No preview available
2019 Aug 06 - 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, AUGUST 6, 2019 — 4:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMUNICATION — (Related to Citv Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30 minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of $50 or more to communicate to the City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so identify themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of $250. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 1. Library Board of Trustees and Environmental Committee Interviews 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 — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 (d)(4) DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTER (Gov't Code §54957) 1. Performance Review Position: City Manager CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6) 1. Police Management Association (PMA) & Supervisory, Professional Employees Association (SPEA). Agency Designated Representative: Irma Moisa Rodriquez, City Manager, Scott Mitnick and Human Resources Director, David Serrano. 2 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 6, 2019 AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Committees, Commissions and Boards AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to interview candidates of the Library Board of Trustees and Environmental Committee. (Fiscal Impact: None) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Interview candidates; 2. Announce appointment(s) at the 6:00 p.m., August 20, 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 VY _ REVIEWED BY: APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager jr���J � �r wvt) BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Library Board of Trustees — Two positions Environmental Committee — Two positions Candidate 1. Michele Rogers (4:00 pm) 2. Janice Merva (4:12 pm) 3. Carol Ericson (4:24 pm) 4. Sarah Brockhaus (4:36 pm) 5. Corrie Zupo (4:48 pm) Applying to: CCBs Library Board of Trustees Library Board of Trustees — Incumbent Library Board of Trustees — Incumbent Environmental Committee Environmental Committee —Incumbent 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, AUGUST 6, 2019 - 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER INVOCATION — Pastor Wes Harding, The Bridge Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Councilmember Pimentel SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS a) Introduction of new City of EI Segundo Police Officers; Lucas Montero and David Deady b) EI Segundo Art Walk Update with George Renfro and John McCullough 3 c) EI Segundo Youth Drama presents a sneak peak of the upcoming production of "The Addams Family" ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Onlv — 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 and approve all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda by title only. 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. Approve Warrant Numbers 3026828 through 3026916 and 9000990 through 9001026 on Register No. 19b in the total amount of $381,989.64 and Wire Transfers from 7/1/19 through 7/7/19 in the total amount of $436,403.86. Warrant Numbers 3026917 through 3027088 and 9001027 on Register No. 20a&b in the total amount of $784,866.30 and Wire Transfers from 7/8/19 through 7/21/19 in the total amount of $12,228,329.73. 2. Approve Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of July 16, 2019. 3. Approve Automatic Aid Agreement between EI Segundo Fire Department and Los Angeles City Fire Department. 4. Adopt City Council Resolution to appoint Director of Finance, Joseph Lillio, Director of Human Resources, David Serrano, and City Council Mayor, Drew Boyles and City Councilmember Chris Pimentel to serve as board member, alternate board member, and substitute alternate board members, respectively, on the Independent Cities Risk Management Association (ICRMA) governing board. 5. Award $186,057.05 Public Works Contract to Ruiz Concrete and Paving, Inc. for the McCarthy Court Sidewalk, Drainage, Street Improvements at 800 block of McCarthy Court, Project No. PW 19-10. 4 5 6. Revise the authorization for the City Manager to execute a three-year agreement with Lanair Group LLC to provide hardware, software and professional services to implement the Storage Area Network and Blade Systems in the amount of $904,665.00. 7. Consideration and possible action to authorize two professional services agreements related to the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (east side of Pacific Coast Highway, between Palm Avenue and Holly Avenue), one with Dudek not to exceed $228,525 for CEQA analysis and preparation of an EIR, and the other for JWA Urban Consultants, Inc., which does not have a defined cap, but is estimated to be under $150,000. Both agreements are for services that will be fully reimbursed by the applicant (BRE EI Segundo Holdco, LLC). This request is to authorize the City Manager to sign the agreements in a form approved by the City Attorney. D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. Consideration and possible action regarding Environmental Assessment No. EA -1201 to approve the proposed amendment to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance for the Rosecrans -Sepulveda Partners, 4, LLC Beach Cities Media Campus Project (2021 Rosecrans Avenue) 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 adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. E. STAFF PRESENTATIONS 9. Homelessness Activities Update. 10. Richmond Street Field Improvement Project Update. F. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, COMMISSIONS AND BOARDS 11.Arts and Culture Advisory Committee Appointments. G. REPORTS — CITY CLERK H. REPORTS — CITY TREASURER I. REPORTS — CITY COUNCILMEMBERS Councilmember Pimentel — Councilmember Nicol — Councilmember Brann — 5 Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk - Mayor Boyles - J. REPORTS - CITY ATTORNEY K. REPORTS - CITY MANAGER 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. 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. REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (if required) ADJOURNMENT POSTED: DATE: !)50' l%' TIME: A 1 P•"f NAME 6"7{ L 3026828 - 3026916 9000990 - 9001026 001 GENERALFUND 104 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND 106 STATE GAS TAX FUND 106 ASSOCIATED RECREATION ACTIVITIES FUND 109 ASSET FORFEITURE FUND 111 COMM DEVEL. BLOCK GRANT 112 PROP "A" TRANSPORTATION 114 PROP "C" TRANSPORTATION 115 AIR QUALITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 116 HOME SOUND INSTALLATION FUND 117 HYPERION MITIGATION FUND 118 TOA ARTICLE 3- SB 1121 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 FUNO 30Z INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT FUND 405 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 501 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- OEVELOPER FEES 703 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND -OTHER 706 OUTSIDE SERVICES TRUST TOTAL WARRANTS STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Inrormallon on actual expenditures is available in the Director of Finance's office In the Gly 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 245,570 53 2,30750 9.883.01 126.00 73,659.77 72624 3,65273 15.761.60 72.60 8,576.85 3,26000 $ 381.959.64 R = Computer generated checks for all non-emergency/urgency payments for materials, supplies and services in support of City Operations For Ratr5cation: A= Payroll and Employee Benefit checks B - F = Compuler generated Early Relanse disbursements emicr adjustments approved by the City Manager Such as� payments for utility services, petty cash and employee travel expense k1(� re;mbum *sean!s, various refunds. cunlract employee servrcos consistent w0 Current contractual V�/ agraemerts, instances whera prompt payment disc;ourrs can be ob!"ed or late payment penallles can be avoided or when a situation arises that the City Managef approves 11 = Hand --ten Early Release d�sbursernents andfor adjustments approved by the City Manager, FINANCE DIRECTOR 11 r_D CITY MANAGER DATE, DATE - DATE OF APPROVAL: AS OF. 07116119 VOID CHECKS DUE [? ALIGNMENT: 1A VOID CHECKS DUE TO INCORRECT CHECK DATE: VOID CHECKS DUE TO COMPUTER SOFTWARE ERROR: NOTES REGISTER A 19b r 00 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER 711119 THROUGH 717119 Date Payee Description 7/1/2019 Manufacturers & Traders 36,361.97 457 payment Vantagepoint 7/1/2019 Manufacturers & Traders 800.00 IRA payment Vantagepoint 7/1/2019 Manufacturers & Traders 26,933.89 457 payment Vantagepoint 7/1/2019 Manufacturers & Traders 800.00 IRA payment Vantagepoint 7/1/2019 State of CA EFT 1,452.91 EFT Child support payment 7/2/2019 Nationwide NRS EFT 33,913.85 EFT 457 payment 7/2/2019 Nationwide NRS EFT 33,419.96 EFT 457 payment 7/5/2019 Cal Pers 7,556.23 EFT Retirement Safety-Fire-PEPRA New 25020 7/5/2019 Cal Pers 12,012.59 EFT Retirement Safety-Police-PEPRA New 25021 7/5/2019 Cal Pers 29,012.67 EFT Retirement Misc - PEPRA New 26013 7/5/2019 Cal Pers 47,870.94 EFT Retirement Misc - Classic 27 7/5/2019 Cal Pers 72,014.72 EFT Retirement Safety Police Classic - 1 st Tier 28 7/5/2019 Cal Pers 48,379.24 EFT Retirement Safety Fire- Classic 30168 7/5/2019 Cal Pers 4,134.99 EFT Retirement Sfty Police Classic -2nd Tier 30169 7/5/2019 Cal Pers 994.61 EFT Retirement Misc - PEPRA New 26013 7/5/2019 Cal Pers 861.81 EFT Retirement Misc - Classic 27 7/512019 Cal Pers 674.16 EFT Retirement Safety Police Classic - 1 st Tier 28 7/5/2019 Pitney Bowes 1,000.00 Postage for Library 7/3/2019 Lane Donovan Golf Ptr 25,907.41 Payroll Transfer 6/24/19-6130/19 Workers Comp Activity 33,209.17 SCRMA checks issued 6/24/19-6130119 Liability Trust - Claims . 0.00 Claim checks issued 6/24/19-6/30119 Retiree Health Insurance 18,082.16 Health Reimbursment checks issued 6124119-6130/19 Flexible Spending Card 1,010.58 Employee Health and DCA card charges 436,403.86 DATE OF RATIFICATION: 718/19 TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE: 436,403.86 Certified as to the accuracy of the wire transfers by: Deputy City Trea rer II Date �' actor a finance Date r �'Y 2: -7 -17 - City Manager Date Information on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of EI Segundo. P:1Cily Treasurer%Wire TransferslCopy of Wire Transfers 10-01-18 to 9-30-19 7/8/2019 1/1 9 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO WARRANTS TOTALS BY FUND 3026917 - 3027088 DATE OF APPROVAL: AS OF 08/06/19 9001027 9001027 001 GENERAL FUND 348,245.34 104 TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND - 106 STATE GAS TAX FUND 108 ASSOCIATED RECREATION ACTIVITIES FUND - 109 ASSET FORFEITURE FUND 13,493.55 111 COMM. DEVEL, BLOCK GRANT - 112 PROP "A" TRANSPORTATION 750 114 PROP "C" TRANSPORTATION - 115 AIR QUALITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 116 HOME SOUND INSTALLATION FUND - 117 HYPERION MITIGATION FUND 118 TDA ARTICLE 3 - SB 821 BIKEWAY FUND 5,099.60 119 MTA GRANT 121 FEMA - 120 C.O.P.S. FUND 16,125.82 122 L.A.W.A. FUND - 123 PSAF PROPERTY TAX PUBLIC SAFETY - 202 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT #73 301 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 205,023 94 302 INFRASTRUCTURE REPLACEMENT FUND 405 FACILITIES MAINTENANCE - 501 WATER UTILITY FUND 19,027 47 502 WASTEWATER FUND 125,322 87 503 GOLF COURSE FUND - 601 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 34,262 08 602 LIABILITY INSURANCE 603 WORKERS COMP. RESERVE/INSURANCE - 701 RETIRED EMP, INSURANCE - 702 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND - DEVELOPER FEES 10,023.70 703 EXPENDABLE TRUST FUND- OTHER 1,250.00 708 OUTSIDE SERVICES TRUST - TOTAL WARRANTS $ 784,866.30 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: VOID CHECKS DUE TO ALIGNMENT: N/A R= Computer generated checks for all non-emergency/urgency payments for materials, supplies and services in support of City Operations VOID CHECKS DUE TO INCORRECT CHECK DATE: For Ratification: A= Payroll and Employee Benefit checks VOID CHECKS DUE TO COMPUTER SOFTWARE ERROR: B - F = Computer generated Early Release disbursements and/or adjustments approved by the City Manager. Such as: payments for utility services, petty cash and employee travel expense NOTES reimbursements, various refunds, contract employee services consistent with current contractual 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, / H= Handwritten Early Release disbursements and/or adjustments approved by the City Manager. ,�i • F FINANCE DIRECT CITY MANAGER DATE: 1jl,fL „ DATE: C04 Resister 20 a&b, CD r CITY OF EL SEGUNDO PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER 718/19 THROUGH 7/21/19 Date Payee Description 7/9/2019 Cal Pers 3,531,656.00 FY2019-2020 Unfunded Acc'd Liab-Police 1st Tier 28 7/9/2019 Cal Pers 4,931.00 FY2019-2020 Unfunded Acc'd Liab-Police 2nd Tier 30169 7/9/2019 Cal Pers 817.00 FY2019-2020 Unfunded Acc'd Liab-Police PEPRA 25021 7/9/2019 Cal Pers 3,196,488.00 FY2019-2020 Unfunded Acc'd Liab-Fire Classic 30168 7/9/2019 Cal Pers 2,337,162.00 FY2019-2020 Unfunded Acc'd Liab-Misc Classic 27 7/10/2019 Cal Pers (Holiday Pay) 807.82 EFT Retirement Misc - PEPRA New 26013 7/10/2019 Cal Pers (Holiday Pay) 1,262.30 EFT Retirement Misc - Classic 27 7/10/2019 Cat Pers 200.00 Admin Fee - Late Payroll Reporting 7/1012019 Cal Pers 528,307.69 EFT Health Insurance Payment 7/10/2019 West Basin 2,114,411.45 H2O payment 7/15/2019 IRS 242,021.87 Federal 941 Deposit 7115/2019 Employment Development 4,384.83 State SDI payment 7/15/2019 Employment Development 50,632.96 State PIT Withholding 7/1912019 Joint Council of Teamsters 4,590.00 Vision Insurance payment 812019 7/18/2019 Lane Donovan Golf Ptr 22,123.55 Payroll Transfer 711119-7/7/19 Workers Comp Activity 20,116.04 SCRMA checks issued 718119-7/14/19 Workers Comp Activity 166,711.80 SCRMA checks issued 711119-717119 Liability Trust - Claims 0.00 Claim checks issued 7/8/19-7/14/19 Liability Trust - Claims 500.00 Claim checks issued 7/1/19-7/7/19 Retiree Health Insurance 0.00 Health Reimbursment checks issued 718119-7/14/19 Retiree Health Insurance 0.00 Health Reimbursment checks issued 7/1/19-717119 Flexible Spending Card 444.61 Employee Health and DCA card charges 7/8/19-7/14/19 Flexible Spending Card 760.81 Employee Health and DCA card charges 12,228,329.73 DATE OF RATIFICATION: 7/22119 TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE: 12,228,329.73 Certified as to the accuracy of the wire transfers by: Dep Cit Treas er I . / Date �/blrec oaf Finance Date XC54�1) r ,��� ag na er Date i1 Information on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of El Segundo. P:1City Treasurer\Wire TransferslWire Transfers 10-01-18 to 9-30-19 7/22/2019 1/1 11 MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2019 — 4:00 PM CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Boyles at 4:07 PM ROLL CALL Mayor Boyles - Present Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk - Present Council Member Brann - Present Council Member Pimentel - Present Council Member Nicol - Present PUBLIC COMMUNICATION — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30 minute limit total) None SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 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 was placed on the agenda to ensure all Brown Act requirements were met before the Council discussed the matter in closed session. Council Discussion MOTION by Mayor Boyles, SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk appointing Council Members Nicol and Pimentel as real property negotiators. MOTION PASSED BY VOICE VOTE. 4/1 YES: Boyles Nicol Pimentel Pirsztuk NO: Brann 2. Consideration and possible action to interview candidates of the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee. (Fiscal Impact: None) Council interviewed candidates. The following candidates were approved; Jeff Cason, Maureen Kingsley, Mark Knight, Natalie Strong and Michael Kreski. The appointments will be announced at the August 6, 2019 regular City Council meeting. Mayor Boyles announced that Council would be meeting in closed session pursuant to the items listed on the Agenda. 12 CLOSED SESSION: The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government Code Section §54960, et seq.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator; and/or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and/or existing litigation; and/or discussing matters covered under Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and/or conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators; as follows: CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov't Code §54956.9(d)(1): -0- matters CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2): -1- matters. Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9 (d)(4): -1- matters. DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957): -1- matters Performance Review 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 Employee Organizations: Police Management Association; Police Support Services Employees Association; Supervisory, Professional Employees Association; and Executive and Management/Confidential Employees (unrepresented groups). 2 13 Agency Designated Representative: Irma Moisa Rodriquez, City Manager, Scott Mitnick and Human Resources Director, David Serrano. Adjourned at 5:55 PM 14 REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JULY 16, 2019 - 6:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Boyles at 6:00 PM INVOCATION — Pastor Lee Carlile, United Methodist Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Boy Scout Troop 267 PRESENTATIONS - None ROLL CALL Mayor Boyles - Present Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk - Present Council Member Brann - Present Council Member Pimentel - Present Council Member Nicol - Present PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30 minute limit total) Michael Bell, resident and Rotary representative, invited the community to Movie in the Park at Chevron Park on Saturday, August 3, 2019. This year's movie is Spiderman! Ryan Baldino, resident, asked questions of the Council regarding the meeting; will item #C be pulled for discussion and is the Percent for the Arts a Public Hearing? Yes to both questions. Schuh, resident, commented on Short Term Rentals; suggested moving the discussion to September, not in favor of STR's and felt Planning Commission wasn't prepared to discuss STR's at the last Planning Commission meeting. Troop 267 Leader thanked the Council for having them this evening. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS — (Related to Public Communications) Scott Mitnick, City Manager, commented on speaker #3 A. APPROVE ORDER OF THE AGENDA MOTION by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk, SECONDED by Council Member Pimentel to move item #13 after item #11. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0 MOTION by Council Member Nicol, SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk to move items #9 and #10 to before Consent Agenda. MOTION PASSED BY VOICE VOTE. 4/1 YES Boyles Nicol Pimentel Pirsztuk NO Brann B. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda by title only. !I 15 MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk to approve the order of the Agenda. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0 (Items #9 and #10 moved per Council direction) D. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Consideration and possible action regarding approving 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 adopt Statement of Overriding Considerations. The project site is located at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue, EI Segundo, California 90245. (Fiscal Impact: TBD) Mayor Boyles stated this was the time and place to conduct a Public Hearing 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, Certify an Environmental Impact Report and adopt Statement of Overriding Considerations. The project site is located at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue, EI Segundo, California 90245. City Clerk Weaver stated a clerical mistake was made on the staff report; the address should read 2021 Rosecrans Avenue, not 2041 Rosecrans Avenue. The address was corrected in the minutes and Mayor Boyles stated the correct address. 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. MOTION by Council Member Nicol, SECONDED by Council Member Brann to continue the public hearing at the applicant's request to the August 6, 2019 regular City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0 10. Consideration and possible action regarding the 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) Mayor Boyles stated this was the time and place to conduct a Public Hearing 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). 5 `[ City Clerk Weaver stated that proper notice had been given in a timely manner and that written communication has been received in the City Clerk's office. Scott Mitnick, City Manager, introduced Melissa McCollum as the presenter for the item. Melissa McCollum, Library Director, Jeff Cason, Arts and Culture Advisory Committee, Eva Sweeney, Arts and Culture Advisory Committee and Sam Lee, Planning and Building Safety Director gave a presentation on the item. Public Comment: None Council consensus to continue the Public Hearing to the September 17, 2019 regular City Council meeting. Council Discussion Council consensus directing staff to raise the baseline/threshold, possible tiered cap and possibly charging a nominal fee. Staff will work with the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee to make suggested changes and report back on September 17, 2019 with an updated Ordinance 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. Approve 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. Ratified Payroll and Employee Benefit checks; checks released early due to contracts or agreement; emergency disbursements and/or adjustments; and wire transfers. 2. Approve Special City Council Meeting Minutes (Budget Study Workshop #1) of June 14, 2019 and Regular City Council Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2019. 3. PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER BRANN 4. PULLED BY MAYOR PRO TEM PIRSZTUK 5. PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PIMENTEL 17 6. Waive the bidding process and authorize the City Manager to execute Agreement No. 5739, in a form approved by the City Attorney, 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) 7. PULLED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PIMENTEL 8. Authorize the City Manager to sign an amendment to existing professional services Agreement No. 5480A, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for the purchase of background review services for potential new employees with Lawles Enterprises, Inc., not to exceed $60,000.00. (Fiscal Impact: None) MOTION by Council Member Brann, SECONDED by Council Member Pimentel to approve Consent Agenda items 1, 6, and 8. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0. PULLED ITEMS: 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 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.) Mayor Boyles introduced the item Ryan Baldino, resident, commented on the item regarding those homeowners affected by the DR Horton project. Darryl Sequeira, DR Horton, Director of Forward Planning, encouraged Council to adopt the Ordinance No. 1586 as amended. Council discussion MOTION by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk, NO SECOND was made. MOTION FAILED. Ordinance No. 1586 was not amended. 7 18 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) Mayor Boyles introduced the item Mark Hensley, City Attorney, answered Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk's question regarding garaging/housing of the cars. Council Discussion MOTION by Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk, SECONDED by Mayor Boyles to receive and file the report without objecting to the issuance of a permit. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0. 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) Council Member Pimentel introduced the item Council discussion MOTION by Council Member Pimentel, SECONDED by Mayor Boyles to adopt Resolution No. 5156. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 5/0. 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) Mayor Boyles introduced the item Council discussion 19 MOTION by Council Member Pimentel, SECONDED by Council Member Nicol to approve Resolution No. 5157. MOTION PASSED BY VOICE VOTE. 4/1. YES Brann Nicol Pimentel Pirsztuk NO Boyles E. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11. Police recruitment marketing campaign update. Bill Whalen, Chief of Police, gave a report Council Discussion Council Consensus to receive and file the report. G. NEW BUSINESS (Moved up on the agenda per Councii direction) 13. 2019 Mid -Year -Crime Summary Report Bill Whalen, Chief of Police, gave a report Ignited, Inc. represented gave a presentation Council Discussion Council Consensus to receive and file the report. 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) Mayor Boyles announced the appointment to the Recreation and Park Commission: Lee Davis to a full term expiring May 30, 2023 and Kathryn Watson to a partial term expiring May 30, 2020. H. REPORTS — CITY CLERK — No report REPORTS — CITY TREASURER — Not present J. REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY — Stated the City Attorney's office appeared at the Airport Courthouse today regarding the 416 Virginia Street property for the criminal misdemeanor case proceeding to trial. Property owner plead no contest to two (2) counts and will be in a compliance diversion program for twelve (12) months, must comply with all municipal code sections and is under a requirement to evict the tenant in the garage, pay the $7500.00 in outstanding fines and will be under probation and if there are further violations will be immediately subject to court enforcements. The 20 garage tenant will go to trial August 7, 2019 unless other arrangements are made. The Attorney's office will alert the neighbors that were witnesses. K. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Council Member Pimentel — No report Council Member Nicol — Commended the City on a wonderful Fourth of July Celebration and event, thanked the Community groups for their participation and thanked Meredith Petit and her staff for a great job. Council Member Brann — Officially welcomed our new City Manager, Scott Mitnick and shouted out to the main sponsors, Chevron, Inc. and Bill Ruane, realtor of the event. Mayor Pro Tem Pirsztuk — Shout out to Dr. Brann for providing the Hawaiian shirts worn by the Council this evening, thanked the Recreation and Parks Department for a great Fourth of July event and also thanked them for the great camps going on around town, reminded the community to use the Beach Shuttle, reminded the community the Artwalk is Thursday, July 18, mentioned the Concerts in the Park are well attended, thanked the Police Department for acting as a liaison between the Lueck's and the Salt Lake City Police Department and ended with a moment of silence for McKenzie Lueck. Mayor Boyles — No report L. REPORTS — CITY MANAGER — Honor and a privilege to serve as EI Segundo's City Manager, enjoyed the Fourth of July, mentioned the Budget Session will be held Wednesday, July 17, upcoming items for regular City Council meeting on August 6th; Beach Cities Campus, Short Term Rentals, Wireless antennas in the public right away and Sidewalk Policy. Working with the Clerk's office to provide a more comprehensive and long term agenda forecast and reminded the community slurry sealing will take place from July 18th — 24th, please review the Website for the areas that will be impacted. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30 minute limit total) None MEMORIALS — None ADJOURNMENT at 8:02 PM Tracy Weaver, City Clerk 10 21 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 6, 2019 AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to approve an automatic aid agreement between the El Segundo Fire Department and the Los Angeles City Fire Department (No Fiscal Impact) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Approve the attached automatic aid agreement with the Los Angeles Fire Department. The document has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1. Automatic Aid Agreement with Los Angeles Fire Department FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Amount Budgeted: $0.00 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: Deena Lee, Battalion Chief REVIEWED BY: Chris Donovan, Fire Chief APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: The El Segundo Fire Department (ESFD) has completed negotiations with the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) and we are now prepared to update the existing Automatic Aid Agreement. This agreement will allow for the automatic dispatching of available fire resources without approval from the on -duty Battalion Chief, as opposed to a mutual aid request which requires the verbal approval before dispatching of available resources (automatic aid provides a much quicker deployment of resources). This agreement, which was last updated in 1984, is intended to provide each agency a more efficient and effective initial response to an emergency incident and provides for joint training exercises at least annually. Upon notification to the respective dispatch centers ESFD will deploy resources in designated areas within Los Angeles City, as well as receive resources from LAFD, automatically. Given the increase in high-density construction and high- rise occupancies, this agreement favors El Segundo Fire. Staff recommends approval of the automatic aid agreement between the El Segundo Fire Department and the Los Angeles City Fire Department. 22 AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT & EL SEGUNDO FIRE DEPARTMENT JULY 1, 2019 23 LFD/ELS Automatic Aid Agreement (2019) Page 2 AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT FOR EXCHANGE OF FIRE PROTECTION, SPECIALIZED, RESCUE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement provide fire protection, medical services, specialized and rescue services within their respective jurisdictional limits; and WHEREAS, fire and rescue resources for the City of EI Segundo are dispatched through a central dispatch center known as South Bay Regional Communications Center (RCC); and WHEREAS, fire and rescue resources for the City of Los Angeles are dispatched through a central dispatch center known as Metropolitan Fire Communications (MFC); and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of EI Segundo and Los Angeles to provide the most expeditious response to suppress fires and render other emergency assistance; and WHEREAS, each party is desirous of providing to the other a reasonable and reciprocal exchange of emergency services on a day-to-day basis; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these mutual covenants, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Revisions This Letter of Agreement may be revised or amended at any time by mutual agreement of the Fire Chiefs of ELS and LFD. All amendments to this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by the Fire Chiefs or their duly designated Acting Fire Chiefs. It is agreed that substantial reductions or modifications of services by any of the agencies shall be cause for reconsideration of the Agreement. 2. Term This Agreement shall commence, once executed by all parties hereto, on July 1, 2019 and shall remain operative and effective through June 30, 2022. Parties shall meet on or about October 1. 2021 to begin review and revision meetings. Any of the parties may terminate the Agreement at any time by giving written notice to the other party at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of withdrawal. 24 LFD/ELS Automatic Aid Agreement (2019) Page 3 3. Mutual Benefits ELS and LFD intend that this Agreement will provide mutual benefits to each party. The Fire Chiefs of ELS and LFD are hereby authorized to identify and revise as they deem necessary any designated areas or types of response periodically as may be dictated by changing conditions and the requirements of mutual benefits to each party. 4. Incident Command In those instances where the assisting Department arrives before the jurisdictional Department, the assisting Department will take the necessary action dictated by the situation. However, it is assumed that the jurisdictional Department will arrive shortly after the arrival of the assisting Department. Overall command of the incident will be assumed by the jurisdictional Department upon its arrival at the scene. The highest- ranking officer of the assisting Fire Department at the incident will become the Agency Representative (AREP). The resources of the assisting Department will be released from the scene as soon as practical by the jurisdictional Fire Department. When it is deemed appropriate, the AREP may enter into Unified Command with the jurisdictional Department's Incident Commander. It is understood that such a decision may require approval from an Agency Administrator of the assisting and/or jurisdictional Department. A common and agreed upon communications plan shall be established and utilized by all resources and Incident Commanders. 5. Commitment of Resources It is mutually understood and agreed that this agreement does not relieve either party from the necessity and obligation of using its own resources for furnishing fire and rescue service within any part of its own jurisdiction, and that the assisting party's response to a request for aid will be dependent upon the existing emergency conditions within its own jurisdiction and the status of its resources. 6. Method of Requestinq Aid All requests for aid shall be via the respective dispatch center. Persons assigned to the dispatch center for each Department are authorized to send and receive such requests as per their respective operational procedures. 25 LFD/ELS Automatic Aid Agreement (2019) Page 4 7. Intent of Agreement The intent of this Agreement is to provide the jurisdictional agency with a more efficient and/or effective initial response to an emergency incident. The agreed upon resources should only be utilized until the jurisdictional agency is able to relieve the assisting agency with their own resources and/or obtain the appropriate emergency resources, not to exceed a 12 -hour period of time. If the agreed upon resources are not available from the assisting agency at the time of the request from the jurisdictional agency, the assisting agency need not respond. 8. Fire Incident Reporting Each agency shall be responsible for obtaining needed information to complete fire reports for incidents within their respective jurisdiction. Assisting units shall contact jurisdictional units to provide appropriate information for completion of fire reports. 9. Training Joint training exercises will be conducted periodically upon agreement by the parties (minimum of one per year). These training exercises shall be coordinated with LFD and ELS Battalion Commanders. 10. Services by Los Anqeles Fire Department LFD agrees to provide a designated fire, EMS and/or technical rescue response, as jointly agreed upon by the Fire Chiefs of LFD and ELS, upon request by ELS to designated areas located within the jurisdiction of EI Segundo. 11. Dispatch by Los Angeles Fire Department Upon receipt by Los Angeles of an alarm within a designated area located within the jurisdiction of Los Angeles, LFD, as the jurisdictional Department, will dispatch its nearest available and appropriately designated fire response to that alarm and also notify the ELS fire dispatcher who will, in turn, dispatch the agreed-upon ELS response. 12. Services by EI Sequndo Fire Department ELS agrees to provide a designated fire and EMS response, as jointly agreed upon by the Fire Chiefs of ELS and LFD, upon request by LFD to designated areas located within the jurisdiction of Los Angeles. K LFD/ELS Automatic Aid Agreement (2019) Page 5 13. Dispatch by EI Segundo Fire Department Upon receipt by the ELS of an alarm within a designated area located within the jurisdiction of EI Segundo, ELS (as the jurisdictional Department) will dispatch its nearest available and appropriately designated fire, EMS, or rescue response to that alarm and also notify an LFD fire dispatcher who will, in turn, dispatch the agreed-upon LFD response. 14. Amount and Tvpe of Assistance A. LFD to ELS When requested by ELS, LFD agrees to provide the following resources to combat emergency incidents which are within the defined areas identified on the attached map. (See map #1) Additional resources may be authorized by the Fire Chief or Deputy Department Commander of LFD upon request. Structure Fire Response ■ Initial Dispatch: The closest available light force and one Battalion Chief into the city of EI Segundo designated on the attached map. Additional resources: After the initial dispatch of one light force, ELS may request up to the remaining balance of a category "B" assignment (one light force, three engines, one Battalion Chief, and (if necessary) an additional Chief Officer to serve as an agency representative. Additional resources above a category "B" assignment may be authorized by the Fire Chief or Deputy Department Commander of the LFD upon request. EMS Response • One ALS ambulance into the city of EI Segundo designated on the attached map. See Map#1A Specialized and Technical Rescue resources Any request by ELS for specialized and technical resources (e.g. Hazmat, USAR, Heavy Rescue etc.) shall be approved by the LFD Deputy Department Commander (through the MFC Dispatch Center) B. ELS to LFD When requested by LFD, ELS agrees to provide the following resources to combat emergency incidents which are within the defined areas identified on the attached map. Additional resources may be authorized by the ELS Operations Chief/Duty Chief or Fire Chief upon request. 27 LFD/ELS Automatic Aid Agreement (2019) Page 6 Fire Response One Engine on Vista Del Mar from one-half mile north of Imperial Highway on the north to the EI Segundo city boundary on the south. (See Map#2) • One Engine on northbound Sepulveda Blvd from Imperial Hwy to Century Blvd. (See Map#3) • One Engine on Aviation Blvd from Imperial to one-half mile north of Imperial Hwy. (See Map#4) • One Engine on eastbound 1-105 freeway from Sepulveda Blvd. to 1-405 freeway. (See Map #5) EMS Resvonses • One Engine with one ALS/BLS ambulance on Vista Del Mar from one-half mile north of Imperial Highway on the north to the EI Segundo city boundary on the south. (See Map#2A) Freewav Incidents: Fire, EMS, and Technical Rescue ■ One engine eastbound on the 1-105 Freeway between the Sepulveda Blvd. and the 1-405 Freeway. (See Map#5) 15. Communications System The Parties agree to share the use of communication systems, radios and radio frequencies for the execution of this Agreement. Sharing of the frequencies must be approved only by authorized personnel for each party and documented in the Incident Action Plan (IAP). The communications plan will be reviewed annually and included in the recurrent joint training exercise. When a Battalion Chief is assigned to the incident from the assisting agency (i.e. structure fire, swift water and freeway physical rescue), a common command channel of the jurisdictional agency shall be used by all assigned Officers, while each agency's line personnel may operate on their agency's tactical radio channel(s) as specified in the communications plan. For incidents where there is NO Battalion Chief assigned from the agency providing assistance (i.e. auto and other fires on the freeway, EMS incidents, etc.) agencies' Company Commanders will communicate with each other using the tactical radio channel assigned to the agency having jurisdiction. 28 LFD/ELS Automatic Aid Agreement (2019) Page 7 16. No Third -Party Benefit This Agreement shall not be construed as, or deemed to be, an Agreement for the benefit of anyone not a party hereto, and anyone who is not a party hereto shall not have a right of action hereunder for any cause whatsoever. 17. Consideration No party furnishing aid pursuant to this Agreement shall be entitled to compensation for services rendered to the requesting agency, it being understood that the respective covenants contained in this Agreement shall constitute the sole consideration for such services. 18. Hold Harmless It is mutually understood and agreed that the party requesting assistance is not required to indemnify the party furnishing assistance as to liability or damage imposed by law upon the assisting party for any act or omission of the assisting party or its employees occurring in the performance of the services. 19. No Effect on Master Mutual Aid Agreement It is mutually understood that this Agreement will in no way affect or have a bearing on the existing California Master Mutual Aid Agreement. 20. Previous Agreements Canceled This agreement supersedes and cancels any previous Automatic Aid Agreement between the parties. (Signature Page Follows) 29 LFD/ELS Automatic Aid Agreement (2019) Page 8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been executed on the day of , 2019 and is effective and operative as to each of the parties as herein provided. CITY OF LOS ANGELES By RALPH M. TERRAZAS Fire Chief Approved as to form and legality: MICHAEL N. FEUER City Attorney By KIMBERLY MIERA Deputy City Attorney CITY OF EL SEGUNDO By CHRIS DONOVAN Fire Chief Approved as to form: By MARK D. HENSLEY City Attorney Agreement Number: By DREW BOYLES Mayor Approved as to content: By SCOTT MITNICK City Manager 30 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: August 6, 2019 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda Consideration and possible action regarding adoption of a Resolution appointing Director of Finance, Joseph Lillio, Director of Human Resources, David Serrano, and City Council Mayor, Drew Boyles and City Council Member Chris Pimentel to serve as board member, alternate board member, and substitute alternate board members, respectively, on the Independent Cities Risk Management Association (ICRMA) governing board. (Fiscal Impact: none) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1) Adopt attached resolution appointing Director of Finance, Joseph Lillio, Director of Human Resources, David Serrano, and City Council Mayor, Drew Boyles and City Council Member Chris Pimentel to serve as board member, alternate board member, and substitute alternate board members, respectively; and 2) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1) Resolution to appoint specific representatives to ICRMA. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 5(b) Champion Economic Development and Fiscal Sustainability: El Segundo approaches its work in a financially disciplined and responsible way Objective: 2 The City will maintain a stable, efficient, and transparent financial environment ORIGINATED BY: Joseph Lillio, Director of Finance APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick City Manager ^� BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: ICRMA is a not-for-profit Joint Powers Authority directed by a Governing Board consisting of one representative from each Member City. There are currently eighteen active member municipalities. The Governing Board directs the activities of the pools, programs and outside 31 administrators to the advantage of its membership. The Governing Board meets as required to take action and/or approve recommendations from the Administrative and Claims Committees. Members are encouraged to participate on the Governing Board, Executive Committee, Claims Committee, and other committees. All meetings are open to members and the public, as are public sessions of the Administrative and Claims Committee meetings. On a day-to-day basis, ICRMA is managed by a professional administrative staff to provide immediate assistance with risk management, risk transfer, claims, litigation, return -to -work issues, and education. In addition, ICRMA contracts with several key providers for its various risk programs and consulting services. These providers are reviewed by the Governing Board. The City of El Segundo ("City") is a member city of ICRMA. The City participates in the following insurance/risk pool programs: general liability, property & auto physical damage program, worker's compensation program, crime program, and cyber program. The bylaws of ICRMA require that the Governing Board shall be comprised of one representative from each member. In addition to the delegate representative, who may be a legislative member, an alternate and substitute alternate may be appointed, either of whom may vote in absence of the delegate representative. If the member chooses to designate an alternate or substitute alternate, other than a legislative member, the person(s) designated must be 1) elected officials, OR 2) City Managers, OR 3) hold positions with authority equivalent to a Department Directors within the Member Hierarchy; OR 4) be dedicated (full time) to risk management for the Member and approved for appointment by the ICRMA Board. All appointments must be of a specifically named individual or specific position. Appointments by position must provide specific contact information with the initial resolution. 32 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO APPOINTING A BOARD MEMBER, ALTERNATE BOARD MEMBER, AND TWO SUBSTITUTE ALTERNATE BOARD MEMBERS TO THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE INDEPENDENT CITIES RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY (ICRMA). WHEREAS, the City of El Segundo ("City") is a member of the Independent Cities Risk Management Authority ("ICRMA"), a joint powers authority created pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, ICRMA provides a Liability Program, Workers' Compensation Program, Property Program, and other coverage programs for its members; and WHEREAS, the Joint Powers Agreement provides that the Governing Board of the Authority shall be comprised of one representative from each member; and WHEREAS, the city council of each member may select and change any of its representatives by filing a resolution with ICRMA; and WHEREAS, the city council may appoint legislative member(s) or staff member(s) to serve on the Governing Board; and WHEREAS staff members hold positions with authority equivalent to a Department Director; or be a dedicated (full time) risk management position; and WHEREAS, City desires to designate its representative(s) to the ICRMA Governing Board; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of El Segundo does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: SECTION 1. That the Director of Finance, Joseph Lillio, is hereby appointed to serve as a Board Member on the ICRMA Governing Board. SECTION 2. That the Director of Human Resources, David Serrano, is hereby appointed as the alternate, to serve on the ICRMA Governing Board in the absence of the primary member noted in Section 1 above. SECTION 3. That City Council Member and Mayor, Drew Boyles, and/or City Council Member Chris Pimentel, are hereby appointed as the substitute alternate Board Members, to serve on the ICRMA Governing Board in the absence of the primary member noted in Section 1 above and in the absence of the alternate member noted in Section 2 above. 33 SECTION 4. That the individuals designated by this City Council as the City's Board Member, alternate Board Member, and substitute alternate Board Members to the ICRMA Governing Board are hereby confirmed and designated as the City's delegates for all purposes of representing the City's interests and exercising the authority of the City with respect to all matters delegated to the Governing Board and signing all amendments as are contemplated to be approved by the Governing Board. RESOLVED, that a certified copy of this Resolution shall be provided to the Executive Director of ICRMA. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 2019. Mayor Drew Boyles, City of El Segundo ATTEST: City Clerk Tracy Weaver, City of El Segundo APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney, Mark D. Hensley, City of El Segundo 34 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF EL SEGUNDO ) I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of El 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: City Clerk, Tracy Weaver, City of El Segundo 35 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: August 6, 2019 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda Consideration and possible action to award a standard Public Works Contract to Ruiz Concrete and Paving, Inc. for the McCarthy Court Sidewalk, Drainage Street Improvements at 800 block of McCarthy Court, Project No. PW 19-10 (Fiscal Impact: $186,057.05) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Waive the minor irregularity in the bid from Ruiz Concrete and Paving, Inc.; 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a standard Public Works Contract in a form approved by the City Attorney with Ruiz Concrete and Paving, Inc. in the amount of $139,058.05 for the McCarthy Court Street Improvements, Project No. PW 19-10, and authorize an additional $20,859 for construction -related contingencies; 3. Authorize the City Manager to execute a standard Professional Services Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney with AKM Consulting Engineers in the amount of $23,740; for construction inspection services on the project, and authorize an additional $2,400 for construction -inspection -related contingencies; or, 4. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible actions related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Project Location Map FISCAL IMPACT: Included in Adopted Budget Amount Budgeted: $275,000 Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): 301-400-8141-8217 (McCarthy Court Street Improvement Proj ect) 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: Floriza Rivera, Principal Civil Engine @__ REVIEWED BY: Ken Berkman, Public Works Director W�) APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager M-1 S Yv� BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: On April 16, 2019, City Council adopted the plans and specifications for the McCarthy Court Street Improvements Project to improve drainage and repair damaged sidewalk, curb, and 36 driveway approaches at 800 block of McCarthy Court between Walnut Avenue and Lomita Street and authorized staff to advertise the project for construction bids. The project budget is included in the approved FY 2018/19 budget. On June 25, 2019, the City Clerk received and opened four bids as follows: 1. Ruiz Concrete and Paving, Inc. dba Ruiz Engineering $139,058.05 2. FS Contractors, Inc. $145,114.00 3. Martinez Concrete, Inc. $169,770.00 4. Hardy and Harper, Inc. $196,982.00 The lowest responsive and responsible bidder is Ruiz Concrete and Paving, Inc. Staff checked the Contractor's references and license status and determined that they have satisfactorily completed similar projects for other public agencies and their license is in good standing. Staff noticed that the Contractor bid more than 5% of the total bid amount for bid item #1 (Mobilization and Demobilization including traffic control), though the project specifications state that the bid item shall not exceed 5% of total bid. Staff investigated and concluded that this minor discrepancy is inconsequential and it does not affect the bid amount or give the bidder an advantage over others. In an abundance of caution, however, in consultation with the City Attorney's Office staff recommends that the following item be identified as a minor irregularity and waived by the City Council: The lowest bidder, Ruiz Concrete and Paving, Inc., bid more than 5% of the total bid amount for Bid Item #1. Staff solicited part-time inspection services on the McCarthy Court Street Improvements Project through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process. The results were as follows: 1. AKM Engineering Services $23,740 2. KOA $40,725 Staff has contracted with AKM Engineering Services previously for inspection and testing services on several projects and has found them to be competent and professional at providing daily oversight and construction inspection. Therefore, staff respectfully recommends that City Council: 1) waive the minor irregularity in the bid from Ruiz Concrete and Paving, Inc.; 2) authorize the City Manager to execute a standard Public Works Contract in a form approved by the City Attorney with Ruiz Concrete and Paving, Inc. in the amount of $139,058.05 for the McCarthy Court Street Improvements, Project No. PW 19-10, and authorize an additional $20,859 for construction -related contingencies; 3) authorize the City Manager to execute a standard Professional Services Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney with AKM Consulting Engineers in the amount of $23,740 for construction inspection services on the project, and authorize an additional $2,400 for construction -inspection - related contingencies. With Council's authorization, construction is anticipated to commence in September and be completed in December. 37 ti..�..M.rt� •ooµe r d a ..�' 0 Z j� QI j 0 to m c d �I i Q � 0 a I i5 Umn ! h►� co 4J ami m � h E E � �ry L a U E a m c co 1 y��tOady c� oi3Oa O y G m y N p W Q' 5J I F- �a 3'- i, I' w t 3 n_ U 4 fg p' � OvO,m`o •� W a fc nueiAm m m W, LL M N l(� I+1 I I ^P'1 i OL C� 3 a ^- W Q) u _rLE ri- V J W a -j O N 1�j puel&-elhl- i is 5"IO R f0 - t` I M o_ r d a 0 Z �X QI 0 � y U d �I w E�=a � b O M co N Lf) � h E E c E a m c N O pCj ca c� oi3Oa pL ca a O R.t m y N p W ya�cE h Jfl Ma�CB F- �a 3'- i, I' w t 3 fg �EaWE � OvO,m`o •� W fc nueiAm m m LL M N l(� f0 - t` I M o_ r a �X QI 0 d �I 3 vl W rn M co N Lf) � S� EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: August 6, 2019 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda Consideration and possible action to revise the previously approved Consent Agenda item No. 8 from the June 18, 2019, City Council agenda — The fiscal impact and fiscal year in the agenda description were clerical errors and should have read "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: $904,665.00 FY 2018-19)" RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1) Award a contract to 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 El Segundo Municipal Code § 1-7-9(C), and authorize the City Manager to execute a 3 year agreement with Lanair Group LLC, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to purchase hardware, software, training and professional services for execution of the technical infrastructure upgrade project. 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1. Lanair Group LLC Price quote 2. Nutanix Statement of Work (SOW) FISCAL IMPACT: $904,665.00; The cost of $904,665.00: includes hardware and support, associated state tax and shipping costs, professional services, and costs for contingency for all products and services over the life of the contract. The current Equipment Replacement budget will cover costs to be incurred during FY 2018-19. The subsequent years of maintenance costs will be included in future budgets. Amount Budgeted: $1,000,000 for FY2018-19 Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): 604-400-2505-8108 (Equipment Replacement Fund) STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 4 Develop Quality Infrastructure and Technology Objective: A El Segundo's physical infrastructure supports and appealing, safe and effective community. B El Segundo's technology supports effective, efficient, and proactive operations. X& 39 ORIGINATED BY: Charles Mallory, Information Systems Director REVIEWED BY: Charles Mallory, Information Systems Directo APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Managew CPic r 6 r f� BACKGROUND AND VENDOR SELECTION PROCESS: The City of El Segundo (hereafter referred to as "the City") is in need of a refresh of components of the technical infrastructure, as components have reached the end of their useful life. The infrastructure consists of the hardware, software and services that administer the management and operation of the enterprise business systems. The replacements include the Blade Servers, which power 500 virtual desktops, 80 virtual servers, document management, financial systems, and other business systems, and the Storage Area Network (SAN) which is used to store all city data. Refreshing this technology and will supply more processing and storage capacity. The Information Systems Department (ISD) recommends purchasing more robust capabilities by upgrading these components into a hyper -converged infrastructure (HCI) storage system that consolidates the multiple components into one. The City's current legacy technical infrastructure has reached 80% capacity and is at the end of its useful life cycle. With the advances in technology, an upgrade is necessary in order to increase speed, the ability to run more advanced applications and databases, to increase security, and to provide both on premises application and cloud management capabilities for our Software as a Service (SAAS) applications. This project will refresh the City's aging technical infrastructure, enhance operational performance by increasing the processing and storage capacity of all city virtual desktops; on premise enterprise applications like Eden, Laserfiche, Exchange, etc. This upgrade will also allow for more local and cloud -based disaster recovery options. The legacy infrastructure which has hardware located in City Hall and the Police Department was implemented approximately six to ten years ago, and has functioned sufficiently up to the components exceeding their expected life. With the age of the City's technical infrastructure, there have been significant developments that render our infrastructure less effective. Furthermore, the maintenance/support resources for the current infrastructure have increased in cost as we have to reach out to third party companies for support and used replacement parts. El Segundo is the home for many companies that are making significant technological advances. ISD staff recommends that the City should not only keep up with technology, but make similar strides to maintain effectiveness of the technical infrastructure. The Information Systems Department (ISD) is responsible for providing the City with technology solutions, maintenance and expertise, to support day to day business operations, process improvement, data management, and strategic initiatives as well. ISD strives to ensure all of the City's technology users consistently receive the highest level of customer service, which in turn results in high external customer satisfaction. The ISD is also responsible for long-range planning of systems in El Segundo, and execution of this project will fulfill this responsibility and serve as the City's next step into the future. 40 The ISD selected Lainair Group, LLC as a GSA certified vendor under federal contract number: GS -35F -0119Y. The contract was entered into on December 20, 2011 and is current through December 19, 2021. Modification 1301 was made to the pricelist on March 15, 2018. El Segundo's Technology Committee has reviewed staff's recommendations for the scope of work and project deliverables and are in agreement that staff's proposal meets the project's objectives. Project Objectives: The objective of this project is to replace the technical infrastructure and its capabilities for higher- level performance: 1. Provide next -generation replacements to the current infrastructure 2. Replace Blade Servers 3. Expand current storage capacity by replacing the existing storage area networks (SAN) 4. Increase processing speed, storage and memory. 5. Handle advanced programs 6. Consolidate data centers (City Hall and Police Department) 7. Increase security 8. Enhance user experience for internal and external customers 9. Increase the ability to manage both cloud and on premises applications 10. Enhance Disaster Recovery capabilities for both on premises and cloud data This project is estimated to take approximately 3 — 6 months from the execution of the contract. 41 Exhibit A Project Services Division Copyright© LANAIR Group, LLC. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, for any purpose, without written permission from LANAIR Group, LLC `nN Executive Summary GOALS 1. LANAIR will install a new Nutanix cluster to host the Clients server & VDI infrastructure at their HQ datacenter 2. LANAIR will use the current switching at the HQ datacenter for the new Nutanix cluster 3. LANAIR will install and configure VCenter to manage the ESXi environment 4. LANAIR will install and configure PRISM Central to manage the new Nutanix cluster 5. LANAIR will install and configure Nutanix Files on the new Nutanix cluster 6. LANAIR will migrate the Clients current file system to the new Nutanix File Server 7. LANAIR will migrate the clients existing server infrastructure to the new Nutanix cluster 8. LANAIR will upgrade the clients existing VDI infrastructure onto the new Nutanix cluster 9. LANAIR will upgrade the clients current Active Directory servers to Windows 2016 Server BACKGROUND 1. The Client has existing switching for the new Nutanix clusters 2. The Client is currently running a VMware environment 3. The Client is currently running a VMware Horizon View VDI environment with Unidisk 4. The Clients current Domain Function Level is Windows 2008 R2 DESIGN NOTES 1. LANAIR will install, connect, and initialize a new Nutanix cluster 2. LANAIR will connect the new Nutanix cluster to the existing switching 3. LANAIR will upgrade the current VDI environment onto the new Nutanix cluster 4. LANAIR will migrate the current server infrastructure to the new Nutanix cluster 5. LANAIR will install and configure VCenter to manage the ESXi environment 6. LANAIR will install and configure PRISM Central to managing the new Nutanix cluster 7. LANAIR will install and configure Nutanix Files on the new Nutanix cluster 8. LANAIR will create new virtual Windows 2016 Standard servers as Active Directory Servers 9. LANAIR will configure Data Encryption within the new Nutanix cluster SITES 1. HQ - 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 KEY DELIVERABLES 1. Onsite installation and configuration of the new Nutanix clusters at the HQ datacenter 2. Onsite installation of VMware on new Nutanix cluster at HQ site 3. Onsite installation and configuration of VCenter to manage the VMware environment 4. Onsite installation and configuration of PRISM Central for management of the new Nutanix cluster at the HQ datacenter 5. Onsite installation and configuration of Nutanix Files on the new Nutanix cluster at the HQ datacenter 6. Onsite validation of the new Nutanix cluster at the HQ datacenter 7. Remote upgrade of the current VDI environment and migrate onto the new Nutanix cluster at the HQ datacenter 8. Remote migration of the current server infrastructure to the new Nutanix cluster at the HQ datacenter 9. Remote migrate FISMO, DNS and DHCP roles to new virtual Windows 2016 Server Standard Active Directory servers 10. Remote cleanup of Active Directory 11. Remote install and configure Nutanix Data Encryption City of EI Segundo 43 12. Remote provide up to 8 hours of As -Built Review on the installed systems 13. Provide the Client with Project Closeout documentation City of EI Segundo 44 Nutanix Hardware, Software, Support Price Oty Ext,Price Nutanix NX -8235 -G6 -CTO Block $38,175.70 7 $267,229.90 NX -8035-G6 Series (2 Nodes oer 1 Block) • 2x Intel Xeon 6148 Processor • 4x 8TB 3.5" HDD • 2x 3.84TB 3.5" SSD • 24x 32GB DDR4 RAM Nutanix 3yr PRD System Support for NX8035-G6 Nutanix NX -3155G -G6 -CTO Block NX -3055G -G6 Series (1 Nodes per 1 Block) • 2x Intel Xeon 6148 Processor • 4x 8TB 3.5" HDD • 2x 3.84TB 3.5" SSD • 24x 32GB DDR4 RAM • 2x NVIDIA P40 GPU Cards Nutanix 3yr PRD System Support for NX3155G-G6 Nutanix Files Analytics entitlement License Add On For Nutanix Files, File Analytics entitlement & Production 24/7 System support bundle for 3YR License Add On For Nutanix Files Analytics entitlement License Add On For Nutanix Files, File Analytics entitlement & Production 24/7 System support bundle for Analyzing 1TiB of data stored on Nutanix Files for 3YR $4,342.60 14 $60,796.40 $84,213.69 2 $168,427.38 $4,558.66 2 $9,117.32 $0.00 1 $0.00 $0.00 10 $0.00 Subtotal $505,571.00 Education Price Oty Ext. Price Nutanix Nutanix Enterprise Cloud Administration Class $3,148.15 3 $9,444.45 Enterprise Cloud Administration Enterprise Cloud Platform Administration 5.0 Customer Course: (Standalone Curriculum) DELIVERY: Instructor -led, 4 Day FOR[ Subtotal: $9,444.45 Professional Services $149,000.00 1 $149,000.00 Subtotal: $149,000.00 City of EI Segundo 45 0 Statement of Work PROJECT ADMINISTRATION 1. LANAIR will assign a technical lead to the project 2. LANAIR will coordinate and conduct a Project Discovery Meeting with the assigned technical lead to review the project in detail, discuss the existing environment, gather information for Design, and discuss the initial deployment timeline 3. LANAIR will conduct weekly project status calls throughout the Delivery Phases of the project and a weekly technical review call during critical phases of the project 4. CLIENT will assign a business and a technical sponsor for the project 5. CLIENT agrees to grant LANAIR remote access to the environment for the purpose of remote configuration during business hours utilizing the LANAIR secure CPS agent on an existing CLIENT server PRE -INSTALLATION 1. Prior to the installation of equipment, LANAIR will conduct a health and performance check on the existing systems as needed. Remediation of issues on existing system as a result of the health and performance checks is outside of this project scope of work 2. LANAIR will conduct a Pre -Installation Readiness Meeting to verify environment readiness prior to any onsite or remote work 3. The CLIENT will confirm rack space. outlets. power, cooiina, cabling, and staff availabilitv prior to anv onsite installation of eauipment 4. The CLIENT will confirm available ports and confaurations are in place on existing network to support the, connections from the eauipment 5. The CLIENT will provide the reauired licensing and ISO's for the software that will be installed with the eauioment ONSITE INSTALLATION NUTANIX INSTALLATION NUTANIX EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION 1. Unbox and mount Nutanix equipment in rack 2. Connect Node DATAports to top of rack switches with CLIENT provided cabling 3. Connect Node MGMT port to top of rack switches with CLIENT provided cabling 4. Connect power connections to CLIENT power distribution units 5. Power on installed Nodes 6. Install Nutanix Controller VM's on Nodes NUTANIX CLUSTER CONFIGURATION 1. Connect to CLIENT LAN and detect Nutanix Nodes 2. Configure Network Settings and Hostnames from Pre -Script 3. Upload Acropolis Operating System (AOS) 4. Install Client provided Hypervisor OS on Nodes and apply patches 5. Apply Client provided hypervisor license keys 6. Create Nutanix cluster, configure vSwitches, and VLAN port groups 7. Apply administrative configuration (DNS, NTP, Syslog, AD, SNMP, SMTP) 8. Configure storage containers per Design Notes 9. Configure protection domains per Design Notes 10. Install and Configure Hypervisor Manager per Design Notes 11. Install and configure Data Encryption per Design notes NUTANIX SYSTEM VALIDATION 1. Execute Nutanix Cluster Check City of EI Segundo ., 2. Execute Nutanix Diagnostic Test 3. Verify Nutanix alerts received by Client 4. Verify Nutanix Pulse (call home) NUTANIX SYSTEM AS -BUILT REVIEW 1. Review installed Hypervisor Manager access, settings, and management 2. Review virtual machine creation process 3. Review storage settings and management 4. Review network settings and management REMOTE INSTALLATION VIRTUAL TO VIRTUAL SERVER MIGRATION 1. LANAIR will migrate virtual servers from the same to same platform per Key Deliverables 2. LANAIR will migrate the virtual servers during business hours with CPU compatibility enabled on the new cluster or after-hours by shutting down virtual servers by no later than 6PM Mon - Thurs 3. LANAIR will reboot virtual servers 1 week prior to the scheduled V2V start ACTIVE DIRECTORY: MICROSOFT AD UPGRADE (MULTIPLE SERVERS) 1. LANAIR will update the existing systems if required to support the new Active Directory servers 2. LANAIR will install and configure new virtual servers in the new hypervisor environment as Microsoft 2016 Active Directory servers in the existing domain and forest 3. LANAIR will configure the DNS role on the new AD servers 4. LANAIR will configure the DNS role to forward non -authoritative DNS requests to ISP caching DNS servers 5. LANAIR will install the DHCP Server role on two new AD servers 6. CLIENT will configure the existing network systems to forward (relay) DHCP requests to the new DHCP server: 7. LANAIR will configure DHCP Failover between the two new AD servers 8. LANAIR will migrate the DHCP scopes from the current Windows DHCP server to the new DHCP failover pair 9. LANAIR will configure up to 10 new DHCP scopes on the new AD servers 10. LANAIR will configure the DHCP scope options to support the current systems 11. LANAIR will configure the DHCP server to be both AD and DNS integrated 12. LANAIR will install and configure Certificate Authority role 13. LANAIR will configure the new AD servers to utilize the IP addresses of the existing (old) AD servers if required 14. LANAIR will uninstall AD from the existing AD servers 15. LANAIR will raise the domain and forest functional level 16. LANAIR will remove the Active Directory Services and demote the existing Domain Controllers to Member servers 17. LANAIR will migrate remaining services. data. and applications from the demoted AD servers and. decommission the leaacv servers NUTANIX FILE SERVER 1. LANAIR will install and configure 3 new Nutanix File Server clusters on the new Nutanix environment o VDI o PD o CH . LANAIR will customize the Nutanix File Server per specifications provided by Client, . LANAIR will migrate the existina files and folders to the new Nutanix File Server, . LANAIR will configure Nutanix File Server settincrs to match existina DNS and User settings. City of EI Segundo 47 July 2019 VDI Migration 1. LANAIR will create the Windows based virtual machines for the VDI components 2. LANAIR will install SQL for the new VDI environment databases 3. LANAIR will install a KMS Server for the new VDI environment Microsoft licensing 4. LANAIR will install and configure 1 Windows based virtual machine or a virtual appliance for hypervisor management 5. LANAIR will install the Horizon View Composer component 6. LANAIR will install and configure new Horizon View Connection and Unified Access Gateway servers per design notes 7. LANAIR will create new Master Images for the new Citrix App Layering system S. LANAIR will install up to 50 applications onto the Master Image 9. LANAIR will setup and configure Thinprint, if applicable 10. LANAIR will create desktop pools per design notes 11. LANAIR will create non-persistent and persistent desktops per design notes 12. LANAIR will install and configure a new file server for redirected user profile data including Documents and Desktop 13. LANAIR will install and configure the profile management system forVDI 14. LANAIR will publish all the desktops from each pool for testing 15. LANAIR will install additional user aootications and migrate users to the new VDI system. 