CC RESOLUTION 5474RESOLUTION NO. 5474
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY
CERTIFIED EIR FOR THE EL SEGUNDO GENERAL PLAN AND
APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAM NO. 6
(PROVISION OF ADEQUATE SITES) AND PROGRAM NO. 9 (EL
SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENTS)
(Environmental Assessment No. EA-1344 and General Plan
Amendment No. GPA 23-01)
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:
A. On November 15, 2022, the City Council adopted a general plan amendment
approving the City's updated 2021-2029 Housing Element;
B. On January 17, 2023 the Department of Housing and Community Development
("HCD") indicated in correspondence to the City that the Housing Element was
consistent with State Housing Law, however, it conditioned certification of the
Housing Element on completion of the rezoning identified in Program No. 6
(Provision of Adequate Sites) and on making sufficient progress on the
implementation of all other Housing Element programs;
C. On March 22, 2023, the City initiated an application for Environmental Assessment
No. EA 1344, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 23-01, Zone Change No. ZC 23-
01, and Zone Text Amendment No. ZTA 23-01 to adopt an addendum to the
previously certified the environmental impact report ("EIR") for the El Segundo
General Plan, approve a general plan amendment, and adopt a zone change and
zone text amendment implementing Housing Element Program No. 6 (Provision
Of Adequate Sites) and Program No. 9 (El Segundo Municipal Code ("ESMC")
(Amendments);
D. The City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA"),
the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000, et
seq., the "CEQA Guidelines");
E. On March 14, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly -noticed public hearing
at the conclusion of which the Planning Commission adopted Resolution 2935
recommending the City Council certify the EIR and approve the proposed
amendments;
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 1 of 17
F. The City Council of the City of El Segundo held a duly -noticed public hearing on
April 11, 2024 to review and consider the Project, receive public testimony, and
review all of the evidence in the administrative record; and
G. This Resolution and its findings are made based upon the evidence presented to
the City Council at its April 11, 2024 hearing, including the staff reports submitted
by the Community Development Department and the totality of the evidence in the
administrative record.
SECTION 2: Factual Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds that the following
facts exist:
A. Government Code Section 65583 establishes the required contents and analysis
in the General Plan Housing Elements in local jurisdictions.
B. Government Code Section 65584 mandates HCD to provide a determination of a
region's existing and projected housing needs. It also mandates the Southern
California Association of Governments ("SCAG") to allocate the housing needs
among local jurisdictions in the SCAG region in the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment ("RHNA") process;
C. The RHNA allocation for El Segundo during the 2021-2029 period is 521 dwelling
units that are affordable to households of different income levels, including 131
units at above moderate income, 84 at moderate income, 99 at low income, and
207 at very low income;
D. Program 6 (Provision of Adequate Sites) of the 2021-2029 Housing Element calls
for specific rezoning actions, establishment of objective development standards,
and streamlining of residential development projects containing affordable units,
to help the City meet its RHNA allocation goal;
E. Program 9 (ESMC Amendments) calls for specific amendments to the municipal
code that will remove constraints from and incentivize the construction of housing,
including transitional and supportive housing, micro -unit housing, residential care
facilities, emergency shelters, low barrier navigation centers, employee housing
senior housing, and housing for individuals with disabilities. The program also calls
for increasing the maximum permitted density in the R-3 zone and revising the site
plan review application findings to make them objective and provide more certainty
in application outcomes;
F. The proposed General Plan Amendment will create a new Mixed -Use Overlay
designation that applies to four sites covering 4.47 acres. The overlay applies
over —and in addition to —the existing Corporate Office, General Commercial, and
Parking land use designations for the sites (Exhibit B). The maximum permitted
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 2 of 17
density in the Mixed -Use Overlay designation is 75 dwelling units per acre and will
result in the construction of up to 335 additional dwelling units (Exhibit D);
G. The proposed General Plan Amendment will create a new Housing Overlay
designation that applies to five sites covering 5.56 acres. The overlay applies
over —and in addition to —the existing Multi -Family Residential land use
designation for the sites. The maximum permitted density in the Mixed -Use
Overlay designation is 65 dwelling units per acre and will result in the construction
of up to 193 additional dwelling units (Exhibit D);
H. The proposed General Plan Amendment will change the maximum permitted
density in the Multi -Family Residential land use designation from 27 dwelling units
per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre;
The proposed Zone Change will apply a new Mixed -Use Overlay to four sites
covering 4.47 acres. The overlay will apply over —and in addition to —the existing
Corporate Office (CO), General Commercial (C-3), and Parking (P) zoning for the
sites (Exhibit F);
J. The proposed Zone Change will apply a new Housing Overlay to five sites covering
5.56 acres. The overlay will apply over —and in addition to —the existing Multi -
Family Residential (R-3) zoning for the sites (Exhibit F),
K. The proposed Zone Text Amendment will;
add the Mixed -Use Overlay (MU-0) and Housing Overlay (HO) to ESMC
Section 15-3-1 (Designation of Zone Names);
2. amend ESMC Article 154D Multi -Family Residential (R-3) zone to change
the maximum permitted density to 30 dwelling units per acre and update
other development standards in the R-3 zone.
3. add a new ESMC Article 15-7(C) Mixed Use Overlay (MU-0) incorporating
development standards for higher density mixed -use commercial and
residential projects;
4. add a new ESMC Article 15-7(D) Housing Overlay (H-O) incorporating
development standards for higher density residential projects;
5. amend ESMC Section 15-25-4 Site Plan Review Findings to streamline and
ensure approval of multi -family residential projects; and
6. amend ESMC Title 14 (Subdivisions) to permit subdivisions involving up to
10-lots or units ministerially, without discretion or public hearings.
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 3of17
SECTION 3: General Plan Amendment Findings. As required under Government Code
§ 65454 and ESMC § 15-27-3 and based on the findings set forth in Section 2, the
Planning Commission finds:
A. That the amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with General Plan Land Use
Element Goal LU1: Maintenance of El Segundo's "Small Town" Atmosphere in that
it preserves and maintains the City's low -medium density residential nature, with
low building height profile and character, and minimum development standards.
The proposed amendment increases the density and permitted height only on a
limited number of properties in the proposed Mixed -Use and Housing overlays,
thereby preserving the medium density and low building profile on vast majority of
properties in the northwest quadrant of the City. Further, the Overlay sites are
located near existing buildings with similar heights or in zones where similar
building heights are allowed.
The proposed amendment is also consistent with General Plan Land Use Element
Goal LU3: Proper Distribution of Residential Land Uses, in that it preserves and
protects existing Single -Family Residential uses. The proposed amendment does
not alter designation of any existing Single -Family Residential properties; it affects
only properties designated as Commercial or Multi -Family Residential.
The proposed general plan amendment is consistent with General Plan Housing
Element Goal 3: Provide Opportunities for New Housing Construction in a Variety
of Locations and Variety of Densities, in that the proposed amendment directly
implements Program No. 6: Provision of Adequate Sites. Specifically, the proposed
amendment implements the Mixed -Use Overlay and the Housing Overlay, which
effectively rezone nine sites to allow high density residential development. The
number of sites and proposed densities are adequate to meet the City's 6t" cycle
RHNA requirement of 279 units, including 184 very low income, 18 low income,
and 77 moderate income units.
In addition, the proposed amendment is consistent with Housing Element Program
No. 9: El Segundo Municipal Code Amendments. The proposed amendment
increases the permitted maximum density in the Multi -Family Residential land use
designation to 30 dwelling units per acre, which is adequate pursuant to
Government Code section 65583.2(c)(3) to facilitate the development of low -and
very low-income housing. It is also consistent with and directly implements
Housing Element Goal 3 to provide adequate sites and opportunities for
construction of new housing and Program No. 9 to amend the maximum density in
the R-3 zone to 30 units per acre.
Lastly, the proposed amendment is consistent with and directly implements
Program No. 11: Fair Housing Program, which requires the City to undertake a
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 4 of 17
number actions to affirmatively further fair housing. The proposed amendment is
direct implementation of the Fair Housing Program objective to rezone adequate
sites to allow high density residential development to meet the City's 6t" cycle
RHNA requirement of 279 units, including 184 very low income, 18 low income,
and 77 moderate income units.
B. The amendment is necessary to serve the public health, safety, and general
welfare.
The proposed amendment is necessary to serve the public health, safety, and
general welfare in that it consists of planning for the orderly use of the City's land
resources. The proposed amendment establishes two new zoning overlays that
allow high density residential development on nine specific sites. Four of those
sites currently have a commercial General Plan Land Use designation and will
allow high density residential uses in combination with other permitted commercial
uses. Five of the sites currently have a Multi -Family Residential General Plan Land
Use designation and will allow high density residential uses in a manner that is
compatible with surrounding uses. Further, the Overlay sites are located near
existing buildings with similar heights or in zones where similar building heights
are allowed.
In addition, the proposed amendment will increase the permitted maximum density
in the Multi -Family Residential land use designation to 30 dwelling units per acre,
which helps focus the increased density in the City's multi -family residential
neighborhoods and preserves those areas with a Single -Family Residential Land
Use designation.
Further, proposed amendment will directly facilitate and increase the opportunities
for the construction of new housing to satisfy the housing needs of all segments of
the community as described in General Plan Housing Element Program 6:
Provision of Adequate Sites. The proposed amendment will rezone an adequate
number of sites to meet the 6t" cycle RHNA requirement for 279 affordable housing
units, including 184 very low income, 18 low income, and 77 moderate income
units.
Finally, the potential environmental impacts generated by the proposed
amendment were analyzed consistent with the requirements of CEQA. It was
determined that the proposed amendments will have no greater impacts than the
impacts analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the General Plan.
SECTION 4: Environmental Assessment. The City Council finds and determines as
follows:
A. The proposed amendments to the General Plan, the Zoning Map, and ESMC
contemplated herein were analyzed for their environmental impacts and an
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 5 of 17
Addendum to the previously certified EIR for the General Plan was prepared
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164. Under CEQA, an Addendum to a
previously certified EIR is appropriate if minor changes or additions to the EIR are
necessary to reflect the proposed modifications to the project in the environmental
analysis and none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration
have occurred (CEQA Guidelines §15164). Generally, the conditions described in
Section 15162 have not occurred if the proposed modifications do not result in any
new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant impacts. The Addendum need not be circulated for public
review (CEQA Guidelines §15164(c)); however, an addendum must be considered
by the decision -making body before making a decision on the project (CEQA
Guidelines §15164(d)).
B. This Addendum to the previously -certified EIR demonstrates that the
environmental analysis, impacts, and mitigation measures identified in the 1992
EIR for the General Plan remain substantively unchanged despite the proposed
project revisions. It supports the finding that the proposed project does not raise
any new issues and does not exceed the significance level of impacts identified in
the previously certified EIR. The mitigation measures listed in the certified EIR for
the General Plan, are sufficient to reduce the identified environmental impacts to
a less than significant level.
C. To evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the Ordinance and the need for
additional environmental review, the City conducted an initial study. Based on the
findings of the initial study, an addendum was prepared. The Initial
Study/Addendum dated March 2024, is incorporated herein by this reference, as
though fully set forth.
D. Based on the findings and information yielded by the initial study/addendum, the
Planning Commission finds as follows:
1. There are no substantial changes relative to the amendments proposed
herein that will require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects.
The proposed amendments would approve minor changes and additions to
the General Plan described and analyzed in the previously certified final EIR
("FEIR"). There are no substantial changes resulting from the Ordinance
that require major revisions to the FEIR. As detailed in the Initial
Study/Addendum, the Ordinance will not result in any new or increased
environmental effects beyond those that were previously identified in the
FEIR. In addition, all applicable mitigation measures set forth in the FEIR
would continue to be implemented.
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 6 of 17
2. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances
under which the project is undertaken that would require preparation of a
subsequent or supplemental EIR due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects.
There are no substantial changes with regard to the facts, data, and
mitigation measures included in the FEIR. The proposed amendments will
not result in a General Plan that is substantially different from the plan
evaluated in the FEIR, and the environmental circumstances applicable to
the city have not changed substantially.
I There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known
and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence
at the time the previous FEIR was certified as complete, that shows any of
the following: (i) The project will have one or more significant effects not
discussed in the previous FEIR; (ii) Significant effects previously examined
will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous FEIR; (iii)
Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt
the mitigation measure or alternative; or (iv) Mitigation measures or
alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the
previous FEIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
E. No subsequent environmental review is required pursuant to Section 15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the General Plan, the
Zoning Map, and ESMC contemplated herein, are within the scope of the project
covered by the General Plan FEIR and, pursuant to Section 15168(c)(2) of the
CEQA Guidelines, no further environmental review is required.
F. The proposed zone text amendments to the Subdivision, Site Plan Review, and
certain affordable housing application procedures are exempt from the
requirements of CEQA, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3),
because they consist only of minor revisions to existing zoning regulations and
related procedures and do not have the potential for causing a significant effect on
the environment.
SECTION 5: Approvals. Based upon the foregoing and the evidence in the record as a
whole, the City Council takes the following actions:
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 7 of 17
A. The City Council adopts and approves an Addendum to the previously approved
General Plan EIR for the proposed amendments outlined in Sections 2 and 4, as
set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution which is incorporated herein by this
reference;
B. The City Council approves a CEQA exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15061(b)(3) for the proposed zone text amendments to the ESMC
provisions on Subdivision, Site Plan Review, and certain affordable housing
application procedures, as set forth in Sections 2 and 4; and
C. The City Council approves General Plan Amendment No. GPA 23-01 as set forth
in Exhibits "B" through "E".
SECTION 6: Exhibits. This Resolution includes the following exhibits which are attached
hereto and a part hereof:
A. Addendum to the previously approved General Plan EIR
B. Amendment to General Plan Land Use Designations
C. Amendment to General Plan Land Use Plan Northwest Quadrant subsection
D. Amendment to 1992 General Plan Summary of Existing Trends Build -out
E. Amendment to General Plan Land Use Map
SECTION 7: Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determination
in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and
written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and
determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City Council
in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the
record as a whole.
SECTION 8: Limitations. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the project is
based on information available at the time of the decision. It is inevitable that in evaluating
a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will
not exist. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions.
SECTION 9. Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings,
which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The
absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular
finding is not based in part on that fact.
SECTION 10: This Resolution will take effect immediately and remain effective until
superseded by a subsequent resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 8 of 17
SECTION 11: The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16t" day of April 2024.
Dream! Boyle eyor
ATTEST:
Tracy We er, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM"
Mark D. Hence `City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 9of17
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Tracy Weaver, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. 5474 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by said City Council, at a
regular meeting of said Council held on the 16th day of April, 2024, approved and signed
by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Boyles, Mayor Pro Tem Pimentel, Council Member Pirsztuk,
Council Member Giroux, and Council Member Baldino
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
WITNESS MY HAND THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF SAID CITY this I ay of April, 2024.
Tra4 Weaver, City Clerk
of the City of El Segundo,
California
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 10 of 17
EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 5 74:
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 11 of 17
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING AMENDMENTS
General Plan Program FIR Addendum
Prepared for
City of El Segundo
550 West C Street
Suite 750
San Diego, CA 92101
619.719.4200
esassoc.com
Atlanta
Orlando
San Diego
Bend
Palm Beach county
San Francisco
Camarillo
Pasadena
San Jose
Irvine
Pensacola
Sarasota
Los Angeles
Petaluma
Seattle
Mobile
Portland
Tampa
Oakland
Sacramento
March 2024
ESA
,,e
OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY I ESA helps a variety of
public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and
emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered
assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader,
and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate
member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on
Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision
and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our
operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.
CONTENTS
General Plan and Zoning Amendments
General Plan Program EIR Addendum
Paqe
Chapter1, Background......................................................................................................1-1
1.1
Purpose of this Addendum to the Certified Program EIR...................................1-1
1.2
CEQA Authority for an Addendum.....................................................................1-3
1.3
Background.......................................................................................................1-4
Chapter 2, Project Description..........................................................................................2-1
2.1
Development of Mixed -Use Overlay..................................................................
2-3
2.2
Development of Housing Overlay......................................................................
2-4
2.3
Increase in Density in R-3 Zone........................................................................2-4
2.4
Update of the Downtown Specific Plan..............................................................2-5
2.4.1 Entitlements............................................................................................2-5
Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis..................................................................................3-1
3.1
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity..........................................................................3-2
3.1.1 Environmental Setting.............................................................................3-2
3.1.2 Discussion...............................................................................................3-3
3.2
Hydrology and Water Quality.............................................................................3-6
3.2.1 Environmental Setting.............................................................................3-6
3.2.2 Discussion...............................................................................................3-7
3.3
Biotic Resources..............................................................................................3-10
3.3.1 Environmental Setting...........................................................................3-10
3.3.2 Discussion.............................................................................................3-11
3.4
Land Use.........................................................................................................
3-12
3.4.1 Environmental Setting...........................................................................3-12
3.4.2 Discussion.............................................................................................3-13
3.5
Population and Housing...................................................................................3-14
3.5.1 Environmental Setting...........................................................................3-14
3.5.2 Discussion.............................................................................................3-15
3.6
Utilities.............................................................................................................
3-16
3.6.1 Environmental Setting...........................................................................3-17
3.6.2 Discussion.............................................................................................3-19
3.7
Public Services................................................................................................
3-22
3.7.1 Environmental Setting...........................................................................3-22
3.7.2 Discussion.............................................................................................3-25
3.8
Transportation/Circulation................................................................................3-28
3.8.1 Environmental Setting...........................................................................3-28
3.8.2 Discussion.............................................................................................3-29
3.9
Air Quality........................................................................................................3-34
3.9.1 Environmental Setting...........................................................................3-34
3.9.2 Discussion.............................................................................................3-35
General Plan and Zoning Amendments III ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
Contents
3.10 Noise 3-45
3.10.1 Environmental Setting ...................
3.10.2 Discussion .....................................
3.11 Cultural Resources ..................................
3.11.1 Environmental Setting ...................
3.11.2 Discussion .....................................
3.12 AestheticsNisual Quality .........................
3.12.1 Environmental Setting ...................
3.12.2 Discussion .....................................
3.13 Public Health and Safety (Risk of Upset).
3.13.1 Environmental Setting ...................
3.13.2 Discussion .....................................
3.14 Agricultural Resources .............................
3.14.1 Environmental Setting ...................
3.14.2 Discussion .....................................
3.15 Mineral Resources ...................................
3.15.1 Environmental Setting ...................
3.15.2 Discussion .....................................
3.16 Recreation ...............................................
3.16.1 Environmental Setting ...................
3.16.2 Discussion .....................................
3.17 Other CEQA Topics .................................
3.17.1 Energy 3-67
3.17.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .........
3.17.3 Tribal Cultural Resources ..............
3.17.4 Wildfires3-77
Chapter 4, Bibliography ...........................................
Attachments
............................................. 3-46
............................................. 3-46
............................................. 3-51
............................................. 3-51
............................................. 3-52
............................................. 3-54
............................................. 3-54
............................................. 3-55
............................................. 3-57
............................................. 3-57
............................................. 3-59
............................................. 3-63
............................................. 3-63
............................................. 3-64
............................................. 3-64
............................................. 3-64
............................................. 3-65
............................................. 3-65
............................................. 3-65
............................................. 3-66
............................................. 3-66
............................................ 3-70
............................................ 3-75
................................................ 4-1
A. El Segundo R-3 Redevelopment Potential
B. Transportation
B-1. VMT Analysis
B-2. LOS Analysis
C. Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
General Plan and Zoning Amendments i ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum January 2024
Contents
Figures
Figure1 Regional Location..............................................................................................1-2
Figure 2 Proposed Areas for General Plan and Zoning Amendments.............................2-2
Tables
Table 1 Acreage and Net Increase in Units Provided by Four Approaches ....................2-3
Table 2 Projected Water Demand — WBMWD..............................................................3-20
Table 3 Vehicle Miles Traveled per Service Population by Land Use Category ........... 3-31
Table 4 Estimated Maximum Daily Regional Operational Emissions (pounds per
day).................................................................................................................. 3-40
General Plan and Zoning Amendments V ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
CHAPTER 1
Background
1.1 Purpose of this Addendum to the Certified
Program EIR
The City of El Segundo's (City) adopted General Plan provides the long-term goals and policies
necessary to guide growth and development within the city. The city encompasses 5.46 square
miles (3,494.4 acres) in the South Bay Region of Los Angeles County, approximately 20 miles
southwest of downtown Los Angeles. The city is bordered on the north by the Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX); on the west by the Pacific Ocean; to the south by the city of
Manhattan Beach; and to the east by the 405 Freeway. These barriers isolate El Segundo's
residential and downtown communities from other South Bay communities. Figure 1, Regional
Location, depicts El Segundo's regional location and city boundaries respectively.
The focus of this Addendum to the El Segundo General Plan Program Environmental Impact
Report (Addendum), as described further below, is on the potential environmental effects
associated with General Plan and Zoning Amendments (Project or amendments) necessary to
implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element (Housing Element) that was adopted by City Council
on November 15, 2022. On January 17, 2023, after the City made some minor technical changes
to the Housing Element, the California Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) issued a conditional approval letter but delayed full certification of the Housing Element
until the City completes the rezoning described in Program 6 of the Housing Element, which is
the subject of this Addendum.
A majority of the sites identified for future development are currently designated and zoned as
multifamily. The remaining sites are currently designated as downtown commercial, general
commercial, corporate office, Smoky Hollow, parking, public facility, and Downtown Specific
Plan and are presently zoned as general commercial, corporate office, downtown, Smoky Hollow
— East, and public facilities.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
0.
'E
0
Ln VI
0
41
V)
ra
wr
-i
a) 7D
E
E
Qj
0
4 c - 0
o
of v)
0
0
0
0
U
ro m
0
la
3:
- E
c
V) 0
0
-C
>1
M n
LU
:3 -14
0 0
v) 0
Qi 0
fU
rts
c
i7)
AdanOc Ave
/?4
V,
0
S,
0
zz
lu
'D
> OAV
<
gMJUIIJD/�
S
S VennoM
Avo
>
CT3
Ha
C)
cl
a,
>
m
cr
VI
ti
-E
1/1
0
0
Id
Q)
IV
IIJ
V,
0
>,
rl
x
co
LLB.
0
0
c
Q)
C4
c u
0
(v
QJ c
CO
>
v
u
m
c
as
u
I
_0
0
E LL —J
0) cu
C: a
'E 0
0
(D
0
m
V/0,
m
V/
0 rn
o
m
m m
c a. All
C14
(D
LL
Or ON
w
w
opo!
oe,
AM
0
1.2 CEQA Authority for an Addendum
The California Environmental Quality Act and CEQA Guidelines establish the type of
environmental documentation that is required when changes to a project occur after an EIR is
certified. Section 15164(a) states that:
"The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a
previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of
the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent
EIR have occurred. "
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, once an EIR has been certified, no subsequent or
supplemental EIR shall be prepared for a project unless the lead agency determines that one or
more of the following occurs:
1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects;
2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
undertaken, which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration
due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as
complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or
negative declaration;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in
the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be
feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but
the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed
in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the
environment but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The analysis in this Addendum evaluates the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code
Amendments to determine whether any new significant environmental impacts, which were not
previously identified in the prior CEQA documentation for the General Plan, would result or
whether previously identified significant impacts would be substantially more severe. Chapter 3
of this Addendum provides an analysis of the impacts of the Project compared with the impacts of
the General Plan as analyzed in Certified PEIR. It has been determined by the analysis herein,
that none of the conditions requiring preparation of a subsequent EIR has occurred and that the
Project would not result in additional significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 1-3 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
of previously identified significant impacts. Thus, pursuant to CEQA, this Addendum is the
appropriate documentation to address the proposed General Plan and Zoning Code Amendments.
1.3 Background
This document is an Addendum to the Certified City of El Segundo General Plan Program
Environmental Impact Report (Certified PEIR) (SCH #91041092) prepared for the City of
El Segundo General Plan, which was adopted December 1992. The Certified PEIR provided a
programmatic level of environmental impact analysis for a broad array of environmental topics
for the entire General Plan area. The Certified PEIR analyzed the impacts of an estimated
buildout scenario of residential units and nonresidential uses. The Certified PEIR determined the
General Plan would cause significant and unavoidable impacts to the following resource areas:
geology (increased exposure to seismic hazards), noise (increases in ambient noise levels), and
transportation and circulation (impacts at intersections and along roadway segments).
The General Plan covers an area of approximately 3,495 acres and includes goals, objectives, and
policies for ten elements including Land Use; Economic Development; Circulation; Housing;
Open Space and Recreation; Conservation; Air Quality; Noise; Public Safety; and Hazardous
Materials & Waste Management Element. The Certified PEIR analyzed the implementation of the
1992 General Plan that provides the long-term goals and policies necessary to guide growth and
development within the city.
The Land Use Element of El Segundo General Plan sets forth the city's policies for regulation of
land uses within the city's jurisdiction. These policies, together with zoning regulations for
implementing the General Plan, establish the location, amount, and distribution of land to be
allocated for various land uses within the city. The El Segundo General Plan and El Segundo
Municipal Code (ESMC) provide for a range of residential land use development densities. The
Certified PEIR assumed that full buildout of the General Plan could increase the density and intensity
of existing land uses by allowing up to approximately 7,787 new residential units and an increase
of approximately 28.7 million square feet of non-residential uses. The additional development
assumed in the General Plan was anticipated to occur over a 20-year period, ending in 2010.
In addition to the General Plan, the City has approved projects that have resulted in an increase in
buildout through General Plan amendments and/or approvals of Specific Plans, including the
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan
(PCCSP) and 540 East Imperial Specific Plan (540 EISP), described below. These projects, which
included environmental analyses, increased the allowable density and population within the city,
thereby increasing the city's anticipated buildout.
The Smoky Hollow Specific Plan was approved in 2018. Smoky Hollow is a light industrial/
manufacturing region located in central El Segundo, generally bounded by Standard Street to the
west, El Segundo Boulevard to the south, Pacific Coast Highway to the east, and Grand Avenue
to the north. The Specific Plan area encompasses approximately 94.3 acres. Residential units
other than accessory caretaker units are not permitted in the Smoky Hollow Specific Plan area.
The Plan includes a Medium Density Residential (MDR) Overlay Zone. The MDR Overlay Zone
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 1-4 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
is considered a "floating zone" that can be activated once a need is identified. The MDR Overlay
Zone may be used in place of current Smoky Hollow Specific Plan zoning designations.
In 2000, the City adopted a Downtown Specific Plan to enhance the Downtown environment. The
Plan area is a distinct district approximately two blocks by five blocks in size and is currently
developed with commercial, residential, and public uses. The current zoning allows for a
maximum of 276 dwelling units within the Plan area. As of September 2021, there are
approximately 83 residential units in the Plan area. The city's residential sites inventory includes
a number of properties in the Downtown Specific Plan area with a total capacity of 26 units.' The
City is in the process of updating the Downtown Specific Plan. The Draft Plan will allow
additional residential units in the Main Street, Richmond Street and Grand Avenue Districts. The
City projects an increase of 300 residential units in these areas.
The PCCSP was approved in 2022. The PCCSP includes approximately 6.4 gross acres and
allows up to 263 new housing units and 11,252 square feet of new commercial/retail uses. The
Specific Plan identifies five land use districts, including two mixed -use districts allowing
residential development, PCC Mixed -Use 1 (PCC MU-1) and PCC Mixed -Use 2 (PCC MU-2).
The 540 EISP, located in the northern portion of the city, was approved in January 2012. The
5.65-acre project site was comprised of six lots and the Specific Plan allows the development of
58 units. The 540 EISP included residential development with a mix of 24 single-family dwelling
units and 34 multiple -family dwelling units.
For the Housing Element Update, the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) allocation
("fair share" of the regional total) from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
for El Segundo was a total of 492 units. The city had a shortfall of 29 units from the 5 h Cycle
Housing Element period, which are carried over to the current cycle. Therefore, the total
requirement for the city during the 6 h Cycle Housing Element period is 521 units.
The city has not experienced the projected growth assumed in the General Plan. As indicated in
the 2021-2029 Housing Element, according to the Department of Finance (DOF) Housing
Estimates, there are 7,463 dwelling units in El Segundo, an increase of 53 units (0.72 percent)
since 2010. The Housing Element includes a residential site inventory, which identifies sites for
future housing development and an evaluation of the adequacy of those sites to fulfill the city's
share of the regional housing needs. The Housing Element identifies candidate sites, which are
part of the Project, which is described in detail below.
On November 15, 2022, the City Council adopted a revised 2021-2029 Housing Element. On
January 17, 2023, after the City made some minor technical changes to the Housing Element,
HCD issued a conditional approval letter but delayed full certification of the Housing Element
until the City completes the rezoning described in Program 6 of the Housing Element. The
Project, which is described below, would implement Program 6 of the Housing Element and
thereby allow the City to obtain HCD certification of the Housing Element.
' City of El Segundo, City of El Segundo 2021-2029 Housing Element, November 2022, page 39.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 1-5 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
This page intentionally left blank
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 1-6 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
CHAPTER 2
Project Description
The city's 6th Cycle RHNA allocation for the 2021-2029 Housing Element is a total of 521 units,
which includes 29 units from the 5th Cycle Housing Element period. General Plan and Zoning
amendments are necessary in order to increase the opportunities for housing development to
occur in the city. The proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would implement
Program 6 of the Housing Element in order for the City to receive HCD certification of the
Housing Element.
The Housing Element includes a site inventory that identifies parcels that could accommodate the
necessary housing over the next eight years. To provide land for the identified housing and to
meet the RHNA allocation, the City has identified areas where density can be increased. In
addition, the City has determined that the creation of overlay districts can be used to help achieve
the goal of increasing housing opportunities. To implement the proposed approaches,
amendments to the General Plan and ESMC would be required.
The City identified four approaches to increase the opportunities for housing development in the
city to achieve the 6th cycle RHNA allocation of 521 units, which comprise the Project. The
proposed approaches include:
• Development of a Mixed -Use Overlay2
• Development of a Housing Overlay
• Increase in Density in R-3 Zone
• Update to the Downtown Specific Plan
These approaches combined, which are described below, would result in a projected buildout of
1,195 units, thereby exceeding the 521 units allocated in the 6th Cycle. Table 1, Acreage and Net
Increase in Units Provided by Four Approaches, provides a summary of the acreage affected and
the potential net increase in units for each approach. Figure 2, Proposed Areas for General Plan
and Zoning Amendments, shows the locations within the northwestern quadrant of the city where
the General Plan and zoning designations are proposed. In addition, with the development of a
Mixed -Use Overlay, approximately 64,077 square feet of resident serving commercial square
footage is projected.
2 The sites identified for the Mixed -Use Overlay are shown in Table 5-5 of the Housing Element, pages 58 to 61.
3 The sites identified for the Housing Overlay are shown in Table 5-7 of the Housing Element, pages 67 to 68.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 2-1 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
j
I
f`
M[f
J�
el
. ,„
1�Illli�
aNi
0
0
v �
0
.. a N O w_
O
N a) - (n
(n Cl) c c
w 07 N o
o E c
.u, E 3
U w OTC U O
O
CD
N
LL
0
C J
U
N
O
N
co
W
r
O
7
N
co
w
Z,
U
ui
cc
Z)
O
w
N 4-
7 E
MM-0
U. C
a�
Q
rn
C
.E
O
N
C
cv
C
cy
a_
ca
N
C
N
0
O
ca
N
N
O
O
Q
O
2.
TABLE 1
ACREAGE AND NET INCREASE IN UNITS PROVIDED By FOUR APPROACHES
Approach Acreage Existing Units/Acre
Proposed Units/Acre
Net
Increase
Mixed Use Overlay 4.47 acres —
75 units/acre
335 units
Housing Overlay 5.1 acres 27 units/acre
65 units/acre
193 units
Increase in Density in R-3 Zone 122.2 acres 27 units/acre
30 units/acre
367 units
Downtown Specific Plan
300 units
Total —
—
1,195 units
6th Cycle RHNA Allocation
521 units2
Surplus
674 units
1. The Mixed -Use Overlay would allow up to 64,077 square feet of commercial floor area.
2. If the accessory dwelling units and entitled projects are considered, the surplus would be 916 units above the remaining
RHNA
obligation of 279 units.
Source: City of El Segundo, 2023
As shown in Table 1, the projected increase in housing associated with the four approaches is
greater than the allocated 521 units to provide a buffer given the uncertainty of where
redevelopment would occur as well as considering the overall land use pattern in the city and to
provide for housing opportunities beyond the 2021-2029 timeframe.4 Assuming 2.53 persons per
household,s the Project's 1,195 residential units would accommodate 3,024 individuals at full
occupancy of all units.
2.1 Development of Mixed -Use Overlay
The methodology used by the City to identify candidate sites for the Mixed -Use Overlay (MU-0)
is described in the Housing Element. The City considered various factors, including the age of
existing development, lot size, locational advantages, environmental constraints and adequate
infrastructure, and development trends. The City selected four candidate rezone sites, comprised
of 14 parcels, and totaling approximately 4.47 acres. These parcels would be rezoned to include a
newly created overlay, MU-O.
Currently, the sites are zoned for commercial, parking, and office uses but are considered
underutilized based on low existing Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and lack of investments or
improvements for many years. These parcels are primarily used for parking. Assuming a density
of 75 units per acre, up to 335 residential units could be developed on these parcels. In addition,
since the overlay would allow for mixed -use development, approximately 64,077 square feet of
resident serving commercial square footage is projected. A general purpose of the MU-0 is to co -
locate housing with commercial uses to reduce trips, thereby reducing vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) as well as emissions.
4 The Housing Element considers accessory dwelling units and entitled projects. With the inclusion of these, the City
has a remaining RHNA of 279 units.
5 Based on the generation factor used in the 2021 Housing Element, page 11.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 2-3 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
2.
2.2 Development of Housing Overlay
In the last few years, the City has begun to see intensification of the R-3 neighborhoods. Given
the interest in redeveloping the older neighborhoods and based on an economic study regarding
the feasibility of redevelopment, the City identified areas in which a Housing Overlay (HO) that
allows for an increase in density could be applied. While the City identified a total of 723 R-3
parcels totaling about 400 acres that could be rezoned, based on further analysis, four areas
comprised of seven parcels totaling approximately 5.56 acres have been identified as having near -
term redevelopment potential. Five of these parcels are currently developed with nonconforming,
nonresidential uses built during 1950s and 1960s. The nonconforming uses are not permitted to
expand, and these parcels cannot be redeveloped with nonresidential uses.
Based on an economic study evaluating the R-3 properties, the HO would allow up to 65 units per
acre.6 (The economic study is provided as Attachment A to this Addendum.) As indicated these
properties are zoned R-3, which allows 27 units per acre. With the increase to 65 units per acre,
the HO would allow a net increase of 38 units per acre. Assuming a density of 65 units per acre,
up to 330 units could be developed, resulting in a net increase of 193 units. The City would
amend the Zoning Code to create the HO and associated development standards, such as lot area
per unit, parking, height, setback, and lot coverage to ensure that the maximum density can be
achieved.
2.3 Increase in Density in R-3 Zone
The city's Multi -Family Residential designation allows multiple dwelling units in either a
condominium or apartment configuration. The maximum density for multifamily residential is 27
dwelling units per acre? on properties equal to or less than 15,000 square feet and 18 dwelling
units per acre on properties greater than 15,000 square feet.
Program 9, Removing Governmental and Other Constraints, in the Housing Element identifies
that the City will increase the allowable density in the R-3 zone from 27 units per acre to 30 units
per acre. This increase will apply to the R-3 parcels that were not identified for the HO.
The City estimates there are approximately 122 acres of land zoned R-3 that was not identified
for the HO. The increase in density in the R-3 zone will allow a net increase of 3 units per acre.
Assuming a density of 30 units per acre on the remaining 122 acres of land, 367 additional
residential units will be allowed. To accommodate the density increase, the City will amend the
Zoning Code to revise relevant development standards, such as lot area per unit, parking, height,
setback, and lot coverage to ensure that the maximum density can be achieved.
6 El Segundo R-3 Redevelopment Potential, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc., September 2022.
7 The R-3 zone allows 1 unit per 1,613 square feet of lot area on properties that are less than 15,000 square feet,
which allows 9 units on a 15,000-square-foot parcel resulting in 27 units per acre.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 2-4 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
2.
2.4 Update of the Downtown Specific Plan
The City is in the process of updating the Downtown Specific Plan, which covers 26.3 acres
along Main Street between Mariposa Avenue and El Segundo Boulevard. The Draft Plan will
allow residential units in the Main Street, Richmond Street and Grand Avenue Districts. The City
projects an increase of 300 residential units in these areas. While the Downtown Specific Plan is
going through a separate process, including preparation of an environmental document in
compliance with CEQA, the City is considering the potential units in this process.
2.4.1 Entitlements
The discretionary actions required for the Project include, but are not limited to the following:
• Consideration of the Addendum to the Certified Program EIR
• Approval and adoption of the proposed General Plan Amendments
• Approval and adoption of the proposed Zoning Amendments
The City of El Segundo is the lead agency and approvals of other public agencies are not required
at this time.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 2-5 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
This page intentionally left blank
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 2-6 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
CHAPTER 3
Environmental Analysis
This section addresses each of the environmental issues discussed in the Certified PEIR to
determine if the Project has the potential to create new significant impacts or a result in a
substantial increase in the severity of a significant impact as compared to the Certified PEIR.
Since there have been changes to the CEQA Checklist questions since the certification of the
PEIR, the questions in the current CEQA Checklist are used to ensure all issue areas are
considered. The order of the issues below matches the order in the Certified PEIR. Topics that
were scoped out in the Certified PEIR's Initial Study are included in this analysis.
As with the Certified PEIR, the analysis below is a program -level analysis. A program analysis
addresses a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either:
(1) geographically; (2) as logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions; (3) in connection
with the issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a
continuing program; or (4) as individual activities carried out under the same authorizing
statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental impacts which can
be mitigated in similar ways (CEQA Guidelines Section 15168).
This Addendum does not evaluate project -specific impacts of future developments. Potential
environmental impacts associated with future development facilitated by the General Plan and
Zoning amendments would be assessed on a site -by -site basis at the time the development is
proposed and mitigation measures, if necessary, would be implemented to reduce significant
impacts through the application and environmental review process.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-1 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
3.1
Issues:
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Potentially Sign cant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identifiled in than Identified in the
the `Approved Project" `Approved Project
GEOLOGY and Soils —Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based
on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
❑
the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
3.1.1 Environmental Setting
Faulting and Seismicity
Several active and potentially active faults traverse the southern California region, including the
and San Andreas, Newport -Inglewood, Cucamonga, Whittier -Elsinore, San Jacinto, San
Fernando, Sierra Madre, Verdugo, and Malibu Coast -Santa Monica -Hollywood fault zones. The
most likely source of strong earthquake shaking within the city would be a major earthquake (up
to a magnitude of 8.25) on the San Andreas fault located to the northeast of the city. Maximum
potential earthquakes postulated for other faults classified as active in the region are of the 7.0
magnitude originating from the Newport -Inglewood fault (5 miles to the west), and the Whittier -
Elsinore fault (18 miles to the northwest).
