavoidable project -related impacts. However, the significant and unavoidable impacts of the alternative would be lower than the significant and unavoidable impacts of the project. Public Comments to the DEIR and responses Letters commenting on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR were received from various parties during the 45 -day public review period (March 1 through to April 15, 2019). A total of seven comment letters were received, including two from State, four from regional and local agencies, and one from organizations and individuals. An additional letter was received after the close of the comment period from the Department of Toxic Substances Control. The responses to all comments, are provided in Chapter 2 of the FEIR. A brief summary is provided here. 1. The Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse indicated that the draft EIR was received and distributed to other State agencies for review and that the City met its obligation to submit the draft document for review. The letter also asks to check the CEQA database for submitted comments for use in preparing the final environmental document. The CEQA databases contains one letter from the State of California, Department of Transportation, District 7. 2. The State of California Department of Transportation District 7, Office of Regional Planning, stated that the mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability and that Senate Bill 743 (2013) mandated that CEQA review of transportation impacts of proposed development be modified by using Vehicle Miles Traveled. Caltrans acknowledged awareness of the challenges that the region faces in identifying viable solutions to alleviating congestion on State and local facilities, and stated support for the implementation of complete streets and pedestrian safety measures such as road diets. Caltrans stated that they encourage the Lead Agency to integrate transportation and land use in a way that reduces VTM and GHG, and to evaluate the potential of Transportation Demand Management strategies and the Intelligent Transportation System. Caltrans also concurred with the trip generation and associated traffic mitigation measures. The letter stated that a Caltrans encroachment permit is required to implement the improvements, and a Permit Review Engineering Report and intersection operational analysis for the intersection improvements will be required as part of the encroachment permit application. The letter also stated that storm water run-off is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles and Ventura Counties and that the discharge of storm water run-off is not permitted onto State highway facilities without a storm water management plan. Finally, Caltrans stated that the transportation of heavy equipment and/or oversized vehicles on State highways requires a permit from Caltrans and 24 234 recommends that such activity be limited to off-peak commute periods. In response, these comments are noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. 3. The South Coast Air Quality Management District stated states that the Final EIR needs to add SCAQMD Rule 1166 — Volatile Organic Compounds from Decontaminated Soil, and SCAQMD Rule 1466 - Control of Particulate Emissions from Soils with Toxic Contaminants and the project must comply. The letter states that if on-site groundwater remediation or any on-site activity would involve equipment or operations which emits or controls air pollution, SCAQMD engineering and permitting staff should be consulted prior to the start of remediation to determine whether or not permits are required. Revisions, clarifications and corrections on pages IV.A-12 through IV.A-13, have been revised. In response, these comments are noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. 4. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department stated the project is located within the City of El Segundo and is not part of the emergency area of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The letter also states that the project does not appear to have any impact on the emergency responsibilities of the Department. In response, these comments are noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. 5. The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County suggested corrections to Section IV.M, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR regarding the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant's average flow of 261.1 million gallons per day. In response, this correction was made to the FEIR. 6. The City of Manhattan Beach provided suggested corrections to Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR regarding the number of bicycle parking spaces. The letter also suggested corrections to the Related Projects list, which would require corrections to Section III, Environmental Setting, Table III -1, Related Projects, pages III -11 through III -12, and Appendix H.1, Traffic Study, Table 4 Related Projects Trip Generation Estimates, page 31 of the Draft EIR. These corrections were made to the FEIR in response. 7. Lozeau Drury, LLP, sent a letter on behalf of Supporters Alliance for the Environment (SAFER) which suggests the Draft EIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose feasible mitigation measure to reduce the project's impacts. The comment suggests that the Planning Division should address the shortcomings in a revised Draft EIR and recirculate the revised Draft EIR prior to approval, and states that the group reserves the right to supplement the comments during the review of the Final EIR and at the public hearings. The comment does not identify any specific shortcomings of the Draft EIR analysis or mitigation measures, and no specific response is therefore possible or required. The Department of Toxic Substances Control commented that the EIR needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes or substances and needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within the proposed project area. The letter also stated that for all identified sites, the EIR needs to evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment and should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. Finally, the letter stated that if soil contamination is suspected during construction of the project, construction in the area should stop and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is 25 235 determined that contaminated soil exists, the document should identify how any required investigation or remediation will be conducted, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. The City's