16. CLIENT will be responsible for supporting any end user support/devices not specified in the scope of work 17. CLIENT will be responsible for supporting any other systems/application not specified in the scope of work 18. CLIENT will provide the necessary ISO(s) for each VDI component 19. CLIENT will provide the necessary VDI and Microsoft KMS licenses 20. CLIENT will provide the necessary certificates to support the VDI installation Nutanix Files Migration 1. LANAIR will migrate the existing files and folders to the new Nutanix Files server 2. LANAIR, though new VDI machines, will migrate end users to the new server PROJECT CLOSEOUT CLOSEOUT 1. LANAIR will provide the CUSTOMER with systems orientation on the installed systems. LANAIR also recommends formal training on the installed systems separate from this scope of work 2. LANAIR will provide the CUSTOMER with a closeout package to include Project Closeout and Completed Project Deliverables forms to be signed by CUSTOMER 3. LANAIR will provide the CUSTOMER with access to the installed systems after approval of all Project Closeout documentation CUSTOMER RESPONSIBILITIES 1. The CLIENT will complete any recommendations from health checks or post project observations reports 2. The CLIENT will deploy new backup solution agents to remaining servers needing protection 3. The CLIENT will complete new backup solution replication to the DR site 4. The CLIENT will configure the SRM fail over protection profiles and recovery plans for the new and existing virtual servers. 5. The CLIENT will be responsible for configuring system maintenance to include monitoring systems, updates, anti-virus, security policies, backups, etc 6. The CLIENT will obtain any necessary training from relevant vendors to ensure the ability to manage installed systems City of EI Segundo 48 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK City of EI Segundo Page 9 49 July 2019 LE Out of Scope Items The below items are excluded from this project scope of work unless otherwise stated in the above "IN SCOPE ITEMS" section: 1. Any services, tasks or activities other than those specifically noted in this SOW. 2. Any LANAIR training or certification services not specifically described in this SOW. 3. Troubleshooting or remediation of any issues with existing systems or hardware 4. Network troubleshooting or tools -based remediation. The existing networking infrastructure and its supporting servic are considered "healthy" for the duration of the delivery of the Services. 5. Identification of applications compatible with virtualization and analysis of interdependencies other than what is outlined in the scope of work. 6. Software licensing not identified in the professional services or hardware quotes. 7. The project will involve As -Built Review, Proof of Concept, and Product Orientation on the newly configured system: CLIENTswithout previous experience in the technology should not expect to become proficient as a result of the Product Orientation. Proficiency can only be achieved through formal training and experience. 8. Performance and Regression testing of existing network infrastructure. 9. Regression testing of new infrastructure. 10. Testing or validating performance for remote site user workloads. 11. Configuration of Microsoft License Infrastructure 12. Performance and Scalability validation of existing server and network infrastructure. 13. Physical to virtual (P2V) conversions of existing environment unless stated in the Systems Configuration sections. 14. Application support including installation, de -installation, troubleshooting, and compatibility validation not detailed in the Systems Configuration sections. 15. Consultation for configurations outside of the Key Deliverables section of this scope of work 16. LANAIR will assist client's Helpdesk Services in supporting workstations and end point devices. 17. Support for ISP related issues 18. CLIENT is responsible for all configurations on existing switches, firewall and networking equipment to support the installation of the new equipment unless otherwise stated in the above Systems Configurations sections 19. CLIENT will be responsible for site readiness including server room, racks, power, and cooling for the new systems SPECIAL NOTES 1. Prior to the start of this scope of work, CLIENT will indicate to LANAIR in writing a person to be the single point of contact, according to project plan, to ensure that all tasks can be completed within the specified time period. All Services communications will be addressed to such point of contact. Failure to do so might result in an increase in project hours and/or length in schedule. 2. The CLIENT will obtain and provide project requirements, information, data, decisions and approvals within one working day of the request, unless both parties agree to a different response time. 3. The CLIENT will ensure the LANAIR services personnel have reasonable access to the installation site, a safe working environment, an adequate working space, and parking as required. 4. CLIENT is responsible for providing the necessary hardware, software, internet access, and facilities for the successful completion of the Services. Facilities and power must meet LANAIR's requirements for the products and Services purchased. 5. During the term of this SOW, CLIENT is responsible for promptly notifying LANAIR in writing of any changes CLIEN makes to its information technology environment that may impact LANAIR's delivery of the Services 6. CLIENT will maintain a backup of all data and programs on affected systems prior to LANAIR performing the Servic and during the term of the SOW. 7. CLIENT will provide Domain Administrator access to the network and servers utilized in these Services. 8. CLIENT is responsible for troubleshooting, resolving, and servicing of issues with existing hardware including warranty support 9. CLIENT will ensure deployment of connected and dependent systems prior to the start of the project 10. CLIENT will assign a Business sponsor to the project 11. CLIENT will ensure staff availability throughout the project schedule 12. CLIENT will grant LANAIR remote access to the network through the installation of LANAIR's CPS agent 13. CLIENT will be responsible for disposing of any decommissioned equipment. City of EI Segundo Page 8 50 Nutanix Full Refresh - 3yr Option Prepared by: LANAIR Group, LLC Cadogan Price 877-LANAIR1 (526-2471) Fax 323-908-7266 cprice@lanairgroup.com Quote Summary Description Nutanix Hardware, Software, Support Education LANAIR Professional Services Prepared for: City of EI Segundo 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Charles Mallory (310) 524-2300 cmallory@elsegundo.org July 2019 Quote Information: Quote #: 021273 Version: 3 Delivery Date: 07/24/2019 Expiration Date: 07/31/2019 $505,571.00 $9,444.45 $149,000.00 Subtotal: $664,015.45 Shipping: $2,475.00 Total: $666,490.45 Thank you for the opportunity to provide your organization with an Estimate from LANAIR Group, LLC. Taxes, shipping, handling and other fees may apply. We reserve the right to cancel orders arising from pricing or other errors. Terms and Conditions are as follows: 1. The balance due for Hardware, Software, and Licensing, including any applicable sales tax, is due upon delivery. 2. The balance due for LANAIR Professional Services is due as follows: a. Project Initiation/Admin: 5% b. Pre-Installation/Discovery Phase: 5% c. Design Phase: 10% d. Installation/ Implementation Phase: 60% e. Testing & Documentation Phase: 10% f. Project Closeout Phase: 10% 3. LANAIR Group, LLC, reserves the right to require a 100% of the Estimate to undertake the project, depending on the Customer's Credit Status. 4. Your signature below signifies acceptance to the above Terms and Conditions City of EI Segundo City of EI Segundo Signature: Name: Charles Mallory Date: br f 9 51 Agreement No. ADDENDUM TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND LANAIR GROUP, LLC EXHIBIT "B" PAYMENT SCHEDULE. CITY to pay CONSULTANT specified as follows: 1. HARDWARE/SOFTWARE/LICENSING/SUPPORT (Inclusive of Applicable Taxes) Balance due for Hardware, Software, Licensing, and Support, including applicable sales tax, is due upon delivery. 2. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Based on the completion of the following identified Phases (see Statement of Work): PHASE AMOUNT 1. Project Initiation/Admin: 5% of Professional Services $7,450 Deliverables • Client Commitment • Mobilization 2. Pre-Installation/Discovery Phase: 5% of Professional Services $7,450 Deliverables • Detailed Discovery • Health and Performance Check on Existing Systems 3. Design Phase: 10% of Professional Service $14,900 Deliverables • Project Design • Project Plan - Detailed ■ Work Plan — Detailed • Design Review Meetings 4. Installation/Implementation Phase: 60% of Professional Services $89,400 Deliverables • Onsite Installation o Onsite Cluster Configuration o Nutanix System Validation o Nutanix System As -Built Review o Requisite Meetings • Remote Installation o Virtual to Virtual Server Migration o Active Directory— Microsoft AD Upgrade ■ Multiple Servers o Nutanix File Server o VDI Integration o Nutanix Files Migration 52 Agreement No. Requisite Meetings S. Testing & Documentation Phase: 10% of Professional Services $14,900 Deliverables • Production Environment Delivered • Systems Orientation • Requisite Documentation 6. Project Closeout Phase: 10% of Professional Services Deliverables • CITY Acceptance $14,900 53 Exhibit 2 NUTANM .TM The Enterprise Cloud Company Scope of Work for Nutanix Services Project Name ("Project") End User ("Customer") Account Manager Advisory Owner Scope Effective Date Approval Status Nutanix Project ID # Nutanix Credits SO #(s) Version Work Location(s) Nutanix and Horizon View Services City of EI Segundo Ben Choi Ravi Boddapati TBD Approved TBD 1920 EI Segundo, CA; remote *q @nutanix Document Template: Nutanix ServicesScope of Work (SOW) Template — Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 1 of 22 54 NUTAN :.M The Enterprise Cloud Company TABLE OF CONTENTS if@nutanix 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................3 1.1 Preface..............................................................................................................................................3 3.1.2 1.2 Term and Validity.............................................................................................................................3 3.1.3 1.3 Service Summary............................................................................................................................. 3 2 GENERAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES...........................................................................................4 3.1.5 2.1.1 Pre-Engagement...........................................................................................................................4 3.1.6 2.1.2 Engagement Kickoff..................................................................................................................... 4 2.1.3 Engagement Closeout.................................................................................................................. 4 3 SCOPE OF SERVICE................................................................................................................5 3.1 Work Package 1: Nutanix and Horizon View Services................................................................... 5 3.1.1 Phase 1: Platform Design and Deployment ..................................... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.1.2 Phase 2: Migration Workshop and Validation............................................................................5 3.1.3 Phase 3: Workload Migration Assistance................................................................................... 6 3.1.4 Phase 4: Nutanix Horizon View Design Session........................................................................ 7 3.1.5 Phase 5: VMware Horizon View Environment Build................................................................10 3.1.6 Phase 6: User Acceptance Testing...........................................................................................12 3.1.7 Phase 7: VDI Migration Assistance and Onboarding Support................................................13 3.1.8 Phase 8: Unidesk Application Migration Assistance...............................................................13 3.1.9 Phase 9: Project Close Out........................................................................................................ 14 3.2 Out of Scope...................................................................................................................................14 3.3 Instance List...................................................................................................................................16 4 RESPONSIBILITIES................................................................................................................17 4.1 Customer Responsibilities............................................................................................................17 4.2 Nutanix Responsibilities................................................................................................................19 4.2.1 Project Management..................................................................................................................19 4.2.2 Assumptions..............................................................................................................................19 4.2.3 Service Hours and Staffing........................................................................................................19 4.2.4 Acceptance Criteria....................................................................................................................19 5 Nutanix SERVICES FLEXIBLE CREDITS CONSUMPTION..................................................20 5.1 Credits Consumption.................................................................................................................... 20 5.2 Travel and Expenses — Inclusive.................................................................................................. 20 6 CHANGE MANAGEMENT.......................................................................................................21 7 SIGNATURE............................................................................................................................ 22 Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template —Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 2 of 22 55 The Enterprise Cloud Company 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Preface The terms "Nutanix", "Customer", "Work Location", and "Scope Effective Date" have the meanings indicated above. This Statement of Work ("SOW") is between Nutanix Inc. ("Nutanix") and City of EI Segundo ("Customer"). @nutanix The Services will be performed by Nutanix or its agents for the benefit of the Customer. For clarity, the Services will be funded by pre -paid Service Credits ("Flexible Credits"). This document has no bearing on any payment terms, as Flexible Credits are 100% pre -paid before any Services commence. 1.2 Term and Validity The term of this SOW shall begin on the Scope Effective Date and shall expire on (i) the earlier of the date that Nutanix and Customer mutually terminate the SOW in writing or (ii) the completion of Services and acceptance of any named deliverables in accordance with this SOW within the defined Acceptance Period. 1.3 Service Summary Nutanix will provide Professional Services Work Package, to achieve the solution as specifically described herein (the "Services"), which include the following: ■ Work Package 1: Nutanix and Horizon View Services Document Template: Nutanix Services Scope of Work (SOW) Template — Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 3 of 22 56 NUTANI '0#..TM IV @nutanix The Enterprise Cloud Company 2 GENERAL PROJECT ACTIVITIES The following activities will be performed: 2.1.1 Pre -Engagement Key Activities • Initiate planning call with Customer and introduce the Nutanix Contact • Review project timelines and physical logistics • Review engagement scope • Review prerequisites, including but not limited to, hardware delivery, software license entitlement, access requests, and network configuration • Identify key Customer Contact and overall project team Deliverables ■ Pre -engagement planning call, covering key activities. 2.1.2 Engagement Kickoff The Nutanix Contact will lead Customer project sponsors and stakeholders in an engagement kickoff meeting to set the following expectations: • the delivery approach and timelines • the amount of time and effort required from the participants ■ the expected activities and work product Objectives • Introduce the Nutanix delivery team, roles and responsibilities • Describe the project phases and goals • Validate the project expectations • Confirm scope from a process and/or tools perspective ■ Confirm that all prerequisites listed in the Pre -Engagement to the Customer project checklist are met prior to engagement start. Deliverables • Kickoff meeting, kickoff presentation, resulting actions, and next steps. 2.1.3 Engagement Closeout Nutanix will initiate a closeout meeting with the Customer, after all Services are delivered. The closeout meeting may be remote or onsite. Key Activities ■ Review project activities • Review Deliverables • Present Milestone Completion Form ("MCF") Deliverables • Engagement closeout meeting, covering key activities and MCF presentation. Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template — Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 4 of 22 57 NUTANIIr STM � `nutanix The Enterprise Cloud Company 3 SCOPE OF SERVICE 3.1 Work Package 1: Nutanix and Horizon View Services Nutanix will migrate up to XXX workloads from customer's current Nutanix platform (source) to new Nutanix Hyper Converged Platform (target). In addition, Nutanix will design and build a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) solution based on VMWare's Horizon View software for up to 1000 end-users. High level tasks include: • Design and Deploy Net New Nutanix Infrastructure • Conduct a migration workshop and develop a migration strategy and plan • Execute server migration plan • Design and build Horizon View based virtual desktop infrastructure on Nutanix • Support for Customer Executed User Acceptance Testing • Assist with VDI User migrations Engagement success is contingent on Customer adherence to "Customer Responsibilities" as stated in section 4.1 of this document as well as any applicable restrictions in product documentation. 3.1.1 Phase 1: Plan, Design and Validate Nutanix Infrastructure In this phase, Nutanix Will: • Provide an Assessment Report which will be the input to Nutanix Infrastructure Design o Review Requirements o Review Customer environment — Hypervisor Version, Number of Clusters o Perform Architectural and Operational Review o Document Findings and Recommendations • Conduct a Design Workshop with Key Stakeholders to develop and document Project Success Criteria. • Validate Nutanix Infrastructure as per the approved design document • Develop a Weekly Project Report Template Outcome • Project Success Criteria • High-level Design for Nutanix Infrastructure 3.1.2 Phase 2: Migration Workshop and Validation In this phase, Nutanix will: ■ Conduct a Migration Workshop to determine and document Project Success Criteria and review the available migration options ■ Validate migration approaches and techniques • Create high level migration plan o Review inventory of assets to be migrated Document Template: Nutanix Services Scope of Work (SOW) Template — Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 5 of 22 58 NUTAN1 The Enterprise Cloud Company M �:cpmutanix o Map workloads into target Nutanix environment o Group workloads into logical move waves o Verify migration strategy for moving instances/data o Account for current VMware configuration for Metro Protection Develop initial migration guide o Document Migration Plan o Test migration process for 10 test virtual machines Outcome • Project Success Criteria o MS Word document that captures the critical success criteria that when met will deem this project a success • Migration Plan o MS Excel document that captures all the information about workloads to be migrated and groups them into waves. • Migration Guide o MS Word document that describes the tools, processes, and steps that will be used to migrate individual workloads. • 10 Test workloads successfully migrated 3.1.3 Phase 3: Workload Migration Assistance Nutanix Services will provide outcome based remote migration assistance, which will be help the customer migrate servers, as named in Section 3.3 Instance List. This Phase will be delivered in `waves' as defined by the high-level Migration Plan developed in Phase 1. Each wave will consist of workloads that we be migrated and cut -over to production at the same time as a group. A wave cutover will be planned as per the project schedule, with appropriate notice for each cutover. Each wave can have as many workloads included in it as deemed necessary and reasonable by Nutanix and the Customer. The Customer will actively participate in the migration cutover to manage their internal change control process as well as their internal application owners, who will perform post -migration application validation as part of wave migration execution. Any workloads that fail post - migration application validation will be reverted to their original state and added to a future migration wave, and lessons learned from previous attempts will be factored into future migrations. During the migration execution, some workloads may be decommissioned, turned off, or removed from the migration plan for a variety of reasons. These workloads will be counted as complete. The charges for a workload that is decommissioned is the same as the charges for a workload that is migrated to the Nutanix Infrastructure. Tasks In this phase, Nutanix will: Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template —Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 6 of 22 59 NUTANI :TM The Enterprise Cloud Company W@nutanix Execute migration plan for a subset of virtual machines, as named in Section 3.3 Instance List. o Review/Validate migration replication groups o Initialize replication groups in a controlled manner, when/where replication approach is required o Collaborate with Customer technical and functional owners to schedule migrations o Migrate workloads from source to target environment hosted on Nutanix o Validate migrated workload up to the successful virtual machine instance boot o Apply virtual configuration changes, when necessary, to comply with Nutanix recommended practices Milestone Assumptions ■ Nutanix is responsible for tracking workload migration progress • Customer is responsible for patching and preparation of the workload before migration in accordance with best practices provided by Nutanix • Customer is responsible to schedule and manage application owners who are required to be available for post -migration cutover validation and testing. • Customer to provide and execute user acceptance test plans for applications, including application-specific test cases and appropriate resources (e.g. Application Owners) to execute them. • Migration is only for attached list of VM and Physical Instances listed in Section 3.3 Instance List ■ Customer adheres to "Customer Responsibilities" stated below. Milestone Deliverables • Up to XXX workloads identified in Section 3.3 Instance List migrated from current Nutanix environment to the New Nutanix Platform 3.1.4 Phase 4: Nutanix Horizon View Design Session Nutanix Services will work with the Customer to conduct a design workshop for implementing both Nutanix and VMware Horizon products. Nutanix will cover Horizon View and VMware App Volumes for Apps and Desktop provisioning hosted on Nutanix with a single site configuration. Tasks Nutanix will conduct a workshop with the customer to review and discuss the following topics: o Determine and document success criteria for the VDI solution o Gather Requirements ■ Discuss Detailed Use Cases, such as end user groups/populations ■ Discuss any specific Business driven requirements/goals • E.g. Deployment time frame, engagement/alignment ■ Discuss any specific technical goals Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template — Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 7 of 22 NUTANI :,, The Enterprise Cloud Company V@)nutanix ■ E.g. Performance, Recoverability, SLAs, etc. o Review existing Desktop Virtualization Infrastructure Design — If Available Suggested Design Topics, Design Elements o Discuss the design and use of VMware vSphere and Horizon View in conjunction with Nutanix best practices for these solutions. o Scalability ■ Scaling vSphere Clusters, Pod Architectures ■ Scaling Control Plane Services • E.g. vCenter, Horizon, Cloud Pod ■ Scaling Nutanix Clusters (Inter and Intra cluster) o Resiliency • Nutanix Platform Resiliency ■ vSphere Clusters ■ Control Plane HA/Clustering (Scale out vCenter, Horizon, Always on Point of Care, load balancing via F5) o Performance ■ VDI Instance Deployment/Cloning (E.g. VAAI, VCAI, Linked Clones) ■ Nutanix Storage Performance Architecture o Manageability and Control Plane Architecture ■ Control Plane Architecture, Layout, Capabilities ■ Front end Services, Backend Databases ■ Lifecycle Management, Hypervisor Patching/Nutanix Integration ■ Nutanix Prism Element and Prism Central ■ Template Services (E.g. content catalog) ■ Live Migration, Shared Nothing Live Migration o Data Protection and Recoverability • Nutanix Data Protection, Snapshots, Replication ■ VMware Snapshots ■ VSS Integration, Application Aware Snapshots o Compliance and Security ■ Nutanix CVM Security, STIG's ■ Control Plane Permissions Management o Virtual Machine Design • VM Templates for Various Use Cases ■ Resource Layouts (and associated impacts) ■ Supported OS's ■ Ingesting Instances (V2V, P2V) o Virtual Network Design ■ Traditional Hypervisor Logical Networking ■ Distributed Logical Switching ■ Network Virtualization, as needed o Storage Infrastructure ■ Nutanix Storage Backend, Containers, Storage Tech (Compression, Dedupe, etc.) ■ Datastore Connectivity and Capabilities o Platform Capabilities Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template — Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 8 of 22 61 NUTANI a.m The Enterprise Cloud Company V@nutanix ■ Discuss Nutanix Platforms ■ Discuss Impact on DC Environmental (Physical Plant) o Network Infrastructure ■ Discuss Customer Network Infra, Compare/Contrast Nutanix integrations o Discuss and define the success criteria that will be used to confirm the solution is performing acceptably. o Take into consideration that the design may be extendable in the future for growth and additional location. NOTE: Not all topics may be relevant to every single Customer situation. Most design workshops take a distilled version of the following list and use it as a guideline of topics to cover. These topics are intended to be topics to lead an organic, interactive design discussions, based in the customer's business and technical requirements. Workshop will be onsite, and all subsequent documentation and design work will be done remotely Assumptions • Customer adheres to "Customer Responsibilities" stated below. • Customer will be responsible for committing the necessary resources to participate in the design workshops • Customer will be responsible for providing data related to existing environment architecture and design • Customer will be responsible for assisting in requirements gathering by making resources available from different teams and/or groups • Any third -party tools recommended in this design will need to be purchased by the Customer, at no cost to Nutanix ■ Customer to provide user acceptance test plans for applications, including test cases where relevant, and the resources to execute them. • Review and provide feedback on customer's Security and Risk Assessment Documentation via e-mail. Deliverables Requirements Document o This MS Excel document will include a list of requirements that the VDI solution is expected to satisfy Project Success Criteria o MS Word document that captures the critical success criteria that when met will deem this VDI deployment a success Solution Architecture and Design Documentation o MS Word document that captures the complete VDI solution architecture and design, including Nutanix, and VMWare Horizon View, specific to customer's solutions. o This document will include architectural diagrams (physical and logical views), Nutanix architecture recommendations, VDI design and configuration recommendations • Solution Test Plan Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template —Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 9 of 22 RVA NUTAN Or The Enterprise Cloud Company 0 @nutanix o MS Excel document that enumerates solution level testing to verify as -designed functionality. Note. This is not a replacement for end-user acceptance testing. 3.1.5 Phase 5: VMware Horizon View Environment Build This phase will continue the delivery of the VDI infrastructure according to the design detailed/developed in Nutanix Horizon View Design Session. Actual component installation will vary based on design and requirements. At the end of this phase, Nutanix expects that the VDI platform will be in a suitable state to be used for a subsequent managed production VDI rollout. Tasks • Horizon View Build o Build and test the Solution Architecture and View Design Work Phase. ■ Install and Configure Horizon View environment o Base configurations for a two -site Horizon Design developed in Nutanix Horizon View in a fault tolerant configuration, including up to the items below. • Two (2) View Connection Servers per Site ■ One (1) View Composer Server per Site ■ Two (2) Unified Access Gateway (UAGs) or Security Servers per Site ■ One (1) Persona Management deployment per Site ■ Two (2) gold desktop/server images per Site ■ Two (2) F5 or NetScaler instances per Site • One SQL AAG Cluster (2 servers) protected by VMware HA per Site Appropriate SSL certificate configurations Note: Some items may be determined unnecessary in the design phase. • Deploy initial desktop pools o One (1) non-persistent knowledge user desktop pool o One (1) persistent admin desktop pool • Install and Publish up to 5 applications via Remote Desktop Services Host (RDSH) or install up to two Windows templates with up to 5 applications each • Recommend updates to desktop images provided by Customer to meet VDI best practices. Nutanix will provide requisite documentation and up to 8 hours of consultation to assist Customer with implementing these recommendations. • Design policies for Horizon View to meet Customer security and user requirements. Nutanix will provide requisite documentation to assist the Customer with implementing these recommended policies through Customer's Active Directory Group Policies. • Design and deploy VMWare Horizon View App Volumes Collect feedback from the test team, log defects, and perform remediation. Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template —Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 10 of 22 63 NUTAN :TM The Enterprise Cloud Company VC nutanix • Execute Solution Test Plan deliverable from Nutanix Horizon View Design Session and document results • Verification of deployment against best practices ■ Nutanix will assist with the application installation into the VMWare Horizon View Gold image with up to (20) applications installed • Update the Solution Architecture and Design document based on continuous improvement feedback from system testing. • Knowledge Transfer throughout natural project life -cycle Assumptions ■ Customer adheres to "Customer Responsibilities" stated below. • Customer will create and configure Microsoft server OS VMs required to support the core VDI application components. Windows Server 2012R2 VMs will be created, joined to domain, patched, and assigned IP addresses so that View components are ready to be deployed • Customer's end users are all on internal network with no remote access requirements or configuration necessary • Customer will provide SQL Server Table Space in either existing SQL Farm or will build a SQL Server cluster to support as needed. • Customer will build load balancer, firewall contexts, and DMZ related settings promptly upon request • Customer has space on existing infrastructure to build View infrastructure VMs before the Nutanix hardware arrives • Customer has network hardware configured and datacenter infrastructure ready for the install of (3) Nutanix nodes at each site when hardware is delivered. • Customer WAN bandwidth between sites is sufficient (not containing packet loss, jitter, latency) for up to 500 concurrent sessions • Customer is responsible for providing accurate information on: o Applications required for end users o Application requirements o End user lists and groups o Network configuration and diagrams ■ Customer is responsible for providing high quality infrastructure services required for Horizon View, vSphere and Nutanix, including but not limited to o Active Directory o DNS o DHCP o NTP o SMTP Email server o SNMP Monitoring ■ Per Customer Requirements: o Technical assistance and knowledge transfer of best practices to end customer's Desktop Support Team as they copy over the existing image from the PoC Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template —Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 11 of 22 64 NUTANI A.TM The Enterprise Cloud Company V@nutanix (Windows 7 x64 Pro VDI Image.) The image is based on end customer's security requirements and includes 3rd party technical controls. o Technical assistance and best practices relating to Customer developed Desktop Security Controls, monitoring, and patching processes. Provide all ISO image files including but not limited to: o ESXi ISO o vCenter Appliance o Horizon View o Windows 2012 R2 o Windows 7 or 10 ■ Customer will provide all software licenses and support agreements required to build and operate the solution. • Customer will provide a Microsoft KMS server for Microsoft licensing. ■ Customer will provide SME related to: o Customer's identity and access management solutions (AD) to assist with user identity and group policy management. o Networking and security o Database environment o Physical desktop team • Customer will perform User Acceptance Testing after Nutanix System Tests are complete • Knowledge Transfer throughout natural project life -cycle Deliverables • Updated Solution Architecture and Design Document (As Built) • System Test Summary Results ■ Working VMWare Horizon View infrastructure complete as per scope and design. 3.1.6 Phase 6: User Acceptance Testing Nutanix will assist and support Customer Executed User Acceptance Testing. The provider will assist the Customer with User Acceptance Testing under the following guidelines. The Customer will be responsible for the following activities: • User Acceptance Testing definition, execution, and documentation • Stakeholder communication required to conduct the UAT End -User support for UAT contributors Customers will identify key Customer Test Users and commit to a scheduled test period. System Administration, user onboarding, and desktop provisioning related to the UAT Tasks • UAT Support for up to 16 hours • Troubleshoot solution issues provided by Customer's System Administrators • Analysis relating to the success or failure of the UAT Success Criteria defined earlier in this scope. Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template — Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 12 of 22 65 NUTANI 4%,,. TM The Enterprise Cloud Company W@nutanix Nutanix to resolve defects identified by Customer UAT in the Nutanix and Horizon View configuration per milestone "VMWare Horizon View Environment Build". Assuming that the success criteria that were established for the UAT are met, Nutanix expects that the VDI platform will be in a suitable state to be used for a subsequent full rollout of the remaining existing desktops. Assumptions • Customer adheres to "Customer Responsibilities" stated below. • Nutanix will participate in any required security reviews and implement required system hardening that is consistent with the design solution. • Nutanix and Customer understand there will be Customer deployed and integrated monitoring tools implemented to allow system admins to determine the health of the Nutanix Hardware and VMWare Horizon View environment; and these will be used in troubleshooting as needed Deliverables • Up to 16 hours of UAT support 3.1.7 Phase 7: VDI Migration Assistance and Onboarding Support Nutanix will assist and support users as they commence use of the newly deployed virtual desktop infrastructure. Tasks • Provide up to 80 hours post go -live on-site support to help troubleshoot issues as they arise to be performed remotely over no more than 2 week period. Assumptions • Customer adheres to "Customer Responsibilities" stated below. • Adequate network bandwidth exists between end users and data centers (e.g. no less than 1 Gbps and no more than 100ms latency) Deliverables In Up to 80 hours of user onboarding support completed 3.1.8 Phase 8: Unidesk Application Migration Assistance Nutanix will assist with appropriate VMware Horizon View and Citrix Unidesk Configuration to test and validate up to 5 applications on the new Horizon View VDI platform. Tasks • Provide up to 80 hours consulting in support of Unidesk migration. Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template —Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 13 of 22 NO NUTANI :T-, The Enterprise Cloud Company W@nutF Assumptions • Customer adheres to "Customer Responsibilities" stated below. • Adequate network bandwidth exists between end users and data centers (e.g. no less than 1 Gbps and no more than 100ms latency) for Metro protection Deliverables • Up to 80 hours of Consulting 3.1.9 Phase 9: Project Close Out Nutanix Services will finalize all documents and make them available to the customer as project artifacts. Nutanix will conduct one (1) final capstone knowledge transfer workshop to review all project artifacts and as -built infrastructure. Tasks Documentation (deliverables) Review Knowledge Transfer Project close out Assumptions • Customer adheres to "Customer Responsibilities" stated below. • Customer will be available for close out tasks. ■ Earlier in the project, knowledge transfer was completed through the natural course of the project Deliverables • Knowledge Transfer session completed • Project documentation delivered • Project MCF signed off 3.2 Out of Scope Customer acknowledges that the following activities are not included in the Services scope. General out of scope items include are listed below. The Customer's specific environment may include other out of scope items. • Any services noted as optional without additional scope purchased, or otherwise overridden by Nutanix in writing • Any services, tasks, or activities other than those specifically noted in this service description • Procurement of any third -party hardware and software • Physical or logical configuration of any component(s) not specifically noted in this service description. a. Specific configurations listed below: Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template — Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v217 November 2016 Page 14 of 22 M NUTANI 111116 TM The Enterprise Cloud Company 0 @nutanix i. Microsoft failover clustering ii. Migration onto Hyper -V, AHV clusters on Nutanix iii. Filer/File level migration including end-user data file server and storage provisioning and migration of user data onto this deployment iv. Migration of source VM version unsupported on vSphere v. Migrations without maintenance windows vi. Migrations for systems with less than 1 Gbps end-to-end network bandwidth vii. Migration of Virtual Desktops, where updating broker registration or desktop agent is required viii. Migration of any VMs with Raw Device Mapping (RDM) storage ix. P2V migrations of Active Directory Domain Controllers 1. Best practice is to build a new AD Domain Controller and leverage native AD replication rather than P2V x. Highly -available Horizon View deployment 1. Data Protection services for desktop and file services A. Two Factor Authentication xii. Support graphics intensive applications with NVIDIA GRID hardware integration xiii. Microsoft Active Directory Infrastructure (Domain Controllers, DNS, DHCP, KMS, CA, etc) Horizon Policy integration xiv. SSL Certificate configuration and acquisition xv. Deploy on configure thin clients with connectivity xvi. Post -deployment benchmark testing using Login VSI xvii. Monitoring or Alerting Software outside of Nutanix and/or Horizon View components (vRealize Operations, SCOM, Nagios, ArcSight, etc) xviii. Configuration Management (e.g. SCCM, Puppet, Chef, etc). xix. Antivirus solution design or build xx. Network Infrastructure aside from F5/NetScaler and logical switching within the Nutanix solution • Transformation of VM configurations — Nutanix can provide best practice recommendations and guidance, but manipulation of actual VM configurations is out of scope a. Best Practice for SQL on Nutanix dictates 1/0 be spread across multiple vDisks. For this reason, we recommend a new SQL instance be created and data restored from the source SQL server to the destination VM Any guarantee, explicit or implied, of VDI desktop or Application performance. Nutanix will optimize the platform as per Nutanix, VMware, and Microsoft recommended best practices, however real-world users exercise applications and access data in a chaotic, random manner, sometimes resulting in unpredictable performance and resource utilization. Additionally, most organizations deploy more than a single use case in a VDI environment. Real-world consumption patterns vary from organization to organization. Before deploying any desktop workspace technology it is important to understand the Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template — Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 15 of 22 •i NUTANI :TM The Enterprise Cloud Company use -case resource requirements. Reference architecture workloads based on lab testing may not precisely match real-world user workloads 3.3 Instance List Nutanix will migrate up to XXX VM's, as named in the instance list below. @nutanix Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template —Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 16 of 22 ee NUTANI `lLTM � @nutanix The Enterprise Cloud Company 4 RESPONSIBILITIES 4.1 Customer Responsibilities The following responsibilities are the obligation of the Customer. • The successful delivery of these Services and the conditions relating to Nutanix's performance are dependent upon assumptions, which Nutanix has made in agreeing to perform the Services, as set forth herein. • If any of Customer's responsibilities are not performed or the assumptions prove to be incorrect, it may cause delays to the project schedule, level of effort required, or otherwise impact Nutanix's performance of the Services, and Nutanix will have no liability to Customer or any third party with respect to its inability to perform the Services resulting therefrom. • Prior to the commencement of Services, Customer will indicate to Nutanix in writing a person to be the single point of contact (the "Customer Contact"). The Customer Contact will have the required authority to make project decisions and provide access to stakeholders as necessary. • The Customer Contact will have the authority to act for Customer in all aspects of the Service including bringing issues to the attention of the appropriate persons within Customer's organization and resolving conflicting requirements. • The Customer Contact will ensure that any communication between Customer and Nutanix, including any scope -related questions or requests, are made through the Nutanix Contact in writing. • Prior to the commencement of Services, Customer will provide technical points -of - contact, who have a working knowledge of the enterprise components to be considered during the Services ("Technical Contact(s)"). Nutanix may request that meetings be scheduled with Technical Contact(s). It is the Customer's responsibility to ensure technical personnel are made available within a reasonable timeframe for requested meetings, document reviews, etc. • Customer Contact, Technical Contact(s), and stakeholders attend the engagement kickoff meeting as necessary. • Customer Contact will distribute information internally to any missing Technical Contacts and stakeholders in a timely manner. • During the performance of Services, Customer is responsible for promptly notifying Nutanix in writing of: o Any changes Customer makes to its technical environment that may impact Nutanix's delivery of the Services o If Customer becomes aware that any of the assumptions set forth herein are incorrect Customer will maintain a backup of all data and programs on affected systems prior to Nutanix performing the Services and during the term of the Services. Nutanix will have no liability for loss or recovery of data, programs or loss of use of system(s) arising out of or in connection with the Services provided hereunder. The Customer Contact will obtain and provide project requirements, information, data, decisions and approvals within a timely manner, as to not delay project delivery. Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template — Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 17 of 22 70 NUTANI I.TM The Enterprise Cloud Company 0 @nutanix • Customer will restrict access to information not related to the Services, including, but not limited to, proprietary customer business/financial information and personally identifiable information ("PII"). • Customer may be responsible for developing or providing documentation, materials and assistance to Nutanix and agrees to do so in a timely manner. Nutanix shall not be responsible for any delays in completing its assigned tasks to the extent that they result from Customer's failure to provide such documentation, materials and assistance in a timely manner. • The Customer Contact will ensure the Nutanix personnel have reasonable and safe access to the Work Location(s), a safe working environment, adequate office space, and parking as required. Customer will provide any personal protective gear required while Nutanix personnel are onsite. • Customer will inform Nutanix of all access issues and security measures, and provide access to all necessary hardware and facilities, including but not limited to Network Access, Remote Access, and appropriate access credentials. • Customer is responsible for providing all hardware, software, internet access, and facilities for the successful completion of the Services, including but not limited to 3rd party licensing, networking, facilities, and electrical power that meet Nutanix's requirements for the products and Services purchased. Document Template. Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template —Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 18 of 22 71 NUTANI i The Enterprise Cloud Company 4.2 Nutanix Responsibilities V@nutanix 4.2.1 Project Management Nutanix will provide project coordination tasks to the Customer which may be partly of fully conducted remotely. The Project Manager will provide the following: • Provide a single point of contact (the "Nutanix Contact") and accountability for successful delivery of the Services Coordinate with the Customer Contact • Coordinate and facilitate kick-off, status, outcome review, and closeout meetings ■ Monitor and manage issues and escalations • Provide written notification, which may include email, to Customer Contact for completion of applicable Services. 4.2.2 Assumptions The performance of Services hereunder assumes the following: Nutanix will not perform the Services until a purchase order ("PO") for the Services is received. Upon receipt of fully executed SOW and a Customer to begin Services scheduling. PO, a Nutanix Project Manager will contact The Services do not include the development of any intellectual property created solely and specifically for Customer. Should intellectual property be created, Nutanix retains all right, title and interest in and to such intellectual property. 4.2.3 Service Hours and Staffing Nutanix provides Services between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM local Customer time, Monday through Friday, excluding normally observed holidays. Services provided outside these times will be agreed-upon in writing by both parties, in advance and may be subject to additional fees. Some Services may be delivered remotely, as appropriate. 4.2.4 Acceptance Criteria Nutanix will inform Customer Contact in writing upon completion of Services and/or milestones. Nutanix will provide Customer with a Milestone Completion Form ("MCF") to indicate Customer's acceptance of the Services. Customer shall either accept or reject the Services within five (5) business days ("Acceptance Period"). Customer must provide a detailed written notice of rejection specifying any non-conformance for failure of the Services to meet the specifications set forth herein within the Acceptance Period. Upon receipt of a rejection notice, Nutanix will respond promptly and make commercially reasonable efforts to resolve such deficiencies within a reasonable period of time. Failure to provide written rejection of the Services within the Acceptance Period will result in an automatic deemed acceptance and the Services shall be considered complete and closed. Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template —Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 19 of 22 72 NU- ANI !.M � @nutanix The Enterprise Cloud Company 5 NUTANIX SERVICES FLEXIBLE CREDITS CONSUMPTION As Services are performed, Nutanix Services Flexible Credits ("Credits") will be consumed from the Customer's Credits balance. Credits balance is not defined within this SOW. The Services defined within this document will consume Credits as listed in Section 5.1. 5.1 Credits Consumption ,M IL tone, Description I Credits consumed 1� Phase 1: Nutanix Design and Deployment 200 2 Phase 2: Server Migration Workshop and Planning 200 3 Phase 3a: Migration Execution — 50 Workloads complete 100 4 Phase 3b: Migration Execution — 50 Workloads complete 100 5 Nutanix Horizon View Design Session 200 6 VMWare Horizon View Environment Build 400 7 User Acceptance testing 240 8 View Migration Assistance and Onboarding Support 120 9 Unidesk Migration Assistance ....... 240 10 Knowledge transfer and project closeout 120 Total Credits Consumed, FLEX -CST -CR 1920 5.2 Travel and Expenses — Inclusive Travel and related expenses ("T&E") during the SOW Term that are deemed by Nutanix to be necessary and customary in connection with the provision of the Services described herein at the Work Location(s) specified are included in the Charges for Services. Document Template. Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template —Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 20 of 22 73 NUTANI '16. TM @nutanix The Enterprise Cloud Company 6 CHANGE MANAGEMENT Customer may request modification to the scope of Services upon written notice via a Change Request form. The Change Request form is a document provided by the Nutanix Contact outlining the requested changes. The Change Request form shall describe the requested modifications in sufficient detail. Customer will acknowledge within three (3) business days following the receipt of the completed Change Request form, which will provide an estimate of the cost and scope impact to complete the proposed modified Services. Changes agreed pursuant to the Change Request will not be effective until mutually executed by both parties, which may include issuance of additional payment. Document Template: Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template —Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Page 21 of 22 74 NUTANI A.T. @nutanix The Enterprise Cloud Company 7 SIGNATURE This SOW authorizes Nutanix to provide Customer with Services. The parties indicate their acceptance of the terms outlined herein as of the SOW Effective Date by execution of this SOW by their duly authorized representatives. Nutanix Signature Block Signature Printed Title Date Document Template, Nutanix Services: Scope of Work (SOW) Template — Flexible Credits Document Revision: Final v2 17 November 2016 Customer Signature Block Signature Printed Title Date 75 Page 22 of 22 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA DESCRIPTION: MEETING DATE: August 6, 2019 AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda Consideration and possible action to authorize two professional services agreements related to the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (east side of Pacific Coast Highway, between Palm Avenue and Holly Avenue), one with Dudek not to exceed $228,525 for CEQA analysis and preparation of an EIR, and the other for JWA Urban Consultants, Inc., which does not have a defined cap, but is estimated to be under $150,000. Both agreements are for services that will be fully reimbursed by the applicant (BRE El Segundo Holdco, LLC). This request is to authorize the City Manager to sign the agreements in a form approved by the City Attorney. (Fiscal impact—$0) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Approve a professional service agreement for Dudek, not to exceed $228,525 for CEQA analysis and preparation of an EIR, and authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney; 2. Approve a professional service agreement for JWA Urban Consultant, Inc. for professional project managements services related to a pending fully -reimbursable development project, and authorize the City Manager to sign the agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney; 3. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1. Professional services agreement between the City of El Segundo and Dudek. 2. Professional services agreement between the City of El Segundo and JWA Urban Consultants, Inc. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: $0 Additional Appropriation: $0 Account Number(s): TBD STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 5(a) & (b) Economic development and fiscal responsibility Objectives: Economic development strategy to ensure vibrant business climate and financial transparency. ORIGINATED BY: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager 04Y REVIEWED BY: Jw Sam Lee, Planning and Building Safety Director APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager&C-ForS BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: BRE El Segundo Holdco, LLC (BRE) is a partnership between Blackstone Real Estate, Continental Development Corporation and Mar Ventures for the purpose of developing a specific plan for properties fronting the west side of Pacific Coast Highway between Palm Avenue and 76 Holly Avenue. A reimbursement agreement between BRE and the City is ready to be executed and is provided for your reference at an attachment. Planning Staff conducted an RFP in March and April of 2019 to solicit qualified consultants to serve as the City's project manager and as environmental consultants. This was a combined RFP and 9 consulting firms responded. Five for the project manager role and five for the environmental role (one applied for both roles). All candidates were deemed well qualified and were thus interviewed by Planning Staff in May. The City's two Principal Planners and the Planning Manger all recommended the two consulting firms selected as the most appropriate for the project. City Council approval of the professional service agreements for Dudek and JWA Urban Consultants, Inc. is requested by Staff so that the project know as Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan may commence shortly. 77 Attachment 1 PSA for Dudek 78 Agreement No. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING) BETWEEN THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND PH DUDEK This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of July, 2019, by and between the CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a municipal corporation and general law city ("CITY") and DUDEK, a California Corporation ("CONSULTANT"). The parties agree as follows: 1. CONSIDERATION. A. As partial consideration, CONSULTANT agrees to perform the work listed in the SCOPE OF SERVICES, below; B. As additional consideration, CONSULTANT and CITY agree to abide by the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement; C. As additional consideration, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT a sum not to exceed two hundred twenty-eight thousand five hundred five dollars ($228,525) for CONSULTANT's services. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it will be paid by funds received by the CITY from the Developer and/or Applicant associated with Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan project for which CONSULTANT performs services on behalf of the CITY. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES. A. CONSULTANT will perform services listed in the attached Exhibit "A," which is incorporated by reference. B. CONSULTANT will, in a professional manner, furnish all of the labor, technical, administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials, equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, and all tests, testing and analyses, calculation, and all other means whatsoever, except as herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by CITY, necessary or proper to perform and complete the work and provide the professional services required of CONSULTANT by this Agreement. 3. PAYMENTS. For CITY to pay CONSULTANT as specified by this Agreement, CONSULTANT must submit a detailed invoice to CITY which lists the hours worked and hourly rates for each personnel category and reimbursable costs (all as set forth in Exhibit "B") the tasks performed, the percentage of the task completed during the billing period, the cumulative percentage completed for each task, the total cost of that work during the preceding billing month, and cumulative invoiced actual expenditures to date. If the CITY agrees with all of the information listed in the invoice, CITY will then pay CONSULTANT within net 45 days from Page 1 of 11 79 Agreement No. receipt of the invoice from the Developer / Applicant account created for the project. In the event that the Developer / Applicant account does not have sufficient funds for payment of CONSULTANT's services, CITY will notify CONSULTANT immediately upon knowledge of the lack of funds in writing to suspend any work under this Agreement until the account is replenished by the Developer / Applicant. The CITY is not responsible to pay for any of CONSULTANT's services performed after the date of such written notice, unless and until the Developer / Applicant account is replenished with sufficient funds. This Agreement will cover only those costs incurred for this project and for which Developer / Applicant funds are available. 4. POLITICAL REFORM ACT. CONSULTANT agrees that it will be considered a public official subject to the Political Reform Act of 1974 for purposes of this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees and warrants that it has no financial interests which may be materially affected by the project for which the Initial Study, as specified in the SERVICES, is being prepared. Such financial interests may include, without limitation, interests in business entities, real property, or sources of income exceeding $500 received within the past year. CONSULTANT further warrants that, before executing this Agreement, it reviewed the Political Reform Act of 1974 and the Fair Political Practices Commission regulations, including, without limitation, Chapter 7 of Title 2 of the California Administrative Code, Section 18700, et seq., in order to determine whether any conflict of interest would require CONSULTANT to refrain from performing the SERVICES or in any way attempting to use its official position to influence the governmental decisions underlying the subject project(s). 5. FAMILIARITY WITH WORK. A. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT agrees that it has: Thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed; Carefully considered how the services should be performed; and iii. Understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. B. Although CITY has a duty to the public to independently review any environmental document, including, without limitation a negative declaration or draft EIR, prepared by CONSULTANT, that duty to the public, or the breach thereof, will not relieve CONSULTANT of its duties under this Section or any representation provided by CONSULTANT in this Agreement. 