Terrain and Soils
The city is relatively flat, and thus the risk of land sliding is low. The soils in the northwestern
quadrant of the city, where the parcels identified for new housing are located, belong to two
major groups: the Oakley and the Ramona -Placentia associations. Oakly association soils are
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-2 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
made up of gray and dark gray loam, silty sands, silt loam, or clay loam. These soils are
associated with high water tables and are composed of loosely bound grains formed by wind
processes. Ramon -Placentia association soils are made up of brown to reddish -brown heavy loam,
loam, or sandy loam. Subsoils consist of similarly colored clay and clay loam. Given the high-
water table in this portion of the city, liquefaction is likely.
Paleontological Resources
Numerous fossil sites have been recorded from exposed rock units in and near El Segundo.
Therefore, there is potential and sensitivity for paleontological resources in the area.
3.1.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for future development in the city to incrementally
expose people to land sliding, ground shaking, and associated hazards that commonly occur in a
seismically active area and concluded that even with the implementation of Public Safety
Element Policies PSI-1.1 and PSI-1.2, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable
(Certified PEIR pages 4.1-23 to 4.1-24).
The city is relatively flat; future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments would be in areas that are predominately flat. Therefore, the potential for
seismically induced landslides to occur is low. Future development under the Project would
incrementally contribute to the number of people who could be exposed to ground shaking and
associated hazards (i.e., seismically related ground failure, including liquefaction) that commonly
occur in a seismically active area. The City has adopted the California Building Code (CBC) by
reference pursuant to ESMC Chapter 13-1-1). The CBC includes provisions for construction in
seismically active areas, and on different types of soils. All future development facilitated by the
proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would be required to adhere to requirements
contained in the CBC and ESMC. Adherence to regulatory codes, such as the CBC and ESMC
would ensure that all future development under the Project would be constructed to adequately
withstand strong seismic ground shaking through proper engineering and design. Furthermore,
the City requires the preparation of geotechnical reports to address potential geologic impacts
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-3 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
associated with the development of a site prior to issuance of a building permit. Thus, unlike the
conclusion reached in the Certified PEIR, potential impacts related to seismic hazards associated
with fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure, including
liquefaction, and landslides would be less than significant. Therefore, no new or substantially
more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation
would be required.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for future development in the city to expose soils to
erosion during construction and determined with the implementation of Public Safety Element
Policies PS1-1.2, PS2-1.1, and PS2-1.2, these impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant
level (Certified PEIR pages 4.1-21 to 4.1-22). In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.2-3 (under
Hydrology and Water Quality) requires that an erosion and sedimentation control plan be
prepared and submitted to the City prior to grading.
Ground -disturbance activities (e.g., excavation and grading) associated with future development
facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments could expose soils to erosion
during construction. Erosion potential depends largely on the characteristics of soils disturbed, the
quantity of disturbance, and the length of time soils are subject to conditions that would be
affected by erosion processes. Areas of ground disturbance 1 acre or greater in size would be
required to comply with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Construction General Permit, which involves implementation of erosion- and sediment -control
best management practices (BMPs) as detailed in a stormwater pollution prevention plan
(SWPPP) prepared for the development. The BMPs would prevent erosion from occurring and
would retain any eroded soils within property boundaries. Thus, with compliance with the
applicable requirements as well as Mitigation Measure 4.2-3, potential impacts related to erosion
or the loss of topsoil would remain less than significant. As a result, no new or substantially more
severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation
would be required.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for future development in the city to be located on
soils or bedrock with expansive or non -cohesive properties and concluded that with the
implementation of Public Safety Element Policies PS1-1.1 and PS1-1.2, these impacts would be
reduced to a less -than -significant level (Certified PEIR pages 4.1-22 to 4.1-23).
Strong seismic ground shaking could result in liquefaction of poorly consolidated and saturated
soils. Liquefaction occurs when water -saturated sediments are subjected to extended periods of
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-4 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
shaking. The potential exists within the city to encounter expansive soils or soils that are unstable
or would become unstable as a result of new development. These conditions could result in on -
site or off -site lateral spreading or subsidence. Soils in the western portion of the city are
underlain with dune sands, and thus may be prone to settlement. However, if unstable or
expansive soils are encountered, adherence to regulatory codes, such as the CBC and ESMC and
incorporation of recommendations of a City -approved site -specific geotechnical report, would
ensure that these soils are properly engineered to support new structures. Thus, potential impacts
related to unstable or expansive soils would remain less than significant. Therefore, no new or
substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No
additional mitigation would be required.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
The northwestern quadrant of the city is served by existing sewer infrastructure. As with all
current development, future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would connect to the existing system; septic tanks would not be required. No
impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for future development in the city to destroy unique
paleontological resources and concluded that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure
4.11-5, which requires that a paleontologist be present onsite during initial mass grading and all
subsequent soil disturbances for projects over 2 acres in size, these impacts would be reduced to a
less -than -significant level (Certified PEIR page 4.11-9).
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would be
located on sites that have previously been developed. However, if construction occurs in native
soils, the potential exists to destroy paleontological resources. Future development under the
Project would be required to implement mitigation requiring that a paleontologist be present
onsite during ground disturbing activities to monitor the presence of paleontology resources.
Thus, potential impacts related to paleontological resources would remain less than significant.
As a result, no new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the
Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation would be required.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-5 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
3.2
Issues:
Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identifiled in than Identifiled in the
the "Approved Project" `:Approved Project
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY —Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater management
of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or
off -site;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff, or
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
3.2.1 Environmental Setting
Groundwater
The city is underlain by the West Coast Groundwater Basin, a relatively small groundwater basin
underlying the southwestern portion of the Los Angeles Central Plain. The basin is adjudicated,
and thus the amount of groundwater extracted is limited by court judgment. Natural
replenishment of the Basin's groundwater supply is limited to the underflow from the Central
Basin, which bounds the West Coast Basin on the east, and limited local precipitation.
Surface Water
The city is located within the Los Angeles Coastal Plain, adjacent to Santa Monica Bay. Surface
water flowing through the city is not concentrated within any natural occurring streams or
channels. Urbanization has led to the collection of natural surface waters in a storm water
drainage system.
Flooding
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for administration of the
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) which creates flood zone insurance maps called a
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-6 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that identify flood hazards within a community. A majority of
the city, including the northwestern quadrant of the city, where the parcels identified for new
housing are located, is located within an area of an annual chance flood of 0.2 percent (Zone X).
The only portion of the city subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual flood chance (100-year
flood) is a 0.8-mile frontage along the Pacific Ocean.8
3.2.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for future development in the city to violate water
quality standards and concluded that with the issuance of permits required and regulated by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) this impact would be less than significant. In
addition, the Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for future development in the city to result in
increased erosion from construction activities and increased site runoff and determined that with
the implementation of mitigation that requires the preparation and implementation of an erosion
and sedimentation control plan this impact would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
(Certified PEIR pages 4.2-10 to 4.2-11).
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would
occur on developed and underutilized parcels, with limited development on vacant parcels. Future
development under the Project would adhere to all applicable federal, state, and local regulations
related to stormwater runoff, erosion, and water quality. As discussed above in Section 3.1,
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity, in lieu of an erosion and sedimentation control plan, ground -
disturbance activities (e.g., excavation and grading) associated with demolition of existing
development and construction of new development would be required to comply with the NPDES
Construction General Permit. The Construction General Permit requires the preparation of a site -
specific SWPPP that incorporates BMPs to reduce impacts to water quality associated with
erosion and pollution in stormwater discharge. The SWPPP would provide equal or better
protection measures than the erosion and sedimentation control plan required by mitigation found
in the Certified PEIR. Therefore, future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, and this impact
would remain less than significant. As such, no new or substantially more severe impact would
occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation would be required.
8 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps 06037C1766 and 06037C1767, Effective
April 21, 2021, https:.//msc.fema.goy/A Usearch#searchresultsanchor, accessed February 7, 2024.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-7 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
The city is located within the West Coast Groundwater Basin. Construction of future
development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments could encounter
groundwater during earthwork and excavation. It is also possible that dewatering systems may be
necessary for individual projects. The northwestern quadrant of the city is primarily developed
with existing urban uses and future development in the area would occur as infill development
and would not likely result in large excavation areas or large amounts of dewatering.
Furthermore, future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would not change large areas that are currently undeveloped and available for
rainwater infiltration. Therefore, construction and operation of development would have a
minimal impact on groundwater recharge in the area and would not substantially decrease
groundwater supplies through substantial increases in impervious surfaces.
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would
generate water demand. The city receives its water from the West Basin Municipal Water District
(WBMWD) and does not pump any groundwater. As discussed in greater detail in Section 3.6,
Utilities, West Basin purchases imported water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) of
Southern California and wholesales the imported water to cities and private companies in
southwest Los Angeles County, including the city. Therefore, the project would not have the
potential to decrease groundwater supplies from an increase in demand.
For these reasons, future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would not decrease existing groundwater supply; substantially interfere with
groundwater recharge; nor conflict with or obstruct the implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, the impact with respect to
groundwater would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site;
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for future development in the city to result in changes
to the amount of surface water generated and concluded that with the implementation of
Conservation Element Policies CN2-11 and CN5-8 this impact would be less than significant
(Certified PEIR pages 4.2-9 to 4.2-10).
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-8 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
There are no streams or rivers in the northwestern quadrant of the city. As future development
facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would occur on developed and
underutilized parcels, future grading and vegetation removal would not result in the exposure of
large amounts of soil to erosion during construction activities. All future development would be
required to comply with requirements that address stormwater runoff control. New development
would be required to adhere to water quality and runoff regulations including those set forth by
the NPDES Construction General Permit and ESMC Chapter 5-4. As such, development projects
are required to implement BMPs for construction activities as specified by the California Storm
Water Best Management Practices Handbook, and/or the City's Minimum Best Management
Practices and Storm Water BMP Manual.
During operation, future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would be required by existing NPDES and ESMC regulations to control pollutants,
pollutant loads, and runoff volume by (1) minimizing the impervious surface area and
(2) controlling runoff through infiltration, bioretention, and/or rainfall harvest and use.
Furthermore, given that the northwestern quadrant of the city is primarily built -out, future
development under the Project would not be expected to result in an substantial increase in
impervious surface area, substantial change to drainage patterns, or substantial change to
groundwater infiltration.
For these reasons, the impact related to the alteration of drainage patterns would remain less than
significant. As such, no new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by
the Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation would be required.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
As discussed above, the northwestern quadrant of the city is located within an area of an annual
chance flood of 0.2 percent (Zone X), and thus is not at a substantial risk for flooding. The risk of
tsunami is present given the city's proximity to the Pacific Ocean. However, this tsunami hazard
area does not extend into any part of the city that is developed. Furthermore, the city does not
contain large bodies of water that would be subject to seiche. Accordingly, the risk associated
with the release of pollutants due to project inundation would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
As discussed above under Items (a) and (d), construction of future development would be
required to comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit and regulations contained in
ESMC Chapter 5-4 for any project activities. Therefore, construction and operation of future
development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not
conflict with implementation of any water quality control plan. As discussed above under
Item (b), construction and operation of future development under the Project would not
substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge and would
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-9 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
therefore not conflict with implementation of any sustainable groundwater management plan. For
these reasons, the impact with respect to a potential conflict with or potential obstruction of a
water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than
significant, and no mitigation is required.
3.3 Biotic Resources
Issues:
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identified in than Identified in the
the `Approved Project" `Approved Project
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES —Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
❑
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
❑
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,
or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
❑
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
❑
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
❑
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
3.3.1 Environmental Setting
El Segundo is largely developed and supports very little native habitat. Ornamental landscaping
and naturalized exotic species including grasses and thistles are the most common forms of
vegetation in El Segundo. Portions of the city's older residential areas contain mature trees and
shrubs, which provide limited habitat for native and introduced species which have adapted to
urban environments, including birds and small mammals.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-10 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
3.3.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for future development in the city to result in the loss
of remaining ruderal fields found within the city and concluded that with the implementation of
Open Space and Recreation Element Policy OS 1-5.3 and Conservation Element Policies CN44
through CN44 and mitigation recommending that the City investigate the feasibility of
implementing a restoration plan for remaining portions of the city's sand dune ecosystem in
coordination with City of Los Angeles restoration efforts, these impacts would be reduced to a
less -than -significant level (Certified PEIR page 4.3-11).
The sites that have been identified for new housing are located in urbanized areas that have been
previously developed. None of the sites is located on or near areas mapped as wetlands. As the
areas where potential development may occur have already been disturbed through urban
development, no significant changes are anticipated in the diversity or number of species of
plants or animals, or in the deterioration of existing wildlife habitat. No riparian habitat, wetlands,
wildlife corridors or nurseries would be affected. Furthermore, existing applicable federal, state,
and/or local policies would prevent development in areas that support sensitive or special status
species, federally protected wetlands, or migration corridors. For these reasons, impacts on
biological resources, including candidate, sensitive, or special -status species; riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community; federally protected wetlands a (including, but not limited to
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.); or native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species,
corridors, or nurseries would remain less than significant. As there are no sand dunes located in
the northwestern quadrant of the city, where the parcels identified for new housing are located,
the mitigation measure identified in the Certified PEIR discussed above does not apply. Thus, no
new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No
additional mitigation would be required.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-1 1 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
The city does not have a tree preservation ordinance for trees on private property. In the event
future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would
require the removal of trees on city property, as part of the approval process, the developer would
be required to comply with city policies related to tree removal and replacement. Therefore,
future development under the Project would not conflict with tree preservation policies or
ordinances. No impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan applies to any portion of
the city. The sites identified for new housing are located within a developed, urban area. The
areas are void of native plant or animal life and provide limited cover and foraging habitat, thus
future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not
significantly impact biological resources. As a result, future development under the Project would
not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact
would occur, and no mitigation would be required.
3.4 Land Use
Issues:
LAND USE AND LAND USE PLANNING —Would the project:
Potentially Sign cant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identifiled in than Identified in the
the "Approved Project" `:Approved Project
a) Physically divide an established community? ❑
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
3.4.1 Environmental Setting
The City of El Segundo, which is located in the southern portion of Los Angeles County
approximately 20 miles southwest of downtown Los Angeles, has a land area of 5.4 square miles.
The city is bordered on the north by LAX; on the west by the Pacific Ocean; to the south by the
City of Manhattan Beach; and to the east by the 405 Freeway. These barriers isolate El Segundo's
residential and downtown communities from other South Bay communities.
As stated in the Land Use Element, the city has distinct and identifiable areas, which include
residential areas, the Civic Center, older industrial areas, and office and commercial uses. The
western boundary of the city includes 0.8 miles of shoreline along the Santa Monica Bay. Except
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-12 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
for the shoreline area, the city is fully developed with urbanized uses. The city has a very strong
residential base with a mixture of single-family, two-family, and multifamily residential
dwellings. The city's housing stock of 7,463 units is characterized by a relatively even balance
between single and multifamily residences.
As discussed in the Housing Element, the jobs -housing balance is a general measure of a
community's employment opportunities with the needs of its residents. A balanced community
would have a match between employment and housing opportunities so that most of the residents
could also work in the community. The city has a high job -population ratio of approximately
4.2:1.9 This large employment base indicates a need to continually seek ways to add housing in
the community.
3.4.2 Discussion
Would the project?
a) Physically divide an established community?
All of the sites identified for future development are in already established neighborhoods. No
changes to the street grid would occur. As a result, future development facilitated by the proposed
General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not physically divide an established community.
This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction
over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
The Certified PEIR evaluated impacts associated with considerable growth in some parts of the
city due to the proposed density and intensity standards and concluded that with the
implementation of mitigation requiring that a specific plan be prepared for any site currently
designated Heavy Industrial to reduce potential impacts associated with unanticipated growth and
that the City monitor market absorption of general commercial uses to avoid the overbuilding of
this type of use, these impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant level(Certified PEIR
pages 4.4-17 to 4.4-18).
As discussed above, the city has a high job -population ratio. The Housing Element addresses the
RHNA allocation and the city's need for additional housing. The Project would result in General
Plan and Zoning Amendments to properties in the residential portion of the city. The sites that
were identified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory are properties that have the potential for
redevelopment and areas where lots could be consolidated. In addition, sites were selected based
on proximity to services, such as schools, parks, retail, and transit.
9 As discussed in the Housing Element (page 10), comparing the number of jobs in El Segundo in 2020 (over 70,000) to
the 2018 ACS population estimates (16,850) indicates a high job -population ratio of approximately 4.2:1.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-13 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
None of the sites identified for future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments is designated Heavy Industrial and future development under the Project
would not result in a substantial amount of new commercial development, and thus the mitigation
included in the Certified PEIR does not apply to the Project. Project and site -specific concerns
would be evaluated and addressed as development projects for specific sites are proposed. Future
development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would follow the
city's standard procedures for review, including analysis for consistency with the General Plan
and compliance with applicable development standards in the city's Municipal Code. Future
projects would be evaluated to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood context. In addition,
future development under the Project would have to comply with all applicable federal, state, and
local goals, policies, and regulations. These plans, policies, and regulations are intended to avoid,
reduce, or minimize potential environmental impacts. Therefore, the impact related to conflicts
with land use plans, policies, and regulations would remain less than significant. Thus, no new or
substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No
additional mitigation would be required.
3.5 Population and Housing
Issues:
POPULATION AND HOUSING —Would the project:
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identifiled in than Identified in the
the "Approved Project" `:Approved Project
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, ❑
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
3.5.1 Environmental Setting
The 1992 General Plan buildout projections, which were for 2010, were 7,850 residential units
and 17,287 residents. As indicated in the Housing Element, as of 2020, DOF determined that the
city's population was 16,777, an increase of less than 1 percent in the ten years since the 2010
U.S. Census. However, the 2020 U.S. Census indicates a population of 17,272 people.10 Based on
the DOF Housing Estimates, there are 7,463 dwelling units in El Segundo, an increase of 53 units
(0.72 percent) since 2010. Between 2010 and 2018, the average persons per household in El
10 U.S. Census Bureau, QuickFacts: El Segundo and Los Angeles County, U.S. Census Bureau QuiMAp1s: Los
Angeles County,, California; El Segundo city,, California; United States, accessed February 2024.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-14 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Segundo increased from 2.34 to 2.53 persons per household.11 According to SCAG, population in
the city is expected to increase to 17,200 by 2045, an increase of 1.6 percent.12,13
3.5.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
The Certified PEIR evaluated impacts associated with the increase in housing units and
population resulting from implementation of the General Plan. The Certified PEIR indicated that
the level of housing growth projected under the General Plan did not meet the city's housing
needs and would result in a potentially significant impact. However, with the implementation of
Air Quality Element Policies AQ9-1.1 through AQ9-1.3 and Land Use Element Policy LU4-4.5
and mitigation that encourages the development of military housing in the city, these impacts
would be reduced to a less -then -significant level (Certified PEIR pages 4.5-13 to 4.5-14).
Based on the average household size in the city of 2.53 persons per household, the additional
1,195 units that could be constructed as a result of the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments could accommodate 3,024 individuals at full occupancy of all units, which would
be an increase of 17.5 percent over the 2020 U.S. Census population for the city. It is assumed
this growth would occur over about 20 to 25 years.
The proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments are necessary to implement the city's 2021-
2029 Housing Element, which sets forth the city's policies and detailed programs for meeting
existing and future housing needs as determined by the RHNA process. As shown in Table 1, the
projected increase in housing associated with the Project is greater than the allocated 521 units in
order to provide a buffer given the uncertainty of where redevelopment would occur. The sites
were identified in consideration of the overall land use pattern in the city and to provide for
housing opportunities beyond the 2021-2029 timeframe.14
As discussed above, SCAG projects that the population in the city is expected to increase to
17,200 by 2045. However, although residential development facilitated by the proposed General
Plan and Zoning Amendments would result in a higher future population than projected by
SCAG, the increase that would occur under the Project is in response to SCAG 6"' Cycle RHNA
housing numbers allocated to the city. California's housing element law requires that each city
11 Housing Element, page 11.
12 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast
Technical Report, May 7, 2020, https://www.connectsocal.plogggmppls/Draft/dConnectsocal_Demographics-
And-Growth-Forecast.pdf, accessed February 7, 2024.
13 The SCAG 2045 projections do not account for growth that would occur as a result of the 601 Cycle RHNA
allocation given the timing of the regional updates.
14 The Housing Element considers accessory dwelling units and entitled projects. With the inclusion of these, the City
has a remaining RHNA of 279 units.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-15 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
and county develop local housing programs designed to meet its fair share of existing and future
housing needs for all income groups. This effort is coordinated when preparing the state -
mandated Housing Element of the city's General Plan. This fair share allocation concept seeks to
ensure that each jurisdiction accepts responsibility for the housing needs of, not only its resident
population, but for all households that might reasonably be expected to reside within the
jurisdiction, particularly lower income households. This assumes the availability of a variety and
choice of housing accommodations appropriate to their needs, as well as mobility among
households within the region.
The Project would provide an opportunity for the development of housing to accommodate the
existing and future need, but no development is proposed at this time. Therefore, the Project
would accommodate planned population growth rather than inducing population growth, and for
this reason the impact associated with population growth would remain less than significant.
Thus, no new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified
PEIR. No additional mitigation would be required.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
The sites that would be amended to MU-0 are zoned for commercial, parking, and office uses.
These parcels are considered underutilized and have lacked improvements for many years. No
displacement of people or housing would occur on these properties. Future development of some
of the sites that would be amended to HO and properties in which the density for the R-3 would
increase could displace residents and housing. However, future development facilitated by the
proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would result in a net increase in housing. In
addition, Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law) ensures that development
opportunities remain available to accommodate a jurisdiction's RHNA, especially for lower- and
moderate- income households. For these reasons, future development facilitated by the proposed
General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not result in any displacement. No impact would
occur, and no mitigation would be required.
3.6 Utilities
Issues:
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS —Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identified in than Identified in the
the `Approved Project" `Approved Project
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-16 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Issues:
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identified in than Identified in the
the `Approved Project" `Approved Project
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or ❑
in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and ❑
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
3.6.1 Environmental Setting
Water
Water service in the city is provided by the El Segundo Water Division, which is a partner of
WBMWD. WBMWD provides wholesale potable water to 17 cities, serving approximately
900,000 people. WBMWD imports water, both potable surface water and recycled water, to
supplement local groundwater supplies of its members. Additionally, WBMWD injects a blend of
desalinated brackish water, recycled water and imported water into the West Coast Groundwater
Barrier to protect the groundwater supplies of its members from seawater intrusion. WBMWD
currently imports potable water from State Water Project and Colorado River via pipelines and
aqueducts owned and operated by the MWD.15
Wastewater
Wastewater in the northwestern quadrant of the city is collected and conveyed through a network
of sewer lines for treatment at the Hyperion Treatment Plant (HTP). The HTP is part of a joint
outfall system commonly known as the Hyperion Sanitary Sewer System, which consists of the
wastewater collection system, the HTP, and two upstream wastewater treatment plants: Donald C.
Tillman Water Reclamation Plant, Los Angeles —Glendale Water Reclamation Plant, and their
associated outfalls, all of which are owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles.
Approximately 85 percent of the sewage and commercial/industrial wastewater treated by the
system comes from the City of Los Angeles while the remaining 15 percent comes from the
contract cities and agencies.16
The HTP has the capacity to treat approximately 450 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater
for full secondary treatment level and currently treats 275 mgd. As such, the HTP is presently
operating at approximately 61 percent of its total capacity. The City has an agreement with the
City of Los Angeles that permits an average flow of 2.75 mgd of wastewater to the HTP for
treatment and disposal. Approximately 2.66 mgd of sewage is generated in the city's existing
sewer service area, with a total of 1.17 mgd conveyed to the HTP and the remainder conveyed to
facilities owned and operated by the Sanitation District of Los Angeles County. 17
15 Downtown Specific Plan EIR, page N.N.1-2.
16 Downtown Specific Plan EIR, page IV.N.2-2.
17 Downtown Specific Plan EIR, page IV.N.2-3.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-17 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Solid Waste
Solid waste management in the northwestern quadrant of the city, which includes collection and
disposal services and landfill operation, is provided by various agencies and private companies.
EDCO, a private company, provides services, including solid waste, green waste, recycling, and
bulky item pickup, to single family and duplex residents. Trash and recycling services for
multifamily and businesses is the responsibility of the property owner.
Non -hazardous solid waste generated within the El Segundo is transported to Los Angeles
County landfills. Collectively, the 10 Class III located within Los Angeles County have a
maximum daily permitted capacity of 45,297 tons per day, an average daily disposal intake of
19,291 tons per day, and an estimated remaining permitted total capacity of 142.67 million tons.
The Scholl Canyon landfill, Burbank Landfill Site No. 3 and the Calabasas landfill are the closest
landfills to the city with the Scholl Canyon and Burbank Site No. 3 facilities located 30 and
32 miles to the northeast, respectively, and the Calabasas facility located 35 miles to the
northwest. Combined these three landfills have a permitted daily capacity of 7,140 tons per day,
an average daily disposal intake of 2,486 tons per day, and a remaining permitted total capacity of
9.81 million tons.'8
Beginning in 1989 with the passage of the California Integrated Waste Management Act
[Assembly Bill (AB) 939], there have been numerous pieces of legislation to reduce solid waste
disposal in landfill. More recently, in 2011, AB 341 was adopted establishing a policy goal that
75 percent of statewide solid waste should be reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020. This is an
expansion of previous state goals to divert 50 percent of community -wide waste. In addition,
Senate Bill (SB) 1383 requires all businesses and multifamily properties to arrange for organic
waste recycling services (i.e., food waste and green waste). As required by the State, these
regulations were adopted in an ordinance by the City of El Segundo in December 2021. The
California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen) requires that 65 percent of construction
and demolition (C&D) waste from new construction must be diverted from landfills and either
recycled or salvaged for reuse.
Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Infrastructure
Electrical power is provided to the city by Southern California Edison (SCE). Electricity is
distributed through a network of transmission lines, distribution lines, distribution transformers,
and substation transformers. The city is urbanized and fully developed; existing land uses are
supplied with electricity through existing distribution lines and transformers, electric polies, and
meters throughout the city.
Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas services in the city. Natural
gas is supplied to the region through a system of interstate pipelines. SoCalGas provides natural
gas to the city through existing gas mains located under the streets and in public rights -of -way.
Land uses in the city receive natural gas through existing gas mains, onsite distribution lines, and
meters.
'$ Downtown Specific Plan EIR, page IV.N.3-2.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-18 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
A variety of products and telecommunication services are available within the city, including
internet and wireless services, television using digital fiber optic technology, and satellite
technology. The majority of landline telephone facilities are located in county- or city -owned
rights -of -way and on private easements. Telecommunications lines are either copper wire or fiber
optic cable and are routed overhead on utility poles and underground.
3.6.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would
connect to existing water, wastewater, stormwater, electric, natural gas, and telecommunications
distribution and conveyance infrastructure in the northwestern quadrant of the city. While it is
expected that existing utility infrastructure in the area has enough capacity to serve future
development under the Project, in some cases, new and existing infrastructure may need to be
constructed and/or relocated to increase capacity and/or better serve individual sites, and its
construction could result in adverse environmental effects. However, all future development
would be required to comply with the city's requirements for construction, including but not
limited to, grading permits and encroachment permits. Therefore, future development facilitated
by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not result in additional impacts
related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility infrastructure. The impact with
respect to utility infrastructure would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be
required.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
The Certified PEIR evaluated impacts associated with water supply. With the implementation of
water conservation policies found in the Conservation Element and Mitigation Measure 4.6-5(a)
requiring the use of dual plumbing systems in large new developments and high-rise structures
and the consideration of reclaimed water as a new source of water supply, these impacts would be
reduced to a less -than -significant (Certified PEIR pages 4.6-14 to 4.6-15).
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would add
up to 1,195 new housing units and up to 3,024 residents over time in the northwestern quadrant of
the city over time. In addition, approximately 64,077 square feet of resident -serving commercial
use would be provided by the Project. Based on a demand factor of 42 gallons per capita per day
(gpcd), future residential development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments could result in a total demand of approximately 127,000 gallons per day (gpd) or
142.3 acre-feet per year (AFY). In addition, based on a commercial (residential serving retail)
demand factor of 40.54 gallons per year per square foot (gpy/sf), the resident serving commercial
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-19 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
uses associated with the Project could result in a total demand of about 2.60 million gallons
annually or 8.0 AFY by 2029. As a result, overall water demand would be approximately
150.2 AFY by 2029. However, the city's total requirement during the 6"' Housing Element
period, for which the amendments are being implemented, is 521 units. Thus, it is assumed that
the total demand would not occur until about 2040.
Table 2, Projected Water Demand — WBMWD, shows WBMWD's projected water demand
between 2025 and 2045. The amount of water demanded by future growth facilitated by the
proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments represents approximately 0.10 percent of the
projected demand within the WBMWD's service area for year 2030 and 0.09 percent of the
projected demand within the WBMWD's service area for years 2035 through 2045. Therefore,
the Project would not result in a substantial increase in water demand. Furthermore, WBMWD is
projected to improve its supplies and supply reliability in the future by increasing recycled water
supplies as well as investing in desalinated ocean water supply. Finally, the water demand
estimate associated with future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments is conservative in that it does not consider future water conservation requirements
(such as the SB x7-7), and nor does it reflect compliance with Title 24 water efficiency standards.
TABLE 2
PROJECTED WATER DEMAND — WBMWD
2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Demand Totals 146,190 150,160 160,450 165,660 165,760
SOURCE: WBMWD, 2021
For these reasons, the impact of the Project on water supply would remain less than significant
with the implantation of the mitigation measure. Thus, no new or substantially more severe
impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation would be
required.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
The Certified PEIR evaluated impacts associated with wastewater generation. With the
implementation of Land Use Element Policy LU7-1.2 regarding public facilities and Mitigation
Measure 4.6-7(a) requiring that future development projects must comply with the provisions of
all interim or future agreements or ordinances regarding sewer capacity, these impacts would be
reduced to a less -than -significant (Certified PEIR pages 4.6-16 to 4.6-18).
As wastewater generation equals roughly 90 percent of water demand, future development
facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would generate approximately
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-20 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
0.12 mgd.19 As with water demand, it should be noted that the Project's wastewater generation
estimate is conservative as it does not consider future water conservation requirements, nor does
it reflect current water efficiency standards as discussed above.
As discussed above, the City has an agreement with the City of Los Angeles that permits an
average flow of 2.75 mgd of wastewater to the HTP for disposal and treatment. The average
yearly flow within the city was measured at 2.66 mgd, with a total of 1.17 mgd conveyed to the
HTP and the remainder conveyed to other facilities owned and operated by the Sanitation District
of Los Angeles County. As a result, approximately 1.58 mgd of the city's allotted capacity at the
HTP remains available. As the maximum wastewater flow that would be generated by future
development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments (0.12 mgd) only
represents approximately 8 percent of the city's remaining allotted capacity at the HTP, enough
capacity exists to serve future development under the Project in addition to other future growth in
the city. Therefore, the impact of future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments on wastewater treatment capacity would remain less than significant. Thus,
no new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR.
No additional mitigation would be required.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
The Certified PEIR evaluated impacts associated with solid waste generation. With the
implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6-9 requiring source reduction requirements, these
impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant (Certified PEIR pages 4.6-19 to 4.6-21).
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would add
up to 1,195 new housing units and up to 3,024 residents over time in the northwestern quadrant of
the city. In addition, approximately 64,077 square feet of resident -serving commercial use would
be provided by the Project. Based on default CalEEMod solid waste generation rates, future
development under the Project would generate approximately 3.0 tons of solid waste per day
(Attachment C, CalEEMod Outputs).20 The Project would continue to be subject to the
requirements set forth in AB 341 and SB 1383. Therefore, it is estimated that a minimum of
75 percent of this solid waste would be diverted from landfills and that organic waste recycling
services (i.e., food waste and green waste) would be provided. Due to the types of waste that
would be generated and required compliance with diversion requirements, future development
facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments is not expected to generate
waste in excess of these standards.
19 Wastewater generation = (150.2 AFY or 0.13 mgd) X 0.90 = 0.12 mgd.
20 Note that CalEEMod reports the estimated solid waste generation of the Project as 950.3 tons per year. hi the
Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan 2020 Annual Report, the Los Angeles County, Department of
Public Works uses an average daily disposal rate based on 312 days per year (6 days per week average). 950.3 tons
per year / 312 days per year = 3.0 tons per day.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-21 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
As discussed above, there are three landfills within approximately 35 miles of the city: Scholl
Canyon landfill; Burbank Landfill Site No. 3; and Calabasas landfill. Collectively, these nearby
landfills have a permitted daily capacity of 7,140 tons per day and an average daily intake of
2,486 tons per day. As such, the amount of solid waste that could potentially be generated within
the Project area would represent 0.04 percent of the daily permitted capacity and 0.12 percent of
the remaining daily capacity after accounting for the existing average daily intake for the three
closest landfills. Furthermore, all 10 existing Class III landfills within Los Angeles County have a
collective maximum daily permitted capacity of 45,297 tons per day, an average daily disposal
intake of 19,291 tons per day, and an estimated remaining permitted total capacity of
142.67 million tons. As such, there would be adequate infrastructure capacity within the county to
dispose of solid waste generated by future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan
and Zoning Amendments. Therefore, the impact of the Project on solid waste disposal capacity
would remain less than significant. Thus, no new or substantially more severe impact would
occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation would be required.
3.7 Public Services
Issues:
PUBLIC SERVICES —Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated
with the provision of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other performance
objectives for any of the following public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
3.7.1 Environmental Setting
Fire Protection
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identifiled in than Identified in the
the "Approved Project" `:Approved Project
El
El
El
El
El
The El Segundo Fire Department (ESFD) provides fire protection, emergency medical and life
safety services in the city. The ESFD is made up of 42 fire suppression personnel including three
battalion chiefs, nine captain, nine engineers, 15 firefighter/paramedics, and 6 firefighters. There
are 14 firefighters on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The city has two fire stations: Fire
Station 1, located at 314 Main Street and Fire Station 2, located at 2261 E. Mariposa Avenue. Fire
Station 1 has six staff members, a Battalion Chief vehicle, a Fire engine, and an ambulance. Fire
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-22 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Station 2 has eight staff members, a fire engine, a ladder truck, an ambulance, and an urban
search and rescue vehicle.zl
The city is divided into two districts for fire response, with Pacific Coast Highway as the dividing
line. Station 1 responds to calls west of Pacific Coast Highway, serving the residential
community, Chevron Refinery, El Segundo Beach and light industrial businesses located in the
Smoky Hollow area. Fire Station 2 serves the commercial and industrial businesses east of Pacific
Coast Highway. Depending on the nature of the emergency request, units may cross over into the
other district and coordinate resources to assist in response activities. As the sites identified for
new housing are in the northwestern quadrant of the city, west of Pacific Coast Highway, they are
within the coverage area of Fire Station 1.
Police Protection
The El Segundo Police Department (ESPD) is located at 348 Main Street, adjacent to Fire
Station 1. The ESPD provides police protection services to the city through its Administrative
Services and Field Operations bureaus. The ESPD currently has 88 authorized positions, of which
57 are sworn officers. The ESPC's desired level of sworn officers is 72 and the desired level of
officer -to -resident ratio would be 4.3 officers for every 1,000 residents.zz
The Administrative Bureau, which is managed by a Police Captain with support from
professional, manages multiple Divisions, including investigative, training, community
engagement, and police records. The Field Operations Bureau consists of the Patrol Division and
the Special Operations Division. The Patrol Division uses the Area command Program, which
divides the city into two geographic patrol areas bisected by Pacific Coast Highway. The area
west of Pacific Coast Highway is designated the West Command and the area east of Pacific
Coast Highway is designated the East Command. As the northwestern quadrant of the city is
located west of Pacific Coast Highway, it is within the area covered by the West Command.
Schools
The El Segundo Unified School District (ESUSD) provides kindergarten through twelfth grade
public education services in El Segundo. In addition to the ESUSD public schools, there are
private and charter schools within the city. The ESUSD has a current enrollment of 3,400
students at six schools. Schools located in the northwestern quadrant of the city include
Richmond Street Elementary School, Center Street Elementary School, El Segundo Middle
School, and El Segundo High School. Presently, all these schools, except for Richmond Street
Elementary, are operating at capacity. In January 2024, ESUSD celebrated the opening of the
new Richmond Street School Classroom Building, which was constructed to ensure adequate
school facilities for students in the district.23
2' Downtown Specific Plan EIR, pages IV.K.1-2 to IV.K.1-3.
22 Downtown Specific Plan EIR, page IV.K.2-2.
23 El Segundo Unified School District, ESUSD Celebrates Opening of New Richmond Street School Classroom
Building, 2024, accessed February 2024, https//www.elsegundo45d.net/article/1409952.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-23 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Parks
The city's Recreation and Parks Department is responsible for developed park land that provides
a wide variety of attractions and amenities including 16 parks, athletic fields, recreational water
amenities, a skate park, dog park and community garden. In addition to these facilities, the city
also owns the Lakes at El Segundo, which is operated by Topgol£ In 2022, the property was
renovated to provide a ten -hole public golf course. The adjacent property is a Topgolf facility that
includes a three-story lighted driving range with a restaurant and private event center. The driving
range functions as the municipal driving range pursuant to a lease agreement with the City.24
Parks located in the northwestern quadrant of the city include Acacia Park, Library Park,
Recreation Park, Sycamore Park, Hill Top Park, and Holly Kansas Park.
The California Department of Parks and Recreation typically uses a ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000
residents as a standard of park space within communities. According to the State Parks, there are
79.9 acres of city-owned/operated parks space in the city.25 With the County -owned El Segundo
Beach, there is a total of 107.6 acres of qualified park space. Using the 2020 Census count of
17,272 residents, the city has approximately 4.6 acres of qualified city -owned park space per
1,000 residents and approximately 6.2 acres of total qualified park space per 1,000 residents with
the inclusion of El Segundo Beach.26
Libraries
The El Segundo Public Library (ESPL) is located at I I I West Mariposa Street. The ESPL
partners with ESUSD to provide services at four El Segundo school libraries, including El
Segundo High School, El Segundo Middle School, Center Street Elementary School, and
Richmond Street Elementary School. The ESPL offers a digital library with eBooks and
audiobooks, as well as online resources including databases, newspapers, magazines, reading
sources, and general reference guides. History collections are provided in the ESPL's History
Room. The Arts and Culture Advisory Committee and ESPL promote public art, events, and
cultural programming in the community. In 2022/2023, the ESPL had 126,858 visitors; 162,873
items borrowed; 271 community programs; 11,128 program attendance; 42,803 Wi-Fi sessions;
and 4,204 room reservations.27 Library benchmarks include input measures (square feet per
capita, physical items per capita, and internet terminals per 1,000) and an output measure (annual
circulation per capita). ESPL exceeds all input and output measures as compared to the Los
Angeles County Library system and the median of all California public libraries.28
24 Downtown Specific Plan EIR, page IV.K.4-6.
25 Downtown Specific Plan EIR, page IVK4-7; Parks for All Californians: Park Access Tool,
https;//www parksforcalifomia.org/parkaccess/?search=city,.-.