response is as follows: Air Products and Chemicals developed and operated an air separation facility at the project site between 1969 and 2016. On-site operations ceased in 2015 and demolition activities commenced through 2017. Part of the demolition activities included the abandoning of the two remaining 10,000 -gallon diesel underground storage tanks (USTs) and removal of the on-site oil -water separator. The USTs were abandoned in accordance with the workplan submitted to the El Segundo Fire Department in 2016. After excavation activities were completed confirmation soil samples were collected. The samples were analyzed for TPH, VOCs, and methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE). The excavation was backfilled with clean soil from the project site. Liquid waste extracted during the abandonment procedures was disposed off-site as non-RCRA hazardous waste to Demenno/Kerdoon Facility in Compton, California. Construction debris from the abandonment process was disposed off-site to WM Simi Valley Landfill. All USTs installed by Air Products and Chemicals have been removed from the project site. The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a NFA determination for the soil on August 31, 2017. During construction and excavation of the project, the applicant shall notify the LARWQCB immediately if additional hazardous wastes such as THP, lead, or PCBs are encountered in the soil and/or groundwater during construction activities. 9. Lisa Kranitz of Wallin, Kress, Reisman & Kranitz, LLP, provided emailed comments on behalf of the applicant. Several comments were regarding missing references in the document. The City responded by adding the missing references. In addition, the letter pointed out that the analysis indicated an erroneous figure for cumulative population growth between 2015 and 2040 in the South Bay Region. The City's response was to provide the correct population growth for those years. INTER -DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS The Project application and plans were circulated for comment. Staff incorporated applicable comments as conditions of approval in the Resolution. RECOMMENDATION For the foregoing reasons, staff recommend that the Planning Commission, adopt Resolution No. 2861) recommending approval of the Final EIR, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Development Agreement for EA -1201. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item. 26 236 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 16, 2019 AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business (Public Hearing) AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action regarding introduction of an Ordinance amending Title 3 of the El Segundo Municipal Code to establish a Cultural Development Fund and Cultural Development Fee (otherwise known as a "Percent for Arts" fee). The proposed 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 can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. Fiscal Impact: Approximately $1,000,000 in fee revenues per year. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Receive and file presentation by Arts and Culture Advisory Committee and City staff; 2. Open public hearing; 3. Take testimony and other evidence as presented; 4. Introduce by title only and waive further reading of an Ordinance amending Title 3 of the El Segundo Municipal Code to establish a Cultural Development Fund and Cultural Development Fee; 5. Schedule second reading and adoption of the Ordinance for August 20, 2019; and/or 6. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1. Proposed Ordinance No. _ 2. Percent for Art/Art in Public Places Ordinances — LA County Arts Commission (2018) FISCAL IMPACT: Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 1 Enhance Customer Service, Engagement, and Communications Objective: (a) Goal: 4 Objective: (a) Goal: 5 El Segundo provides unparalleled service to internal and external customers Develop and Maintain Quality Infrastructure and Technology El Segundo's physical infrastructure supports an appealing, safe, and effective community Champion Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability 10 237 Objective: (a) El Segundo promotes economic growth and vitality for businesses and the community ORIGINATED BY: Melissa McCollum, Library Director A REVIEWED BY: Joe Lillio, Finance Director 'Vr7— Sam Lee, Director of Planning and Building Safety APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On December 18, 2018, the City Council directed the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee, City Staff, and the City Attorney's Office to develop a Cultural Development Fund proposal for City Council consideration. After soliciting input from community stakeholders, including comments and recommendations on appropriate exceptions and thresholds, a Cultural Development Fund ordinance was drafted that establishes requirements for private developers to pay a fee for public art or provide artwork on-site. At least thirty-six municipalities within Los Angeles County, including Culver City, Manhattan Beach, and West Hollywood, have enacted both civic art policies and percent -for -art ordinances. The art and cultural services provided by the proposed ordinance will create additional public access to the arts, help drive tourism and revenue to local businesses, contribute toward realizing cultural equity and inclusion, and create opportunities for artists and art organizations in the community. El Segundo has an opportunity to grow as an arts destination in the Los Angeles region, reflecting its unique cultural composition and history as well as the influences of technology and local businesses on public spaces. Creative Economv Revort The Creative Economy, including arts and culture, digital media, entertainment, product and toy design, and more, plays an important role in El Segundo. Highlights of the recent Creative Economy Report for the City of El Segundo prepared by Beacon Economics reports: ■ El Segundo's Creative Economy generated $3.3 billion in economic output in 2017 • Total employment supported by the creative economy in the City totaled 11,433 of which almost 6000 positions were supported directly by the creative industries • 262 El Segundo firms worked in creative industries in 2017, a 36% increase compared to 2008 Related stakeholder interviews conducted by Beacon Economics demonstrated that the atmosphere, aesthetic, and authenticity of El Segundo appealed to businesses when looking for space as well as the high-quality, tight -knit, innovative, and collaborative creative community. Creative industry stakeholders also asked during interviews to be more intimately included in the City's planning, development, and beautification. One said, "Ask us. Ask artists to help beautify and plan the City of El Segundo, whether that's just painting sidewalks or deciding how to integrate beach access, artists can be tangibly helpful." 