6. KEY PERSONNEL. Page 2 of 11 :s, Agreement No. A. CONSULTANT's key personnel assigned to perform work under this Agreement and their level of responsibility are as follows but is not limited to: Kristin Starbird, Senior Project Manager (Senior Specialist IV) Mark Storm, Acoustic Services Manager (Senior Specialist II) Jennifer Reed, Air Quality Services Manager (Specialist V) Samantha Murray, Historic Built Environment Manager (Specialist IV) B. The resume of each of the individuals identified in this Section are attached to this Agreement, collectively, as Exhibit C, and incorporated by reference. C. In the event CITY objects to the continued involvement with this Agreement by any of the persons listed in this Section, CONSULTANT agrees that it will replace such persons with individuals that are agreed to by CITY. 7. PROJECT COORDINATION AND SUPERVISION. JWA Urban Consultants, Inc., will be assigned as Project Manager and will supervise or perform the technical execution of the Project on a day-to-day basis on behalf of CITY and will maintain direct communication with CONSULTANT's Project Manager. Paul Samaras will be assigned as CITY's Project Manager and will be responsible for project oversight, CONSULTANT performance and coordination with the Project Manager, and the CONSULTANT's Project manager as needed. Gregg McClain will be responsible for general oversight, negotiations, and contractual matters. 8. TERM. The term of this Agreement will start on the Effective Date and end on December 31, 2023. If the term of this Agreement is extended beyond December 31, 2023, CONSULTANT reserves the right to negotiate the hourly rates outlined in Exhibit "B." Unless otherwise determined by written amendment between the parties, this Agreement will terminate in the following instances: A. Completion of the work specified in Exhibit "A"; B. Termination as stated in Section 15. 9. TIME FOR PERFORMANCE. A. CONSULTANT will not perform any work under this Agreement until: CONSULTANT furnishes proof of insurance as required under Section 22 of this Agreement; and CITY gives CONSULTANT a written notice to proceed. Page 3 of 11 81 Agreement No. B. Should CONSULTANT begin work on any phase in advance of receiving written authorization to proceed, any such professional services are at CONSULTANT's own risk. 10. TIME EXTENSIONS. Should CONSULTANT be delayed by causes beyond CONSULTANT's control, CITY may grant a time extension for the completion of the contracted services. If delay occurs in the delivery of milestone work products, CONSULTANT must notify the Manager within forty-eight (48) hours, in writing, of the cause and the extent of the delay and how such delay interferes with the Agreement's schedule. The Manager will extend the completion time, when appropriate, for the completion of the contracted services. 11. CHANGES. CITY may order changes in the services within the general scope of this Agreement, consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions, and the contract sum and the contract time will be adjusted accordingly. All such changes must be authorized in writing, executed by CONSULTANT and CITY. The cost or credit to CITY resulting from changes in the services will be determined in accordance with written agreement between the parties. 12. TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. CONSULTANT will provide CITY with a Taxpayer Identification Number. 13. PERMITS AND LICENSES. CONSULTANT, at its sole expense, will obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all necessary permits, licenses, and certificates that may be required in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement. 14. WAIVER. CITY's review or acceptance of, or payment for, work product prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement will not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights CITY may have under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising from CONSULTANT's performance. A waiver by CITY of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement, whether of the same or different character. 15. TERMINATION, A. Except as otherwise provided, CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time with or without cause. B. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement at any time with CITY's mutual consent. Notice will be in writing at least thirty (30) days before the effective termination date. C. Upon receiving a termination notice, CONSULTANT will immediately cease performance under this Agreement unless otherwise provided in the termination notice. Except as otherwise provided in the termination notice, Page 4 of 11 E:% Agreement No. any additional work performed by CONSULTANT after receiving a termination notice will be performed at CONSULTANT's own cost; CITY will not be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT for such work. D. Should termination occur, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by CONSULTANT will, at CITY's option, become CITY's property, and CONSULTANT will receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed up to the effective date of notice of termination, not to exceed the total costs under Section 1(C). E. Should the Agreement be terminated pursuant to this Section, CITY may procure on its own terms services similar to those terminated. F. By executing this document, CONSULTANT waives any and all claims for damages that might otherwise arise from CITY's termination under this Section. 16. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement are CITY's property. CONSULTANT may retain copies of said documents and materials as desired but will deliver all original materials to CITY upon CITY's written notice. CITY agrees that use of CONSULTANT's completed work product, for purposes other than identified in this Agreement, or use of incomplete work product, is at CITY's own risk. 17. PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS. Except as necessary for performance of service under this Agreement, no copies, sketches, or graphs of materials, including graphic art work, prepared pursuant to this Agreement, will be released by CONSULTANT to any other person or public CITY without CITY's prior written approval. All press releases, including graphic display information to be published in newspapers or magazines, will be approved and distributed solely by CITY, unless otherwise provided by written agreement between the parties. 18. INDEMNIFICATION. A. CONSULTANT agrees to the following: Page 5 of 11 Indemnification for Professional Services. CONSULTANT will save harmless and indemnify and at CITY's request reimburse defense costs for CITY and all its officers, volunteers, employees and representatives from and against any and all suits, actions, or claims, of any character whatever, brought for, or on account of, any injuries or damages sustained by any person or property resulting or arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission by CONSULTANT or any of CONSULTANT's officers, agents, employees, or representatives, in the performance of this 83 Agreement No. Agreement, except for such loss or damage arising from CITY's sole negligence or willful misconduct. Indemnification for other Damages. CONSULTANT indemnifies and holds CITY harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney's fees), injuries, or liability, arising out of this Agreement, or its performance, except for such loss or damage arising from CITY's sole negligence or willful misconduct. Should 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 this Agreement, or its performance, CONSULTANT will defend CITY (at CITY's request and with counsel satisfactory to CITY) and will indemnify CITY for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise. iii. Exclusion for CEQA Actions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, CONSULTANT need not indemnify, defend, or hold CITY harmless in CEQA actions initiated pursuant to Public Resources Code §§ 21167 and 21168 where CONSULTANT's work may form the basis of a lawsuit. However, should CONSULTANT's work, as contemplated by this Agreement, contain errors or omissions that results in an adverse ruling against CITY, CONSULTANT agrees to indemnify and hold CITY harmless to the extent provided for in Section 18(A)(i). B. For purposes of this section "CITY" includes CITY's officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and certified volunteers. C. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions will survive termination of this Agreement. D. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by CONSULTANT as required by Section 22, and any approval of said insurance by CITY, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, to the provisions concerning indemnification. 19. ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement is for CONSULTANT's professional services. CONSULTANT's attempts to assign the benefits or burdens of this Agreement without CITY's written approval are prohibited and will be null and void. 20. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT will act as an independent contractor and will have control of all work and the manner in which it is performed. CONSULTANT will be free to contract for similar service to be performed for other employers while under contract with CITY. CONSULTANT is not an agent or employee of CITY and is not Page 6 of 11 84 Agreement No. entitled to participate in any pension plan, insurance, bonus or similar benefits CITY provides for its employees. Any provision in this Agreement that may appear to give CITY the right to direct CONSULTANT as to the details of doing the work or to exercise a measure of control over the work means that CONSULTANT will follow the direction of the CITY as to end results of the work only. 21. AUDIT OF RECORDS. CONSULTANT will maintain full and accurate records with respect to all services and matters covered under this Agreement. CITY will have free access at all reasonable times to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make transcript therefrom, and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings and activities. CONSULTANT will retain such financial and program service records for at least three (3) years after termination or final payment under this Agreement. 22. INSURANCE. A. Before commencing performance under this Agreement, and at all other times this Agreement is effective, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain the following types of insurance with coverage limits complying, at a minimum, with the limits set forth below: Type of Insurance Limits Commercial general liability: $2,000,000 Professional Liability $1,000,000 Business automobile liability $1,000,000 Workers compensation Statutory requirement B. Commercial general liability insurance will meet or exceed the requirements of the most recent ISO -CGL Form. The amount of insurance set forth above will be a combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage for the policy coverage. Liability policies will be endorsed to name CITY, its officials, and employees as "additional insureds" under said insurance coverage and to state that such insurance will be deemed "primary" such that any other insurance that may be carried by CITY will be excess thereto. Such endorsement must be reflected on ISO Form No. CG 20 10 11 85 or 88, or equivalent. Such insurance will be on an "occurrence," not a "claims made," basis and will not be cancelable or subject to reduction except upon 30 days prior written notice to CITY. C. Professional liability coverage will be on an "occurrence basis" if such coverage is available, or on a "claims made" basis if not available. When coverage is provided on a "claims made basis," CONSULTANT will continue to renew the insurance for a period of 3 years after this Agreement expires or is terminated. Such insurance will have the same coverage and limits as the policy that was in effect during the term of this Agreement and will cover CONSULTANT for all claims made by CITY arising out of any errors or Page 7 of 11 85 Agreement No. omissions of CONSULTANT, or its officers, employees or agents during the time this Agreement was in effect. D. Automobile coverage will be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage Form CA 00 01 06 92, including symbol 1 (Any Auto). E. CONSULTANT will furnish to CITY duly authenticated Certificates of Insurance evidencing maintenance of the insurance required under this Agreement and such other evidence of insurance or copies of policies as may be reasonably required by CITY from time to time. Insurance must be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best Company Rating equivalent to at least a Rating of "AMI." F. Should CONSULTANT, for any reason, fail to obtain and maintain the insurance required by this Agreement, CITY may obtain such coverage at CONSULTANT's expense and deduct the cost of such insurance from payments due to CONSULTANT under this Agreement or terminate pursuant to Section 05. 23. USE OF CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT must obtain CITY's prior written approval to use any consultants while performing any portion of this Agreement. Such approval must approve of the proposed consultant and the terms of compensation. 24. INCIDENTAL TASKS. CONSULTANT will meet or will participate in conference calls with CITY on an as -needed basis to provide the status on the project, which will include a schedule update and a short narrative description of progress during the past month for each major task, a description of the work remaining and a description of the anticipated work to be done before the next schedule update. 25. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party will be deemed made when received by such party at its respective name and address as follows: If to CITY: EI Segundo Planning & Building Safety Dept. 350 Main St. EI Segundo, CA 90245 Attention: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager Phone: 310-524-2393 Email: gmcclain@elsegundo.org If to CONSULTANT: Dudek 38 North Marengo Street Pasadena, CA 91101 Attention: Kristin Starbird Phone: 626-204-9839 Email: kstarbird@dudek.com Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee upon deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names or Page 8 of 11 Agreement No. addresses of persons to whom notices are to be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this paragraph. 26. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONSULTANT will comply with all conflict of interest laws and regulations including, without limitation, CITY's conflict of interest regulations. 27. SOLICITATION. CONSULTANT maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT breach or violate this warranty, CITY may rescind this Agreement without liability. 28. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement and every provision herein is generally for the exclusive benefit of CONSULTANT and CITY and not for the benefit of any other party. There will be no incidental or other beneficiaries of any of CONSULTANT's or CITY's obligations under this Agreement. 29. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and exclusive venue for any action involving this agreement will be in Los Angeles County. 30. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. CONSULTANT agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws applicable to this Agreement. 31. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, and its Exhibit(s), sets forth the entire understanding of the parties. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written. This Agreement will bind and inure to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and any subsequent successors and assigns. 32. CONSISTENCY. In interpreting this Agreement and resolving any ambiguities, the main body of this Agreement takes precedence over the attached Exhibits; this Agreement supersedes any conflicting provisions. Any inconsistency between the Exhibits will be resolved in the order in which the Exhibits appear below: Exhibit: A: Scope of Work. Exhibit: B: Budget / Price Quote Exhibit: C: Resumes 33. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each Party had the opportunity to independently review this Agreement with legal counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement will be construed simply, as a whole, and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be interpreted strictly for or against either Party. Page 9 of 11 RVA Agreement No. 34. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then such portion will be deemed modified to the extent necessary in the opinion of the court to render such portion enforceable and, as so modified, such portion and the balance of this Agreement will continue in full force and effect. 35. AUTHORITY/MODIFICATION. The Parties represent and warrant that all necessary action has been taken by the Parties to authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to engage in the actions described herein. This Agreement may be modified by written amendment. 36. ACCEPTANCE OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. The Parties agree that this Agreement, agreements ancillary to this Agreement, and related documents to be entered into in connection with this Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by electronic (pdf) or facsimile transmission. Such electronic or facsimile signature will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature. 37. CAPTIONS. The captions of the paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and will not affect the interpretation of this Agreement. 38. FORCE MAJEURE. Should performance of this Agreement be prevented due to fire, flood, explosion, acts of terrorism, war, embargo, government action, civil or military authority, the natural elements, or other similar causes beyond the Parties' reasonable control, then the Agreement will immediately terminate without obligation of either party to the other. 39. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness and capacity to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to CITY. CONSULTANT represents that its financial resources, surety and insurance experience, service experience, completion ability, personnel, current workload, experience in dealing with private consultants, and experience in dealing with public agencies all suggest that CONSULTANT is capable of performing the proposed contract and has a demonstrated capacity to deal fairly and effectively with and to satisfy a public agency. [Signatures on next page] Page 10 of 11 DocuSign Envelope ID: OBDE629F-5C32-4B9A-8345-882F1CA7E7EC Agreement No. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF EL SEGUNDO Scott Mitnick, City Manager ATTEST: Tracy Weaver, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: V_:A�l Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney Page 11 of 11 for DUDEK, a California Corporation. DocuSigned by: �A PtItDi 7/25/2019 eude k Chairman/CEO Taxpayer ID No. 95-3873865 :• Exhibit A Scope of Work Scope of Work Task 1 Project Initiation, Description, and Technical Reports Subtask 1 I Project Initiation and Description The Dudek team will attend one kickoff meeting with representatives from the City to confirm the approach to the CEQA documentation. In preparation for the EIR kickoff meeting, Dudek will prepare support materials, including an agenda, preliminary schedule, and comprehensive data needs list. The purpose of the meeting is to compile the relevant background data and reports, clearly define the project description, discuss important assumptions for achieving the project schedule, confirm all anticipated discretionary actions, confirm communication and protocols for ongoing coordination, and discuss issues and concerns that the City determines to be important issues for OR analysis. Dudek will provide the Applicant with a list of data needs, including requests for information on the construction - related activities and phasing assumptions and construction/occupancy schedule. Using available information from the Specific Plan, Dudek will prepare a draft project description, including the following: (1) environmental setting overview and existing site uses and operations, (2) short-term construction phasing plan and construction methods, (3) long-term operations activities, (4) maps of the project location and site plans for the key project components, and (5) list of discretionary actions and required permit approvals. Dudek will submit the project description electronically for review. This task assumes that revisions to the project description based on any provided comments will be incorporated into the first draft EIR (Task 3.1). Subtask "1.2 Peer Review of Technical Reports Dudek will perform a peer review of provided technical studies to confirm whether the documents are adequate for the purposes of the EIR for up to 20 hours of professional staff time to be conducted by the project manager and/or other senior specialists, as appropriate. This task assumes that the following reports will be provided by the Applicant and that any revisions that may be require are the responsibility of the authoring consultant. Alternately, updated or supplemental information for the technical studies may be completed by Dudek for a scope/budget augment: • Geotechnical engineering investigation • Phase I environmental site assessment or other hazards assessment documentation • Engineer's hydrology analysis demonstrating compliance with Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan/Low Impact Development and City's requirements • Traffic impact report • Utility infrastructure adequacy analysis (water/sewer pipelines, electricity, natural gas, cable) Dudek will provide the Applicant with a clear list of comments and/or requested revisions to ensure that the documents are adequate for the purposes of CEQA. Subtask 1.3 Cultural Resources Technical Report Records Search. Dudek will begin by conducting a California Historical Resources Information Systems records search of the project area and a 0.5 -mile radius at the South Central Coastal Information Center, which houses cultural resource records for Los Angeles County. The purpose of the records search is to identify any previously recorded cultural resources that may be located within the project area. In addition to a review of previously BRE Specific Plan Environmental Documentation Proposal Page 13 91 DUDEK prepared site records and reports, the records search will also review historical maps of the project area, ethnographies, the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, the California Historic Property Data File, and the lists of California State Historical Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility. Native American Coordination. Dudek will contact the California NAHC for a review of their Sacred Lands File. The NAHC will determine if any NAHC-listed Native American sacred lands are located within or adjacent to the project area. In addition, the NAHC will provide a list of Native American contacts for the project who should be contacted for additional information. If instructed to do so by the lead agency, Dudek will prepare and mail a letter to each of the NAHC-listed contacts, requesting that they contact us if they know of any Native American cultural resources within or immediately adjacent to the project area. This Native American contact process is for project informational purposes only and is not compliant with AB 52. Assembly Bill 52: The proposed project is subject to compliance with AB 52, which requires lead agencies to provide tribes (who have requested notification) with early notification of the proposed project and, if requested, consultation to inform the CEQA process with respect to tribal cultural resources. While AB 52 is a government -to - government process between the CEQA lead agency and California Native American tribes, Dudek will assist the City with the notification process and responding to any comment letters (if requested). Senate Bill 18: The project proposes a General Plan amendment and adoption of a Specific Plan and is therefore subject to compliance with SB 18 consultation. While SB 18 is a government -to -government process between the CEQA lead agency and Native American tribes, Dudek will assist the City with the outreach process and responding to any comment letters (if requested). No in-person meetings with Native American groups are included in this scope of work. Survey. Upon completion of the records search, Dudek will survey the project area for cultural resources. Because the proposed project area is entirely developed with no exposed sediment, an archaeological survey is not warranted. The built environment component of the survey will entail taking detailed notes and photographs of one building over 45 years old (525 North Sepulveda Boulevard), including documentation of character defining features, spatial relationships, landscaping, alterations, and the overall existing conditions of the property. The survey will be restricted to the exterior of the buildings and grounds. Record and Evaluate Resources. Los Angeles County Assessor property records indicate that the existing building complex within project Area 3 and 4 at 525 North Sepulveda Boulevard (AIN 4139-025-091), was built in 1961. It appears that the building underwent a remodel c. 2000. Therefore, the existing building will require evaluation for historical significance/integrity to determine if the proposed project has the potential to impact historical resources, as defined by CEQA. The building will be recorded on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Series 523 Forms and will be evaluated in consideration of National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, and City (Municipal Code Sec. 15-14-4) designation criteria and integrity requirements. Should any additional resources be identified as a result of the survey requiring recordation and evaluation a budget augment may be required to address the resources. As part of this task, Dudek will conduct in-person building development research at the City to determine the nature and extent of alterations that have been made to the property overtime, and retrieve information on any previous owners/occupants. Dudek will also conduct archival research to develop the appropriate historic context for the property significance evaluations. This may include visiting local libraries, archives, and contacting relevant historical societies. BRE Specific Plan Environmental Documentation Proposal Page 14 DUDEK Cultural Resources Technical Report. Dudek will prepare a cultural resources technical report that will summarize the results of the cultural resources records search, Native American coordination, survey and research methodologies, and property significance evaluation. The report will discuss the proposed project description, regulatory framework, all sources consulted, research and field methodology, and recommendations for appropriate management. The report will also analyze the proposed project's potential to impact historical resources under CEQA and will provide mitigation measures as appropriate. All Department of Parks and Recreation forms will be included as an appendix to the report. We assume no more than one draft and one final version of the report will be required. Task 1 Deliverables: • Agenda, EIR schedule, and meeting minutes from the kickoff meeting • Data needs list for construction and operational assumptions • First draft project description for the EIR (MS Word and PDF) • Peer review comments and requested revisions on Applicant -prepared technical reports and data ■ Draft and Revised Cultural Resources Technical Report (MS Word and PDF) Task 2 Initial Study, NOP, and Scoping Meeting Prepare IS/NOP and Mailing. Upon receipt of all available information, Dudek will prepare an NOP and IS, using the City -approved checklist format that is consistent with the procedural and substantive provisions of the CEQA Guidelines. The IS/NOP will be used to narrow the focus of the environmental issues addressed in the EIR, as appropriate. It is anticipated that the following CEQA issue areas will be sufficiently analyzed in the IS to allow their scoping out from further analysis in the EIR: agriculture and forestry resources; biological resources; mineral resources, and wildfire. Dudek will prepare a first draft IS/NOP in electronic format. Upon receipt of comments, Dudek will revise accordingly and submit a revised draft IS/NOP for final review before preparing the final IS/NOP for public review. It is anticipated that comments received on the revised draft IS/NOP will be minimal and mostly editorial in nature. Substantive comments requiring a second round of substantial edits will require an amendment to the budget proposed. A print -ready copy of the final IS/NOP in electronic format (MS Word and PDF) will be submitted for review and approval to print. Dudek will also prepare a draft and final NOC for submittal to the State Clearinghouse. Once approved and printed, Dudek will distribute the NOP to responsible agencies and trustee agencies via overnight delivery, and any other interested parties pursuant to the mailing list provided by the City via U.S. Postal Service mail. It is assumed that a radius map will be provided to Dudek for the NOP mailing. The NOC and 15 copies of the IS/NOP will be provided to the State Clearinghouse. Dudek will be responsible for transmittal of the Final NOP to the Los Angeles County Clerk. This task assumes the City will be responsible for publication and associated fees for the NOP in a local newspaper and that the Applicant will post a notice on site, if required. To consolidate the overall project schedule, Dudek will begin preparation of the EIR during the 30 -day public review period. Scoping Meeting. Dudek's project manager will attend and co -facilitate one scoping meeting for the project. At the City's direction, Dudek can present an overview of the Specific Plan and project description and IS, the purpose of the scoping meeting, provide an overview of the CEQA process, and answer questions raised by the public regarding the CEQA process and/or general questions regarding technical and analytic methods. This task includes preparation of a PowerPoint presentation that includes the CEQA process, summary of the NOP/IS, and overview of the project description. It is assumed that the City will coordinate the logistics for the scoping meeting. Dudek will prepare presentation materials describing or illustrating the project from the Specific Plan on up to four graphic boards to place around the room. Dudek will provide relevant meeting materials, including comment BRE Specific Plan Environmental Documentation Proposal Page 15 93 DUDEK forms and a sign -in sheet. Dudek will also take notes regarding the issues raised by commenting individuals that should be addressed in the EIR. Following the scoping meeting, Dudek will provide a scoping meeting summary memorandum that summarizes the verbal comments provided at the meeting. No court reporter or formal transcript of the meeting is included in this task. Task 2 Deliverables: • First draft IS/NOP: one electronic copy (MS Word and PDF) • Revised draft IS/NOP: one electronic copy (MS Word in track -change and PDF) • Final IS/NOP: one unbound camera-ready hardcopy; 10 bound hardcopies; 30 CDs or thumb drives. Distribution of NOP to mailing list. File NOP with the County Clerk. • Draft and final NOC and 15 copies of IS/NOP, and mailing to State Clearinghouse • Presentation PowerPoint, comment cards/sign-in sheet, and co -facilitation at one scoping meeting • Up to three graphic poster boards for the scoping meeting • Scoping meeting summary memorandum: one (electronic copy (MS Word) Task 3 Draft Environmental Impact Report Sijhtask 3 1 First nr4t FIR Dudek will coordinate with the City to confirm the City -preferred template and thresholds given the recent update to the CEQA Guidelines. Dudek will prepare the first draft EIR, which will include the project description developed under Task 1. The EIR will address the environmental issues in CEQA's Appendix G and will be formatted as follows: Table of Contents. The table of contents will contain a list of EIR contents, including text discussions and lists of tables and exhibits. It will also include a list of appendices that will be attached to the EIR. Executive Summary. Pursuant to Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines, the summary will contain an overview of the proposed project, including a list of required discretionary approvals. The summary will also include a summary of impacts and mitigation measures, known areas of controversy including issues raised by agencies and the public, and a summary of alternatives to the proposed project. Introduction. The introduction section of the EIR will define the purpose, scope, and legislative authority of the EIR, CEQA requirements, and other pertinent environmental rules and regulations. This section will also describe the EIR process, structure, and required contents, as well as its relationship to other potential responsible or trustee agencies. This section will include a description of land use and Specific Plan planning efforts completed to date. A summary table of comment letters received on the NOP will be included in this section, with notation about where the issue is addressed in the EIR. An overview of the EIR's format and content as well as processing requirements will also be provided in this introductory section. Project Description. Dudek will update/revise and incorporate the project description prepared under Task 1. A detailed description of all of the project components and site plan details will be included, as well as a description of short-term construction and long-term operational activities. The project description also includes a discussion of the intended uses of the EIR and a list of permits and approvals required to implement the project. BRE Specific Plan Environmental Documentation Proposal Page 16 94 DUDEK Environmental Impact Analysis. Each environmental impact section will include the following sections: o Environmental Setting o Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances o Thresholds of Significance o Regulatory and Specific Plan Requirements o Environmental Impact Analysis o Cumulative Impacts o Mitigation Measures o Significance After Mitigation o References The IS was anticipated to scope out the following topics from the EIR: agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, mineral resources, and wildfire. Our approach to evaluating impacts related to the remaining topical chapters is summarized as follows. Aesthetics. The EIR will evaluate visual changes and potential impacts to scenic vistas and the visual character in the project vicinity that would occur as a result of project implementation. To support this analysis, architectural drawings (provided by the architect and/or Specific Plan graphics) will be included in the EIR section. Impacts to day and nighttime views will be informed by the potential for particularly reflective building materials to be introduced to the site and the introduction of new nighttime lighting sources, as per the requirements of the Specific Plan and applicable City regulations. It is assumed that the architect's visual renderings and concept aerial views will be adequate to visually depict the proposed project and that no additional visual simulations are required. Additionally, it is assumed that the building heights are not tall enough to result in shade -shadow impacts. Air Quality. Dudek will prepare an assessment of the air quality and GHG emissions impacts of the proposed project utilizing the significance thresholds in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD's) emissions -based thresholds, and the City's guidance, as applicable. After reviewing all available project materials, Dudek will prepare a request for any outstanding data needed to conduct the analysis. If precise information on a particular factor is not available from the City staff or its representatives, Dudek will make every effort to quantify these items usingthe best available information for comparable data sources. Local and regional climate, meteorology, and topography as they affect the accumulation or dispersal of air pollutants will be presented in the air quality assessment. Current air quality conditions and recent trends in the South Coast Air Basin, where the proposed project is located, will be described on the basis of California Air Resources Board and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency annual air quality monitoring data summaries. Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies responsible for air quality management will be identified, and applicable federal, state, and local air quality policies, regulations, and standards will be summarized, including a discussion of the SCAQMD Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Dudek will estimate emissions associated with construction of the proposed project using the California Emissions Estimation Model (CalEEMod). The analysis of short-term construction and demolition emissions will be based on scheduling information (e.g., overall construction duration, phasing and phase timing) and probable construction activities (e.g., construction equipment type and quantity, workers, and haul trucks) developed by the City and/or standardized approaches. Dudek will then evaluate the significance of the emissions based on the SCAQMD significance criteria. For purposes of the budget, it was assumed a maximum of three construction CaIEEMod runs and one operational build -out year CaIEEMod run will be performed. BRE Specific Plan Environmental Documentation Proposal Page 17 95 DUDEK Dudek will also assess the project's potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of ambient air quality standards at sensitive receptors near the proposed project activities using the SCAQMD's localized significance thresholds. For projects with a total site area of 5 acres or less, the assessment may use a simple "lookup table" approach provided by the SCAQMD. For budgetary purposes, it is assumed that the maximum daily area of disturbance will not exceed 5 acres for each area; therefore, the localized significance threshold assessment will use the lookup table approach provided by the SCAQMD and the construction emission estimates from CalEEMod. For purposes of the budget, it was assumed that a localized significance threshold assessment will be conducted for each of the three areas. Dudek understands that the project is proposing future sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) and the project site is close to sensitive receptors (existing residences); thus, a health risk assessment may be warranted. Therefore, Dudek included a construction health risk assessment to evaluate the impact of construction toxic air contaminants, specifically diesel particulate matter (DPM), on sensitive receptors. While there is no specific requirement to prepare this analysis, Dudek recommends inclusion of this analysis in the EIR. CaIEEMod will also be used to estimate project -generated operational criteria air pollutant emissions associated with mobile, energy, and area sources. Dudek will estimate mobile source emissions using the trip generation rates and additional necessary trip characteristics provided in the traffic report prepared for the project. Energy and area source emissions (e.g., natural gas combustion and consumer products) will be estimated using the default values in CaIEEMod for the proposed land use based on the number of residential units, the number of hotel rooms, and total proposed commercial square footage. In addition to operational emissions estimated for the proposed project, emissions associated with operation of the existing land uses will be estimated using CalEEMod default values for an appropriate land use surrogate. The existing emissions estimate will reflect basic operation of the existing land uses and associated vehicle trips. Dudek will estimate the net change in operational criteria air pollutant emissions and compare the net change to the SCAQMD emissions -based significance thresholds. Dudek will evaluate whether traffic associated with the proposed project could lead to potential exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial localized concentrations of air pollutant emissions, specifically carbon monoxide "hot spots." The qualitative assessment will be based on the traffic study prepared for the project and applicable screening criteria recommended by the SCAQMD and/or the Caltrans. For budgetary purposes, it is assumed that the study intersections would not exceed the applied screening criteria, and a quantitative carbon monoxide hotspots analysis would not be required. Dudek assumes that the project would not include operational stationary sources (e.g., diesel emergency generator) and an associated operational health risk assessment would not be required. If the project would include a stationary source, Dudek can evaluate the associated emissions and health risk under a separate scope and budget. Furthermore, since the proposed future sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) on the project site would be located approximately 2,000 feet south of Interstate 105 and approximately 8,000 feet west of Interstate 405, a health risk assessment to evaluate the potential health risk of freeway DPM emissions on the project is assumed to not be required and is not proposed herein. Furthermore, based on the Caltrans Traffic Census Program, the PCH has a traffic volume of 58,000 annual average daily trips northbound and 61,000 annual average daily trips southbound are less than the California Air Resources Board Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Respective recommended siting of sensitive land uses within 500 feet of freeways and urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day. Nonetheless, if required, Dudek could prepare a roadway health risk assessment to comprehensively evaluate the project's potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations under a separate scope and budget. BRE Specific Plan Environmental Documentation Proposal Page 18 ., DUDEK Additional Appendix G thresholds will also be evaluated, including the potential for the project to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, to result in other emissions such as odors, or to impede attainment of the 2016 SCAQMD air quality management plan. The EIR analysis will be prepared consistent with the SCAQMD's guidance and thresholds. Details of the analysis (e.g., daily criteria air pollutant emission calculations) will be included in an appendix to the EIR. Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources. Dudek will incorporate the findings of Task 1.3, Cultural Resources Technical Report. It is anticipated that the City will conduct all required coordination to support AB 52 requirements related to Native American coordination, and Dudek will summarize the City's process in the tribal cultural resources section of the EIR. Energy. Dudek will prepare an energy assessment for the project per Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The analysis will briefly summarize electricity, natural gas, and petroleum energy sources and the relevant regulatory framework. Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the impact analysis will assess if the project would (1) result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation, and (2) conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project will be assessed in regards to construction and operational energy consumption, which will be quantified to the extent estimation methods and project -specifics are available. Project electricity (kilowatt-hours) and natural gas (British thermal units) usage will be estimated based on project specifics and CaIEEMod default values, as appropriate, when project specifics are not available. Petroleum consumption will be estimated using CaIEEMod and based on the same equipment and vehicle assumptions assumed in the air quality and GHG emissions analysis. As with the air quality and GHG emissions analyses, energy consumption will also be estimated for the existing land uses and the net change in petroleum, electricity, and natural gas consumption will be estimated. Project elements that would reduce the proposed project's energy demand during construction and operations will be identified in the analysis and quantified as available. Dudek assumes that the City staff or its representatives will provide a list of the project's energy conservation measures prior to initiating air quality and GHG emissions modeling, as the energy analysis will be prepared consistent with the emissions modeling assumptions. Geology and Soils. This section will incorporate analysis and findings of the geotechnical investigation provided by the Applicant. Drawing upon the information and conclusions of the report, as well as additional available geologic maps and data (U.S. Geological Survey, California Geological Survey, and U.S. Department of Agriculture), Dudek will prepare an EIR section evaluatingthe potential for the project to result in impacts associated with geology and soils. No additional geological surveys or field investigations are proposed. As per CEQA guidelines, Dudek will complete a paleontological resources inventory. Dudek's qualified paleontologist will complete a records search through the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County to determine the location of any previously recorded fossil discoveries in the vicinity of the project. The records search provides information necessary to determine paleontological sensitivity of the project area. Dudek anticipates the direct costs for the records search to be no more than $300.00. Dudek will prepare a paleontological resources technical memorandum that will include all necessary information, including records search results, geological map and literature review, paleontological literature review, and provide recommendations for future management considerations or treatment. The paleontological resources technical memorandum will be included as an appendix in the EIR. It is assumed that any existing geotechnical and paleontological resource reports for the project will be provided to Dudek. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The GHG emissions assessment will include a setting and background discussion consisting of a summary of the greenhouse effect and global climate change, potential changes to the global climate system and to California, and emission inventories at the national, state, and local levels. It will also include a summary of the key federal, state, and local regulatory actions and programs to reduce GHG emissions. BRE Specific Plan Environmental Documentation Proposal Page 19 WA DUDEK Dudek will estimate the GHG emissions associated with construction of the project using CalEEMod based on the same construction and demolition scenario utilized in the air quality analysis. Project -generated operational GHG emissions that will be estimated include those associated with mobile sources, natural gas usage, electrical generation, water supply, wastewater, and solid waste disposal. The emissions estimates will be based on information provided by the City staff or CaIEEMod default values. In addition to operational emissions estimated for the proposed project, emissions associated with operation of the existing land uses will be estimated using CaIEEMod based on the same scenario utilized in the air quality analysis. The impact analysis will reflect Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines; specifically, whether a project would (a) generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment and (b) conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. The SCAQMD GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group has proposed options lead agencies can select from to screen thresholds of significance for GHG emissions in residential and commercial projects; however, no thresholds have been formally adopted. Options the SCAQMD evaluated include a bright -line threshold of 3,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year for all land use types. We will work with City staff to confirm application of the appropriate threshold for evaluating the project's GHG emissions under CEQA. Dudek will estimate the net change in operational GHG emissions and compare the net change to the appropriate SCAQMD threshold. Details of the analysis (e.g., annual GHG emission calculations) will be included in an appendix to the EIR. The City worked with the South Bay Cities Council of Governments to prepare and adopt a Climate Action Plan (December 2017); however, the City's Climate Action Plan is not a qualified plan under CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 and cannot be tiered from under environmental review. As such, Dudek will discuss how the proposed project complies with the City's Climate Action Plan measures for reducing GHG emissions; state regulations (AB 32); General Plan goals, objectives, and policies that help the City contribute to regional GHG reduction efforts; and applicable development standards that would increase energy efficiency, such as the California Building Code. Dudek will also provide a qualitative post -2020 analysis that will evaluate whether or not the project - generated GHG emissions would impede the attainment of the 2030 and 2050 reduction goals identified in SB 32 and Executive Order S-3-05, respectively. Because the City has not adopted a numeric post -2020 threshold or provided guidance for demonstrating that a project will not impede the implementation of state's post -2020 GHG reduction goals, a qualitative assessment is assumed to be sufficient. The EIR analysis will be prepared consistent with the SCAQMD's guidance and thresholds. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. This section will incorporate analysis and findings of the Phase I environmental site assessment or other hazards assessment provided by the Applicant. Drawing on the information and conclusions in the provided environmental site assessment, as well as additional available on government databases, Dudek will prepare an EIR section evaluating the potential for the project to result in impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. Hydrology and Water Quality. Based on the hydrology reports/analyses provided by the Applicant's civil engineer, Dudek will prepare the hydrology and water quality section of the EIR, which will (1) identify beneficial uses and water quality impairments (if any) of downstream surface water bodies, (2) describe existing groundwater quality conditions, (3) explain state and federal water quality regulations and the City's development standards (e.g., regarding drainage and erosion control, non-stormwater discharges, and grading), (4) discuss the various ways in which the project could adversely affect hydrology, drainage and water quality (both directly and indirectly), and (5) identify any best management practices or mitigation measures required. Dudek will summarize the hydrology analysis, which is anticipated to articulate how the project complies with the requirements of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements and the City's requirements, including best management practices to comply with the Low Impact Development mandates. BRE Specific Plan Environmental Documentation Proposal Page 20 91 DUDEK Land Use and Planning. The land use section of the EIR will describe the consistency of the proposed project with the City's General Plan goals and intents, and other adopted land use policies, including the Southern California Association of Governments' 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy. The land use section will describe the compatibility and any potential conflicts between the proposed project with existing development. These conflicts could include a use that would create a nuisance for adjacent properties or result in incompatibility with surrounding land uses, noise levels, or traffic levels. The EIR will evaluate the extent to which development standards or proposed design standards would eliminate or minimize potential conflicts between the proposed project and adjacent uses. Noise. Dudek will conduct a noise study of potential impacts to existing and proposed future on-site land uses (i.e., residential, and retail commercial uses). Residential land uses are located to the west, and commercial uses are located to the east. These land uses could be impacted by noise from project -related demolition and construction and project -related traffic, and the proposed future residences could be impacted by traffic noise from the adjacent PCH/Sepulveda Boulevard, as well as noise from the proposed on-site parking structure, and from Los Angeles International Airport, located approximately 3,000 feet to the north. Afield noise study will be conducted to measure existing on- and off-site noise conditions. Sound -level data will be collected over 10- to 15 -minute periods up to six on-site and nearby noise -sensitive receiver locations. Potential construction noise impacts on nearby noise -sensitive land uses will be evaluated based on construction equipment data to be provided by the project Applicant or from estimates for similar projects, and noise modeling methods developed by the Federal Highway Administration. On-site and off-site long-term (operational) noise effects from the existing, future and project -related vehicle trips along nearby arterials and PCH/Sepulveda Boulevard will be evaluated usingthe project's traffic study and the Federal Highway Administration's Traffic Noise Model version 2.5. Parking structure noise will be addressed using data from similar projects. Aircraft noise from Los Angeles International Airport will be assessed using the available noise contour information from Los Angeles World Airports. If noise impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be developed and recommended to reduce impacts to a "less -than -significant" level and to comply with City noise standards. The significance of noise impacts will be assessed based on the relevant City, state, and federal thresholds. If significant noise impacts are identified, mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level (where feasible) will be recommended. The regulatory background, ambient noise environment, methodology, results of the noise analysis, findings of potential effects and mitigation measures will be summarized in the noise section of the project's EIR noise section. Population and Housing. The project would lead to an increase the number of employees and residents at the project site that could alter the population, employment, and housing characteristics for the area through a change in land uses and an increase in the number of residents and jobs available on site. The employment and housing characteristics of the City and region will be summarized and will be used to determine potential project impacts. Applicable General Plan policies regarding population, housing, and employment opportunities will also be described and analyzed. Public Services and Recreation. These sections will address potential impacts of the project on police and fire department response capabilities and time resulting from construction of the new residential and commercial uses. This analysis will provide a qualitative existing condition assessment of fire protection, police protection, emergency medical service, schools, parks, and libraries. The estimates of existing uses for these public services will become the basis for future projected needs. Development of these estimates may necessitate outreach to the fire department, police department, or use of local emergency response data. The EIR will also address proper BRE Specific Plan Environmental Documentation Proposal Page 21 DUDEK site access and circulation and fire prevention devices and systems that would be installed. Impacts on recreational facilities, schools, and libraries will also be analyzed. Potential impacts to public services will be substantiated and analyzed in the EIR. Transportation. Dudek will incorporate the analysis and findings of the Applicant's traffic impact report into the EIR, which is assumed to adequately address all transportation -related issues associated with the project and with development on the PCH. Utilities and Service Systems. This section of the EIR will evaluate the potential for the project to affect water, wastewater, stormwater, and solid waste services. It is assumed that an infrastructure capacity analysis will be provided through the Specific Plan to confirm that the off-site pipelines and infrastructure can accommodate the demands of the proposed project. This section will address whether the wastewater generated by the project would require the expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities or the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, and whether existing or planned stormwater drainage systems are adequate. Dudek will also provide projections of solid waste generation, which will be compared to existing and future landfill capacity to determine whether the changes in land use would substantially shorten the life of the landfill or necessitate expansion of the landfill. The project includes development of approximately 273 residential units and approximately 15,000 square feet of commercial use. Dudek anticipates that the proposed project does not the requirements to prepare a Water Supply Assessment in accordance with the requirements of SB 610. As such, Dudek will answer the CEQA threshold question of whether there would be "sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years." The analysis will document the following: (1) current water demand for the project site and projected water demand for the proposed project; (2) projected water demands for the proposed project through buildout in 5 -year increments; (3) identification of existing water supply entitlements, water rights, water service contracts, or agreements relevant to the identified water supplies and proposed development scenario; and (4) water received at the project site in prior years pursuant to those entitlements, rights, contracts, and agreements. The analysis will evaluate the availability of the identified water supplies during normal, single -dry year, and multiple -dry water years during, at minimum, a 20 -year projection to meet existing demands, expected demands of the project, and reasonably foreseeable planned future water demands for the project, thereby, assessing the reliability and sufficiency of water supplies as required. If necessary, mitigation measures will be provided. Alternatives to the Proposed Project. The alternatives section will be prepared to meet the objectives of the CEQA Guidelines by addressing alternatives to the project as proposed. Each alternative will be evaluated with respect to the environmental issue area reviewed for the proposed project. As required by the CEQA Guidelines, the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and the reasons for rejecting or recommending it will be provided. The environmentally superior alternative will be identified from among the alternatives to the proposed project. In addition, a narrative will be provided that discusses alternatives that were considered but were determined to be infeasible, and therefore not assessed in detail. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that three alternatives will carried forward for analysis evaluated in the EIR. Long -Term Implications of the Proposed Project. This section will include analysis of significant irreversible changes that would occur as result of the proposed project, as well as growth -inducing impacts. It will also include a summary of the effects determined not to be significant, including those topics that were scoped out through the IS. List of Preparers. This section will include references, acronyms and abbreviations, and the preparers of the EIR. BRE Specific Plan Environmental Documentation Proposal Page 22 100 DUDEK Appendices. The draft EIR appendices will include the NOP and IS, NOP responses, and the various technical reports and memoranda described. Subtask 3.2 Revised Draft EIR Upon receipt of comments on the first draft EIR, Dudek will revise the document accordingly by addressing all comments received. Dudek will submit the revised draft EIR for review and comment in a track -change format to confirm that all comments/questions were addressed appropriately. Subtask 3.3 Draft EIR, Notices, and Dlstribufon Upon receipt of comments on the revised draft EIR, Dudek will revise the document accordingly by addressing all comments received. Dudek will prepare the proof check draft EIR for final review and approval to reproduce. It is assumed that comments on the revised draft EIR will be minor and not require new analyses or substantive revisions. Dudek will reproduce and distribute the Notice of Availability (NOA) to interested stakeholders, agencies, and the public based on the NOP mailing list, which will be revised to include respondents to the NOP. Dudek will prepare drafts of both the NOA and the NOC for review. Upon receipt of comments, Dudek will finalize these documents for City signature and distribution. Dudek will be responsible for providing the NOC to the State Clearinghouse along with the 15 copies of the executive summary. Dudek will also be responsible for posting the NOA with the Los Angeles County Clerk. In the event the City would like to publish the NOA in a paper of local circulation, Dudek assumes the City will take the lead on posting the notice with the paper and that the Applicant would post the notice on the project site, if needed. Task 3 Deliverables: • First draft EIR: one electronic copy (MS Word and PDF) • Revised draft EIR: one electronic copy (MS Word in track -change and PDF) • Proof check draft EIR: one electronic copy (MS Word and PDF) for approval to print • Draft EIR: one unbound camera-ready hardcopy; 10 bound hardcopies (appendices on CD); 30 CDs or thumb drives • Draft and final NOC and 15 copies and mailing to State Clearinghouse • Draft and final NOA: one electronic copy (MS Word); 100 hard copies for City mail out; filing with Los Angeles County Clerk Task 4 Preparation of Final EIR Upon completion of the 45 -day public review period, Dudek will prepare a final EIR, includingthe following chapters: response to comments, clarifications to the draft EIR, and mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP). A CD containing the draft EIR and technical appendices will be affixed to the back cover of each hard copy final EIR. The response to comments chapter will include comments received on the draft EIR, responses to those comments, and standard introductory material. All comments will be numbered (to indicate comment letter and comment number), and the responses to those comments will be similarly numbered to allow easy correlation. For purposes of this scope of work and cost estimate, Dudek assumes up to 90 hours of professional staff time to address the comment letters. Since the actual scope and extent of public comments (in either written or oral format) cannot be known at this time, if additional staff hours are needed to prepare responses to comments, a budget augment will be requested. BRE Specific Plan Environmental Documentation Proposal Page 23 101 DUDEK If necessary, Dudek will prepare a clarifications to the draft EIR chapter that will identify any instances where revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary. In this chapter, deleted text will be indicated by strikeout and inserted text by double underline. The MMRP will be in table format and will specify project -specific mitigation measures that are applicable to the project. Mitigation timing and responsible parties will also be identified. Upon receipt of comments, Dudek revise the response to comments, clarifications to the draft EIR, and MMRP accordingly. Dudek will provide a proof check document for approval to reproduce. A total of 30 hours of professional staff time has been assumed for this task. Dudek will assist the City with providing the final EIR at least 10 days prior to consideration for certification by the City to any commenting public agency and any member of the public who has requested the document. Task 4 Deliverables: • Draft responses to comments, clarifications, and MMRP: one electronic copy (MS Word and PDF) • Proof check of final responses to comments, clarifications, and MMRP: one electronic copy (MS in track - change Word and PDF) Final EIR: one electronic copy (MS Word and PDF); one unbound camera-ready hardcopy; 10 bound hardcopies; 30 CDs or thumb drives Task 5 Certification DocLiments Dudek will prepare draft findings of fact for each significant effect identified in the final EIR and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) if unavoidable significant impacts are identified. As required by the CEQA Guidelines, one of three findings must be made for each significant effect and must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The SOC will rely on input from the project team regarding the benefits of the project. Upon receipt of comments, Dudek revise the findings and SOC accordingly. Dudek will provide a proof check document for approval to reproduce. Upon approval, Dudek will prepare the final findings and SOC. Once the EIR has been certified, Dudek will prepare an NOD and assist the City with filing the NOD with the State Clearinghouse and Los Angeles County Clerk. This task includes the cost of filing the California Department of Fish and Wildlife fees. Task 5 Deliverables • Draft findings and SOC: one electronic copy (MS Word and PDF) • Proof check of findings and SOC: one electronic copy (MS Word in track -change and PDF) • Final findings and SOC: one electronic copy (MS Word and PDF); one unbound camera-ready hardcopy; 10 bound hardcopies; 30 CDs or thumb drives. • Draft and final NOD submitted to the County Clerk and NOC State Clearinghouse and California Department of Fish and Wildlife filing fees Task 6 Project Meetings and Coordination SUbtask 6.1 Meetings and Hearings This task includes attendance at meetings and hearings, as needed throughout the CEQA process. Meetings may be attended by the project manager and other senior specialists. Dudek assumes 40 hours for project manager time to attend up to four in-person status meetings and up to two hearings before the City decision makers in support of EIR certification. The allocated hours could be distributed among Dudek's senior specialists, as appropriate. Meeting minutes and decisions will be tracked and documented for each status meeting. This task does not include time for attendance at the public outreach meetings associated with the Specific Plan process. BRE Specific Plan Environmental Documentation Proposal Page 24 102 DUDEK Subtask 6.2 Project Management The project manager will maintain regular contact with the project team and the City, as needed, throughout the CEQA process. Activities include regularly scheduled conference calls, including a twice -monthly project team conference call. Dudek will be responsible for managing the CEQA process, including communications and coordination among various consultants to facilitate adherence to the EIR schedule; compliance with the scope of work and budget; and internal administrative tasks such as invoicing and contract management. The project management budget assumes a 16 -month EIR schedule. Dudek can only ensure compliance with schedule milestones that are fully under our control (e.g., preparation of work products). If this schedule is extended, additional project management budget may be necessary. Task 6 Deliverables: • Up to 40 hours of project manager meeting time, anticipated to include up to four in-person status meetings and up to two hearings before the City decision makers • Project management time over the course of the CEQA process, assuming a 16 -month schedule Task 7 Optional Tasks Subtask 7.1 Construction Health Risk Assessment During construction, the primary toxic air contaminant of concern would be DPM from heavy-duty trucks and any on-site off-road equipment. Dudek will use the American Meteorological Society/Environmental Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD), which is required by the SCAQMD to conduct dispersion modeling, and California Air Resources Board's Hot Spots Analysis and Reporting Program Version 2 (HARP2) to calculate the health impacts. Notably, the health impact calculations in HARP2 are based on the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment's 2015 Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines - Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. The dispersion of DPM and associated health risk impacts on sensitive receptors will be determined using AERMOD, HARP2, local meteorological data obtained from the SCAQMD, and the estimated annual average DPM emissions. The maximum cancer risks at the appropriate receptors (e.g., proximate residential receptors) will be tabulated. Cancer risk isopleths (i.e., lines of equal cancer risk) will be plotted on figures showing the project site if the maximum cancer risk exceeds the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 in one million. The assessment will also include the estimated chronic (long-term) hazard indices due to non -cancer health effects associated with DPM. The hazard indices will be tabulated at the appropriate locations and plotted on figures similar to that showing estimated cancer risks if they exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold of 1.0. The cancer burden of the project will also be evaluated if the cancer risk exceeds one in one million. If the health impacts exceed the thresholds of significance, we will suggest appropriate mitigation measures to reduce the health impacts. A summary of the methodology and results will be provided in the air quality section of the EIR and details of the analysis will be included in an appendix to the EIR. BRE Specific Plan Environmental Documentation Proposal Page 25 103 Exhibit B 104 N a s o O1 (D f� a N ti o ° (n 11 000 N M 00 W t' o ski t�-I 64 bq m ° - O O V) rn a m c Y m M c O C c w - N m NC4 �p U a C 00 o a Lq m � � 3 m 1 06 11 W N � m (y :A m y <H J9 m a N mCD 00 E L m m LO 14 c O T t0 � c w p E S 0 5 C t°1 a) m L b0 a c o 3 � ' O ti U y N E N f O N a y C 0 N i C o •3 yT m � a C Sm .m+ D ° a) O y � E 0_ O to a m c Y U O .0 a) c o a a � d � y a m O � o o— m y ? Z � o QW) E T n y .