0622412&overlaysl-parks%2Cnoparkaccess&overlays2—parks%2Cparksper1000, accessed February 2024.
26 Downtown Specific Plan EIR, page IV.K.4-7.
27 Downtown Specific Plan EIR, pages IV.K.5-2 to IV.K.5-3.
21 Downtown Specific Plan EIR, page IV.K.5-3, Table N.K.5-1.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-24 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
3.7.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of
the following public services:
i) Fire protection?
ii) Police protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other public facilities?
The Certified PEIR evaluated impacts associated with the provision of public services, including
fire and police protection, schools, parks and libraries. Consistency with Land Use Element
Policies LU7-1.1 and LU7-1.5, Public Safety Element Policies PS5-1.1 through PS5-1.3, and
Open Space and Recreation Element objectives OS1-1 through OS 1-5 and payment of required
development fees (Mitigation Measure 4.7-9) by project proponents would reduce impacts to
these services to a less -than -significant level (Certified PEIR pages 4.7-16 to 4.7-19).
Fire Protection
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would add
up to 1,195 new housing units and up to 3,024 residents over time in the northwestern quadrant of
the city. As required by applicable regulations, future development under the Project would
include adequate fire prevention features, such as automatic sprinkler systems for mid -rise
buildings and manual fire alarms as required by ESMC Chapter 9 and currently adopted National
Fire Protection Association standards (NFPA 13 and 72). Incorporation of these required fire
prevention features would reduce demand for fire protection services. Furthermore, future
development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would be
required to comply with fire flow requirements found in the 2022 California Fire Code.
For these reasons, the impact of future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments on fire protection services would remain less than significant; no new or
expanded fire protection facilities are anticipated to be needed serve the Project. Thus, no new or
substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No
additional mitigation would be required.
Police Protection
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would add
up to 1,195 new housing units and up to 3,024 residents over time in the northwestern quadrant of
the city. Future development under the Project would incorporate crime prevention measures into
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-25 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
project design as well as implement comprehensive safety and security measures, including
adequate and strategically positioned functional and thematic lighting to enhance public safety.
Visually obstructed and infrequently accessed "dead zones" would be limited and, where
possible, security controlled to limit public access. Building and layout design would also include
crime prevention features, such as nighttime security lighting and secure parking facilities. These
preventative and proactive security measures would decrease the amount of service calls the
ESPD would receive.
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 demand for police protection is identified and addressed to the
satisfaction of the City's elected leadership. Additionally, the ESPD would review designs of new
development and provide guidance on design features that would minimize the opportunity for
crime, which would minimize demand on police protection services.
For these reasons, the impact of future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments on police protection services would remain less than significant; no new or
expanded police protection facilities are anticipated to be needed to serve the Project. Thus, no
new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No
additional mitigation would be required.
Schools
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would add
up to 1,195 new housing units and up to 3,024 residents over time in the northwestern quadrant of
the city. Based on the ESUSD student generation factors, the General Plan and Zoning Amendments
could result in a total of 377 students, consisting of 160 elementary school students (grades K-6),
90 middle school students (grades 7-8), and 127 high school students (grades 9-12).29 While
most schools are currently at capacity, ESUSD, through their long-range planning efforts, seeks
to meet the district goal of maintaining appropriate resources and services by addressing facility
maintenance and improvement needs on an ongoing basis.30 For example, a new two-story
classroom addition was completed in January 2024 at Richmond Street Elementary School.
In addition, it is very likely that some of the students generated by the future development would
already be enrolled in ESUSD schools. In addition, the number of students that could attend
ESUSD schools may be overestimated as some students may enroll in private schools, charter
schools, or participate in home -schooling.
29 ESUSD student generation factors provided in the El Segundo Unified School District, Residential and
Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study, May 11, 2020. For multi -family units the
factors are 0.1338 for elementary students, 0.0752 for middle school students, and 0.1063 for high school students.
31 El Segundo Unified School District, El Segundo USD Long -Range Facilities Master Plan 2018-2028,
November 1, 2018.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-26 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
The Education Code Section 17620 allows school districts to assess fees on new residential and
commercial construction within their respective boundaries. Pursuant to California Government
Code Section 65995, the payment of these fees by a developer serves to fully mitigate all
potential project impacts on school facilities from implementation of a project to less -than -
significant levels. Sections 65996(a) and (b) state that such fees collected by school districts
provide full and complete school facilities mitigation under CEQA.
Future development would be required to pay school facility fees that are assessed for each new
square foot of new residential and commercial space. Pursuant to SB 50 (the Leroy Green School
Facilities Program), the payment of these fees constitutes full mitigation of potential significant
impacts on schools. Therefore, with the payment of the applicable school fees the impact of
future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments on schools
would remain less than significant. Thus, no new or substantially more severe impact would
occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation would be required.
Parks
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would add
up to 1,195 new housing units and up to 3,024 residents over time in the northwestern quadrant of
the city. At full buildout, the addition of 3,024 residents that could result from the Project General
Plan and Zoning Amendments would result in a ratio of 3.9 acres of city -owned qualified park
space per 1,000 residents and a ratio of 5.3 acres of total qualified park space per 1,000 residents.
As such, there would still be adequate park space within the city according to State Park
standards and future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would not result in a substantial reduction in existing standards of service for parks.
Accordingly, the need for new or physically altered park facilities to maintain an acceptable
service ratio would not occur.
While there are no specific developments proposed at this time, the development standards for the
HO and MU Overlay would require the provision of residential common recreational
facilities/areas. In addition, future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments would be subject to the city's Development Impact Fee, which would
support park improvements as well as fund capital costs for other new and existing infrastructure.
Pursuant to the Development Impact Fee Program, an applicant would pay its fair share of the
Development Impact Fee based on the fee category and adopted Development Impact Fee rates.
The Development Impact Fee paid by the Project would be available to the City to use for such
updates and improvements at its discretion.
While future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments
would increase demand on parks, provision of on -site open space, as applicable, and payment of
development fees would ensure that the potential impact remains less than significant. Thus, no
new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No
additional mitigation would be required.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-27 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Libraries
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would add
up to 1,195 new housing units and up to 3,024 residents over time in the northwestern quadrant of
the city. The increase in population would result in an increase in demand for library services. As
indicated above, ESPL exceeds all input and output measures as compared to the Los Angeles
County Library system and the median of all California public libraries. Even with the increase in
population that would occur with the development of new housing, ESPL would still meet its
benchmarks (e.g., square feet per capita and annual circulation per capita). In addition, to address
the potential impact to libraries, future development under the Project would be subject to the
city's Development Impact Fee, which would be available to the City to use for updates and
improvements, if necessary, at their discretion. Compliance would offset any incremental need
for funding of capital improvements to maintain adequate library facilities and service resulting
from future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments and
this impact would remain less than significant. Thus, no new or substantially more severe impact
would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation would be required.
3.8 Transportation/Circulation
Issues:
TRANSPORTATION —Would the project:
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identified in than Identified in the
the `Approved Project" `Approved Project
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing
❑
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
3.8.1 Environmental Setting
Existing Street System
Regional access to the city is provided by the Century Freeway (Interstate 105 [I-105]), the San
Diego Freeway (1-405), Pacific Coast Highway (CA-1) and Imperial Highway. Local access
within the northwestern quadrant of the city, where the parcels identified for new housing are
located, is provided by several major streets, including Pacific Coast Highway, Washington
Street, California Street, Center Street, Sheldon Street, Main Street, and Virginia Street in the
north —south direction and Imperial Avenue, Maple Avenue, Mariposa Avenue, Grand Avenue,
and El Segundo Boulevard in the east —west direction.
Transit Service
The northwestern quadrant of the city is served by local and regional bus lines. The Metro 232
local bus route runs along the eastern edge of the Project Area and includes multiple stops on
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-28 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Pacific Coast Highway. The Beach Cities Transit Line (Route 109) runs through the Project area
and includes stops on Grand Avenue, Main Street, and Imperial Highway.
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The City of El Segundo provides marked Class II bicycle lanes along Grand Avenue and Imperial
Highway. The northwestern quadrant of the city includes a mature network of streets and
extensive pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian safety features.
Approximately 10- to 16-foot sidewalks are provided on arterials throughout the northwestern
quadrant of the city. Narrower sidewalks are present on most collector and local streets in the
Project area.
3.8.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including
transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
The intention of this threshold is to ensure that proposed development does not conflict with nor
preclude the City from implementing adopted plans, programs, ordinances, or policies. A project
would not result in an impact merely based on whether a project would not implement an adopted
plan, program, ordinance, or policy. Under CEQA, a project is considered consistent with an
applicable plan if it is consistent with the overall intent of the plan and would not preclude the
attainment of its primary goals. A project does not need to be in perfect conformity with each
policy. In addition, any inconsistency with an applicable policy, plan, or regulation is only a
significant impact under CEQA if the policy, plan, or regulation were adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and if the inconsistency itself would result in a
direct physical impact on the environment.
Applicable plans addressing the circulation system in the city, including transit, roadway, bicycle,
and pedestrian facilities, are the El Segundo Circulation Element (2004) and the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan (2011). The El Segundo Circulation Element includes policies supportive of
alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking, and transit while the South Bay
Bicycle Master Plan provides objectives and programs to expand the bikeway network, increase
mobility through bicycle -transit integration, and provide convenient and consistent bicycle
parking facilities (e.g., bike racks, bicycle lockers, etc.). The proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would facilitate residential and residential serving retail development on sites that
are presently served by existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities. As development
facilitated by the Project would be limited to the boundaries of each infill site it would not
interfere with planned physical improvements in adjacent rights -of -way to further expand
citywide pedestrian and bicycle networks. Finally, physical development associated with the
proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not preclude the City from working with
Metro and other transit agencies to expand and improve public transit service within and adjacent
to the city as it does not propose changes to inter -agency coordination. In fact, the increase in
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-29 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
density/intensity on individual sites under the Project would encourage the expansion of transit in
the area by generating more potential transit riders.
For these reasons, development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would be consistent with the overall intent of the applicable plans addressing the
city's circulation system. The impact with respect to a potential conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
On September 27, 2013, SB 743 was signed into law, building on legislative changes from
SB 375, AB 32, and AB 1358. SB 743 began the process to modify how impacts to the
transportation system are assessed for purposes of CEQA compliance. SB 743 created a shift in
transportation impact analysis under CEQA from a focus on automobile delay, as measured by
level of service (LOS) and similar metrics, to a focus on reducing vehicles miles traveled (VMT).
The City of El Segundo adopted VMT impact thresholds and analysis guidelines. The threshold
of significance for the city is 24.5 VMT per service population. Furthermore, the Governor's
Office of Planning and Research (OPR) indicated that by adding retail opportunities into the
urban fabric and thereby improving retail destination proximity, local -serving retail development
tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT. Generally, retail development including stores smaller
than 50,000 square feet might be considered local serving.
Kimley-Horn conducted a VMT analysis for the Project, which is provided in Attachment B-1 of
this Addendum. The assessment includes a quantitative analysis of future residential land uses
based on the city's service population threshold and a qualitative analysis of future local -serving
retail based on OPR's guidance which has been incorporated into the city's VMT analysis
guidelines.
Residential
The VMT per service population was calculated for each of the Project's four residential land use
categories (Downtown Specific Plan, Mixed -Use Overlay, HO, and R-3 Density Increase) based
on a weighted average of the number of dwelling units planned for within each of the Census
Block Groups representing that land use category. When the number of units were not specified
for specific land use categories, it was assumed that an even distribution of dwelling units was
spread throughout the parcels comprising that category.
Table 3, Vehicle Miles Traveled per Service Population by Land Use Category, summarizes the
VMT per service population for the Project by land use category for each Census Block Group
and overall. As shown in Table 3, every land use category results in a VMT per service
population less than the city's threshold of 24.5 VMT per service population.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-30 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
TABLE 3
VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED PER SERVICE POPULATION BY LAND USE CATEGORY
VMT per Service
Block Group Number of Units % of Total Units Population
Downtown Specific Plan
060376201022
150
50%
22.8
060376201021
150
50%
19.2
Total
300
100%
21.0
Mixed -Use Overlay
060376200011
137
41%
18.9
060376200012
101
30%
11.4
060376200021
98
29%
18.6
Total
335
100%
16.5
Housing Overlay (R-3)
060376200021
158
82%
18.6
060376201013
21
11%
12.8
060376200011
14
7%
18.9
Total
193
100%
18.0
R-3 Density Increase
060376201023
32
9%
13.8
060376201022
58
16%
22.8
060376200021
54
15%
18.6
060376200011
28
8%
18.9
060376200012
45
12%
11.4
060376200022
26
7%
21.9
060376201013
69
19%
12.8
060376201011
34
9%
15.0
060376200013
21
6%
12.7
Total
367
100%
16.5
SOURCE: Kimley-Hom, 2024
Local -Serving Retail
The City of El Segundo's VMT analysis guidelines specifically address some of the key issues
surrounding how local serving land uses should be evaluated in terms of their VMT impact. The
city's threshold for significance is "a net increase." This means that if a proposed local -serving
use results in additional VMT, it would result in a finding of significance.
Local serving land uses primarily serve pre-existing needs (i.e., they do not generate new trips
because they meet existing demand). As a result, local -serving uses are presumed to reduce trip
lengths when a new store or service is proposed. Essentially, the assumption is that someone will
travel to a newly constructed local serving land use because of its proximity, rather than the
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-31 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
proposed use fulfilling an unmet need (i.e., the person had an existing need that was met by the
local serving use located further away and is now traveling to the new establishment because it is
closer to the person's origin location). This results in a trip on the roadway network becoming
shorter, rather than a new trip being added to the roadway network, which would result in an
impact to the overall transportation system. Conversely, residential and office land uses often
generate new trips given that they introduce new participants to the transportation system. The
city's VMT analysis guidelines provide for a general threshold of 50,000 square feet as an
indicator as to whether a retail land use can be considered local serving or not. Since it is
expected that no single store within the four land use categories would exceed 50,000 square feet,
it is presumed that the proposed local serving retail uses would not result in a net increase in VMT.
Summary
In summary, all four residential land use categories would result in a VMT per service population
that is less than the city's threshold. In addition, as it is assumed that no single store within the
four land use categories would exceed 50,000 square feet, the proposed retail uses would not
result in a net increase in VMT. For these reasons, future development facilitated by the proposed
General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). The impact with respect to VMT would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required.
Level of Service
As discussed above, the State has changed the transportation impact analysis under CEQA from a
focus on automobile delay to a focus on reducing VMT as a way of evaluating transportation
impacts with metrics that support the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, development
of multimodal transportation networks and diversification of land uses. However, since the
Certified PEIR evaluated LOS as that was the metric at the time, Kimley-Horn conducted a LOS
analysis for the Project, which is provided in Attachment B-2 of this Addendum. In addition,
while now considered a non-CEQA analysis, the LOS analysis is required by the City as part of
the development application process. The Certified PEIR concluded that the growth projected in
the General Plan Update would result in a significant unavoidable traffic impact. The mitigation
measures in the Certified PEIR were to add policies to the Circulation Element to pursue
implementation of all policies in the Circulation Element such that all roadways are upgraded and
maintained at an acceptable LOS and that new projects should mitigate project -related impacts on
the circulation system so as to maintain an acceptable LOS. These policies are contained in the
Circulation Element.
LOS ranges from LOS A, representing uncongested, free -flowing conditions, to LOS F,
representing congested, over -capacity conditions. The city's standard for peak hour intersection
operation is LOS D, which is considered fair, with delays substantial during portions of the rush
hours, but enough lower volume to prevent excessive back-ups.
The LOS analysis prepared by Kimley-Horn evaluated 20 intersections. The majority of the
evaluated intersections operate at LOS A, B, or C, with the exception of Pacific Coast
Highway/SR-1 at Grand Avenue, which operates at LOS E during the PM peak and Main Street
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-32 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
at Maple Avenue, which operates at LOS E during the AM peak. Assuming full buildout of all
the identified properties, the projected growth would result in 6,238 daily trips, with 476 and 511
trips occurring during the AM and PM peak -hours, respectively. With the additional traffic that
would occur over time as a result of the Project, the LOS at the intersections would remain the
same in terms of the LOS. However, while the intersection of Main Street and Maple Avenue
would remain at LOS E in the AM peak hour, at full buildout of the projected units the additional
traffic would cause an average vehicle delay to increase by 13.4 seconds per vehicle. In addition,
the ICU would increase by 2.8 percent, which is above the LOS threshold of 2 percent for
intersections operating deficiently without the addition of the project .31 Therefore, a significant
impact would occur at the Main Street and Maple Avenue intersection.
The LOS analysis is conducted at a program -level as the operational details of any future projects
are unknown. While the general locations for the additional residential units are identified, the
timing of development, the actual number of units, as well as the specific location are unknown.
Based on a trigger analysis that was conducted to determine the volume of traffic that would
trigger the deficiency, it was determined that the deficiency at the Main Street and Maple Avenue
intersection would occur after 221 units that affect that intersection are constructed. Installation of
a traffic signal at the intersection would improve the LOS operations of the intersection to
LOS A. However, the Circulation Element includes a number of policies regarding the operation
of the circulation system, implementation of improvements, and preparation of a detailed project -
specific traffic analysis. Policy C1-1.14 requires that a full evaluation of potential traffic impacts
associated with new development be prepared prior to project approval. The policy also requires
that improvements be implemented prior to or in conjunction with project development.
Objective C3-1 ensures that potential circulation system impacts are considered and
Policy C3-1.1 requires that all new development mitigate project -related impacts such that
roadways and intersections are upgraded and maintained at acceptable levels of service. Since
these objectives and policies are in the Circulation Element, and future development would be
required to be consistent with the city's General Plan, these measures would ensure that if
improvements are necessary based on a detailed project -specific analysis, that improvements
would be implemented. Such improvements would be conditions of approval. While the
conclusions of the LOS analysis indicate the potential for a significant impact to occur, the
sequencing and locations of project -specific information is not available. Given that the
Circulation Element contains the goals, policies, and objectives to ensure that the system operates
adequately, no new or substantially more severe impact would occur under the Project than
anticipated by the Certified PEIR.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
The proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not result in changes to the
circulation network. The residential and commercial uses that would be developed would not
result in incompatible uses in the area. Future development facilitated by the Project would
31 If a development project is forecast to result in the increase of intersection volume/capacity ratio (V/C) of 0.02 or
greater at any intersection that is forecast to operate at LOS E or F, the effect shall be considered significant.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-33 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
require that access to individual sites be designed to city standards and to provide adequate sight
distance, sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian movement controls that meet the city's
requirements to protect pedestrian safety. Street trees and other potential impediments to adequate
driver and pedestrian visibility would be required to be minimal and the City would require that
pedestrian entrances separated from vehicular driveways provide access from the adjacent streets.
As a result, development facilitated by the Project would not substantially increase hazards or
conflicts due to a geometric design feature. The impact with respect to design hazards would be
less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Major streets in the northwestern quadrant of the city would continue to provide access to the
Project area. All these roadways have been designed to accommodate emergency vehicles travel;
as such, adequate emergency access to individual project sites would be provided. Furthermore,
as future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would
be limited to the boundaries of each infill site it would not interfere with the operation of
surrounding roadways. For these reasons, development facilitated by the Project would not result
in inadequate emergency access. The impact with respect to emergency access would be less than
significant, and no mitigation would be required.
3.9 Air Quality
Issues:
AIR QUALITY —Would the project:
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identified in than Identified in the
the `Approved Project" `Approved Project
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑
quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
3.9.1 Environmental Setting
The city is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Air Basin), which is an approximately
6,745-square-mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west, and the San Gabriel, San
Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Air Basin consists of Orange
County, Los Angeles County (excluding the Antelope Valley portion), and the western, non -
desert portions of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, in addition to the San Gorgonio Pass
area in Riverside County. The Air Basin is currently designated as non -attainment for ozone,
respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-34 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Environmental Science Associates prepared a screening analysis for the Project, which is
provided in Attachment C of this Addendum. The analysis evaluated at a program level the
potential air quality, energy, GHG emissions and noise impacts that could occur from the
potential buildout resulting from the general plan and zoning amendments.
3.9.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The Certified PEIR determined that construction emission impacts would be mitigated to a less -
than -significant level. The city's Air Quality Element includes policies to reduce construction -
related emissions. Air Quality Element Policies AQ10-1.2 and AQ10-1.3 include provisions to
prohibit the use of building materials and methods which generate excessive pollutants and for
projects to meet or exceed requirements of the SCAQMD for reducing PM10 emissions. With
regard to operation, the Certified PEIR determined that operational emissions associated with
implementation of the General Plan would potentially conflict with the attainment goals of the
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and impacts would be significant and unavoidable
(Certified PEIR pages 4.9-27 to 4.9-29).
CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 requires an analysis of a project's potential conflict with
applicable governmental plans and policies. In accordance with the SCAQMD's CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, two criteria were used to evaluate the Project's potential to conflict with the
SCAQMD's 2022 AQMP.
Criterion No. 1
The first criterion evaluates the potential for a project to result in an increase in the frequency or
severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the
timely attainment of air quality standards of the interim emissions reductions specified in the
AQMP. The SCAQMD numerical significance thresholds for construction and operational
emissions are designed for the analysis of individual projects and not for long-term planning
documents, such as the Project. Emissions are dependent on the exact size, nature, and location of
an individual land use type, combined with reductions in localized impacts from the removal of
existing land use types, as applicable (i.e., conversion of commercial or light industrial uses).
Construction
Construction of future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would generate air pollutant emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction
equipment. Details necessary to provide a meaningful quantitative estimate of construction
emissions would be speculative, as specific sites, buildings and uses to be constructed or
modified, construction schedules, and quantities of earthmoving are unknown. Because this
information is unknown, construction emissions modeling is not feasible and would be
speculative.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-35 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Nonetheless, construction of development that would occur as a result of the Project would be
limited in extent and duration and would emit air pollutants on short-term and temporary basis.
Construction truck fleets would be required to comply with the Advanced Clean Trucks
regulation, which was approved by California Air Resources Board (CARB) in June 2020 and
mandates zero -emission vehicle sales requirements for truck manufacturers and a one-time
reporting requirement for large entities and fleets.32 The regulation is designed to accelerate
widespread adoption of zero emission vehicles in the medium- and heavy-duty truck sector to
reduce on -road mobile source emissions on the path to carbon neutrality by 2045. In addition,
trucks would be required to comply with the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit
heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling, which would reduce fuel combustion and associated
emissions (Title 13 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 2485). In addition to limiting
exhaust from idling trucks, CARB also promulgated emission standards for off -road diesel
construction equipment of greater than 25 horsepower such as bulldozers, loaders, backhoes and
cranes, as well as many other self-propelled off -road diesel vehicles. The regulation adopted by
the CARB on July 26, 2007, reduces emissions by requiring the installation of diesel soot filters
and the retirement, replacement, or repowering of older, dirtier engines with newer emission
control models (13 CCR Section 2449). The compliance schedule requires construction
equipment fleets to fully meet emissions standards by 2023 in all equipment for large and
medium fleets and by 2028 for small fleets.
Emission reduction measures generally consistent with the city's General Plan PEIR and Air
Quality Element Policies AQ10-1.2 and AQ10-1.3 could include the use of construction
equipment certified to meet the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and
CARB Tier 4 Final emissions standards, which substantially reduces exhaust emissions of oxides
of nitrogen (NOx), PM10, and PM2.5. Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) could be
reduced through the use of low-VOC containing architectural coatings. As such, construction
emissions from future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would be reduced to below project -level significance and not result in an increase in
the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations
or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards.
Operation
The Project would allow for an increase in residential units and non-residential square footage
that would occur as infill development. Although operational details of any future projects are
unknown, future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments
would result in air pollutant emissions from building energy demand from new residential and
commercial (residential -serving retail) uses and ongoing transportation emissions from vehicles
traveling to and from the new residential and commercial (residential -serving retail) uses.
Operational emissions from buildout of the residential units and associated non-residential floor
area over time would not generate air pollutant emissions that would exceed the project -level
significance thresholds and not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air
32 California Air Resources Board (GARB), Advanced Clean Trucks, hops://ww2,,arb.ca,.,gpv/our,,:,
work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks, accessed February 2023.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-36 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air
quality standards.
Based on the above, the Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to conflicts
with or obstruction of the AQMP.
Criterion No. 2
With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with AQMP growth
assumptions, the projections in the AQMP for achieving air quality goals are based on anticipated
growth regarding population and housing. Determining whether or not a project exceeds the
assumptions reflected in the AQMP involves the evaluation of consistency with applicable
population, housing, and employment growth projections and appropriate incorporation of AQMP
control measures.
Construction
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would be
required to comply with CARB's requirements to minimize short-term emissions from on -road
and off -road diesel equipment, including the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty
diesel motor vehicle idling to no more than 5 minutes at a location (Title 13 CCR Section 2485)
and SCAQMD regulations such as Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust and Rule 1113 for
controlling VOC emissions from architectural coatings. Compliance with these measures and
requirements would be consistent with and meet or exceed the AQMP compliance requirements
for control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities.
Construction of future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would facilitate an increase in short-term employment compared to existing
conditions. Although any future construction facilitated by the Project would generate
construction workers, it would be unlikely to create a substantial number of new construction
jobs; construction -related jobs generated by the future development under the Project would
likely be filled by employees within the construction industry in the greater Los Angeles County
region. Construction industry jobs generally have no regular place of business, as construction
workers commute to job sites throughout the region, which may change several times a year.
Moreover, these jobs would be temporary, lasting only through the duration of construction. As
such, the Project would not result in an unanticipated increase in population or jobs in the city.
Operation
The operation of future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would be required to comply with CARB motor vehicle standards, SCAQMD
regulations for stationary sources and architectural coatings, and applicable building energy
standards including the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy Code (Title 24,
Part 6) and CALGreen (Title 24, Part 11). The AQMP also includes land use and transportation
strategies that are intended to reduce VMT and resulting regional mobile -source emissions.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-37 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would
provide opportunities for building energy conservation to meet and exceed required building
energy standards to conserve energy and reduce associated emissions. The 2021-2029 Housing
Element encourages improved building energy strategies such as passive and/or active solar
heating and cooling systems to improve energy efficiency.33 In addition, the city's Air Quality
Element includes policies to reduce building energy demand. Air Quality Element
Policy AQ12-1.2 includes provisions to incorporate energy conservation features in the design of
new projects that would help to reduce building emissions. The Air Quality Element also includes
policies to reduce transportation -related emissions. Air Quality Element Policy AQ9-1.1 directs
the City to consider multifamily housing development proposals to reduce VMT, which is the
intent of the Project. The Project would promote mixed -use development as residential serving
retail uses would be allowed with residential uses. Mixed -use development encourages reduced
vehicle trips and VMT as people may be able to obtain goods and services from co -located or
nearby residential serving retail uses without the need to generate passenger vehicle trips. The
infill locations of the proposed housing opportunity sites would also encourage reduced VMT as
people would live close to existing commercial and retail goods and services from co -located or
nearby residential serving retail uses and close to existing employment centers within and around
the city including the HTP to the west, LAX to the north, Chevron Refinery to the south, and the
Raytheon campus and Mattel Campus to the east. Thus, the Project would result in a land use
pattern that would allow development that would reduce transportation -related emissions.
The AQMP is based on population, employment and VMT forecasts informed by SCAG. A
project might be in conflict with the AQMP if the development's growth is greater than that
anticipated in the local general plan and SCAG's growth projections. As discussed above, the
Project accommodates for population growth by increasing residential density in existing infill
locations and allowing for increased multifamily housing units. The city is generally built out;
thus, densification of existing infill sites with increased multifamily housing units accommodates
growth in an efficient manner, since mixed -use infill development encourages reduced vehicle
trips and VMT.
Based on the above, the Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to conflicts
with or obstruction of AQMP control measures or anticipated growth.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Construction
As discussed above, construction of future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan
and Zoning Amendments would generate air pollutant emissions through the use of heavy-duty
construction equipment. However, details necessary to provide a meaningful quantitative estimate
of construction emissions would be speculative, as specific sites, buildings and uses to be
33 City of El Segundo, 2021-2029 Housing Element, Chapter 5, Section C, p. 72.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-38 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
constructed or modified, construction schedules, and quantities of earthmoving are unknown.
Construction would be limited in extent and duration and would emit air pollutants on short-term
and temporary basis. Construction truck fleets would be required to comply with the Advanced
Clean Trucks regulation, which is designed to accelerate widespread adoption of zero emission
vehicles in the medium- and heavy-duty truck sector to reduce on -road mobile source emissions
on the path to carbon neutrality by 2045. Trucks would be required to comply with the CARB
Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling, which would
reduce fuel combustion and associated emissions (Title 13 CCR Section 2485). In addition to
limiting exhaust from idling trucks, CARB also promulgated emission standards for off -road
diesel construction equipment of greater than 25 horsepower such as bulldozers, loaders,
backhoes and cranes, as well as many other self-propelled off -road diesel vehicles requiring the
installation of diesel soot filters and the retirement, replacement, or repowering of older, dirtier
engines with newer emission control models (13 CCR Section 2449). The compliance schedule
requires construction equipment fleets to fully meet emissions standards by 2023 in all equipment
for large and medium fleets and by 2028 for small fleets.
Air Quality Element Policies AQ10-1.2 and AQ10-1.3 include provisions to prohibit the use of
building materials and methods which generate excessive pollutants and for projects to meet or
exceed requirements of the SCAQMD for reducing PM10 emissions. The use of construction
equipment certified to meet the USEPA and CARB Tier 4 Final emissions standards would
substantially reduce exhaust emissions of NOx, PM10, and PM2.5. Emissions of VOCs could be
reduced through the use of low-VOC containing architectural coatings. As such, construction
emissions from future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments could be reduced to below project -level significance and not result in an increase in
a cumulatively considerable increase in nonattainment pollutants. Thus, construction associated
with the Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to a cumulatively considerable
increase in nonattainment pollutants.
Operation
With regard to operation, future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments would result in up to 1,195 multifamily dwelling units and approximately
64,077 square feet of residential serving commercial (i.e., ground -floor retail) uses. Operational
emissions from buildout of these units over time would generate approximately 6,238 average
daily trips. Operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) (Version 2022.1). The analysis assumes that full buildout would occur in 2040 with
a linear buildout distribution over the interim modeled years 2030 and 2035. Table 4, Estimated
Maximum Daily Regional Operational Emissions (pounds per day), provides the results of the
regional criteria pollutant emission calculations for VOC, NOx, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur
dioxide (S02), PM10, and PM2.5. As shown in Table 4, future development under the Project
would not generate air pollutant emissions that would exceed the project -level significance
thresholds and would not result in a cumulatively considerable increase in nonattainment
pollutants. Thus, operation of future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-39 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to a cumulatively
considerable increase in nonattainment pollutants.
TABLE 4
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY)
Operational Year VOC NOx CO S02 PM10 PM2.5
2030 (398 dwelling units; 21,360 retail sq.ft.)
17.8
6.3
81.6
0.2
15.3
4.0
2035 (797 dwelling units; 42,720 retail sq.ft.)
34.3
10.8
154
0.3
30.7
8.1
2040 (1,195 dwelling units; 64,077 retail sq.ft.)
50.2
14.8
216
0.4
46.0
12.0
SCAQMD Significance Threshold
55
55
550
150
150
55
Exceeds Thresholds?
No
No
No
No
No
No
NOTE: CalEEMod output files are provided in Attachment C to this
Addendum.
SOURCE: CalEEMod (Version 2022.1); ESA 2023
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Localized Emissions
Construction
Construction of future projects that would occur as a result of the amendments would generate
localized air pollutant emissions from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment. Fugitive dust
emissions would result from demolition and earthmoving activities. Details necessary to provide a
meaningful quantitative estimate of construction emissions would be speculative, as specific sites,
buildings and uses to be constructed or modified, construction schedules, and quantities of
earthmoving are unknown. Because this information is unknown, construction emissions modeling
is not feasible and would be speculative.
Temporary construction associated with future development facilitated by the proposed General
Plan and Zoning Amendments would not be concentrated in any one location and would occur
over an extended timeframe and, thus, would not expose any one sensitive receptor location to
substantial localized emissions. Construction emissions would also be controlled via compliance
with applicable regulations and General Plan policies and programs. Construction truck fleets
would be required to comply with the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation,34 which accelerates the
widespread adoption of zero emission vehicles in the medium- and heavy-duty truck sector to
reduce on -road mobile source emissions on the path to carbon neutrality by 2045. In addition,
trucks would be required to comply with the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit
heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling, which would reduce fuel combustion and associated
emissions (Title 13 CCR Section 2485). Heavy-duty construction equipment fleets would also be
required to comply with the In -Use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation, which reduces
emissions by requiring the installation of diesel soot filters and the retirement, replacement, or
repowering of older, dirtier engines with newer emission control models (13 CCR Section 2449).
34 CARB, Advanced Clean Trucks, Wtt ://ww2.arb.ca.goy/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks, accessed
February 2023.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-40 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
The compliance schedule requires construction equipment fleets to fully meet emissions
standards by 2023 in all equipment for large and medium fleets and by 2028 for small fleets.
The city's Air Quality Element includes policies to reduce construction -related emissions. Air
Quality Element Policies AQ10-1.2 and AQ10-1.3 include provisions to prohibit the use of
building materials and methods which generate excessive pollutants and for projects to meet or
exceed requirements of the SCAQMD for reducing PM10 emissions. Emission reduction
measures generally consistent with the city's General Plan PEIR and Air Quality Element policies
could include the use of construction equipment certified to meet the USEPA and CARB Tier 4
Final emissions standards, which substantially reduces exhaust emissions of diesel particulate
matter.
Regulatory compliance along with implementation of General Plan policies and programs would
be effective in reducing construction emissions from future development to a level below the
significance thresholds. Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to localized construction
emissions.
Operation
Operation of future residential projects that would occur as a result of the proposed General Plan
and Zoning Amendments would generate localized air pollutant emissions from on -site combustion
of natural gas from building energy demand, and landscaping equipment. As previously,
indicated, the specific size, location, timing, and operation of such future projects are unknown
and quantification of localized operational emissions from individual projects would not be
feasible and would be speculative.
Nonetheless, the future development of multifamily dwelling units and residential serving
commercial (i.e., ground -floor retail) uses within the various identified areas located throughout
the city would not include uses that would generate substantial sources of operational emissions.
These uses are not associated with large stationary sources of emissions such as industrial -sized
boilers. Further, any miscellaneous trucks, such as moving trucks and parcel delivery trucks,
would be subject to the five-minute regulatory idling limitation and would be required to comply
with the applicable provisions of the CARB 13 CCR Section 2025 (Truck and Bus regulation) to
minimize and reduce PM and NOx emissions from existing diesel trucks. Operation of future
residential and retail uses would result in minimal emissions from maintenance or other ongoing
activities and use of architectural coatings and household cleaning products.
The city's Air Quality Element includes policies to reduce operational -related emissions. Air
Quality Element Policy AQ12-1.2 includes a provision to incorporate energy conservation
features in the design of new projects that would help to reduce emissions from building energy
demand while Air Quality Element Policy AQ9-1.1 directs the City to consider mixed -use
housing development proposals to reduce VMT, which is the intent of the amendments.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-41 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Regulatory compliance along with implementation of General Plan policies and programs would
be effective in reducing operational emissions from future development and associated non-
residential development to a level below the significance thresholds. Future development
facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not result in new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects related to localized operational emissions.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The SCAQMD conducted CO modeling for the 2003 AQMP for the four worst -case intersections
in the South Coast Air Basin. These include (a) Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue;
(b) Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue; (c) La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard;
and (d) Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway. In the 2003 AQMP CO attainment
demonstration, the SCAQMD notes that the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran
Avenue was the most congested intersection in Los Angeles County, with an average daily traffic
volume of about 100,000 vehicles per day.35 This intersection is located near the on and off -
ramps to Interstate 405 in West Los Angeles. The evidence provided in Table 4-10 of Appendix
V of the 2003 AQMP shows that the peak modeled CO concentration due to vehicle emissions
(i.e., excluding background concentrations) at these four intersections was 4.6 parts per million
(ppm) (I-houraverage) and 3.2 ppm (8-hour average) at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran
Avenue.36
Based on the future development of up to 1,195 multifamily dwelling units and approximately
64,077 square feet of residential serving commercial (i.e., ground -floor retail) uses that would
occur as a result of the Project, future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments would generate approximately 6,238 average daily trips,37 which is
approximately 6.2 percent of the 100,000 vehicles per day modeled at the intersection of Wilshire
Boulevard and Veteran Avenue in the 2003 AQMP. However, the addition of 6,238 average daily
trips would not occur at any one intersection or roadway as the trips would be spread throughout
the city at different intersections and roadways as the proposed amendment areas are located in
various locations. Generally, the sites identified for new housing are located: south of Imperial
Avenue between the HTP and California Street; along Main Street between Imperial Avenue and
Palm Avenue; the area east of Constitution Park, Washington Park and Freedom Park, west of
Pacific Coast Highway, south of Walnut Avenue and north of Holly Avenue; and at various
locations south of Mariposa Avenue, north of El Segundo Boulevard, east of the HTP and west of
Kansas Street.
The city's Circulation Element shows projected daily traffic volumes from buildout of land uses
per the Land Use Element. Projected daily traffic volumes along the arterial roadways in the
vicinity of the proposed locations would range from approximately 1,700 to 24,900. Projected
daily traffic volumes along Pacific Coast Highway would be up to approximately 81,100. Thus,
35 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final 2003 Air Quality Management Plan, Appendix V, pages V 4-
24, August 2003. hto:gwww agmd.goy/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2003-
air-quality-management-plan/2003-agmp-appendix-v.pdVsfvrsn=2, accessed March 2023.
36 The 8-hour average is based on a 0.7 persistence factor, as recommended by the SCAQMD.
37 Kimley Horn, City of El Segundo Density Increase Trip Generation, August 27, 2023.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-42 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
operation of future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments
would not result in 100,000 vehicles per day at local intersections and this comparison
demonstrates that the Project would not contribute to the formation of CO hotspots and that no
further CO analysis is required. Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to CO hotspots.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The Project would result in increased density and increased number of housing units and
supporting residential serving retail uses at existing infill sites. Although construction and
operational details of any future projects are unknown, the growth that would occur as a result of
the Project would result in emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) from temporary use of
construction equipment and ongoing miscellaneous truck trips such as parcel delivery trucks.
During construction activities, temporary TAC emissions would be associated with diesel
particulate matter emissions from heavy construction equipment. According to the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), health effects from TACs are described in
terms of individual cancer risk based on a residential or lifetime exposure period (i.e., 30-year and
70-year, respectively). Temporary construction of the multifamily dwelling units and residential
serving commercial uses would not be concentrated in any one location and, thus, would not
expose any one sensitive receptor location to substantial TAC emissions.