238 The Arts and Culture Advisory Committee believes the City of El Segundo should consider the Creative Economy when making policy decisions, such as its current proposal to create a Cultural Development Fund. Cultural Development Fund Goals The Arts and Culture Advisory Committee identified six goals for how a Cultural Development Fund could be used in the community to help support many of the City's strategic priorities, including enhancing customer engagement and communications, developing and maintaining quality infrastructure, and championing economic development. 1. Artistically enhance already -budgeted capital improvement projects 2. Advocate for art and cultural events on weekends to increase hotel occupancies 3. Permeate the City with public art and programs to create a comprehensive community identity 4. Award local excellence in commercial beautification and amenities 5. Stimulate a higher level of art engagement in schools and civic organizations 6. Contribute to achieving the City Enjoyable Percent for ArtsMrt in Public Places Ordinances within Los Angeles County Percent for Arts ordinances and program management vary among cities although one percent of the total building valuation of a private development for contribution to public art is the most popular standard (see Exhibit 2). City Ordinance Percent Building Adopted Valuation Threshold Culver City 1988, 1% $500,000 updated 2013 (<$75,000 in- new lieu only) $250,000 remodels Glendale 2010 2% on-site $500,000 1% in -lieu Manhattan 2002 1% $500,000 Beach new $250,000 remodels West 2001 1% $200,000 Hollywood Proposed Cultural Development Fund Ordinance for the City of El Segundo The Cultural Development Fund Ordinance (Ordinance) for El Segundo proposes the following: City Percent Building Valuation Threshold El Segundo 1% $500,000 (proposed) 239 (<$75,000 fee only) with a fee / art project cap of $100,000 • Applies only to commercial and industrial projects — new construction with a building valuation of at least $500,000 and repair/renovation of existing buildings with cumulative building valuation of at least $500,000; • Exempt certain commercial and industrial projects and certain renovations from this requirement, as described below; • Authorize the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee, Library Services Department and Finance Department to administer the Cultural Development Fund program, including reviewing applications, working with developers to develop project -specific civic art programs, collecting fees and expending the collected fees specifically for public art and programming within the City; ■ Allocate one percent (I%) of building valuation or design and construction costs as a fee to the Cultural Development Fund to fund civic art; or allocate one percent (1%) of the building valuation or design and construction costs to go towards providing public art on- site if building valuation exceeds $7.5 million • Mandate the fee or public art on-site will equal one percent of the project cost, but no more than $100,000 • Require that civic art comply with all City of El Segundo zoning requirements Proiect Atmlicability and Excerptions Development projects to be subject to the Ordinance are limited to new commercial and industrial developments on private property, or additions or modifications to existing commercial and industrial buildings on private property, with a cumulative building valuation of at least $500,000. Commercial components in a mixed-use residential -commercial development project are subject to the Ordinance; residential components are exempt. Exemptions are provided for certain commercial and industrial projects from the requirements of the Ordinance, such as facilities run by non-profit organizations used solely for the non -profit's purpose; facilities that are fully designed or dedicated to the performing arts or museum spaces; renovations or rehabilitation required for seismic safety or for compliance with the American with Disabilities Act; and replacement, repair, renovation, or rehabilitation to an existing building partially or completely destroyed by a fire or natural disaster up to the original building valuation. Civic Art or Fee Reauirement For those projects valued at or exceeding $7.5 million, the proposed Ordinance allows the property owner or a developer of a commercial or industrial development project to either (1) include a publicly accessible civic artwork valued at one percent (1%) of the building valuation, either on site or in the vicinity of the site, or (2) pay a fee to the Cultural Development Fund that is valued at one percent (1%) of the building valuation. In no event, however, will a property owner or developer be required to pay a fee of more than $100,000, or provide art work valued in excess of $100,000. 240 For those projects valued at less than $7.5 million, the proposed Ordinance requires the property owner or developer to pay the fee valued at one percent (1%) of the building valuation. Cultural Development Fund Administration The Cultural Development Fund will be a Special Expenditure Account administrated by the Library Services Department in coordination with the Finance Department, Department of Public Works, and Department of Planning and Building Safety. The Arts and Culture Advisory Committee will propose an annual budget to be considered and approved by the City Council each year during the regular budget process. Recommended expenditure categories will include funding for artistically enhanced capital projects, permanent art, community experiences, grants, and project -based public art consultants. Approval of any contracts to be paid by the Cultural Development Fund will comply the City's current purchasing limits, i.e., the City Council will approve any contracts for services or goods in excess of $50,000 per fiscal year (ESMC § 1-7A-5). The CDF Review Process for developer projects will be collaborative with the goal of developing the best possible art for the project and the community at large. The art must be an integral part of the development project and the artist should be included as a member of the project design team. Approval will be a two -Part Process: • Step 1: The Artist and Art Plan must be presented to the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee for an approval recommendation Step 2: Final review and approval by City Staff is needed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Maintenance of the art will be the responsibility of the developer and its successors for the lifetime of the building or the length of time as approved by the City. Construction Fee Comoarisons The Department of Planning and Building Safety recently researched how El Segundo's current fees for commercial construction compared to fees in neighboring communities, and determined fees in other cities were significantly higher (double or triple the cost of El Segundo depending on building valuation). Most of the cities have adopted Percent for Arts ordinances as well. Below is a comparison of Building & Safety's old fee structure vs. the new fee structure (which went into effect September 1, 2018) for projects at different valuation. Fees were lowered by 34- 43%. Plan Check and Permit Fee 241 $500,000 $1,000,000 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 E.S. Old $8735 $15,830 $52,390 $98,090 E.S. 2019 $5797 $10,368 $30,648 $55,998 [ Lowered by 34% 35% 42% 43% % Valuation 1.16% 1.04% .61% .56% 241 The two tables below compare El Segundo's rates for plan checks and permits versus the fees charged by nearby cities. Note El Segundo's fees are 49% lower for $500,000 projects, 68% lower for $1,000,000 projects, and 66% lower for $10,000,000 projects. E.S. New 2019 $5797 $10,368 $30,648 $55,998 Manhattan Beach $10,670 Higher by 84% Glendale City of Los Angeles $9,068 $17,370 $69,895 $135,552 Higher by 56% 6VO 128% 142% Manhattan Beach $10,670 Higher by 84% Glendale $10,665 Higher by 84% Culver City Higher by Torrance Higher by El Segundo Average (cities) % lower $500,000 $5797 $11,300 49% $12,565 117% $13,504 133% $1,000,000 $10,368 $31,900 68% $18,385 77% $20,325 96% $23,575 127% $23,684 128% $5,000,000 $30,648 $87,900 65% $66,059 116% $76,445 149% $108,955 256% $96,672 73% $146,595 162% $216,055 286% $118,324 $236,628 286% 3239'o $10,000,000 $55,998 $166,000 66% In El Segundo, the total valuation for development projects with valuation of $500,000 and over for FY 17-18 was approximately $100 million. At one percent, a Cultural Development Fund would have generated $1 million for civic art. Tyne of Fee Art "in lieu" fees are unlike other types of City fees, because art "in lieu" fees constitute the City's lawful exercise of its traditional planning and zoning police power and such fees are not a development impact fee that is subject to the California Mitigation Fee Act. (Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 CalAth 854.). This means that unlike other types of development impact fees that must satisfy a "nexus" requirement, to impose an art "in lieu" fee, the City must only demonstrate that the fee is reasonably related to a constitutionally permissible public purpose. (Cal. Bldg. Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 CalAth 435). 242 Compliance with Toning Requirements If a civic art installment is to be provided to satisfy the Cultural Development Fund requirement, compliance with the requirement does not exempt the civic art project from all applicable City regulations. Civic Art Standards If the developer chooses to provide a civic art installation on-site or in the vicinity of the project site, the civic art must meet the following standards: 1. The civic art is to be privately owned and maintained by all future owners or occupants of the development, through a covenant or other written provision depending on the type of civic art chosen. 2. The civic art must be openly and freely accessible by the general public for at least eight hours a day, five days a week. 3. The civic art satisfies the artistic and cultural needs of the development and the community where the development is located. 4. The civic art must be original artwork; not mass-produced or of standard design. The following cannot be considered as part of civic art or factor into the one percent valuation threshold: 1. The costs involved in maintaining the civic art. 2. Services or utilities required to operate or maintain the civic art. 3. Supergraphics, signage, or coloring code. 4. Reproductions of original artwork (with the exception of media arts). 5. Building architecture or ornamentation, except if specifically commissioned by an artist. Considerations will be made for restoration of architectural landmarks. 6. Landscape architecture and gardening unless specifically commissioned by an artist Public Enizazement The Arts and Culture Advisory Committee and City staff consulted with numerous stakeholders in the form of one-on-one conversations, presentations, and meetings. Groups included the Chamber of Commerce's Government Affairs Committee and several City Committees, Commissions, and Boards, including the Economic Development Advisory Council, Planning Commission, Library Board of Trustees, Recreation and Parks Committee, Gateway Committee, and Senior Citizen Housing Board. The Arts and Culture Advisory Committee and City staff also spoke with independent artists, architects, developers, lawyers, art consultants, realtors, and policy managers during the development of this proposal. Measures of Success Measures of success for implementation of the Cultural Development Fund will include community satisfaction, partner satisfaction, growth and competitiveness, creative economy expansion, image and reputation enhancements, artistic achievement, and financial management. Next Stevs If the City Council introduces the proposed ordinance, the ordinance will then be scheduled for second reading. If the ordinance is then adopted, it will take effect 30 days after adoption. A manual for implementation of the Cultural Development Fund will be promulgated by the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee to be approved by resolution of the City Council. 243 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3 OF THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT FEE AND A CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT FUND The City Council of the City of EI Segundo does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Pursuant to the City's police power, the City Council may establish fees to alleviate impacts that will result from voluntary development (Cal. Const. art XI, § 7; Gov. Code §§ 66000(b), 66477); B. Under Proposition 218, a charge imposed as a condition of property development does not constitute a "tax" and therefore may be adopted by the City Council without voter approval (Cal. Const. art XIII C, § 1(e)(6)). Likewise, under Proposition 26, fees or charges imposed as a condition of property development are exempt from the types of fees that are subject to voter approval (Cal. Const. art. XIII D, § 1(b)); C. Courts have recognized public art fees as a lawful exercise of a city's traditional planning and zoning police power; such fees are not a development impact fee that is subject to the California Mitigation Fee Act, but instead must be reasonably related to a constitutionally permissible public purpose (Ehrlich v. City of Culver City (1996) 12 CalAth 854; Cal. Bldg. Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 CalAth 435); D. The City of EI Segundo is 5.46 square miles and has distinct areas throughout the City that are zoned for commercial and industrial uses, including the Downtown area, Smoky Hollow, and the portion of the City east of Pacific Coast Highway. Because the City is surrounded by other cities (Manhattan Beach, Hawthorne), the Los Angeles International Airport and the Pacific Ocean, and because the City is almost entirely built out, existing opportunities to expand public art within the community are scarce; E. As commercial and industrial development and revitalization of the real property within the City continues, urbanization of the community results, and the need to develop new artistic and cultural resources to enhance the environment, image, and character of the City increases; F. Cultural and artistic resources enhance the quality of life for individuals living in, working in, and visiting the City; public art increases cultural awareness, 244 stimulates imaginations and provokes creative dialog among community members; G. The development of artistic and cultural resources promotes the general welfare of the community, by preserving and improving the quality of the urban environment, increasing property values, and resulting in a positive economic output; H. Artistic and cultural assets should be either provided or financed by those whose commercial and industrial development and revitalization increase the community's demand for cultural resources; I. The proposed cultural development fee or public art requirement is a fee of general application for voluntary development within the City, and the fee will be used for providing artwork, cultural services, performing arts and arts events to the public, as described in this ordinance; J. On December 18, 2018, the City Council directed the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee and City staff to develop a Cultural Development Fund proposal for its consideration; and K. On July 16, 2019, the City Council, after giving notice thereof as required by law, held a public hearing concerning the proposed ordinance and carefully considered all pertinent testimony offered in the case. SECTION 2: General Plan and Zoning. The proposed ordinance conforms to the City's General Plan and the zoning regulations in the El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) as follows: A. The proposed ordinance conforms with Goal LU2 and Objectives LU2-1 and LU2-2, which seek to preserve and enhance the City's cultural resources. In addition, Objective LU2-3 encourages the development of public programs and facilities which will meet the cultural needs of the City's various age, income and ethnic groups. The proposed ordinance is intended to require developers of industrial and commercial projects to either provide public art or pay a fee which will be used for public art and cultural activities. The proposed ordinance establishes a dedicated source of funding for projects and programs to meet and exceed the cultural needs of the City's residents. B. The proposed ordinance is consistent with the Zoning Code which recognizes works of art and establishes certain standards to distinguish them from commercial signs (ESMC § 15-18-3(H)). SECTION 3: Environmental Assessment. Because of the facts set forth in Section 2, the proposed zone text amendment is exempt from further environmental review under the K 245 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 can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the proposed ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4: ESMC Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) is amended to add the following chapter: "Chapter 8 — Cultural Development Fund. Section 3-8-1. Purpose. This chapter may be known and cited as the "City of EI Segundo Cultural Development Fund Ordinance." The intent of the Ordinance is to promote the public arts in the City of EI Segundo by creating a collection of visual art work and providing artistic or cultural services, such as performing arts, literary art, media art, arts education, art events, and temporary artworks, by recognized artists, and of the highest possible quality, throughout the City, for the public's benefit. As of the effective date of this ordinance, the City shall require that certain private developments use a portion of building development funds for the acquisition of publicly accessible art work, or pay a fee, as a condition of project approval. Section 3-8-2. Definitions. As used in this chapter: "Applicant" shall mean the owner of the property, a developer or tenant utilizing the property and seeking the required permits. "Art work" shall mean original creations of art which is intended for and capable of being displayed outdoors, including but not limited to, sculpture, murals, mosaic, fountains, artist -designed landscape features, streetscape features and earthworks. These categories may be realized through such mediums as steel, bronze, stained glass, concrete, wood, ceramic tile and stone, as well as other suitable materials. "Commercial and industrial development project" shall mean any project which results in the development of property in any land use categories, except for single- and multi -family residential projects designed for long- term occupancy. "Project cost" shall mean the total value of a project, excluding the land value, as determined by the Building Official of the City, and indicated on the building permit that is issued by the City for that project. 