-ice- w m m �iayi n C N y N m y N n_ chi U Q � m N a N o E O m 1O y y n c -I N N w a o 3 2 fn N U O m C N o (h m c d w ti n w > c 0 'a o m a d o a w ° a ° Y ayi .E E O V 2 m O - C m y O p yj U C N m ° O On C C o if o T E °c Y a E ° � y Y O Ua O m C �0 E m o $ VC O Y C V/ W N n n ➢0 n O a t0 E a a°i ° y •g m E M -3 5 o E ° 'p W O C OCO V a) N .2 N • n a 1 ' T m 8 m E a m 9 LD N . n •� C T C N O t m a a s a` U U C Y m m li° l ° o ° 3 N 00 N t0 N N a r 00 i to ii N N w N LO N O1 (D f� a N ti 0) N (n 11 000 N M 00 W a 0 ski t�-I 64 bq 1 v LO c O O V) rn a m O M c O C .aO-I N NC4 o v 00 00 Lq N 1 06 11 W N b9 M (y :A to fy <H J9 a N mCD 00 m m LO 14 00 N t0 N N a r 00 i to ii N N w N LO N 0 10 LO I a0 a 0 0 M c O C .aO-I N NC4 11 ° U 0 w p S c o v y ID O ti m N E C f6 E C U yT m Sm ° a) O ~ pp C_ 0_ O to a) a a o � o o— 5� ? � D !• .-ice- °a �iayi C7 IY/1 N chi U N m U N o r o y n c -I N N w H O a -I C3 fn ri Fm- F to C N H (h M w 105 Y W C� C CV N a H 0 m O U LO O m m 0 LO °o' Lo c� 00o coo m y} ty N m M N ff3 (D pj O C to C'4 a0 -I C4 W tR a0 tR O LO O li O O O LO LO LO 04 O 007 O Cl) O mM e0i ER LOV O W M M n O M 0 m Q O C', Ofy LO a m a00 co O -9. to +f? t9 ~ t9 tR N tq w � coo O m coo m a v m ri 0 m N O co 0 got c N 0 o m cc rA 0 r � G 0 ai iR 0 a N fC N tR o O N u 40 O r a m ci r u� `o a 4& 0 N a LO � v A a to y a 0 r o o` c � P a cLo-I C-4 a V m r N N to La bo U O 7 E C _ __ y g N M M m M o c MCL Q)2 O }m_g b L V) r c ai M R O O O u E H H m p C F� o a 1� w o o_ y w h F� o +(per M C M C F� N F� = C rYn c W zO N N rL c� m m C m w o c aka a �� yofN u n M E E E E Ln li IL C O f0 N p N R ,in aSo m o`cg C LzU H m o if m 92 N Lo m r 106 Exhibit C Resumes 107 Kristin Starbird Project Manager Kristin Starbird is a senior project manager with 16 years' experience in Education the management and preparation of environmental documents pursuant University of Texas, Austin to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National MA, Public Affairs Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Ms. Starbird is responsible for BA, Social Work managing the environmental documentation and review process, Affiliations schedules, and budgets for a wide variety of controversial and complex Association of Environmental public- and private -sector projects, including general, master, and Professionals specific plans; flood control and water infrastructure projects; recreational and park projects; residential tract map developments; mixed-use and transit -oriented developments; solar energy projects; and institutional facilities. She confidently represents her clients in public meetings and hearings, and applies her commitment to exceptional client service and strategic consultation on all projects. Project Experience Centennial Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Los Angeles County, California. Served as project manager for the EIR for a new community with residential, commercial, business park, recreational/entertainment, water/wastewater utilities, park/open space, and institutional/civic uses. The project would allow up to 19,333 dwelling units; 7.4 million square feet (msf) of Business Park uses (office, research and development, and warehousing or light manufacturing uses); 1 msf of Commercial uses; 1.6 msf of Institutional/Civic land uses; fire stations and a sheriff's station; and two wastewater reclamation facilities that will generate recycled water. The undeveloped site includes numerous biological resources and jurisdictional drainages, as well as tribal cultural resources requiring preservation. The primary entitlement actions include the adoption of a Specific Plan, Zone Change, General Plan Amendment, Development Agreement, Tentative Parcel Map, and Conditional Use Permits. Project buildout would be implemented in phases based on future market conditions over an approximate 20 -year period through a series of future tract and parcel maps, and would be developed in coordination with the planned improvements of the Caltrans Northwest 138 Improvement Project. Elysian Park Lofts Environmental Impact Report, Los Angeles, California. Served as principal in charge and project manager for the EIR for a 2 to 14 -story mixed-use project on an 8 -acre parcel with approximately 920 residential units and approximately 21,000 square feet of neighborhood -serving retail uses leasing offices. The project site is located in the Central City North Community Plan Area near the Metro Gold Line and the Los Angeles State Historic Park. The transit -oriented development project is proximate to a network of regional transportation facilities, including the Chinatown Metro Station and is in a transit priority area. The site includes a remnant portion of the historic Zanja Madre and is located in a Methane Zone. The project requires a General Plan Amendment and zone change, site plan review, vesting tentative tract map, and development agreement. Aviation Station Transit -Oriented Development Project EIR, Los Angeles County, California. Served as project manager for the EIR for a mixed-use, transit -oriented project on 5.9 acres within unincorporated Los Angeles County and the City of Los Angeles. The project involved the demolition of existing homes and commercial uses and the construction of an urban mixed-use development with 29,500 square feet of ground -floor commercial and 390 multi -family units. The project also required relocation of a Metro bus terminal and use of Caltrans Page 1 108 DUDEK District 7 property, and required the de -annexation of property from the City of Los Angeles. Project entitlements included a General Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Zone Change, and approvals from the Airport Land Use Commission and the Local Agency Formation Commission for the County of Los Angeles. Fullerton Transportation Center Specific Plan Project EIR, Fullerton, California. Served as project manager for the EIR for a mixed-use redevelopment specific plan project in the 35 -acre Fullerton Transportation Center site located within and adjacent to the City of Fullerton's Central Business District. The Specific Plan included a form - based code that allows for the development of up to 1,500 residential units and 100,000 square feet of retail and office uses, as well as improvements to the existing circulation system to form a cohesive network that provides access and mobility for motorists, transit riders, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Beach and Orangethorpe Mixed -Use Specific Plan Project EIR, Buena Park, California. Served as project manager for the Program EIR for this project, currently called "The Source", located along the Beach Boulevard Entertainment Zone in Buena Park. The Specific Plan allowed for a flexible and phased development plan on the 12.5 -acre site for an urban mixed-use project with a maximum of 1,000 multi -family units in multiple high-rise structures; 355,000 square feet of retail; a 300-room/270,000-square-foot hotel, and multiple levels of subterranean parking. The site redevelopment would require the demolition of existing single-family residences and commercial properties. Triunfo Creek Vineyards Project Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), County of Los Angeles, California. Served as principal in charge and project manager for the initial study (IS)/MND at the Triunfo Creek Vineyards site, which hosts various special events throughout the year, including weddings, private, and corporate events. The project proposes three separate spaces within the 55 acres: an expanded outdoor area for special events; two wine tasting bars; and a winery facility for processing grapes into wine and hosting smaller events/tastings. The Project would allow for increased outdoor amplified music and events. The project site is located within a Significant Ecological Area and Triunfo Creek, and is adjacent to noise sensitive single-family residential homes and equestrian estate properties. St. Michael's Abbey Relocation EIR, Orange County, California. Served as project manager for the EIR for the development of a campus for the monastery church and private preparatory monastery school on an undeveloped 124 -acre site in Silverado Canyon. The project included a monastery for up to 85 Fathers; a church to accommodate up to 500 visitors; a high school for up to 100 students; a convent for up to 12 nuns; guest cottages for up to 12 visitors; a chapel/cemetery; outdoor athletic fields; and agricultural/maintenance buildings. The EIR evaluated the impacts associated with large special events, including Christmas, Easter Mass, and graduation. 57 Wheeler Avenue Mixed -Use Project IS/MND, Arcadia, California. Served as principal in charge and project manager for the IS/MND for the development of a downtown mixed-use, 4 -story structure with 38 residential units, 16,175 square feet of commercial, a public plaza, and a subterranean parking garage. The project site is one block south of the Metro Gold Line Station, allowing the project to support the City's goal of developing a transit -oriented downtown community. The project required demolition of a surface parking lot and a building, which was evaluated for historic significance. Camp Vernon Kilpatrick Replacement Project IS/MND, Los Angeles County, California. Served as project manager for the preparation of an IS/MND for the redevelopment of a juvenile residential treatment camp operated by the Los Angeles County Probation Department. The project would demolish most existing structures and outdoor facilities at the camp and construct a replacement camp with similar buildings, outdoor facilities, and hardscape and landscape features. It would also include increased surface parkingthat would accommodate up to 120 detainee occupants. This project involved extensive coordination with the County team on defining the project parameters and strategy for the IS/MND to best accommodate the County's design -build approach. Page 2 109 Jennifer Reed Air Quality Specialist, Environmental Planner Jennifer Reed is an air quality specialist/environmental planner with 12 Education years' experience. Ms. Reed leads Dudek's air quality services team, and University of California, has been responsible for the management, research, and analysis of Santa Barbara projects subject to compliance with the California Environmental Quality BA, Environmental Studies Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). She has BA, Geography completed numerous environmental documents in support of a diverse PiofessionalAftlilations range of public and private developments. Ms. Reed specializes in air Association of Environmental quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions technical analyses, and Professionals continues to be on the forefront of evolving science, emissions modeling Air and Waste computer programs, and regulatory framework. Management Association Ms. Reed has prepared air quality and GHG assessments for a wide variety of development projects throughout California, including large residential projects, commercial and retail projects, industrial projects, mixed-use developments, colleges and universities, healthcare facilities, energy projects, water and wastewater infrastructure, and transportation improvements, including California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) air quality analyses. Additionally, she has considerable experience in project planning and regulatory compliance pursuant to the California Coastal Act (CCA) and has experience in project management, land -use permit processing, constraints analysis, development feasibility studies, due diligence investigations, and various other land -use planning projects. Project Experience Grapevine Project, Tejon Ranch Corporation, Kern County, California. Prepared the air quality and GHG emissions technical report for the project, provided management of the HRA and criteria pollutant air quality impact analysis, and provided ongoing technical support. The Grapevine Specific Plan project, which is located in the west -central portion of 270,000 -acre Tejon Ranch, would be developed as a residential community and employment center within 4,780 acres of the 8,010 -acre property. The project, which includes up to 12,000 residential units and 5.1 million square feet of commercial and light industrial land uses (including a community college and medical campus), is designed as a series of conveniently located village centers, each composed of a mix of housing, neighborhood -serving retail and office uses, schools, parks, and community services. Specific tasks include construction and operational criteria air pollutant and GHG emissions estimates, industrial source emissions calculations, carbon monoxide (CO) hotspot analysis, odor assessment, Valley Fever assessment, and other air quality topics. Montclair Plaza Expansion CEQA Review, Best, Best and Krieger LLP, Montclair, California. Contributed to the air quality and GHG sections for a proposed commercial infill redevelopment project in the city of Montclair. The project proposes redevelopment and expansion of Montclair Plaza, an indoor, two-story shopping mall that opened in 1968 and was last renovated in 2008. The applicant's goal is to revitalize and increase the gross leasable area of the current shopping center site for greater walkability and a more upscale shopping experience. Page 1 110 DUDEK 635 South Citrus Avenue Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), Best, Best and Krieger LLP, Covina, California. Prepared the air quality and GHG emissions analysis for the proposed commercial infill redevelopment project in the city of Covina. The project consists of redeveloping an automobile rental facility into an automobile dealership, with the overall purpose of revitalizing a partially vacant, aging commercial building to allow for an updated commercial use. Jurupa Business Park Project Addendum, Cityof Fontana, Califomia. Prepared the GHG report for an addendum to the Final EIR for the Jurupa Business Park project. The addendum was prepared to clarify minor changes to the Final EIR, which analyzed the development of three distribution/manufacturing buildings for various industrial and commercial uses, totaling 1,277,728 square feet of gross building area. Solana Torrance Air Quality/GHG Report, Reylenn Properties LLC, Torrance, California. Managed and prepared the technical report that analyzed potential impacts associated with development of a 300 -unit multifamily residential development, which includes three-, four-, and five -story residential structures constructed over a parking garage and associated amenities. The analysis included a construction HRA to evaluate cancer and non -cancer risk associated with project -generated diesel particulate matter (DPM). Valor Academy Expansion IS/MND, Los Angeles, California. Prepared the air quality and GHG assessment and provided technical support for noise and traffic impact analysis. Valor Academy, a private school located in the Arleta community of Los Angeles, is proposing to incrementally increase its enrollment from 200 to 480 students, establish modular classrooms on the property until construction of new classroom and administration buildings are complete, and construct a new surface parking lot over four phases of development. Malibu Parks Public Access Enhancement Plan, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, Los Angeles County, California. Contributed to the air quality, noise, traffic and parking, and GHG sections of the EIR, which analyzes impacts associated with implementation of a comprehensive plan, consisting of a public works plan and City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment, to address park and recreational facility program needs for state-owned parklands. Yokohl Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR), The Yokohl Ranch Company LLC, Visalia, California. Contributed to the preparation of the air quality and GHG sections of the draft EIR for the proposed Yokohl Ranch project and provided peer review of the air quality impact assessment prepared by the applicant's air quality consultants to ensure consistency with CEQA guidance. The current project proposes development of up to 10,000 dwelling units as well as mixed-use, neighborhood commercial, commercial recreation, schools, parks, and light industrial land uses within three planning areas totaling 6,572 acres of the 36,219 -acre project site. Casden Development Projects EIR, City of Oxnard, California. As deputy project manager and lead environmental analyst, oversaw and contributed to the air quality, land use and planning, public services, long-term impacts, and alternatives sections of the EIR. This project includes the development of two adjacent project sites, resulting in a total of 344 residential units. Lakeview Promenade Mixed -Use Project EIR, City of Santa Maria, California. Served as deputy project manager and lead environmental analyst. Oversaw and contributed to the air quality, transportation, hazardous materials and hazards, utilities, growth -inducing impacts, and alternatives sections of the EIR, which assessed the impacts of 270 multifamily residential units, 40,000 square feet of retail space, 15,000 square feet of restaurant space, 14,000 square feet of medical office space, and 1,500 square feet of professional space. Page 2 111 Samantha Murray, MA Historic Resources Samantha Murray is a senior architectural historian with 12 years' professional experience in in all elements of cultural resources management, including project management, intensive -level field investigations, architectural history studies, and historical significance evaluations in consideration of the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), and local -level evaluation criteria. Ms. Murray has conducted hundreds of historical resource evaluations and developed detailed historic context statements for a multitude of property types and architectural styles, including private residential, commercial, industrial, educational, medical, ranching, mining, airport, and cemetery properties, as well as a variety of engineering structures and objects. She has also provided expertise on numerous projects requiring conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. Education California State University, Los Angeles MA, Anthropology California State University, Northridge BA, Anthropology Professional AffIliations California Preservation Foundation Society of Architectural Historians National Trust for Historic Preservation Registered Professional Archaeologist Ms. Murray meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for both Architectural History and Archaeology. She is experienced managing multidisciplinary projects in the lines of transportation, transmission and generation, federal land management, land development, state and local government, and the private sector. She has experience preparing environmental compliance documentation in support of projects that fall under CEQA/NEPA, and Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). She also prepared numerous Historic Resources Evaluation Reports (HRERs) and Historic Property Survey Reports (HPSRs) for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Project Experience Birch Specific Plan 32 -Unit Condo Project, City of Carson, Los Angeles County, California. Dudek was retained by the City of Carson to prepare a cultural resources report for a project that proposes to demolish approximately 6,200 square feet of existing residential buildings and roughly 5,850 square feet of pavement on the project site, and construct a 32 -unit residential condominium community with on -grade parking, landscaping, and other associated improvements. The historical significance evaluation included three residential properties proposed for demolition. All properties were found not eligible under all designation criteria and integrity requirements. Ms. Murray provided QA/QC of the final cultural resources report. Covina Transit -Oriented Mixed -Use Development Project, City of Covina, Los Angeles County, California. The proposed project would involve a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to develop a mixed-use residential, transit - oriented development (TOD) project. The proposed project would consist of three primary components: 1) a Transit Center and Park & Ride facility; 2) the Covina Innovation, Technology, and Event Center (ITEC) - an event center and professional office incubator space; and 3) residential townhome units. Ms. Murray evaluated one residential and one commercial property over 45 years old for historical significance. Both were found not eligible. Ms. Murray also co-authored the cultural resources technical report. Page 1 112 DUDEK Robertson Lane Hotel Commercial Redevelopment Project, City of West Hollywood, Los Angeles County, California. Ms. Murray is currently serving as architectural historian and peer reviewer of the historical evaluation report. The project involved conducting a records search, archival research, consultation with local historical groups, preparation of a detailed historic context statement, evaluation of three buildings proposed for demolition in consideration of local, CRHR, and NRHP designation criteria, and assistance with the EIR alternatives analysis. North Montclair Downtown Specific Plan EIR, City of Montclair, San Bernardino County California. The project proposes expansion of the Montclair Plaza (the Malls a regional shopping center— which would involve the demolition of portions of the existing Mall, construction of new retail/entertainment/restaurant space, renovation and refurbishment of portions of the existing mall, and the construction additional structured and surface parking. Ms. Murray prepared the cultural resources MND section. Santa Monica/Orange Grove Mixed -Use Development at 7811 Santa Monica Boulevard, City of West Hollywood, Los Angeles County, California. Dudek was retained by the City of West Hollywood to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Santa Monica/Orange Grove Mixed -Use Development Project. In support of the EIR, Dudek conducted a cultural resources inventory and evaluation of two commercial properties at 7811 Santa Monica Blvd. and 1125-1127 N. Ogden Drive. Both properties were found not eligible for designation under NRHP, CRHR and local designation criteria. Ms. Murray co-authored the technical report and provided QA/QC. Transportation Vessels Manufacturing Facility Project at Berth 240, Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. Dudek was retained by the Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD) to provide a cultural resources assessment for a project that proposes to construct a facility to manufacture transportation vessels at Berth 240 off South Seaside Avenue on Terminal Island. The site is adjacent to the NRHP-eligible Bethlehem Shipyard Historic District. Ms. Murray provided an updated conditions assessment of the site and an updated evaluation of the historic district to address integrity issues. She also reviewed project design plans for new construction within the district for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. LADWP West Los Angeles District Yard Project, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. Dudek was retained by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) to complete a cultural resources study for a project that proposes demolition of five LADWP-owned administrative buildings and warehouses at the West Los Angeles District Headquarters located at 12300 West Nebraska Avenue. Dudek evaluated the yard for historical significance in consideration of NRHP, CRHR, and City of Los Angeles HCM criteria and integrity requirements. Ms. Murray co-authored the significance evaluation and provided QA/QC of the cultural resources report. Berths 238-239 [PBF Energy] Marine Oil Terminal Wharf Improvements Project and Lease Renewal, Port of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, California. Dudek was retained by the Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAND) to provide an updated cultural resources assessment for Berths 238-239 at the Port of Los Angeles (POLA), as part of the proposed Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Berths 238-239 [PBF Energy] Marine Oil Terminal Wharf Improvements Project and Lease Renewal. Ms. Murray updated a previous evaluation of the project area conducted in 2010. This included a pedestrian survey, archival research, and a cultural resources impact assessment. The wharf was found not eligible under all designation criteria. The Santa Monica City Yards Master Plan Project, City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles County, California. The City of Santa Monica retained Dudek to complete a cultural resources study for the proposed City Yards Master Plan project site located at 2500 Michigan Avenue in the City of Santa Monica. The study involved evaluation of the entire City Yards site, including two murals and a set of concrete carvings for historical significance and integrity. As a result, the City Yards and its associated public art work was found ineligible under all designation criteria. Ms. Murray conducted the intensive level survey, building permit research, co-authored the technical report, and provided QA/QC of the final cultural resources report. Page 2 113 Mark Storm, INCE Bd. Cert. Noise/Acoustics Mark Storm is a senior acoustician with 28 years' experience as a noise Education control engineer specializing in environmental noise assessment, Massachusetts Institute of mechanical systems noise control and architectural acoustics. Mr. Storm Technology evaluates noise impacts from residential, manufacturing, industrial (e.g., BS, Aeronautics and Astronautics fossil -fueled and renewable power generation and transmission), Certifications municipal, and commercial facilities upon sensitive human and wildlife Institute of Noise Control receptors. His services include development and direction of noise and Engineering (INCE) Board Certified vibration measurement and prediction programs, mitigation County of San Diego - Approved recommendations, participation in public meetings, and expert witness CEQA Consultant for Noise testimony. Mr. Storm has authored or managed many California ProfessionaiAffriiations Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)/National Environmental Policy Act INCE, Board of Directors, Vice (NEPA) noise technical reports and sections. He has also handled noise President of Public Relations for several client Applications for Certification (AFC) brought before the California Energy Commission (CEC). Project Experience Bridge to Housing, City of Los Angeles - Bureau of Engineering (LABOE), California. Managed and performed baseline -sound -level surveys, construction noise and vibration assessments, mitigation planning, and technical memoranda for several navigation centers and temporary homeless shelter facilities across multiple Los Angeles community districts. Closely coordinated with LABOE staff and City of Los Angeles attorneys to develop defensible technical documents while meeting mayoral emphasis to address homeless crisis. 2018 Long Range Development Plan EIR, University of California, San Diego. Directed operation (stationary and transportation sources) and construction noise impact analyses for update of UC San Diego long-range development planning of capital improvements and concurrent on -campus infrastructure development (e.g., Mid - Coast Trolley). The work included development of a cost-efficient campus -wide representative baseline sound level measurement survey, authorship of a noise technical report that included prediction results from usage of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (version 2.5), draft environmental impact report (EIR) noise section, and response to client and public comments. Torrey Wind Project, Torrey Wind LLC, San Diego County, California. Revised and enhanced a noise study to evaluate potential noise impacts to community receptors near a proposed 126 megawatt (MW) wind turbine generator (W -FG) project composed of thirty 4.2 -MW wind turbines. Campo Wind Project, Terra -Gen Development LLC, San Diego County, California. Revised and enhanced a noise study to evaluate potential noise impacts to community receptors near a proposed 250 -MW WTG project composed of sixty 4.2 -MW wind turbines and a proposed Boulder Brush electrical switchyard. Responded to client comments and prepared EIR and EIS noise sections. Page 1 114 DUDEK JVR Energy Park, JVR Energy Park LLC, San Diego County, California. Directed preparation of a noise study and EIR noise section to evaluate potential noise impacts to Jacumba Hot Springs community receptors near a proposed 90 -MW utility -scale photovoltaic (PV) solar electricity generation facility. Riverside Transmission Reliability Project, Southern California Edison (SCE), Riverside County, California. Directed baseline noise field surveys, corona audible noise studies and preparation of report to update the project's aging EIR noise section and respond to California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) comments. Crimson Solar Project, Recurrent Energy, Riverside County, California. Directed preparation of a noise study that included a baseline sound level survey of the proposed vicinity and predictive analysis of aggregate operation noise emission from power conversion units and substations for a proposed 350 -MW PV electricity generation project. Santa Barbara Emergency Generator Project, SCE, Santa Barbara County, California. Directed and conducted baseline noise field surveys, onsite noise monitoring of emergency generators at three SCE substation sites; provided predictive operation noise analysis (via 3-D modeling) and mitigation guidance at two of the studied sites to reduce noise emission to nearby residential communities. Puente Power Project, NRG, Oxnard, California. Conducted and directed baseline noise assessment and predictive noise impact analyses (involving construction and operation noise) to support California Energy Commission (CEC) Application for Certification (AFC) efforts (including authorship of the Noise & Vibration section, and representing noise during public workshops) for a proposed 262 -MW gas-fired turbine electricity generation facility that would include demolition of existing generation facilities at the Mandalay Generating Station site. Qualcomm Stadium Replacement EIR, City of San Diego, California. Directed predictive 3-D noise models for analysis of multiple hosted events (pop music concert, motorsports, and football) to assess potential impacts to community due to proposed relocation of traditional San Diego Chargers stadium. California High -Speed Rail (Palmdale to Burbank Noise Technical Report), California Highspeed Rail Authority, Sacramento, California. Performed high-speed rail operation noise impact and mitigation (barrier) assessment with Federal Rail Administration (FRA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) techniques for the above-named proposed railway segment. Directed coordination of baseline outdoor ambient sound -level -survey location confirmation and field data collection and analysis. Heil Avenue Stormwater Rehabilitation, Cityof Huntington Beach, California. Directed baseline -noise -level surveys, predictive operation noise analyses via 3-D sound propagation models, and multi -phase acoustical guidance to AECOM team and client on design of a new pump station to replace existing stormwater pumping facilities. Eastwood Recycled Water Pump Station, Irvine Ranch Water District, Irvine, California. Directed baseline -noise -level surveys, predictive operation noise analyses via 3-D sound propagation models, and multi -phase acoustical guidance to AECOM team and client on design of a new pump station surrounded by newly developed residential properties. Baker Water Treatment Plant — Pump Building Acoustical Upgrades, Irvine Ranch Water District, Lake Forest, California. Managed investigation of multiple pump noise emission to surrounding community, performance of exterior and interior sound level surveys, development of sound insulation upgrade recommendations (based on 3-D predictive noise modeling), review of manufacturer -supplied submittals, and a post -installation community sound level measurement survey to confirm acoustical upgrade performance and effects. Page 2 115 Attachment 2 PSA for JWA Urban Consultants, Inc. 116 Agreement No. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO AND JWA URBAN CONSULTANTS, INC. This AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of July 2019, by and between the CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a municipal corporation and general law city ("CITY") and JWA URBAN CONSULTANTS, INC., a California Corporation ("CONSULTANT"). The parties agree as follows: 1. CONSIDERATION. A. As partial consideration, CONSULTANT agrees to perform the work listed in the SCOPE OF SERVICES, below; B. As additional consideration, CONSULTANT and CITY agree to abide by the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement; C. As additional consideration, CITY agrees to pay CONSULTANT for CONSULTANT's services. CONSULTANT acknowledges that it will be paid with funds received by the CITY from the Developer and/or Applicant associated with each project for which CONSULTANT performs services on behalf of the CITY. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES. A. CONSULTANT will perform services listed in the attached Exhibit "A," which is incorporated by reference. B. CONSULTANT will, in a professional manner, furnish all of the labor, technical, administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials, equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, and all tests, testing and analyses, calculation, and all other means whatsoever, except as herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by CITY, necessary or proper to perform and complete the work and provide the professional services required of CONSULTANT by this Agreement. 3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. While performing this Agreement, CONSULTANT will use the appropriate generally employed professional standards of practice existing at the time of performance utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services in the same vicinity. CITY will continuously monitor CONSULTANT's services. CITY will notify CONSULTANT of any deficiencies and CONSULTANT will have 15 days after such notification to cure any shortcomings to CITY's satisfaction. 4. PAYMENTS. For CITY to pay CONSULTANT as specified by this Agreement, CONSULTANT must submit a detailed invoice to CITY that lists the hours worked and hourly rates for each personnel category and reimbursable costs (all as set forth in Exhibit Page 1 of 11 117 Agreement No. B) the tasks performed. If the CITY agrees with all of the information listed in the invoice, CITY will then pay CONSULTANT from the Developer/Applicant account created for the project. In the event that the Developer / Applicant account does not have sufficient funds for payment of CONSULTANT's services, CITY will notify CONSULTANT in writing to suspend any work under this Agreement until the account is replenished by the Developer/Applicant. The CITY is not responsible for the cost of any of CONSULTANT's services after the date of such written notice, unless and until the Developer/Applicant account is replenished with sufficient funds. This Agreement will cover only those costs incurred for which Developer / Applicant funds are available. 5. POLITICAL REFORM ACT. CONSULTANT agrees that it will be considered a public official subject to the Political Reform Act of 1974 for purposes of this Agreement. CONSULTANT agrees and warrants that it has no financial interests which may be materially affected by the project(s) for which it is performing services. Such financial interests may include, without limitation, interests in business entities, real property, or sources of income exceeding $500 received within the past year. CONSULTANT further warrants that, before executing this Agreement, it reviewed the Political Reform Act of 1974 and the Fair Political Practices Commission regulations, including, without limitation, Chapter 7 of Title 2 of the California Administrative Code, Section 18700, et seq., in order to determine whether any conflict of interest would require CONSULTANT to refrain from performing the services or in any way attempting to use its official position to influence the governmental decisions underlying the subject project(s). 6. FAMILIARITY WITH WORK. A. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT agrees that it has: Carefully investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed; Carefully considered how the services should be performed; and iii. Understands the facilities, difficulties, and restrictions attending performance of the services.under this Agreement. B. If services involve work upon any site, CONSULTANT agrees that CONSULTANT has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, before commencing the services hereunder. Should CONSULTANT discover any latent or unknown conditions that may materially affect the performance of the services, CONSULTANT will immediately inform CITY of such fact and will not proceed except at CONSULTANT's own risk until written instructions are received from CITY. 7. KEY PERSONNEL. Page 2 of 11 118 Agreement No. A. CONSULTANT's key personnel assigned to perform work under this Agreement and their level of responsibility are as follows but is not limited to: Jack Wong. President John Oshimo, Sub -consultant B. The resume of each of the individuals identified in this Section are attached to this Agreement, collectively, as Exhibit C, and incorporated by reference. C. In the event CITY objects to the continued involvement with this Agreement by any of the persons listed in this Section, or any other person selected by CONSULTANT to perform services under this AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT agrees that it will replace such persons with individuals that are agreed to by CITY. 8. TERM. The term of this Agreement will start on the Effective Date and end on December 31, 2023. Unless otherwise determined by written amendment between the parties, this Agreement will terminate in the following instances: A. Completion of the work specified in Exhibit "A"; B. Termination as stated in Section 15. 9. TIME FOR PERFORMANCE. A. CONSULTANT will not perform any work under this Agreement until: CONSULTANT furnishes proof of insurance as required under Section 23 of this Agreement; and CITY gives CONSULTANT a written notice to proceed. B. Should CONSULTANT begin work on any phase in advance of receiving written authorization to proceed, any such professional services are at CONSULTANT's own risk. 10. TIME EXTENSIONS. Should CONSULTANT be delayed by causes beyond CONSULTANT's control, CITY may grant a time extension for the completion of the contracted services. If delay occurs, CONSULTANT must notify the Manager within 48 hours, in writing, of the cause and the extent of the delay and how such delay interferes with the Agreement's schedule. The Manager will extend the completion time, when appropriate, for the completion of the contracted services. 11. CONSISTENCY. In interpreting this Agreement and resolving any ambiguities, the main body of this Agreement takes precedence over the attached Exhibits; this Agreement supersedes any conflicting provisions. Any inconsistency between the Exhibits will be resolved in the order in which the Exhibits appear below: Page 3of11 119 Agreement No. A. Exhibit: A: Scope of Work. B. Exhibit: B: Budget C. Exhibit: C: Proposal for Services 12. CHANGES. CITY may order changes in the services within the general scope of this Agreement, consisting of additions, deletions, or other revisions, and the contract sum and the contract time will be adjusted accordingly. All such changes must be authorized in writing, executed by CONSULTANT and CITY. The cost or credit to CITY resulting from changes in the services will be determined in accordance with written agreement between the parties. 13. TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER. CONSULTANT will provide CITY with a Taxpayer Identification Number. 14. PERMITS AND LICENSES. CONSULTANT, at its sole expense, will obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all necessary permits, licenses, and certificates that may be required in connection with the performance of services under this Agreement. 15. WAIVER. CITY's review or acceptance of, or payment for, work product prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement will not be construed to operate as a waiver of any rights CITY may have under this Agreement or of any cause of action arising from CONSULTANT's performance. A waiver by CITY of any breach of any term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement will not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement, whether of the same or different character. 16. TERMINATION. A. Except as otherwise provided, CITY may terminate this Agreement at any time with or without cause. B. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement at any time with CITY's mutual consent. Notice will be in writing at least thirty (30) days before the effective termination date. C. Upon receiving a termination notice, CONSULTANT will immediately cease performance under this Agreement unless otherwise provided in the termination notice. Except as otherwise provided in the termination notice, any additional work performed by CONSULTANT after receiving a termination notice will be performed at CONSULTANT's own cost; CITY will not be obligated to compensate CONSULTANT for such work. D. Should termination occur, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by CONSULTANT will, at CITY's option, become CITY's property, and CONSULTANT will receive just and equitable compensation for any work Page 4 of 11 120 Agreement No. satisfactorily completed up to the effective date of notice of termination, not to exceed the total costs under Section 1(C). E. Should the Agreement be terminated pursuant to this Section, CITY may procure on its own terms services similar to those terminated. F. By executing this document, CONSULTANT waives any and all claims for damages that might otherwise arise from CITY's termination under this Section. 17. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. All documents, data, studies, drawings, maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by CONSULTANT under this Agreement shall become CITY's property, upon CONSULTANT's receipt of full payment for services rendered. CONSULTANT may retain copies of said documents and materials as desired but will deliver all original materials to CITY upon CITY's written notice. CITY agrees that use of CONSULTANT's completed work product, for purposes other than identified in this Agreement, or use of incomplete work product, is at CITY's own risk. 18. PUBLICATION OF DOCUMENTS. Except as necessary for performance of service under this Agreement, no copies, sketches, or graphs of materials, including graphic art work, prepared pursuant to this Agreement, will be released by CONSULTANT to any other person or public CITY without CITY's prior written approval. All press releases, including graphic display information to be published in newspapers or magazines, will be approved and distributed solely by CITY, unless otherwise provided by written agreement between the parties. 19. INDEMNIFICATION. A. CONSULTANT agrees to the following: Page 5 of 11 Indemnification for Professional Services. CONSULTANT will save harmless and indemnify and at CITY's request reimburse defense costs for CITY and all its officers, volunteers, employees and representatives from and against any and all suits, actions, or claims, of any character whatever, brought for, or on account of, any injuries or damages sustained by any person or property resulting or arising from any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission by CONSULTANT or any of CONSULTANT's officers, agents, employees, or representatives, in the performance of this Agreement, except for such loss or damage arising from CITY's sole negligence or willful misconduct. Indemnification for other Damages. For claims arising out of the performance of non-professional services only, CONSULTANT indemnifies and holds CITY harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney's fees), injuries, or liability, arising out of this Agreement, or its performance, 121 Agreement No. except for such loss or damage arising from CITY's sole negligence or willful misconduct. For claims arising out of the performance of non-professional services only, should CITY be named in any such suit, or should any claim be brought against it by suit or otherwise, arising out of this Agreement, or its performance, CONSULTANT will defend CITY (at CITY's request) and will indemnify CITY for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise. B. For purposes of this section "CITY" includes CITY's officers, officials, employees, agents, representatives, and certified volunteers. C. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions will survive termination of this Agreement. D. The requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by CONSULTANT as required by Section 22, and any approval of said insurance by CITY, are not intended to and will not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement, including, without limitation, to the provisions concerning indemnification. 20. ASSIGNABILITY. This Agreement is for CONSULTANT's professional services. CONSULTANT's attempts to assign the benefits or burdens of this Agreement without CITY's written approval are prohibited and will be null and void. 21. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY and CONSULTANT agree that CONSULTANT will act as an independent contractor and will have control of all work and the manner in which it is performed. CONSULTANT will be free to contract for similar service to be performed for other employers while under contract with CITY. CONSULTANT is not an agent or employee of CITY and is not entitled to participate in any pension plan, insurance, bonus or similar benefits CITY provides for its employees. Any provision in this Agreement that may appear to give CITY the right to direct CONSULTANT as to the details of doing the work or to exercise a measure of control over the work means that CONSULTANT will follow the direction of the CITY as to end results of the work only. 22. AUDIT OF RECORDS. CONSULTANT will maintain full and accurate records with respect to all services and matters covered under this Agreement. CITY will have free access at all reasonable times to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make transcript therefrom, and to inspect all program data, documents, proceedings and activities. CONSULTANT will retain such financial and program service records for at least 3 years after termination or final payment under this Agreement. 23. INSURANCE Page 6 of 11 122 Agreement No. A. Before commencing performance under this Agreement, and at all other times this Agreement is effective, CONSULTANT will procure and maintain the following types of insurance with coverage limits complying, at a minimum, with the limits set forth below: Twe of Insurance Limits Commercial general liability: $2,000,000 Professional Liability $1,000,000 Business automobile liability $1,000,000 Workers compensation Statutory requirement B. Commercial general liability insurance will meet or exceed the requirements of the most recent ISO -CGL Form. The amount of insurance set forth above will be a combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage for the policy coverage. Liability policies will be endorsed to name CITY, its officials, and employees as "additional insureds" under said insurance coverage and to state that such insurance will be deemed "primary" such that any other insurance that may be carried by CITY will be excess thereto. Such endorsement must be reflected on ISO Form No. CG 20 10 11 85 or 88, or equivalent. Such insurance will be on an "occurrence," not a "claims made," basis and will not be cancelable or subject to reduction except upon 30 days prior written notice to CITY. C. Professional liability coverage will be on an "occurrence basis" if such coverage is available, or on a "claims made" basis if not available. When coverage is provided on a "claims made basis," CONSULTANT will continue to renew the insurance for a period of 3 years after this Agreement expires or is terminated. Such insurance will have the same coverage and limits as the policy that was in effect during the term of this Agreement and will cover CONSULTANT for all claims made by CITY arising out of any errors or omissions of CONSULTANT, or its officers, employees or agents during the time this Agreement was in effect. D. Automobile coverage will be written on ISO Business Auto Coverage Form CA 00 01 06 92, including symbol 1 (Any Auto). E. CONSULTANT will furnish to CITY duly authenticated Certificates of Insurance evidencing maintenance of the insurance required under this Agreement and such other evidence of insurance or copies of policies as may be reasonably required by CITY from time to time. Insurance must be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best Company Rating equivalent to at least a Rating of "A:VII." F. Should CONSULTANT, for any reason, fail to obtain and maintain the insurance required by this Agreement, CITY may obtain such coverage at CONSULTANT's expense and deduct the cost of such insurance from Page 7 of 11 123 Agreement No. payments due to CONSULTANT under this Agreement or terminate pursuant to Section 05. 24. USE OF SUBCONTRACTORS. Unless otherwise referenced in this Agreement, CONSULTANT must obtain CITY's prior written approval to use any sub -consultants while performing any portion of this Agreement. Such approval must approve of the proposed consultant and the terms of compensation. 25. INCIDENTAL TASKS. CONSULTANT will meet with CITY regularly to provide the status on the project, which will include a schedule update and a short narrative description of progress for each major task, a description of the work remaining and a description of the work to be done before the next schedule update. 26. NOTICES. All communications to either party by the other party will be deemed made when received by such party at its respective name and address as follows: If to CITY: EI Segundo Planning & Building Safety Dept. 350 Main St. EI Segundo, CA 90245 Attention: Gregg McClain, Planning Manager Phone: 310-524-2393 Email: gmcclain@elsegundo.org If to CONSULTANT: JWA Urban Consultants, Inc. 609 Deep Valley Drive, Suite 200 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 Attention: Jack Wong, President Phone: 310-347-6310 Email: jwong.jwa@gmail.com Any such written communications by mail will be conclusively deemed to have been received by the addressee upon deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as noted above. In all other instances, notices will be deemed given at the time of actual delivery. Changes may be made in the names or addresses of persons to whom notices are to be given by giving notice in the manner prescribed in this paragraph. 27. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONSULTANT will comply with all conflict of interest laws and regulations including, without limitation, CITY's conflict of interest regulations. 28. SOLICITATION. CONSULTANT maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, CONSULTANT warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than CONSULTANT's bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT breach or violate this warranty, CITY may rescind this Agreement without liability. Page 8 of 11 124 Agreement No. 29. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement and every provision herein is generally for the exclusive benefit of CONSULTANT and CITY and not for the benefit of any other party. There will be no incidental or other beneficiaries of any of CONSULTANT's or CITY's obligations under this Agreement. 30. INTERPRETATION. This Agreement was drafted in and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and exclusive venue for any action involving this agreement will be in Los Angeles County. 31. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. CONSULTANT agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws applicable to this Agreement. 32. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, and its Exhibit(s), sets forth the entire understanding of the parties. There are no other understandings, terms or other agreements expressed or implied, oral or written. This Agreement will bind and inure to the benefit of the parties to this Agreement and any subsequent successors and assigns. 33. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION. Each Party had the opportunity to independently review this Agreement with legal counsel. Accordingly, this Agreement will be construed simply, as a whole, and in accordance with its fair meaning; it will not be interpreted strictly for or against either Party. 34. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Agreement is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, then such portion will be deemed modified to the extent necessary in the opinion of the court to render such portion enforceable and, as so modified, such portion and the balance of this Agreement will continue in full force and effect. 35. AUTHORITY/MODIFICATION. The Parties represent and warrant that all necessary action has been taken by the Parties to authorize the undersigned to execute this Agreement and to engage in the actions described herein. This Agreement may be modified by written amendment. 36. ACCEPTANCE OF ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES. The Parties agree that this Agreement, agreements ancillary to this Agreement, and related documents to be entered into in connection with this Agreement will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered by electronic (.pdf) or facsimile transmission. Such electronic or facsimile signature will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature. 37. CAPTIONS. The captions of the paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and will not affect the interpretation of this Agreement. 38. TIME IS OF ESSENCE. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement. However, CITY recognizes that CONSULTANT's work must be governed by sound professional practices. Page 9 of 11 125 Agreement No. 39. FORCE MAJEURE. Should performance of this Agreement be prevented due to fire, flood, explosion, acts of terrorism, war, embargo, government action, civil or military authority, the natural elements, or other similar causes beyond the Parties' reasonable control, then the Agreement will immediately terminate without obligation of either party to the other. 40. STATEMENT OF EXPERIENCE. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that it has demonstrated trustworthiness and possesses the quality, fitness and capacity to perform the Agreement in a manner satisfactory to CITY. CONSULTANT represents that its financial resources, surety and insurance experience, service experience, completion ability, personnel, current workload, experience in dealing with private consultants, and experience in dealing with public agencies all suggest that CONSULTANT is capable of performing the proposed contract and has a demonstrated capacity to deal fairly and effectively with and to satisfy a public CITY. [Signatures on next page] Page 10 of 11 126 Agreement No_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF the piss hereto have executed this Agreement the day and year first hereinabove written_ CITY OF EL SEGUNDO JWA URBAN CONSULTANTS, INC Scott Mitnick, City Manager ATTEST,- Tracy TTEST: Tracy Weaver, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM= _D:3 � for Marie D. Hensley, (� City Attomey Page 11 of 1 S Wong den; Taxpayer ID No. 56-2448042 127 Exhibit A Scope of Work 128 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK JWA URBAN CONSULTANTS, INC JWA Urban Consultants, Inc. (Consultant) will provide the City with professional contract city planning services at the direction and supervision of the Director of Planning, or his designee, for the completion of the PCH Holly -Mariposa West Specific Plan and the entitlement of development projects as identified in the Specific Plan. The contract city planning services that are included in this agreement include, among other related services, the following activities in order to effectuate the Specific Plan, amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and Map, Subdivision, and Zoning Ordinance/Map, and CEQA analysis: • Project management • Reviewing and analyzing development site plans, conceptual plans, construction drawings • Apprising City Staff and conducting informational meetings with City Staff once a month, or more frequently as needed • Conduct meetings with the project developer and/or development team • Organize and conduct public workshops, meetings, focus group meetings • Assist in the development of a Community Engagement Strategy Coordinate activities with the CEQA consultant • Prepare staff reports, resolutions, ordinances, memorandums, informational articles for newspaper publication and/or City website and social media platforms • Attend City Planning Commission and City Council meetings • Traffic Impact Analysis- Peer Review (see Exhibit C) Although the following tasks are not requested in the RFP, JWA can also provide the following services, in relation to this Project, if requested: ■ Completing fiscal impact studies and pro forma analysis • Completing housing -related programs and analysis JWA is not including CEQA Analysis in this Proposal but has a good working relationship with Meridian Consultants, who we have contacted regarding this RFP. Meridian is submitting a separate EIR Proposal for this project, under separate cover. City of EI Segundo Contract Planning Services- PCH Holly Mariposa West Specific Plan 13 JWA Urban Consultants. Inc. 129 Exhibit B 130 EXHIBIT B COMPENSATION 1WA IIAAAN CONSULTANTS, INC The services provided by Consultant will be charged on an hourly. If additional personnel are anticipated to work on an assignment, the Consultant will inform the City for prior approval. SEE Smaju POSITION HOURLY RATE Principal $140 Senior $115 Associate $85 Assistant $65 Technician $60 The fee for the Peer Review of the traffic impact analysis is budgeted at $9,295 (see Exhibit C). Contractor will charge for reimbursable expenses such as mileage, printing, mailing, transmitting or delivering documents to the City, and other similar and customary expenses plus an additional 5% of total invoice amount for overhead and administration. Court related (non -preparation) activities, such as court appearances, depositions, mediation, arbitration, dispute resolution and other expert witness activities, will be charged at a court rate of 1.5 times hourly rate, with a four-hour minimum. Preparation activities will be charged at regular hourly rate pursuant to then effective annual Fee Schedule. City of EI Segundo Contract Planning Services- PCH Holly Mariposa West Specific Plan 14 JWA Urban Consultants, Inc. 131 Exhibit C Resumes 132 BIOGRAPHIES JWA is assigning Jack Wong (Principal) to be the lead and project manager for this assignment. He will be the primary person managing the day-to-day operations on this project. John Oshimo (Senior) will assist Jack Wong, on specific tasks, such as completing the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments and environmental assessment coordination. JWA is ready to start upon City's direction. Their respective biographies are below. Jack Wong is the Founder and Principal of JWA Urban Consultants, Inc. and has over 30 years of professional experience. He is adept at finding solutions and working through challenges. Recently, he has successfully shepherded major mixed-use development projects, General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments, and specific plans adoptions for the cities of San Gabriel and San Fernando, at a time when they both had multiple staffing shortages in key positions and a backlog of projects. In San Gabriel, he managed the development of a mixed-use hotel, retail, and residential condominium project from conceptual planning through to building permit issuance within a one-year 133 period. During the same time, Jack Wong oversaw the processing and entitlement of thirteen development projects. In San Fernando, one of his primary assignments was resuscitate a faltering TOD Corridor Specific Plan, which faced strong vocal community opposition and was in danger of losing its Metro grant funding due to the lack of progress- it was 18 months past its original deadline. By listening and working closely with the specific plan opponents, Jack Wong was able to reenergize and adopt the stalled Specific Plan, General Plan and Zoning Ordinance amendments, and EIR over a four-month period- three months ahead of its final deadline date. With a professional background in real estate development and management, Jack Wong has direct working experience with developers, hoteliers, and national, regional, and local tenants, community groups and stakeholders. He is also very familiar with development agreements, specific plans, market demand studies, fiscal impact and environmental analyses. Jack Wong has worked on several commercial corridor studies and revitalization strategies for Imperial Highway in Downey, Valley Boulevard in San Gabriel, San Fernando Road/Truman Street/McClay Avenue in San Fernando, Slauson Avenue in Huntington Park and Maywood, Pacific Boulevard in Huntington Park, Garvey Avenue in Monterey Park, and Ramona Boulevard in Baldwin Park. Mr. Wong received his Master of Arts in Urban Planning, with specialties in Real Estate Finance and Urban Design from the University of California, Los Angeles. He has been a past Director on the League of California Cities Board of Directors and has been a speaker and committee member for the League of California Cities, California Redevelopment Agency, Urban Land Institute, American Planning Association, International Council of Shopping Centers, and the California Planning Roundtable. Mr. Wong was also an Adjunct Associate Professor, teaching economic development, city planning and development at the University of Southern California from 1996-2010. He is currently renewing 134 his California real estate brokers license. He is the Founder and President of ETHNOPOLIS, Inc. (1992-2018), an award-winning non-profit research and education organization focusing on urban issues and demographic change. John Oshimo is a recent team member, having worked with JWA on the Downtown Hawthorne EIR and Imperial Highway Overlay Zone in the City of Downey. Mr. Oshimo has 40 years of professional urban planning experience and has successfully managed community and regional planning projects: general plans (especially land use and housing elements); specific plans; zoning codes; economic development/redevelopment plans and implementation projects; and environmental documents (CEQA). Through the course of his professional career, John Oshimo has conducted numerous community workshops and public presentations. He was also President and Owner of GRC Associates, Inc., an urban planning and redevelopment consulting firm in Southern California. Mr. Oshimo holds a Master of Planning degree from the University of Southern California and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Los Angeles. 