Construction TAC emissions would also be controlled via compliance with applicable regulations
and General Plan policies and programs. Construction truck fleets would be required to comply
with the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation,38 which accelerates the widespread adoption of zero
emission vehicles in the medium- and heavy-duty truck sector to reduce on -road mobile source
emissions on the path to carbon neutrality by 2045. In addition, trucks would be required to
comply with the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle
idling, which would reduce fuel combustion and associated emissions (Title 13 CCR
Section 2485). Heavy-duty construction equipment fleets would also be required to comply with
the In -Use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation, which reduces emissions by requiring the
installation of diesel soot filters and the retirement, replacement, or repowering of older, dirtier
engines with newer emission control models (13 CCR Section 2449). The compliance schedule
requires construction equipment fleets to fully meet emissions standards by 2023 in all equipment
for large and medium fleets and by 2028 for small fleets.
SCAQMD recommends that operational health risks be assessed for substantial sources of
operational diesel particulate matter (e.g., truck stops and warehouse distribution facilities that
generate more than 100 trucks per day or more than 40 trucks with operating transport
refrigeration units) and has provided guidance for analyzing mobile source diesel emissions.39
31 CARB, Advanced Clean Trucks, htt ://ww2.arb.ca.goy/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks, accessed
February 2023.
39 SCAQMD, Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling
Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis, August 2003, bM://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-
;imv,e/cega/handbook/mobile-source-toxics-ana iois. doc?sfvrsn=2.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-43 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would
result in an increase in the number of housing units and supporting residential serving retail uses
and would not include uses that would generate substantial sources of operational diesel
particulate matter. Further, any miscellaneous trucks, such as moving trucks and parcel delivery
trucks, would be subject to the five-minute regulatory idling limitation and would be required to
comply with the applicable provisions of the CARB 13 CCR Section 2025 (Truck and Bus
regulation) to minimize and reduce PM and NOx emissions from existing diesel trucks.
Therefore, operations of the future units and supporting commercial floor area would not be
considered a substantial source of diesel particulate matter. Operation of future residential and
retail uses would result in minimal emissions of TAC from maintenance or other ongoing
activities and use of architectural coatings and household cleaning products.
The city's Air Quality Element includes policies to reduce construction- and operational -related
emissions. Air Quality Element Policies AQ10-1.2 and AQ10-1.3 include provisions to prohibit
the use of building materials and methods which generate excessive pollutants and for projects to
meet or exceed requirements of the SCAQMD for reducing PM10 emissions. Emission reduction
measures generally consistent with the city's General Plan PEIR and Air Quality Element policies
could include the use of construction equipment certified to meet the USEPA and CARB Tier 4
Final emissions standards, which substantially reduces exhaust emissions of diesel particulate
matter. Air Quality Element Policy AQ 12-1.2 includes a provision to incorporate energy
conservation features in the design of new projects that would help to reduce emissions from
building energy demand while Air Quality Element Policy AQ9-1.1 directs the City to consider
mixed -use housing development proposals to reduce VMT, which is an intent of the Project.
Regulatory compliance along with implementation of General Plan policies and programs, as well
as other emissions reduction measures as needed, would be effective in reducing construction and
operational emissions from future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments likely to a level below the significance thresholds. Future development
under the Proposed project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to TAC
emissions.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
Potential activities that may emit odors during construction include the use of architectural
coatings and solvents, as well as the combustion of diesel fuel in on -and off -road equipment.
SCAQMD Rule 1113 would limit the amount of VOCs in architectural coatings and solvents. In
addition, future development facilitated by the proposed general plan amendments would comply
with the applicable provisions of the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure regarding idling
limitations for diesel trucks. Through mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules, no
construction activities or materials are expected to create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people. Furthermore, as discussed above, construction emissions from
projects facilitated by the Project could be reduced to below project -level significance for other
pollutants, such as those designated as attainment or maintenance (i.e., CO and SO2). Thus,
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-44 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
construction resulting from future development facilitated by the proposed general plan
amendments would not likely result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to other emissions such
as those leading to odors.
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor
complaints typically include:
• Agriculture (farming and livestock)
• Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Food Processing Plants
• Chemical Plants
• Composting
• Refineries
• landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass Molding
The operation of future development facilitated by the proposed general plan amendments would
not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD associated with substantial odors. Furthermore,
operational emissions from projects facilitated by the Project could be reduced to below project -
level significance for other pollutants, such as those designated as attainment or maintenance (i.e.,
CO and S02). Thus, operation of future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments would not likely result in new significant environmental effects or a
substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to other
emissions such as those leading to odors.
3.10 Noise
Issues:
NOISE —Would the project result in:
Potentially Sign cant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identirled in than Identified in the
the "Approved Project" `:Approved Project
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ❑
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or ❑
an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-45 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
3.10.1 Environmental Setting
Noise in El Segundo comes from transportation sources, including freeways, arterials, and
roadways; LAX; and non -transportation sources, such as industrial activities, commercial
activities, and various community activities. The city is also bounded to the north by I-105. The
noise environment in El Segundo is dominated by airport and vehicular traffic including vehicular
generated noise along I-105, Imperial Highway, Pacific Coast Highway, and other primary and
secondary arterials. In addition, several other sources contribute to the total noise environment.
These noise sources include construction activities, power tools and gardening equipment,
loudspeakers, auto repair, radios, children playing and dogs barking.
Environmental Science Associates prepared a screening analysis for the Project, which is
provided in Attachment C of this Addendum. The analysis evaluated at a program level the
potential air quality, energy, GHG emissions and noise impacts that could occur from the
potential buildout resulting from the general plan and zoning amendments.
3.10.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
Construction
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential to result in construction noise impacts and determined
that with the implementation of Noise Element Policies N-21.1, N-31.1, N-31.3, N-31.4, and
N-31.5, these impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant level (Certified PEIR pages
4.10-23 to 4.10-24).
Construction of future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would occur as infill primarily on developed sites. Although construction details of
future projects are unknown, construction of housing projects would require the use of
construction equipment that typically is associated with temporary noise, such as cranes, dozers,
and forklifts. Depending on the type and model of equipment used for construction, typical hourly
average noise levels for heavy construction equipment range from approximately 65 to 86 dBA
L,q at a distance of 50 feet from the equipment.40 Equipment such as pile drivers and vibratory
rollers generate higher noise levels; however, such equipment would not likely be necessary for
the future development projects. Actual exposure levels would depend on the number and types
of equipment, the intensity of the construction activity, the distance of sensitive receptors to the
noise source, and any intervening structures, topography, and noise absorption characteristics of
the ground that might affect noise attenuation.
40 Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-46 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Construction of future development facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with the
ESMC including generally prohibiting construction between the hours of 6 p.m. and 7 a.m.
Monday through Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. In addition, Noise
Element Policy N1-2.1 and Program N1-2.1B include provisions for implementing construction
noise reduction measures such as noise suppression equipment and/or the use of temporary
barriers.
The use of temporary barriers, as provided in the Noise Element Policy N1-2.1 and
Program N1-2.1B would be capable of reducing noise by 10 dBA or more for barriers that block
the line -of -sight from the noise -generating construction equipment and noise sensitive receptors.
Noise reductions can also be achieved with equipment enclosures, noise -attenuating or noise
absorbing sound blankets, and other similar measures. Implementation of Noise Element policies
and programs to reduce construction noise, as well as other noise reduction measures as needed,
would be effective in reducing construction noise from future development to a level below the
FTA guidelines for construction equipment noise.
Therefore, with adherence to the ESMC and Noise Element policies, including the city's
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) index standards, the impact related to a temporary
increase in construction noise would remain less than significant. Thus, no new or substantially
more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation
would be required.
Operations
The Certified PEIR evaluated the implementation of Noise Element Policies N-11.4 through
N-11.9, N-21.1, and N-31.1, this impact would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
(Certified PEIR pages 4.10-18 to 4.10-23).
The proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would result in an increase in the number of
housing units at infill sites. Although operational details of any future projects are unknown, the
amendments would promote mixed -use development as residential serving retail uses would be
contemplated with the development of residential uses. Mixed -use development encourages
reduced vehicle trips as people may be able to obtain goods and services from co -located or
nearby residential serving retail uses without the need to generate passenger vehicle trips.
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments (up to
1,195 multifamily dwelling units and approximately 64,077 square feet of residential serving
commercial uses) could generate up to approximately 6,238 average daily trips.41 These trips
would occur on roadways spread throughout the city as the sites identified for new housing are in
various locations. Generally, the areas are located: south of Imperial Avenue between the HTP
and California Street; along Main Street between Imperial Avenue and Palm Avenue; the area
east of Constitution Park, Washington Park and Freedom Park, west of Pacific Coast Highway,
41 Kimley Horn, City ofEl Segundo Density Increase Trip Generation, August 27, 2023.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-47 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
south of Walnut Avenue and north of Holly Avenue; and at various locations south of Mariposa
Avenue, north of El Segundo Boulevard, east of the HTP and west of Kansas Street.
A doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 dBA increase in noise level. In other words, when
two sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given
distance would be approximately 3 dBA higher than one of the sources under the same
conditions. Thus, a general doubling of traffic volumes would be required to increase traffic noise
levels by 3 dBA, assuming a similar mix of passenger vehicles and heavy-duty trucks. To
increase traffic noise levels by 5 dBA, traffic volumes would have to increase by more than triple,
assuming a similar mix of passenger vehicles and heavy-duty trucks.
The sites identified for new housing are in urban areas and are generally developed properties.
Thus, the sites already generate vehicle traffic on local roadways from existing residential,
school, commercial, and light industrial uses as well as from employment centers within and
around the city including the HTP to the west, LAX to the north, Chevron Refinery to the south,
and the Raytheon campus and Mattel Campus to the east. Because future development facilitated
by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would be scattered throughout the
northwestern quadrant of the city, development resulting from the amendments would not result
in a concentrated increase in vehicle traffic volumes in any one location or on any one roadway.
Thus, the Project would not result in a tripling of the existing vehicle traffic volumes on local
roadways.
As discussed above, the city's General Plan PEIR determined that traffic generated noise would
be a significant impact but would be mitigated to less than significant with implementation of
General Plan Noise Element policies and programs. The city's General Plan Noise Element
Policy N1-1.8 includes provisions for continuing to develop zoning, subdivision, and
development controls to prevent future encroachment of noise -sensitive uses into present or
planned industrial or transportation system noise -impacted zones. The Noise Element
Policy N1-1.9 and Program N1-1.9A include provisions for reviewing all new development
projects in the city for conformance with California Noise Insulation Standards to ensure interior
noise will not exceed acceptable levels.
As a result, the impact related to a permanent increase in traffic noise would remain less than
significant. Thus, no new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the
Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation would be required.
b) Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would
result in construction at existing infill sites. Although construction details of future projects are
unknown, construction of future projects would require the use of construction equipment that
typically are associated with temporary groundborne vibration, such as dozers, caisson drilling, and
jackhammers. The FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to 0.20 inches per second
(in/sec) PPV would not result in construction groundborne vibration damage for non -engineered
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-48 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
timber and masonry buildings, which are typically residential structures. A groundborne vibration
level of 0.4 in/sec PPV is associated with severe human annoyance potential.
According to the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, temporary
groundborne vibration levels for construction equipment, such as dozers and caisson drilling,
would be up to 0.191 in/sec at a reference distance of 15 feet and 0.089 in/sec at a reference
distance of 25 feet from the equipment.42 Equipment such as pile drivers and vibratory rollers
generate higher groundborne vibration levels; however, such equipment would not likely be
necessary for the future development projects. With a buffer distance of at least 15 feet from
adjacent structures, which is generally achievable at infill project site locations, construction
equipment used for future projects would not be anticipated to generate groundborne vibration
levels that would exceed the thresholds for building damage or annoyance. Furthermore, ESMC
Section 7-2-10 prohibits construction between the hours of 6 p.m. and 7 a.m. Monday through
Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Thus, construction, and any associated
groundborne vibration, would not normally occur during evening and nighttime hours or on
Sundays or federal holidays, when people tend to be more sensitive to vibration impacts.
Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the
Certified PEIR.
Operations
Operation of the future residential and commercial (residential serving retail) uses resulting from
the project typically do not include substantial sources of groundborne vibration. According to the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), stationary
equipment such as pumps and compressors generate groundborne vibration levels of 0.5 in/sec
PPV at 1 foot.43 This vibration level drops to approximately 0.009 in/sec PPV at 15 feet and
0.004 in/sec PPV at 25 feet. Furthermore, any future project that includes stationary equipment
would locate such equipment on building rooftops or within or near buildings such that the
equipment would not generate groundborne vibration off -site. Therefore, groundborne vibration
from the operation of such mechanical equipment would not generate excessive groundborne
vibration in excess of significance thresholds.
Caltrans has studied the impacts of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and
notes that "heavy trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborne vibrations of
normal traffic."44 Caltrans further notes that the highest traffic -generated vibrations are along
freeways and state routes. Their study finds that "vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (5 m
[meters] from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never exceeded 2 mm/s [millimeters per
second], with the worst combinations of heavy trucks.i45 "This amplitude coincides with the
41 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-4, September 2018.
43 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 1999 ASHRAE
Applications Handbook, 1999, hto://www.hvac.amickracing.com/Miscellaneous/HVAC ApplicatipAs_Handbook-
ASHRAE.pdf, accessed September 25, 2023.
44 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement to the Trafrc Noise Analysis
Protocol, September 2013.
41 Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-49 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
maximum recommended `safe level' for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic buildings).,,46
A vibration level of 2 mm/s is approximately 0.08 in/sec PPV. Vehicles traveling along freeways
and state routes would cause infrequent and inconsistent vibration events that would attenuate
quickly after onset. Sensitive receptors would likely be located further away than 15 meters from
a roadway or highway and would therefore experience levels lower than 0.08 in/sec. Furthermore,
future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments, which
would include residential and commercial (residential serving retail) uses, would generally not
result in substantial truck trips and would primarily generate passenger vehicle trips, which
generate substantially less groundborne vibration levels. Thus, operation of future development
under the Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration in excess of significance
thresholds. Therefore, no new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated
by the Certified PEIR.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for increases in vehicular traffic noise due to future
development in the city to combine with aircraft noise to raise ambient noise levels to
unacceptable levels and determined that even with the implementation of Noise Element
Policies N-11.1 through N-11.3, N-31.1, and N-31.3, this impact would remain significant and
unavoidable (Certified PEIR page 4.10-25).
The project would result in the development of residential uses that would be located close to or
within the Planning Boundary/Airport Influence Area (AIA) for LAX as designated within the
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The FAA is required to provide noise exposure and land use
information from noise exposure maps prepared under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Part 150. The FAA Part 150 Noise Exposure Map for LAX shows that the 65 dBA CNEL
noise contour would include portions of the existing R3 Zone generally north of Mariposa
Avenue and west of California Street.47 The 70 dBA CNEL noise contour would include the
northern most portions of the existing R3 zone generally north of Walnut Avenue and west of
California Street. The 75 dBA CNEL noise contour would not include any of the identified areas
for the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments.
Pursuant to ALUP Policies G-1 and N-3, the compatibility of proposed land uses is determined by
consulting the land use compatibility table provided in Section V of the ALUP. The land use
compatibility table identifies land uses by category, including residential, commercial, and
industrial land use. The Project would allow for the future development of residential and
commercial (residential serving retail) uses. The compatibility criteria in the ALUP land use
46 Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.
47 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Information, Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX), Part 150 Noise Exposure Map, February 12, 2016,
bIV://www.,faa.gov/airports/environmental/airport noise/noise exposure maps, accessed September 25, 2023.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-50 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
compatibility table guidelines provide the following recommendations for residential uses within
the 65 to 70 and 70 to 75 dBA CNEL noise contours:
Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed,
measures to achieve outdoor to indoor NLR [noise level reduction] of at least
25 dB to 30 dB should be incorporated into building codes and be considered in
individual approvals. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide
a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or
15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical ventilation
and closed windows year round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not
eliminate outdoor noise problems.48
Therefore, for future proposed housing within the 65 to 70 and 70 to 75 dBA CNEL noise
contours, enhanced building noise level reduction measures should be used. The city's Noise
Element Policy N1-1.9 and Program NI-1.9A requires new habitable residential uses to include
noise reduction measures for airport -related noise, such as dual pane windows and insulation, to
ensure conformance with California Noise Insulation Standards (California Code of Regulations
Title 24) and to ensure interior noise would not exceed acceptable levels. However, as the use of
NLR criteria would not eliminate adverse effects regarding exterior noise, the potential impact
related to the exposure of future residents and workers to excessive noise from aircraft operations
would remain significant and unavoidable. Thus, no new or substantially more severe impact
would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR.
3.11 Cultural Resources
Issues:
CULTURAL RESOURCES —Would the project:
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identifiled in than Identified in the
the `Approved Project" `Approved Project
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
3.11.1 Environmental Setting
The City of El Segundo was incorporated in 1917. The city has very distinct and identifiable
areas, with a strong residential base that includes a mixture of single-family, two-family, and
multifamily residential structures. The Civic Center is located in the Downtown. Near the
Downtown is the Smoky Hollow area, which is an older industrial area containing mostly older
one- and two-story buildings. A specific plan was adopted for the area and Smoky Hollow is
undergoing transition.
48 FAA, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Information, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Part 150 Noise
Exposure Map, February 12, 2016,
https://www.,faa.gov/airports/environmental/airport noise/noise exposure maps, accessed September 25, 2023.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-51 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Areas south of El Segundo Boulevard and west of Pacific Coast Highway are mostly occupied by
the Chevron Refinery, which occupies approximately one-third of the city. The Refinery also
occupies a portion of the coastal zone, along with an SCE generating station. The beach area is
publicly owned and accessible.
Areas of the city east of Pacific Coast Highway consist of a combination of industrial, office, and
commercial uses. This area contains the large areas of development consisting of a mixture of
office and research and development uses, as well as the U.S. Air Force Base.
3.11.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in
§ 15064.5?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for future development to disturb historic resources
and determined that with the implementation of Land Use Element policies pertaining to historic
sites this impact would be reduced to a less -than -significant level (Certified PEIR page 4.11-8).
The northwestern quadrant of the city does not contain any historical resources listed on the
National Register of Historic Places (National Register) and California Register of Historical
Resources (California Register) although some sites within this portion of the city are located on
the local El Segundo Register of Cultural Resources (El Segundo Register); none of the sites
identified for new housing is located on the national, state, or local registers. However, it is
possible that some of the properties identified for new housing may be individually eligible for
listing on the California Register as historical resources and/or as part of a group of properties
appearing to be collectively eligible for listing in the California Register as a historic district.
Thus, future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments may
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource may occur, thus
resulting in potentially significant impact.
While anticipated building heights resulting from the increased density would result in an
increase in building heights from two stories to four stories, the overlays would require building
modulation and top floor square footage limitation. In addition, site plan review would be
required for projects with more than 10 units. As part of the site plan review, the design of the
building would be evaluated to determine consistency with General Plan policies. Land Use
Element Policy LU2-1.1 requires that new development adjacent to a building of cultural,
historical, or architectural significance be designed with a consistent scale and similar use of
materials. In addition, Land Use Element Policy LU2-2.2 requires that the City take an active role
in assisting individual owners or groups in documenting and preserving building of potential
cultural, historical, or architectural significance. With the implementation of existing design
review procedures, any potential impact to historic resources would remain less than significant.
Thus, no new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified
PEIR. No additional mitigation would be required.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-52 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to § 15064.5?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for future development to disturb prehistoric
archaeological resources and determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measure
4.11-3(b) requires that any discovered finds be evaluated by the archaeologist in accordance with
standard practice and applicable regulations, this impact would be reduced to a less -than -
significant level (Certified PEIR pages 4.11-8 to 4.11-9).
No known prehistoric or historic -era archaeological resources are located within the northwestern
quadrant of the city and the potential for future development facilitated by the proposed General
Plan and Zoning Amendments to encounter and impact these resources is low given the level of
disturbance in the area from the mid -twentieth century. However, it is possible that unanticipated
discoveries could be encountered during ground -disturbing activities associated with future
development under the Project. If such unanticipated discoveries were encountered, impacts to
encountered resources could be potentially significant. However, Mitigation Measure 4.11-3(a)
and (b) in the city's adopted MMRP requires the presence of a certified archaeologist onsite
during soil disturbance activities and that any finds be evaluated by the archaeologist in
accordance with standard practice and applicable regulations. With implementation of the
mitigation measure impacts to archaeological resources would remain less than significant. Thus,
no new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR.
No additional mitigation would be required.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Future development facilitated by the General Plan and Zoning Amendments that includes
construction -related ground disturbance (e.g., demolition, grubbing/clearing, grading, excavation,
trenching, and boring/drilling) could impact, or disturb, human remains. Anticipated development
in the city would occur through activities such as infill development on vacant property and
through redevelopment, which could result in damage to prehistoric and historic archaeological
resources. However, treatment of human remains is regulated by California Health and Safety
Code Section 7050.5 and by Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. California Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that the County Coroner be contacted immediately in the
event human remains are discovered to determine the nature of the remains. In the event the
remains are determined to be Native American in origin, the County Coroner is required to
contact the NAHC within 24 hours to relinquish jurisdiction and the required procedures would
be followed. For these reasons, the impact associated with the disturbance of human remains
would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-53 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
3.12 Aesthetics/Visual Quality
Issues
AESTHETICS —Would the project:
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identified in than Identified in the
the `Approved Project" `Approved Project
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
❑
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not
limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway?
c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
3.12.1 Environmental Setting
Scenic Vistas and Scenic Resources
Typical scenic vistas include views of mountains and hills, uninterrupted open spaces, and water
features. The General Plan does not identify any scenic vistas or resources in the city. The
General Plan includes an Open Space designation applied to areas that are preserved as usable or
visual open space both publicly and privately owned. As indicated in the Open Space Element,
open space provides visual relief from urban development and helps shape the urban form.
Visual Character
As stated in the Land Use Element, the city has distinct and identifiable areas. These distinct
areas include residential areas, the Civic Center, older industrial areas, and office and commercial
uses. The western boundary of the city includes 0.8 miles of shoreline along the Santa Monica
Bay. Except for the shoreline area, the city is fully developed with urbanized uses.
Light and Glare
The city is an urban environment with existing sources of light and glare, such as streetlights and
parking lights, walkway lights, lighted recreational facilities, and light emitted from residential
and nonresidential buildings. The city is surrounded by other urbanized development on all sides.
Many of the city's residential neighborhoods are surrounded or flanked with commercial, light
manufacturing uses, and highway uses which may create greater lighting effects.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-54 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
3.12.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
c) In non -urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project
conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for future development to alter views and degrade the
visual quality of the city due to the intensification of development on older underutilized
properties and concluded that with the implementation of Conservation, Open Space and
Recreation, and Land Use Element policies and mitigation requiring the City to monitor the
Century Freeway Project and take appropriate steps to provide or insure the provision of
landscape buffers and wide setbacks between the freeway and any new developments proposed in
the area, this impact would be reduced to a less -than -significant level (Certified PEIR pages
4.12-19 to 4.12-20).
The proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments do not propose or authorize any projects.
The Project sets forth the General Plan and Zoning Amendments necessary to meet existing and
future housing needs as determined by the RHNA process. While anticipated building heights
resulting from the increased density would result in an increase in building height from two
stories to four stories, the overlays would require building modulation and top floor square
footage limitation. In addition, site plan review would be required for projects with more than
10 units. As part of the site plan review, the design of the building would be evaluated to ensure
consistency with the requirements and compatibility with the neighborhood. Future development
facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would be required to adhere to
all city design guidelines and standards including the Zoning Ordinance, general plan policies,
and any additional specific development guidelines for a particular area.
No sites are proposed in Open Space designated areas. All future projects would be developed on
sites that are currently zoned for residential, office, commercial, and mixed -use areas. No areas
currently designated as open space would be converted to urban uses and no future development
facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not be permitted to
encroach on open space areas.
All future projects would be treated as individual projects and maybe subject to specific
environmental analysis. The Project would not permit or promote development in areas that are
not currently developed with existing uses. There are no policies or programs proposed that
would directly affect scenic vistas or the visual character of the city.
Based on the above, future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista nor would it conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality, and thus impact with
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-55 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
respect to scenic vistas and visual character would remain less than significant. Thus, no new or
substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No
additional mitigation would be required.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
There are no state scenic highways in the vicinity of the city. As such, future development
facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not substantially
damage scenic resources within the viewshed of a designated state scenic highway. No impact
would occur, and no mitigation would be required.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for future development to increase light and glare in
the city and concluded that with the implementation of mitigation requiring new developments to
use minimally reflective glass and select all other materials with attention to minimizing
reflective glare and that all exterior lighting be designed and located to avoid intrusive effects on
residential development and other sensitive receptors, this impact was reduced to a less -than -
significant level(Certified PEIR page 4.12-20).
As previously stated, the Project itself does not propose or authorize any projects. Future
development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would occur in
areas that are currently urbanized and commonly experience the impacts of existing light sources.
Additionally, speculating about the precise nature of potential future development under the
Project in accordance with the overlay standards would not yield any meaningful information.
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would
likely replace or intensify existing development and would therefore not introduce additional light
and glare impacts in an existing urban setting. Future development under the Project would be
designed and constructed in accordance with the El Segundo Zoning Ordinance to prevent
spillover light effects or the use of materials that would create new glare. Further, the CBC has
several development standards to control lighting. In accordance with the CBC, the future
development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would require
minimum light intensities for pedestrian pathways, circulation ways, parking lots, and paths of
egress for safety and wayfinding. Section 130.3 stipulates sign lighting controls with any outdoor
sign that is on during both day and nighttime hours must include a minimum 65 percent dimming
at night. All exterior lighting associated with future development under the Project would comply
with the CBC. Therefore, the impact with respect to light and glare would remain less than
significant. Thus, no new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the
Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation would be required.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-56 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
3.13 Public Health and Safety (Risk of Upset)
Issues:
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identifiled in than Identified in the
the `Approved Project" `Approved Project
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —Would the
project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) 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?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of
a public airport or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or
working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
3.13.1 Environmental Setting
Hazardous Materials
Hazardous materials encompass a wide range of substances, some of which are naturally
occurring and some of which are manufactured. Examples of hazardous materials include
pesticides, herbicides, petroleum products, metals (e.g., lead, mercury, arsenic), asbestos, and
chemical compounds used in manufacturing. Hazardous materials are used for a variety of
purposes, including service industries, various small businesses, medical uses, schools, and
households. Many chemicals used in household cleaning, construction, dry cleaning, film
processing, landscaping, and automotive maintenance and repair are considered hazardous.
Small -quantity hazardous waste generators include facilities such as automotive repair, dry
cleaners, and medical offices. Hazardous materials could pose a substantial present or future
hazard to human health or the environment when improperly handled, disposed, or otherwise
managed.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-57 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Hazardous Materials Sites
According to the EnviroStor database maintained by the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control, there are several "active" sites where an investigation and/or remediation is
currently in progress within the northwestern quadrant of the city, where sites identified for new
housing are located.49 Based on the GeoTracker database maintained by the California State
Water Resources Control Board, there are no "open" cleanup sites within the Project area
although there are several "closed" sites indicating that closure letter or other formal decision
document has been issued for the site.50 Based on the database of Superfund sites maintained by
USEPA, there are no Superfund sites or National Priorities List (NPL) sites located within the
northwestern quadrant of the city.51
Methane, Oil, and Gas
The northwestern quadrant of the city is located within the El Segundo oil field, which is an
active oil drilling field. The northern border of the oil field transects east/west along Mariposa
Avenue. Two active oil and gas wells are located within the Project area.52 Both wells are located
on the same block bound by Grand Avenue to the north, Central Street to the east, Franklin
Avenue to the south, and Maryland Street to the west. In addition, there are several plugged wells
located throughout the northwestern quadrant of the city.
The approximately 900-acre Chevron Oil Refinery is located directly south of the northwestern
quadrant of the city. Two crude oil pipelines, one gasoline pipeline, and one natural gas pipeline
run along the Pacific Coast Highway (Highway 1) along the eastern edge of the Project area.
Additionally, one jet fuel pipeline runs through the Project area along Washington Street and the
western edge of Freedom Park.
Airports
LAX is located approximately 500 feet north of the northwestern quadrant of the city on the north
side of Imperial Highway. The AIA generally extends east/west from the Pacific Coast 9 miles to
I-110 and is based on the ALUP 65 CNEL noise contour.53 A portion of the Project area is located
within the ALUP, and thus sites within the area are subject to ALUP requirements, including
requirements for safety and noise. There are no additional public use airports located within
2 miles of the area.
49 Department of Toxic Substance Control, EnviroStor Database, https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/, accessed
February 22, 2024.
so State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker Database, https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/, accessed
February 22, 2024.
51 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Search for Superfund Sites Where You Live.
Wt ://www.,epa.goy/supeMipd/search:superfund-sites-where-you-live, accessed February 22, 2024.
52 California Department of Conservation, Well Finder.
W§://www.conservation.ca.gov/calgem/Pagp§lWpllfiNg,gW, accessed February 22, 2024.
53 County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
December 1, 2004.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-58 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Fire Hazards
The northwestern quadrant of the city is heavily urbanized and is not subject to wildfire.
According to CAL FIRE data, the city is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.sa
3.13.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
Although hazardous materials, including fuel, lubricants, and cleaning products, would be used
on individual parcels during construction, compliance with local, state, and federal regulations
would minimize risks associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials during construction. Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments would consist of residential uses with some commercial (residential serving
retail) use. This type of development would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials, other than cleaning products and maintenance materials. Due to the nature of
these materials and the quantities that are typically used in residential and commercial (residential
serving retail) buildings such as those that would be constructed under the Project, future
development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not create
a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the impact with respect to the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be
required.
b) 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?
As discussed in Item (a) above, the transport of hazardous materials during project construction
and operation would be conducted in accordance with all applicable local, state, and federal
regulations. Due to the relatively small amounts of hazardous materials involved during
construction and operation, and compliance with applicable transport regulations, the risk of
future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments creating a
significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be low. As a
result, the impact with respect to the release of hazardous materials from the use or transport of
hazardous materials would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
14 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zones Viewer,
https://egis.fre.ca.gov/FHSZ/, accessed February 22, 2024.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-59 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
As discussed in Section 3.7, Public Services, the Richmond Street Elementary School, Center
Street Elementary School, El Segundo Middle School, and El Segundo High School are all
located within the northwestern quadrant of the city, and some of the sites that were identified for
new housing are located within 0.25 miles of these facilities. Future development facilitated by
the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would be required to comply with applicable
federal, state, and local environmental regulations related to new construction and hazardous
materials storage, use, and transport. In addition, various federal, state, and local regulations and
guidelines pertaining to abatement of, and protection from, exposure to asbestos, lead, and other
hazardous materials have been adopted for demolition activities and would apply to all new
development. All demolition or renovation that could result in the release of lead and/or asbestos
must be conducted according to Cal/OSHA standards. Compliance with these existing regulations
would ensure that schools and the public would not be exposed to any unusual or excessive risks
related to hazardous materials during construction and operational activities. Therefore, the
impact with respect to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school would be less
than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential risks associated with contaminated soil and
groundwater and determined that with the implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.13-3(a)
through 4.13-3(c) requiring that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) be performed to
confirm or deny the presence of any soil or groundwater contamination on a proposed
development site and that if contamination is identified, that remediation and disposal procedures
be conducted by qualified personnel, in accordance with all applicable regulations and in
coordination with all applicable regulatory agencies, this impact would be reduced to a less -than -
significant level (Certified PEIR pages 4.13-21 to 4.13-22).
In addition, the Certified PEIR evaluated the potential to expose construction workers and the
public to health hazards associated with development adjacent to oil production facilities, storage
facilities, and abandoned wells and determined that with the implementation of Mitigation
Measure 4.13-5(b) requiring that the California Department of Conservation Division of Oil and
Gas and Geothermal Resources, now known as the Geologic Energy Management Division
(Ca1GEM), be contacted prior to the construction of new projects adjacent to existing oil wells to
confirm the status of the wells, and if construction over an abandoned well is unavoidable, that an
approved gas venting system be placed over the well to prevent the buildup of gas and possible
explosion, this impact would be reduced to a less -than -significant level (Certified PEIR pages
4.13-22 to 4.13-23).
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-60 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
As discussed above, a search of the EnviroStor database found that there are several "active" sites
where an investigation and/or remediation is currently in progress located within the northwestern
quadrant of the city. Furthermore, while a search of the GeoTracker database revealed that there
were no "open" cleanup sites in the Project area, the search did reveal the presence of several
cases that were completed and closed. Any project that involved these properties would require
additional CEQA review and would be evaluated for its impact on the environment from known
contamination, based on the nature of the project. Any future activities at sites listed on DTSC's
EnviroStor Database list would be subject to site -specific mitigation protocols administered by
DTSC and other jurisdictional agencies in conformance with federal, state, regional, and local
regulations.
As discussed above, the northwestern quadrant of the city is located within the El Segundo oil
field, which is an active drilling field. Two active oil and gas wells are located within the Project
area on the same block bound by Grand Avenue to the north, Central Street to the east, Franklin
Avenue to the south, and Maryland Street to the west. In addition, there are several plugged wells
located throughout the northwestern quadrant of the city. As a result, there is the potential for
unidentified soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater contamination to be present on the sites
identified for new housing. Thus, construction activity that disturbs soil or groundwater could
have the potential to result in the release of hazardous materials, which could adversely affect
construction workers and/or neighboring properties. To address such possible concerns, it is
common for a Phase I ESA to be conducted prior to excavation and construction activity. The
purpose of the Phase I ESA is to identify recognized environmental conditions (RECs) associated
with soil and groundwater contamination. Based on the results of the Phase I ESA, a Phase II
ESA (subsurface investigation) may be warranted to determine whether any identified RECs
involve contamination exceeding regulatory action levels. If contamination exceeding action
levels is identified, additional subsurface investigations and/or remediation with regulatory
oversight from an appropriate agency may be warranted. Remedial actions would typically
involve removal and proper disposal, capping, or treatment of contaminated soil or groundwater,
construction of vapor barriers, or other engineering controls.
Mitigation in the Certified PEIR requiring that a Phase I ESA be performed on a proposed
development site, and that if contamination is identified, that remediation and disposal procedures
be conducted would apply to future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments. Similarly, mitigation in the Certified PEIR requiring that Ca1GEM be
contacted prior to the construction of new projects adjacent to existing oil wells to confirm the
status of the wells, and that if construction over an abandoned well is unavoidable, that an
approved gas venting system be placed over the well to prevent the buildup of gas and possible
explosion would also apply. With these measures in place, the impact with respect to
development on previously contaminated sites would remain less than significant. Thus, no new
or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No
additional mitigation would be required.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-61 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
As discussed above in Section 3.10, Noise, the Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for
increases in vehicular traffic noise due to future development in the city to combine with aircraft
noise to raise ambient noise levels to unacceptable levels and determined that even with the
implementation of Noise Element Policies N1-1.1 through N1-1.3, N1-3.1, and N1-3.3, this
impact would remain significant and unavoidable. The city's Noise Element Policy N1-1.9 and
Program N1-1.9A requires new habitable residential uses to include noise reduction measures for
airport -related noise, such as dual pane windows and insulation, to ensure conformance with
California Noise Insulation Standards (California Code of Regulations Title 24) and to ensure
interior noise would not exceed acceptable levels. However, as these measures would not
eliminate adverse effects regarding exterior noise, the potential impact related to the exposure of
future residents to excessive noise from aircraft operations would remain significant and
unavoidable. Thus, no new or substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by
the Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation would be required.
With respect to safety hazards, the northwestern quadrant of the city's proximity to LAX means it
is regulated under CFR 14 Part 77, Safe, Efficient Use, and Preservation of navigable Airspace,
which establishes requirements to provide notice to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
of certain proposed construction or alteration of structures, and outlines the standards used to
determine obstructions to air navigation. Future development facilitated under the proposed
General Plan and Zoning Amendments would increase the height of future structures within the
Project area from approximately 32 feet and two stories up to 47 to 58 feet and four stories in
height. This increase in height would not encroach into the navigable airspace of LAX. Therefore,
the impact with respect to safety hazards would be less than significant, and no mitigation would
be required.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
The El Segundo Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), adopted by the City in 2003, and updated in
2019 establishes policies and structures for City government management of emergencies and
disasters. Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments
would not interfere with the city's adopted EOP because any future project would be reviewed by
the city to ensure that it would not create barriers to evacuation plans and that emergency access
can be met. As a result, the impact with respect to the potential to physically interfere with the
city's EOP would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-62 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
g) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
As discussed above, the northwestern quadrant of the city is heavily urbanized and is not located
in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Future development facilitated by the proposed
General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not be subject to any more risk than other
development in the city as it is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. No
impact would occur, and no mitigation would be required.
3.14 Agricultural Resources
Issues:
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identirled in than Identirled in the
the "Approved Project' `Approved Project
AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES —Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
❑
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
❑
Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
❑
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
❑
to non -forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due
❑
to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land
to non -forest use?
3.14.1 Environmental Setting
The city is an urban environment designated for residential, commercial, and manufacturing uses
and is essentially built out. There is no land within the city designated or zoned for agricultural
use, farmland, forest, or timber production nor are there any existing agricultural, farmland, forest
or timber production uses. Pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, the city is
designated as Urban and Built -Up Land and Non -Agricultural or Natural Vegetation.ss
ss California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder, 2024,
https://maps.conservation.ca,gov/DLRP/CIFF/, accessed February 7, 2024.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-63 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
3.14.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section
4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could
result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -
forest use?
The city is an urban environment designated for residential, commercial, and manufacturing uses
and is essentially built out. There is no land within the city designated or zoned for agricultural
use, farmland, forest, or timber production nor are there any existing agricultural, farmland, forest
or timber production uses. Therefore, future development facilitated by the proposed General
Plan and Zoning Amendments would have no effect of agricultural resources. No impact would
occur, and no mitigation would be required.
3.15 Mineral Resources
Issues:
MINERAL RESOURCES —Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan, or other land use plan?
3.15.1 Environmental Setting
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identifiled in than Identified in the
the "Approved Project" `:Approved Project
❑ N
❑ N
The city is partially underlain by the El Segundo Oil Field, where over 14 million barrels of oil
and condensate were produced locally between 1935 and 1992. Production has steadily declined
since 1967. According to the Department of Conservation, there are no active mines in El
Segundo, and the city is not shown as containing mineral resources.56
16 City of El Segundo, City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Negative Declaration (SCH# 2021110413),
November 2021.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-64 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
3.15.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated
on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
The Certified PEIR evaluated the potential for future development in the city to result in the loss,
or partial loss, of access to mineral resources, particularly petroleum resources and concluded that
no impact would occur as access to undeveloped regional oil fields would not be affected by the
elimination of an area the size of the proposed developments in the city (Certified PEIR page
4.1-23).
No portion of the city is delineated as a mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site in the
city's General Plan. There are no active mines or mineral resource extraction occurring in the city
and all of the sites identified for new housing are currently developed with land uses that are not
related to mining or mineral extraction. Due to lack of resources available and the urban nature of
the city, no impact would continue to occur with respect to these criteria. Thus, no new or
substantially more severe impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No
additional mitigation would be required.