3 246 "Public place" shall mean any exterior area on public or private property, which is accessible and visible to the general public as described in Section 3-8-6. Section 3-8-3. Projects Subject to the Cultural Development Fund Ordinance. This chapter shall apply to all commercial and industrial development projects where the project cost exceeds five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00). Notwithstanding the foregoing, this chapter shall not apply to the following projects: 1. Any project which consists solely of rehabilitation work required for seismic safety or to comply with government mandates, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 regardless of valuation; 2. The reconstruction of structures which have been partially damaged or completely destroyed by fire, flood, wind, earthquake or other calamity; 3. Any project constructed by a government agency which is constructed on property exempt from taxation pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 214; 4. Residential components of a mixed-use development project; 5. Any project at a property owned or leased solely by a non-profit organization provided the completed project will used solely in furtherance of the owner's or lessee's non-profit purpose; 6. Commercial and industrial development projects, or portion(s) thereof, that are designed and dedicated to performing arts or museum spaces, so long as the performing arts or museum spaces are maintained within the building, provided the premises continue to be dedicated as such. Acceptable facilities include museums, theaters, performance arts centers, and other similar facilities. Section 3-8-4. Requirement to Pay Fee or Provide Art Work. When a project is subject to this chapter, the applicant must pay to the City an amount equal to one percent (1 %) of the project cost to the Cultural Development Fund. For those projects valued at $7,500,000 or more, the applicant may, rather than paying the one percent fee, acquire and install art work in a public place on or in the vicinity of the project site, with the cost or value of such purchase and work being equal to or exceeding one percent (1 %) of the project cost. In no event, however, will any applicant be required to pay a fee of more than $100,000, or acquire and install art work with a cost or value of more than $100,000. Section 3-8-5. Application Process. 4 247 A. Whenever an applicant proposes a project that may be subject to the provisions of this chapter, the Department of Planning and Building Safety must provide the applicant a copy of this chapter and an application form. B. All applicants subject to this ordinance must complete and sign an application form. C. If an applicant either is required or elects to pay the Cultural Development Fee, no building permit shall be issued until the total fee has been paid. D. If the eligible applicant elects to provide public art, the following provisions apply: 1. If the applicant is not the property owner, he or she must submit a letter from the property owner, in a form acceptable to the City, acknowledging the property owner's understanding and acceptance of the property owner's responsibilities under the ordinance. 2. No building permit shall be issued until the Department of Planning and Building Safety has received and accepted a public art proposal committing the applicant to complying with this requirement by a pre -determined date. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued by the Department of Planning and Building Safety until the public art project has been installed and the project complies with this Chapter. Section 3-8-6. Standards for Art Works. Standards for the approval, siting, and installation of art works shall include, but are not limited to, the following criteria: A. The art work shall be displayed in an area that is open and freely accessible to the public for at least eight (8) hours each day or displayed in a manner which otherwise provides public accessibility in an equivalent manner based on the characteristics of the art work or its placement on the site. The application shall include a site plan showing the location of the art work, complete with landscaping, lighting and other appropriate accessories to complement and protect the art work. B. The composition of the art work shall be of a permanent type of material in order to be durable against vandalism, theft, and weather and requiring a low level of maintenance. i -P C. The art work shall be designed and constructed by an artist(s) experienced in the production of such art work and recognized by critics and by his/her peers as one who produces works of art. D. The art work shall be permanently affixed to the property. E. Unless otherwise permitted in the sole discretion of the City Council, the following items are not to be considered as works of art: 1. Art objects which are mass produced from a standard design; 2. Reproductions of original art works, although limited editions are acceptable; 3. Decorative, ornamental or functional elements which are designed by the building architect as opposed to an artist commissioned for the purpose of creating the art work; 4. Landscape architecture and landscape gardening except where these elements are designed or approved by the artist and are an integral part of the art work by the artist; or 5. Services or utilities necessary to operate or maintain the art work. Section 3-8-7. Maintenance and Repair of Art Works. A. The art work installed on private property by an applicant shall be and remain the property of the owner. Any art work removed from the subject property shall be relocated to City property, at the owner's expense, as approved by the City Council. B. Art work installed on City property shall be the property of the City. C. The art work and its setting shall be maintained by the property owner in good repair and in a safe, functional, accessible, and clean condition, all in a manner acceptable to the City. Before the issuance of the certificate of occupancy or final sign off on the building permit for the project, the property owner shall execute and record with the Los Angeles County Registrar -Recorder's office, a covenant approved by the City Manager, and in a form approved by the City Attorney, providing, among other things that the property owner and its successor and assigns shall maintain the art work as required by this section. The property owner may assign the obligations of this Subsection (B) to the applicant without having to first obtain the prior approval of the City. D. In the event repair of the art work is required, the artist who created it shall be given the first opportunity to do that work for a reasonable C� ME fee. In the event the artist is unable or unwilling to do so, the City or the property owner may proceed to contract for such repair with another qualified artist. Section 3-8-8. Cultural Development Fund. A. There is hereby created a fund to be known as the "Cultural Development Fund." Any moneys collected in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall be deposited into the fund. The fund shall be administered