135 Attachment 3 Reimbursement agreement with BRE (for reference only) 136 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 6, 2019 AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Continued Business - Public Hearing PROJECT TITLE: Beach Cities Media Campus 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 2021 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 continue the public hearing from the July 16, 2019 meeting 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 20, 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. (EIR) 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. (GPA) 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 ORIGINATED BY: Ethan Edwards, AICP, Contract Planner and Gre McClain, Planning Manager REVIEWED BY: Sam Lee, Director of Planning and Building Safety pa9 !r APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager ®V Ckor 137 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. 2 138 Figure 1 Project LOcation 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). 3. 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-2). The requested rezoning will allow for consistency with the proposed General Plan Amendment 139 4. Development Agreement No. DA 17-02 — DA 17-01 to detail the project parameters, standards and conditions that will govern development of the Project Site (see Exhibit C-1). BACKGROUND The specific background is set forth in the Planning Commission staff reports. Generally, the project would allow: a. Creative office building at 240,000 SF b. Studio and production facilities building with 66,000 SF c. Retail with 7,000 SF d. 1,100 parking spaces in a combination of surface parking, semi -subterranean parking, and a parking structure. The site plan is depicted below in Figure 2, Site Plan. Site Plan Site Plan / Rosecrans Elevation Figure 2 Site Plan RETAIL 5000Gff RETAIL 2,000GSF — =I` E%ISTING ARCIIGHT TH EATER iIS]�NG ANllh f• F,V t CREATVE OFFICE MER VETAIL IM [NC7 -Air ��� _ - erg 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. In addition, the Planning Commission Staff Report stated that Multi -Media offices are prohibited uses, however the Commission noted that such uses would be permitted in the Project. 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. 4 140 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 comment was received after the 45 -day comment period; b) the traffic signal will not be approved by any action as part of this application; c) the exact traffic signal location will be determined following further study and as part of the site plan review process; and d) 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. 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. On July 12, 2019, the Council received supplemental comments to the letter received from Lozeau Drury, LLP, on May 21, 2019. As a result, the public hearing scheduled for July 16, 2019, was continued to August 6, 2019, in order to prepare a response to comments. 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). 5 141 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 El 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 El 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. 2861 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 scheduled a duly advertised public hearing, which was continued to August 6, 2019. On August 6, 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 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, 2019. The City circulated the Draft EIR and the Appendices to the public and other interested parties from March 1, 2019 through April 15, 2019. 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 E. 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; F. 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; G. 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; H. 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; 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 J. 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 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; 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 5: 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 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. 5 SECTION 9: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution. SECTION 10: The City Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to any person requesting a copy. SECTION 11: This Resolution is the City Council's final decision and will become effective immediately upon adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 2019. Drew Boyles, Mayor ATTEST: Tracy Sherrill Weaver, City Clerk Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney LOM EXHIBIT A-1 Proposed 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 /4b EcoTierra c o n s u 1, i n g TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1. The CEQA Process and Public Review of the Draft EIR...........................................I-1 2. Project Description................................................................................................I-3 3. Summary of Environmental Impacts......................................................................I-6 11. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS 1. State, Regional and Local Agencies.......................................................................II-2 2. Organizations and Individuals.............................................................................II-23 3. Comment Letters Received After the Close of the Comment Period ...................11-26 III. REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS ON THE DRAFT EIR...........................III-1 IV. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGAM 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Procedures ............................................... IV -1 2. Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features .............................................. IV -2 Beach Cities Media Campus Project Table of Contents Page LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1, Project Development Summary.................................................................................1-4 Beach Cities Media Campus Project Table of Contents Page ii I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the potential environmental effects of the Proposed Beach Cities Media Campus Project (the "Project") have been analyzed in a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") (SCH No. 2017121035), dated March 2019. This document contains the Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"), as prepared by the Lead Agency, which is the City of EI Segundo Planning Division. Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines lists the contents of the Final EIR: a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the Draft EIR. b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR. d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency. One purpose of the Final EIR is to respond to all comments received by the Lead Agency regarding the environmental information and analyses contained in the Draft EIR. Additionally, any clarifications/corrections to the text, tables, figures, and appendices of the Draft EIR generated either from responses to comments, or independently by the Lead Agency, are stated in the Final EIR in Section III. The Responses to Comments (Section II in this Final EIR) include copies of all letters received during and after the close of the Draft EIR public review period, as described further below, as well as the responses to all comments received on environmental issues. Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the Lead Agency shall adopt a program for monitoring or reporting on the revisions that it has required for the project and the measures it has imposed to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. Section IV, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), describes the mitigation program to be implemented by the Lead Agency. 1. CECIA PROCESS AND PUBLIC REVIEW OF THE DRAFT EIR The City of EI Segundo initiated the City's CEQA review process for the Project through the issuance of a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15082. The NOP for the Project EIR was prepared by the City, and distributed to the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research, responsible agencies, and other interested parties on December 8, 2017. The NOP was also distributed to owners and occupants of properties located within 500 feet of the Project Site. The NOP solicited comments from responsible and trustee agencies, as well as interested parties, on the scope of the EIR. The NOP was circulated for a 30 -day scoping period that ended on January 6, 2018. A public scoping meeting was held on December 18, 2017. Upon completion of the Draft EIR, notice of the public review period was given in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. On March 1, 2019, a Notice of Availability ("NOA") of the Draft EIR, Beach Cities Media Campus Project I. Introduction Page 1-1 City of EI Segundo June 2019 was prepared and distributed to the State Office of Planning and Research, the Los Angeles County Clerk, responsible and trustee agencies, organizations, interested parties, and all parties who requested access to a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with CEQA. The NOA was also distributed to owners and occupants of properties located within 500 feet of the Project Site. The NOA was distributed to the mailing list and email list prepared for the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the scoping stage of the Project before issuance of the Draft EIR, and was augmented to include individuals requested to be added to the list, as well as individuals who had provided comments on the NOP. The NOA and Draft EIR were posted on the Lead Agency's website for viewing and downloading at: httos://www.elsep,undo.org/depts/planningsafetv/r)lanniniz/ Printed copies of the Draft EIR were made available for public viewing at the following locations: ■ City of EI Segundo - Planning and Building Safety Department, 350 Main Street, EI Segundo, CA 90245 ■ EI Segundo Public Library, 111 West Mariposa Avenue, EI Segundo, CA 90245 In summary, the Lead Agency conducted all required noticing and scoping for the Project in accordance with the requirements of Section 15083 of the State CEQA Guidelines, and conducted the public review for the Draft EIR in compliance with the requirements of Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. During the comment period, comments on the Draft EIR were received by the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency has reviewed all comments, and has determined that no substantial new environmental issues have been raised and that all issues raised in the comments have been adequately addressed in the Draft EIR and/or in the Responses to Comments; Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Revisions, Clarifications, and Corrections on the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR concludes that based on the analysis in Section IV (Environmental Impact Analysis) of the Draft EIR, implementation of the Project would result in significant unavoidable environmental impacts relative to: ■ Population, Housing, and Employment (City and regional population and housing demands), and 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). The Final EIR for the Project, dated June 2019, consists of the following documents: ■ Draft EIR and Technical Appendices dated March 2019, Responses to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Revisions, Clarifications, and Corrections on the Draft EIR, which includes: o A list of all persons, organizations, and public agencies that commented as well as the verbatim comments received on the Draft EIR; and o Responses to written comments on the Draft EIR. Beach Cities Media Campus Project I. Introduction Page 1-2 City of EI Segundo June 2019 This document includes the State Clearinghouse letter that documents compliance with CEQA review requirements; comment letters as provided by persons, organizations, and public agencies; and the Lead Agency's responses to all comments. Next Procedural Steps The City of EI Segundo is required to consider and certify a Final EIR only if it exercises its discretion to approve the Project in the future. The Final EIR, and related documents will be filed, along with the City staff's recommendations related to the Project, for consideration by the City of EI Segundo Planning Commission on a future Planning Commission agenda. Consideration of recommendations relating to the Project will be publicly noticed as required by state law. Members of the public can view searchable agendas for scheduled Planning Commission meetings and access agenda -related City information and services directly on the following website: htti3s://www.elseFundo.orR/deots/pfanninFsafety/ap-endas.asn. This site has an email notification service enrollment process for copies of future Planning Commission agendas. The Final EIR document will be posted for viewing and download with the previously posted Draft EIR prior to the City's consideration of the Final EIR and Project recommendations on the same website noted above for the posting of the Draft EIR: htti)s://www.elseFundo.ore/dents/i)lanningsafety/olanninR/. Printed copies of the Final EIR will be provided for public viewing at the same publicly accessible locations used for the distribution of the Draft EIR. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project 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 directly south of the Project Site to the south; and a surface parking lot and commercial uses to the west. The Project Site is currently a vacant lot with a screened chain-link security fence running along the perimeter of the site and along the adjacent roadway. No plantings or trees occur on the Project Site. Temporary landscaping has been installed along the Rosecrans perimeter. Land Use Regulation RSP4, the Applicant desires to change both the General Plan land use designation and zoning of the Property from Commercial Center (C-4) to Urban Mixed Use South (MU -S) and develop the Property with the uses allowed by, and at the development standards set forth in the MU -S zone rather than the C-4 zoning standards, within the development parameters set forth above which will be memorialized in a Development Agreement. 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 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 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 -5 zone. Land uses allowed in the C-4 zone include, but are not limited to, the following: ■ Animal hospitals and veterinary services. • Day spas. • Daycare centers • Farmers' market • Financial institutions Beach Cities Media Campus Project I. Introduction Page 1-3 City of EI Segundo • Fitness centers (indoors only) • General offices • Indoor sale of automobiles, motorcycles, and motor scooters along with the sale of accessories and parts as an accessory use ■ Medical and dental offices ■ Multi -media offices June 2019 • Personal services • Public assembly/assembly halls, including theaters and museums • Recreational facilities • Restaurants and cafes • Retail sales uses (excluding off site alcohol sales Land uses allowed in the MU -S zone include, but are not limited to, the following: • Data centers • Daycare centers • Financial institutions • Fitness centers • General offices • Hotels and motels • Medical -dental offices or facilities • Motion picture/television production facilities (excluding outdoor facilities) • Research and development • Restaurants and cafes • Retail (excluding off site alcohol sales) and wholesale sales and services • Other similar uses approved by the Director, as provided by Chapter 22 of this title. (Ord. 1551, 8-15-2017 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. A discretionary site plan approval will be required A Conceptual Site Plan configuration has been provided for the Beach Cities Media Campus, Figure II -2, Site Plan. The Project would replace an underutilized vacant lot with a mixed use development that would improve the urban design and character of the Project Site, and contribute to and complement the development of the nearby neighboring commercial and office uses. Proposed Development The Beach Cities Media Campus Project includes the development of an approximately five -story, 240,000 square foot creative office building with the option to incorporate a roof deck, a one-story, 66,000 square foot studio and production facilities building, and 7,000 square feet of retail uses in two, one-story structures. The Project would also include a private event plaza. The Project may be a fully secure campus. The studio and production facilities would operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Table 1-1, Conceptual Plan Development Summary, summarizes the proposed land uses. Table 1-1 Project Development Summary Land Use Square Footage Office 240,000 gsf Studio and Production Facilities 66,000 gsf Retail 7,000 gsf Beach Cities Media Campus Project I. Introduction Page 1-4 City of EI Segundo Table 1-1 Project Development Summa I Land Use Mmare Footage Total Proposed Project 313,000 gsf gsf = gross square feet Source: Rosecrans -Sepulveda Partners 4, LLC., August 2017 June 2019 Parking for the Beach Cities Media Campus Project would be provided in multiple areas of the Property. Parking would be provided in an up to seven -story parking structure with above grade and semi-subgrade parking containing 980 parking spaces, a one level below grade structure beneath the office building containing 120 parking spaces, and in surface parking areas elsewhere on the site. Vehicular access to the Project Site would be provided by three driveways; these driveways may be gated to create a secure campus for the Beach Cities Media Campus Project. 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, as shown in Figure II -2, Site Plan. Campus signage opportunities would also be available to the Project. Project signage would be designed to be aesthetically compatible with the proposed architecture of the Project and other signage in the area. Proposed signage would include identity signage, including identity signage at Rosecrans Avenue and South Nash Street, office, retail, and studio tenant signage, and general ground -level and pedestrian directional/wayfinding signage. In general, new signage would be architecturally integrated into the design of the building and would establish appropriate identification for the on-site uses. No off -premise billboard advertising is proposed as part of the Project. Project signage would be illuminated by means of low-level external lighting, internal halo lighting, or ambient light. The Project would not include electronic signage or signs with flashing, mechanical, or strobe lights. Project signage would comply with the ESMC requirements, and any applicable approval processes for signs set forth therein. The character, placement, size and proportions of the Project's proposed signs would be consistent with the ESMC. Any development built on the Project Site will incorporate features to support and promote environmental sustainability and meet or exceed the "Green Building" principles required by the City of EI Segundo Green Building Program, and CalGreen and other City and State regulations. Additionally, the landscaping will comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Project Construction The Project would be constructed over approximately 18 months. Construction would occur five days a week, Monday through Friday, and may take place on Saturdays. Construction activities would include site preparation, grading, excavation, and building construction. Site preparation activities are anticipated to start July 1, 2019. Site Grading activities are anticipated to start August 2019 and end September 2019. Construction would start late September 2019 and construction completion and occupancy is anticipated in 2020. The Project is estimated to require a maximum net export of approximately 35,000 to 49,400 cubic yards of soil. The likely outbound haul route for the Project would be a left turn from the Project Site to head east onto Rosecrans Boulevard, then a right turn onto the 405 Freeway. Exported materials would likely be disposed at Puente Hills Landfill in the City of La Puente. The Project's haul route would be approved by the City as part of its review and approval of the Project's entitlement requests. The City would also approve a Construction Traffic Management Plan to be implemented during construction to minimize potential conflicts between construction activity and through traffic. Beach Cities Media Campus Project I. Introduction Page 1-5 City of EI Segundo Discretionary Actions June 2019 The City of EI Segundo has the principal responsibility for approving the Project. Approvals required for the development of the Project may include, but are not limited to the following: ■ Certification of an Environmental Impact Report for the Project; • Discretionary Site Plan Permit; • Approval of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; • Amend the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan to change the land use designation of the Project Site from Commercial Center to Urban Mixed Use -South; • Amend the City's zoning map to change the zoning of the Project Site from C-4 to MU -S; • Approval of Development Agreement to detail the Project parameters, standards and conditions that will govern development of the Project Site; • Haul route approval (if required); and • Other permits, ministerial or discretionary, that may be necessary in order to execute and implement the Project. The City of EI Segundo is the lead agency for the Project. Responsible agencies may include, without limitation: • South Coast Air Quality Management District, • Regional Water Quality Control Board, • City of Manhattan Beach for Traffic Signal; and • West Basin Municipal Water District 3. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS An Initial Study was prepared for the Project as permitted by CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(d). The Draft EIR evaluates the environmental impacts associated with Project implementation. Based on the Initial Study, and agency and public comments in response to the NOP and a review of environmental issues, the Draft EIR includes analyses of the following environmental topics as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: Based on a review of environmental issues by the Planning Division, this EIR assesses the following environmental impact areas: ■ Air Quality • Cultural Resources (Archaeological, Paleontological) • Geology and Soils ■ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Beach Cities Media Campus Project I. Introduction Page 1-6 City of EI Segundo ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise ■ Population, Housing, and Employment • Public Services • Transportation, Traffic and Parking • Cultural Tribal Resources • Utilities and Service Systems June 2019 Potential environmental effects in the areas of Agricultural Resources, Biological Resources, and Mineral Resources, as well as other specific areas related to the topics listed below, were determined to be either less than significant or no impact, or not applicable, and, therefore, are not evaluated in greater detail in the EIR. These areas are addressed in Section VII, Effects Not Found to be Significant, of the Draft EIR. • Aesthetics (all subtopics); • Agriculture and Forest Resources (all subtopics); • Air Quality (objectionable odors); • Biological Resources (all subtopics); ■ Cultural Resources (historical resources); • Geology and Soils (seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction, landslides, and septic tanks); • Hazards and Hazardous Materials (proximity to schools, public and private airports, and wildland fires); • Hydrology and Water Quality (100 -year flooding and seiche/tsunami/mudflow); • Land Use and Planning (community division and habitat conservation plans); • Mineral Resources (all subtopics); • Noise (public and private airports/airstrips); • Population, Housing and Employment (displacement of existing housing or people); • Public Services (schools, parks, and public facilities); ■ Recreation (all subtopics); ■ Transportation, Traffic and Parking (air traffic patterns and hazardous design features); and Beach Cities Media Campus Project I. Introduction Page 1-7 City of EI Segundo June 2019 ■ Utilities and Service Systems (compliance with statutes and regulations). The Draft EIR analysis in Section IV (Environmental Impact Analysis), indicates that implementation of Project Design Features, Regulatory Requirements, and Mitigation Measures would result in the Project having the following impacts reduced to a level of less than significant: • Paleontological Resources, • Archaeological Resources, ■ Greenhouse Gas Emissions, ■ Hazards and Hazardous Materials, • Hydrology and Water Quality, and • Tribal Cultural Resources. Based on the analysis in Section IV (Environmental Impact Analysis) of the Draft EIR, implementation of the Project would result in significant unavoidable environmental impacts after implementation of feasible mitigation measures relative to: • Population, Housing, and Employment (City and regional population and housing demands), and • 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). Beach Cities Media Campus Project I. Introduction Page 1-8 1 I. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Upon completion of the Draft EIR, notice of the public review period was given in accordance with Section 15087 of the State CEQA Guidelines. On March 1, 2019, a Notice of Availability ("NOA") of the Draft EIR was prepared and distributed to the State Office of Planning and Research, the Los Angeles County Clerk, responsible and trustee agencies, organizations, interested parties, and all parties who requested access to a copy of the Draft EIR in accordance with CEQA. The NOA was also distributed to owners and occupants of properties located within 500 feet of the Project Site. The comments on the Draft EIR were accepted during a 45 -day public review period extending from March 1, 2019 through to April 15, 2019. The NOA was distributed to the mailing list and email list prepared for the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the scoping stage of the Project before issuance of the Draft EIR, and was augmented to include individuals requested to be added to the list, as well as individuals who had provided comments on the NOP. The NOA and Draft EIR were posted on the Lead Agency's website. Letters commenting on the information and analysis in the Draft EIR were received from various parties during the 45 -day public review period (i.e., March 1, 2019 through to April 15, 2019). A total of 11 comment letters were received, including four letters from State, four regional and local agencies, and three letters from organizations and individuals. Four of the comment letters submitted to the City (State Clearinghouse letter number 2, dated April 29, 2019, the Department of Toxic Substances Control letter dated April 5, 2019 received to the State Clearinghouse April 29, 2019, the e-mail letter from Lisa Kranitz dated March 25, 2019, which was added as a comment letter on May 17, 2019; and the letter from Lozeau Drury LLP dated May 21, 2019) are considered late letters that do not require a written response from the City. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15105, the City was legally required to provide a 45 -day public review period on the Draft EIR. The public comment period for the Draft EIR began on March 1, 2019, and ended on April 15, 2019. All comment letters received after expiration of the public review and comment period ending on August 15, 2019, are considered late comments. A Lead Agency is required to consider comments on the Draft EIR and to prepare written responses if a comment is received within the public comment period (Pub. Resources Code, §21091(d); CEQA Guidelines, §15088). When a comment letter is received after the close of the public comment period, however, a Lead Agency does not have an obligation to respond (Pub. Resources Code, §21091(d)(1); Pub. Resources Code, §21092.5(c).). Accordingly, the City is not required to provide a written response to late comment letters, including: the State Clearinghouse letter number 2, dated April 29, 2019; and the Department of Toxic Substances Control letter dated April 5, 2019 received to the State Clearinghouse April 29, 2019, the e-mail letter from Lisa Kranitz dated March 25, 2019, which was added as a comment letter on May 17, 2019; and the letter from Lozeau Drury LLP dated May 21, 2019 (See, CEQA Guidelines,§15088(a)). Nonetheless, for information purposes, the City has elected to respond to these late letters, but without waiving its position that written responses to late comment letters are not required by law. The responses to all comments, are provided below. Responses to State, regional, and local agencies are included in Section 1; responses to organizations and individuals are included in Section 2, and comment letters that were received by the Lead Agency after the end of the review period and are considered late are included in Section 3. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -1 City of EI Segundo June 2019 Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines states that "[t]he lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The Lead Agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments." The CEQA Guidelines call for responses that contain a "good faith, reasoned analysis" with statements supported by factual information. Some of the comments submitted to the Lead Agency, however, were general in nature, stating opinion either in favor of or in opposition to the Project. In such cases, the comment is made a part of the administrative record and will be forwarded to the City's decision makers for their consideration. In accordance with these requirements, this Chapter of the Final EIR provides a good faith, reasoned analysis and responds to each of the written comments on environmental issues received regarding the Draft EIR during the comment periods. Each comment letter is provided first and is bracketed in the right margin, sequentially numbered (e.g., 1, 2). Following the bracketed comment letter, responses are presented in corresponding order to provide a matching numbered response on the pages following each comment letter. 1. STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES Comment letters from State, regional and local agencies consisted of: • State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, April 16, 2019 • State of California, Department of Transportation, April 15, 2019 • South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 10, 2019 • County of Los Angeles, Fire Department, March 28, 2019 • County of Los Angeles, County Sanitation Districts, April 15, 2019 • City of Manhattan Beach, April 15, 2019 Responses to the comments in these letters are provided below, after each letter. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -2 LAk4#*C pi.IFQRNIA mownT nTwr—o� C rt () �yt�at•t•h ` r it t�" i1�' •ft'��F OT LAt�a' ooravc rl ,r ,�nryt 1 ,;Y itivlt�}t�1'1 xt. C;rS craur n,pr it lit. 209 j'thalt 1_dWarJ< GI t,ittlu, C tty ttV 3111 �vl:titl Strt'UL tllO aS FYC► t Cl eeltn+l'', (A ' tvlt li,t C ulttpu,l ) ►cit l�ilteti tiUhJt�t' vr` V'- 1 ittv1., (, 111x ��. N� i.. r n h;tt cict 1c'� sl:tl' ti►tttC , 1 Cl' li+ • ►. Itstcd tllc .. 1114 Y , p I:d�aatci� ►hc>vc1tu4t1 �Ilt 11:: j 1lratt ,ht�u;c it►c from icy ` L),ar 1 Iht t. Llcaritt3 th4 cunullc t t�mtl;ctl►1? t 1 tit �•1hnUllt:` ,tC Ihal 111' )(11`). i1r1J ,1 lh�l �t ti 11 Ihl: t t . ,a tt l l: ' ' ' ,1't ►� i� a tit'. 11t ' 15 �.• SIIJ ;15C • . j l ll'Urltl�til +Ur r�tllC4al to the p(t).je '11:c tita14 _ t1t l?clans ltclh 4ri.x1 clas,,t} teri�r �t. :� rt:lcr 1,�uut- I Itc n,.icw P t►.lt,thst;,t: ► 1 h .t t5ilo:;�t; i. - J4tLti1y1C}lt. titt llir C-1-C1A 1 1 l i 1 �r►It arintilt+•U" inllttcJi�1 �n+y'rc`lh'tk1 lrt, It It v rcvic�'•`c` Iattl itY;;il;thl' 1;14 Skit,: Ihstt w� ' tt: Ilc,l ►` the ctt4•t nt to , ll►. ai'.c'4n.y 1. twc 1tt11iCY `4�n.t.�;tKnitl" a t;`t+Jt% sot not ;l, ortler. P '-' �ttttire ,t,un . trJiac Ill, Sc IUh,ta IZc: a IV". .. , :ac C karinglH�'1 `� 1111tn1?Cr 111 ,5f llle Calivot111;1 1 �•(zR11114t1t'(11 �Nh suh,l:tttt,�r ,C lite aj�cttcy il hY �l j,l•Il '1 1•,1:c • ort+: t yl� ase ;� rc. �P t�..ntsi►ui�„h�ltle ,hctt ,lhrtttr1 t �Plutl,�1lrit:51aiit`,rnvhctl l� Y wll1riotthni1nY n ' ht,cr h:►11 Il s ittt atctttlACtitS arc of 9-1:t;1 proleul`p nclttal Ilaj �11,;irUn �•ilic- ttitl4aLint► a ll Llt tic C 1rYtt t Vt111r t1r cl: uirctl , ” e lit tre211, ,cnlalitnt rctl.rc i►tl'< tic+t umcnt;}ttut • my fur a cti lilt ;I,� cift uiti Y�'v n4 ,encN. direr 1Y. ta►letse for subinlited �alnme cltlluttcltlinl: ati- ;ttr (;� d cu. ,uv12111'11 w rcyuirt•ntrlll.' the ('� ,t.Utt• tc�ic �tOle Cher t t11` 1,at Vt►t► cutttatl the ►tinl;Itnusc t'ie: 1 �1u:r114 Act. I,crultltlent► t ct:ttc 1 t v;, •.. dlrt0lt. wC the • tl +fit►t 11l"a i11111P u1u111Cttlti ,tic ria j +lvir.,tutt` ,the t'lrti ir; ill !11t' , eve tt1lRi .tlitttrl rcl!.tll'�i1t� 4;11' 11l Lt) tilt' l . c110 1 1101 Icl r1t4��1c c tti rSIIC: tirt� ;SItY � it,�lltllCil ' ' + t ii `ri,�t Il:► (h:1t1 411' It ti11{tttalldl � tllfl►'1•y. til,llt: t Il':151[14'.11ttiilyt.:iL l S'11;, 4 rely �. y f f*rlti t t` t 41r. r>~•1�1 ,, . 4ri:;;�h..tlst� 1}►rcctot. 5t;ttz t- it:: 1 .,,iUrec. ;.I . ,I ►.!IIG.115111'�13 1.nttt'11;V' City of EI Segundo Comment Letter No. 1 State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 April 16, 2019 Response to Comment 1-1 June 2019 This comment is a standard response from the State Clearinghouse of Planning and Research acknowledging the Draft EIR was sent to State agencies for review, and that the Draft EIR is in compliance with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents. The comment 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, (see Comment Letter No. 2). The comments contained in this letter are responded to in Responses 2-1 through 2-10. Beach Cities Media Campus Project Page II -4 II. Response to Comments STATE OF CALIFORNIA—CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 7 100 S. MAIN STREET, MS16 LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PHONE (213) 897-6536 FAX (213) 897-1337 TTY 711 www.dot.ca,9ov April 15, 2019 Mr. Ethan Edwards, AICP City of EI Segundo 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Mr. Edwards: Comment Letter No. Z Gavin Newsom. Governor K1 A'4r� Making Conservation a California Way of Life. RE: Beach Cities Media Campus Project Vic. LA-01/PM 23.925, LA-405/PM 19.23 SCH # 2017121035 Ref. GTS # LA -2017 -01260 -NOP GTS # LA-2017-02346-DEIR Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above referenced project. The proposed Project proposes to develop office, retail, and studio and production facilities on an approximately 6.39 -acre site. 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. The Project would also provide 1,100 parking spaces. The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. Senate Bill 743 (2013) mandated that CEQA review of transportation impacts of proposed development be modified by using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts for all future development projects. For future project, you may reference to The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for more information. http://opr.ca.gov/cega/uiDdates/quidelines/ Caltrans is aware of challenges that the region faces in identifying viable solutions to alleviating congestion on State and Local facilities. With limited room to expand vehicular capacity, future development should incorporate multi -modal and complete streets transportation elements that will actively promote alternatives to car use and better manage existing parking assets. Prioritizing and allocating space to efficient modes of travel such as bicycling and public transit can allow streets to transport more people in a fixed amount of right-of-way. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" 1 2 Mr. Ethan Edwards April 15, 2019 Page 2 Caltrans supports the implementation of complete streets and pedestrian safety measures such as road diets and other traffic calming measures. Please note the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recognizes the road diet treatment as a proven safety 4 countermeasure, and the cost of a road diet can be significantly reduced if implemented in tandem with routine street resurfacing. We encourage the Lead Agency to integrate transportation and land use in a way that reduces Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by facilitating the provision of more proximate goods and services to shorten trip lengths, and achieve a high level of non -motorized travel and transit use. We also encourage the Lead 5 Agency to evaluate the potential of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications in order to better manage the transportation network, as well as transit service and bicycle or pedestrian connectivity improvements. After reviewing the Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project based on Level of Service (LOS), Caltrans has the following comments: 1. From the Proposed Beach Cities Media Campus Project DEIR dated on March 1, 6 2019, it was stated that the project would generate net 2,833 daily trips and 333/309 AM/PM peak hour trips per Table IV.K-3 Project Trip Generation. 2. Caltrans concurs with the concept of mitigation measure MM K-5 at Intersection 24. 1-405 Northbound on/off-ramps & Rosecrans Avenue shown on page IV.K-48, "This mitigation involves restriping the northbound off -ramp lanes from two lefts and one 7 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." 3. A Caltrans encroachment permit will be required to implement the improvement. A Permit Review Engineering Report (PEER) and intersection operational analysis for 8 the intersection improvement will be required as part of the encroachment permit application. Any modification must meet all design standard and specifications. 4. Storm water run-off is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles and Ventura counties. Please be mindful that projects should be designed to discharge clean run-off water. 9 Additionally, discharge of storm water run-off is not permitted onto State highway facilities without any storm water management plan. "Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and eMcient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" Mr. Ethan Edwards April 15, 2019 Page 3 5. Transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials, which requires the use of oversized -transport vehicles on State highways, will require a transportation permit from Caltrans. It is recommended that large size truck trips be limited to off- peak commute periods. 10 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Alan Lin the project coordinator at (213) 897-8391 and refer to GTS # 07-LA-2017-02346AL-DEIR. Sincerely, MIYA EDMONSON IGR/CEQA Branch Chief cc: Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability" City of EI Segundo Comment Letter No. 2 State of California Department of Transportation District 7 -Office of Regional Planning Miya Edmonson, IGR/CEQA Acting Branch Chief 100 South Main Street, MS 16 Los Angeles, CA 90012 April 15, 2019 Response to Comment 2-1 June 2019 The comment accurately describes the Project as an introduction to the comments on the Draft EIR that follow. Response to Comment 2-2 The comment states that the mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe, sustainable, integrated efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. The comment also states Senate Bill 743 (2013) mandated that CEQA review of transportation impacts of proposed development be modified by using Vehicle Miles Traveled. 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. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Response to Comment 2-3 The comment states that Caltrans is aware of the challenges that the region faces in identifying viable solutions to alleviating congestion on State and Local facilities. 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. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Response to Comment 2-4 The comment states that Caltrans supports the implementation of complete streets and pedestrian safety measures such as road diets. 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. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Response to Comment 2-5 The comment states that they encourage the Lead Agency to integrate transportation and land use in a way that reduces Vehicle Miles Traveled (VTM) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG), and to evaluate the potential of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies and the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). As discussed in Section IV.D, Greenhouse Gas, page IV.D-41 of the Draft EIR, the Project would be consistent with the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan's emission reduction goals which focus on building efficiency standards and transportation improvements. The Project, which is located in a Transit Priority Area and near transit opportunities, is within walking distance of nearby retail and entertainment destinations. Additionally, the Project would provide bicycle storage areas for Project employees. These Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -8 City of EI Segundo June 2019 characteristics would reduce VMTs. In addition, the reduction of VMTs and the increase in energy efficiency, would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with the goals outlined in the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Furthermore as discussed in Section IV. K, Transportation, Traffic and Parking, page IV.K-46 of the Draft EIR, the Project would include TDM strategies to discourage single -occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation, thus further reducing VMT's. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Response to Comment 2-6 This comment states that the Project would generate net 2,833 daily trips and 333/309 AM/PM peak hour trips per Table IV.K-3 Project Trip Generation. The commenter accurately describes the Project. Response to Comment 2-7 The commenter concurs with the concept of mitigation measure MM K-5 at Intersection 24: 1-405 Northbound on/off ramps & Rosecrans Avenue as shown on page IV.K-48 of the Draft EIR. The commenter accurately describes the mitigation measure. Response to Comment 2-8 The comment states a Caltrans encroachment permit is required to implement the improvement, and a Permit Review Engineering Report (PEER) and intersection operational analysis for the intersection improvement will be required as part of the encroachment permit application. The Project will comply with any Caltrans permit requirements regarding encroachment. Response to Comment 2-9, The comment states storm water run-off is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. The comment states discharge of storm water run-off is not permitted onto State highway facilities without any storm water management plan. The Project will comply with any Caltrans storm water management plan. Response to Comment 2-10 The comment states that transportation of heavy equipment and/or oversized vehicles on State highways requires a permit from Caltrans and recommends that such activity be limited to off-peak commute periods. The Project will comply with any Caltrans permit requirements regarding transportation of equipment or materials. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -9 Comment Letter No. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 f (909) 396-2000 - www.agmd.gov SENT VIA E-MAIL AND USPS: April 10, 2019 E Ed,,va rdsicr�e 1 s eew>!do.o rg Ethan Edwards, AICP. Contract Planner City of El Segundo, Planning and Building Safety Development Planning Division 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Draft Envi ron in ental Impact Reiiort (Draft E1R1 for the Proposed Beach Citiex Media Campus Proiect (SCH No.: 20171210351 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff appreciates the opportunity to continent on the above-mentioned document_ The following colmments are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the Final EIR. SCAOMD Staff's Sunum m of Proicct DescriDtion The Lead Agency proposes to construct four buildings with office and retail uses totaling 313,000 square feet on 6.39 acres (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project is located at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue on the northeast corner of Rosecrans Avenue and Village Drive in the City of El Segundo. Based on a review of the Draft EIR, SCAQMD staff found that historically the site was previously developed with an air gas 1 manufacturing plant from 1969 through 20161. As a result of historical usage, soil at the site was found to be impacted with total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs), lead. PCBs, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Impacted soil was removed from the site to the levels required for cominercial development. and a letter of No Further Action was issued in August 20173. Groundwater remedial action appears to be ongoing'. Compliance with SCAQMD Rules & Permits Since the Proposed Project includes grading and site preparation activities that might cause residual TPHs, lead, PCBs. and VOCs to become airborne during constriction. and in addition to a discussion on SCAQMD Rule 1166 — Volatile Organic Compounds from Decontamination of Soil. the Lead Agency, should include a discussion to demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1466 — Control of Particulate Emissions from Soils with Toxic Air Contaminants' in the Air Qualitv Section of the Final ETR. among the list of other applicable SCAQMD Rules. If on-site groundwater remediation or any on- site activity would involve equipment or operations, which either emits or controls air pollution, SCAQMD Engineering and Permitting staff should be consulted in advance to detennine whether or not 2 any permits or plans are required to be filed and approved by SCAQMD prior to the start of any remedial activities or operations. In the event that implementation of the Proposed Project requires a permit from SCAQMD. the Lead Agency should identify SCAQMD as a Responsible Agency for the Proposed Project in the Final EIR. Emissions from penuitled equipment should be quantified and added to the Proposed Project's construction and operational emissions, where applicable, to determine the leve] of significance. Any assumptions in the Air Quality Analysis in the Final EIR will be used as the basis for DraA FIR. Hazards and Ilazardous Materials. Page IV.F':.l - 1V.IL3_ Ibid 3 ]bid. Draft EIR Appendices. Appendix 1 .1. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment. Pages 738-786, South Const .lir Quality Management District. Rule 1466 Control of Particulate Emissions from Soils with Toxic !lir Contaminants. Accessed at: It11ns wwlv_agmd.e%n'edocs delault-sciurcurule-I)ook�ree-xiverutc-i406 pdt'. Ethan Edwards April 10, 2019 permit conditions and limits. For more information on permits, please visit SCAQMD's webpage at: 2 cont. httn:/!w%vw.aumd.aov/home/hermits. Questions on permits can be directed to SCAQMD's Engineering and Permitting staff at (909) 396-3385. Conclusion Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(b), SCAQMD staff requests that the Lead Agency provide SCAQMD staff with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the certification of the Final EIR. In addition, issues raised in the comments should be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions are not accepted. There should be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(c)). Conclusory 3 statements do not facilitate the purpose and goal of CEQA on public disclosure and are not meaningful, informative, or useful to decision makers and to the public who are interested in the Proposed Project. SCAQMD staff is available to work with the Lead Agency to address any air quality questions that may arise fiom this comment letter. Please contact Alina Mullins, Assistant Air Quality Specialist, at amullinsnaumd.p-ov or (909) 396-2402, should you have any questions. LS:AM LAC190305-07 Control Number Sincerely, .fey S" Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources 2 City of EI Segundo Comment Letter No. 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District Planning, Rule Development & Area Sources Lijin Sun, J.D. Program Supervisor, CEQA IGR 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 April 10, 2019 Response to Comment 3-1 June 2019 The comment accurately describes the Project as an introduction to the comments on the Draft EIR that follow. Resoonse to Comment 3-2 The commenter 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. The commenter is referred to Section III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR. W.A. Air Quality, pages IV.A-12 through IV.A-13 have been revised. Inclusion of these revisions do not affect the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR and therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required. The commenter states that the project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1166 and Rule 1466. This comment is noted. The project applicant would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1166 and Rule 1466 because these are existing regulatory requirements. The commenter states 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 by the SCAQMD. The project applicant would comply with SCAQMD Engineering and Permitting staff. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Resoonse to Comment 3-3 The commenter requests the Lead Agency provide SCAQMD with written responses to all comments prior to the certification of the Final EIR. The Lead Agency will provide the SCAQMD with a copy the responses to their comments prior to certification of the Final EIR. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -12 DARYL L OSBY FIRE CHIEF FORESTER 8 FIRE WARDEN March 28, 2019 comment Letter No.4 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 (323)881-2401 www.fire.lacounty.gov "Proud Protectors of Life, Property, and the Environment" Ethan Edwards, Contract Planner City of EI Segundo Planning and Building Safety Department 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Mr. Edwards: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HILDA L. SOLIS FIRST DISTRICT MARK RIDLEY-THOMAS SECOND DISTRICT SHEILA KUEHL THIRD DISTRICT JANICE HAHN FOURTH DISTRICT KATHRYN BARGER FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, "BEACH CITIES MEDIA CAMPUS PROJECT," PROPOSES TO DEVELOP OFFICE, RETAIL, AND STUDIO AND PRODUCTION FACILITIES ON AN APPROXIMATELY 6.39 -ACRE SITE, 2021 ROSECRANS AVENUE, EL SEGUNDO, FFER 201900019 The Notice of Availability of an Environmental Impact Report has been reviewed by the Planning Division, Land Development Unit, Forestry Division, and Health Hazardous Materials Division of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department. The following are their comments: PLANNING DIVISION: The subject property is entirely within the City of EI Segundo, which is not a part of the emergency response area of the Los Angeles County Fire Department (also known as the Consolidated Fire Protection District of Los Angeles County). Therefore, this project does not appear to have any impact on the emergency responsibilities of this Department. 1 For any questions regarding this response, please contact Loretta Bagwell, Planning Analyst, at (323) 881-2404 or Loretta. Bagwell@ fire.lacountv.gov. SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: GOURA HILLS CALABASAS EL MONTEINDUSTRY LAWNDALE PARAMOUNT SIGNAL HILL SOUTH ELMONTE RTESIA CARSON GARDENA INGLEWOOD LOMITA PICO RIVERA POMONA SOUTH GATE ZUSA ALDWIN PARK CERRITOS CLAREMONT GLENDORA HAWAIIAN GARDENS IRWINDALE LA CANADA -FLINT RIDGE LYNWOOD MALIBU RANCHO PALOS VERDES TEMPLE CRY ELL COMMERCE HAWTHORNE LAHABRA MAYWOOD ROLLING HILLS WALNUT ELL GARDENS COVINA HERMOSA BEACH LA MIRADA NORWALK ROLLING HILLS ESTATES WEST HOLLYWOOD BELLFLOWER CUDAHY HIDDEN HILLS LA PUENTE PALMDALE ROSEMEAD WESTLAKE VILLAGE RADBURY DIAMOND BAR HUNTINGTON PARK LAKEWOOD PALOS VERDES ESTATES SAN DIMAS WHITTIER DUARTE LANCASTER SANTA CLARITA Ethan Edwards, Contract Planner March 28, 2019 Page 2 LAND DEVELOPMENT UNIT: This project is located entirely in the City of EI Segundo. Therefore, the City of EI Segundo Fire Department has jurisdiction concerning this project and will be setting conditions. This project is located in close proximity to the jurisdictional area of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. However, this project is unlikely to have an impact that necessitates a comment concerning general requirements from the Land Development Unit of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. 2 Should any questions arise regarding subdivision, water systems, or access, please contact the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Land Development Unit's, Inspector Nancy Rodeheffer at (323) 890-4243. The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Land Development Unit appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. FORESTRY DIVISION -- OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: The statutory responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division include erosion control, watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, archeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. Potential impacts in these areas should be addressed. 3 The County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division has no further comments regarding this project. For any questions regarding this response, please contact Forestry Assistant, Kelly Kim at (818) 890-5719. HEALTH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVISION: The Health Hazardous Materials Division of the Los Angeles County Fire Department has no jurisdiction in the City of EI Segundo. Please contact HHMD senior typist -clerk, Perla Garcia at (323) 890-4035 or 4 Perla.aarciaWire. lacountv.eov if you have any questions. If you have any additional questions, please contact this office at (323) 890-4330. Ethan Edwards, Contract Planner March 28, 2019 Page 3 Very truly yours, MICHAEL Y. TAKESHITA, ACTING CHIEF, FORESTRY DIVISION PREVENTION SERVICES BUREAU MYT:ac City of EI Segundo Comment Letter No. 4 County of Los Angeles Fire Department Prevention Services Bureau Michael Y. Takeshita, Acting Chief, Forestry Division 1320 North Eastern Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90063-3294 March 28, 2019 Response to Comment 4-1 June 2019 The comment states the Project is located within the City of EI Segundo and is not part of the emergency area of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The comment states the project does not appear to have any impact on the emergency responsibilities of the Department. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Response to Comment 4-2 The comment states the Project is located within the City of EI Segundo. The comment states the Project is unlikely to have an impact that necessitates a comment from the Land Development Unit of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Response to Comment 4-3 The comment states the responsibilities of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department's Forestry Division include erosion control , watershed management, rare and endangered species, vegetation, fuel modification for Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, archaeological and cultural resources, and the County Oak Tree Ordinance. The comment states potential impacts in these areas should be addressed. The commenter is referred to the Draft EIR Sections, IV.B Cultural Resources, IV.F Hydrology and Water Quality, and Section VII. Effects Not Found to be Significant for a discussion of the above issue areas. Response to Comment 4-4 The comment states the Health and Hazardous Materials Division of Los Angeles County Fire Department has no jurisdiction in the City of EI Segundo. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -16 SONG WASTE MANAGEMENT Comment Letter No. 5 COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY '1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601-1400 Mailing Address: P_O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607-4998 Telephone: (562) 699-741 1, FAX (5621 699-5422 www.locsd.org Mr. Ethan Edwards, AICP Contract Planner Planning Division City of El Segundo 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Mr. Edwards: GRACE ROBINSON HYDE Chief Engineer and Generai Manager April 15, 2019 Ref. Doc. No.: 4949636 DEIR Response to Beach Cities Media Campus Proiect The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts) received a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the subject project on March 4, 2019. The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 5. Previous comments submitted by the Districts in correspondence dated December 26, 2017 (copy enclosed) still apply to the subject project with the following updated information: 1 1. Wastewater Treatment Facilities, page IV?1121, top of page — The Joint Water Pollution Control Plant currently processes an average flow of 261.1 million gallons per day (mgd). 2. Operation, page IV.M-25, Table 1V.M.21 — Based on the information provided in the table, the 2 expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project is 70,075 gallons per day. 3. All other information concerning Districts' facilities and sewerage service contained in the 3 document is current. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2717. AR:ar Enclosure cc: A. Schmidt A. Howard DOC 5015032 D05 Very truly yours, driana Raza Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department i' _. .•• ;4RV�ul ut .I COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY '955 'Horkman trill Rood, Whittiei, CA 90601-1400 Moiling Aadrn�,: P.0 Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607.4998 Telep une. j5621 699-7411, FAX: (5621 699-5422 www ocsd.org Mr. Ethan Edwards, A1CP Contract Planner Planning Division City of El Segundo 350 Main Street EI Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Mr, Edwards: GRACE ROBINSON HYDE Chief Engineer cnd Generol Manoger December 26, 2017 Ref. Doc. No.: 4380003 NCil' )Response for the Beach Cities Media Campus Proiect The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (Districts) received a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject project on December 11, 2017, The proposed project is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of District No. 5. We offer the following comments regarding sewerage service: The wastewater flow originating from the proposed proicct ,vill discharge to a local sewer line, which is not maintained by the Districts, for conveyance to the Districts' Aviation Boulevard Relief Trunk Sewer, located in Aviation Boulevard at Rosecrans Avenue. The Districts' 27 -inch diameter trunk sewer has a capacity of 8.7 million gallons per day (mgd) and conveyed a peak Flow of 1.6 mgd when last measured in 2011. 2, The wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant located in the City of Carson, which has a capacity of 400 mgd and currently produces an average recycled water flow of 253.4 mgd. 3. The expected increase in average wastewater flow from the project, described in the notice as a 313,000 square foot media campus, is 62,118 gallons per day, after all structures on the project site are demolished. For a copy of the Districts' average wastewater generation factors, go to www.lacsd.org, Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and click on the 'fable 1, Loadintits for Each Classo Land Ijse link. 4. The Districts are empowered by the California Health and Safety Code to charge a fee for the privilege of connecting (directly or indirectly) to the Districts' Sewerage System for increasing the strength or quantity of wastewater discharged from connected facilities. This connection fee is a capital facilities fee that is imposed in an amount sufficient to construct an incremental expansion of the Sewerage System to accommodate the proposed project. Payment of a connection fee will be required before a permit to connect to the sewer is issued. For more information and a copy of the Connection Fee Information Sheet, go to wv, ��.laesd.org, DOC A4391639 DOS Mr. Ethan Edwards -2- December 26, 2017 Wastewater & Sewer Systems, click on Will Serve Program, and search for the appropriate link. In determining the impact to the Sewerage System and applicable connection fees, the Districts' Chief Engineer and General Manager will determine the user category (e.g. Condominium, Single Family home, etc.) that best represents the actual or anticipated use of the parcel or facilities on the parcel. For more specific information regarding the connection fee application procedure and fees, please contact the Connection Fee Counter at (562) 9084288, extension 2727. In order for the Districts to conform to the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the capacities of the Districts' wastewater treatment facilities are based on the regional gro'Alli forecast adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG). Specific policies included in the development of the SCAG regional growth forecast are incorporated into clean air plans, which are prepared by the South Coast and Antelope Valley Air Quality Management Districts in order to improve air quality in the South Coast and Mojave Desert Air Basins as mandated by the CCA. All expansions of Districts' facilities must be sized and service phased in a manner that will be consistent with the SCAG regional growth forecast for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. The available capacity of die Districts' treatment facilities will, therefore, be limited to levels associated with the approved growth identified by SCAG. As such, this letter does not constitute a guarantee of wastewater service, but is to advise you that the Districts intend to provide this service up to the levels that are legally permitted and to inform you of the currently existing capacity and any proposed expansion of the Districts' facilities. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (562) 908-4288, extension 2717. Very truly yours, CAdriana Raza Customer Service Specialist Facilities Planning Department AR:ar cc: A. Schmidt M. Tatalovich DOC: 4.1391639 M5 City of EI Segundo Comment Letter No. 5 County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County Facilities Planning Department Adriana Raza, Customer Service Specialist 1955 Workman Mill Road Whitter, CA 90601-1400 April 15, 2019 Response to Comment 5-1 June 2019 The comment provides suggested corrections to Section IV.M, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, page IV.M-21. The correction is included in this Final EIR in Section III Revisions, Clarification, and Corrections on the Draft EIR. The correction relates to the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant's average flow of 261.1 million gallons per day. Inclusion of this correction would not change the Draft EIR's determination that impacts related to wastewater would be less than significant. Response to Comment 5-2 The comment provides suggested corrections to Section IV.M, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, page IV.M-25, Table IV.M.2.1. The correction is included in this Final EIR in Section III Revisions, Clarification, and Corrections on the Draft EIR. The correction relates to the average wastewater flow from the project of 70,075 gallons per day. Inclusion of this correction would not change the Draft EIR's determination that impacts related to wastewater would be less than significant. Resnonse to Comment 5-3 The comment states all other information concerning the Districts facilities and sewerage service contained in the document is current. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision -makers for review and consideration. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -20 Comment Letter No. 6 From: Gana L. Gtrlaar egenaG@rsgengr,corro Sent Tuesday, April 16, 2019 5:40 AM To: Jenny Mailhot: Craig Fajnor Subjoot: FW: EIR for 2201 Rosecrans Ave FYI Gone Gul aar. AICP Contract Planner City ❑I EI Sopunao—Plan %r�nn� illimm Sarvly Glvisaoi1 &LMUq 1310) 524 231 canana rxnnw.gr From: Edwards, Ethan <sedwards®elsegundo.org7 Sent: Monday, April 15. 2019 9.55 PM T9: Gena I_ Glitter cganaG%lcagengt Oomr Subject: Fwd' EIR for 2201 Rosecrans Ave ethan Edwards, AICP, Planner City of 9 Seprida • Plall�nn hyuap;llg $MG1S Plsnnmo L7'vl tion [3 i0; 5. A-'r314f1 Begin forwarded message: From: Eric Haaland <6 29 35 PMI : 'm�> Date: Apra 15. 20 19 a16m4 35 M CST To. '6??d*Pv q.r1.0.19rit%Inikl LV a e2gwal rl2'a map-11tlfru b[to Ct Erik Zandv�islc �4nalrt'• atdmrl Inla> Subject: SR 1br 220Y Rosecrans A. Hi Ethan, I have s couple typo comments as follows- . The top paragraph on Page II -8 uses the phrase "maximum of 25 bicycle spaces , where It appears It should say minimum of 25 bicycle spaces'. • For related pro12G5, the statistics for 1000 N Sepulveda were contused with 707 N. Sepulveda, and should be per the table below (also an updated number of restaurant seals for 707 N. Sepulveda! 