3.16 Recreation
Issues:
RECREATION — Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur
or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
3.16.1 Environmental Setting
Potentially Significant Same or Less Impact
Impact Not Identified in than Identified in the
the `Approved Project" `Approved Project
The city's Recreation and Parks Department is responsible for developed park land that provides
a wide variety of attractions and amenities including 16 parks, athletic fields, recreational water
amenities, a skate park, dog park and community garden. In addition to these facilities, the city
also owns the Lakes at El Segundo, which is operated by Topgol£ In 2022, the property was
renovated to provide a ten -hole public golf course. The adjacent property is a Topgolf facility that
includes a three-story lighted driving range with a restaurant and private event center. The driving
range functions as the municipal driving range pursuant to a lease agreement with the City. Parks
located in the northwestern quadrant of the city, where the parcels identified for new housing are
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-65 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
located, include Acacia Park, Library Park, Recreation Park, Sycamore Park, Hill Top Park, and
Holly Kansas Park.
3.16.2 Discussion
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
The Certified PEIR evaluated impacts associated with increased demand on parks and concluded
that with the implementation of Open Space and Recreation Element objectives OS 1-1 through
OS1-5, impacts to parks and recreation facilities would be reduced to a less -than -significant level
(Certified PEIR page 4.7-18).
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would add
new housing units in the northwestern quadrant of the city, which in turn would also increase the
use of the city's parks and recreational facilities. As indicated above in Section 3.7, Public
Services, new development projects in the city are required to pay development impacts fees to
offset the costs of the City to provide police, fire, library, and parks services and facilities.
Pursuant to this Development Impact Fee Program, developers of residential and mixed -use
projects resulting would pay a fair share of impact fees based on the fee category and adopted
Development Impact Fee rates. In addition, potential environmental impacts to parks and
recreation facilities associated with future development under the Project would be assessed on a
site -by -site basis at the time the development is proposed. Mitigation measures, if necessary,
would be implemented to reduce significant impacts through the application and environmental
review process of each project.
For these reasons, while future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities, payment of development fees would ensure that the potential impact to
these facilities would remain less than significant. Thus, no new or substantially more severe
impact would occur than anticipated by the Certified PEIR. No additional mitigation would be
required.
3.17 Other CEQA Topics
The following impact discussions were not required topics of analysis when the 1992 General
Plan PEIR was certified, and the General Plan approved in 1992. Current CEQA analysis includes
the evaluation of potential environmental impacts resulting from wasteful energy consumption,
GHG emissions, potential effects on tribal cultural resources, and potential to expose individuals
or property to wildfires. The following analysis is provided for discussion purposes. None of the
following constitutes information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-66 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was
certified as complete. Therefore, any potential impacts do not require a subsequent or
supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. (See Concerned Dublin Citizens
v. City of Dublin (2013) 214 Cal.App.4th 1301, 1319-1320; Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v.
Department of Health Services (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574, 1605-1606.)
3.17.1 Energy
The Certified PEIR did not include an energy section. However, energy use was evaluated in the
Certified PEIR in Section 4.6, Utilities. Environmental Science Associates prepared a screening
analysis for the Project, which is provided in Attachment C of this Addendum. The analysis
evaluated at a program level the potential air quality, energy, GHG emissions and noise impacts
that could occur from the potential buildout resulting from the general plan and zoning
amendments.
Environmental Setting
Electricity
Electricity is provided to the city by SCE. SCE provides electric power to more than 15 million
persons, within a service area encompassing approximately 50,000 square miles. SCE derives
electricity from varied energy resources including fossil fuels, hydroelectric generators, nuclear
power plants, geothermal power plants, solar power generation, and wind farms. SCE also
purchases from independent power producers and utilities, including out-of-state suppliers.
Natural Gas
SoCalGas provides natural gas resources to the city and most of Southern and Central California
from the United States/Mexico border to the city of Visalia, California. SoCalGas receives gas
supplies from several sedimentary basins in the Western United States and Canada, including
supply basins located in New Mexico (San Juan Basin), West Texas (Permian Basin), the Rocky
Mountains, and Western Canada as well as local California supplies.
Thresholds of Significance
Issue VI, Energy, of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G states that a project would have a
significant energy -related impact if it resulted in either of the following:
a) Wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operations; or
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-67 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Discussion
a) Wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operations?
The Certified PEIR, in Section 4.6, Utilities, evaluated the potential for future development in the
city to result in a significant increase in the consumption of natural gas and electricity. The
Certified PEIR concluded that the net increase in the natural gas and electricity due to future
development in the city would result in a less -than -significant impact (Certified PEIR pages 4.6-7
to 4.6-13).
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would
increase the number of housing units within the northwestern quadrant of the city, where the
parcels identified for new housing are located. Although construction and operational details of
any future projects are unknown, the energy demand would increase from new residential and
commercial (residential serving retail) uses and temporary transportation fuel demand from
construction equipment and ongoing transportation fuel demand from vehicles traveling to and
from the new residential and commercial (residential serving retail) uses.
The 2021-2029 Housing Element contemplates opportunities for energy conservation to meet and
exceed required building energy standards to conserve energy and improve affordability of
housing energy costs. The Housing Element encourages improved building energy strategies such
as passive and/or active solar heating and cooling systems to improve energy efficiency. The
Housing Element also encourages the use of daylight strategies such as properly designed and
located skylights and solar tubes, thereby reducing lighting electricity costs and energy
consumption. The City would continue to require the incorporation of energy conserving (e.g.,
Energy Star or equivalent) appliances, fixtures, and other devices into the design of new
residential units as required by the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy Code
(Title 24, Part 6) and CALGreen (Title 24, Part 11), and applicable ESMC requirements. The City
would also continue to review new subdivisions to ensure that each lot optimizes proper solar
access and orientation to the extent possible. The Housing Element encourages water saving
features including the use of plant materials in residential landscaping adapted to the climate in
the El Segundo area and the use of mulch to retain soil moisture to reduce irrigation water
demand. The City would also continue to require the incorporation of low -flow plumbing fixtures
into the design of all new residential units.
In addition, the City implements a Green Building Program that encourages developers to
incorporate green building design in construction activities through the use of "green" building
materials, which can be accomplished by measures outlined in the city's Home Remodeling
Green Building Guidelines. The five components of green design included in the program are:
• Implementing sustainable site planning;
• Safeguarding water and water efficiency;
• Ensuring energy efficiency and employing renewable energy;
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-68 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
• Using conservation of materials and resources; and
• Providing indoor environmental quality
Incorporating building energy efficiency measures into future development facilitated by the
proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would align with building electrification as a
major focal point of state agencies and electric utilities in reaching the state's renewable energy
and GHG reduction goals. Building electrification may potentially strain the electricity grid as the
demand for electricity increases. However, building energy efficiency measures would lessen the
potential for the Project to cause substantial strain on the electricity grid during baseload and peak
times as state agencies and electric utility providers continue to work to strengthen and enhance
the electricity grid, increase the supply of renewable electricity, and enhance grid reliability and
resilience.
With respect to transportation fuel demand, future development facilitated by the proposed
General Plan and Zoning Amendments would promote mixed -use development through the
creation of a Mixed -Use Ordinance and some of the housing would be located within proximity
to non-residential uses. Mixed -use development and proximity to non-residential uses encourages
reduced vehicle trips and VMT as people may be able to obtain goods and services from co -
located or nearby residential serving retail uses without the need to generate passenger vehicle
trips. The infill locations of the future development allowed under the Project would also
encourage reduced VMT as people would be able to live close to existing commercial and retail
goods and services from co -located or nearby residential serving retail uses and close to existing
employment centers within and around the city including the HTP to the west, LAX to the north,
Chevron Refinery to the south, and the Raytheon campus and Mattel Campus to the east.
The Air Quality Element includes policies to reduce building energy demand. Air Quality
Element Policy AQ12-1.2 includes provisions to incorporate energy conservation features in the
design of new projects while Air Quality Element Policy AQ12-1.4 states that new construction
does not preclude the use of solar energy systems by uses and buildings on adjacent properties.
The Conservation Element includes policies to reduce water demand. Conservation Element
Policy CN24 requires implementation of water conservation measures as necessary to ensure
sufficient water supplies while Conservation Element Policy CN2-5 requires new construction
and development to install water -conserving fixtures and appliances to reduce water demand.
Furthermore, Conservation Element Policy CN2-7 requires new construction and development to
incorporate water conserving landscape design and management. The Air Quality Element also
includes policies to reduce transportation -related fuel demand. Air Quality Element
Policy AQ9-1.1 directs the City to consider multifamily housing development proposals in areas
designated as Smoky Hollow Mixed -Use to reduce VMT, which is an intent of the Project.
As outlined above, the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments provides for
development of housing with mixed -uses located at infill locations to reduce VMT, generally
consistent with relevant General Plan policies to reduce energy and transportation fuel demand. In
addition, the General Plan includes policies to reduce energy demand. As such, the Project would
not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. This impact would be
less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-69 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would be
required to comply with applicable building energy standards including the Title 24 Building
Energy Efficiency Standards Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) and CALGreen (Title 24, Part 11).
As discussed above, the City implements a Green Building Program that encourages developers
to incorporate green building designs that may exceed code requirements. In addition, the
Housing Element encourages opportunities for energy and water conservation and reduced VMT.
Further, incorporating building energy efficiency measures into future development under the
Project would align with building electrification as a major focal point of state agencies and
electric utilities in reaching the state's renewable energy and GHG reduction goals. Building
energy efficiency measures would lessen the potential for future development facilitated by the
proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments to cause substantial strain on the electricity grid
during baseload and peak times as state agencies and electric utility providers continue to work to
strengthen and enhance the electricity grid, increase the supply of renewable electricity, and
enhance grid reliability and resilience. In addition, policies in the city's General Plan promote
energy and water efficiency, reduced VMT, and protection of solar energy systems. Thus, the
Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects related to renewable energy or energy
efficiency plan. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
3.17.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Environmental Setting
Global temperatures are moderated by naturally occurring atmospheric gases. These gases are
commonly referred to as GHGs because they function like a greenhouse, allowing solar radiation
(sunlight) into the Earth's atmosphere but prevent heat from escaping, thus warming the Earth's
atmosphere. GHGs, as defined under California's AB 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6). GHGs are emitted by natural processes and human (anthropogenic) activities.
Anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily associated with (1) the burning of fossil fuels during
motorized transport, electricity generation, natural gas consumption, industrial activity,
manufacturing, and other activities; (2) deforestation; (3) agricultural activity; and (4) solid waste
decomposition. GHG emissions from human activities are the most significant driver of observed
climate change since the mid-20th century. Global climate change refers to changes in average
climatic conditions over the entire Earth, including temperature, wind patterns, precipitation, and
storms.
Environmental Science Associates prepared a screening analysis for the Project, which is
provided in Attachment C of this Addendum. The analysis evaluated at a program level the
potential air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions and noise impacts that could occur from
the potential buildout resulting from the general plan and zoning amendments.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-70 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Thresholds of Significance
Under existing CEQA Guidelines, as described under Issue VI, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the
Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form, a greenhouse gas emissions impact is considered
significant if future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would do any of the following:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment; or
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases.
Discussion
The City has not adopted a numeric threshold for the analysis of GHG impacts. If future
development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments does not conflict
with the applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions, then the Project
would result in a less -than -significant impact with respect to GHG emissions. The above checklist
questions are addressed in a combined discussion below.
GHG Emissions and City Policies and Programs
Future development that would be facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would result in construction at infill sites. Although construction details of any
future projects are unknown, construction of future projects would likely require the use of
construction equipment that that would typically emit GHGs from combustion of fossil fuels in
diesel and gasoline -powered equipment and vehicles and from the use of electricity that is
generated partially from sources that emit GHGs. Construction of future projects resulting from
the Project would be limited in extent and duration and would emit GHGs on a short-term and
temporary basis. Construction truck fleets would be required to comply with the Advanced Clean
Trucks regulation, which was approved by CARB in June 2020 and mandates zero -emission
vehicle sales requirements for truck manufacturers and a one-time reporting requirement for large
entities and fleets. The regulation is designed to accelerate widespread adoption of zero emission
vehicles in the medium- and heavy-duty truck sector to reduce on -road mobile source emissions
on the path to carbon neutrality by 2045. In addition, trucks would be required to comply with the
CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling, which
would reduce fuel combustion and associated emissions (Title 13 CCR Section 2485).
Additionally, construction equipment and vehicles would be required to use fuels that comply
with the CARB Low Carbon Fuel Standard, which reduces the carbon content of fuels and fuel
production, which is a strategy that would assist California in meeting the 2030 GHG emissions
reduction target enacted through SB 32.
The operation of future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would result in an increase in the number of housing units at infill sites. Although
operational details of any future projects are unknown, development resulting from the Project
would result in GHG emissions from building energy demand from new residential and
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-71 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
commercial (residential serving retail) uses and ongoing transportation GHG emissions from
vehicles traveling to and from the new residential and commercial (residential serving retail) uses.
The 2021-2029 Housing Element contemplates opportunities for building energy conservation to
meet and exceed required building energy standards to conserve energy and reduce associated
GHG emissions. The 2021-2029 Housing Element encourages improved building energy
strategies such as passive and/or active solar heating and cooling systems to improve energy
efficiency. The 2021-2029 Housing Element also encourages the use of daylight strategies such
as skylights and solar tubes to reduce GHG emissions from lighting electricity. The City would
continue to require the incorporation of energy conserving (e.g., Energy Star or equivalent)
appliances, fixtures, and other devices into the design of new residential units as required by the
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) and CALGreen
(Title 24, Part 11), and applicable ESMC requirements. The 2021-2029 Housing Element
encourages water saving features including the use of water efficient residential landscaping to
reduce irrigation water demand and associated GHG emissions. The City will also continue to
require the incorporation of low -flow plumbing fixtures into the design of all new residential
units to reduce indoor water demand and associated GHG emissions.
The City implements a Green Building Program that encourages developers to incorporate green
building design in construction activities through the use of "green" building materials, which can
be accomplished by measures outlined in the city's Home Remodeling Green Building
Guidelines. The five components of green design included in the program are:
• Implementing sustainable site planning;
• Safeguarding water and water efficiency;
• Ensuring energy efficiency and employing renewable energy;
• Using conservation of materials and resources; and
• Providing indoor environmental quality
Incorporating building energy efficiency measures into future development facilitated by the
proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would align with building electrification as a
major focal point of state agencies and electric utilities in reaching the state's GHG reduction
goals. Incorporation of building energy efficiency measures would lessen the potential for the
Project to cause substantial strain on the electricity grid during baseload and peak times as state
agencies and electric utility providers continue to work to strengthen and enhance the electricity
grid, increase the supply of renewable electricity, and enhance grid reliability and resilience.
With respect to transportation -related GHG emissions, future development facilitated by the
proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would promote mixed -use development through
the creation of a Mixed -Use Overlay resulting in residential serving retail uses in the development
of residential uses. Mixed -use development encourages reduced vehicle trips and VMT as people
may be able to obtain goods and services from co -located or nearby residential serving retail uses
without the need to generate passenger vehicle trips. The infill locations where increases in
housing would occur will also encourage reduced VMT as people would be able to live close to
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-72 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
existing commercial and retail goods and services from co -located or nearby residential serving
retail uses and close to existing employment centers. Thus, the Project would promote strategies
that would reduce transportation -related GHG emissions.
The city's Air Quality Element includes policies to reduce building energy demand. Air Quality
Element Policy AQ12-1.2 includes provisions to incorporate energy conservation features in the
design of new projects that would help to reduce GHG emissions while Air Quality Element
Policy AQ12-1.4 states that new construction not preclude the use of solar energy systems by
uses and buildings on adjacent properties. The city's Conservation Element includes policies to
reduce water demand and associated GHG emissions. Conservation Element Policy CN24
requires implementation of water conservation measures as necessary to ensure sufficient water
supplies while Conservation Element Policy CN2-5 requires new construction and development
to install water -conserving fixtures and appliances to reduce water demand. Furthermore,
Conservation Element Policy CN2-7 requires new construction and development to incorporate
water conserving landscape design and management. The city's Air Quality Element also
includes policies to reduce transportation -related GHG emissions. Air Quality Element
Policy AQ9-1.1 directs the City to consider mixed -use housing development proposals to reduce
VMT, which is an intent of the Project. Projects facilitated by the proposed General Plan and
Zoning Amendments would be required to comply with applicable building energy standards
including the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) and
CALGreen (Title 24, Part 11). Code requirements would include solar ready buildings and
vehicle parking space that includes electric vehicle supply equipment. As discussed above, the
City implements a Green Building Program that encourages developers to incorporate green
building designs that may exceed code requirements.
GHG Emissions and 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality
The CARB 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (Scoping Plan) outlines the
strategies the state will implement to achieve carbon neutrality by reducing GHGs to meet the
anthropogenic target and by expanding actions to capture and store carbon through the state's
natural and working lands and using a variety of mechanical approaches. The major element of
the 2022 Scoping Plan is the decarbonization of every sector of the economy. This requires
rapidly moving to zero -emission transportation for cars, buses, trains, and trucks; phasing out the
use of fossil gas for heating; clamping down on chemicals and refrigerants; providing
communities with sustainable options such as walking, biking, and public transit to reduce reliance
on cars; continuing to build out solar arrays, wind turbine capacity, and other resources to provide
clean, renewable energy to displace fossil -fuel fired electrical generation; scaling up new options
such as renewable hydrogen for hard -to -electrify end uses and biomethane where needed.
The 2022 Scoping Plan presents a non -exhaustive list of impactful GHG reduction strategies that
can be implemented by local governments within the three priority areas (see Appendix D of the
2022 Scoping Plan, Priority GHG Reduction Strategies for Local Government Climate Action
Priority Areas). An assessment of the Project relative to the GHG reduction strategies in the three
priority areas is provided below. As discussed below, future development facilitated by the
proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would support relevant and applicable
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-73 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
strategies. Based on the discussions below, the Project would not conflict with applicable 2022
Scoping Plan strategies and regulations to reduce GHG emissions.
Transportation Electrification
The priority GHG reduction strategies for local government climate action related to
transportation electrification are discussed below and would support the Scoping Plan action to
have 100 percent of all new passenger vehicles to be zero -emission by 2035 (see Table 2-1 of the
2022 Scoping Plan).
The CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars II rule which codifies Executive Order N-79-20
and requires 100 percent of new cars and light trucks sold in California be zero -emission vehicles
by 2035. The State has also adopted AB 2127, which requires the CEC to analyze and examine
charging needs to support California's EVs in 2030 and to support decision -makers allocation of
resources to install new electric vehicle chargers where they are needed most.
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not
conflict with this strategy as individual projects would be required to comply with the applicable
requirements of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6)
and CALGreen (Title 24, Part 11). The CALGreen Code was updated in 2022 to include new
mandatory measures for residential and non-residential uses including requirements for electric
vehicle supply equipment and electric vehicle ready spaces. As such, future development
facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would support the
electrification of transportation -related sources of emissions and would reduce vehicle and
equipment emissions. Thus, the Project would not conflict with this strategy.
Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction
The priority GHG reduction strategies for local government climate action related to VMT
reduction are discussed below and would support the Scoping Plan action to reduce VMT per
capita 25 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 and 30 percent below 2019 levels by 2045.
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not
conflict with the strategy to reduce VMT. Although operational details of any future projects are
unknown, the Project would allow for mixed -use development as residential serving retail uses
would be contemplated with the development of residential uses. Mixed -use development
encourages reduced vehicle trips as people may be able to obtain goods and services from co -
located or nearby residential serving retail uses without the need to generate passenger vehicle
trips. The infill locations where increases in housing would occur will encourage reduced VMT
as people would be able to live close to existing commercial and retail goods and services from
co -located or nearby residential serving retail uses and close to existing employment centers
within and around the city including the HTP to the west, LAX to the north, Chevron Refinery to
the south, and the Raytheon campus and Mattel Campus to the east. As such, the Project would
not conflict with this strategy.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-74 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Building Decarbonization
The priority GHG reduction strategies for local government climate action related to
electrification are discussed below and would support the Scoping Plan actions regarding meeting
increased demand for electrification without new fossil gas -fire resources and all electric
appliances beginning in 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial) (see Table 2-1 of the 2022
Scoping Plan).
California's transition away from fossil fuel —based energy sources will bring GHG emissions
associated with building energy use down to zero as California's electric supply becomes
100 percent carbon free. California has committed to achieving this goal by 2045 through
SB 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018. SB 100 strengthened the state's RPS by
requiring that 60 percent of all electricity provided to retail users in California come from
renewable sources by 2030 and that 100 percent come from carbon -free sources by 2045. The
land use sector will benefit from RPS because the electricity used in buildings will be
increasingly carbon -free, but implementation does not depend (directly, at least) on how buildings
are designed and built.
Future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would be
required to comply with applicable state and city requirements for building energy efficiency and
electrification and would adhere to applicable CALGreen (Title 24) requirements for energy
efficiency and electrification of new buildings. Additionally, incorporating building energy
efficiency measures into future development allowed under the Project would align with building
electrification of state agencies and electric utilities and lessen the potential for the Project to
cause substantial strain on the electricity grid during baseload and peak times as state agencies
and electric utility providers continue to work to strengthen and enhance the electricity grid,
increase the supply of renewable electricity, and enhance grid reliability and resilience. Thus, the
Project would not conflict with this strategy.
Summary
As outlined above, the 2021-2029 Housing Element includes provisions for building energy and
water efficiency and provides for housing opportunity sites with mixed -uses located at existing
infill locations to reduce VMT, generally consistent with relevant General Plan policies to reduce
building energy and transportation GHG emissions. As such, future development facilitated by
the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not generate GHG emissions that may
have a significant impact on the environment and not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or
regulation for reducing GHG emissions. Thus, the future development under the Project would
not likely result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects related to GHG emissions and conflicts with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation for reducing GHG emissions.
3.17.3 Tribal Cultural Resources
Environmental Setting
The city is located within but not necessarily limited to a geographical area of interest identified
by one California Native American tribe, the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-75 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Native American territorial occupation of the area is traditionally assigned to the Gabrielino, or
Tongva. The Gabrielino once occupied the entire Los Angeles Basin and the San Fernando
Valley, including the watersheds of the San Gabriel, Santa Ana, and Los Angeles Rivers.s' AB 52
(Gatto. Native Americans: California Environmental Quality Act) and CEQA Public Resources
Code Section 21080.31, subdivisions (b), (d)), requires a lead agency to consult with any
California Native American tribe that requests consultation and is traditionally and culturally
affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project.
California Government Code Section 65352.3 (adopted pursuant to the requirements of SB 18)
requires local governments to contact, refer plans to, and consult with tribal organizations prior to
making a decision to adopt or amend a general or specific plan, or to designate open space that
includes Native American Cultural Places. The tribal organizations eligible to consult have
traditional lands in a local government's jurisdiction, and are identified, upon request, by the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As noted in the California OPR's Tribal
Consultation Guidelines (2005), "the intent of SB 18 is to provide California Native American
tribes an opportunity to participate in local land use decisions at an early planning stage, for the
purpose of protecting, or mitigating impacts to cultural places."
In compliance with the requirements of AB 52 and SB 18, the City of El Segundo Community
Development Department provided formal notification of the Project on October 11, 2023.
Letters were sent via certified mail to the following California Native America tribes on the city's
AB 52 contact list:
• Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
• Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council
• Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians
• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh Nation
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
Tribal Chairman Andrew Salas, on behalf of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians — Kizh
Nation, was the only tribal representative who responded to the Project notification conducted by
the City. Chairman Salas stated that the tribe agrees with the Housing Element, and the tribe
requested that they be consulted on all future projects within the Project area.
Thresholds of Significance
Under existing CEQA Guidelines, as described under Issue XVIII, Tribal Cultural Resources, of
the Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form, a greenhouse gas emissions impact is considered
57 Downtown Specific Plan EIR, page IV.M-3.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-76 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
significant if future development facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning
Amendments would do any of the following:
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial
evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.
Discussion
As discussed in Section 3.11, Cultural Resources, no known archaeological resources are located
within the northwestern quadrant of the city and the potential for future development facilitated
by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments to encounter and impact these resources
is low given the level of disturbance in the area from the mid -twentieth century. However, it is
possible that unanticipated discoveries could be encountered during ground -disturbing activities
associated with future development under the Project. If such unanticipated discoveries were
encountered, impacts to encountered resources could be potentially significant. However,
Mitigation Measure 4.11-3(a) and (b) in the city's adopted MMRP requires the presence of a
certified archaeologist onsite during soil disturbance activities and that any finds be evaluated by
the archaeologist in accordance with standard practice and applicable regulations. With
implementation of the mitigation measures, the impact to tribal cultural resources would be less
than significant.
3.17.4 Wildfires
Environmental Setting
According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's Fire Hazard Severity
Zone maps and the city's General Plan Public Safety Element, the city does not contain Fire
Hazard Severity Zones.58 Due to the city's urban setting, the potential for wildland fire hazards is
extremely limited. The closest state -designated fire hazard zone is at the Ballona Wetlands, more
than 2.5 miles from the city and open space areas around the Inglewood Oil Fields and Kenneth
Hahn State Recreation Area, more than 5 miles away from the city. Both Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones are separated from the city by urbanized development, including LAX and I-405.
s$ California Department of Forestry and Fire Services, Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer,
http /kgis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ1, accessed February 2024.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-77 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
3. Environmental
Thresholds of Significance
Issue XX, Wildfire, of the Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form, states that a significant
impact would occur if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high
fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose
project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire;
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that
may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding
or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Discussion
The northwestern quadrant of the city, where the parcels identified for new housing are located, is
urban in nature and is not located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Future development
facilitated by the proposed General Plan and Zoning Amendments would not occur in an area that
is designated as high risk for the occurrence of wildfires. For this reason, there would be no
impact associated with respect to wildfire hazards, and no mitigation would be required.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 3-78 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
CHAPTER 4
Bibliography
Alta Planning + Design. South Bay Bicycle Master Plan. August 2011.
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). 1999
ASHRAE Applications Handbook. 1999. http//www.hvac.amickracing.com/Miscellaneous
/HVAC Applications—Handbook-ASHRAE,pdf. Accessed September 25, 2023.
California Air Resources Board. Advanced Clean Trucks. 2023. hops://ww2,arb.ca,gov/our-
work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks. Accessed February 2023.
California Department of Conservation. California Important Farmland Finder. 2024.
hops://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. Accessed February 7, 2024.
. Well Finder. 2024. htW§://www.conservation.c4.gov/c41gem/P4ges/Wellfiog,4sM.
Accessed February 22, 2024.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). CAL FIRE Fire Hazard
Seventy Zones Viewer. 2024. taps.,;.......egs.,.....�eca...
gov/FH,SZ/. Accessed February 22, 2024.
California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise
Analysis Protocol. September 2013.
California Department of Toxic Substance Control. EnviroStor Database. 2024.
httM://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.goy/public/. Accessed February 22, 2024.
California State Water Resources Control Board. GeoTracker Database. 2024.
httM://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed February 22, 2024.
City of El Segundo. City of El Segundo 1992 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (SCH#
1991041092). December 1992.
. City of El Segundo Circulation Element. September 2004.
City of El Segundo Housing Element. November 2021.
. City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Negative Declaration (SCH# 2021110413).
November 2021.
. El Segundo Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#
2023010196). February 2, 2024.
County of Los Angeles. Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land
Use Plan, December 1, 2004.
El Segundo Unified School District. El Segundo USD Long -Range Facilities Master Plan 2018-
2028. November 1, 2018.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 4-1 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
4.
. Residential and Commercial/Industrial Development School Fee Justification Study.
May 11, 2020.
, 2024. ESUSD Celebrates Opening of New Richmond Street School Classroom Building.
https://www.elsegundousd.net/article/1409952. Accessed February 2024.
Federal Aviation Administration. Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Information, Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX), Part 150 Noise Exposure Map. February 12, 2016.
https://www.faa.,gov/airports/environmental/airport noise/noiseexposure maps. Accessed
September 25, 2023.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Flood Insurance Rate Maps 06037C 1766 and
06037C1767. Effective April 21, 2021.
https, ftsafema.,gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor. Accessed February 7, 2024.
Federal Highway Administration. Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide.
Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Table 7-4. September 2018.
Kimley Horn. City of El Segundo Density Increase Trip Generation. August 27, 2023.
. DRAFT Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment. February 23, 2024.
Parks for All Californians. Park Access Tool. hops://www.parksforcalifornia.org/parkaccess
/?search=ci-0622412&overla sl— arks%2Cno arkaccess&overla s2
parks%2Cparksper1000. Accessed February 2024.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. Health Risk Assessment Guidance forAnalyzing
Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air Quality Analysis.
August 2003. http://www.agmd.goy/docs/default-source/cega/handbook/mobile-source-.
toxc,s.-.alyss,,.doc?.sfvrsn.-.2.
. Final 2003 Air Quality Management Plan. Appendix V, pages V 4-24. August 2023.
http://www.gWd,ggy/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management,
plans/2003-air-duality-management-plan/2003-MXpp-appendix-v,pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed
March 2023.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Connect SoCal Demographics and
Growth Forecast Technical Report. May 7, 2020.
httM://www.connectsocal.orgMp!puments/Draft/dConnectSoCal Demographics -And-.
Growth-Forecast.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2024.
United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts: El Segundo and Los Angeles County, U.S. Census
Bureau QuickFacts: Los Angeles County, California; El Segundo city, California; United
States. Accessed February 2024.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Search for Superfund Sites Where You Live.
2024. h �://www. � . ov/erfund/search-su erfun-sites-where- ou-live Accessed
February 22, 2024.
West Coast Groundwater Basin. West Coast Groundwater Basin 2020 Urban Water Management
Plan. June 28, 2021. htto://www.westbasin.org/2020-urban-water-man4gement-plan/
Accessed February 7, 2024.
General Plan and Zoning Amendments 4-2 ESA / 202301157.00
General Plan Program EIR Addendum March 2024
Attachment A
El Segundo R-3 Redevelopment
Potential
DRAFT MEMORANDUM
To: Michael Allen, City of El Segundo
From: Darin Smith and Roderick Hall
Subject: El Segundo R-3 Redevelopment Potential; EPS #224032
Date: September 29, 2022
17w y n,rrarrrrd I so With funding from the 2019-20 Budget Act, the California Department of
Housing and Community Developed established the Local Early Action
Planning (LEAP) Grant Program to provide one-time funding for local
jurisdictions to accelerate housing production as part of their preparation
for the 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). As a
recipient of the LEAP Grant Program, the City of El Segundo retained
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to analyze the potential to
rezone multifamily properties (R-3 zoning category) in the City of El
Segundo to promote their redevelopment and production of new housing
in the city, including affordable units.
More specifically, EPS has been hired to:
1. Provide economic analysis of the value of existing R-3 properties
based on current rents as compared to the value of the underlying
land if developed at various densities and with various affordability
standards,
2. Work with City staff to incorporate into the memo a discussion of the
proportion of existing units that would need to be replaced under SB
330, and incorporate those replacement requirements into the
economic analysis, and
3. Collaborate with staff to identify development regulations that apply
to the R-3 properties today that may need to be amended to
enhance the feasibility of their redevelopment (parking ratios,
Ecci�rcrazric � F�f��aaar�rg �,y��t��exS,lrac:�.
setbacks, height limits, etc.).
On Kaiser oaza suitL 1410
Oakland, CA 94612-3604
510.8 9190lel
For context, in 2019, the State of California passed SB 330, the
510.140,2080 fax
"Housing Crisis Act of 2019," which limits the demolition of lower -cost
and rent -stabilized apartments by requiring their one -for -one
Oakland
replacement as well as providing displaced tenants monetary assistance
Denver
for relocation and the right to return to the replacement units.
Los Angeles
Draft Memorandum
El Segundo R-3 Redevelopment Potential; EPS #224032
September 29, 2022
Page 2
To test the financial feasibility of the replacement requirements, EPS, with guidance from the
City, set up five replacement scenarios, distinguished by share of replacement requirements and
type of affordability restriction. The analysis estimates under what rezoning conditions a project
subject to the SB 330 replacement requirements is likely to be financially feasible, including the
ratio of replacement units to market -rate units.
For this analysis EPS builds on our own previous work assessing the viability of an inclusionary
housing program in El Segundo. EPS' understanding of the real estate market conditions in El
Segundo and the City's potential inclusionary housing requirements informed the programmatic
assumptions for the scenarios tested.
Summary and Key Findings
This analysis has led to the following conclusions:
1) Even without SB 330 replacement requirements, rezoning would still need to
occur to spur redevelopment. According to our analysis, in order for a developer to
feasibly acquire and redevelop a typical existing R-3 property, the land would need to be
upzoned from 27 units per acre (the current maximum under R-3 zoning) to at least 68
units per acre.
2) For a given property, the applicable SB 330 replacement requirements
determine the minimum standard. SB 330 requires that existing units that are or
have been occupied by lower -income households must be replaced and offered at below
market rate rents in any redeveloped apartment property. The share of replacement
requirements for a given new project ultimately depends on how many such units need tc
be replaced, which may range from zero to 100 percent. The higher the share of existing
units that need to be replaced, the higher the overall project density required to ensure
the developer can acquire the land and feasibly construct the new housing units. EPS
estimates that the required densities for feasibility will range from 68 with no existing
units needing replacement to 117 units per acre if all existing units need to be replaced.
3) Increased density allowances would need to be accompanied by other zoning
changes to ensure practicability. To achieve the higher densities required to
incentivize redevelopment of existing R-3 properties, El Segundo will need to allow higher
building heights (currently limited to 32 feet), and may also need to change lot coverage
limits, setback requirements, required parking ratios, and other development regulations.
Background
In 2021 El Segundo completed an update of its Housing Element with the objective of better
achieving the City's various housing goals. As part of these goals, there is interest to analyze the
potential to rezone multifamily properties, specifically R-3 zoned properties in the city to promote
redevelopment and the production of new housing in the city, particularly affordable units.
However, SB 330, the "Housing Crisis Act of 2019," aims in part to discourage the demolition and
redevelopment of existing lower -income rental housing units by requiring their one -for -one
replacement as well as providing displaced tenants monetary assistance for relocation and the
right to return to the replacement units. These additional requirements affect the feasibility of
redeveloping existing housing for newer units at higher values, thus impacting the effectiveness
of zoning and code requirements for residential parcels.
Z:\Shared\Projects\tA\224000s\224032_EI Segundo Housing Analysis\224032 DRAFT Memo_092922.docx
Draft Memorandum
El Segundo R-3 Redevelopment Potential; EPS #224032
September 29, 2022
Page 3
If the City, the proposing developer, the existing property owner, or a tenants organization have
reliable data indicating the specific mix of incomes among current or recent tenants, SB 330
requires this information to dictate the replacement requirements for redeveloping the property.
In the case of vacant units or any unit where the income of the last occupant is not known, the
law establishes a "rebuttable presumption" that a given property's units were occupied by lower
income household in the same proportion of lower income renter households to all rental
households in the City. In El Segundo, data from the City's most recently adopted Housing
Element indicates this rebuttable presumption would mean that roughly 13 percent of existing
units are presumed to be occupied by "very low income" households earning below 50 percent of
Area Median Income (AMI) and 12 percent of existing units are presumed to be occupied by "low
income" households earning between 50 and 80 percent of AMI. The remaining units are
presumed to be occupied by households earning greater than 80 percent of AMI, and thus would
not require replacement under SB 330.
Residential Rezoning Feasibility Analysis
Value of Existing Rental Housing
When determining the feasibility of a development project on a parcel that already has an
existing use on it (as would be the case for virtually all current R-3 properties in El Segundo), an
initial question is always "is the value of the existing use greater than the parcel's value as land
for redevelopment?" Simply stated, a property owner has the option to either maintain an
existing use that generates cash flow, invest additional dollars into the property in hopes of
increasing its market value and corresponding cash flow, or demolish the existing use and
develop something of higher value from the ground up. The financially prudent property owner
will choose whichever option yields the greatest revenues relative to the risks involved. For this
reason, it is important to understand the value of the existing housing being considered for
demolition, subject to the State's new replacement requirement.
Utilizing documents shared by city staff, EPS's own knowledge, and data obtained from CBRE and
CoStar, EPS developed a generic set of building characteristics (e.g., size, density, and rent)
reflecting the average size and character of projects within the study area. There are 577
residential units in the area, which equates to an overall density of 32 units per acre.
Additionally, we have estimated the value of the existing units in the R-3 area using CoStar rent
data that indicates the average unit size for a one -bedroom (1 BR) unit is 694 sq. ft and the
average rent for 1 BRs within the study area is $2,200. It is important to note that while these
current rents are considered below -market -rate rents (market rate rent is around $2,925 for a
similar unit), that does not infer that units are deed -restricted or rent -stabilized.
From the gross rent collected, estimated operating expenses and vacancies are deducted to
calculate the Net Operating Income (NOI). The NOI is then divided by a "capitalization rate" that
results in an amount that an investor would be willing to pay today for the rights to collect the
NOI from a project for the foreseeable future. In this analysis, EPS assumes that an investor
would apply a capitalization rate of 4.25 percent, meaning that the total unit value is roughly 23
times its annual NOI. The capitalization rate is based on current market standards and the
relatively low market risk of lower -cost housing (essentially always in demand in and around El
Segundo). As shown on Table 1 below, if someone were to purchase those existing units based
on their current cash flow, EPS estimates they would be worth about $403K on average. At an
average existing density of 32 units per acre (which exceeds the actual R-3 zone density max),
we estimate those existing apartments equate to about $12.9M of existing value per acre.
Z:\Shared\Projects\tA\224000s\224032_EI Segundo Housing Analysis\224032 DRAFT Memo_092922.docx
Draft Memorandum
El Segundo R-3 Redevelopment Potential; EPS #224032
September 29, 2022
Page 4
Table 1 Value of Rental Housing Before Redevelopment
Value of Existing Units
Rent/Unit/Month
Rent/Unit/Year
- Operating Expenses and Vacancy Losses at 35%
= Net Operating Income
/ Capitalization Rate
= Market Value/Unit
x Units/Acre (as built)
$2,200
$26,400
- 9 240
$17,160
4.25%
$403,765
32
= Total Value/Acre $12,920,471
Sources: City of El Segundo; CoStar; CBRE; EPS
The owners of those properties would need to be paid at least that much to sell those buildings
for development, so a future developer would need to expect their new project to yield at least
that much in "residual land value," meaning the difference between what the project is worth
once built and what it costs to build it (excluding land costs).
New Development Feasibility and Residual Land Values
As noted above, the existing apartment buildings in the R-3 zone average 32 units per acre,
despite the fact that current R-3 zoning regulations limit density to 27 units per acre. If the City
were to consider increasing the allowable density in the R-3 zone, EPS explicitly assumes here
that future development regulations would limit building heights to no greater than seven (7)
stories. At this height, buildings could be constructed with wood frame housing over one or two
levels of structured and/or underground parking, even at densities exceeding 100 units per acre.
This building prototype has proven feasible in high value urban areas throughout California over
the past decade, whereas taller buildings requiring concrete and steel framing have been feasible
in only the highest value locations.
CoStar data for the R-3 area in El Segundo suggests that the average unit size is a one -bedroom
(1 BR) unit of between 600 and 700 square feet of rentable space. Based on construction cost
data from Marshall & Swift which then were vetted with locally active developers, EPS estimates
that a 1 BR unit of this size in El Segundo would cost about $266,000 to build, excluding land
acquisition costs, as shown on Table 2.