by the Finance Director. B. The City Manager or designee shall provide an annual accounting to the City Council regarding the use of all fees collected and deposited in the Cultural Development Fund, including identification of all expenditures and balances during the prior fiscal year and its recommendations for proposed expenditures for the subsequent fiscal year. C. The Fund shall be used to provide art in public places in order to further the intent and purpose of this chapter. Expenditures of funds shall be limited tc the following uses: 1. For the design, acquisition, commission, installation, improvement, relocation, maintenance, conservation, restoration, utility charges, and insurance of art work; 2. To sponsor or support artistic or cultural services, such as performing arts, literary art, media art, arts education, art events, and temporary artworks; 3. For the City's costs of administering the Cultural Development Fund and associated programs. D. The City Council may request the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee to make recommendations to City Council for expenditures from the Cultural Development Fund in accordance with this chapter. E. Endowments. The Fund shall also be used as a depository for monetary endowments, bequests, grants or donations made for public arts purposes. Such sums may be expended as set forth in this chapter. Section 3-8-9. Implementation Manual. A Manual for implementation of this program shall be promulgated by the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee to be approved by resolution of the 7 250 City Council. Section 3-8-10. Compliance. Compliance with the provisions of this chapter must be demonstrated by the applicant at the time of filing the Building Permit application as follows: (a) payment of the full amount of the contribution, or (b) written proof to the Planning and Building Safety Department of an agreement to commission or purchase and to install the requested art work on the development site. The applicant must provide the City with proof of installation of the requested artwork on the development site or proof of full payment of the contribution before issuance of the certificate of occupancy, unless the Director has approved some other method of ensuring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. Section 3-8-11. Violations. In addition to other fines or penalties provided by law, the City may revoke or suspend any discretionary permit granted to any applicant who violates any provision of this chapter." SECTION 5: 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 6: 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 7: 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 8: 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 9: 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 15 251 days after the passage and adoption of this ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law. SECTION 10: This Ordinance will become effective on the thirty-first day following its passage and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2019. 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 Ordinance No. was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2019, 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 , 2019, 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 D 252 2 QV), c 0 a E § > ° o m AS 3 3 e ' E 3 a r k k 0 0� 0 a LU -S a S a 0 § a u E O � k�42 m \ 7 m I 2 � = I = _ = -E X: 2 00 0 2 2 E g o R 0 E &.n § ® M § k � d ■ - 0 & L m o cc= Ln m 41 �� in t 1 i E _ c v v o Q § « � ■ 2 o ! V) k 2 E W 2.0 E&\ ' S t \ ( a m® ■ � R 'a = _ _ m _ c a a = V 0 2+ 0 E00 + 2 q§ k w: m 2\§ N § J f 2§ J °° a) = 2 o x 2 2 Cc o > °>- \ c/_ v « 9a Q_ c u _ q g z _ R 2/ § g a c = q 3 © o a lop, e® A= g g 2 a[ o¥ w m# o°= o \ E a 2 g�� �� Ln k\//�Ln ■ m E d Cr I :~� w .p L- -2 q v � w 2 ■ rn 0 \ 2 Q 2 6 % 2 7 2 k 2 eq C Ln 'a L . �_ mma�® 0 0 o a� a¥ %, r4 r4 N � � (N q q % § � � 7 2 _ 2 § o® w k 2 k ° k .� « 2 2 2 m 253 - 254 N V) c c u LL C c o LL` m p o N M I -O �O - a00+ I C "O7 C E Q C 11 N Lei E Q ,2 v ZF3 m v t m C. m+� cos 7 E m m 0 m N `t N CL L, L. c o CL u u 3 o 0 � o �, v c o v oo o Ev 0 0000 $O-0 O M1 0 o z 0 0 0 0 0 o c o 0 $�+ o 04 000 E 0 i C� G N ; In Ln r-4 N N N O t4 .V Ln v+ yN/} Q •n +n Ln +n 0 O Ln O N y V H yj N +� N VI w N IA 7 C � o O c •y C w w- m>� c m C > C m :t! W 'o o M M .r O z vi +2 Ln + m a E 7 N E O y E X v + L Ln O X + p O cu X }�? } OJ ` N 4J N to V C N Q } } }&n} } m N CL cc° $ a aj c Oc O O uL u y O �:= H0 00 ' m m •E O an U ao � O O O O O O oLn .� .E X Ln Ln � 0 " n w Ln Ln r1 '� o v- m N E o c r, 0 v in �+n `N A O E C 'p N C M V N rl r N 00 N No m N coo��o°�' rl m' O N oo Ln 10 Ln 0 W M M `+ O N i N ri rl ai O —_ L!1 ei M 01 LO N 01 >00 (A rl � LSI O .1 O M O N 'o r -t -D to M M '0 N m tD o rl a O. O Ln rl Ll ei Q '1 a rl .-1 CD 0N rf N O 41 N= N 7 N 0 ON N V) o O N m J N O O• 001 0 0 N rl N N IA C O O i 41 d m 0 ` E E C p •m0 m �+ pE o G u o W ci 254 N 255 QJ C i.-7 C C •� U ` Ql i ,0 C N a0 N 4- J C h a 0 u o u a° Ln\ O N c 'n N In ri p O U ri a 000 u0. 3 r N Y 3 C 0 m O m m C L N N O O fL9 m = = O y.. _ = m co = m m 40- 4, = n• O m L c O N O 0 O O C O M CD c cc000 N 00� 0 O O O O OOHc4 0 O O O'XCy L r N c LA O 0 0 O N O 0 O O Ln 0 0 6 N c 0 60 OH U O\ N 0 Ln O �n 4A Ln -t4� N � u1 � � O 0 o U V) 3 1- in N U N 7 m 3 O ++ N- 7 y Z Z {. "L 7 y j 0 m O L O X �- '� O O x � + ri } o } } } } } } +3+ } M to 4. C O o ci° O O n U1 -0 w C o M 7 N � i 0 0 o c ri ri r♦ .--I ri r•I ri m "^ a a° O ri Ncr N O 41 Ql ri Q 'O ri 001 w O 0) O O 00 N C N u1 Ol M A w A w� rr O e�-i r 4i 114 L6 r ii %--I in cu 000 N V1 Q } a m w ri c a14 o•rte-+ q a°°-I m ate-, � O 7 0 O O O m 0 0 00 N 0 O N N00 N N N N NA N O^ N N N O N NV ri N ° ° in m O Y 7 m 3 w O 3 m° 0 c 3 r m ° C a 2 m O C c .� m E Z mm °' a0 x' 2 a 255 W u ` c o m`~ N L ro .00 O O 0 O .O 'C j "6 -2 u L- tea) C T U 4J S 2 2 F to 2 cn a) 2 2 LL O O m ul Z 3 3 p N y al IV p .� E `� 4J `�- N O Lr oU c O y c w i C C O O O O O O t5 O V, -C i 0+ p 0 -p O in O O O O ,o a po p u o o c 3 �o c ,pn' ° o c c o ani o 0 V} Q > i/? n d Ln t C 1^ N p In O C+ Ln H� V� Ln C-4 6. C N � V? 41 41 41 4A 0 c c L. > > > > v c a c c a + ° g E c ami + + + + c�a '� + y Z M OWE N i In Ln 0 O X M O O x WZ L O N avr l V O a W V L W >-u } } } } } ++ 7 u +' C O'QIOOO v �OO NaN H41 + N' O aO ° �O O N QLn 4A E 0 7 H p o � C E V)N fl a�1 r1 r4 Q O V) N in 00 6 QN1 a! fNYI Y7 V li M M 01 v a� a, m ++ m f0 N iD u1 M 'O -;r w LD -0 v1 'o 00 r•1 lD r -I r-+ a1 o o n. j a o O o N O O N N O 7 o n 0 O N O' O O O O O O O N N N V aJ c 10V ° m ar �c �° 0 '5 ° ) a� C f 4a c 2 r u° Amo y � 3e �> 256 257 Ln C t. CL E LL C _C .0 O .