1 Eric Haaland Associate Planner I � - IA •Tlr1 r, AY • �•1'1Fn I+rr.,rcv V,uM •'n fa* ria, I4frn�•Yw rv.1�iln=I1='• Pw th Manhattan Bean' Here for you 24/7, use our click and Fix it app Download the mobile app now r7 a mt.u• 04:4 [W Ing W Ales orncs 73 1- r sa A k:I .WV" NM, V k [ i+1'Lr Yl t • na may 3 r cuIIWn91'mml 1 IA@ Aldi. Jere fru. Jm , 180d N Srw vada E -- {1rr'sr".M I I1! r.. i pSa�n 1,M11 j nM S,,,In H5 9i flip .4, Y, n' 4aTJM nprt :n l: SmC4 -540 G`,i 1p R1^.L ,J' 1 16971 Lrr.". n, t f.A IM 45:11 I'M c'll ,�3' 2kw" t ws'r� wM 26 �x }598 SUS ,sacs ;4 2t E3 ¢0 '.7 157 SuPe,ms'I.a: v.cal.• 1 r.Q311Yry4 ((VraYjGY. �6YYr�Jn fr(Iln l?S/1 HanA a ll4 3'. 30 ][ fk iJI11nR.4U�(1' JOIN I.tE 7r7N SeplyeVu el m'd Rat.W.I& 6olland wAgl KA" if Why xV o Plua nw•, l aO krsleurenl '10 50 10 Sti :I $7 %nl, un,W T.ra IL te*w4m MOD 411,10 Cd 'cal 4511 1911 1i)3• '641 ,1?5' r'.s "LUII Eric Haaland Associate Planner I � - IA •Tlr1 r, AY • �•1'1Fn I+rr.,rcv V,uM •'n fa* ria, I4frn�•Yw rv.1�iln=I1='• Pw th Manhattan Bean' Here for you 24/7, use our click and Fix it app Download the mobile app now City of EI Segundo Comment Letter No. 6 City of Manhattan Beach Eric Haaland, Associate Planner 1400 Highland Avenue Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 April 15, 2019 Response to Comment 6-1 June 2019 The comment provides suggested corrections to Section II, Project Description, of the Draft EIR, page II -8. The correction is included in this Final EIR in Section III. Revisions, Clarification, and Corrections on the Draft EIR. The correction relates to the number of bicycle spaces. Inclusion of this correction would not change the Draft EIR's determination. The comment provides suggested 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. The correction is included in this Final EIR in Section III. Revisions, Clarification, and Corrections on the Draft EIR. The correction reflects a reduction in the square footage and intensity of one related project, and a reduction in the number of restaurant seats for a second related project. These corrections would not affect the traffic analysis, which would conservatively overstate these related projects' traffic generation as a result. Inclusion of this correction would not change the Draft EIR's determination. Below is an e-mail from Mr. Steven Keith, the traffic engineer with Fehr & Peers which provides further response clarification to the City of Manhattan Beach comment. Steven Keith <S.Keith @fehrandpeers.com> Mon 4/29, 3:46 PM Jenny Mailhot; Tom Gaul <T.Gaul@fehrandpeers.com> Hi Jenny, Thanks for sending over the transportation comments. Below are our responses: Caltrans --- The developer will comply with the Caltrans requests regarding the proposed mitigation at Intersection 24:1-405 NB on/off-ramps & Rosecrans Avenue. A Permit Review Engineering Report (PEER) and intersection operational analysis for the improvement will be conducted in order to receive a Caltrans encroachment permit and prior to any construction. Stormwater and heavy construction equipment will also be monitored to comply with Caltrans standards. Manhattan Beach --- The related project comment does not impact any additional tables except for the one attached. It was just a typo in regards to 1000 N. Sepulveda land uses. This does not change any of the analysis. I have tracked the changes in the attached table (the red text reflects the old inputs that are incorrect). I do not think any response is needed beyond a corrections and additions citation. Please let us know if you have any questions. Best, Steven Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -22 City of EI Segundo June 2019 2. ORGANIZATION AND INDIVIDUALS Comment letters from community organizations and individuals include: r Lozeau Drury, LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental ("SAFER"), April 12, 2019 Responses to the comments in these letters are provided below, after each letter. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -23 DRURY,.: T 510.836.4200 F 510.836.4205 Via Email and U.S. Mail April 12, 2019 Ethan Edwards, Contract Planner Planning and Building Safety Dept. Planning Division City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 eedwards,l elseeundo.ore Comment Letter No. 7 1939 Harrison Street. Ste 150 www lozeaudrury.com Oakland. CA 94612 r1r_hardin1ozeaudrurycorn Gregg McClain, Planning Manager Planning and Building Safety Dept. Planning Division City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 amcclain(a).elseeundo.org Re: Comment on Draft Environmental Impact Report, Beach Cities Media Center Project aka State Clearinghouse #2017121035 and EA -1201 Dear Mr. Edwards and Mr. McClain: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental ("SAFER") regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") prepared for the Project known as Beach Cities Media Center Project aka EA -1201 and State Clearinghouse #2017121035, including all actions related or referring to the proposed development of an approximately five -story, 240,000 square foot office building, a one-story, 66,000 square foot studio and production facilities building, and 7,000 square foot of retail uses in two, one-story structures with parking provided in a seven story parking structure with above grade and below grade parking containing 980 parking spaces, one level below grade parking in the office building containing 120 parking spaces, in addition to a linuted amount of surface parking located at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 4138-015-064. After reviewing the DEIR, we conclude that the DEIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project's impacts. SAFER request that the Planning Division address these shortcomings in a revised draft environmental impact report ("RDEIR") and recirculate the RDEIR prior to considering approvals for the Project. We reserve the right to supplement these comments during review of the Final EIR for the Project and at public hearings concerning the Project. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997). Sincerely, Richard Drury 1 2 City of El Segundo Comment Letter No. 7 Lozeau Drury LLP Richard Drury on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental ("SAFER") (sic) 1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150 Oakland, CA 94612 April 12, 2019 Resoonse to Comment 7-1 June 2019 The comment states the letter is written on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental ("SAFER") (sic). The comment introduces provides a summary description of the Project. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for review and consideration. Resoonse to Comment 7-2 The comment suggests the Draft EIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose feasible mitigation measure to reduce the Project's impacts, but provides no specifics. 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. The comment states it reserves the right to supplement the comments during the review of the Final EIR for the Project 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. Furthermore, and contrary to the allegation in this comment, the Draft EIR complied fully with all of CEQA's requirements. The comment presents no substantial evidence to the contrary about any specific impact area. As provided in Section 15064(f)(5), unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. Since the commenter provides no substantial evidence regarding the alleged inadequacy of the Draft EIR, the claims contained in the comment letter would provide no basis for changes to the Draft EIR. The general allegations in this comment will be forwarded to the decision -makers for consideration. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -25 City of EI Segundo June 2019 3. COMMENT LETTERS RECEIVED AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE COMMENT PERIOD Comment letters from the State received after the close of the comment period consisted of: • State of California, Governor's Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, April 29, 2019 • State of California, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Site Mitigation and Restoration Program — Chatsworth Office, April 5, 2019, received by State Clearinghouse, April 29, 2019 • Lisa Kranitz, on behalf of Wallin, Kress, Reisman & Kranitz LLP, May 8, 2019 • Lozeau Drury, LLP, on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental ("SAFER"), May 21, 2019 Responses to the comments in these letters are provided below, after each letter. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -26 p, xi. Gavin Newsom Governor April 29, 2019 Comment Letter No. 8 44���EOF�Hmy�.. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Q� Governor's Office of Planning and Research a State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Kate Gordon Director Ethan Edwards El Segundo, City of 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Subject: Proposed Beach Cities Media Campus Project SCH#: 2017121035 Dear Ethan Edwards: The comment (s) on your EIR was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period, which closed on 4/15/2019. Please check the CEQA database for these comments: https://ceganet.opr.ca.gov/2017121035/2 because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However, we encourage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above-named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (2017121035) when contacting this office. Sincerely, A. organ Director, State Clearinghouse cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95812-3044 TEL 1-916-445-0613 state.clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov www.opr.ca.gov 1 Jared Blumenfeld Secretary for Environmental Protection April 5, 2019 Department of Toxic Substances Control Meredith Williams, Ph.D. Acting Director 9211 Oakdale Avenue Chatsworth, California 91311 Gavin Newsom Govemor GmK40U0f RWng &R,§2QafCh Ethan Edwards, AICP APR 2 9 2019 Contract Planner STA`�CUEAR{NGHOU8E City of EI Segundo, Planning Division 350 Main Street EI Segundo, California 90245 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BEACH CITIES MEDIA CAMPUS (PROJECT) Dear Mr. Edwards: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received the document for the above-mentioned project. Based on the review of the document, the DTSC comments are as follows: 1) The document needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances at the project area. 2) The document needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within the proposed project area. For all identified sites, the document needs to evaluate whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. 3) The document should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. 4) If during construction of the project, soil contamination is suspected, construction in the area should stop and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is 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. e Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Ethan Edwards April 5, 2019 Page 2 DTSC provides guidance for Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation, and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC's web site at www.dtsc.ca.gov. If you would like to meet and discuss this matter further, please contact me at (818) 717-6555 or Pete.Cooke@dtsc.ca.gov. Sincere) Pete Cooke Site Mitigation and Restoration Program - Chatsworth Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Dave Kereazis Hazardous Waste Management Program, Permitting Division CEQA Tracking Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 City of EI Segundo Comment Letter No. 8 State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse 140010th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 April 29, 2019 Response to Comment 8-1 June 2019 This comment is a standard response from the State Clearinghouse of Planning and Research acknowledging that comments on the Draft EIR were received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period which closed on April 15, 2019. The comment states CEQA does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comment, however the State Clearinghouse encourages the incorporation of the additional comments into the Final EIR. The State Clearinghouse submitted one letter from the State of California, Department of Toxic Substance Control (see Comment Letter No. 10). The comments contained in this letter are responded to in Responses 9-1 through 9-5. Beach Cities Media Campus Project Page II -30 II. Response to Comments Z0 Comment Letter No. 9 Department of Toxic Substances Control Meredith Williams, Ph.D. kap A Jared Blumenfeld Gavin Newsom Secretary for Acting Director Governor Environmental Protection 9211 Oakdale Avenue Chatsworth, California 91311 April 5, 2019 Ethan Edwards, AICP APR 2 9 2019 Contract Planner STAT ���R�Iy�H�SE City of EI Segundo, Planning Division 350 Main Street EI Segundo, California 90245 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BEACH CITIES MEDIA CAMPUS (PROJECT) Dear Mr. Edwards: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received the document for the above-mentioned project. Based on the review of the document, the DTSC comments are as follows: 1 1) The document needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the project site have resulted in any release of hazardous wastes/substances at the project area. 2) The document needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within the proposed project area. For all identified sites, the document needs to evaluate 2 whether conditions at the site pose a threat to human health or the environment. 3) The document should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and which government 3 agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. 4) If during construction of the project, soil contamination is suspected, construction in the area should stop and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. If it is determined that contaminated soil exists, the document should 4 identify how any required investigation or remediation will be conducted, and which government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. t Printed on Recycled Paper Mr. Ethan Edwards April 5, 2019 Page 2 DTSC provides guidance for Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation, and cleanup oversight through the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). For additional information on the VCP, please visit DTSC's web site at www.dtsc.ca.gov. If you would 5 like to meet and discuss this matter further, please contact me at (818) 717-6555 or Pete.Cooke@dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerel Pete Cooke Site Mitigation and Restoration Program - Chatsworth Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 Dave Kereazis Hazardous Waste Management Program, Permitting Division CEQA Tracking Department of Toxic Substances Control P.O. Box 806 Sacramento, California 95812-0806 City of EI Segundo Comment Letter No. 9 State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control Site Mitigation and Restoration Program — Chatsworth Office Pete Cooke 9211 Oakdale Avenue Chatsworth, California 91311 April 5, 2019 Received by State Clearinghouse April 29, 2019 Response to Comment 9-1 June 2019 This comment states the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received the Draft EIR. This comment also states the Draft EIR needs to identify and determine whether current or historic uses at the site have resulted in any releases of hazardous wastes/substances at the Project area. The current Project Site is a vacant lot. It has not released any hazardous wastes or substances at the Project area. The commenter is referred to Section IV.E Hazards and Hazardous Materials, pages IV.E-2 through IV.E-3. The Project Site appears to have been vacant through the 1960s. Air Products and Chemicals developed and operated an air separation facility ("ASF") at the Project Site between 1969 and 2016. Part of the operations included the installation of four USTs on the southwestern portion of the Project Site in 1970. In February, 1990, the four USTs were abandoned. In March 1990, the abandoned USTs were replaced with two 10,000 -gallon diesel USTs and one 1,000 -gallon skim oil UST. In May 2002, the 1,000 -gallon skim oil UST, was abandoned. On-site operations ceased in 2015 and demolition activities at the Project Site commenced through 2017. Part of the demolition activities included the abandoning of the two remaining 10,000 -gallon diesel USTs and removal of the on-site oil/water separator. The commenter is referred to Section IV.E Hazards and Hazardous Materials, page IV.E-5. The USTs were abandoned in accordance with the workplan submitted to the EI 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 in Simi Valley. All USTs installed by Air Products and Chemicals have been removed from the Project Site. Response to Comment 9-2 The comment states the document needs to identify any known or potentially contaminated site within the project area and whether or not these pose a threat to human health or the environment. As stated above, the commenter is referred the Response to Comment 9-1. The commenter is referred Section IV.E Hazards and Hazardous Materials, page IV.E-7. According to Air Products and Chemicals, all USTs installed by Air Products and Chemicals have been removed from the Project Site. Based on the data collected and work performed by Air Products and Chemicals, the RWQCB issued a NFA determination for the soil on August 31, 2017, which is included as Appendix E.2 in this Draft EIR. The Regional Water Quality Control Board has jurisdiction over the Project Site. As indicated in the No Further Action letter from the Board (Appendix E.2 in this Draft EIR), the site has been cleaned up and abated so as to meet the requirements for a soil closure letter for commercial use of the site. As further noted in the letter, a covenant and environmental restriction has been placed on the property limiting the use to commercial applications. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -33 City of EI Segundo Response to Comment 9-3 June 2019 The comment states the document should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may require remediation, and which the government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. According to Air Products and Chemicals, all USTs installed by Air Products and Chemicals have been removed from the Project Site. Based on the data collected and work performed by Air Products and Chemicals, the RWQCB issued a NFA determination for the soil on August 31, 2017, which is included as Appendix E.2 in this Draft EIR. As stated in Response to Comment 9-2, the Regional Water Quality Control Board has jurisdiction over the Project Site. As indicated in the No Further Action letter from the Board, the site has been cleaned up and abated so as to meet the requirements for a soil closure letter for commercial use of the site. As further noted in the letter, a covenant and environmental restriction has been placed on the property limiting the use to commercial applications. Response to Comment 9-4 The comment states that if during construction of the project, soil contamination is suspected, construction in the area should stop and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. The comment also states If contaminated soil exists, the document should identify how any required investigation or remediation will be conducted and which the government agency will provide appropriate regulatory oversight. The commenter is referred to Response to Comment 9-3. Response to Comment 9-5 The comment states DTSC provides guidance for Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) preparation, and cleanup oversight through Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP). The comment also provides contact information for VCP. The commenter is referred to Response to Comment 9-3. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for review and consideration. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -34 Comment Letter No. 10 Ethan, On behalf of the applicant, Rosecrans -Sepulveda 4, LLC, we offer the following minor comments on the DEIR. 1 The analysis of Noise references Mitigation Measures H-1— H-7, but these measures do not exist. (See pp. IV.H-15 , IV.H-29.) As the EIR concluded that the impact was less than significant without mitigation, 2 we assume that this language may have been left over from a previous document. The Final EIR should delete these references. The analysis on cumulative population growth indicates that between 2015 and 2040 the number of households in the (South Bay) region will increase by 1,468,000. The referenced document does not 3 support this number and the number should be revised to reflect the correct calculation. In the analysis on Water, there are a number of places where the document states, "Error! Reference source not found." In looking at the Water Supply Assessment which is included as Appendix J.1, it is clear that none of the information is missing. Instead, the text should be revised to reflect the appropriate Table as follows: 4 ❑ Page IV.M-2—reference Figure IV.M.1-1 ❑ Page IV.M-4 —reference Figure Table IV.M.1-2 ❑ Page IV.M-5 (first occurrence) — reference Table IV.M.1-4 ❑ Page IV.M-5 (second occurrence) — reference Table IV.M.1-5 ❑ Page IV.M-6 —reference Table IV.M.1-7 None of these changes lead to any new significant impacts and do not create a need for recirculation] 5 Thank you, Lisa Kranitz Wallin, Kress, Reisman & Kranitz, LLP 11355 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90064 Phone: 310/450-9582, ext. 215 Cell: 310/962-2049 E-mail: lisa(a)wkrklaw.com DISCLAIMER - This email and any files, documents or previous emails transmitted with it are confidential and contain privileged information. You must not present this message to another party without permission from the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use this email or the information contained in it for any purpose other than to notify us. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately or call 310-782-2525, and delete this email from your system. We do not guarantee that this material is free from viruses or any other defects although due care has been taken to minimize the risk. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the views are specifically stated to be that of Mar Ventures, Inc. [v. I] City of EI Segundo Comment Letter No. 10 Lisa Kranitz Wallin, Kress, Reisman & Kranitz LLP 11355 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 300 Los Angeles, California 90064 March 25, 2019 Response to Comment 10-1 June 2019 This comment states on behalf of the applicant, Rosecrans -Sepulveda 4, LLC, Wallin, Kress, Reisman & Kranitz LLP has minor comments on the Draft EIR. This comment is noted for the administrative record. Resuonse to Comment 10-2 This comment states that the analysis of Noise refences Mitigation Measures H-1 through H-7, but these measures do not exist. The commenter states as the EIR concluded that the impact was less than significant without mitigation, thus the commenter assumes that this language may have been left over from a previous document. The commenter states the Final EIR should delete these references. The correction is included in this Final EIR in Section III. Revisions, Clarification, and Corrections on the Draft EIR. The correction deletes the referenced mitigation measures. Inclusion of this correction would not change the Draft EIR's determination. Response to Comment 10-3 The comment states the cumulative population growth indicates between 2015 and 2040 the number of households in the South Bay region will increase by 1,468,000, however the referenced document does not support this number. The correction is included in this Final EIR in Section III. Revisions, Clarification, and Corrections on the Draft EIR. The correction corrects the number of households in the South Bay region. Inclusion of this correction would not change the Draft EIR's determination. Response to Comment 10-4 The comment states in the analysis on Water there are a number of places where the document states "Error Refence source not found." The commenter states none of the information is missing, the but the text should be revised to source the correct figures and tables. The correction is included in this Final EIR in Section III. Revisions, Clarification, and Corrections on the Draft EIR. The correction corrects both the figure and the table sources. Inclusion of this correction would not change the Draft EIR's determination. Response to Comment 10-5 The comment states none of these changes lead to any new significant impacts and do not create a need for recirculation. This comment is noted for the administrative record. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -36 DRURY. T 510.636.4200 F 510 636.420` BY E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT MAIL May 21, 2019 Comment Letter No. 11 1939 Hdrrison SveeL, 5[e 150 www,Iozeaudrury.corn Oakland, CA 94612 nchardlulozeaudrurycom Chairperson Ryan Baldino and Honorable Members of the City of EI Segundo Planning Commission Planning and Building Safety Department, Planning Division 350 Main Street EI Segundo, California 90245 rbaldino aaelseaundoccb.orq' bnewmanaelseaundoccb.ora; ihoeschler(oDelseaundoccb.ora; mkeldora c(Delseaundoccb.orq; oWngate@elsegundoccb.org Ethan Edwards, AICP, Contract Planner City of EI Segundo Planning and Building Safety 350 Main Street EI Segundo, California 90245 eedwards aa,elseaundo.orq Department, Planning Division RE: Final EIR for Proposed Beach Cities Media Campus Project SCN 2017121035 Chairperson Baldino and Members of the Planning Commission: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility ("SAFER") regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") prepared for the Project known as Beach Cities Media Center Project aka EA -1201 and State Clearinghouse #2017121035, including all actions related or referring to the proposed development of an approximately five -story, 240,000 square foot office building, a one- story, 66,000 square foot studio and production facilities building, and 7,000 square foot of retail uses in two, one-story structures with parking provided in a seven story parking structure with above grade and below grade parking containing 980 parking spaces, one level below grade parking in the office building containing 120 parking spaces, in addition to a limited amount of surface parking located at 2021 Rosecrans Avenue on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 4138-015-064. 1 After reviewing the Project and the FEIR, it is evident that the FEIR contains numerous errors and omissions that preclude accurate analysis of the Project. As a 2 result of these inadequacies, the FEIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures and alternatives to reduce the Project's impacts. Beach Cities Media Campus May 21, 2019 Page 2 of 8 Commenters request that the City of EI Segundo ("City") address these shortcomings in a revised draft environmental impact report ("RDEIR") and recirculate the document prior to considering approvals for the Project. I. LEGAL STANDARDS CEQA requires that an agency analyze the potential environmental impacts of its proposed actions in an environmental impact report ("EIR") (except in certain limited circumstances). See, e.g.. Pub. Res. Code § 21100. The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. Dunn -Edwards v. BAAQMD (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 644, 652. "The `foremost principle' in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." Comm. for a Better Env't v. Calif. Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal. App. 4th 98,109. CEQA has two primary purposes. First, CEQA is designed to inform decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of a project. 14 Cal, Code Regs. ("CEQA Guidelines") § 15002(x)(1). "Its purpose is to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR 'protects not only the environment but also informed self-government."' Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. The EIR has been described as "an environmental 'alarm bell' whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have 2 cont. reached ecological points of no return." Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay v, Bd. of Port Comm'rs. (2001) 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354 ("Berkeley Jets"); County of lnyo v. Yorty (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 795, 810. Second, CEQA requires public agencies to avoid or reduce environmental damage when "feasible" by requiring "environmentally superior" alternatives and all feasible mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines § 15002(a)(2) and (3); see also Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564. The EIR serves to provide agencies and the public with information about the environmental impacts of a proposed project and to "identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced." CEQA Guidelines §15002(x)(2). If the project will have a significant effect on the environment, the agency may approve the project only if it finds that it has "eliminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible" and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are "acceptable due to overriding concerns." Pub.Res.Code ("PRC") § 21081; CEQA Guidelines § 15092(b)(2)(A) & (B). The lead agency must evaluate comment on the draft EIR and prepare written responses in the final EIR. (PRC §21091(d)) The FEIR must include a "detailed" written response to all "significant environmental issues" raised by commenters. As the court stated in City of Long Beach v. LA USD (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 889, 904: The requirement of a detailed written response to comments helps to ensure that the lead agency will fully consider the environmental consequences of Beach Cities Media Campus May 21, 2019 Page 3 of 8 a decision before it is made, that the decision is well informed and open to public scrutiny, and that public participation in the environmental review process is meaningful. The FEIR's responses to comments must be detailed and must provide a reasoned, good faith analysis. (14 CCR §15088(c )) Failure to provide a substantive response to comment render the EIR legally inadequate. (Rural Land Owners Assoc. v. City Council (1983) 143 Cal.App.3d 1013, 1020). The responses to comments on a draft EIR must state reasons for rejecting suggested mitigation measures and comments on significant environmental issues. 2 cont. "Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information" are not an adequate response. (14 CCR §15088(b, c); Cleary v. County of Stanislaus (1981) 118 Cal.App.3rd 348) The need for substantive, detailed response is particularly appropriate when comments have been raised by experts or other agencies. (Berkeley Keep Jets v. Bd. of Port Commis (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344,1367; People v. Kern (1976) 72 Cal.app.3d 761) A reasoned analysis of the issue and references to supporting evidence are required for substantive comments raised. (Calif. Oak Found. v. Santa Clarita (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 1219) The FEIR abjectly fails to meet these legal standards, as it is riddled with conclusory statements lacking any factual support or analysis. II. THE CITY HAS PROVIDED INADEQUATE TIME TO REVIEW THE FEIR. On January 10, 2018, this firm requested written notice of all CEQA documents related to the Project, pursuant to CEQA section 21092.2. Despite this request, we did not receive the complete FEIR until May 20, 2019 — only three days prior to the Planning Commission hearing. We received an incomplete copy of the FEIR on Friday, May 17, 2019, but that document did not include the public comments or responses to comments which are the heart of the FEIR. CEQA requires the lead agency to provide the FEIR to all public entities that commented on the Draft EIR at least 10 days before certifying the EIR. PRC §21092.5. Many public agencies, as well as SAFER, commented on the DEIR, including CalTrans, 3 South Coast Air Quality Management District ("SCAQMD"), Department of Toxic Substances Control ("DTSC"), and others. The City was required to provide these entities with the FEIR at least 10 days prior to the May 23, 2019 Planning Commission hearing — May 13, 2019. When the City provided the FEIR to the public agencies, it became a public record. At that time, since this firm requested all CEQA documents pursuant to CEQA section 21092.2, we should have been provided with the FEIR. However, we did not receive the document until May 20, 2019 — one week later. Thus, SAFER had only three days to review the FEIR rather than the required ten days. We request that the City continue the Planning Commission hearing by at least ten days to allow the required review period for the FEIR. Beach Cities Media Campus May 21, 2019 Page 4 of 8 111. THE FEIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIR. A. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The SCAQMD and DTSC raised serious concerns about toxic chemical soil contamination at the Project site. Yet, these concerns are largely ignored in the FEIR. The DEIR largely ignores soil contamination and the SCAQMD Rules governing soil contamination, Rules 1166 and 1466. (DEIR, IV.A.10-12). Due to the historical Air Products and Chemicals operations, Southern California Edison ("SCE") conducted a limited subsurface investigation in preparation for demolition and the sale of the Project Site. According to the Phase I ESA, several subsurface investigations were conducted to assess potential contaminants of concern in the soil and soil vapor at the Project Site. The majority of these site investigation activities were conducted between March 2015 and September 2016. Based on these investigations, soil was found to be impacted with total petroleum hydrocarbons ("TPH"), lead, and PCBs. In addition, volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") were detected in the shallow soil on the Project Site. An investigation report and rernedial action workplan was prepared on behalf of Air Products and Chemicals and submitted to the Los Angeles Area Regional Water Quality Control Board ("RWQCB"). The RWQCB conditionally approved the workplan on June 29, 2017 with additional excavation areas and sampling requirements. In June 2017, 4 504 cubic yards of impacted soil was reportedly excavated and disposed off-site as non- hazardous waste at Azusa Land Reclamation, Azusa, California as documented in the Remedial Completion Report. Five sets of soil gas probes were then installed in July 2017. Confirmation soil and soil vapor samples were collected after excavation activities were completed per the RWQCB requirements. These results were documented in the Remedial Completion Report and in the Additional Soil and Soil Vapor Sampling Report. The analytical results of the soil samples were non-detected for TPH, lead, and PCBs; and VOCs were detected in soil vapor. Based on the data collected and work performed by Air Products and Chemicals, the RWQCB issued a No Further Action ("NFA"). The NFA referenced a recorded Covenant and Environmental Restriction that restricted the future use of the Project Site to commercial and/or industrial and specifically did not restrict the Project Site use for commercial purposes. DEIR: (IV.E-3). Despite the known presence of toxic chemicals in the soil at the Project site, the DEIR and FEIR largely gloss over this issue. SCAQMD submitted written comments on the DEIR, pointing out that the EIR fails entirely to mention compliance with SCAQMD Rule 1166 (Volatile Organic Compounds from soil) and SCAQMD Rule 1466 (Particulate Matter from soil with Toxic Air Contaminants). These rules are the primary way that SCAMQD protects construction workers and future users of the Project from exposure to toxic chemicals. In response, the FEIR adds a new section on Rules 1166 and 1466. (FEIR, II -12). However, the City failed to recirculate the FEIR. Recirculation is require when new mitigation measures are added to a project so the public can assess the adequacy of the Beach Cities Media Campus May 21, 2019 Page 5 of 8 proposed mitigation measures. Gentry v. Murrieta, 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1392, 1411, 1417. As a leading treatise explains, "in Perley v. Board of Supervisors (1982) 137 Cal.App.3d 424, the court held that the public has a right to review a project described in a negative declaration in its final form and suggested that a negative declaration must be recirculated if mitigation measures are added." Kostka & Zishcke, Guide to CEQA at §7.19. DTSC filed written comments raising concerns about site contamination. DTSC 4 cont. recommended a preliminary endangerment assessment and voluntary clean-up plan, but FEIR rejects both mitigation measures without analysis. (FEIR, II -35). CEQA requires implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. These measures are clearly feasible, and the FEIR provides no reason that the measures would be infeasible. A Recirculated DEIR is required to analyze soil contamination and propose all feasible mitigation measures to safeguard construction workers and future uses of the Project site. B. HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT Neither the Draft nor Final EIR contain any health risk assessment (HRA). The DEIR states that no HRA is required because construction will "only" take place over 18 months. (DEIR IV.A.21.) California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA") guidance makes clear that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors. OEHHA also recommends a health risk assessment of a project's operational emissions for projects that will be in place for more 5 than 6 months. (Id.) Projects lasting more than 6 months should be evaluated for the duration of the project, and an exposure duration of 30 years be used to estimate individual cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual resident. (Id.) The Project would last at least 30 years and certainly much longer than six months. Therefore an HRA is required. Health risks can often be mitigated by requiring low -emission construction equipment, such as CAR Tier 4 equipment, limiting idling times, limiting opacity, and other measures. A RDEIR should be prepared to analyze HRA and to proposed feasible mitigation measures. C. GREENHOUSE GAS. The EIR admits that the Project will have significant greenhouse gas ("GHG") 6 impacts. (FEIR 1-17, 18). The DEIR states, "Proposed Project's unmitigated emissions are 6,007.71 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year resulting in 5.82 MTCO2e/SP/year." (DEIR IV.D-31). This is far above the SCAQMD significance threshold for GHGs of 3,000 MT/year. Beach Cities Media Campus May 21, 2019 Page 6 of 8 Despite this admission, the EIR fails to propose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHGs. The only mitigation measures proposed are: (1) sidewalks, (2) energy Star applicances, (3) LED lighting, and (4) low -flow fixtures. Despite having hundreds of parking spaces, the EIR proposes only 1 electric vehicle charger. (DEIR IV.D-35). The EIR fails to propose clearly feasible GHG mitigation measures such as roof -top solar panels, large numbers of electric vehicle charging stations, exceedance of Title 24 energy requirements, LEED certification, and many other measures. 6 cont. The California Attorney General has published a list of feasible GHG mitigation measures. (Exhibit A). These measures are presumptively feasible. A Revised DEIR should be prepared to analyze these feasible mitigation measures. D. TRAFFIC. CalTrans submitted a comment concerning the Project's significant traffic impacts. In response the Final EIR proposes a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) plan, but provides no detail for the TDM plan. (FEIR III -2). Feasible mitigation measures for significant environmental effects must be set forth in an EIR for consideration by the lead agency's decision makers and the public before certification of the EIR and approval of a project. The formulation of mitigation measures generally cannot be deferred until after certification of the EIR and approval of a project. Guidelines, section 15126.4(a)(1)(B) states: "Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time. However, measures may specify performance standards which would mitigate the significant effect of the project and which may be accomplished in more than one specified way. A study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decisionmaking. Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of 7 agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA." (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.) "[R]eliance on tentative plans for future mitigation after completion of the CEQA process significantly undermines CEQA's goals of full disclosure and informed decisionmaking; and[,] consequently, these mitigation plans have been overturned on judicial review as constituting improper deferral of environmental assessment." (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92 (Communities).) The FEIR's TDM plan is deferred mitigation prohibited by CEQA. A Revised DEIR is required to identify the particular measures that will be implemented as part of the TDM to reduce the Project's traffic impact, and to calculate the amount that those measures will reduce traffic impacts of the Project. E. INDOOR AIR QUALITY. The EIR fails entirely to analyze impacts related to indoor air quality. Such impacts may be related to soil -vapor intrusion that may result from toxic soil contamination. 8 Indoor air quality may also be affected by formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products. I Beach Cities Media Campus May 21, 2019 Page 7 of 8 Formaldehyde is a known human carcinogen. Many composite wood products typically used in residential and office building construction contain formaldehyde -based glues which off -gas formaldehyde over a very long time period. The primary source of formaldehyde indoors is composite wood products manufactured with urea -formaldehyde resins, such as plywood, medium density fiberboard, and particle board. These materials are commonly used in residential and office building construction for flooring, cabinetry, baseboards, window shades, interior doors, and window and door trims. Given the prominence of materials with formaldehyde -based resins that are likely to be used in constructing the Project, there is a significant likelihood that the Project's emissions of formaldehyde to air will result in very significant cancer risks to future workers in the buildings. Even if the materials used within the buildings comply with the Airborne Toxic Control Measures (ATCM) of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), significant emissions of formaldehyde may still occur. The Project's buildings may have significant impacts on air quality and health risks by emitting cancer-causing levels of formaldehyde into the air that may expose workers to cancer risks in excess of SCAQMD's threshold of significance. A 2018 study by Chan et al. (attached as Exhibit B) measured formaldehyde levels in new structures constructed after the 2009 CARB rules went into effect. Even though new buildings conforming to CARB's ATCM had a 30% lower median indoor formaldehyde concentration and cancer risk than buildings built prior to the enactment of the ATCM, the levels of formaldehyde may still pose cancer risks greater than 100 in a million, well above the 10 in one million 8 cont. significance threshold established by the SCAQMD. Based on published studies, and assuming all the Project's building materials will be compliant with the California Air Resources Board's formaldehyde airborne toxics control measure, future employees using the Project may be exposed to a cancer risk from formaldehyde greater than the SCAQMD's CEQA significance threshold for airborne cancer risk of 10 per million. The City has a duty to investigate issues relating to a project's potential environmental impacts. (See County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1597-98_ ["[Ujnder CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts."].) "If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record. Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences." (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311.) Given the lack of study conducted by the City on the health risks posed by emissions of formaldehyde, a fair argument exists that such emissions from the Project may pose significant health risks. As a result, the City must prepare an EIR which calculates the health risks that the formaldehyde emissions may have on future workers and identifies appropriate mitigation measures. Beach Cities Media Campus May 21, 2019 Page 8 of 8 IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the EIR fails to meet the requirements of CEQA. We urge the City to require preparation of a Revised Draft EIR that addresses the deficiencies identified in this and other comment letters. Thank you for considering our comments and 9 please include this letter in the administrative record for this matter. Sincerely, Richard Drury ATTACHMENT A Addressing Climate Change at the Project Level California Attorney General's Office Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), local agencies have a very important role to play in California's fight against global warming — one of the most serious environmental effects facing the State today. Local agencies can lead by example in undertaking their own projects, insuring that sustainability is considered at the earliest stages. Moreover, they can help shape private development. Where a project as proposed will have significant global warming related effects, focal agencies can require feasible changes or alternatives, and impose enforceable, verifiable, feasible mitigation to substantially lessen those effects. By the sum of their actions and decisions, local agencies will help to move the State away from "business as usual" and toward a low -carbon future. Included in this document are various measures that may reduce the global warming related impacts at the individual project level. (For more information on actions that local governments can take at the program and general plan level, please visit the Attorney General's webpage, "CEQA, Global Warming, and General Plans" at h tp-1laa.ca.gov/alobalwarminq/ceaa/aeneralplans.php.) As appropriate, the measures can be included as design features of a project, required as changes to the project, or imposed as mitigation (whether undertaken directly by the project proponent or funded by mitigation fees). The measures set forth in this package are examples; the list is not intended to be exhaustive. Moreover, the measures cited may not be appropriate for every project. The decision of whether to approve a project — as proposed or with required changes or mitigation — is for the local agency, exercising its informed judgment in compliance with the law and balancing a variety of public objectives. Mitiaation Measures by Cateciory Energy Efficiency Incorporate green The California Department of Housing and Community Development's Green building practices and Building & Sustainability Resources handbook provides extensive links to design elements. green building resources. The handbook is available at htto://w"i.hcd.ca.caov/hpd/preen build.pdf. The American Institute of Architects (AIA) has compiled fifty readily available strategies for reducing fossil fuel use in buildings by fifty percent. AIA "50 to 50" plan is presented in both guidebook and wiki format at htp://wiki.a is.orq/Wiki%20Pages/Home.aspx.. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 1 [Rev. 1/6/2010] Available at http:l/aq.ca.povlglobaiwarminglndf/GW mitigation measures.odf. Meet recognized green For example, an ENERGY STAR -qualified building uses less energy, building and energy is less expensive to operate, and causes fewer greenhouse gas efficiency benchmarks. emissions than comparable, conventional buildings. htto:/1www.eneraystar.aov/index.cfm?c= business. bus index. California has over 1600 ENERGY STAR -qualified school, commercial and industrial buildings. View U.S. EPA's list of Energy Star non- residential buildings at htto:l/www.eneraystar.00vCndex.cfm?fuseaction=labeled buildinas.loc, ator. Los Angeles and San Francisco top the list of U.S. cities with the most ENERGY STAR non-residential buildings. hfp:llwww.enercivstar.ciov/ia/business/downloads/2008 Too 25 cities chart.iDdf. Qualified ENERGY STAR homes must surpass the state's Title 24 energy efficiency building code by at least 15%. Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco -Oakland are among the top 20 markets for ENERGY STAR homes nationwide. htto://www.eneraystaF.aovlialnew homes/mil homes/too 20 markets.. html. Builders of ENERGY STAR homes can be more competitive in a tight market by providing a higher quality, more desirable product. See htto://www.eneraystar.00v/ialnartnerslmanuf res/Horton.odf, There are a variety of private and non-profit green building certification programs in use in the U.S. See U.S. EPA's Green Building 1 Frequently Asked Questions website, htto:llwww.er)a.cov/areenbuildino/oubslfaas.htm. Public -Private Partnership for Advancing Housing Technology maintains a list of national and state Green Building Certification Programs for housing. See httD:Ilwww.pathnet.oralsv-asp?id=20978. These include the national Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program, and, at the state level, Build it Green's GreenPoint Rated system and the California Green Builder program. Other organizations may provide other relevant benchmarks. Install energy efficient Information about ENERGY STAR -certified products in over 60 categories is lighting (e.g., light available at httq:l/www.enercivstar.aov/index.cfm?fuseaction=find a vroduct; emitting diodes (LEDs)), heating and The California Energy Commission maintains a database of all appliances cooling systems, meeting either federal efficiency standards or, where there are no federal appliances, equipment, efficiency standards, California's appliance efficiency standards. See and control systems. htto://www.ar)r>liances.enerov.ca.00vI.. The Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) ranks computer products based on a set of environmental criteria, including energy efficiency. See htto:llwww.eoeat.net/AboutEPEAT.asox, The nonprofit American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy maintains an Online Guide to Energy Efficient Commercial Equipment, available at httr>://www.aceee.orcVoqeece/chl index. htm. Utilities offer many incentives for efficient appliances, lighting, heating and cooling. To search for available residential and commercial incentives; visit Flex Your Power's website at httt):11www.fvPower. orcV. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 2 [Rev. 1/6/20101 Available at httDI/aa.ca.covlalobalwarmina/odf/GW mitigation measures.Pdf. Use passive solar See U.S. Department of Energy, Passive Solar Design (website) design, e.g., orient htto://www.enerovsavers.aov/vour home/desianina remodeling/index.cfm/mvt. buildings and odic=10250. incorporate landscaping to maximize passive See also California Energy Commission, Consumer Energy Center, Passive solar heating during Solar Design (website) cool seasons, minimize htto//www.consumerenervvicenter.ora/home/construction/sclardesianlindex.ht, solar heat gain during ml. hot seasons, and enhance natural Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories' Building Technologies Department ventilation. Design is working to develop innovative building construction and design techniques. buildings to take Information and publications on energy efficient buildings, including lighting, advantage of sunlight windows, and daylighting strategies, are available at the Department's website at htto:llbtech.lbl,gov. Install light colored A white or light colored roof can reduce surface temperatures by up to 100 "cool" roofs and cool degrees Fahrenheit, which also reduces the heat transferred into the building pavements. below. This can reduce the building's cooling costs, save energy and reduce associated greenhouse gas emissions, and extend the life of the roof. Cool roofs can also reduce the temperature of surrounding areas, which can improve local air quality. See California Energy Commission, Consumer Energy Center, Cool Roofs (webpage) at httr)://www.consumerenercivcenter-ora/coolroof/. See also Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, Heat Island Group (webpage) at htto:/Ieetd.Ibl.00v/Heatlslandl. Install efficient lighting, LED lighting is substantially more energy efficient than conventional lighting (including LEDs) for and can save money. See traffic, street and other httoJ/www.enerav.ca.aovlefficiencv/vartnershir)/case studies/TechAsstCitv.Ddf outdoor lighting. (noting that installing LED traffic signals saved the City of Westlake about $34,000 per year). As of 2005, only about a quarter of California's cities and counties were using 100% LEDs in traffic signals. See California Energy Commission (CEC), Light Emitting Diode Traffic Signal Survey (2005) at p. 15, available at htta://www.enerav.ca.aov/2005r)ublications/CEC 400 2005 00310EC 400 2005 003. PDF. The California Energy Commission's Energy Partnership Program can help local governments take advantage of energy saving technology, including, but not limited to, LED traffic signals. See htto:l/www. a neray. ca. gov/effici encvlr)a rtnershita/. Reduce unnecessary See California Energy Commission, Reduction of Outdoor Lighting (webpage) outdoor lighting. at htto://www.eneray.ca.aov/efficiency/lighting/outdoor reduction.htmi; AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 3 [Rev. 1/6/2010] Available at httD://aci.ca.cov/atobalwarmina/odf/GW mitigation measures.odf. Use automatic covers, During the summer, a traditional backyard California pool can use enough efficient pumps and energy to power an entire home for three months. Efficiency measures can motors, and solar substantially reduce this waste of energy and money. See California Energy heating for pools and Commission, Consumer Energy Center, Pools and Spas (webpage) at spas, htto:llwww.consumereneravicenter.oro/home/outsidel000ls spas. html,. See also Sacramento Municipal Utilities District, Pool and Spa Efficiency Program (webpage) at htto:/iwww.smud.ora/en/residential/saving- e ne rav1Pa o eslpoo I spa . a s r)x. Provide education on Many cities and counties provide energy efficiency education, See, for energy efficiency to example, the City of Stockton's Energy Efficiency website at residents, customers htto://www.stocktonaov.com/eneraysavina/index.cfm. See also "Green County and/or tenants. San Bernardino," htto:1www.areencountvsb.com at pp. 4-6. Businesses and development projects may also provide education. For example, a homeowners` association (HOA) could provide information to residents on energy-efficient mortgages and energy saving measures. See The Villas of Calvera Hills, Easy Energy Saving Tips to Help Save Electricity at httr) llwww.thevillashoa.ara/green/enerciv/. An HOA might also consider providing energy audits to its residents on a regular basis. Renewable Energy and Energy Storage Meet "reach" goals for A "zero net energy" building combines building energy efficiency and building energy renewable energy generation so that, on an annual basis, any efficiency and purchases of electricity or natural gas are offset by clean, renewable renewable energy use. energy generation, either on-site or nearby. Both the California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) have stated that residential buildings should be zero net energy by 2020, and commercial buildings by 2030. See CEC, 2009 Integrated Energy Policy Report (Dec. 2009) at p. 226, available at htto:flwww. energy. ca. aov/2009vubl ications/CEC-100-2009-003/CEC-. 100 -2009 -003 -CMF. PDF; CPUC, Long Term Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan (Sept. 2008), available at htti)://www. cr)uc.ca.gov/PUC/e nerav/Energy+Efficiencv/eesp/ Install solar, wind, and The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved the California geothermal power Solar Initiative on January 12, 2006. The initiative creates a $3.3 billion, ten - systems and solar hot year program to install solar panels on one million roofs in the State. Visit the water heaters. one-stop GoSolar website at httn://www.00sclarcalifornia.orgl. As mitigation, a developer could, for example, agree to participate in the New Solar Homes program. See httpllwww gosolarcaiifornia.or.a/buildersCndex.html. The CPUC is in the process of establishing a program to provide solar water heating incentives under the California Solar Initiative. For more information, visit the CPUC's website at httoWwww_ cpuc.ca.aov/puclenerov/solar/swh. htm.. To search for available residential and commercial renewable energy incentives, visit Flex Your Power's website at 1-ittrx//wwvtf.zvr)ovver oral. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 4 [Rev. 1/6/2010] Available at htto:llac.ca.aov/aiobalwarminalndf/GW mitioation measures.pdf, Install solar panels on In 2008 Southern California Edison (SCE) launched the nation's largest unused roof and ground installation of photovoltaic power generation modules The utility plans to cover space and over 65 million square feet of unused commercial rooftops with 250 megawatts of carports and parking solar technology — generating enough energy to meet the needs of areas. approximately 162,000 homes. Learn more about SCE's Solar Rooftop Program at htto://www.sce.com/solarleadershir)/solar-rooftoo-orocram/oeneral- fag. htm In 2009, Walmart announced its commitment to expand the company's solar power program in California. The company plans to add solar panels on 10 to 20 additional Walmart facilities in the near term. These new systems will be in addition to the 18 solar arrays currently installed at Walmart facilities in California. See htti)://walmartstores.com/FactsNews/NewsRoom/9091.aspx. Alameda County has installed two solar tracking carports, each generating 250 kilowatts. By 2005, the County had installed eight photovoltaic systems totaling over 2.3 megawatts The County is able to meet 6 percent of its electricity needs through solar power. See htto://www. acgov.orq/qsa/Alameda%20County%20- %20Solar%20Case%20Studv. odf. In 2007, California State University, Fresno installed at 1 1 -megawatt photovoltaic (PV) -paneled parking installation The University expects to save more than $13 million in avoided utility costs over the project's 30 -year lifespan. htto://www.fresnostatenews.com/2007/11/solarwrar)uD2.htm. Where solar systems U.S. Department of Energy, A Homebuilder's Guide to Going Solar (brochure) cannot feasibly be (2008), available at http://www eere.enerov aov/solar/odfs/43076.odf. incorporated into the project at the outset, build "solar ready" structures. Incorporate wind and Wind energy can be a valuable crop for farmers and ranchers. Wind turbines solar energy systems can generate energy to be used on-site, reducing electricity bills, or they can into agricultural projects yield lease revenues (as much as $4000 per turbine per year). Wind turbines where appropriate. generally are compatible with rural land uses, since crops can be grown and livestock can be grazed up to the base of the turbine. See National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Wind Powering America Fact Sheet Series, Wind Energy Benefits, available at htto://www. nrel.gov/docslfv05osti/37602. odf. Solar PV is not just for urban rooftops. For example, the Scott Brothers' dairy in San Jacinto, California, has installed a 55 -kilowatt solar array on its commodity barn, with pians to do more in the coming years. See httr)://www.dairvherd.com/dii,ectories.asp?pgID=i24&ed id=8409 (additional California examples are included in article.) AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 5 [Rev 1/6/2010] Available at http //aq.ca qov/aIobalwarminq/odf1GW mitigation measures.odf Include energy storage See National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Energy Storage Basics where appropriate to (webpage) at http://www.nrel,Qov/learning/eds enerov storaae.html. optimize renewable energy generation California Energy Storage Alliance (webpage) at systems and avoid htto /storaaeaIliance oralabout, html. peak energy use. Storage is not just for large, utility scale projects, but can be part of smaller industrial, commercial and residential projects. For example, Ice Storage Air Conditioning (ISAC) systems, designed for residential and nonresidential buildings, produce ice at night and use it during peak periods for cooling. See California Energy Commission. Staff Report, Ice Storage Air Conditioners, Compliance Options Application (May 2006), available at httG:)://www. enerov. ca. gov/2006publicaflons/CEC-400-2006-006/CEC-400- 2006-006-SF.PDF. Use on-site generated At the Hilarides Dairy in Lindsay; California, an anaerobic -lagoon digester biogas, including processes the run-off of nearly 10,000 cows, generating 226,000 cubic feet of methane, in appropriate biogas per day and enough fuel to run two heavy duty trucks. This has reduced applications. the dairy's diesel consumption by 650 gallons a day, saving the dairy money and improving local air quality. See httiD://www.arb.ca.aov/newsrel/nrO2llO9b.htm, see also Public Interest Energy Research Program, Dairy Power Production Program, Dairy Methane Digester System, 90 -Day Evaluation Report, Eden Vale Dairy (Dec. 2006) at http //www.energv.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC 500 2006 033/CEC 500 2006 083.PDF. Landfill gas is a current and potential source of substantial energy in California. See Tom Frankiewicz, Program Manager, U.S. EPA Landfill Methane Outreach Program, Landfill Gas Energy Potential in California, available at http://www,eneray.ca.gov/2009 eneravoolicv/documents/2009-04- 21 works hop/oresentations/05-SCS Enaineers Presentation.odf. There are many current and emerging technologies for converting landfill methane that would otherwise be released as a greenhouse gas into clean energy See California Integrated Waste Management Hoard, Emerging Technologies, Landfill Gas -to -Energy (webpage) at httoa/www.ciwmb.ca.qov/LEACentraVTechServices/EmergingTech/default. htm. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 6 [Rev 1/6/20101 Available at http//aq.ca aov/alobalwarmina/pdf/GW mitigation measures.pdf Use combined heat and Many commercial, industrial, and campus -type facilities (such as hospitals; power (CHP) in universities and prisons) use fuel to produce steam and heat for their own appropriate operations and processes. Unless captured, much of this heat is wasted. applications. CHP captures waste heat and re -uses it, e.g., for residential or commercial space heating or to generate electricity. See U.S. EPA, Catalog of CHP Technologies at htto://www eoa aov/cho/documents/catalog of %20chn tech entire.odf and California Energy Commission, Distributed Energy Resource Guide, Combined Heat and Power (webpage) at httpa/www energv ca.qov/distaen/eauipment/chn/cho.htrnl. The average efficiency of fossil -fueled power plants in the United States is 33 percent. By using waste heat recovery technology, CHP systems typically achieve total system efficiencies of 60 to 80 percent. CHP can also substantially reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. http://www.epa,aov/chri/basic/efficiencv.htmi, Currently, CHP in California has a capacity of over 9 million kilowatts. See list of California CHP facilities at htto://www.eea-inc.com/chndata/States/CA html. The Waste Heat and Carbon Emissions Reduction Act (Assembly Bill 1613 (2007), amended by Assembly Bill 2791 (2008)) is designed to encourage the development of new CNP systems in California with a generating capacity of not more than 20 megawatts. Among other things, the Act requires the California Public Utilities Commission to establish (1) a standard tariff allowing CHP generators to sell electricity for delivery to the grid and (2) a "pay as you save" pilot program requiring electricity corporations to finance the installation of qualifying CHP systems by nonprofit and government entities. For more information, see httpa//www.energv ca.aov/vrasteheat/. Water Conservation and Efficiency Incorporate water- According to the California Energy Commission, water -related energy use — reducing features into which includes conveyance, storage, treatment, distribution, wastewater building and landscape collection, treatment, and discharge —consumes about 19 percent of the design. State's electricity, 30 percent of its natural gas, and 88 billion gallons of diesel fuel every year. See http://www.enerav-ca.aov/2007publications/CEC 999 2007 008/CEC 999 2007 008_PDF Reducing water use and improving water efficiency can help reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Create water -efficient The California Department of Water Resources' updated Model Water Efficient landscapes. Landscape Ordinance (Sept. 2009) is available at httr).//www water. ca oovMateruseefficiencvliandscaneordinanceltechnical. cfm. A landscape can be designed from the beginning to use little or no water, and to generate little or no waste. See California Integrated Waste Management Board, Xeriscaping (webpage) at http://www.ciwmb.ca aov/organics/Xeriscapina/. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures [Rev 1/6/2010] Available at htto//aa.ca.aov/alobalwarminalodf/GW mitigation measures.odf Page 7 Install water -efficient U.S. Department of Energy, Best Management Practice: Water -Efficient irrigation systems and Irrigation (webpage) at devices, such as soil httoa/wwwl.eere.enerov.aov/femr.)