Z:\Shared\Projects\tA\224000s\224032_EI Segundo Housing Analysis\224032 DRAFT Memo_092922.docx
Draft Memorandum
El Segundo R-3 Redevelopment Potential; EPS #224032
September 29, 2022
Page 5
Table 2 New Development Cost Estimates
ASSUMPTIONS
Unit Type
Unit Square feet
Common Area
Gross Square Feet Per Unit
Parking Ratio
COST ESTIMATE
Direct
Vertical
Parking Type
Parking Cost Per Space
Contractor Contingency
Subtotal
Indirect
Total (Per Unit)
Total (Per Sq. Ft.)
Bedroom
sq. ft./unit
% of unit
sq. ft.
space/unit
1
650
15%
748
1
$190 /gross building area $142,025
Structured
$33,000
5% of other direct costs $8,751
$183,776
45% direct costs $82,699
Sources: CoStar; Marshall & Swift; El Segundo area developers; EPS
$266,476
$356
As stated above, market -rate rents for recently constructed 1 BR units have been roughly $2,925
per month, according to Costar. Assuming the new units on the R-3 properties could achieve
these market rents, and then deducting the operating expenses and vacancies and factoring in
return -on -investment criteria typical of new construction, EPS estimates that newly constructed
market -rate units would be worth roughly $456,000 (see Table 4 for details). Subtracting the
$266,476 estimated development cost from this estimated unit value yields a "residual land
value" of $189,825 per market -rate unit, reflecting the maximum amount that a developer could
potentially pay for the land on a per -developable -unit basis. Because this figure of residual land
value per developable unit ($189,825) is less than half the market value of the existing units
($403,765), a developer would have to be allowed to build more than twice as many market -rate
units as currently exist in order to pay the current property owner more than the existing
buildings are worth. Details on specific scenarios follow.
Redevelopment Scenarios including SB 330 Requirements
EPS has identified five illustrative replacement scenarios that reflect the feasibility of
redeveloping the property as well as the impact of SB 330. In order to preserve affordability for
tenants occupying units that are demolished for replacement, the SB 330 legislation outlines rent
restrictions for the replacement units. The restrictions vary depending on the type of affordability
the original property offered, by three primary types: (1) income -restricted affordable units, (2)
rent -stabilized units, or (3) vacant units. EPS understands that there are currently no income -
restricted affordable units or rent -stabilized units located within the study area, thus all scenarios
are modeled under the requirements set forth by SB 330 for vacant units. Those requirements
Z:\Shared\Projects\tA\224000s\224032_EI Segundo Housing Analysis\224032 DRAFT Memo_092922.docx
Draft Memorandum
El Segundo R-3 Redevelopment Potential; EPS #224032
September 29, 2022
Page 6
state that a property with unoccupied units would be replaced with new units that mirror the
demographics of the overall city rental inventory, including the overall proportion of low- and
very -low-income renters. The scenarios are outlined in Table 3.
Table 3
Redevelopment
and Replacement Scenarios
Pre -
Demolition
Scenario
Assumption
SB 330 Replacement Requirement Assumptions
-0% of existing units were occupied by lower -income households, so no
Scenario 1
Existing
buildings
existing units must be replaced with other income -restricted units.
average 32
units/acre and
_AII newly built units are rented at market rates
_25% of existing units were occupied by lower -income households and thus
Scenario 2
an average
must be replaced, mirroring the demographics of the overall city inventory.
(Rebuttable
unit size of 1
13% of units with rents at 50% AMI, 12% of units with rents at 80% AMI.
presumption)
BR. 1 BR unit
was occupied
by household
paying $2,200
-All new units other than replacement units are rented at market rates
_50% of existing units were occupied by lower -income households and thus
per month
must be replaced; 25% of units with rents at 50% AMI, 25% of units with rents
Scenario 3
($26,400
at 80% AMI.
annually) in
rent. The unit
rent is below
- All new units other than replacement units are rented at market rates.
-75% of existing units were occupied by lower -income households and thus
current market-
must be replaced; 37.5% of units with rents at 50% AMI, 37.5% of units with
Scenario 4
rates for new
rents at 80% AMI.
construction;
however, it is
not deed-
- All new units other than replacement units are rented at market rates
_100% of existing units were occupied by lower -income households and thus
restricted or
must be replaced; 50% of units with rents at 50% AMI, 50% of units with rents
Scenario 5
rent stabilized.
at 80% AMI.
- All new units other than replacement units are rented at market rates
Determining Potential Rezoning Standards
In each redevelopment and replacement scenario, the total existing value per acre remains the
same at $12.9 million. However, the residual land value for each scenario is determined by the
number of market -rate units to be included and the number of affordable units to be replaced
under SB 330 if the property were redeveloped. Thus, the amount of density required to achieve
and exceed the $12.9 million per acre threshold varies depending on the SB 330 replacement
requirements scenario (i.e., 25% of existing units, 50% of existing units, etc.) and the number
of market -rate units developed (i.e., 70 market -rate units, 77 market -rate units, etc.).
Z:\Shared\Projects\tA\224000s\224032_EI Segundo Housing Analysis\224032 DRAFT Memo_092922.docx
Draft Memorandum
El Segundo R-3 Redevelopment Potential; EPS #224032
September 29, 2022
Page 7
Table Table 4 below summarizes the parameters of the replacement scenarios and required
density for rezoning based on the total units required to achieve development feasibility. Under
Scenario 1 with no replacement requirements, EPS estimates that rezoning to around 68 units
per acre might be sufficient for some properties to be redeveloped, but as replacement
requirements increase, that required density goes up quickly to 78, 93, 108, and 123 units/acre
with Scenarios 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. Thus, we estimate that for these R-3 properties to
turn over for redevelopment under SB 330 replacement requirements, El Segundo would have to
at least triple the existing density.
No Replacement Requirement (Scenario 1): Under SB 330, a property with no
existing units currently or recently occupied by lower -income households would not be
required to replace any units. Thus, any redevelopment that occurred on a property
would be 100 percent market -rate units. The NOI from such market -rate units could
support a residual land value of roughly $189,000 per unit, and the new project would
need to be built with densities at or exceeding 68 units per acre to be financially feasible.
• 25% Replacement Requirement (Scenario 2): Under SB 330, a hypothetical one -
acre, 32-unit property with 25 percent of its units leased to lower income households
would be required to provide eight replacement units at affordable rent levels within the
newly developed building. Four of the replacement units should offer rents affordable to
households earning 50 percent of AMI, another four replacement units should offer rents
affordable to households earning 80 percent of AMI, and the remaining replacement units
can be set to market rate rents. For the purposes of this analysis, EPS assumes that
existing affordable units were priced at rents affordable to "low-income" or "very low-
income" households, or households earning roughly 80 or 50 percent of AMI for Los
Angeles County, respectively. Assumed rent is based on the California Tax Credit
Allocation Committee's 2022 income limits for a two -person household, less utility costs,
and sums to $1,930 and $1,126 per month, respectively. The weighted average of these
rent levels is $33,389 per year, while the net operating income is $21,703 (annual weight
rent average less operating expenses and vacancy losses). The weighted average
residual land value per unit is diminished relative to Scenario 1 because eight units are
offered at less than market rate rents, so the number of units required to achieve the
$12.9 million per -acre value threshold increases to 77.
500/b Replacement Requirement (Scenario 3): In this scenario, half of the existing
32 units are assumed to require replacement and affordable rents, so the average
residual land value decreases further, and the new project would require a density of
roughly 91 units per acre.
• 75% Replacement Requirement (Scenario 4): If three-quarters of the existing 32
units required replacement at below market -rate rents, EPS estimates that the required
density for feasibility would be 104 units per acre.
100% Replacement Requirement (Scenario 5): If all 32 units within the existing
property must be replaced at affordable rent levels, the new project may require
densities of roughly 117 units per acre.
Z:\Shared\Projects\tA\224000s\224032_EI Segundo Housing Analysis\224032 DRAFT Memo_092922.docx
Draft Memorandum September 29, 2022
El Segundo R-3 Redevelopment Potential; EPS #224032 Page 8
Table 4 Replacement Development Cost Assumptions
Value of Existing Units
Rent/Unit/Month
$2,200
$2,200
$2,200
$2,200
$2,200
Rent/Unit/Year
$26,400
$26,400
$26,400
$26,400
$26,400
Operating Expenses and Vacancy Losses at 35%
9 240
9 240
9 240
9 240
9 240
= Net Operating Income
$17,160
$17,160
$17,160
$17,160
$17,160
/ Capitalization Rate
4.25%
4.25%
4.25%
4.25%
4.25%
= Market Value/Unit
$403,765
$403,765
$403,765
$403,765
$403,765
x Units/Acre (as built)
32
32
32
32
32
=Total Value/Acre
$12,920,471
$12,920,471
$12,920,471
$12,920,471
$12,920,471
Proceeds from New Units
Market Rate Rent/Unit/Month
$2,925
$2,925
$2,925
$2,925
$2,925
x % Market -Rate
68.1
69.3
74.6
79.9
85.1
Low Income Rent/Unit/Month
$1,930
$1,930
$1,930
$1,930
$1,930
x % Low Income
0.0%
4
8
12
16
Very Low Income Rent/Unit/Month
$1,126
$1,126
$1,126
$1,126
$1,126
x Very Low Income
0.0%
4
8
12
16
Weighted Avg. Rent/Unit/Year
$35,100
$33,365
$32,139
$31,228
$30,519
Operating Expenses and Vacancy Losses
12 285
11 678
11 678
11 678
11 678
= Net Operating Income
$22,815
$21,687
$20,462
$19,550
$18,841
/ Return on Cost Requirement
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
5.00%
= Market Value/Unit
$456,300
$433,746
$409,234
$390,998
$376,822
Development Costs/Unit (excl. Land)
$266,475
$266,475
$266,475
$266,475
$266,475
= Residual Land Value/New Unit
$189,825
$167,271
$142,759
$124,523
$110,347
x Total New Units
68.1
77.3
90.6
103.9
117.1
= Total Residual Land Value
$12,920,471
$12,930,017
$12,933,973
$12,937,930
$12,921,690
Density Increase Required
Total New Units Required for Feasibility
68
77
91
104
117
/ Existing Density as Built
32
32
32
32
32
= Proportionate Density Increase vs. Existing
213%
242%
283%
325%
366%
/ Current R-3 Maximum Density
27
27
27
27
27
= Proportionate Density Increase vs. Current R-3 Max
252%
286%
336%
385%
434%
Sources: City of El Segundo; Costar; CBRE; EPS
Note that none of this analysis addresses other challenges associated with redeveloping existing
housing. Those challenges include finding a willing seller, assembling enough properties for an
efficient building, and paying tenant relocation costs, plus of course facing political headwinds to
displace existing residents. Those factors are difficult to account for in a pro forma, and probably
mean EPS's results above reflect the lower end of the zoning capacity the City would need to
enable on R-3 properties under each replacement scenario.
Z:\Shared\Projects\LA\224000s\224032_EI Segundo Housing Analysis\224032 DRAFT Memo_092922.docx
Draft Memorandum
El Segundo R-3 Redevelopment Potential; EPS #224032
September 29, 2022
Page 9
Relocation Costs
SB 330 requires tenant relocation assistance if any existing units are occupied when the site
redevelopment entitlement and construction commences, and the amount required to be paid by
the developer depends upon how many households being relocated and the rents they must pay
in the units to which they are relocated. For a period of 3.5 years or 42 months, the developer is
required to pay the difference between the rent previously paid in the existing units and the rent
charged by the owners of the unit to which the displaced renters are relocated. For example, in
the "rebuttable presumption" scenario (Scenario 2) if an existing household was currently paying
$2,200 per month in rent and is moved to a newer market -rate unit charging $2,900 per month,
then a developer would need to pay $700 (the difference) for 42 months for a total of $29,400 in
relocation costs per household as shown in Table S. However, the rezoning potential EPS
showcases for each replacement scenario are not inclusive of relocation costs. The added costs
are hundreds of thousands of additional costs for a project, which would mean that still more
additional density may be required to ensure feasibility for a development.
Table 5 Relocation Assistance Cost Illustrations
Original Rent (per month)
New Rent2
Difference
Months
Relocation Assistance per Household
Households
$2,200 $2,200 $2,200 $2,200
$ 2,900 $ 2,900 $ 2,900 $ 2,900
$700 $700 $700 $700
42 42
$29,400 $29,400
8 16
Total Relocation Assistance Payment $235,200 $470,400
[1] Based on the average one -bedroom rent paid by tenants in the market.
Sources: CoStar; EPS
Development Regulations Modifications
42 42
$29,400 $29,400
24 32
$705,600 $940,800
While parcels of land may be zoned for the same use, they are not always the same size or
shape. Under current residential development This means that there is a potential for additional
density depending upon other requirements such as height restrictions, setbacks, and parking
ratios to name a few. The modification of development regulations will vary from scenario to
scenario as different densities will require different materials to be used and different
requirements as it relates to the location of parking. See Table 6 for a more detailed description
of key development regulations that the City may need to modify to ensure development
feasibility.
Z:\Shared\Projects\tA\224000s\224032_El Segundo Housing Analysis\224032 DRAFT Memo_092922.doa
Draft Memorandum
El Segundo R-3 Redevelopment Potential; EPS #224032
September 29, 2022
Page 10
Table 6 Multifamily (R-3) Zoning Development Regulations
Development Regulation
Current R-3 Standard
Potential Change Required
may consider increasing minimum lot size
for projects being developed at higher
density, so that buildings will be efficiently
A minimum of seven thousand (7,000)
and attractively configured. For example, a
Lot Area
square feet.
0.5-acre (21,780 square foot) site may
achieve these goals. Increased minimum lot
sizes may require property assembly, which
may slow or discourage redevelopment.
The height of all buildings or structures
with a pitched roof shall not exceed thirty
Building heights may need to allow up to
Height
two feet (32') and two (2) stories. Buildings
seven (7) total stories or roughly eighty five
or structures with a flat roof must not
feet (85') to achieve required densities for
exceed twenty six feet (26') and two (2)
redevelopment feasibility.
stories.
One unit for every one thousand six
Depending on SB 330 replacement
Building Area
hundred thirteen (1,613) square feet of lot
requirements for a given building, maximum
(<=15,000 sq. ft.)
area is allowed. A fraction of a lot greater
densities may need to increase to roughly 120
than one thousand seventy five (1,075)
square feet will allow an additional unit.
units per acre.
One (1) unit for every two thousand four
hundred twenty (2,420) square feet of lot
Depending on SB 330 replacement
Building Area
area is allowed. A fraction of a lot greater
requirements for a given building, maximum
(>15,000 sq. ft.)
than one thousand six hundred thirteen
densities may need to increase to roughly 120
(1,613) square feet will allow an additional
units per acre.
unit.
City could set minimum or maximum unit
Minimum/Maximum Unit
sizes to address interests in or concerns about
Sizes
No current requirement in code.
micro -units, family -friendly units, etc. Details
would depend on policy goals.
All buildings, including detached accessory
Higher density buildings may require lot
Lot Coverage
buildings, shall not cover more than fifty
coverage of up to eighty five (85%) to achieve
three percent (53%) of the area of the lot.
efficient building and structured parking
layouts.
Lower parking ratios such as 1 space per
bedroom help to keep construction costs
down and are increasingly accepted by the
market. Alternatively or in addition,
Parking
2 spaces per unit, plus 1 visitor space for
developers could be allowed to build fewer
every 3 units
parking spaces if they provide Transportation
Demand Management services and
approaches like transit passes for tenants,
bikeshare/rideshare services, unbundled
parking pricing, etc.
Source: City of El Segundo; EPS
Z:\Shared\Projects\LA\224000s\224032_EI Segundo Housing Analysis\224032 DRAFT Memo_092922.doa
Attachment B
Transportation
Attachment B.
B-1 VMT Analysis
EZIMI
% r f
Memorandum
To: Michael Allen, AICP
City of El Segundo
From: Chris Gregerson, P.E., T.E., AICP
Mike Schmitt, AICP CTP, PTP, RSP1
Re: DR,1 1p7 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Assessment
Housing Element Update, City of El Segundo
Date: February 23, 2024
This memorandum documents SIB 743 compliant analysis completed for the City of El Segundo's Housing
Element Update ("Project" or "proposed Project") located in El Segundo, CA. The City's Housing Element
calls for increasing the density of specific zoning categories such as the R-3 category (multi -family
residential) and rezoning certain commercial properties to a high -density Mixed -Use Overlay zone
(commercial and residential).
With the passage of SIB 743, Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) has become an important indicator for
determining if a new development will result in a "significant transportation impact" under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This memorandum summarizes the VMT analysis and resultant
findings for the increased densities associated with the City's Housing Element.
I aclk ii-ou.un and IPro'Uect Land Use As&.ur nllofll ns
The City of El Segundo is updating the City's Housing Element (HE). The City's HE calls for increasing the
density of specific zoning categories for residential uses. This Project analyzes the density increase
associated with four rezoning categories including:
■ Increasing the density of the R-3 zoning category (multi -family residential) from 27 dwelling units
per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre in multiple neighborhoods
■ Increasing the number of units allowed in other R-3 zoned locations using the housing overlay
■ Using a high -density mixed use overlay at 75 dwelling units per acre at several locations
■ The increase in housing units associated with the City's Downtown Specific Plan'
Land Use Assumptions by Category
The density increases associated with the above categories resulted in a total number of additional units
assumed within the City by 1,195. The breakdown for each land use category is as follows:
■ Increasing the density of the R-3 zoning category results in 367 additional dwelling units
■ Increasing the number of units allowed in other R-3 zoned locations using the housing overlay
results in 193 additional dwelling units
■ Using a high -density mixed use overlay at 75 dwelling units per acre at several locations results in
335 additional dwelling units
■ The increase in housing units associated with the City's Downtown Specific Plan results in 300
additional dwelling units
1 El Segundo Downtown Specific Plan. City of El Segundo. May 2023.
uu„Iloo,se of Velhu lle II' Mlles Tiravelled (VII' T) Ain llysis
SB 743 is part of a long-standing policy effort by the California legislature to improve California's
sustainability and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through denser infill development, a reduction in
single occupancy vehicles, improved mass transit, and other actions. Recognizing that the current
environmental analysis techniques are, at times, encouraging development that is inconsistent with this
vision, the legislature has taken the extraordinary step to change the basis of environmental analysis for
transportation impacts from Level of Service (LOS) to Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). VMT is understood
to be a good proxy for evaluating Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and other transportation related impacts that
the State is actively trying to address. While the use of VMT to determine significant transportation
impacts has only been considered recently, it is by no means a new performance metric and has long
been used as a basis for transportation system evaluations and as an important metric for evaluating the
performance of Travel Demand Models.
In January 2019, the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines including the
incorporation of SB 743 modifications. The Guidelines' changes were approved by the Office of
Administrative Law and are now in effect. Specific to SB 743, Section 15064.3(c) states, "A lead agency
may elect to be governed by the provisions of this section immediately. The provisions apply statewide as
of July 1, 2020."
To help aid lead agencies with SB 743 implementation, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research
(OPR) produced the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018)
that provides guidance about the variety of implementation questions they face with respect to shifting
to a VMT metric. Key guidance from this document includes:
■ VMT is the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project's transportation impact.
■ OPR recommends tour- and trip -based travel models to estimate VMT, but ultimately defers to
local agencies to determine the appropriate tools.
■ OPR recommends measuring VMT for residential and office projects on a "per rate" basis.
■ OPR states that by adding retail opportunities into the urban fabric and thereby improving retail
destination proximity, local -serving retail development tends to shorten trips and reduce VMT.
Generally, retail development including stores smaller than 50,000 square feet might be
considered local serving.
■ OPR recommends that if a project generates 110 or fewer daily trips, the project would lead to a
less -than -significant transportation impact.
■ Lead agencies have the discretion to set or apply their own significance thresholds.
The City of El Segundo's VMT thresholds consider the VMT performance of residential and employment -
based non-residential components of a project using the efficiency metric of VMT per service population.
Service population is defined as the total employment and residential population within a specified
geographic region. For retail and other customer -focused components of a project, the regional change in
VMT is analyzed. The City of El Segundo's VMT thresholds of significance are summarized below for each
of these components:
Residential — Below baseline (existing) citywide average VMT per service population
Employment -based land uses (e.g., office) — Below baseline (existing) citywide average VMT per
service population
Customer -based non-residential land uses (e.g., retail) — No net increase in VMT
DR 1FFVehicle Miles Traveled (VMn Assessment February 23, 2024
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Page 2 of 5
11 eflhodob y and Assu.uu°u pflloins
Based on the land use information provided by the City, for the purposes of the SB 743 analysis and the
determination of transportation related significant impacts, the following land uses were analyzed as a
part of the Project:
■ Residential
■ Local -serving Retail
For the residential land uses, the City's VMT Analysis Tool' was used as the principal tool to determine the
VMT efficiency of the Project. The City's VMT Analysis Tool is an online sketch planning tool that provides
the VMT per service population for each parcel within the City based on the Census Block Group that
parcel is located in. The VMT per service population is calculated at the Census Block Group level using
data from the Replica big data platform. Replica aggregates location -based data throughout the United
States to the Census Block Group level to provide a wide variety of metrics on travel behavior. Replica
uses data from cell phones, in -dash navigation units, Census data, and other sources, to synthesize
anonymous trips that are not replications of actual trips, but rather provide an average day's travel
behavior along roadways. Replica provides information on travel behavior at a geographic level specified
by the user (Census Block Group, ZIP Code, City, County, etc.) for a specific period of time. The data used
to determine the City's VMT per service population for each of the Census Block Groups in the City, as
well as the threshold of comparison for significant impacts, was based on data collected in Fall 2019 (pre-
COVID, September through November).
Alternatively, the local -serving retail land -uses typically redistribute existing trips rather than generate
new trips, which is why the retail components of the Project were analyzed qualitatively in a subsequent
section of this memorandum.
The City of El Segundo has adopted VMT impact thresholds and analysis guidelines that were used as the
basis of the analysis contained herein. The threshold of significance for the City of El Segundo is 24.5 VMT
per service population.
u.uaintitafuve Ainallysus
The following details the quantitative analysis completed:
Residential Land Uses
As noted above, the VMT per service population for the residential land uses was computed using the
City's VMT Analysis Tool. Specifically, The VMT per service population was calculated for each of the four
land use categories (Downtown Specific Plan, Mixed -Use Overlay, Housing Overlay, and R-3 Density
Increase) based on a weighted average of the number of dwelling units planned for within each of the
Census Block Groups representing that land use category. When the number of units were not specified
for specific land use categories, it was assumed that an even distribution of dwelling units was spread
throughout the parcels comprising that category.
Table 1 summarizes the VMT per service population for the Project by land use category for each Census
Block Group and overall. The threshold for comparison was determined using the City's VMT analysis
guidelines and VMT Analysis Tool which states the threshold is the citywide average of 24.5 VMT per
service population.
2 El Segundo TREDLiteVMT. https,6/tredlite.kimley-horn.com6siteslelsgFundolcalculator?step=l. Accessed February 10, 2024.
DR 1FFVehicle Miles Traveled (VMn Assessment February 23, 2024
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Page 3 of 5
Table 1— Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per Service Population by Land Use Category
Block Group
Number of Units
I % of Total Units
VMT per Service Pop
Downtown Specific Plan
060376201022
150
50%
22.8
060376201021
150
50%
19.2
Total
300
100%
21.0
Mixed -Use Overlay
060376200011
137
41%
18.9
060376200012
101
30%
11.4
060376200021
98
29 %
18.6
Total
335
100%
16.5
Housing Overlay (11-3)
060376200021
158
82 %
18.6
060376201013
21
11 %
12.8
060376200011
14
7%
18.9
Total
193
100%
18.0
R-3 Density Increase
060376201023
32
9%
13.8
060376201022
58
16%
22.8
060376200021
54
15 %
18.6
060376200011
28
8%
18.9
060376200012
45
12 %
11.4
060376200022
26
7%
21.9
060376201013
69
19 %
12.8
060376201011
34
9 %
15.0
060376200013
21
6%
12.7
Total
367
100%
16.5
As shown in Table 1, every land use category results in a VMT per service population less than the City's
threshold, resulting in a less than significant impact.
Q ualHtadve Ainallyslls
Local -Serving Retail and Service Land Uses
As described previously, the local -serving retail land uses were analyzed qualitatively. The City of El
Segundo's VMT Analysis Guidelines specifically addresses some of the key issues surrounding how local
serving land uses should be evaluated in terms of their VMT impact. As described, the threshold for
significance is "a net increase." This means that if a proposed local -serving use results in additional VMT,
it would result in a finding of significance.
However, local serving land uses primarily serve pre-existing needs (i.e., they do not generate new trips
because they meet existing demand). Because of this, local -serving uses can be presumed to reduce trip
lengths when a new store or service is proposed. Essentially, the assumption is that someone will travel
LWu 1FFVehicle Miles Traveled (VMn Assessment February 23, 2024
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Page 4 of 5
to a newly constructed local serving land use because of a its proximity, rather than the proposed use
fulfilling an unmet need (i.e., the person had an existing need that was met by the local serving use
located further away and is now traveling to the new establishment because it is closer to the person's
origin location). This results in a trip on the roadway network becoming shorter, rather than a new trip
being added to the roadway network, which would result in an impact to the overall transportation
system. Conversely, residential and office land uses often generate new trips given that they introduce
new participants to the transportation system. The City of El Segundo's VMT Analysis Guidelines provides
for a general threshold of 50,000 square -feet as an indicator as to whether a retaion land use can be
considered local serving or not. Based on the understanding that no single store within the four land use
categories will exceed 50,000 square feet, it is presumed that the proposed local serving retail uses will
not result in a net increase in VMT and would therefore not result in a significant impact.
Exhibit 1 has been provided to visually demonstrate the basis of this finding. Note that the numbers
provided are for illustrative purposes as the analysis technique used is qualitative.
Exhibit 1— Illustration of the VMT Reducing Effect of Local Serving Retail
EAU!%
+: Now storey uacicW
.. IE:iuias9arnta O'OpX"
rAak the skGacaftsMip
Rindllln S
Based on the results of this analysis, the following findings are made:
All four land use categories result in a VMT per service population less than the City's threshold,
resulting in a less than significant impact.
It is understood that when evaluating the proposed Project's retail land uses, no single store
within the four land use categories will exceed 50,000 square feet. Therefore, it is presumed that
the proposed retail uses will not result in a net increase in VMT and would therefore not result in
a significant impact.
DR,11iR Vehicle Miles Traveled (VM7) Assessment February 23, 2024
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Page 5 of 5
Attachment B.
B-2 LOS Analysis
To: Michael Allen, AICP
City of El Segundo
From: Tyler Mickelson, EIT
Chris Gregerson, P.E., T.E., AICP
Re: NAFT Local Transportation Analysis
Housing Element Update, City of El Segundo
Date: March 14, 2024
This memorandum documents the local transportation analysis (LTA) completed for the City of El
Segundo's Housing Element Update ("Project" or "proposed Project") located in El Segundo, California.
The City's Housing Element calls for increasing the density of specific zoning categories such as the R-3
category (multi -family residential) and rezoning certain commercial properties to a high -density Mixed -
Use Overlay zone (commercial and residential). The study area is shown in Exhibit 1.
This memorandum summarizes the local transportation analysis and resultant findings for the increased
densities associated with the City's Housing Element Update.
Background and Project Laud Use Assurnptloins
The City of El Segundo is updating the City's Housing Element (HE). The City's HE calls for increasing the
density of specific zoning categories for residential uses. This Project analyzes the density increase
associated with four rezoning categories including:
■ Increasing the density of the R-3 zoning category (multi -family residential) from 27 dwelling units
per acre to 30 dwelling units per acre in multiple neighborhoods
■ Increasing the number of units allowed in other R-3 zoned locations using the housing overlay
■ Using a high -density mixed use overlay at 75 dwelling units per acre at several locations
■ The increase in housing units associated with the City's Downtown Specific Plan'
Land Use Assumptions by Category
The density increases associated with the above categories resulted in a total number of additional units
assumed within the City by 1,195. The breakdown for each land use category is as follows:
■ Increasing the density of the R-3 zoning category results in 367 additional dwelling units
■ Increasing the number of units allowed in other R-3 zoned locations using the housing overlay
results in 193 additional dwelling units
■ Using a high -density mixed use overlay at 75 dwelling units per acre at several locations results in
335 additional dwelling units
■ The increase in housing units associated with the City's Downtown Specific Plan results in 300
additional dwelling units
The general locations for the R-3 zoned residential areas, the high -density mixed -use overlay, and the
downtown specific plan area are shown in Exhibit 2.
'El Segundo Downtown Specific Plan. City of El Segundo. May 2023.
f
I eth ddgy and Assumptions
Analysis Scenarios
In accordance with guidelines provided by the City and the Los Angeles County CMP, the study facilities
were evaluated for the AM and PM peak -hours for the following analysis scenarios:
Existing Conditions
Existing Conditions Plus Project
Study Locations
The following study locations were established in consultation with City staff and were analyzed for the
AM and PM peak -hours for the scenarios outlined above:
1. Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @ E Walnut Avenue
2. Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @ E Maple Avenue
3. Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @ E Mariposa Avenue
4. Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @ E Grand Avenue
5. Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @ E El Segundo Boulevard
6. Main Street @ Imperial Avenue
7. Main Street @ Maple Avenue
8. Main Street @ Mariposa Avenue
9. Main Street @ Pine Avenue
10. Main Street @ Grand Avenue
11. Main Street @ El Segundo Boulevard
12. W Grand Avenue @ Whiting Street
13. W Grand Avenue @ Concord Street
14. E Grand Avenue @ Eucalyptus Drive
15. E Grand Avenue @ Center Street
16. E Grand Avenue @ Kansas Street
17. Maryland Street @ E Grand Avenue
18. Maryland Street @ E Franklin Avenue
19. Center Street @ E Mariposa Avenue
20. Center Street @ E Pine Avenue
Intersection Analysis
In accordance with the City of El Segundo General Plan Circulation Elementz signalized intersection
operation is evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. This methodology
provides a comparison of the theoretical hourly vehicular capacity of an intersection to the number of
vehicles actually passing through that intersection during a given hour. The ICU calculations assume a per -
lane capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) with a clearance interval of 0.1 seconds. Intersection
analyses for unsignalized intersections are completed using the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
methodology, which returns a delay value, expressed in terms of average seconds of delay per vehicle.
Operating conditions for both ICU and HCM methodologies are expressed in terms of "Level of Service"
which is also referred to by its acronym, LOS. The ICU calculation returns a volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio
that translates into a corresponding Level of Service, ranging from LOS A, representing uncongested, free -
flowing conditions; to LOS F, representing congested, over -capacity conditions.
2 City of El Segundo General Plan. City of EI Segundo. December 1992.
DR "V7 Local Transportation Analysis March 14, 2024
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Page 2 of 10
f
A summary description of each Level of Service and the corresponding volume/capacity (v/c) ratio or
delay is provided in .
Table 1— Level of Service Description
Signalized:
Unsignalized:
Level of
ICU
HCM 1
Description
Service
V/C Ratio
Delay (sec)
EXCELLENT— No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and no
A
0.00 - 0.60
<_10
approach phase is fully used.
B
0.61- 0.70
> 10 and <_ 15
VERY GOOD —An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; drivers
begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles.
C
0.71- 0.80
> 15 and < 25
GOOD — Occasionally, drivers may have to wait through more than
one red light; back-ups may develop behind turning vehicles.
FAIR — Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours,
D
0.81- 0.90
> 25 and <_ 35
but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of
developing lines, preventing excessive back-ups.
POOR — Represents the most vehicles that the intersection
E
0.91- 1.00
> 35 and <_ 50
approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles
through several signal cycles.
FAILURE — Back-ups from nearby locations or on cross streets may
restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection
F
> 1.00
> 50
approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue
lengths.
LOS = Level of Service; ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization; HCM = Highway Capacity Manual; V/C = volume -to -capacity
'Source: Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition
Performance Criteria
The City of El Segundo General Plan identifies the vision, goals and policies associated with circulation and
transportation with the jurisdiction of the City. Thus, the purpose of this analysis is to analyze the Project
and determine if it would have result in conditions that are contrary to the goals and policies outlined in
the General Plan, and if so, recommend improvements or modifications that would bring the Project in
conformance with established policy.
The City of El Segundo Level of Service standard for peak hour intersection operation is Level of Service
"D". Intersections on an LA County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) facility establish Level of Service
"E" as acceptable during the peak hours.
Significance Thresholds
For non-CMP intersections, if traffic caused by a development project is forecast to result in an
intersection Level of Service change from LOS D or better to LOS E or F, the development effect shall be
considered significant. If a development project is forecast to result in the increase of intersection
volume/capacity ratio (V/C) of 0.02 or greater at any intersection that is forecast to operate at LOS E or F,
the effect shall be considered significant.
For CMP intersections, a project -related traffic effect would be considered significant when the addition
of project traffic increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2-percent of capacity (increase of V/C >_
0.02), causing LOS F (V/C >! 1.0). If the facility is already at LOS F, a significant effect occurs when the a
project increases traffic demand on a CMP facility by 2-percent of capacity (increase of V/C >! 0.02).
DR "1F7 Local Transportation Analysis March 14, 2024
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Page 3 of 10
f
Existing Conditions Ainaiysis
Exhibit 3 depicts the study intersections, traffic control, and lane geometries, while peak -hour turning
movement volumes for Existing Conditions are summarized in Exhibit 4. The intersection turning
movement volumes were collected on February 13, 2024, and the traffic count sheets are provided in
Attachment A.
Using the volumes presented in Exhibit 4, ICU for signalized intersections and average vehicle delay for
unsignalized intersections were estimated for the study intersections using the respective methodologies
via Synchro° software. Resulting ICU and vehicle delays with their associated level of service results are
presented in Table 2, while the analysis output sheets can be found in Attachment B.
As shown in Table 2, all study intersections operate acceptable under existing conditions with the
exception of the unsignalized Main Street intersection with Maple Avenue (Intersection #7), which
operates at LOS E during the AM peak -hour.
DR "V7 Local Transportation Analysis March 14, 2024
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Page 4 of 10
f
Table 2 - Existing Intersection LOS Summary
Peak
Existing
ID
Intersection
Control
Threshold
Hour
Delay [sec]
ICU (%)
LOS
Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @
AM
53.7
A
1
Walnut Avenue
Signal
E
PM
49.8
A
Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @
AM
60.0
B
2
Signal
g
E
Maple Avenue
PM
61.0
B
Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @
AM
58.8
A
3
Signal
g
E
Mariposa Avenue
PM
71.6
C
Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @
AM
56.8
A
4
Signal
g
E
Grand Avenue
PM
69.7
8
Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @
AM
62.0
B
5
Signal
g
E
El Segundo Boulevard
PM
96.5
E
AM
72.0
C
6
Main Street @ Imperial Avenue
Signal
D
PM
64.9
B
AM
35.7
-
E
7
Main Street @ Maple Avenue
AWSC
D
PM
16.6
-
C
AM
-
55.7
A
8
Main Street @ Mariposa Avenue
Signal
D
PM
-
60.5
B
AM
12.1
-
B
9
Main Street @ Pine Avenue
AWSC
D
PM
13.0
-
B
AM
-
47.4
A
10
Main Street @ Grand Avenue
Signal
D
PM
-
56.0
A
AM
9.6
-
A
11
Main Street @ El Segundo Boulevard
AWSC
D
PM
13.2
B
AM
8.7
A
12
W Grand Avenue @ Whiting Street
AWSC
D
PM
9.5
A
AM
8.8
A
13
W Grand Avenue @ Concord Street
AWSC
D
PM
9.0
A
AM
11.2
B
14
E Grand Avenue @ Eucalyptus Drive
AWSC
D
PM
11.2
B
AM
12.5
B
15
E Grand Avenue @ Center Street
AWSC
D
PM
13.0
-
B
AM
-
37.3
A
16
E Grand Avenue @ Kansas Street
Signal
D
PM
-
44.6
A
AM
18.5
-
C
17
Maryland Street @ E Grand Avenue
TWSC
D
PM
13.8
B
AM
7.3
A
18
Maryland Street @ E Franklin Avenue
AWSC
D
PM
7.2
A
AM
12.6
B
19
Center Street @ E Mariposa Avenue
AWSC
D
PM
12.7
B
AM
10.0
B
20
Center Street @ E Pine Avenue
AWSC
D
PM
9.4
A
DR "V7 Local Transportation Analysis March 14, 2024
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Page 5 of 10
f
Trip Generation
As mentioned previously, the Project is an update to the City's Housing Element which proposes density
increases for certain residential zones within the Housing Element. These increases are expected to result
in a total of 1,195 additional housing units built over the next 20 years.
The number of trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed Project was approximated using data
provided in the Institute for Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 11`h Edition. Trip data
for ITE Land Use Code 221 (Multifamily Housing (Mid -Rise)) was used to represent residential
development in the mixed -use overlay, housing overlay, and Downtown Specific Plan, while trip data for
ITE Land Use Code 220 (Multifamily Housing (Low -Rise)) was used to represent the remainder of the R-3
density increases throughout the City. The number of daily, AM peak -hour, and PM peak -hour trips
generated by the proposed project are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 — Project Trip Generation
ITE Land
Use Code
Land Use
Size
Units
Daily
Trips
AM Peak
PM Peak
Total
In
Out
Total
In
Out
221
Mixed Use Ooeday
335
Dwelling Units
1,551
136
31
105
131
80
51
221
Housing 0%day
193
Dwelling Units
874
73
17
56
76
46
30
220
R3 Density Increase
367
Dwelling Units
2,428
147
35
112
187
118
69
221
Downtown Specific Plan
300
1 Dwelling Units
1 1,385
1 120
28
92
1 117
71
46
Total Project Trips
1,195
1 Dwelling Units
1 6,238
1 476
111
365
1 511
315
196
As shown in Table 3, the proposed Project is estimated to generate 6,238 daily trips, with 476 and 511
trips occurring during the AM and PM peak -hours, respectively.
Trip Distribution
The trips generated by the proposed Project were distributed to the surrounding roadway network based
on existing traffic data, prevailing traffic, general knowledge of the study area, and regional travel
patterns. The trip distribution percentages developed are illustrated in Exhibit 5 and the project trip
assignment is shown in Exhibit 6. The following distribution percentages were found for the proposed
Project:
■ 50-percent of Project traffic is expected to travel to/from the north/northeast via the Pacific
Coast Highway (SR-1) and 1-105/Imperial Highway
■ 17-percent of Project traffic is expected to travel to/from the south via the Pacific Coast
Highway/SR-1
■ 12-percent are expected to travel to/from the east via El Segundo Boulevard
■ 8-percent are expected to travel to/from the east via Grand Avenue
■ 5-percent are expected to travel to/from the east via Mariposa Avenue
■ 5-percent are expected to travel to/from the east via Maple Avenue
■ 3-percent are expected to travel to/from the west via Grand Avenue
Existing Ipius II:Ir �ecf Condit ons
AM and PM peak -hour traffic volumes associated with the proposed Project were added to the Existing
traffic volumes and LOS for the study intersections was determined using methodologies consistent with
Existing Conditions. Existing plus Project peak -hour traffic volumes are presented in Exhibit 7. The analysis
worksheets for this scenario are provided in Attachment C.