� M N O C O U 0 7 0 C �0 Q C o a 0 W Ln 0 +L+ O u u O Mfa V t: m E m Y O -O Q m O co S S O co bA 2 O CL c ai o o fU +_ `o o ami "" M.- > f`o ca +� O r v O D u t= Q 0 L- a w' }+ C fll VI ani o c Ln 0^ `v O c t4 m JE> Q H O C O` N O O V V). N O a N ►`� C N 41 n m u 0 M Q- O -0 Z + u1 + N C C N t O } C O 7 v m 7 u o 20 C O � T �+ i c T C o t0 fL o� f7 � ut C = V O .0 w G oe oho �"� � � in O N c ei ei C5 d off° Ln a 4— Ln p N N O O y 0 W- Z '6 cr w '+O'+- tp O to 'C O C ate+ CO O. O n O r4 �� W p n e-f u1 ei M O a- V f0r fV a V r{ to U y Q O C) C G N V1 N N 13 oo 0. Ol �+ fA v� O -0 00 f0 f0 O. O. O M ei ri fo 'a N Q r-i H 0 0 0 N 0 N N = N N fT 0 a O Lr�000 N e�-I ul C C O C H O M i+j �� C 4- 0tA 00 O O ya. N 0 m O O .� O O 3 'C3" •� O Q Y C _ L .0uo u ~O 0 0 u U u` O U. OC �. u 257 Ln 258 y V C �O+ OE «' E t' V W C7 \ Ln O C L N O_ v 'd 7 G C IZ O N (U m 7 v w 150 4-N N +' +' C t t 41 m a N O E li V1 4- 0 = C 41 O tea) -p0 ++ QJ ,co Z m a � Z "(j _ a o LL M o `n M L r° 0 c m o � c 43 ,° EE � oo -o •E o Ln O �^ O' O C ei O L+ V N G 'O 'O C Ln u C O m O i+ a) m c Oa ++ C C A= E N Q. �. C W p C a > .Q > cu O E+ D +� '� E + O + '� c a O W r-aj u1 -2 C p X N O 7 O N N Q N O L N t C ?O } ++ } } } (U 19 f0 C .0 tnN O c c v� O •- Ln c W Ln w C; oo (U v r, o � a X _ _ X 00 N N al a 01 m N O w 't—+ m N Ql N Q V m P, r -i O N 0) Ln kDO r -I N N H y Owl N N 01 -p 0 N z O N � C r1 G C al w aJ tv U_ m N 0 N_ C: m 41 D W p w O C +' O O� 0J lu G v o �a u E U a u m :.i W O O 258 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 16, 2019 AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to present to Council by Ignited, LLC, updating the status of the recruitment marketing campaign for the Police Department. (Fiscal Impact: None). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Receive and file; 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Amount Budgeted: $0 Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 3(a) El Segundo is a City employer of choice and consistently hires for the future. Objective: 2 The City provides a competitive environment and nimble hiring/onboarding process for its employees. ORIGINATED BY: Jaime Bermudez, Police Captain REVIEWED BY: Bill Whalen, Chief of Police APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager& 5YN BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: In October 2018, City Council approved staff to contract with Ignited, a local marketing agency for the development of a recruitment campaign exclusively for the Police Department. Through the creative development process, the campaign launched April 1, 2019. In addition to financial incentives approved by City Council for lateral and entry level applicants, the marketing plan includes the following features: 1. Online banners for desktop, and mobile devices 2. Law enforcement print, 3. Google search, 4. Landing page, 5. Geofencing advertising, 6. Social, and 7. Outdoor billboard. After three months of implementation, Ignited staff will provide City Council with a campaign overview to include performance insights, and key indicators to measure on-line traffic to the newly designed landing page, as well as number of clicks and total number of applications submitted. 1 259 1 RECOMMENDATIONS: The Police Department recommends the City Council receive and file this report. 260 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 16, 2019 AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Committee, Commissions and Boards AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to announce the appointment to the Recreation and Parks Commission. (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 Assistant WkIl REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Committee/Commission and Number of Appointee(s) Term Expiration Board Openings Recreation and Parks Lee Davis Full Term Expires May 30, 2023 Commission Two Kathryn Watson Partial Term Expires May 30, 2020 12 261 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: July 16, 2019 AGENDA HEADING: New Business Consideration and possible action to receive and file a report on the 2019 mid -year crime summary as well as Police Department efforts to reduce crime (Fiscal Impact: N/A). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Receive and file report; or, 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 2019 mid -year Crime Report FISCAL IMPACT: To Be Determined Amount Budgeted: $0 Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 2 Support Community Safety and Preparedness Objective: 1 El Segundo is a safe and prepared city ORIGINATED BY: Bill Whalen, Chief of Police REVIEWED BY: Bill Whalen, Chief of Policer _� APPROVED BY: Scott Mitaick, City Manager( k'o! S BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR) is a nationwide, cooperative statistical effort of nearly 18,000 law enforcement agencies. Crimes are divided into two categories referred to as Part 1 and Part 2. Part 1 crimes are generally considered more serious and are subdivided into Violent Crimes and Property Crimes. The City of El Segundo reports these crimes monthly to the State of California Department of Justice (CA -DOJ) who in turn reports to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). This report represents reported Part 1 crimes for the first six months of 2019. From January through June 2019, the City of El Segundo had 323 reported Part 1 crimes. This represents a decrease of 48 reported crimes (43%) compared to the same period in 2018. Within the subcategories of Part 1 Crimes, the total number of violent crimes increased by 21 reported crimes (117%) and the total number of property crimes decreased by 69 reported crimes (-20%). The attached Uniform Crime Report depicts the number of offenses within each subcategory as well as the six month Part 1 crime totals for 2014 to present. 13 262 11 L7pEL 11®DV OFFENSE Homicide Rape Robbery Aggravated Assaults TOTAL VIOLENT CRIMES Burglary Larceny Motor Vehicle Thefts Arson TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES TOTAL PART I CRIMES 600 400 200 281 0 2014 JAN -JUN 0 2 6 14 22 70 150 38 1 259 281 2015 JAN -JUN 1 1 11 10 23 89 193 26 1 309 332 LICE DERARTMENT 2016 JAN -JUN 0 3 17 11 31_ 90 254 38 1 383 414 414 332 368 371 2017 JAN -JUN 0 3 11 8 22 95 210 41 0 346 368 2018 JAN -JUN 0 1 9 8 - _18 113 211 29 0 353 371 323 ` -13% 323 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 11 D` 263 2019 CHANGE , JAN -JUN 201812019 0 0% I 3 +200% 14 +56% 22 +175% 39 +117% 1 72 -36% 179 -15% 32 +10% 1 +100% 284 -20% 323 ` -13% 323 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 11 D` 263