/uroaramlwaterefficiencv bmo6.html. moisture -based irrigation controls and California Department of Water Resources, Landscape Water Use Efficiency use water -efficient (webpage) at httD://www.water.ca.aov/wateruseefficiencv/landscape/, irrigation methods. Pacific Institute, More with Less: Agricultural Water Conservation and Efficiency in California (2008), available at htto'//www-oacinst.ora/reports/more with less delta/index.htm. Make effective use of California Building Standards Commission, 2008 California Green Building graywater. (Graywater Standards Code, Section 604, pp. 31-32, available at is untreated household httoa/www.documents.das.ca. aov/bsc/2009/Dart11 2008 calareen code.pdf. waste water from bathtubs, showers, California Department of Water Resources, Dual Plumbing Code (webpage) at bathroom wash basins, htti)://www.water.ca.qovlrecyclina/DualPlumbinciCode/- and water from clothes washing machines. See also Ahwahnee Water Principles; Principle 6, at Graywater to be used httoa/www.lac.oro/ahwahnee/h2o principles. html. The Ahwahnee Water for landscape Principles have been adopted by City of Willits, Town of Windsor. Menlo Park, irrigation.) Morgan Hill, Palo Alto, Petaluma, Port Hueneme, Richmond, Rohnert Park, Rolling Hills Estates, San Luis Obispo, Santa Paula, Santa Rosa. City of Sunnyvale; City of Ukiah, Ventura, Marin County, Marin Municipal Water District, and Ventura County. Implement low -impact Retaining storm water runoff on-site can drastically reduce the need for development practices energy -intensive imported water at the site_ See U S. EPA, Low Impact that maintain the Development (webpage) at httD1/www.epa.aov/nps/lid/ existing hydrology of the site to manage Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the California Water storm water and protect and Land Use Partnership, Low Impact Development at the environment. http.//www coastal.ca. oov/nos/lid-factsheet.odf. Devise a The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other comprehensive water innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project. conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location. Design buildings to be Department of General Services, Best Practices Manual, Water -Efficient water -efficient. Install Fixtures and Appliances (website) at water -efficient fixtures http //www.areen ca.aov/EPP/buildina/SaveH2O htm. and appliances. Many ENERGY STAR products have achieved their certification because of water efficiency. See California Energy Commission's database, available at http://www. a ppl is noes. enerov. ca. aov/. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 8 [Rev. 1/6/2010] Available at httD.Hao.ca aov/aiobalwarmina/pdf/GW mitiaation measures pdf Offset water demand For example, the City of Lompoc has a policy requiring new development to from new projects so offset new water demand with savings from existing water users. See that there is no net hth) wwww.cltvoflomDoc. comlutiIitles/ndf/2005 uwmn flnaI-odf at p. 29. increase in water use. Provide education See, for example, the City of Santa Cruz, Water Conservation Office at about water htto //www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.usfindex.aspx?page-395; Santa Clara Valley conservation and Water District, Water Conservation at available programs and htto://www.vallevwater.ora/conservation/index.shtm; and Metropolitan Water incentives. District and the Family of Southern California Water Agencies, Be Water Wise athttD://www.bewaterwise-com.. Private projects may provide or fund similar education. Solid Waste Measures Reuse and recycle Construction and demolition materials account for almost 22 percent of the construction and waste stream in California. Reusing and recycling these materials not only demolition waste conserves natural resources and energy, but can also save money. For a list (including, but not of best practices and other resources, see California Integrated Waste limited to, soil, Management Board, Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling (webpage) vegetation, concrete, at htto://www.ciwmb.ca.Qov/candemo/. lumber, metal, and cardboard). Integrate reuse and Tips on developing a successful recycling program, and opportunities for cost - recycling into residential effective recycling, are available on the California Integrated Waste industrial, institutional Management Board's Zero Waste California website. See and commercial httoJ/zerowaste.ca_aov/. projects. The Institute for Local Government's Waste Reduction & Recycling webpage contains examples of "best practices" for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, organized around waste reduction and recycling goals and additional examples and resources. See htto:/twww.ca-iIa. oralwastereduction. Provide easy and Tips on developing a successful recycling program, and opportunities for cost convenient recycling effective recycling, are available on the California Integrated Waste opportunities for Management Board's Zero Waste California website. See residents, the public, httellzerowaste ca.00v/. and tenant businesses. Provide education and Many cities and counties provide information on waste reduction and recycling. publicity about reducing See, for example, the Butte County Guide to Recycling at waste and available htto //www. recvc€ebutte .net. recycling services. The California Integrated Waste Management Board's website contains numerous publications on recycling and waste reduction that may be helpful in devising an education project. See htto://www.ciwmb.ca.Qov/Publications/delault.asp?cat=13. Private projects may also provide waste and recycling education directly, or fund education. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 9 [Rev. 1/6/2010] Available at httD//as.ca.cgov/alobalwarmina/zidf/GW mitigation measures.gdf. Land Use Measures Ensure consistency with "smart growth" principles — mixed-use, infill, and higher density projects that provide alternatives to individual vehicle travel and promote the efficient delivery of services and goods U.S. EPA maintains an extensive Smart Growth webpage with links to examples, literature and technical assistance, and financial resources. See htto /fwww.eoa.00v/smartarowth/index.htm The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's webpage provides smart growth recommendations for communities located near water. See Coastal & Waterfront Smart Growth (webpage) at httn://coastalsrnartarowth.noaa.aov/. The webpage includes case studies from California. The California Energy Commission has recognized the important role that land use can play in meeting our greenhouse gas and energy efficiency goals. The agency's website, Smart Growth & Land Use Planning, contains useful information and links to relevant studies, reports, and other resources. See http://www.enerciv.ca.qovYlandusei, The Metropolitan Transportation Commission's webpage, Smart Growth / Transportation for Livable Communities, includes resources that may be useful to communities in the San Francisco Bay Area and beyond. See httoa/www.mtc.ca.aov/planning/smart arowth/. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) has published examples of smart growth in action in its region. See Examples from the Sacramento Region of the Seven Principles of Smart Growth / Better Ways to Grow, available at htto://www.sacoa.ora/reaionalfundina/betterways odf. Meet recognized "smart For example, the LEED for Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND) rating growth" benchmarks. system integrates the principles of smart growth, urbanism and green building into the first national system for neighborhood design. LEED-ND is a collaboration among the U.S. Green Building Council, Congress for the New Urbanism, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. For more information, see httol/www.usabc.ora/DisolavPaae.asox?CMSPaaelD=148. Educate the public See, for example, U -S. EPA, Growing Smarter, Living Healthier: A Guide to about the many benefits Smart Growth and Active Aging (webpage), discussing how compact, walkable of well-designed, higher communities can provide benefits to seniors. See density development. htto //www eDa.aov/aaina/bhc/auide/index.html. U S. EPA, Environmental Benefits of Smart Growth (webpage) at httiD://www.er)a.gov/dced/topics/eb.htm (noting local air and water quality improvements). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Designing and Building Healthy Places (webpage), at htto.//www,cdc.aovlhealthvolaces/ The CDC's website discusses the links between walkable communities and public health and includes numerous links to educational materials. California Department of Housing and Community Development, Myths and Facts About Affordable and High Density Housing (2002), available at htto //www. hcd ca. aov/hod/mvthsnfacts. rxif. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 10 [Rev. 1/6/2010] Available at htto //aa.ca.aov/alobalwarmina/odf/GW mitigation measures odf Incorporate public Federal Transit Administration, Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) transit into the project's (webpage) at httr)://www.fta,dot.aov/r)lannina/olannina environment 6932.html design. (describing the benefits of TOD as "social, environmental, and fiscal.") California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Statewide Transit -Oriented Development Study Factors for Success in California (2002), available at httr)Wtransitorienteddevelopment. dot ca. oov/miscellaneous/StatewideTOD. htm Caltrans, California Transit -Oriented Development Searchable Database (includes detailed information on numerous TODs), available at http://transitorientedbeveloornent.dot.ca.aov/miscellaneous/NewHome.isr). California Department of Housing and Community Development, Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Resources (Aug. 2009), available at htto://www. hcd.ca. aov/hod/tod.odf. Preserve and create U.S. EPA, Smart Growth and Open Space Conservation (webpage) at open space and parks. htto://www.eoa.aov/dced/ooenspace.htm. Preserve existing trees, and plant replacement trees at a set ratio. Develop "brownfields" U.S. EPA, Smart Growth and Brownfields (webpage) at and other underused or httoa/wvrw.eoa.aov/dced/brownfields.htm. defunct properties near existing public For example, as set forth in the Local Government Commission's case study; transportation and jobs. the Town of Hercules, California reclaimed a 426 -acre Brownfield site, transforming it into a transit -friendly, walkable neighborhood. See httr)://www.lgc.orct/freeoub/docs/community design/fact sheets/er case studi es. odf. For financial resources that can assist in brownfield development, see Center for Creative Land Recycling, Financial Resources for California Brownfieids (July 2008), available at http://www.cclr.ora/media/publications/8- Financial Resources 2008.pdf. Include pedestrian and See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, bicycle facilities within Bicycle and Pedestrian Program (webpage) at projects and ensure htto-//www.fhwa dot. aov/environment/bikeped/. that existing non - motorized routes are Caltrans. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities in California / A Technical maintained and Reference and Technology Transfer Synthesis for enhanced. Caltrans Planners and Engineers (July 2005), available at htto.//www. dot. ca. aov/ha/traffops/survev/pedestrian/TR MAY0405.odf. This reference includes standard and innovative practices for pedestrian facilities and traffic calming. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 11 (Rev. 1/6/2010] Available at http://aa.ca.aov/alobalwarmino/odf/GW mitigation measures.odf Transportation and Motor Vehicles Meet an identified A logical benchmark might be related to vehicles miles traveled (VMT), e.g., transportation -related average VMT per capita, per household, or per employee. As the California benchmark. Energy Commission has noted, VMT by California residents increased'a rate of more than 3 percent a year between 1975 and 2004, markedly faster than the population growth rate over the same period, which was less than 2 percent. This increase in VMT correlates to an increase in petroleum use and GHG production and has led to the transportation sector being responsible for 41 percent of the states GHG emissions in 2004" CEC, The Role of Land Use in Meeting Californias Energy and Climate Change Goals (Aug. 2007) at p 9, available at http://www energv.ca.gov/200ipublications/CEC-600-200�/- 008/CEC-600-2007 -008-SF. PDF Even with regulations designed to increase vehicle efficiency and lower the carbon content of fuel, "reduced VMT growth will be required to meet GHG reductions goals." Id, at p. 18. Adopt a comprehensive For example, reduce parking for private vehicles while increasing options for parking policy that alternative transportation; eliminate minimum parking requirements for new discourages private buildings; "unbundle" parking (require that parking is paid for separately and is vehicle use and not included in rent for residential or commercial space), and set appropriate encourages the use of pricing for parking. alternative transportation. See U.S. EPA, Parking Spaces / Community Places, Finding the Balance Through Smart Growth Solutions (Jan. 2006), available at http://www.er)a.aov/doed/iDdf/EPAParkinaSoacesO6.mif. Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (June 2007) at htto://www mtc.ca.gov/planning/smart cirowth/parkinq seminar/Toolbox Handbook. pdf. See also the City of Ventura's Downtown Parking and Mobility Plan, available at htto://www.citvofventura.net/community develooment/resources/mobility parks no olan.odf, and Ventura's Downtown Parking Management Program, available at htto://www.ci.ventura.ca.us/depts/comm dev/downtownNan/chaoters.aso. Build or fund a major "'Major transit stop' means a site containing an existing rail transit station, a transit stop within or ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of near the development two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods." (Pub. Res. Code, § 21064.3.) Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a moderate to higher density development located within an easy walk of a major transit stop. htto //transitorienteddevelooment dot. ca aov/miscellaneous/NewWhatisTOD ht M. By building or funding a major transit stop, an otherwise ordinary development can become a TOD. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 12 [Rev 1/6/2010] Available at httr)://ac.ca.aov/alobalwarm[na/pdf/GW mitigation measures.pdf Provide public transit See U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. EPA, Commuter Choice incentives such as free Primer / An Employer's Guide to Implementing Effective Commuter Choice or low-cost monthly Programs, available at transit passes to httr)://www.its.dot-ciov/JPODOCS/REPTS PR/13669.htmI.. employees, or free ride areas to residents and The Emery Go Round shuttle is a private transportation service funded by customers. commercial property owners in the citywide transportation business improvement district. The shuttle links a local shopping district to a Bay Area Rapid Transit stop. See http://www.emervooround.com/. Seattle, Washington maintains a public transportation "ride free" zone in its downtown from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily. See htto://transitmetrokc.00v/togs/accessible/paccessible map.html#fare.. Promote "least Promoting "least polluting" methods of moving people and goods is part of a polluting" ways to larger, integrated "sustainable streets" strategy now being explored at U.C. connect people and Davis's Sustainable Transportation Center. Resources and links are available goods to their at the Center's website, http:Ilste.ucdavis.edu/outreach/ssp.php. destinations. Incorporate bicycle Bicycling can have a profound impact on transportation choices and air lanes, routes and pollution reduction. The City of Davis has the highest rate of bicycling in the facilities into street nation. Among its 64,000 residents, 17 percent travel to work by bicycle and systems, new 41 percent consider the bicycle their primary mode of transportation. See Air subdivisions, and large Resources Board, Bicycle Awareness Program, Bicycle Fact Sheet, available developments. at httr)://www.arb.ca.aovlplannincltsagfbicvcle/factsht.htrn. For recommendations on best practices, see the many resources listed at the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration's Bicycle and Pedestrian website at httra:llwww.fhwa. dot. oov/environme ntlbikeoedloublications. htm,. See also Caltrans Division of Research and Innovation, Designing Highway Facilities To Encourage Walking, Biking and Transit (Preliminary Investigation) (March 2009), available at htto://www.dot.ca,aov/researchlresearchrer)orts/r)reliminary investiaations/doc. s/pi-desion for walking %20bikina and transit%20'final.Ddf. Require amenities for According to local and national surveys of potential bicycle commuters, secure non -motorized bicycle parking and workplace changing facilities are important complements transportation, such as to safe and convenient routes of travel. See Air Resources Board, Bicycle secure and convenient Awareness Program, Bicycle Fact Sheet, available at bicycle parking. htto://www.arb.ca.cov/planning/tsaa/bicvcleJfactsht.htm,. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 13 [Rev. 1/6/2010] Available at http://aa.ca.covlalobaiwarmina/Ddf/GW mitioation measures.odf, Ensure that the project See, e.g., U.S. EPA's list of transit-related "smart growth" publications at enhances, and does not htto:l/www.eoa.aov/dced/oublications.htm#air, including Pedestrian and disrupt or create Transit-Friendly Design: A Primer for Smart Growth (1999), available at barriers to, non- www.eDa.aov/dcedlodf/iDtfd Drimer.pdf. motorized transportation. See also Toolkit for Improving Walkability in Alameda County, available at http://www.acta2002.com/ned too Ikitlped toolkit orint.Ddf. Pursuant to the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358, Gov. Code, §§ 65040.2 and 65302), commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element of the general plan, a city or county will be required to modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users. Connect parks and Walk Score ranks the "walkability" of neighborhoods in the largest 40 U.S. open space through cities, including seven California cities. Scores are based on the distance to shared pedestrian/bike nearby amenities. Explore Walk Score at htti)://www.walkscore.00rnl. paths and trails to Programs to create safe routes to schools can break this harmful cycle. See encourage walking and In many markets, homes in walkable neighborhoods are worth more than bicycling. similar properties where walking is more difficult. See Hoak, Walk appeal/ Create bicycle lanes Homes In walkable neighborhoods sell for more: study, Wall Street Journal and walking paths (Aug. 18, 2009), available at htto:I/www.marketwatch.com/storvlhomes-in- directed to the location walkable -neighborhoods -sell -for -more -2009-08-18. of schools, parks and htto://www.eDa.aovldced/schools.htm. other destination points. By creating walkable neighborhoods with more transportation choices, Californians could save $31 million and cut greenhouse gas emissions by 34 percent, according to a study released by Transform, a coalition of unions and nonprofits. See Windfall for All / How Connected, Convenient Neighborhoods Can Protect Our Climate and Safeguard California's Economy (Nov. 2009), available at htto:l/transformca.orc/windfall-for-ali#download-report. Work with the school In some communities, twenty to twenty-five percent of morning traffic is due to districts to improve parents driving their children to school. Increased traffic congestion around pedestrian and bike schools in turn prompts even more parents to drive their children to school. access to schools and Programs to create safe routes to schools can break this harmful cycle. See to restore or expand California Department of Public Health, Safe Routes to School (webpage) and school bus service associated links at using lower -emitting htto:/Iwww.cdoh.ca.aov/Healthlnfo/iniviosaf/Paaes/SafeRoutestoSchool.asox.. vehicles. See also U.S. EPA, Smart Growth and Schools (webpage), available at htto://www.eDa.aovldced/schools.htm. California Center for Physical Activity, California Walk to School (website) at httc):I/www.cawalktoschool.com Regular school bus service (using lower -emitting buses) for children who cannot bike or walk to school could substantially reduce private vehicle congestion and air pollution around schools. See Air Resources Board, Lower Emissions School Bus Program (webpage) at httt)://www.arb.ca-aovimsr)roatschoolbus/schoolbus. htm, AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 14 [Rev. 116/2010] Available at htto:/lac.ca.00v/aloba[warminahxif/GW mitination measures.odf. Institute There are numerous sites on the web with resources for employers seeking to teleconferencing, establish telework or flexible work programs. These include U.S. EPA's telecommute and/or Mobility Management Strategies Commuter Programs website at flexible work hour httiD1/www.epa oov/otao/stateresources/rellinks/mms commoroarams.htm; programs to reduce and Telework, the federal government's telework website, at unnecessary employee htto://www.telework.aov/. transportation. keeping tires inflated); Through a continuing FlexWork Implementation Program, the Traffic Solutions and low or zero- division of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments sponsors emission vehicles. flexwork consulting, training and implementation services to a limited number of Santa Barbara County organizations that want to create or expand flexwork programs for the benefit of their organizations, employees and the community. See http.//www.flexworksb.com/read more about the fSBD.html. Other local government entities provide similar services. Provide information on Many types of projects may provide opportunities for delivering more tailored alternative transportation information. For example, a homeowner's association could transportation options provide information on its website, or an employer might create a for consumers, Transportation Coordinator position as part of a larger Employee Commute residents, tenants and Reduction Program See, e.g., South Coast Air Quality Management District, employees to reduce Transportation Coordinator training, at http:/lwww.agmd.gov/trans/trainq.html. transpo rtatio n -re lated emissions. Educate consumers, See. for example U S. EPA, SmartWay Transport Partnership Innovative residents, tenants and Carrier Strategies (webpage) at htto://www.er)a.gov/smartwavttransr)ort/what- the public about options smartwav/carrier-strategies.htm This webpage includes recommendations for for reducing motor actions that truck and rail fleets can take to make ground freight more efficient vehicle -related and cleaner. greenhouse gas emissions. Include The Air Resources Board's Drive Clean website is a resource for car buyers to information on trip find clean and efficient vehicles. The web site is designed to educate reduction; trip linking; Californians that pollution levels range greatly between vehicles. See vehicle performance httn1/www.dnveclean.ca.gov/. and efficiency (e.g., keeping tires inflated); The Oregon Department of Transportation and other public and private and low or zero- partners launched the Drive Less/Save More campaign. The comprehensive emission vehicles. website contains fact sheets and educational materials to help people drive more efficiently. See ht%r) !/vvww.drivelesssavemore.com/. Purchase, or create See Air Resources Board, Low -Emission Vehicle Program (webpage) at incentives for htts)://www.arb.ca_oov/msr)roo/levoroo/levDroo.htm. purchasing, low or zero - emission vehicles. Air Resource Board, Zero Emission Vehicle Program (webpage) at httpJ/www. arb.ca. qov/msproq/zevproq/zevoroq, htm. All new cars sold in California are now required to display an Environmental Performance (EP) Label, which scores a vehicle's global warming and smog emissions from 1 (dirtiest) to 10 (cleanest). To search and compare vehicle EP Labels, visit www.DriveClean.ca oov. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 15 [Rev. 1/6/20101 Available at htto.//aa ca aov/alobalwarmin❑/odf/GW mitigation measures.odf Create a ride sharing program. Promote existing ride sharing programs e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides. Create or accommodate car sharing programs, e.g., provide parking spaces for car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public transportation. For example, the 511 Regional Rideshare Program is operated by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and is funded by grants from the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and county congestion management agencies. For more information, see httD://rideshare.51 1. oral. As another example, San Bernardino Associated Governments works directly with large and small employers, as well as providing support to commuters who wish to share rides or use alternative forms of transportation. See hfD://www.sanbao.ca.ciov/commuter/rideshare. html. Valleyrides.com is a ridesharing resource available to anyone commuting to and from Fresno and Tulare Counties and surrounding communities. See http://www.vallevrides.conV. There are many other similar websites throughout the state. There are many existing car sharing companies in California. These include City CarShare (San Francisco Bay Area), see http://www.citvcarshare.ora/; and Zipcar, see http://www.zir)car.cam/. Car sharing programs are being successfully used on many California campuses. Provide a vanpool for Many local Transportation Management Agencies can assist in forming employees. vanpools. See, for example, Sacramento Transportation Management Association, Check out Vanpooling (webpage) at http://www.sacramento- tma. ora/vanDool.html. Create local "light See California Energy Commission, Consumer Energy Center, Urban Options vehicle" networks, such - Neighborhood Electric Vehicles (NEVs) (webpage) at as neighborhood htto://www.consumerenerc)vicenter.ora/transDortatiordurban ootions/nev.html. electric vehicle systems. The City of Lincoln has an innovative NEV program. See httD://www.lincolnev.com/index.html. Enforce and follow Under existing law, diesel -fueled motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight limits idling time for rating greater than 10,000 pounds are prohibited from idling for more than 5 commercial vehicles, minutes at any location. The minimum penalty for an idling violation is now including delivery and $300 per violation. See httD://www.arb_ca.aov/enf/comolaints/idlina cv.htm. construction vehicles. Provide the necessary For a list of existing alternative fuel stations in California, visit facilities and httD://www.cleancarmaps.com/. infrastructure to encourage the use of See, e.g., Baker, Charging -station network built along 101, S.F. Chron, low or zero -emission (9/23/09), available at htto://articles.sfoate.com/2009-09- vehicles. 23/news/17207424 1 recharaina-solar-arrav-tesla-motors. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 16 [Rev. 1/6/2010] Available at httD://aa.ca.aov/alobaiwarmina/r)df/GW mitigation measures.odf Agriculture and Forestry (additional strategies noted above) Require best Air Resources Board (ARB), Economic Sectors Portal, Agriculture (webpage) management practices athttD://www.arb.ca-aov/ce/ahosectors/clhQsectors.htm. ARB's webpage in agriculture and includes information on emissions from manure management, nitrogen animal operations to fertilizer, agricultural offroad equipment, and agricultural engines. reduce emissions, conserve energy and "A full 90% of an agricultural business' electricity bill is likely associated with water, and utilize water use. In addition, the 8 million acres in California devoted to crops alternative energy consume 80% of the total water pumped in the state." See Flex Your Power, sources, including Agricultural Sector (webpage) at httD-.1Mww.fvoower.org1agri/. biogas, wind and solar. Flex Your Power, Best Practice Guide / Food and Beverage Growers and Processors, available at httD://www.fvoower.ora/boatindex. html?b=food and bey. Antle et al., Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Agriculture's Role in Greenhouse Gas Mitigation (2006), available at htto:11www. oewcii mate. oraldocUoioads/Agriculture's%20 Role%20i n%20GHG% 20M itioation. odf. Preserve forested "There are three general means by which agricultural and forestry areas, agricultural practices can reduce greenhouse gases: (1) avoiding emissions by lands, wildlife habitat maintaining existing carbon storage in trees and soils, (2) increasing and corridors, wetlands, carbon storage by, e.g., tree planting, conversion from conventional to watersheds, conservation tillage practices on agricultural lands; (3) substituting bio - groundwater recharge based fuels and products for fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and areas and other open energy -intensive products that generate greater quantities of CO2 space that provide when used." U.S. EPA, Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and carbon sequestration Forestry, Frequently Asked Questions (webpage) at benefits. htto,//www.eoa.aov/secuestration/faa.html. Air Resources Board, Economic Sectors Portal, Forestry (webpage) at htto://www. arb. ca. aov/cc/ahosectors/ghosectors. htm. Protect existing trees Tree preservation and planting is not just for rural areas of the state; suburban and encourage the and urban forests can also serve as carbon sinks. See Cal Fire, Urban and planting of new trees. Community Forestry (webpage) at Adopt a tree protection httq://www. fire.ca.aov/resource mat/resource mot urbanforestrv.phiD. and replacement ordinance. Off -Site Mitigation If, after analyzing and requiring all reasonable and feasible on-site mitigation measures for avoiding or reducing greenhouse gas -related impacts, the lead agency determines that additional mitigation is required, the agency may consider additional off-site mitigation. The project proponent could, for example, fund off-site mitigation projects that will reduce carbon emissions, conduct an audit of its other existing operations and agree to retrofit, or purchase verifiable carbon "credits" from another entity that will undertake mitigation. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 17 [Rev. 1/6/2010] Available at htto:Ilaa.ca.aov/alobalwarmina/odf/GW mitigation measures.odf. The topic of off-site mitigation can be complicated. A full discussion is outside the scope of this summary document. Issues that the lead agency should consider include: The location of the off-site mitigation. (If the off-site mitigation is far from the project, any additional, non -climate related co -benefits of the mitigation may be lost to the local community.) Whether the emissions reductions from off-site mitigation can be quantified and verified. (The California Registry has developed a number of protocols for calculating, reporting and verifying greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, industry -specific protocols are available for the cement sector, power/utility sector, forest sector and local government operations. For more information, visit the California Registry's website at http://www.climateregistrv.oral.) • Whether the mitigation ratio should be greater than 1:1 to reflect any uncertainty about the effectiveness of the off-site mitigation. Offsite mitigation measures that could be funded through mitigation fees include, but are not limited to, the following: • Energy efficiency audits of existing buildings. • Energy efficiency upgrades to existing buildings not otherwise required by law, including heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, water heating equipment, insulation and weatherization (perhaps targeted to specific communities, such as low-income or senior residents). • Programs to encourage the purchase and use of energy efficient vehicles, appliances, equipment and lighting. • Programs that create incentives to replace or retire polluting vehicles and engines. • Programs to expand the use of renewable energy and energy storage. • Preservation and/or enhancement of existing natural areas (e.g., forested areas, agricultural lands, wildlife habitat and corridors, wetlands, watersheds, and groundwater recharge areas) that provide carbon sequestration benefits. • Improvement and expansion of public transit and low- and zero -carbon transportation alternatives. AGO, Project Level Mitigation Measures Page 18 [Rev. 1/6/2010] Available at htta//aa.ca.aov/alobalwarmina/odf/GW mittoation measures odf ATTACHMENT B Indoor Air Quality in New California Homes with Mechanical Ventilation Wanyu Chan',% Yang-Seon Kim', Brett Singerl, Iain Walkers I Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, USA `Corresponding email: wrchan@ lbl.gov SUMMARY The Healthy Efficient New Gas Homes (HENGH) study measured indoor air quality and mechanical ventilation use in 70 new California homes. This paper summarizes preliminary results collected from 42 homes. In addition to measurements of formaldehyde, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and PM2.5 that are discussed here, HENGH also monitored other indoor environmental parameters (e.g., CO2) and indoor activities (e.g., cooking, fan use) using sensors and occupant logs. Each home was monitored for one week. Diagnostic tests were performed to characterize building envelope and duct leakage, and mechanical system airflow. Comparisons of indoor fonnaldehyde, NO2, and PM2.5 with a prior California New Home Study (CNHS) (Offermann, 2009) suggest that contaminant levels are lower than measured from about 10 years ago. The role of mechanical ventilation on indoor contaminant levels will be evaluated. KEYWORDS Formaldehyde; nitrogen dioxide; particles; home performance, field study 1 INTRODUCTION The HENGH field study (2016-2018) aimed to measure indoor air quality in 70 new California homes that have mechanical ventilation. Eligible houses were built in 2011 or later; had an operable whole -dwelling mechanical ventilation system, used natural gas for space heating, water heating, and/or cooking; and had no smoking in the home. Study participants were asked to rely on mechanical ventilation and avoid window use during the one-week monitoring period. All homes had a venting kitchen range hood or over the range microwave and bathroom exhaust fans. This paper presents summary results of formaldehyde, NO2, and PM2.5 measurements in 42 homes. The full dataset is expected to be available in summer 2018. 2 METHODS Integrated one-week concentrations of formaldehyde and NOX were measured using SKC UMEx-100 and Ogawa passive samplers. Formaldehyde samplers were deployed in the main living space, master bedroom, and outdoors. PM2.5 were measured using a pair of photometers (ES-642BT-645, MetOne Instruments) indoor in the main living space and outdoors. PM2.5 filter samples were collected using a co -located pDR-1500 (ThermoFisher) in a subset of the homes and time -resolved photometer data were adjusted using the gravimetric measurements. Results are compared with a prior field study CNHS (2007-2008) (Offermann, 2009) that monitored for contaminant concentrations over a 24-hour period in 108 homes built between 2002 and 2004, including a subset of 26 homes with whole -dwelling mechanical ventilation. 3 RESULTS Figure 1 compares the indoor concentrations of formaldehyde, NO2, and PM2.5 measured by the two studies. Results of HENGH are one-week averaged concentrations, whereas CHNS are 24-hour averages. HENGH measured lower indoor concentrations of formaldehyde and PM2.5, compared to CNHS. For NO2, the indoor concentrations measured by the two studies are similar. Summary statistics of indoor and outdoor contaminant concentrations (mean and median concentrations; N=number of homes with available data) are presented in Table 1. LL o s is m E o HENGH CANH 4 20 40 5a $0 100 1217 LL m E U 1a Formaldehyde (ppb) NO2 (ppb) PM2.5 (uglm3) Figure 1. Comparisons of indoor contaminant concentrations measured by two studies. Table 1. Summary statistics of indoor and outdoor contaminant concentrations. HENGH - Indoor CNHS - Indoor HENGH - Outdoor CNHS - Outdoor N Median Mean N Median Mean N Median Mean N Median Mean Formaldehyde (ppb) 39 20.0 20.6 104 29.5 36.3 38 2.0 2.0 43 1.8 2.8 NO2 (ppb) 40 3.7 4.4 29 3.2 5.4 40 3.0 3.1 11 3.1 3.5 PM2j (ug/rrr) 41 4.7 5.8 28 10.4 13.3 42 5.9 7.7 11 8.7 7.9 4 DISCUSSION The lower formaldehyde concentrations measured by HENGH in comparison to CNHS may be attributable to California's regulation to limit formaldehyde emissions from composite wood products that came into effect between the two studies. Gas cooking is a significant source of indoor NO2 (Mullen et al., 2016). Even though NO2 concentrations measured by HENGH are similar to levels found in CNHS, the two studies differed in that HENGH homes all use gas for cooking, whereas almost all homes (980%) from the prior study used electric ranges. More analysis is needed to determine the effectiveness of source control, such as range hood use during cooking, on indoor concentrations of cooking emissions such as NO2 and PM2.5. Lower PM2,5 indoors measured by HENGH compared to CNHS may be explained from a combination of lower outdoor PM2-5 levels, reduced particle penetration due to tighter building envelopes (Stephens and Siegel, 2012) combined with exhaust ventilation, and use of medium efficiency air filter (MERV 11 or better) in some HENGH homes. Further analysis of the data will evaluate the role of mechanical ventilation, including local exhaust and whole - dwelling ventilation system, on measured indoor contaminant levels. 5 CONCLUSIONS New California homes now have lower indoor formaldehyde levels than previously measured, likely as a result of California's formaldehyde emission standards. Indoor concentrations of NO2 and PM15 measured are also low compared to a prior study of new homes in California. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT LBNL work on the project was supported by the California Energy Commission. Field data collection was performed by the Gas Technology Institute. Support for field teams was provided by Pacific Gas & Electric and the Southern California Gas Company. 6REFERENCES Mullen NA et al. 2016 Indoor A it 26(2):231-245. Offermann FJ. 2009. California Air Resource Board and California Energy Commission Report CEC-500-2009-085. Stephens B. Siegel JA. 201212door.tlir 22(6):501-513. City of EI Segundo Comment Letter No. 11 Lozeau Drury LLP Richard Drury on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental ("SAFER") (sic) 1939 Harrison Street, Ste. 150 Oakland, CA 94612 May 21, 2019 Response to Comment 11-1 June 2019 The comment states the letter is written on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental ("SAFER") (sic). The comment introduces provides a summary description of the Project. This comment is noted for the administrative record and will be forwarded to the decision makers for review and consideration. Response to Comment 11-2 The comment suggests the Final EIR contains numerous errors and omissions. Furthermore, the comment suggests the Final EIR fails as an informational document and fails to impose feasible mitigation measure to reduce the Project's impacts, but provides no specifics. The comment suggests that the City of EI Segundo should address the shortcomings in a revised Draft EIR and recirculate the revised Draft EIR prior to approval. The comment also suggests the Final EIR fails to provide a reasoned and good faith analysis and fails to meet the legal standards, but provides no specifics. The comment also suggest the response to comments on a Draft EIR must state reasons for rejecting suggested mitigation measures and comments on significant environmental issues. While this comment does not identify any specific shortcomings of the Final EIR analysis or mitigation measures, the follow-on comments identify specific issues related to the Draft EIR. Responses to those comments are provided individually. As such, no specific response to this comment is possible or required. Furthermore, as outlined in the responses below, the Final EIR complied fully with all of CEQA's requirements. The comment will be forwarded to the decision -makers for consideration. Response to Comment 11-3 The comment suggests that CEQA requires the Lead Agency provide the Final EIR to all public entities that commented on the Draft EIR at least 10 days before certifying the EIR. The requirement to provide proposed responses to comments to agencies that commented on the Draft EIR 10 days prior to certifying the EIR (Public Resources Code 21092.5) did not apply at the time the comment letter was submitted because the EIR was not considered for certification at the May 23, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. Certification of the EIR will take place at a City Council meeting at a later date to be determined. Proposed responses to comments will be provided to commenting agencies (and the public) at least 10 days before this date. The comment will be forwarded to the decision -makers for consideration. Response to Comment 11-4 The commenter states the SCAQMD and DTSC raise serious concerns about the toxic chemical soil contamination. The commenter suggest these concerns are largely ignored in the Final EIR and the Draft EIR ignores the soil contamination and the SCAQMD Rules governing the soil contamination, Rules 1166 and 1466 (Draft EIR IV.A.10-12). References to these rules (Rule 1166—Volatile Organic Compounds from Decontaminated Soil, and SCAQMD Rule 1466 - Control of Particulate Emissions from Soils with Toxic Contaminants) were added to the regulatory requirements section in the Final EIR. The project applicant would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 1166 and Rule 1466 because these are existing regulatory Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -68 City of EI Segundo June 2019 requirements. Even though the references were added to SCAQMD Rules 1166 and 1466 in the Final EIR, they are not mitigation measures. Recirculation of the Draft EIR would not be necessitated by this addition. Further, as indicated in the Draft EIR (page IV.E-24), while a Phase I report identified concerns with regard to TPH, lead and PCBs, a soil remediation plan was developed and implemented which resulted in the removal and proper off-site disposal of 504 cubic yards of impacted soil. Based on the data collected and work performed by the previous owner (Air Products and Chemicals), the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which has jurisdiction over the project site, issued a No Further Action determination for the project site soils on August 31, 2017, which was included as Appendix E.2 to the Draft EIR. As indicated in the No Further Action letter, the site has been cleaned up and abated so as to meet the requirements for a soil closure letter for commercial use of the site. As further noted in the letter, a covenant and environmental restriction has been placed on the property limiting the use to commercial applications. Further, as discussed in Response to Comment 9-2, all USTs installed by the prior occupant of the site have been removed from the Project Site. The NFA letter establishes that no residual hazards related to contaminated soil or toxic contaminants are currently present on the project site. Since the project has been properly remediated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a preliminary endangerment assessment and voluntary clean-up plan is not required, and no mitigation is required. The Draft EIR correctly concludes that impacts would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report prepared on September 22, 2017, after the No Further Action letter, determined that there were no Recognized Environmental Conditions (Rev's) located on the Project Site. Response to Comment 11-5 The commenter states neither the Draft nor Final EIR contain any health risk assessment (HRA). The Draft EIR states that no HRA is required for toxic contaminants associated with construction equipment because construction will take place over 18 months. (DEIR IV.A.21.). An HRA is a technical study that evaluates how toxic emissions are released from a facility, how they disperse throughout the community, and the potential for those toxic pollutants to impact Ione -term human health. Determination of risk from construction emissions over a 30 -year exposure period would not be appropriate since construction activities would be limited to a period of approximately 18 months. Thus, duration of construction activities would represent a fraction of the 30 -year exposure period used as the basis for assessing the significance of carcinogenic risk exposure and, therefore, would not represent a source of sustained toxic emissions. Accordingly, the SCAQMD does not require preparation of a health risk assessment for construction emissions. Therefore, exposure to toxic emissions during construction would be less than significant. Furthermore, there are no sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site that would be potentially impacted by construction emissions. The commenter purports to provide a description of the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA") guidance on HRAs. The commenter suggests that this guidance mandates that all short-term projects lasting at least two months be evaluated for cancer risks to nearby sensitive receptors. The commenter provides no specific reference for this requirement. According to the "Air Toxic Hot Spots Program: Risk Assessment Guidelines, Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments, prepared by OEHHA, and adopted in March 2015, page 1-3, Section 1.3, Who Is Required to Conduct a Risk Assessment: "The Hot Spots Act requires that each local Air Pollution Control District or Air Quality Management District (hereinafter referred to as District) determine which facilities will prepare Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -69 City of EI Segundo June 2019 an HRA. As defined under the Hot Spots Act, an HRA includes a comprehensive analysis of the dispersion of hazardous substances in the environment, their potential for human exposure, and a quantitative assessment of both individual and population -wide health risks associated with those levels of exposure. Districts are to determine which facilities will prepare an HRA based on a prioritization process outlined in the law. The process by which Districts identify priority facilities for risk assessment involves consideration of potency, toxicity, quantity of emissions, and proximity to sensitive receptors such as hospitals, daycare centers, schools, work -sites, and residences. The District may also consider other factors that may contribute to an increased potential for significant risk to human receptors. As part of this process Districts categorize facilities as high, intermediate, or low priority. (emphasis added)" High priority facilities are required to prepare an HRA and submit to the SCAQMD for review and approval. As noted above, the SCAQMD has not established any requirement to prepare an HRA for construction activity. Moreover, there are no sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site that could potentially be impacted by the construction emissions. Closest receptors are the multi -family residential dwelling units located approximately 0.18 miles (-290 meters) southwest and the multi -family attached and single- family detached residential dwelling units located approximately 0.2 miles (^'322 meters) south of the Project Site. After construction is complete, the Project itself would not be not a source of toxic emissions and therefore it not required to provide a health risk assessment for its operations. The comment provides no substantial evidence of a health risk from either project construction or project operations, therefore no HRA or mitigation measures are required. Response to Comment 11-6 The commenter states that the EIR admits that the Project will have significant greenhouse gas ("GHG") impacts. (FEIR 1-17, 18), "Proposed Project's unmitigated emissions are 6,007.71 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per year resulting in 5.82 MTCO2e/SP/year." (DEIR IV.D-31). The commenter states this is far above the SCAQMD significance threshold for GHGs of 3,000 MT/year. While the Draft EIR acknowledges that the Proposed Project's unmitigated emissions would exceed both the SCAQMD Tier 3 and Tier 4 thresholds, the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, MM D-1 through MM D-4 together with the reductions from the CAPCOA-based reduction measures, would reduce emissions to a level of 3.88 MTCO2e/SP/year, which is below the SCAQMD Tier 4 threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects (Draft EIR, page IV.D-41). The exceedance of the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold is irrelevant because this is a screening threshold that merely pushes the analysis to the Tier 4 threshold. Furthermore, the Project is not required to incorporate all mitigation measures, just sufficient measures that will reduce the impact to less than significant. This is established in the CalEEMod analysis provided in the Draft EIR and no substantial evidence is presented that would call this conclusion into question. Response to Comment 11-7 The commenter states CalTrans submitted a comment concerning the Project's significant traffic impacts. The commenter also states, in response the Final EIR proposes a Traffic Demand Management (TDM) plan, but provides no detail for the TDM plan. The commenter states the Final EIR's TDM plan is deferred mitigation prohibited by CEQA. The commenter is referred to Section IV.K. Transportation, Traffic and Parking, page IV. K-46 which provides Mitigation Measure MM -K-1, which is the Transportation Demand Management Program. These measures would need to reflect the characteristics of the Project as finally constructed and occupied that cannot be presently known. Therefore, the Final EIR includes the requirement that the City must approve the TDM plan prior to project opening. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -70 City of EI Segundo Resoonse to Comment 11-8 June 2019 The commenter states the EIR fails to analyze impacts of indoor air quality. The commenter suggests such impacts may be related to soil -vapor intrusion from toxic soil contamination. However, as noted above, no residual soil vapor impacts would result from Project Site conditions since the site was previously remediated to the satisfaction of the RWQCB. The commenter suggests that formaldehyde is present in residential and office building construction materials. These materials are regulated by the California Air Resources Board to minimize such emissions. No thresholds have been adopted by any regulatory agency as to what levels of such emissions would result in health impacts and no substantial evidence is provided that construction materials used in project construction would pose any health hazards to future occupants. Moreover, the study cited in the comment merely concludes that contaminant levels measured inside homes have declined from levels identified in a previous study conducted in 2009. This study makes no attempt to assess whether measured levels of formaldehyde, NO2 or PM2.5 exceed any established regulatory levels or pose any health risk to occupants. As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)(5), unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. Since the commenter provides no substantial evidence regarding the alleged inadequacy of the EIR, the claims contained in the comment letter would provide no basis for changes to the Draft EIR or the Final EIR. Resoonse to Comment 11-9 The commenter states for the forgoing reasons the EIR fails to meet the requirements of CEQA. The commenter urges the City to require preparation of a Revised Draft EIR that addresses the identified deficiencies. As noted above, none of the issues identified in the comment letter provide substantial evidence that the Project would result in a new significant impact or substantial increase in severity of an impact previously identified in the Draft EIR. In addition, the commenter provides no substantial evidence that a feasible alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it, or the Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. As provided in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(f)(5), unsubstantiated opinion or narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. Since the commenter provides no substantial evidence regarding the alleged inadequacy of the Draft or Final EIR, the claims contained in the comment letter would provide no basis for requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Beach Cities Media Campus Project II. Response to Comments Page II -71 III. REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS AND CORRECTIONS ON THE DRAFT EIR This section of the Final EIR provides changes to the Draft EIR that have been made to clarify, correct, or add to the environmental impact analysis for the Project. Such changes are a result of public and agency comments received in response to the Draft EIR and/or new information which clarifies, amplifies, or insignificantly modifies language in the Draft EIR that has become available since publication of the Draft EIR. These changes to the Draft EIR are indicated in this section under the appropriate Draft EIR section or appendix heading. Deletions are shown with strikethrough and additions are shown with underline. The changes described in this section do not require recirculation of the Draft EIR because they do not result in any new or increased significant environmental impacts of the Project. CEQA requires recirculation of a Draft EIR only when "significant new information" is added to a Draft EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR has occurred (refer to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5), but before the EIR is certified. Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states: "New information added to an EIR is not 'significant' unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project's proponents have declined to implement. 'Significant new information' requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that: • A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. • A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. • A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project's proponents decline to adopt it. • The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded." As demonstrated in this Final EIR, neither the comments submitted on the Draft EIR, the responses to these comments, nor the revisions presented in this section, meet the above criteria for recirculation. I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Section 1. Introduction and Summary, page 1-21, MM E-1 and MM E-2, revise as follows: Construction - The Phase I ESA noted that all structures have been removed from the existing Project Site, and no asbestos or 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 TPH, lead, and PCBs. As stated above, an investigation report and remedial action workplan was prepared on behalf of Air Products 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. Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -1 City of EI Segundo June 2019 in age r::!zr�x -MO: rr/j,_Iz�tc: t �,=,vircvnerw, r `- +-_ c , ,Wioi fo" clo-VII far T -P -H, ICD Zr?_ PC-B�;. DL-Xir-" crrv�+�N�irr X11. TI'S!, local, oro -1 f CJ!ie i o►I�I kc ;ger.-,v/1d-ir csu-l�Vllvc 'IA* efoiseklc VP6i . .perifiilly, iel ".HA �-io ottaklirho2 sir. -Mo of it I*cl ^.fie.+ 'Amu a7� fur+oc 1.0farn4 Carlo cf­!�-igv4tiorti, Titla 9� Coc+l,!r.'_V-2.1. Irc.:d- c -.111W crud 11h:or rn/let coo ko rn:::-_3G'0_ 2r"'_0 dilpl7ed of in ...._crrlrr'ee_ with nIrpli:.alrlo p7 -_v,5 Sri of `h:: G.lifcmia ar.� i_ -&ay Cric-. r ermsrc, Mrs; -Ratericic fewnd- a EE)RtBOR TPS Of n § r;,r0t isc r'Q-rAcvzsl and iisimvd ii NOth SII rpplioc!A lecl, Ct*ts aro fedarZl INVA r^_t li-Ak for:%z C: £ B71le 11, zr/i Fnnari-moo GFR. WAV. `c of l air�g�rlc\: � . = ,x �.: r_r+� o;.d of 1\14SGotion P/Ifzr►.n r/K^ll Thus impacts from the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than. sgnificant. There is a Standard Oil Company and Standard Gasoline Company pipe line easement located along the Project Site frontage. The easement, recorded on December 27, 1968, was to construct, maintain, operate, repair, add to and remove one or more pipelines as well as overhead wires, conductors, cables and conduits, and appurtenances thereof, into the easement. The easement covers a strip of land 43 feet wide, and runs the entire length of the Project Site. 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-41, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Section 1. Introduction and Summary, page 1-21, MM E-1 and MM E-2, revise as follows: MM 1; 1: uNaA rr✓ a44-FegWatciy prix s.c ■na..•.v-tc.% soil 07-11 kc _=P. -and af�aP;caz! for TPI?, `gid c7ol PU:. cry r.. atio of the a.,rnst, tt,* . ppUjc:*o1_P ahoy irrn:.asl!at dwWcr7_l cvrr ►y ►icctoc v.:y. or Tl-[, ?Dad, cr PCP--- crc arre:an.c-rY i thr _cil ark/or ae�;/Aoes,- MM E-21: 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. Section 1. Introduction and Summary, page 1-46, MM K-1, revise as follows: MM K-1: Transportation Demand Management Program. A TDM Drop -ram will be irnDlemented as Dart of the mitigation package for the Proiect. Several TDM. program elements are Dro1ect design features that are currently Dr000sed for implementation. Other TDM program elements would be developed as Dart of oreoaration of a detailed TDM elan, to be aDDroved by City of El Segundo prior to approval of a final certificate of occuDancv for the Proiect. 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 III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -2 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. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Section II. Project Description, page II -8, revise as follows: Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -3 City of EI Segundo June 2019 Per the ESMC, the number of bicycle spaces required is a minimum of four spaces for buildings up to 15,000 square feet, plus a minimum of five percent of the required vehicle spaces for the portion above 15,000 square feet. Per the ESMC, a w/ixso-firs minimum of 25 bicycle spaces is required. The Project would meet or exceed these requirements. In addition, as part of the Project, bicycle racks would be installed in accordance with the ESMC and CalGreen requirements. III. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Section III. Environmental Setting, Table III -1, Related Projects, pages III -11 through III -12, revise as follows: Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -4 Table III -1 Related Projects No. Address Land Use Size 1. 540 East Imperial Avenue Residential 58 du 2. 201 North Douglas Streetb High School 1,200 stu 3. 400 Duley Roadb Medical Office 63,540 sf 4. 123 Nevada Streetb Office 15,000 sf 5. 2125 Campus Drive Office 153,530 sf 6. 2130 East Maple Drive and 725 Hotel 180 room Campus Square Westb Office 22,670 sf 7. 140 Sheldon Streetb Office/Warehouse 7,120 sf 8. 740 North Sepulveda Boulevardb Drive through Restaurant 5,000 sf 9. 1492 Hermosa Avenue' Hotel 30 rm 10. 2101 Pacific Coast Highway' Office 10,120 sf 11. 8241St Street' Office 3,000 sf 12. 707 North Sepulveda Boulevard' Supermarket 27,500 sf Restaurant §a 28 seats Bank 7,000 sf 13. 1800 Manhattan Beach Boulevard' General Office 3,000 sf 14. 2205 North Sepulveda Boulevard' General Office 4,700 sf 15. 1762 Manhattan Beach Boulevard' Medical Office 1,800 sf Apartment 1 du 16. 757 Manhattan Beach Boulevard' Condominium 5 du 17. 1101 Manhattan Beach Boulevard' Medical Office 5,000 sf 18. 1100 Manhattan Beach Boulevard' Retail 13,000 sf 19. 2100 East EI Segundo Boulevard' Office 1,751,920 sf Warehouse 73,580 sf Industrial 168,000 sf Retail 148,960 sf 20. 500 South Douglas and 2330 Utah General Office 78,000 sf Avenue 21. 2171-2191 Rosecrans Avenue" Restaurant 13,570 sf 22. 2516-2520 Nelson Avenue' Condominium 9 du 23. 2430 Marine Avenue' Hotel 121 rm 24. 305 South Sepulveda Boulevard, Design Center 100,300 sf 330 South Sepulveda Boulevard, and Executive Offices 19,210 sf Hermosa Beach Sites' Coffee Shop 1,000 sf General Office 57,500 sf Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -4 City of EI Segundo du = dwelling units sf =square feet rm = rooms stu = students 0. Related Project information provided by Erik Zondvliet City of Manhattan Beach, November 6, 2017 b• Related Project information provided by Ethan Edwards, City of El Segundo, January 23, 2018. Related Project information provided by City of Hawthorne, January 18, 2018. i Source: Fehr and Peers, LLC., November 2018. W.A. AIR QUALITY Section IV.A. Air Quality, pages IV.A-12 through IV.A-13, revise as follows: 13) SCAQNiD Rule 2202 June 2019 Size 86,520 sf 4,990 sf 12,000 sf 15,000 sf 700 sf 27,999 23.050 sf 62,999 665 sf 1.715 sf 155,660 sf 300,000 sf 32,190 sf 30,080 sf 110,000 sf 4 du 18,850 sf 3,600 sf 6,270 sf 5,880 sf On -Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options, is to provide employers with a menu of options to reduce mobile source emissions generated from employee commutes, to comply with federal and state Clean Air Act requirements, Health & Safety Code Section 40458, and Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the federal Clean Air Act. It applies to any employer who employs 250 or more employees on a full or part-time basis at a worksite for a consecutive six-month period calculated as a monthly average. Although the SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects throughout the South Coast Air Basin. Instead, this is controlled through local jurisdictions in accordance with the CEQA. In order to assist local jurisdictions with air quality compliance issues the CEQA Air Quality Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -5 Table III -1 Related Projects No. Address Land Use 25. 1700 East Imperial Avenue Office 26. 750 South Douglas Street' Industrial 27. 1133 Artesia Boulevard' Grocery Store 28. 865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard' General Office Deli 29. 1000 North Sepulveda Boulevard' W;:&n r_rk+Medical Office Tla;tkvnt Pharmacy BaRk Coffee Shop 30. 445 North Douglas Streetb Office 31. 455 Continental Boulevard and 1995 Office East Grand Avenue 32. 2420 Pacific Coast Highway' New Church Supermarket 33. 3200-3600 North Sepulveda Shopping Center Boulevard' 34. 535 Indiana Streetb Residential 35. 700-860 South Sepulveda Boulevard, Shopping Center 2001-2015 East Park Place, and 700-740 Allied Way Boulevard 36. 14500 Aviation Boulevard` Credit Union 37. 1301 EI Segundo Boulevardb Office Warehouse du = dwelling units sf =square feet rm = rooms stu = students 0. Related Project information provided by Erik Zondvliet City of Manhattan Beach, November 6, 2017 b• Related Project information provided by Ethan Edwards, City of El Segundo, January 23, 2018. Related Project information provided by City of Hawthorne, January 18, 2018. i Source: Fehr and Peers, LLC., November 2018. W.A. AIR QUALITY Section IV.A. Air Quality, pages IV.A-12 through IV.A-13, revise as follows: 13) SCAQNiD Rule 2202 June 2019 Size 86,520 sf 4,990 sf 12,000 sf 15,000 sf 700 sf 27,999 23.050 sf 62,999 665 sf 1.715 sf 155,660 sf 300,000 sf 32,190 sf 30,080 sf 110,000 sf 4 du 18,850 sf 3,600 sf 6,270 sf 5,880 sf On -Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options, is to provide employers with a menu of options to reduce mobile source emissions generated from employee commutes, to comply with federal and state Clean Air Act requirements, Health & Safety Code Section 40458, and Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the federal Clean Air Act. It applies to any employer who employs 250 or more employees on a full or part-time basis at a worksite for a consecutive six-month period calculated as a monthly average. Although the SCAQMD is responsible for regional air quality planning efforts, it does not have the authority to directly regulate air quality issues associated with plans and new development projects throughout the South Coast Air Basin. Instead, this is controlled through local jurisdictions in accordance with the CEQA. In order to assist local jurisdictions with air quality compliance issues the CEQA Air Quality Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -5 City of EI Segundo June 2019 Handbook (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) prepared by the SCAQMD (1993) with the most current updates found at Llta.1/www.acimd.gov/­cega/hdbk.htm], was developed in accordance with the projections and programs of the AQMP. The purpose of the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook is to assist Lead Agencies, as well as consultants, project proponents, and other interested parties in evaluating a Proposed Project's potential air quality impacts. Specifically, the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook explains the procedures that the SCAQMD recommends be followed for the environmental review process required by CEQA. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook provides direction on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, how to determine whether these impacts are significant, and how to mitigate these impacts. SCAQMD is in the process of developing an "Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook" to replace the CEQA Air Quality Handbook approved by the AQMD Governing Board in 1993. The 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook is still available but not online. In addition, there are sections of the 1993 Handbook that are obsolete. In order to assist the CEQA practitioner in conducting an air quality analysis while the new Handbook is being prepared, supplemental information regarding: significance thresholds and analysis, emissions factors, cumulative impacts emissions analysis, and other useful subjects, are available at the SCAQMD website'. 14) SCAQMD Rule 1166 This rule sets requirements to control the emission of Volatile Orsanic Compounds (VOC) from excavatine. sradiniz. handling and treatine VOC-contaminated soil as a result of leakage from storase or transfer operations. accidental soillaee. or other deposition. 15) SCAQMD Rule 1466 The purpose of this rule is to minimize the amount of off-site fusitive dust emissions containine toxic air contaminants by reducins particulate emissions in the ambient air as a result of earth-movina activities,. includins, excavatine, eradine_ handline, treatine, stockoiiine, transferrins, and removins soil that contains aoolicable toxic air contaminants from sites that meet the aoolicability reouirements of subdivision (b). 43) 16) Southern California Association of Governments The SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial Counties and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development and the environment. SCAG is the Federally designated MPO for the majority of the southern California region and is the largest MPO in the nation. With respect to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Plan ("RTIP"), which addresses regional development and growth forecasts. These plans form the basis for the land use and transportation components of the AQMP, which are utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and in the consistency analysis included in the AQMP. The Regional Transportation Plan, Regional Transportation Improvement Plan, and AQMP are based on projections originating within the City and County General Plans. IV.E.