DR "V7 Local Transportation Analysis March 14, 2024
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Page 6 of 10
f
Using the volumes presented in Exhibit 7, ICU for signalized intersections and average vehicle delay for
unsignalized intersections were estimated for the study intersections using the respective methodologies
via Synchro° software. Resulting ICU and vehicle delays with their associated level of service results are
presented in Table 4. As shown in Table 4, all study intersections operate acceptable under existing
conditions with the exception of the unsignalized Main Street intersection with Maple Avenue
(Intersection #7), which operates at LOS E during the AM peak -hour. The Project is anticipated to cause
average vehicle delay at this intersection to increase by 13.4 seconds per vehicle. In addition, the ICU of
this intersection under Existing plus Project Conditions would increase by 2.8-percent which is above the
defined threshold of 2-percent for intersections operating deficiently without the addition of the Project.
Therefore, the deficiency at this study intersection is considered a Project induced deficiency.
DR "V7 Local Transportation Analysis March 14, 2024
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Page 7 of 10
f
Table 4- Existing plus Project Intersection LOS Summary
Existing
Existing Plus Project
ID
Intersection
Control
Peak
Delay
Delay
A Delay
a ICU
Hour
ICU u
(/o)
LOS
ICUu
(/o)
LOS
[sec]
[sec]
[sec]
1%]
Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @
AM
53.7
A
55.3
1.6
A
1
Signal
g
Walnut Avenue
PM
49.8
A
58.5
8.7
A
Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @
AM
60
B
62.6
2.6
B
2
Signal
g
Maple Avenue
PM
61
B
64.8
3.8
B
Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @
AM
58.8
A
61.5
2.7
B
3
Signal
g
Mariposa Avenue
PM
71.6
C
74.4
2.8
C
Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @
AM
56.8
A
58.9
2.1
A
4
Signal
g
Grand Avenue
PM
69.7
B
71.9
2.2
C
Pacific Coast Highway/SR-1 @
AM
62
B
63.7
1.7
B
5
Signal
El Segundo Boulevard
PM
96.5
E
98.9
2.4
E
AM
72
C
75.2
3.2
C
6
Main Street @ Imperial Avenue
Signal
PM
64.9
B
67.9
3.0
B
AM
35.7
54.9
E
49.1
13.4
57.7
2.8
E
7
Main Street @ Maple Avenue
AWSC
PM
16.6
-
C
19.5
2.9
-
-
C
AM
-
55.7
A
-
-
62.4
6.7
B
8
Main Street @ Mariposa Avenue
Signal
PM
-
60.5
B
-
-
65.1
4.6
B
AM
12.1
-
B
13.2
1.1
-
-
B
9
Main Street @ Pine Avenue
AWSC
PM
13
-
B
14.2
1.2
-
-
B
AM
-
47.4
A
-
-
50.6
3.2
A
10
Main Street @ Grand Avenue
Signal
PM
-
56
A
-
-
59.5
3.5
A
AM
9.6
-
A
10.1
0.5
-
-
B
11
Main Street @ El Segundo Boulevard
AWSC
PM
13.2
B
14.0
0.8
B
AM
8.7
A
8.8
0.1
A
12
W Grand Avenue @ Whiting Street
AWSC
PM
9.5
A
9.7
0.2
A
AM
8.8
A
9.1
0.3
A
13
W Grand Avenue @ Concord Street
AWSC
PM
9
A
9.3
0.3
A
AM
11.2
B
11.9
0.7
B
14
E Grand Avenue @ Eucalyptus Drive
AWSC
PM
11.2
B
11.7
0.5
B
AM
12.5
B
14.3
1.8
B
15
E Grand Avenue @ Center Street
AWSC
PM
13
B
14.6
1.6
B
AM
-
37.3
A
-
-
41.1
3.8
A
16
E Grand Avenue @ Kansas Street
Signal
PM
-
44.6
A
-
-
47.0
2.4
A
AM
18.5
-
C
17.0
-1.5
-
-
C
17
Maryland Street @ E Grand Avenue
TWSC
PM
13.8
B
15.7
1.9
C
AM
7.3
A
7.4
0.1
A
18
Maryland Street @ E Franklin Avenue
AWSC
PM
7.2
A
7.3
0.1
A
AM
12.6
B
13.6
1.0
B
19
Center Street @ E Mariposa Avenue
AWSC
PM
12.7
B
13.6
0.9
B
AM
10
-
B
10.6
0.6
-
-
B
20
Center Street @ E Pine Avenue
AWSC
PM
9.4
A
9.8
0.4
A
DR "V7 Local Transportation Analysis March 14, 2024
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Page 8 of 10
f
Recommended Improvements
Based on the intersection analysis criteria listed in the City of El Segundo's General Plan, the proposed
Project causes a Project -induced deficiency to occur at the unsignalized Main Street intersection with
Maple Avenue (Intersection #7). The project causes the deficient LOS E operation of the intersection to
degrade during the AM peak -hour by increasing the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio of the intersection by
0.086, which is greater than the defined General Plan threshold of 0.02.
In order to remove the Project -induced deficiency at the Main Street intersection with Maple Avenue
(Intersection #7), it is recommended that the City install a traffic signal at the intersection. A traffic signal
at this location would improve the LOS operations of the intersection to LOS A with an ICU of 57.7% in the
AM peak -hour.
A peak -hour signal warrant analysis was completed to confirm the appropriateness of the recommended
improvement. The results of the signal warrant confirmed that under Existing plus Project Conditions, the
intersection does meet Warrant 3A, the peak -hour signal warrant3. The signal warrant analysis worksheet
for the Main Street intersection with Maple Avenue (Intersection #7) is included in Attachment D.
II rigger Ai nallyslis
A trigger analysis was completed for the recommended improvement at the Main Street intersection
with Maple Avenue. A Project -induced deficiency at this intersection occurs when the addition of the
traffic associated with the proposed Project increases the intersection's V/C ratio by 0.02 or more.
Therefore, this deficiency would trigger when the project adds 22 trips to the intersection
(1,110*0.02=22.2). As shown in Exhibit 6, the proposed Project is anticipated to add 119 AM peak -hour
trips to the intersection. Therefore, the addition of 22 of the 119 trips anticipated to travel through this
intersection during the AM peak -hour equates to approximately 18.5-percent of Project build out (22
divided by 119 equals 18.5-percent) or 221 units.
Coirmcllus6oins
Based on the analysis provided herein, the following conclusions are provided:
■ As shown in Table 3, the proposed Project is estimated to generate 6,238 daily trips, with 476
occurring during the AM peak -hour and 511 occurring during the PM peak -hour.
■ As shown in Table 4, all study intersections operate at acceptable LOS under Existing Conditions
and Existing plus Project conditions with the exception of Main Street intersection with Maple
Avenue (Intersection #7), which operates at LOS E during the AM peak -hour under both analysis
scenarios.
■ The proposed Project was determined to induce the deficiency at Main Street intersection with
Maple Avenue. The addition of the proposed Project was determined to cause the intersection's
V/C ratio to degrade during the AM peak -hour by 0.086, which is greater than the City's General
Plan threshold of 0.02.
o It is recommended that a traffic signal be installed at the Main Street intersection with
Maple Avenue to remove the Project -induced deficiency. It was determined that the
peak -hour signal warrant is satisfied for the AM peak -hour under Existing plus Project
Conditions.
The deficiency at this intersection would trigger when the Project is at 18.5-percent of build out
or 221 units are constructed.
3 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. State of California Department of Transportation. January 2024.
DR "V7 Local Transportation Analysis March 14, 2024
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Page 9 of 10
f
Attachments
Exhibit 1— Project Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 — Project Land Uses Location Map
Exhibit 3 — Study Intersections, Traffic Control, and Lane Geometry
Exhibit 4— Existing Conditions Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes
Exhibit 5 — Project Trip Distribution
Exhibit 6 — Project Peak -Hour Trip Assignment
Exhibit 7— Existing plus Project Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes
AttachmentA—Traffic Count Data Sheets
Attachment B — Existing Conditions Analysis Worksheets
Attachment C — Existing plus Project Analysis Worksheets
Attachment D—Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets
DR "V7 Local Transportation Analysis March 14, 2024
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update Page 10 of 10
a)
CL
m
E
a)
W
0
cV Q
a)
CL
m
E
a)
W
0
El Segundo - Housing Element Update
Walnut.Ave.
Walnut Ave
IIIII
FR.Segandu.Blvd,
EI Segundo Blvd
fq
2
a
Grand Ave.
Grand Ave
N
'e
8
O
C1
�.............GrandAva
Grand Ave
N
NI
xl
a
..._Maple Ave
Maple Ave T`t-
--
I O
w
Grand Ave.
Grand Ave
O
n
r
f�l
W
� mu to
� C
_Nyy
LI
....,..... FM�nkWAva
Franklin Ave
01
C
W
W
y'
u
a!
I I �
MadpoaaMe.
Mariposa Ave tttt(-
IIIIII y..
Maple Ave
Maple Ave„
f0
C
u' in
SI.Segundo .ltivd.
El Segundo Blvd
Lu
Grand Ave.
Grand Ave
a
a
C
.p
Lu
III
e
ami
C'
u
MadmaAve.
Mariposa Ave
f0
CT
i
� t
....GrandAve.
Grand Ave � � tttt�
y
2
C1
III 0
..............GraradAve.
Grand Ave
rn
C
Pine Ave
f0
C
ca
Study Intersection
Stop Controlled Approach
N
Signalized Intersection
NOT TO SGLE
p I
Kii ii III ^)) III 111 rin
Exhibit 3
Study Intersection, Traffic Control, and Lane Geometry
El Segundo - Housing Element Update
0
8(25)
m v ail
13(56)
walnu
ut Ave
65(98)
1
15(11)
N
30(53)00
_
o rn
^ a
fq M
M
x �
ca
a
N
ry
N u
104(158)
C o
a!
222(293)
127(395)
.._F�.Segando.
1gundo Blvd
88(126)
192(299)
_ m
251(484)
m o
N
x y
ca
IL
e y
a
v In q 83(84)
In o t 28(19)
M 6(10)
® one Axe
Pine Ave
63(57) 1
56(24) m M N
r:
34(24) ^°
N N
C
i
9,
e 1506)
u 186(260)
10(11)
Grand Ave.
Grand Ave
3(8) 1
254(244) _ �'
13(9) y
E
O
C1
_W
o 3(12)
G
305(416)
� 8(8)
GrandAxe
Grand Ave
26(12)
343(380) r y
3(7) e
W
N N
m m a
95035)
v a t 43(64)
17(41)
Maph
a Ave
117(70)
1
100(61)
m m o
_
59(56)
y
2
ca
a
m
N
of rn
�
110(65)
v ,o m
0 0
19(22)
10
15(27)
I
mparla
Hai Ave
180(107)
1
37(24)
.pN., m i7
45(28)
m ry
f0 b
a ^� •�^
m �D
104(129)
m a m
t 160(178)
9(40)
areal
d Ave
48(60)
45(51)
^ ry
N
O
® OR
52(35)
m rn v 225(289)
ry � a wl
14(47)
Grand Axe.
Grand Ave
29(65) - 1 ID
273(281) o` m 7N
52(61)
r
W
� mu to
C
w 1(8)
G
v � o �'� 21(40)
3(0)
�J � Fralnkllrl,Axe
Franklin Ave
3(6)
26(43) CO ry ry o
2(5) � e
W
W
u
m
o.l
99051)
rn m 930 96)
78(149)
Manpow
Cosa Ave
99(123)
189(208)
D
46(48) �
=�
C- Y o
x
ca
a
of
a
IIIIII y,
O�
G rn
82(36)
m
m
19(25)
'0
49(37)
Maple Axe
Maple Ave
65(29)
27(12)
m pop N
25(27)
y V
C
u' y
m
145(189)
N
v rvI t 124(175)
y .... 151.8agundo
El Segundo Blvd
4(49)
179(297)
<�5y
5 6 as 68(61)
n SS p
v�i m a W 217(327)
21(10)
Grand Ave.
Grand Ave
75(61) - ID
280(320) • rn
27(13) a rNv
C
aA
W
III
e
ami
�o^,r c � 60(34)
ry m ry 125(212)
39(69)
�1 /..................Mar»RaaaAxe.
Mariposa Ave
37(20) 1
138(143) rn e
40(28) to ^' e e
iW1
H
b
r' c y cx.N
al
42(175)
m o 2 p 70(151)
48(264)
Gram
d Ave
146(211)�
124(144)
V
2
ca
a
V
�i
^ �
� 120(117)
n o
m
43(80)
30(48)
Madposl
wsa Ave
63(66)
59(70)
v
26(30)
.MN.,
m
f0 �
M
III
,Aa
ry 14(15)
a t 205(250)
Grand Ave.
Grand Ave
5(17) 1
219(240) rw•i
46(24)
e
a C
rn
rn
15(14)
ry rn
N o
311(393)
37(27)
Gram
d Ave
22(21)
1
333(416)
R,rD.
21(8)
n c
m
Pine Ave
76(66) t
m o
21(50) y a
C
ca
93 Study Intersection
Stop Controlled Approach
Signalized Intersection N
>«(m AM(PM) Peak HourVolume NOT TOSGLE
Kipp Exhibit 4
i ii III )) III 111 rin Existing Conditions Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes
'11
d
�6
Q
m
C
d
E
d
W
C
O
2
El Segundo - Housing Element Update
G u
L 0(0)
�o alp
o
0(0)
D ry
0(0)
....MMalau
ut Ave
20(12)
1
0(0)
o v o
o
11(5)
v
� m
fq
506)
... vi �6
9(26)
M N �
ETSeganda
igundo Blvd
11(6)
260 3)
ry o
38(21)
ao
0
N
e
G 4(2)
IA N
n t 0(0)
�J �E)ee Are
Pine Ave
18(9) 1
0(0) F F o
N r-4 O
8(4) N
N
N
C
i
o 3(7)
o v c 14(20)
Grand Ave.
Grand Ave }
0(1)
1704)
N
0(1) h O N
E r
8
O
C1
L 0(0)
o „ o
o o
-4— 14(36)
M
5(16)
Grand. AY.e,
Grand Ave
0(0)
40(20)
in m
3(2)
e
W
a ---,
1(2)
r al
n NI N -4— 3(5)
1 f— 4(7)
1 ..._MaPh
a Ave
21(11)
8(3)
15(8) R a v
fq
a �
0(0)
... a
0(0)
%D
O
13
Imparla
Hal Ave
20(12) -
1
0(0)
ry o
24(10)
°D V
f0
4(7)
t 15(27)
Gram
d Ave
11(8)
r
27(17)
m ry o
9(5)
h
I O
2(6)
o `ice 12(31)
N O r W;
fJ 1 l► � 1(2J
Grand Ave.
Grand Ave
33(18) o` m, o R
W O M
1(4) $
r
iWl
W
� mu to
� C
w 0(0)
c 2-4-0(0)
a n o
raekla Ave
Franklin Ave
15(8)
0(0) 0 6 0
o an o
0(0) e
W
W
m =>
G u
1(2)
5(10)
OD M M
....Madpesl
Was Ave
23(12)
1
15(5) _
m
16(8J
fq
IIIIII y..
1(2)
0(2)
m m
8(18)
Maple Ave
Maple Ave
3(2) _�
20) c ; O
0(0) a ry
f0
C
u' y
ry 14(40)
o aI 3(7)
y .... SI.Saw
d Segundo Blvd
0(0) —�
8(4)
<�5y
c r. as 13(15)
c LLJ 14(41)
Grand Ave.
Grand Ave
5(66) - ID
24(344) < o 0 0
0(13)
C
M
W
+t
c � 0(0)
0 0 0 3(8)
0 0 0
809J
Mariposa Ave
0(0)
11(4) o 0
o
0(0) to N
C1
a ---;
301)
6 ry
4(17)
N
♦
0(0)
....Gram
d Ave
29(16)
17(8)
N o
15(8)
D`
fq
a �
9(6)
a a
m n
v vt
1(1)
IM
1111
Mariposa
wsa Ave
16(8)
1
0(0)
v
f0
III
1(4)
0 o ry 13(6)
o a
4(11)
Grand Ave.
Grand Ave
0(6) O o
0 o v
izz
0(0)
C
M C
Y
3(8)
C
c
15(49)
0(0)
Gram
d Ave
3(10)
1
52(28)
o 0 0
O o
0(0)
rn
o
o m
Pine Ave
o(o)
m
9(5)
y N
C
ca
7
93 Study Intersection
Stop Controlled Approach
Signalized Intersection N
>«(m AM(PM) Peak HourVolume NOT TOSGLE
p Exhibit 6
Kii ii III )) III 111 �� in Project Peak -Hour Trip Assignment
El Segundo - Housing Element Update
CO
O
v v gL
8(25)
ao -4-- 7(4)
13(56)
walnu
ut Ave
85(110)
1
15(11)—p-
merry
41(58)
y
2
C1
a
ry v
O
N
r\
a
109(174)
a!
231(319)
127(395)
E1,Segando.
igundo Blvd
99(132)
218(312)
m 7
289(505)
c o
fq V 0% N
2 y
C1
IL
e
rn
a v 87(86)
n t 2809)
m in
�J ®,,,--Pioe Ara
Pine Ave
81(66)
56(24) a
r:
42(28) rn
N 00
C N
9,
cOY
o m o 18(23)
o N ci 200(280)
17(31)
Grand Ave.
Grand Ave
3(9) 1
271(258) _ �' ; N
13(10) y v
E
O
C1
o r. 3(12)
ry a 319(452)
13(24)
GrandAxe
Grand Ave
26(12)
383(380) in v
m
6(7) N
W
N
960 37)
a t 46(69)
21(48)
Maph
a Ave
138(81)
1
108(64)
m
74(64)
m
N
2
C1
a
n
�
�i
$
110(65)
S m
C -t -
-.4— 19(22)
15(27)
I
mparia
Hai Ave
200(119)
1
37(24)
g 'D In
69(38)
00 IN N OD N
f0 �
b
a n v
1080 36)
v N
Zin
175(205)
9(40)
areal
d Ave
59(68)
1
232(251) �
� rn N
54(56)
ry
N
O
ry a 54(41)
ry a w 237(320)
15(49)
Grand Axe.
Grand Ave
29(66)
306(299)
53(65)
r
W
� mu to
C
o w 1(8)
vi o �'� 21(40)
3(0)
�J � F��nkllrl,A>sa
Franklin Ave
18(14)
26(43) in ry o 0
2(5)
W
W
u
o
a!
100053)
ry
a � � 98(206)
79(151)
Madposl
Cosa Ave
122(135)
1
204(213)
_(-
v
_
62(56)
r, m
m e
N
O
2
�
C1
a
IIIIII y,
G
n so
83(38)
m
rn 10
19(27)
57(55)
Maple Axe
Maple Ave
68(31)
29(13)
m ry m
25(27)
rn e e
y � N
of
u' y
o
v ry 159(229)
C 127(182)
a �I
y .... 151.8egundo
El Segundo Blvd
4(49)
187(301)
81(76)
Lu
m o m
10 M 231(368)
21(10)
Grand Ave.
Grand Ave
90(66) 1
323(344) •FZ rn
27(13) t rw
C
aA
W
III
e
ami
60(34)
Z Z ry 128(220)
47(88)
�1 MaraRosaAxe.
Mariposa Ave
37(20) 1
149(147)10
ry C
40(28) to N e 000
iW1
H
N
alp
450 86)
rn n 74(168)
48(264)
Gram
d Ave
175(227)
141052)
rn o
97(180)
v
� =�
2
C1
a
�Ma
V
129(123)
v
44(81)
31(49)
Madposl
wsa Ave
79(74)
1 r-
61(71)
R m v
26(30)
M
f0 O
M
III
,Aa
^ a � 15(19)
ry m t 218(256)
rn
9(18)
Grand Ave.
Grand Ave
5(17) 1
219(246) ry m
46(24) a0 rn rn
e
C
M y;
18(22)
�o o in
vt N N
326(442)
37(27)
Gram
d Ave
25(31)
1
385(444)
21(8)
EMS=6 c
0
ao
M
Pine Ave
76(66) t
V m
30(55) A
y � M
b
C
C3
93 Study Intersection
Stop Controlled Approach
Signalized Intersection N
>«(m AM(PM) Peak HourVolume NOT TOSGLE
Kipp Exhibit 7
i ii III )) III 111 rin Existing Plus Project Peak -Hour Traffic Volumes
f
Attachment A
Traffic Count Data Sheets
DR "V.7 Local Transportation Analysis
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update
ID: 24-020046-001
City: El Segundo
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
PCH (SR-1) & Walnut Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
PCH (SR-1) Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM AM 178 1731 15 22
O
= NONE
Y
Q
a
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
241 0 92 �
AM NOON PM
Q' • 0 0 0 � 0
3 65 0 98 � 1
15 0 11 ♦ 0.5
30 0 53 � 0.5
U F
)
7 F
)
AM NOON PM
alll"S ( I
N
00 Q1
64�� + ~t 7
14♦�♦6
303� ♦ r+r 12
cn � w
N
Cauca (IIII7 )
O O O
0?� + ~t 0
♦ 0O♦0
oi«, � �r o
O O o
Cauca (Illll f�
N O
l0 N M
961� + ~t 23
11♦�♦3
533� f r+r 56
l0
PM
NOON
AM
NOON 0
PM
NOON
AM
NOON 0
0
1733
0
2170
4
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM
NOON NONE
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM
.>
PM
NOON
AM
0.5 t
25
0
8
0.5 ♦
4
0
7
1 r
56
0
13
0 �
0
0
0
41 1 0 1 73NORTHBOUND
0
1
4
0
n
V
2134
11
25
2019
26 PM
O
0
0
0
0 NOON
1778
4
56
1638
43 AM
PCH (SR-1)
�y PedeSx'R'll"IIaI'Hs (0I'05SWRllll
a
Q to .y 2l
O o o O
O P`S d z a a z a v� O
PM 6 ♦
4 PM
NOON Q ♦ ♦ Q NOON
AM 2 � 3 AM
NOON Q ♦ ♦ Q NOON
PM 2 ♦ ♦ 1 PM
�O O O r O W
O O v� d °z a a °z a
O yo oo� O
A'Lj Oy � QC
PM NOON AM
0
C
Z
1
m
O
v
1P. 0
f t 1
1♦ � 1
Oiti ♦ r+r 1
IIIIi" (IINCII1 F
-1 )
-j O O O
0?� ♦ L►t 0
0♦ � ♦ 0
oiti ♦ �r o
00 o
III°I"'i" �IIC�II�
M
r-I r-I r-I
2?� + ~t 2
0♦�♦1
oiti ♦ �r o
O �N N
PM NOON AM
0
C
Z
1
m
O
v
1P. 0
f t 1
1♦ � 1
Oiti ♦ r+r 1
IIIIi" (IINCII1 F
-1 )
-j O O O
0?� ♦ L►t 0
0♦ � ♦ 0
oiti ♦ �r o
00 o
III°I"'i" �IIC�II�
M
r-I r-I r-I
2?� + ~t 2
0♦�♦1
oiti ♦ �r o
O �N N
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
PCH (SR-1) & Maple Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: 24-020046-002 PCH (SR-1) Day: Tuesday
City: El Segundo • •UND Date: 2/13/2024
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM AM 43 1536 143 9 1736 AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM c
O 1
= NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE m
Y M
a 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM PM 42 2022 68 11 2103 PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
W
AM NOON PM 4% ♦ 4 `% 4 PM NOON AM
0 4 1 0 1 t 135 0 95
113 0 186 <:=
• ' • 1 ♦ 64 0 43
a • 0 0 0 0 Signalized 1 r 41 0 17 D
117 0 70 1 3868 0 4680 0 0 0 0 •
AM NOON PM
100 0 61 ♦ 0.5 0.96 0.98
236 0 380
59 0 56 0.5 0 1 4 0
AM NOON PM ♦ PM NOON AM
Cars ( I) PM 2155 36 80 1887 107 PM II°I"'III"' (AIM)
0 00
�-i NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON -i M Ln
115.E + ~ t 86 AM 1639 27 27 1515 137 AM 2 L f ♦ ~ t 9
100♦ �4--42
0♦ 1
593� ♦ r+r 17 NORTHBOUND
Oiti ♦ r+r 0
(P 4�- w PCH (SR-1)
V
Cars (IINIIN) II°'I"'I" (IINCIIN)
PedeS'R"IIaAH (IaI"ApA()
41+~L o20 a-21 O J01 O� O♦ ,OOOO 2O0?t0 i °a� ?
t 0
0♦ O♦0 d z O 00
0zIr 0 C) V C) C)O0
r'F- Pm 8 Pm
«� t r►
cc O NOON 10 ♦ ♦ ~ ♦ 0 NOON O O O
Cars (Ilflll� AM 5 1 AM II°I"'I" �IICII�
N O NOON 0 0 NOON N
� N l0 PM 2 ♦ ♦ 9 PM*j L -1 41
68.# + ~t131 �Ln O w r CIr 2.t + L~t4
0♦1 0r1+64 Oyo61♦ , o a a o I O 0♦ 4-0 2
56-4 41 OO z z 4 O 0-4 r0
oo+
w (n
ID: 24-020046-003
City: El Segundo
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
PCH (SR-1) & Mariposa Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
PCH (SR-1) Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 69
1381
169
29
1678
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 88
1755
170
44
1984
4J
&
4
s
4
0
4
2
0
m
0
0
0
0
W
a
1
99
0
123
189
0
208
♦ 0.5
46
0
48
'!V 0.5
AM NOON
PM
Cars I)
PM
I* ID
M A IS
NOON
+ ~t
96.f4 98
AM
189♦ �4-92
451 76
t r+r
� � o
F
1!
� w
rn
Cars (IIII)
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
X
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
1 t
151
0
99
1 ♦
196
0
93
3
1 r 149 0 78 0
.. 0
0 0 0 1 •
.> 494 1 0 1 469
0
1
4
1
n
V
1984
32
104
1666
116 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
1519
14
56
1451
110 AM
NORTHBOUND
PCH (SR-1)
O
O
O
Q�
��
��„"Sx'R,'ll"II�II'H (II'axr()
z z
2�p
a�
0?�
+
~t0
00
a� c�
d
i a
a °z
a
200
0♦O♦0
O
0
0,4
O
t
0
�r0
0
PM
NOON
�N
♦
O N I N O
♦
cy,
♦
PM
NOON
3
Q
6
Q
Cars (I3II)
AM
AM
1
1
AM
1
AM
3
0000
a^-1
�
NOON
PM
0
0
♦
♦
� ♦
♦
0
17
NOON
PM
+
~t
1221� 147
�0
I
�
Lnn
I_
204♦
48 -4
♦ 196
r 146
0
O_
'�
d
o
°z a
o
a °z
O
•1
I�
t
F,
iy
0 A
yOoy
oo�
O
P.
�
00
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
O
M M L
3 f
♦ ~t 1
0♦
4-1
11
N
t r► r 2
W V F
cn
II°'I"'I"
(IINCII)
j O
O O L
0.*
♦ ~ t 0
0♦
0
0-4
O
♦ 0
O O F
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
I
L
1 *
+ ~t4
4♦
0
Oiti
O
♦ r+r 3
O F
ID: 24-020046-004
City: El Segundo
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
PCH (SR-1) & Grand Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
PCH (SR-1) Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 1851109011681 17 II 1624
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 139
1769
40
13
1860
4J
&
4
s
4
0
4
1
0
381 I 0 1 437 a
a
•
0
0
0�
0
e
146
0
211
1.5
.1
124
0
144
♦ 1.5
82
0
172
'!V 0
AM NOON
PM
CaIIrS I)
PM
0
10
11% 0 10
i O -i
NOON
+ ~t
142.E 39
AM
123 ♦ ♦ 68
791 45
t '►r
F
W
Cars (IINIIN)
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
22
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
1 t
175
0
42
2 ♦
151
0
70
2 r
264
48 R
0
.. a
0
0 0
0 •
=:> 354 1 0 1 696
0
1
4
1
n
V
2217
12
147
1461
170 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
1230
10
126
1419
404 AM
NORTHBOUND
PCH (SR-1)
O
O
O
Q�y
��„"Sx'R,'ll"II�II'H (II'axr()
�� z z
2�p
a�
0?�
+
~t0
00
a� c� d
0 a
a °z
a
200
0♦
0i�,
<
O
�
N�
0
00
t
r►r 0
O
PM
01
8
o V o
♦
5
Pm
NOON
Q ♦
♦
Q
NO
NOON
Cars (I3II)
AM
AM
1
1
15
AM
1
AM
^
L
NOON
PM
0 ♦
2
♦�
♦
♦
0
8
NOON
PM
*j
2081
+
ly
t168
-
CD CD
CD
141♦
151
O
0
•i
t
r 260
0d
Oy
0
zz
aa°a169-4
z
cdO
O
Oi~
a
0y
od
W
V
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
00
ON N
4��
♦ ~t 3
1♦
4--2
31
N
t r►r 3
W O F
rn
II°'I"'I"
(IINCIIN)
O
O O L
0.*
♦ ~ t 0
0♦
0
0-4
00
1
t �r 0
O F
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
ly L
-1 pl
31
+
t7
3♦
0
3-4
♦ r►r 4
F� W F
N
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
PCH (SR-1) & El Segundo Blvd
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: 24-020046-005 PCH (SR-1) Day: Tuesday
City: El Segundo , Date: 2/13/2024
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
AM NOON PM
AM 133
971
88
14
2091
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 71
2052
101
9
1733
4J
&
4
s
4
1
4
2
0
>
•
1
0
3
'�j 0
e
N
.1 1
�
88
0
126
w
192
0
299
♦ 2
251
0
484
'!V 1
AM NOON
PM
Cars I)
PM
14
Ln
NOON
+ ~
84.f t 102
AM
180♦
♦ 209
2471
123
00
♦ �r
Ln L
F�
UI UI
W
Cars
(IINIIN)
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
X
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
1 t
158
0
104
2 4-293
0
222
m
2 r
395
W
127 ro
0
0
0
r
CL
0 •
0
W
a
695
0
530
0
2
4
0
n
V
2968
37
331
1440
295 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
1376
27
388
1885
250 AM
NORTHBOUND
PCH (SR-1)
O
O
O
Q�y
��„"Sx'R,'ll"II�II'H (II'axr()
�� z z
200
a41 �
O.f
+~
t 0
0 0
a� c� d
i a
a °z
a
2
0 0
0♦O♦0
0,4
O
oo.gI
0
00
t
r►r0
0
PM
J^oM
3
♦
♦
5
NOON
Q ♦
♦
Q
NO
NOON
Cars (I1II)
AM
AM
1
3
2
AM
0
AM
n
ON
O0
NOON
PM
0 ♦
3
♦
�
♦
♦
0
2
NOON
PM
125J�
+
~t 156
�nj
0 0
0 0
0
291 ♦♦
281
0
o
o
482-4
•1
t
r 394
0
O
'� d
y00y
zz a
a °z
a
c`s
O
O
w
W
NJ
i~
NJ
00
a
1
,
odd
Q�
I�
NJl0
w
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
l0
N
4f *.p
♦ ~t 2
12 ♦
13
41
7V
t r►4
N
W Fr
II°'I"'I"
(IINCIIN)
-j O
O O L
0.*
♦ ~ t 0
0♦
0
0-4
O
t 0
O O F
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
O
� O
-1 *j
1 *
+ ~t 2
8♦
12
2iti
O
♦ r►r 1
F, 01 F
01
ID: 24-020046-006
City: El Segundo
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Main St & Imperial Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Main St Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 55
600
60
0
903
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 141
611
81
0
708
4J
&
4
s
4
0
2
0
0
am0RUAKWO
m
a'
•
0
0
0
0
A
0
180
0
107
1
37
0
24
♦ 0.5
45
0
28
'!V 0.5
AM NOON
PM
Cars I)
PM
-*,, � s
NOON
+ ~
179.# t 109
AM
37♦♦18
441 13
t r+r
F
01 O V
rn
Cars (IINIIN)
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
X
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
0 t
65
0
110
1 ♦
22
0
19
0 r
27
15
0
0
0
of
0 •
0
.> 140 1 0 1 126
0
0
2
0
n
V
n
1*1
It
9*
666
0
24
536
35 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
660
0
17
613
29 AM
Main St
O
O
O
Q�y
��
P�„"Sx'R,'ll"IIaII'H (II'axr()
z z
2�p
a41 �
O.f
+~
t 0
0 0 a� c�
d
z a
a °z
a
2
0 0
0♦O♦0
0,4
O
�000
000�
0
00
t
�r0
0
PM 1
NOON Q
♦
♦
♦
5
Q
Pm
NO
NOON
Cars (1:11)
AM Q
AM 3
Q
2
AM
AM
r�-I
t.O
00
NOON 0
PM 1
♦
♦
� ♦
♦
0
0
NOON
PM
1051�
+
~t 65
�a
u'
24♦
�
♦21
0 ��
z
o
28 Z
•i
t
r 26
O
O yb0y
d
zz a
a °z
a
c�
O
O
�
Ln
W
i~
�
a
odd
Q�
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
oL
1�
+
t 1
0♦
4-1
11
t rr 2
►
F
II°'I"'i"
(IINCIIN)
O
O O L
0.*
♦ ~ t 0
0♦
0
0-4
00
1
♦ �r 0
O F
III°I"'i"
�IIC�II�
-i
M 0
ly L
-1 *j
2?
+
t 0
0♦�♦1
0-4
1 O
♦ ►r 1
W F� F
ID: 24-020046-007
City: El Segundo
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Main St & Maple Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Main St Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 18
619
37
0
621
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 15
589
29
0
649
4J
&
4
s
4
0
2
0
0
900IbmwWO
a • 0 0 0 0
m ..
65 0 29 0
27 0 12 ♦ 1
25 0 27 '!V 0
AM NOON PM
Cars ( I)
�n
o
M
+
L*t
65.f 81
26♦
♦18
241
t
4
r+r 49
F
Cars
(IINIIN)
O
O
O41 L*L
O.f
+ t 0
0♦O♦0
0,4
O
t
O
�►r 0
O F
Cars (II3III)
Ln
a1
ono
Ln
rn
N
L~t
+
29.#
35
12♦
♦25
27-4
7NF0
f
r•r 37
N
PM
NOON
AM
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
X
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
0 t
36
0
82
1 ♦
25
0
19
0 r
0 C
37
0
49 D
0 •
0
0
.> 63 1 0 1 107
0
0
2
0
n
V
653
0
32
584
22 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
693
0
19
474
43 AM
Main St
�y
Q
Pedes'R'lrilaiI'Hs (0II'a 5SWRllll(s)
to
y
a
2l
O
O
P`S d
o
z Q
0°2
Q z
a
O
O
i�j +--i
O M
M O
O
PM
0
♦
g
PM
NOON
Q ♦*>
4
0
NOON
AM
21
AM
AM
12
73
AM
NOON
0 ♦
♦
0
NOON
PM
0
♦
♦
4
PM
Hoorn
�ou,
O
O '� d
°z a
0
a °z
a
"1, O
O
O
A'Lj
yo
Oy
odl
�
O
QC
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
N
0 L
0�
♦
t 1
1♦
1
11
ti
7O
t f*r 0
cn N F
II°'I"'I"
(IINCIIN)
O
O O L
L►
0 *
♦
t 0
0♦
0
0-4
1
t �r 0
F
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
j
Ln 0
ly L
-1 *0
O1
+
t1
0♦�♦0
0-4
1 0
t �r 0
w 0 F
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Main St & Mariposa Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: 24-020046-008 Main St Day: Tuesday
City: El Segundo • •UND Date: 2/13/2024
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM AM 44 373 105 0 540 AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM c
'o i
= NONE NOON 0 0 0 0 0 NOON NONE m
Y M
a 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM PM 41 440 147 0 627 PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
W
AM NOON PM 4% ♦ 4 `% 4 PM NOON AM
0 2 0 0 0 t 117 0 120
107 0 144 <:=
AIR
• ' • 1 ♦ 80 0 43
3
A 0 0 0 0 '�j 0 Signalized 0 r 48 0 30 0
o .e " w
63 0 66 .1 0 12741 0 1551 0 0 0 0 0 y
AM NOON PM
59 0 70 ♦ 1 0.81 0.92
� 262 0 198 �
26 0 30 0 0 0 2 0
AM NOON PM n 1*1 ♦ & PM NOON AM
Cars ( I) PM 518 0 23 444 45 PM II°I"'III"' (AIM)
N Ln
14 M 0 NOON 0 0 0 NOON N O
63.# + ~ t 119 AM 429 0[;L357 34 AM 0 f ♦ 4 t 1
59♦ < ♦ 43 0♦ 0
251 t r►r 30 • • 13 r 0
*% f* F
0 0 � Main St
Cars (NOGIN) IIII°'I"'I" (IINC II )
O O O Q� P� Sx'R'll"IIEAII'H (II"GApEAR) a� 1 O O O L
Lo�' 20 J ♦ ,,�
0?� + ~t 0 O O a� c d i a a 0z a '� 02 O O 0?� t 0
0♦ O ♦0 O O 0♦ ♦0
0z r0 �� o N °' o v�n Oz r0
O O OF- Pm NOON 20 ♦ ♦ ~ ♦ 09 NOON cc O F
Cars (Ilf l"1 AM 43 48 AM
00 n NOON 0 ♦ ♦ 0 NOON
141 + y PM 11 -0.
.., ♦ 15 PM -1 4 + y L
661 t117 �oo� rocnL 0? t0
70♦ ♦80 O �g °o 2 2 °o g F-W
�O 0♦ 4-0
29-4 ♦ r►r 48 O O yoQ'1, d z a a z a P�oo4 O O 1-4 ♦ r►r 0
7�N 0F
Ali 2 Q� O O
ID: 24-020046-009
City: El Segundo
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Main St & Pine Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Main St Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 40
331
56
0
413
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 46
384
54
0
573
4J
&
4
s
4
0
2
0
0
m0�=
a • 0 0 0 0
a 63 0 57 0
56 0 24 ♦ 1
34 0 24 '!V 0
AM NOON PM
Cars ( I)
00
M
�n
N
M
l0
Ln
+
~t
63 f 82
56 ♦
4--28
341
I�
7
t
N
'►r 6
V
F
Do
�
Cars
(IIII)
�o
o
O~ L
O.f
+ t 0
0♦O♦0
0,4
O
t
O
�►r 0
O F
Cars (II1III
)
�
O
M
Ln
+
~t
57.#
83
24♦
♦19
22-4
W
f
�r 10
V FV
V
PM
NOON
AM
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
X
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
0 t
84
0
83
1 ♦
19
0
28
0 r
0
10
0
6
0 •
0
0
.> 85 1 0 1 119
0
0
2
0
n
V
418
0
38
432
7 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
371
0
18
267
7 AM
Main St
�y Pedes'R'lrilaiI'Hs (0II'a 5SWRllll(s)
Q to
y
a
2l
O
O P`S d
o
z Q
0°2
Q z
a
O
O
o� IC)
rnorn�
PM 28
♦
16
PM
NOON Q ♦*>
♦
0
NOON
AM
4
AM
AM 15
5
AM
NOON 0 ♦
♦
0
NOON
PM 18
♦
12
PM
o
O�
d
z,
° a
z
0
a °
z
a
cOZ)
O
A'Lj Oy
odl
O
QC
PM NOON AM
III°I"'III"'((AIM)
I
1 N
l0 O L
4t
0 f
♦
1
0♦
4--0
01
7 O
♦ �r0
W O F
II°'I"'I"
(IINCII)
�o
o OL
L►
0.*
♦
t 0
0♦
0
0-4
1 O
♦ �r 0
O o
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
1
ly L
-1 40
O1
+
t1
0♦
♦0
2-4
1 F,
♦ ►r 0
(n O F
ID: 24-020046-010
City: El Segundo
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Main St & Grand Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Main St Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 68
143
135
0
294
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 73
161
136
0
462
4J
&
4
s
4
0
2
0
0
280 I 0 1 314 a
a
•
0
0
0
0
C
..