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Section IV.E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, pages IV.E-24 through IV.E-25, revise as follows: ' http://www.ogmd.govlhome/regulations/cega/air-quality-analysis-handbook. Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -6 City of EI Segundo June 2019 Threshold (b): The Project could have a significant impact if were to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impact (b): Construction of the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through release of hazardous materials into the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. However, construction of the Project could release any potentially existing subsurface hazardous substances to the environment, which would result in potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures E-1 and -F,2 would reduce the impacts to less than significant. Operation of the Project would not expose future occupants or site users to hazardous materials and impacts would be less than significant. i) Construction As previously discussed, the Phase I ESA noted that all structures have been removed from the existing Project Site, and no asbestos or 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 TPH, lead, and PCBs. As stated above, an investigation report and remedial action workplan was prepared on behalf of Air Products 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. In r"iircT-z7A#, zx*r�1ltij\, 1 ?4 -fl be scrrpind and c..clvg�vd for SRI-!,c+na��;� ,;II Tf l- "s xrRc ic� ... ati���lcr with ►later/ Q9WA I►ij oatslelislwd N*iii it %//Jtf R FBe V�r:%4;I! CaliforniaGede of n.. .la..., ,,':: ''_S311.1 vtivv fB�id r ffl, ✓aNaa►� �..:`� ^u►rc *n�:ir' r�r�. 1�� -r afirear/ Ir'sVo c..' an i ....kiniff pfaeti r' by Wafsur: zlf eae� ` larC pce,-k_u4a0V cirgc 4,emelitisrzyarke-K ::7a at r -12105# -Fisk of atl%•cr" ha:lff- arApocv.v. Lcs4. ev+icrnipm�✓1 demo and Wr _Y %\v9t'Z9 .:lAtt rim be-m_-magaal or,d disposed 9"n :woord"ac w0* e ,-_ cf the C_M/c"ia Red* anal Eofcty Cade- r-mc22, zr.y mutcr6fe4�non' to aantc;r. T"" .._ PGgs FA ust lir. Few::-.oA AD -0- riapZai in :TW-r1nX-A-' with sal ofpl:,.yh��Ai, 91kc, z-4 50dEN' net li tai tc `.'r_ -I VWir C::12 -i# Regwlaticr_�, Title 17, -vtl 2R'\ 1C SR. With the E8FAPkaK1@ cf *&r/• N :lzt,2r/ r.�► �ern�nf� srld iFAPIeFRentctic:1 Cf i"/li�igc.t is r�Q .ac►r PAM cf 1112 +"er* sig Rifi ea m. As stated above, there is a Standard Oil Company and Standard Gasoline Company pipe line easement located along the Project Site frontage. The easement, recorded on December 27, 1968, was to construct, maintain, operate, repair, add to and remove a single line of poles and overhead wires, conductors, cables and conduits, and appurtenances thereof, into the easement. The easement covers a strip of land 43 %: feet wide, and runs the entire length of the Project Site. 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 Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -7 City of EI Segundo June 2019 significant impacts. However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measure PAM E-2MM E-1, impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant. Section IV.E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, pages IV.E-28 through IV.E-29, revise as follows: 4. 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 and "yrrcrr "SLE 2 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. S. MITIGATION MEASURES PAWE 3: Ir. GNm.-danee with Feg+lI iorj ~ode er�re:t�, Pri:i to oii:zvottr! =E z*, -JI bessampled - aiqaiyi!ed feF Tate loci c:J F(='85--9 C -e; nor►i\t4r. zrol cxc7Y/ vice of tKa Project, *e AWiec: 1 0,61 the t nRWQGB ; mediates . if additional ti d ! WUx'VV5 Fl f& Zt Tom; limed, ✓ KgsaFe ^lcr\i it 0.3 awl iAd�OF gF0HAdWWZ, dv iso ooriorr.4clior. c MM E-21: 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. 6. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With the implementation of the Mitigation Measures MM E-1 aAd "moi, listed above, Project -level and cumulative hazards impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant level. IV.H.NOISE Section IV.H. Noise, page IV.H-15, revise as follows: Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -8 City of EI Segundo June 2019 Threshold (a): The Project would have a significant impact on noise if it would expose persons to or generate of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Impact (a): Construction noise will have a temnorary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels. However, no residential uses are located in dose proximity to the Proiect Site, the site is surrounded by commercial uses. Construction -related noise impacts are considered to be less than sianificant. Operation of the Project would not expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established by the City and the operational impact of the Project would be less than significant. Section IV.H. Noise, page IV.H-29, revise as follows: Threshold (d): The Project would have a significant impact on noise if it would result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project. Impact (d): Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise levels. However, no residential uses are located in close Proximity to the Proiect Site, the site is surrounded by commercial uses. Construction -related noise imoacts are considered to be less than sianificant. noise levels in the "eC4 Vkinity ab -ave fel w k P4. ting without the PFz�ecf. Th_P_,;h_PF4_ --mer-M construe-tion- W.4- _AA L T 9hr9 & y h A4A4 4 7 IV.I.POPULATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT Section IV. I. Population, Housing and Employment, Section 4.Cumulative Impacts, pages IV.I-10 through IV.I-13, revise as follows: The geographic scope of the cumulative employment analysis is the City of EI Segundo. Table IV.I-3 presents the estimated increase in employment, housing, and population associated with the 37 related projects identified in Section III, Environmental Setting, of this EIR. As shown in Table IV.I-3, the Project in conjunction with the related projects would result in an increase in employment of approximately 15,709 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 would further increase employment opportunities in the City of El Segundo and surrounding areas. As indicated in Table IV.I-3, the Project in conjunction with the related projects would cumulatively generate approximately 9:6,7A9 15.680 new jobs-,-vvi~t.. 3/3G1 :c FAmRHS the PFOP6 ed "�^°^� jo`�) Icsust" w4hin Vh_ ` W1 of El gegHnda. Job growth is considered a beneficial effect, and while the project's incremental contribution to regional job growth would be Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -9 City of EI Segundo June 2019 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".' Table IV.I-3 Cumulative Population, Housing and Employment ID Type of Use Size Employment Total Total Population Total Generation Employment Housing Generation Population Factor' Factorb (per 1,000 sf) (per unit) 1. Residential 58 du - - 58 du 2.53 147 2, High School 1,200 stu - - - 3. Medical Office 63,540 sf 0.00427 271 - 4. Office 15,000 sf 0.00479 72 5. Office 153,530 sf 0.00479 735 6. Hotel 180 rmd 0.00113 81 Office 22,670 sf 0.00479 109 7. Office/ 7,120 sf 0.00135 10 - Warehouse 8. Drive through 5,000 sf 0.00153 8 Restaurant 9. Hotel 30 rmd 0.00113 14 10. Office 10,120 sf 0.00479 48 11. Office 3,000 sf 0.00479 14 - 12. Supermarket 27,500 sf 0.00153 42 Restaurant §228seats` 0.00153 40 2 SCAG Regional Forecast Overview, website: http:Ilwww.scoa.co.oovIDataAndToolslFageslGrowthForecostina.aspx, accessed March 22, 2018. Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -10 City of EI Segundo June 2019 Beach Cities Media Campus Project 111. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -11 Bank 7,000 sf 0.00283 20 13. General Office 3,000 sf 0.00479 14 14. General Office 4,700 sf 0.00479 23 15. Medical Office 1,800 sf 0.00427 8 - Apartment 1 du - - 1 du 2.53 3 16. Condominium 5 du - - 5 du 2.53 13 17. Medical Office 5,000 sf 0.00427 21 - 18. Retail 13,000 sf 0.00153 20 19. Office 1,751,920 sf 0.00479 8,392 - Warehouse 73,580 sf 0.00135 99 - Industrial 168,000 sf 0.00135 227 Retail 148,960 sf 0.00153 228 20. General Office 78,000 sf 0.00479 374 21. Restaurant 13,570 sf 0.00153 21 - 22. Condominium 9 du - - 9 du 2.53 23 23. Hotel 121 rmd 0.00113 55 - 24. Design Center 100,300 sf 0.00269 270 Executive 19,210 sf 0.00269 52 Offices Coffee Shop 1,000 sf 0.00153 2 General Office 57,500 sf 0.00479 275 - 25. Office 86,520 sf 0.00479 414 - 26. Industrial 4,990 sf 0.00135 7 - 27. Grocery Store 12,000 sf 0.00153 18 - 28. General Office 15,000 sf 0.00479 72 - Deli 700 sf 0.00153 1 - 29. Sup_ ff:" '`_ "� 23.050 9.99153 0.00479 49110 - Medical Office sf Sesta F9�999 S 0.00153 990 - Pharmacv 0.665 Seats Beach Cities Media Campus Project 111. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -11 City of EI Segundo 35. Shopping Center 36, Credit Union 37, Office Warehouse 7,999-s# 1.715 sf 155,660 sf 300,000 sf 32,190 sf 30,080 sf 110,000 sf 4 du 18,850 sf 3,600 sf 6,270 sf 5,880 sf June 2019 0 99253 00153 .293 0.00479 Ra,,ls Coffee 0.00479 Shop 30. Office 31. Office 32. New Church Supermarket 33. Shopping Center 34. Residential 35. Shopping Center 36, Credit Union 37, Office Warehouse 7,999-s# 1.715 sf 155,660 sf 300,000 sf 32,190 sf 30,080 sf 110,000 sf 4 du 18,850 sf 3,600 sf 6,270 sf 5,880 sf June 2019 0 99253 00153 .293 0.00479 746 0.00479 1,437 0.00153 49 - 0.00153 46 - 0.00153 168 0.00153 0.00153 0.00479 0.00135 Cumulative Total Project Total Cumulative and Project Total - 4 du 2.53 29 6 30 8 6 14,647 1,033 16,;Q9 15,680 77 77 10 196 196 Notes: sf =square feet a. Source for generation rate: Los Angeles Unified School District, Level 1— Developer Fee Justification Study, Table 14, March 2017 b. U.S. Census Bureau, City of EI Segundo, Persons per Household, 2012-2016, website: haDs:l/www. census. oovlouicktacts/factltoblelelseaundocitwoliforniGIRST045216 accessed March 13, 2018. C Based on an estimate of 8 sf/seat. d Based on an estimate of 400 sf/room. Source: EcoTierra Consulting, Inc. March 2018. To the extent that employment forecasts are used by SCAG to implement the regions' 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 Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -12 City of EI Segundo June 2019 the "employment -population -household ("E PH") 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, 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, 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, confirms the projections for slow housing growth in the region; only 77 new housing units are currently proposed. In addition, approximately 1 C� 15,680 lobs would be created by the same list of cumulative projects. However, between 2015 and 2040, the number of households in the South Bav Cities Subregion regieR will increase by 1;468;899 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. IV.K.TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC AND PARKING Section IV.K, Transportation, Traffic and Parking, page IV.K-46, MM K-1, revise as follows: MM K-1: Transportation Demand Management Program. A TDM program will be implemented as part of the mitigation package for the Proiect. Several TDM program elements are proiect design features that are currentiv 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 occunancv for the Proiect. Com( approval will be contingent upon submission of an accompanvine analvsis based on CAPCOA and latest available relevant research confirming that the Southern California Association of Governments, 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies, Final Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction website: http://www.scog.co.gov/Documents/2016 204ORTPSCS FinalGrowthForecostbyJurisdiction.pdf, accessed: December 6, 2018. Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -13 City of EI Segundo June 2019 elements in the TDM plan will vield the intenders 6.5% reduction in weekdav peak hour trips that the traffic analvsis was based on. TDM strategies are aimed at discouraging single -occupancy vehicle trips and encouraging alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking 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. Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -14 City of EI Segundo June 2019 IV.M.1 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, WATER Section IV.M.1, Utilities and Service Systems, Water, page IV.M-2, revise as follows: The City does not currently serve recycled water to the Project Site. Recycled water use for irrigation at the Project Site is proposed—the recycle water demand is estimated at 16.5 AFY. As shown in PrrRr, Refesrii vzdrz rat Fieure IV.M.1-1, Recycled Water Pipe Network, the Project area is directly adjacent to an existing recycled water pipeline. Section IV.M.1, Utilities and Service Systems, Water, page IV.M-4, revise as follows: The average annual potable water supply to the City of EI Segundo in 2015 was 17,463 acre-feet. The 2015 UWMP used years 2001 through 2003 as a basis for dry -year conditions. Therefore, the increased demand determined during these dry years would be served by increasing the supply from WBMWD, as shown in ,r78rl f'afcf&\.,c r`►r:,c nC+*OO-id-Table IV.M.1-2, Current Suoolv-Normal and Multiole Dry Year., Section IV.M.1, Utilities and Service Systems, Water, page IV.M-5, revise as follows: The single dry year demands were estimated based on a 4 -percent increase in water demand from normal year conditions. WBMWD anticipates meeting single dry year demands by increasing supplies. WBMWD can meet the increased demands because of the surplus in supply that has been planned for in previous years to ensure WBMWD can meet customer demands with varied climate conditions. Total retail water agencies' water supply was projected by WBMWD for Year 2035. Erarl ftcf^fef+ee­s":,ec ?rl fc-*rA-4 Table IV.M.1-4. Supply and Demand - Single Dry Year, provides a summary of projected water deliveries (supply) and demand conditions under single dry year conditions for years 2020 to 2040 on a five-year basis. Section IV.M.1, Utilities and Service Systems, Water, page IV.M-5, revise as follows: To estimate multiple -dry -year supply and demand quantities for 2035 and 2040, data from 2020, 2025, and 2030 were extrapolated based on a linear trend. The extrapolations are shown in E.. -e.' °„f,,.,..,, s-_vrua r.X. faAro-Ol., Table IV.M.1-5,Supply and Demand - Multiple Dry Year. Section IV.M.1, Utilities and Service Systems, Water, page IV.M-6, revise as follows: EFrte Re&i:sAnc :ct Table IV.M.1-7, Water Use Prohibitions by Rationing Stage, outlines mandatory prohibitions on water uses based on the rationing stages. IV.M.2 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, WASTEWATER Section IV.M.2, Utilities and Service Systems, Wastewater, page IV.M-21, revise as follows: ii) Wastewater Treatment Facilities The Project Site is served by JWPCP located in the City of Carson, approximately 9 miles southeast of the Project Site.4 The JWPCP is one of the largest wastewater treatment plants in the world, and the largest Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Wastewater Treatment Facilities Map, available at: h ttp://www.locsd.org/wastewater/wwfacilities/default. asp#map. Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -15 City of EI Segundo June 2019 of the LACSDs' wastewater treatment plants, serving approximately 3.5 million.' The facility provides both primary and secondary treatment and has a total permitted capacity of 400 mgd. Currently, the plant treats approximately 254 X261.1 mgd of wastewater and is operating at approximately 54 65 percent of capacity.6 Section IV.M.2, Utilities and Service Systems, Wastewater, page IV.M-25, revise as follows: The JWPCP currently treats approximately 254.4 261.1 million gpd of wastewater, and has a total permitted capacity of 400 million gpd. Thus, the plant is currently operating at approximately 64 65 percent of capacity and has approximately 145.9 138.9 million gpd of available capacity. The Project's net increase in wastewater of 70,075 gpd would represent approximately &95 0.03 percent of this 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 of new or the expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities. Section IV.M.2, Utilities and Service Systems, Wastewater, page IV.M-26, revise as follows: The response to this Impact would be similar to the response to Impact (b) above. As described there, 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 9-65-0.03 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. IV.M.1 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, SOLID WASTE Section IV.M.1, Utilities and Service Systems, Solid Waste, page IV.M-33, revise as follows: i) Construction Project development would generate minor amounts of construction debris compared to most construction project, as the site is currently an undeveloped dirt lot. Solid waste produced during construction would primarily be due to daily operations. In accordance with PDF M-4, the Project would be required to implement a construction waste management plan. Much of this material would be recycled and salvaged to the maximum extent feasible from the landfill. The Countywide Integrated Management Plan 2016 Annual Report concludes that there is current capacity of 56.34 million tons available throughout the County for the disposal of inert waste.' Therefore, the minor amount of Project - generated demolition debris and construction waste would represent a very small percentage of the inert waste disposal capacity in the region. All solid waste -generating activities within the Citv, including the Proiect, would continue to be subiect to the requirements set forth in CALGreen Building Code which requires a 65 percent construction waste diversion from landfills. Therefore, the Project would not create Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP), available at: h ttp://www.lacsd. org/wastewater/wwfacilities/jwpcp/default. asp. 6 City of EI Segundo, Continental Grand Campus Specific Plan Draft EIR, September 2017, page 4. K.2-2. ' County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works, Countywide Integrated Management Plan 2016 Annual Report December 2017, Appendix E-2, Table 1. Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -16 City of EI Segundo June 2019 a need for additional solid waste disposal facilities to adequately handle project construction -generated inert waste and impacts would be less than significant. VI. ALTERNATIVES Section VI. Alternatives, Alternative 2, pages VI -14 through VI -15, revise as follows: Similar to the Project, during excavation, on-site grading, building construction and operation of the Alternative, 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. Therefore, hazardous materials would require proper handling and management and, in some cases, disposal. With compliance with relevant regulations and requirements, construction and operational activities associated with the Alternative would not expose people 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. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous waste management during construction and operation would be less than significant feliewiH@ Fnitigation, similar to the Project. Under this Alternative, 4wa ari::vz1isr. cll TPH, lead, and PEB5 weuld be FeFneve i 9918r-daREewith applW'hlc rag►itery .c"irc.:e-'r/m. \i'i'i,: tkc ce�aH .,f these FegUlatOPt_2%v*ntG impacts associated with the accidental release of a hazardous material would be less than significant, similar to the Project. Section VI. Alternatives, Alternative 3, pages VI -32 through VI -33, revise as follows: Similar to the Project, during excavation, on-site grading, building construction and operation of the Alternative 3, 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. Therefore, hazardous materials would require proper handling and management and, in some cases, disposal. With compliance with relevant regulations and requirements, construction and operational activities associated with the Alternative would not expose people 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. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous waste management during construction and operation would be less than significant f9liewiflg FAitigatien, similar to the Project. Under this Alternative, , impacts associated with the accidental release of a hazardous material would be less than significant fellewing Fnitigatiee, similar to the Project. Section VI. Alternatives, Alternative 4, pages VI -70 through VI -71, revise as follows: Similar to the Project, during excavation, on-site grading, building construction and operation of the Alternative 4, 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. Therefore, hazardous materials would require proper handling and management and, in some cases, disposal. With compliance with relevant regulations and requirements, construction and operational activities associated with the Alternative would not expose people 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. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous waste management during construction and operation would be less than significant felle ing Fnitigation, similar to the Project. Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -17 12. 29 City of EI Segundo June 2019 Under this Alternative, dna I, lzz* zrA f C29 W:;K�i` 10c cvccr:r Ree with apo;Qc .leWitk ti►?_� oowRli-_n= cf thwc 7oZ,dlitvey -n,�ir s, impacts associated with the accidental release of a hazardous material would be less than significant fellew+ag Fnii 'tion, similar to the Project. Section VI. Alternatives, Alternative 5, pages VI -108 through VI -109, revise as follows: Similar to the Project, during excavation, on-site grading, building construction and operation of the Alternative 5, 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. Therefore, hazardous materials would require proper handling and management and, in some cases, disposal. With compliance with relevant regulations and requirements, construction and operational activities associated with the Alternative would not expose people 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. Therefore, impacts associated with hazardous waste management during construction and operation would be less than significant fellewing Fnitigatien, similar to the Project. Under this Alternative, cll TPP, locC c.-� fL°&'•'^"'�' `�^ ^�M,0 i:: With c rlia>>c\l riea-Ai-inn. . V!{fy ti►r . _,li_ra9 Y, t::aut .-c�aiG � z�r►i� er s, impacts associated with the accidental release of a hazardous material would be less than significant fellewiAg similar to the Project. APPENDICES Appendix H. 1 Traffic Study, page 31, Table 4, Related Projects Trip Generation Estimates, Row 12 and Row 29, revise as follows: 707 North Sepulveda Boulevard' Supermarket 27.50 ksf Restaurant &a 28 seats Bank 7.0 ksf 1000 North Sepulveda Boulevard' w)ir...xA*et-Medical Office „L7,6CV 23.05 ksf f1�1G.1 Vlr,t Pharmacv 52,999 0.665 ksf $a* -Coffee Shop q -,9G9-1.715 ksf Beach Cities Media Campus Project III. Revisions, Clarifications and Corrections on the Draft EIR Page III -18 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 or to 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 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 El 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 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 0 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 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 IV -4 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 iJ 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 City of EI Segundo 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 PDF F-2: 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 City of EI Segundo PDF F-4: June 2019 The Project shall comply with all NPDES Permit and waste discharge requirements. 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-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 City of EI Segundo June 2019 PDF F-8: All trash facilities shall be covered and isolated from stormwater runoff. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: ii) 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 City of EI Segundo June 2019 Monitoring Agency: 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: J. Land Use/Planning Construction, Post -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 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. Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -9 City of EI Segundo L. Noise June 2019 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 i) 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 Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Public Works Department Monitoring Agency: 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 Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -10 City of EI Segundo June 2019 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: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: 2) Mitieation Measures No mitigation measures are required. ii) Police Protection Pre -Construction, Construction Applicant Fire Department Planning and Building Safety Department 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. Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -11 City of EI Segundo v) Other Public Facilities June 2019 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; ■ 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 Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -12 City of EI Segundo June 2019 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 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. Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -13 City of EI Segundo June 2019 ■ 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 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 Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -14 City of EI Segundo June 2019 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. 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: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Beach Cities Media Campus Project Page IV -15 IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of EI Segundo Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Q. Tribal Cultural Resources i) Project Design Features June 2019 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 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 Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -16 City of EI Segundo June 2019 R. Utilities/Service Systems i) Water 11 Project Design 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: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: 2) Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. ii) Wastewater J Project Design Features Pre -Construction, Construction Applicant Public Works Department Planning and Building Safety Department 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 Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -17 City of EI Segundo June 2019 shall obtain necessary permits and licenses, and provide traffic control plans and shoring plans. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Parry: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: 2I Mitieation Measures No mitigation measures are required. iii) Solid Waste 11 Proiect Desien 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: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Pre -Construction, Construction Applicant Planning and Building Safety Department 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: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency: Construction Applicant Planning and Department Planning and Department Building Safety Building Safety 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. Beach Cities Media Campus Project Monitoring Phase: Construction, Operation Implementation Parry: Applicant Page IV -18 IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program City of EI Segundo June 2019 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 Parry: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department 2, Mitigation 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 -19 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 20, 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. Impacts 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 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 Qualitv 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 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 (PMlo). 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 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 PMzs, 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) Mitieation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce the aforementioned impacts below a level of significance. Page 4 c) Findin 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. Geolop-v and Soils a) Facts/Effects: (1) Earthauake Fault Ruoture/ Seismic Ground Sha kinP., 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. Page 5 (4) Cumulative Imoacts. 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 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) Mitieation: 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 Transoort. 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 Page 6 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 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) Emeraencv 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 El 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 Page 7 Construction Management Plan would ensure that Project impacts associated with emergency access and response 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 hazards and hazardous materials. Hvdrologv and Water Quality a) Facts/Effects: ll Hvdrologv. 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. (2) 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 Page 8 water hydrology drainage patterns with respect to potential for erosion or siltation would be less than significant. LL Alter ❑rainaae 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. (4) 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. (5) Dearade Water Qualitv. The Project would be subject to the requirements of the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit, which controlsthe 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 Page 9 requirements and the PDFs, construction- and operation -related impacts to water quality 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 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. Land Use and Planning a) Facts/Effects: (1) Anolicable 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) Cumulative Impacts. The study area for the 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 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 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 applicable land use plans and policies. a) Factsi ffects: (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 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 isto 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 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 LeQi 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) 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 noise, vibration, ambient noise, and/or temporary or periodic ambient noise. Population, Mousing and Emplovment a) Facts/Effects: (1) Population, Housing and Emplovment. 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 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 population, housing, and employment. Public Services: Fire a) Facts/Effects: (1) Need for a New or Phvsical1v 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 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 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) Mitieation: 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 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 Phvsicallv 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 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 Imoacts. 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 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) Mitieation: 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 respectto police services, and/orthe need for a new or physically altered police station. Transportation, Traffic and Parkine a) Facts/Effects: (1) Conflict With an Awlicable 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 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) Consestion Manaeement 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) Adooted 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) EmerPencv 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 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 Suonlies. 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 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 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) Mitieation: 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 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 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 Facilitv. 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 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 prior to 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 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) Landfill 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 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 [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: Enersv a) Facts/Effects: (1) Wasteful. Inefficient or Unnecessary Consumotion 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 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 Resultine in New or Expanded Sources of Enerev. 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 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 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 FUR 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. Page 28 D. Impacts Identified as Potentially Significant in the Initial Study, But Which Can Be Reduced to Less - Than -Significant Levels with Mitigation Measures. The City Council finds that the following environmental effects were identified as Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated in the FOR, 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) Paleontolosical 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 Impacts. 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 Page 29 environmental review process for related projects, like the Project, it is expected that 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) Mitigation: 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 Page 30 human remains are encountered unexpectedly during construction demolition and/or 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 (MTCOze/SP/year), do not exceed the tier 4 SCAQMD 2020 Target Page 31 Service Population Threshold of 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year and is in compliance with the 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: ll 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 Page 32 investigation report and remedial action workplan was prepared on behalf of Air Products 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 sienificant. 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. L21 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 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. Hvdroloev and Water Qualitv a) Facts/Effects: (1) Violate Water Qualitv Standards or Waste Discharge 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 MS4 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 (underthe 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 Impacts. 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 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 of SWPPPs, 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 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 Gabrieleno 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 Imoacts. 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 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. Pooulation. Housine and Emnlovment a) Facts/Effects: u 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 15,680 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 Page 37 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 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 Parking a) Facts/Effects: (1) Conflict With an Aoolicable Plan Ooeration. 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 forthe 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 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 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. MM K-2 requires approval from the City of Manhattan Beach as well. (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 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) Mitieation: 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 FOR 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) Descriotion: Alternative 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. Alternative 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 alternative sites are not under the control of the project applicant and are not currently available for development, alternative Page 42 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 CECIA 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 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 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 forthe 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 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 Develooment a) Description: Alternative 4: Mixed Use Alternative with Research and Development, is the same as Alternative 2 in the Traffic Report, as shown below. Page 45 • 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) Findin : 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 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 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 Soace 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 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 FOR which includes the Draft EIR dated March 1, 2019, the Final EIR dated June 20, 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 • 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 Page 48 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). 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. Additionally the City Council finds that the improvements to the Intersections of Isis Avenue/Rosecrans Avenue and 1-405 Northbound On -/Off Ramps and Rosecrans Avenue, as well as the installation of the traffic signal at Driveway 1 all require approval of other jurisdictions and the impacts at those locations may remain significant if not approved. The significant impacts are outweighed by the following substantial public and social factors as identified in the FOR and the record of proceedings in the matter. Each Project objective/benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. 1. 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. Page 49 IV. RECIRCULATION A. Facts: 1. The City received comments on the DEIR from public agencies in written form. The FOR 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 FOR includes all factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR. On July 12, 2019, the Council received late supplemental comments to a letter received on May 22, 2019. All comments and testimony received prior to and at the City Council's public hearing have been considered and errata to the FEIR was prepared. 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 FOR, which is incorporated herein by this reference, and in the record of proceedings in the matter. Page 50 EXH BIT 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 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 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 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 IV -4 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: Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department 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: Pre- Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department I. Hydrology/Water Quality i) Project Design Features 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 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 City of EI Segundo June 2019 PDF F-4: The Project shall comply with all NPDES Permit and waste discharge requirements. 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-5: The Project shall comply with the requirements of the Los Angeles County IVIS4 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 City of EI Segundo June 2019 PDF F-8: All trash facilities shall be covered and isolated from stormwater runoff. Monitoring Phase: Implementation Party: Enforcement Agency: Monitoring Agency ii) 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 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 BM Ps 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 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 Desien 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 City of EI Segundo June 2019 Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Public Works Department Monitoring Agency: 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 City of EI Segundo June 2019 21 Mitieation 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 Y 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 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 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, • Halftime 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 Page IV -14 IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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 City of EI Segundo N 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 i) 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 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 Design 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. Beach Cities Media Campus Project Monitoring Phase: Pre -Construction, Construction Implementation Party: Applicant Enforcement Agency: Public Works Department Monitoring Agency: Planning and Building Safety Department Page IV -17 IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 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 El 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: ?I Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required. Solid Waste 1j, 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 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 City of EI Segundo June 2019 2) 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 City of EI Segundo June 2019 Beach Cities Media Campus Project IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Page IV -21 EXHIBIT B 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 6.39 -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 El 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. greement; E. On July 16, 2019, the City Council scheduled a duly advertised public hearing, which was continued to August 6, 2019. On August 6, 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 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 will meet EI Segundo Municipal Code requirements and would be provided in multiple areas, including the following: an above grade parking structure; parking spaces in one semi -subterranean level; and in surface parking areas elsewhere on the site. 2 H. Approval of a subsequent Site Plan Review is necessary to accommodate the proposed project or any of the alternatives. SECTION 3: Exhibits. There is one exhibit attached to this Resolution: Exhibit B-1 (General Plan Map Amendment). This exhibit is 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 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 If 3 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. 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. 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 alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. 4 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 Amendment No. GPA 17-01, B. The City Council amends the General Plan Land Use Map to reflect the change of 5 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 "13-1," 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. 0 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of August, 2019. ATTEST: Tracy Sherrill Weaver, City Clerk Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney 12 Drew Boyles, Mayor 7 91 g�J \\ PROJECT AREA City of EI Segundo EXHIBIT B-1 Beach Cities Media Campus 2021 Rosecrans Avenue Proposed General Plan Amendment EXHIBIT 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. 2861 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 scheduled a duly advertised public hearing, which was continued to August 6, 2019. On August 6, 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 August 6, 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 ChangelZoning 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, 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: E 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. 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 3 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. An errata to the Final EIR was prepared in response to two late comment letters: one received on June 21 and one received on July 12, 2019. The errata concluded that the letters contained no evidence requiring recirculation of the EIR nor further environmental review or action by the City. The errata document is included in the Final EIR, which is attached as Exhibit "A-1," and incorporated by reference; F. 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 6: 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 "C-2," 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 "C-1," 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. 4 D. The City Council approves Zone Change and Zoning Map Amendment No. ZC 17-01 and Development Agreement No. DA 17-02. 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. A SECTION 13: Effective Date. This Ordinance will become effective 30 days from the date of final passage. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of August, 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 day of August 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 August, 2019, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT ABSTAIN: Tracy S. Weaver, City Clerk 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 Commission\EA-905 Draft CC Ordinance.dom EXHIBIT C-1 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 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Definitions..........................................................................................................................................1 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............................................................................................................. 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 ii 6.2 Processing Cooperation and Assistance12 .................................................................................................. 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.............................................................. 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 iii 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............................................................................................................................................2 iv 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/cafe, 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/cafd 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. "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: 2 ■ 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. on ; • Mitigation Monitoring Program for FEIR No. EA -1201, as adopted by Resolution No. on ; General Plan Amendment No. 17-01, as approved by Resolution No. on including a change in the Land Use Map; ■ Zone Change No. 17-01, as approved by Ordinance No. on , including a change in the Zoning Map; ■ This Development Agreement as approved by Ordinance No. 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 c 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"). 4 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. Bindine 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 Assien 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 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. Develonment 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 Develon. 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 of the City. 4.4 [Reserved] 4.5 Building Regulations. 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 Subseauent 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. Mitiization 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 Tirniniz 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 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 Mav(s) and Other Project ADvrovals. 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 Reauiring Amendment to this Agreement. 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; (c) Any increase in height of buildings or structures on the Property above 140 feet; (d) Any decrease in the minimum required lot area as set forth in the MU -S Zone; (e) Any decrease in the minimum required lot frontage as set forth in the MU -S Zone; (f) Any increase to the level of significance of any traffic impact, 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 covenant, bond, letter of credit or otherwise) to the reasonable satisfaction of the City prior to 10 completion of construction and all of the other relevant provisions of the Project Approvals, Future Approvals and this Agreement have been satisfied. Develoner Agreements. 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 Development 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 Obligations. 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 on the State Board of Equalization Tax Return. In such event, Developer shall also obtain a permit 11 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. City Aareements. 6.1 Expedited 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 Cooperation 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 Processinp- During Third Patty 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 the Future Approvals, or issuance of ministerial permits or approvals, unless the third party obtains 12 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 65869.5, 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 Report - Information to be Provided to Developer. 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 concerning such Periodic Review. This information shall be known as the "City Report." 13 8.4 Developer's Report. 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 Riahts,. 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 Findine.. 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 Default. Either Party to this Agreement shall be deemed to have breached this Agreement if it materially breaches any of the provisions of this Agreement and the same is not 14 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 11. Morteap-ee 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 Mortp-ase 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 Request for Notice to Morteaaee. 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 Mortp-ap-ee'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 Rights. 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 11.5 Bankrut)tcv. 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. EstouDel 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 Aereement. 13.1 Anneal 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 Dneratinp- 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 performance of City and Developer. If and when, from time to time, during the term of this 17 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. Ind em nificationlDefense. 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. 15.2 Defense of Ap-reernent. If the City accepts Developer's indemnification and 18 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. Cooveration in the Event of Legal Challenge. 16.1 Third Party Challenges. 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 Challenges Related to the Awlicability of City Laurus.. 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 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 EI Segundo, CA 90245 Attention: City Manager Phone: 310/524-2301 Fax: 310/322-7137 E-mail: sinitnickOelseeundo.ora With a Copy to: City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 20 Attention: Director of Planning and Building Safety Phone: 310/524-2346 Fax: 310/322-4167 E-mail: slee awelseetindo.ona With a Copy to: Hensley Law Group 3655 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, California 90503 Attention: Mark D. Hensley, Esq. Phone: Fax: E-mail: mhenslev awhenslevlawaroun.corn 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.mackenzie(a,rnarventures.com With a Copy to: Lisa Kranitz Wallin, Kress, Reisman & Kranitz, LLP 21 11355 Olympic Boulevard, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: 310/450-9585 Fax: 310/450-0505 E-mail: lisa(@,wkrk1aw.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 Agreement.. 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 Subsequent 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. Relationship 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. 22 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 Asreement 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. Coop_ eration 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. Rules 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. Governinu 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 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 DEVELOPER: ROSECRANS-SEPULVEDA PARTNERS 4, LLC, A Delaware limited liability company By: Continental Rosecrans -Sepulveda, Inc. a California corporation Richard L. Lundquist, President 25 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. APN: 4138-015-064 26 EXHIBIT B STIE PLAN FOR BEACH CITIES MEDIA CAMPUS 103815 RSYN ifll-I' E '= 4 =<= •gym z� - trd� � I k � r.♦ Q UW z. y.r Ws �` OF I p f6 U1 W N C f6 L (�yg! i W w 27 EXHIBIT C SITE PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE 1 28 EXHIBIT D SITE PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE 2 ti oil I 4 w ❑ JJ 29 EXHIBIT E SITE PLAN FOR ALTERNATIVE 3 �IIIIIIIIIUIIIIIilliil N' �lJlllllllItIIIIII c 0 v LU M �^ v •— Ln C� ` c d v Qcn 1 102USHSVN :al.1d: 30 :1. f 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 AGREE entered into by and among RO SECRANS- SEPULVEDA Limited Liability Corporation ("RSP4") ("Assignors"), and, ("Assignee"). RECITALS VENT ("Agreement") is made and PARTNERS 4, LLC, a Delaware .a 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. Assip-nment. 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 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 By: Planning and Building Safety Director or Designee 32 PROJECT AREA City of EI Segundo 1 f !►.,jL• eu i. J AVENUE EXHIBIT C-2 Beach Cities Media Campus 2021 Rosecrans Avenue Proposed Zoning Map Amendment EL SEGUNDO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT EXHIBIT D 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 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. Figure 1 Project Location 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. Figure 2 Site Plan Site Plan Site Plan / Rosecrans Elevation CREATIVE OFFICE :�a�T7ns+s rzs nr { W EXISTING OE ELLE OVER RETAIL RETAIL T� f 5,00063 1000 RETAIL _ G4 - — EXISTING THEATWERER TI rr� — r r _ rl FXIST ING PAR RING IIS LTI OIC. MUIL07F6 CREATIVE OFFICE :�a�T7ns+s rzs nr { W EXISTING OE ELLE OVER RETAIL - — EXISTING THEATWERER TI PARKING I UV10 Sea SMCE51i LMS 59-0 FXIST ING PAR RING CREATIVE OFFICE :�a�T7ns+s rzs nr { W EXISTING OE ELLE OVER RETAIL 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 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 Plan and Zonine Consistencv 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. 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 vrohibited 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) 0 Table 2 Development Standards Comparison Lot area Height (sq. ft.) (ft.) Project 278,348 <140 MU -S (new) :10,000 5175 Setbacks (ft.) Front Sides Rear 30 20 5 30 20 5 C-4 (existing) :10,000 <65 25 0 15 IV. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT The applicant is seeking a 10 -year development agreement which will Frontage (ft.) 626 :100 :100 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 Scoainp 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 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 Findinus 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. Summary 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 of Air 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 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. 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-1 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 El 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. Si2nilicant and Unavoidable Ininacts that Cannot be Mitigated 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 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 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 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. 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. 8. 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 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. 286 1) 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 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 6, 2019 AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Presentation to City Council by the police department providing an update on activities related to addressing homelessness within the city. (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: 2 Support Community Safety and Preparedness Objective: 1 The City has a proactive approach to public safety, preparedness and crime that is outcome focused. ORIGINATED BY: Dan Kim, Police Lieutenant'" iXC4 REVIEWED BY: Bill Whalen, Chief of Police"' APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager �� L'Cd BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: In May 2018, the City entered into a contract with the County of Los Angeles to receive a grant in the amount of $30,000 to be used for the development of a plan to address homelessness. The police department took the lead in this endeavor and employed the services of a homeless consultant for professional guidance on developing a plan of action. The plan to address homelessness has seven primary goals: 1) To ensure resident safety and wellbeing by supporting police, fire, and city staff in responding appropriately, safely, and effectively to persons who are experiencing homelessness in El Segundo. 2) To help residents and businesses to respond safely and effectively to individuals who are homeless in El Segundo. a 301 3) To share responsibility for addressing homelessness with neighboring cities, in order to expand permanent solutions to homelessness. 4) To support faith groups to effectively help individuals experiencing homelessness in El Segundo. 5) To reduce homelessness among El Segundo residents. 6) To improve city responses to homelessness by obtaining additional resources to address homelessness in El Segundo, and by creating efficiencies in the use of current resources. 7) To support the availability of regional housing opportunities in the South Bay for populations at risk of homelessness. The police department will provide updates on the current state of homelessness within the city as well as proactive police activities conducted in support of the aforementioned seven established goals. RECOMMENDATIONS: The Police Department recommends the City Council receive and file this report. 302 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 6, 2019 AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Reports of Committees AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to receive an update on the Richmond Street Field Improvement Project. (Fiscal Impact: None) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Receive a verbal report; or, 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: None FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 4 Develop and Maintain Quality Infrastructure Objective: 4A El Segundo's physical infrastructure supports an appealing, safe and effective community PREPARED BY: Meredith Petit, Director of Recreation and Park , REVIEWED BY: Meredith Petit, Director of Recreation and Parks: APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager ���, <,►vA\ BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: Within the approved and adopted FY 2018/2019 Budget, the City Council allocated $350,000 for the improvement of the Richmond Street Field to include accessible pathways to and around the field, new dugout fencing, new backstop, new spectator bleachers and public restroom facilities. Richmond Street Field is property owned by the El Segundo Unified School District and maintained and operated by the City's Recreation and Parks Department outside of regular school hours as stipulated in the Joint Use Agreement. City and ESUSD staff made a coordinated effort in the planning process and agreed that ESUSD would manage the project, including engaging in architect and engineering services, obtaining Department of State Architect approval (required for school district property), public bidding and construction management. During the course of the planning process ESUSD initiated a separate project adjacent to the field to demolish and reconstruct the portion of the Richmond Street Elementary campus that encompasses their before and after school care program, The Learning Connection (TLC). Furthermore, ESUSD informed the City that this project would include a new parking lot 10 (approximately 30 spaces) and inquired with the City/School Affairs Committee (Mayor Boyles and Councilmember Nicol) whether the City had a desire to jointly use the lot for field users and the general 303 public and proportionally share in the construction costs. Seeing that the lack of parking is one of the severe downfalls of both the Richmond Street Field and the adjacent Plunge, staff and the members of the committee concurred that the additional —30 spaces would be a significant enhancement for the users of these recreational amenities. Anticipating an increase in the overall cost of the project as a result of funding a portion of the parking lot, an additional $120,000 was requested and allocated to the project for the purposes of expanding the scope of work to include a shared parking lot expense, bringing the total allocated funds to $470,000. Additionally, city and school representatives discussed value -engineering options, including the elimination of the restroom facilities from the scope of work. Local youth sports organizations were also contacted to determine their level of support in the way of donations to help fund the project, but no commitments were received. The members of the City/School Affairs Committee agreed upon a methodology for the cost-sharing that analyzed the annual usage of the field and the concurrent use of the new parking lot. In reviewing the total usage hours and user groups it was determined that ESUSD-related activities constituted 30% of the annual usage and City -related activities makes up the remaining 70%. Therefore, the cost for the project would be split proportionally, with the City's share 70% of the total project cost. After final cost estimates were calculated the project budget was still short of the needed amount to complete the field renovations. Further discussion ensued about the long-term goals and needs at Richmond Street Field and it was determined that the highest priority is the condition of the turf (i.e. leveling, drainage and irrigation) rather than the infield, fencing, pathways, bleachers or restrooms. Therefore, the City/School Affairs Committee is recommending to postpone the field renovation portions of the project in order to fiend the parking lot; 70% of the cost is estimated to be approximately $310,000. The remaining funds, about $160,000, could be utilized for future turf -related renovations or redirected to another project. Should the City Council concur with the recommendation of the committee members, staff will seek approval of a Cost -Sharing and Joint Use Agreement with ESUSD for the construction and future use of the parking lot to support the activities at the Richmond Street Field at an upcoming meeting. 304 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 6, 2019 AGENDA STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Committee, Commissions and Boards AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action to announce the appointment to the Arts and Culture Advisory Committee. (Fiscal Impact: None) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Announce the appointees; and/or, 2. Alternatively, discuss and take other possible action related to this item. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: $None Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): STRATEGIC PLAN: Goal: 1 Enhance Customer Service Engagement Objective: 1(b) The City engages in regular, intentional information gathering ORIGINATED BY: Mishia Jennings, Executive Assistant 4 REVIEWED BY: S f APPROVED BY: Scott Mitnick, City Manager ' ` Jul v l BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Committee/Commission and Number of Appointee(s) Term Expiration Board Openings Arts and Culture Advisory Six Jeff Cason Full Term Expires June 30, 2022 Committee Natalie Strong Full Term Expires June 30, 2022 Michael Kreski Full Term Expires June 30, 2022 Maureen Kingsley Full Term Expires June 30, 2022 Mark Knight Full Term Expires June 30, 2022 1 1 305