48
0
60
0
205
0
234
♦ 2
45
0
51
'!V 0
AM NOON
PM
Cars I)
PM
10
Ql N
M M
NOON
+ ~t
48.f 101
AM
202 ♦
♦ 156
431
9
♦ �r
F
o
Cars
(IINIIN)
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
X
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
0 t
129
0
104
2 ♦
178
0
160
0 r
40
9 R
0
.. a
0
0 0
0 •
=:> 396 1 0 1 351
0
0
2
0
n
V
n
1*1
It
9*
252
0
63
273
26 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
197
0
52
142
11 AM
Main St
O
O
O
Q�y
��
P�„"Sx'R,'ll"IIaII'H (II'axr()
z z
2�p
a41 �
O.f
+~
t 0
0 0 a� c�
d
z
a
a °z
a
2
0 0
0♦
0i�,
<
O
-4
0
�C
f
�r 0
o
o
r-j
00
OF-
Pm
20
♦
♦
♦
♦
Pm
NOON
OJ
NOON
Cars (I3II)
AM 5
AM 11
3
4
AM
AM
O
N
L
NOON Q
PM 19
♦
♦
Q
22
NOON
PM
41
+
y
601 t 127
w
z
I_
233 ♦�♦
51 Z
177
r 40
0
O -?1,d
z
a
o
a °z
a
O
c�
O
•1
N
Ol
i~
r F
O a yb0y
dl
O
Q�
00
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
ly L
�.l
0f
♦
t 3
3♦
*..4
21
N
♦ �►r 0
N O F
II°'I"'I"
(IINCIIN)
j O
O O L
0.*
♦ ~ t 0
0♦
0
0-4
O
♦ 0
O O F
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
ly L
-1 *j
O1
+
t2
1♦�♦1
0-4
I F,
♦ .r 0
(n O F
ID: 24-020046-011
City: El Segundo
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Main St & El Segundo Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Main St Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 4
0
120
0
149
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 24
0
178
0
238
4J
&
4
s
4
0.5
0
1.5
0
Hu"REAKWO
m
•
1
0
0
'�j 0
N
0
..
4
0
49
w
179
0
297
♦ 1
0
0
0
0
AM NOON
PM
Cars I)
PM
rn
O
NOON
+ ~t
4.f* 140
AM
178 ♦
♦ 121
01
O
7
♦ �r 0
O o
F
Cars
(IIII)
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
X
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
1 t
189
0
145
1 ♦
175
0
124
m
0
0 r 0
0
0
0 0
0 • c
>
475
0
299
0
0
0
0
n
V
n
1*1
It
9*
0
0
0
0
0 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
0
0
0
0
0 AM
Main St
O
O
O
Q� PedeSx'R,'ll"IIaII'H (II'axr()
�� z z
2�p
a41 �
O.f
+~
t 0
0 0 a� c� d
i a
a °z
a
2
0 0
0♦
0i�,
<
O
�.qoN
ooq�
0
O
f
0
�r0
0 F-
PM 0
♦
1
PM
NOON Q ♦
♦
Q
NO
NOON
Cars (I3II)
AM (
>
3
AM
1
AM
AM Q
N
O
00
a^I
NOON 0 ♦
PM 0
♦�
♦
♦
0
58
NOON
PM
48.f
+
~t185
�0
00
00
0
Fw-
294 ♦♦
173
0
0 '� d
0 o
zz a
o
a °z
a
O
O
0-4
■
O
*
■
O
r 0
�
O F
O
c�
Q�
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
I o,
o4 L
0f
t 5
1♦
3
01 «,
1 00
♦ �r 0
O F
II°'I"'I"
(IINCII)
j O
O O L
0.*
lot~ t 0
0♦
0
0-4
7O
♦ �r 0
O r0
F
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
-1 O
O O L
1 *
+ ~t4
3♦�♦2
0-4
1 0
♦ �.r 0
0 0 F
ID: 24-020046-012
City: El Segundo
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Whiting St & W Grand Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Whiting St Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 8 1 12 1 14 1 Oil 38
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 9
20
12
0 58
4J
&
4
s 4
0
1
0
0
231 I 0 1 323 a
m
a'
•
0
0
0
'�j 0
s
.1 0
5
0
17
3
219
0
240
♦ 2
46
0
24
'!V 0
AM NOON
PM
Cars I)
PM
00
- 1
NOON
+ ~t
5 f 14
AM
215♦
♦ 200
461
5
�VF
♦ '►r
F
Cars
(IIN IIN)
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
22
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
0 t
15
0
14
2 ♦
250
0
205
0 r 7 io
5
CL
0 0 0 •
=:> 258 1 0 1 238
0 0
1
0
n
V
n 1*1
t
51
0 64
26
6 PM
0
0 0
0
0 NOON
63
0 18
19
5 AM
NORTHBOUND
Whiting St
O
O
O
Q�y
��„"Sx'R,'ll"IIaII'H (II'axr()
�� z z
2�p
a�
0?�
+
~t0
OO
a� c� d
°z a
a °z
a
200
0♦
0
<
0
0
i�
f
r
-
N
O -q
N O
N
00
0
PM
NOON
5
0 ♦
♦
♦
♦
5
0
Pm
NO
NOON
Cars (I3II)
AM
AM
4
2*>
5
AM
4
AM
M
O
N
N
-1PM
L
NOON
0
10
♦
♦
0
5
NOON
PM
*j
+
ly
171
t 15
o cn
cn o
ko
F
I
240 ♦♦
249
0
o
o
O
24 Z
•i
r 7
~
O
O
'� d
yb0y
zz a
a °z
a
c�
dl
O
O
r F
a
?'
Q�
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
J o,
L
0f
♦ L,
t0
4♦
*..5
01 «,
I�
♦ �r 0
F, O F
II°'I"'I"
(IINCIIN)
O
O O L
O.f
♦ ~ t 0
0♦
0
0-4
7O
♦ �r 0
O r0
F
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
O
O O L.L
—1
0.*
+ t 0
0♦�♦1
0-4
1 0
♦ �.r 0
0 0 F
ID: 24-020046-013
City: El Segundo
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Concord St & W Grand Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Concord St Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 10 1 7 1 14 1 1 II 24
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 9
13
14
0 35
4J
&
4
s 4
0
1
0
0
212 I 0 1 287 a
m
a'
•
3
0
6
0
s
c�
0
2
0
8
3
259
0
244
♦ 2
13
0
9
'!V 0
AM NOON
PM
Cars I)
PM
(n
kD -i L
NOON
+ ~t
2 f 10
AM
256 ♦
♦ 183
131
7
♦ '►r
F
Cars
(IIII)
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
22
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
0 t
16
0
10
2 ♦
260
0
187
0 r 11CL
io
70C 8 12 •
=:> 277 I 0 1297
0
0
1
0
n
V
n
1*1
t
33
0
12
11
11 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
27
0
12
11
12 AM
NORTHBOUND
Concord St
O
O
O
Q�
��
��„"Sx'R,'ll"II�II'H (II'axr()
z z
2�p
a41 �
O.f
+~
t 0
0 0
a� c�
d
z
a
a °z
a
2
0 0
0♦
oi�
<
O
�+q
-q
0
f
�r0
-
O
N
O
N�
00
O
PM
1
♦
♦
♦
7
Pm
NOON
Q
Q
NO
NOON
Calls (f)
AM
AM
1
4
AM
Jr
AM
Q
M
NOON
PM
0
0
♦
♦
♦
♦
0
4
NOON
PM
8.#
+
~t16
��
O
v
V o
�F.,j
244♦
♦ 259
0
0
o
9-4
•i
r 11
0
O
'�
y�0y
d
z
a
a °z
a
c�
O
O
r*
a
p0�
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
L
0f
L ,
t0
3♦
*..4
ozh
7000
♦ �r 0
F
II°'I"'I"
(IINCII)
O
O O L
0.*
♦ ~ t 0
0♦
0
0-4
7O
♦ �r o
O r0
F
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
O
O O
L*L
-1 41
0.*
+
t 0
0♦�♦1
0-4 ti
O
t rr o
O O F
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Eucalyptus Dr & W Grand Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
ID: 24-020046-014 Eucalyptus Dr Day: Tuesday
City: El Segundo , Date: 2/13/2024
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:30 PM - 05:30 PM
AM NOON PM
AM 23
59
41
0
ill
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 23
45
48
0
165
4J♦4Lit
4
0
1
0
0
278 I 0 1 346 a
m
a'
•
0
0
0
'�j 0
s
c�
.1 0
29
0
65
3
273
0
281
♦ 2
52
0
61
'!V 0
AM NOON
PM
Cars I)
PM
N
L
NOON
+ ~
—
29.# t 51
AM
268 ♦
♦ 222
521
14
t �r
o w F
Cars
(IINIIN)
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
X
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
0 t
35
0
52
2 ♦
289
0
225
0 r 47 AO
0
CL
0 0
=:> 352 1 0 1 328
0
0
1
0
n
V
n
1*1
t
153
0
34
65
23 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
125
0
30
30
14 AM
Eucalyptus Dr
O
O
O
Q�y
��
��„"Sx'R,'ll"II�II'H (II'axr()
z z
2�p
a41 �
O.f
+~ t 0
0 0 a� c�
d
i
a
a °z
a
2
0 0
0♦
0z
<
♦ 0
O,,
-4C)-4
-4o-�
I 0
r0
00
O
PM 5
NOON Q
♦
♦
♦
12
0
PM
NOON
Calera (I3II)
AM 3
AM 3
12
5
AM
AM
rm
�
NOON 0
PM 7
♦
♦
�
♦
♦
0
13
NOON
PM
+
~t
65.# 35
�
o
o
♦287
r 47
O274♦
0d
°
o
a °
az
c�O�
O603
—1
•i
4�-
t
CnO
Ln
W i~
0y
a 0y
Q�
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
1 L
0f
♦
t 1
5♦
4-- 3
01 «,
♦ �r 0
o � F
II°'I"'I"
(IINCIIN)
j O
Olot~ O L
0.*
t 0
0♦ <0"
♦ 0
0-4
1
7 00
♦ �r 0
O r F
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
0
—1 0
ly L
41
O1
+
t0
7♦�♦2
1iti
0
♦ r►r 0
0 0 F
ID: 24-020046-015
City: El Segundo
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Center St & W Grand Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Center St Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 56
36
45
0
183
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 71
69
66
0
220
.J♦4Lit
4
0
1
0
0
285 I 0 1 425 a
m
a'
•
0
0
0
'�j 0
s
c�
.1 0
75
0
61
3
280
0
320
♦ 2
27
0
13
'!V 0
AM NOON
PM
Cars I)
PM
Ln
M � L
NOON
+ ~t
—
75.# 67
AM
274♦
�4-- 213
271
20
N
♦ �r
O 01
Cars
(IIII)
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
X
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
0 t
61
0
68
2 ♦
327
0
217
0 r 10 io
21 0
CL
0 0 0•
e
=:> 413 1 0 1 352
0
0
1
0
n
V n
1*1
t
92 0
27
98
27 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
84 II 0 1 12 1 40 127 AM
Center St
O
O
O
Q�
��„"Sx'R,'ll"II�II'H (II'axr()
�� z z
2�p
a41 �
O.f
+~
t 0
O O
a� c� d
°z
a
a °z
a
2
0 0
0♦
<
O
0
0,4
�,
0
�
�
o
�
V o
�
�
O
0
r►r>
0
PM
0
♦
♦
♦
1
PM
NOON
Q
Q
NO
NOON
Cars (131)
AM
AM
2
3
2
AM
33
AM
O^
-O
NOON
PM
0 ♦
2
♦�
♦
♦
0
2
NOON
PM
611�
+
~t61
NJ
o
r
N o
o�
'`
316 ♦
♦ 326
O
o
o
O
13 Z
•i
r 9
0
O
'� d
y�0y
z
a
a °z
a
c�
dl
O
O
V
00
i~
V
a
Q�
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
L L
0f
♦ ,
t 1
6♦
4-- 4
01
100
♦ f► r 1
If F
II°'I"'i"
(IINCII)
j O
Olot~ O L
0.*
t 0
0♦ <MM
♦ 0
0-4
7O
♦ �r 0
O r0
F
III°I"'i"
�IIC�II�
r-i 0
ly L
—1 *j
0.*t0
+
4♦�♦1
Oiti
0
♦ r►r 1
0 0 F
ID: 24-020046-016
City: El Segundo
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Kansas St & W Grand Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Kansas St Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 44 120 1 16 1 0 II 47
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 29
9
9
1 55
4J
&
4
s 4
0
1
0
0
367 I 0 1 444 a
m
a'
•
0
0
0
'�j 0
s
c�
.1 0
22
0
21
3
333
0
416
♦ 2
21
0
8
'!V 0
AM NOON
PM
Cars I)
PM
L
NOON
+ ~t
—
22.# 15
AM
327♦
♦ 306
201
34
F
t '►r
L
Ln
Cars
(IIN IIN)
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
22
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
0 t
14
0
15
2 ♦
393
0
311
0 r 27 io
37 0
CL
0 0 0•
a
=:> 501 1 0 1 365
0
0
1
0
n
V
n
1*1
t
44
0
22
19
76 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
78
0
12
10
16 AM
NORTHBOUND
Kansas St
O
O
O
Q�y ��„"Sx'R,'ll"II�II'H (II'axr()
�� z z
2�p
a41 �
O.f
+~
t 0
0 0 a� c� d
z a
a °z
a
2
0 0
0♦O♦0
O
0
0,4
00
t
r►r0
O
MoN
PM O
morn
♦
Pm
0
NOON Q ♦
♦
Q
NO
NOON
Cars (131)
AM 5
AM 1
0
0
AM
AM
N00
O1
L
NOON 0 ♦
PM 0
♦�
♦
♦
0
1
NOON
PM
4j
211
+
ly
t11
�O
I
CD
r CDr�
I ',
412♦
♦ 389
0
o
o
O
8 3
•i
t
r 24
0 '� d
O y�0y
z a
a °z
a
c�
O
O
NJ
N
00
r*
14
W
a
�O�
Q�
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
-
L, L
al
0f
♦
t0
6♦
4-- 5
1iti
t r►r 3
F
II°'I"'i"
(IINCIIN)
j O
Olot~ O L
0.*
t 0
0♦ <0"
♦ 0
0-4 -1
7O
t �r 0
O r0
F
III°I"'i"
�IIC�II�
r-i 0
ly L
—1 *j
O1
+
t3
4♦
4
Oiti
1 O
♦ ►3
F� W F
ID: 24-020046-017
City: El Segundo
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Maryland St & Grand Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Maryland St Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 25
1
17
0
32
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 10
5
5
0
26
4J♦4Lit
4
0
1
0
0
335 I 0 1 429 a
a
•
0
0
0
0
C
..
26
0
12
0
343
0
380
♦ 2
3
0
7
'!V 0
AM NOON PM
Cars I)
PM
N
1 1
NOON
+ ~t
26.f 3
AM
336♦
♦ 299
21
Vl
t r►r 8
W N F
Cars
(IIII)
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
X
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
0 t
12
0
3
2 ♦
416
0
305
0 r
8
8 R
0
.. C
a
0
0 0
0 •
=:> 393 1 0 1 363
0 0
1
0
n
V
n 1*1
t
20
0 3
2
8 PM
0
0 0
0
0 NOON
12
0 5
3
3 AM
NORTHBOUND
Maryland St
O
O
O
Q� PedeSx'R,'ll"IIaII'H (II'axr()
�� z z
2�p
a41 �
o.f
+~
t 0
0 0 a� c� d
0 a
a °z
a
2
0 0
0♦O♦0
0,4
0
O
0
0
0
O
t
0
r►r -
0
0-1
PM 0
o
-0'♦
0
V
O
PM
NOON Q ♦
Q
NO
NOON
Calera (I3II)
AM Q
AM Q
>
3
1
AM
AM
NOON 0 ♦
PM 0
♦�
♦
♦
0
0
NOON
PM
11.#
+
~t12
7-*
O -N
�- O
I
'o
376♦
♦415
d
a
o
a °
a73
O
O
•i
W
t
8
r~
F
O0
a
zz
z
O
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
O
O ~O L
0 f
♦
t0
7♦
4-- 6
11
O
t r►r 0
O If F
II°'I"'I"
(IINCII)
O
O O L
o.f
♦ ~t 0
0♦
0
0-4
00
1
t �r 0
O F
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
O
O O L
-1 *j
1.*
+ ~ t 0
4♦�♦1
0-4
1 0
t �r 0
0 0 F
ID: 24-020046-018
City: El Segundo
08:00 AM - 09:00 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:00 PM - 05:00 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Maryland St & Franklin Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Maryland St Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 0
8
10
0
6
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 4
5
5
0
18
4J♦4Lit
4
0
1
0
0
24 I 0 1 44 a
m
a' 1 0 0 0
0
A 3 0 6 0
U.
26 0 43 ♦ 1
2 0 5 '!V 0
AM NOON PM
Cars ( I)
O
00 m L
3 f + ~t 0
26♦
♦21
� F
♦ r+r 2
O F
Cars
(IIII)
�o
o OL*L
O.f + t 0
0♦O♦0
0,4
O
�►r 0
O O F
Cars (II3III)
Ln L«1
L0
+
61 t8
41♦<�>♦37
5-4
o
t r►r 0
O F
PM
NOON
AM
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
X
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
0 t
8
0
1
1 ♦
40
0
21
0 r 0 0 3
0 C 0 0 0 •
9
�0lw
0 0
1
0
n
V
n 1*1
t
10
0 0
4
0 PM
0
0 0
0
0 NOON
13
0 2
2
0 AM
NORTHBOUND
Maryland St
�y Pede w'R'll"IIaII'Is (0II'a 5SWRllll(s)
Q to
y
a
2l
O
O P`S d
o
z Q
0°2
Q z
a
O
O
i�j V
O M
M O
—
PM 0
♦
O
PM
NOON Q ♦*>
♦
0
NOON
AM
O
1
AM
AM
0
AM
NOON 0 ♦
♦
0
NOON
PM 0
♦
♦
0
PM
�r
O
O
��
° a
z
0
a °
z
a
codlO
O
A'Lj Oy
4
O
QC
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
ly L
o.1
0f
♦
t 1
0♦
.0-0
1iti
TOO
♦ r+r 1
F
II°'I"'I"
(IINCII)
O OL
L►
—jO
0 *
♦
t 0
0♦
0
0-4
O
♦ r•r 0
O O F
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
0
—1 0
ly L
—1 41
0*
+
t0
2♦�♦3
0-4
1 0
♦ r•r 0
0 0 F
ID: 24-020046-019
City: El Segundo
07:45 AM - 08:45 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Center St & Mariposa Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Center St Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 20
85
24
0
233
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 24
111
30
0
252
.J♦4Lit
4
0
1
0
0
171 I 0 1 260 a
m
•
0
0
0
0
W
a
0
�
37
0
20
138
0
143
♦ 1
40
0
28
'!V 0
AM NOON
PM
Cars I)
PM
o
. N L
NOON
+ ~t
-
37.f 60
AM
137♦
♦124
391
39
7
rn
t '►r
w o
F
rn
Cars
(IIII)
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
X
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
0 t
34
0
60
1 ♦
212
0
125
3
0 r 69 0 39 0
0 C 0 0 0 •
e
=:> 239 1 0 1 222
0
0
1
0
n
V
n
1*1
t
208
0
24
198
66 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
164
0
26
136
60 AM
Center St
O
O
O
Q�
��„"Sx'R,'ll"II�II'H (II'axr()
�� z z
2�p
a41 �
o.f
+~
t 0
O O
a� c� d
°z a
a °z
a
2
0 0
0♦
<
0
0,4
00
t
r►r 0
-
0
PM
--1
3
GI
o rn � o
♦ ♦
rn
Pm
3
NOON
Q ♦
♦
Q
NO
NOON
Cars (f)
AM
AM
14
29
*>
63
AM
59
AM
, L
NOON
PM
0 ♦
1
♦
0
3
NOON
Pm
�
201
+
~
t 34
�o
CD -N
w o
w
I '�
143 ♦
♦ 212
)
o
o
O
27-4
•i
t
r 69
~
0
O
d
y�0y
z a
a °z
a
c�
O
O
l0
r F
a
odd
Q�
V
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
O
O O L
~t0
0 f
♦
1♦
4-1
11
100
t r►r 0
O F
II°'I"'I"
(IINCII)
O
O O L
o.f
♦ ~t 0
0♦
0
0-4
00
1
t �r 0
O F
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
0
0 -1
ly L
-1 *j
O1
+
t0
0 ♦
�♦0
1iti
1 O
♦ r►r 0
F� I� F
ID: 24-020046-020
City: El Segundo
07:30 AM - 08:30 AM
0
= NONE
Y
Q
a 04:15 PM - 05:15 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
Center St & Pine Ave
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
Center St Day: Tuesday
. _ Date: 2/13/2024
AM NOON PM
AM 36
132
0
0
214
NOON 0
0
0
0
0
PM 50
167
0
0
268
.J♦4Lit
4
0
1
0
0
a • 0 0 0 0
a 76 0 66 0
0 0 0 ♦ 1
21 0 50 '!V 0
AM NOON PM
Cars ( I)
M
m
O
+
L*t
76.f 0
0♦
♦0
211
4 �
♦
'►r 0
F
00
Cars
(IIII)
�o
o
O~L
o.f
+ t 0
0♦O♦0
0,4
O
O
�►r 0
O F
Cars (II3III)
0
'
O
+
~
66.#
to
0♦
♦0
50-4
W
�
f
N
�r 0
O F
N
PM
NOON
AM
0
AM 7:00 AM - 09:00 AM 0
z
1
NOON NONE m
X
PM 4:00 PM - 06:00 PM o
N
PM
NOON
AM
0 t
0
0
0
0 ♦
0
0
0
0 r
0
0
0
0
0 •
0
0
�' 0m
0
0
1
0
n
V
n
1*1
t
219
2
36
202
0 PM
0
0
0
0
0 NOON
154
1
49
138
0 AM
Center St
Ped�„".s'R,'ll"IIEAIns (0II"GA5SWRIII(s)
Q to
y
a
2l
O
O P`S d
o
z Q
0°2
Q z
a
O
O
O�M
O LLn
� O
��
PM 3
♦
♦
O
PM
NOON Q ♦*>
♦
0
NOON
AM 13
0
AM
NOON 0 ♦
♦
0
NOON
PM 4
♦
♦
0
PM
�rnorn
ooa,�
OO'� d
°z a
0
a z
aO
O yo
A'Lj Oy
odl
�
O
QC
PM NOON AM
II°I"'III"'((AIM)
L
�.l
0f
♦ z,
t0
0♦
4-- 0
01
1 00
♦ �r0
O F
II°'I"'I"
(IINCII)
�o
o OL
L►t
o.f
♦
0
0♦
0
0-4
7O
♦ �r 0
O r0
F
III°I"'I"
�IIC�II�
I
ly L
pl
O1
+
t0
0♦
♦0
0-4
1 0
♦ �.r 0
0 0 F
f
Existing Conditions Analysis Worksheets
DR "V.7 Local Transportation Analysis
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
65
15
30
13
7
8
4 56
1638
43
22 1,5
Future Volume (veh/h)
65
15
30
13
7
8
4 56
1638
43
22 15
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
66
15
31
13
7
8
57
1671
44
15
Peak Hour Factor
0.98
0.98
098
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
256
47
97
229
69
79
98
4024
106,
34
Arrive On Green
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.06
0.62
0.62
0.02
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
66
0
46
13
0
15
57
1242
473
15
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1398
0
1668
1360
0
1707
1781
1609
1840
1781
Q Serve(g_s), s
2.2
0.0
1.3
0.4
0.0
0.4
1.5
6.5
6.5
0.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
2.6
0.0
1.3
1.7
0.0
0.4
1.5
6.5
6.5
0.4
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.67
1.00
0.53
1.00
0.09
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
256
0
145
229
0
148
98
2990
1140
34
V/C Ratio(X)
0.26
0.00
0.32
0.06
0.00
0.10
0.58
0.42
0.42
0.45
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
719
0
696
679
0
712
417
4763
1816
272
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
21.9
0.0
21.1
21.9
0.0
20.7
22.7
4.8
4.8
23.9
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh
0.5
0.0
1.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
5.4
0.1
0.2
9.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.7
1.0
1.2
02
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
224
0.0
22.3
22.0
0.0
21.0
28.0
4.9
5.0
329
LnGrp LOS
C
A
C
C
A
C
C
A
A
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
112
28
1772'
Approach Delay, s/veh
22.4
21.4
5.7
Approach LOS
C
C
A'
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
54
34.9
8.8
7.2
33.2
8.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
75
48.5
20.5
11.5
44.5
20.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
2.4
8.5
4.6
3.5
10.6
3.7
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
00
16.1
0.3
0.0
18.1
0.0
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
1731
178
Future Volume (veh/h)
1731
178
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
1766
182
Peak Hour Factor
0.98
0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
Cap, veh/h
3484
359
Arrive On Green
0.58
0.58
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
1427
521
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1609
1760
Q Serve(g_s), s
8.6
8.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
86
8.6
Prop In Lane
0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
2816
1027
V/C Ratio(X)
0.51
0.51
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
4370
1594
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
6.1
6.1
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh
0.1
0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In
16
1.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
62
6.4
LnGrp LOS
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
1963
Approach Delay, s/veh
6.5
Approach'LOS
A
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
2: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Maple Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
-11 --1. .4--- fl I L* t
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
117
100
59
17
43
95
27 27
1515
137j
9 143
'1536
43
Future Volume (veh/h)
117
100
59
17
43
95
27 27
1515
137
9 143
1536
43
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
122
104
61
18
45
99
28
1578
143
149
1900
45
Peak Hour Factor
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
263
171
100
178
289
245
53
3376
306
190
4117
116
Arrive On Green
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.03
0.56
0.56
0.11
0.64
0.64
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
122
0
165
18
45
99
28
1259
462
149
1191
454
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl244
0
1754
1221
1870
1585
1781
1609
1772
1781
1609
1838
Q Serve(g_s), s
7.0
0.0
6.6
1.0
1.6
4.2
1.2
11.7
11.7
6.1
8.9
8.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
8.6
0.0
6.6
7.6
1.6
4.2
1.2
11.7
11.7
6.1
8.9
8.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.37
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.31
1.00
0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
263
0
271
178
289
245
53
2693
989
190
3065
1167
V/C Ratio(X)
0.46
0.00
0.61
0.10
0.16
0.40
0.53
0.47
0.47
0.78
0.39
0.39
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
411
0
481
324
513
435
202
2693
989
441
3065
1167
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.1
0.0
29.5
33.0
27.4
28.5
35.8
9.9
9.9
32.6
6.6
6.6
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 1.3
0.0
2.2
0.2 i
0.2
1.1
8.1
0.6
1.6
7.0
0.4
1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr2.2
0.0
2.9
0.3
0.7
1.6
0.6
3.5
4.1'
2.8
2.3
2.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.4
0.0
31.7i
33.3
27.6
29.6
43.9
105
11.5
39.5
7.0
7.6
LnGrp LOS C
A
C
C
C
C
D
B
B
D
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
287
162
1749
1794
Approach Delay, s/veh
32.0
29.4
11.3
9.8
Approach LOS
C
C
B
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), Q.5
46.2
16.1
6.7
52.0
16.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmat§.6
37.5
20.5
8.5
47.5
20.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+llo,t
13.7
10.6
3.2
10.9
9.6
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.3
12.8
1.0 _
0.0
14.7
0.4
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
3: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
99
189
46;
1 78
93
99
14 56
1451
110
29 169
1381
69
Future Volume (veh/h)
99
189
46
1 78
93
99
14 56
1451
110
29 169
1381
69
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ';
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
105
201
49
83
99
105
60
1544
117
180
1469
73
Peak Hour Factor
0.94
0.94
0.94'
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94 I
0.94
0.94
094
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
136
253
62
107
296
251
87
2784
686
275
2932
146
Arrive On Green
0.08
0.17
0.17
0.06
0.16
0.16
0.05
0.43
0.43
0.08
0.46
0.46
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
105
0
250
83
99
105
60
1544
117
180
1120
422
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl781
0
1807
1781
1870
1585
1781
1609
1585
1728
1609
1814
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.1
0.0
9.4
3.3
3.3
4.2
2.4
12.7
3.2
3.6
11.5
11.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.1
0.0
9.4'
3.3
3.3
4.2
2.4
12.7
3.2
3.6
11.5
11.6
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.20
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.17
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
136
0
315
107
296
251
87
2784
686
275
2237
841
V/C Ratio(X)
0.77
0.00
0.79
0.77
0.33
0.42
0.69
0.55
0.17
0.66
0.50
0.50
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
298
0
531
245
494
419
238
2784
686 '
510
2237
841
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.3
0.0
28.1
33.0
26.6
27.0
33.3
15.1
12.4
31.8
13.3
13.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 8.8
0.0
4.5
11.1
0.7
1.1
9.3
0.8
0.5
2.6
0.8
2.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr2.1
0.0
4.4'
1.7
1.4
1.6
1.2
4.2
1.1
1.5
3.7
4.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 41.1
0.0
32.7i"
44.1
27.3
28.1
42.7
15.9
12.9 _"34.5
14.1
15.5
LnGrp LOS D
A
C
D
C
C
D
B
B
C
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
355
287
1721'
1722
Approach Delay, s/veh
35.2
32.4
16.6
16.6
Approach LOS
D
C
B
B
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), W.2
35.3
8.8:
16.9
8.0
37.5
9.9
15.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmag.5
30.8
9.8
20.9
9.5
"31.8
11.9
18.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+115,@
14.7
5.3
11.4
4.4
13.6
6.1
6.2
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.2
9.8
0.1
1.0 _
0.0
9.7
0.1
0.6
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
4: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
-11 --1. .4--- fl I L* t
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
146
124
82+
48
70
42
10 126
1419
404
17 168
1090
185
Future Volume (veh/h)
146
124
82
48
70
42
10 126
1419
404
17 168
1090
185
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
125
174
87
51
74
45
134
1510
430
179
1160
197
Peak Hour Factor
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
226
303
145
264
272
121
173
2442
602
" 226
2286
385
Arrive On Green
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.38
0.38
0.13
0.41
0.41
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
125
134
127
51
74
45
134
1510
430
179
1001
356
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl781
1870
1665
1728
(1777
1585
1781
1609
1585'
1781
1609
1701
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.1
4.2
4.5
0.9
1.2
1.7
4.5
11.8
14.3
6.0
9.6
9.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4:1
4.2
4.5
0.9
1.2
1.7
4.5
11.8
14.3
&0
9.6
9.7
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.69
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.55
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
226
237
211
264
272
121
173
2442
602
226
1975
696
V/C Ratio(X)
0.55
0.57
0.60
0.19
0.27
0.37
0.78
0.62
0.71
0.79
0.51
0.51
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
518
544
484
1005
1033
461
319
2442
602
360
1975
696
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.4
25.4
25.6
26.8
27.0
27.2
27.3
15.6
16.4
26.3
13.6
13.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1
2.1
2.7
0.4
0.5
1.9
7.3
1.2
7.1'
6.2
0.9
2.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.7
1.9
1.8
0.3
0.5
0.7
2.1
3.8
5.5
2.7
3.0
3.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.5
27.6
28.3
27.2
27.5
29.1
34.6
168
23.5"
32.5
14.6
16.3
LnGrp LOS C
C
C
C
C
C
C
B
C
C
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
386
170
2074
1536
Approach Delay, s/veh
27.8
27.8
19.3
17.1
Approach LOS
C
C
B
B
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), Q.3
28.0
12.3
10.5
29.8
9.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gman.5
23.5
18.0
11.1
24.9
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+llo,Q
16.3
6.5
6.5
11.7
3.7
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.2
5.6
1.4 '
0.1
7.1
0.5
HCM 6th LOS
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
5: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E El Segundo Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
1 88
192
251
127
222
104
27 388
1885;
250
14 88
971
133
Future Volume (veh/h)
1 88
192
251
127
222
104
27 388
1885
250
14 88
971
133
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ';
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
92
200
261
132
231
108
404
1964
260
92
1011
139
Peak Hour Factor
0.96
0.96'
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
096
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
118
694
310
206
669
298
509
2740
362
184
2440
601
Arrive On Green
0.07
0.20
0.20
0.06
0.19
0.19
0.15
0.47
0.47
0.05
0.38
0.38
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
92
200
261
132
231
108
404
1636
588
92
1011
139
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777'
1585
1728
1777
1585
1728
1609
1733
1728
1609
1585
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.2
3.9
13.0
3.1
4.6
4.9
9.3
22.2
22.3
2.1
9.5
4.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.2
3.9
13.0
3.1
4.6
4.9
9.3
22.2
22.3
2.1
9.5
4.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.44
1.00
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
118
694
310
206
669
298
509
2283
820
184
2440
601
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.29
0.84
0.64
0.35
0.36
0.79
0.72
0.72
0.50
0.41
0.23
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
206
877
391
307
782
349
756
2283
820
231
2440
601
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
37.8
28.2
31.9
37.8
29.0
29.1
33.9
17.3
17.3
37.9
18.8
17.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
10.3
0.2'
12.7
3.3
0.3
0.7
35
2.0
5.4
2.1
0.5
0.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In
2.1
1.6
5.8
1.3
1.9
1.8
3.9
7.6
9.0
0.9
3.3
1.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
48.1
28.4
44.6
41.1
29.3
29.8
37.4
19.2
22.6"39.9
19.3
18.3
LnGrp LOS
D
C
D
D
C
C
D
B
C
D
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
553ii
471
2628
1242
Approach Delay, s/veh
39.3
32.7
22.8
20.7
Approach LOS
D>
C
C
C
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s8.9
43.4
9.4'
20.6
16.6
35.7
10.0
20.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (GmaxN.5
38.9
7.3:
20.3
18.0
26.4
9.5
18.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+114,t
24.3
5.1
15.0
11.3
11.5
6.2
6.9
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0
11.5
0.1
1.0 _
0.8
6.3
0.1
1.3
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
6: Main St & Imperial Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
180
37
45';
15
19
110
17
613
29
60,
600
55
Future Volume (veh/h)
180
37
45
15
19
110
17
613
29
60
600
55
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ';
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
222
46
56
19
23
136
21
757
36
74
741
68
Peak Hour Factor
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
477
155
189;
117
59
249
111
1896
89
192
1638
146
Arrive On Green
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
222
0
102
178
0
0
425
0
389
439
0
444
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl227
0
1702`
1610
0
0
1817
0
1674
1607:
0
" 1656
Q Serve(g_s), s
1.2
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.2
0.0
0.0
6.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
5.1
0.0
2.0i
3.9
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
5.2
5.3
0.0
6.3
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.55
0.11
0.76
0.05
0.09
0.17
0.15
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
477
0
344
425
0
0
1136
0
960
1026
0
950
V/C Ratio(X)
0.46
0.00
0.30
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.37
0.00
0.41
0.43
0.00
0.47
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
780
0
764
814
0
0
1136
0
960
1026
0
950
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.7
0.0
13.6
14.3
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.0
4.8
4.8
0.0
5.0
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.7
0.0
0.5
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.7
0.0
0.7
1.3
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
1.4
1.6
0.0
1.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.4
0.0
14.1
15.0
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
6.0
6.1'
0.0
6.6
LnGrp LOS B
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
324
178
814
883
Approach Delay, s/veh
15.0
15.0
5.8
6.4
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
27.5
12.6
27.5
12.6
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
23.0
18.0
23.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
7.2
7.1
8.3
5.9
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
5.0
1.1 _
5.6
0.8
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
7: Main St & Maple Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh35.7
Intersection LOS E
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
65
27
25
49
19
82
19
474
43 37
619 18
Future Vol, veh/h
65
27
25
49
19
82
19
474
43 37
619 18
Peak Hour Factor '
0.75
0.75
0.75+
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75 0.75,
0.75 0.75
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
87
36
33
65
25
109
25
632
57 49,
825 24
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0 0
2 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
2
2
'
1
1'
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
2
2
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
15.5
16.3
28.9
48.9
HCM LOS;
C
C
D
E'
Vol Left, %
7%
0%
56%
33%
11 %
0%
Vol Thru, %°
93%
85%
23%
` 13%
89%
95%
Vol Right %
0%
15%
21 %..
55%
0%
5%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
256
280
117
150
347
328
LT Vol
19
0,
65
49
37
0
Through Vol
237
237
27
19
310
310
RT Vol
0
43
25
82
0
18
Lane Flow Rate
341
373
156
200
462
437
Geometry Grp
7
7
2'
2
7
7
Degree of Util (X)
0.715
0.766
0.351
0.425
0.942
0.879
Departure Headway (Hd)
7.539
7.39+
8.098
i7.653
7.337
7.243
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
481
489j
445
, 472
494
502
Service Time
5.286
5.137
6.136
5.689
5.083
4.988
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.709
0.763
0.351
0.424
0.935
0871
HCM Control Delay
27.1
30.5
15.5
16.3
54.5
43
HCM Lane LOS
D
D
C`
C
F
E
HCM 95th-tile Q
5.6
6.7
1.6
2.1
11.5
9.6
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 8
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
8: Main St & Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
63
59
26;
30
43
120
20
357
34
105;
373
44
Future Volume (veh/h)
63
59
26
30
43
120
20
357
34
105
373
44
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ';
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
78
73
32
37
53
148
25
441
42
130
460
54
Peak Hour Factor
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
267
183
64
154
100
220
146
1620
150
387
1205
140
Arrive On Green
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
183
0
0
238
0
0
267
0
241
310
0
334
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl681
0
0
1628
0
0
1803
0
1650
1382
0
1654
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.9
0.0
4.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.0
0.0
0.0i
4.5
0.0
0.0
2.7
0.0
2.8
3.7
0.0
42
Prop In Lane
0.43
0.17
0.16
0.62
0.09
0.17
0.42
0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
514
0
0
474
0
0
1055
0
861
869
0
863
V/C Ratio(X)
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.28
0.36
0.00
0.39
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
959
0
0
956
0
0
1055
0
861
869
0
863
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.7
0.0
0.0
12.3
0.0
0.0
4.6
0.0
4.6
4.7
0.0
4.9
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.4
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.8
1.1'
0.0
1.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.7
1.0
0.0
1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.2
0.0
0.0
13.1
0.0
0.0
5.2
0.0
5.4
5.9
0.0
6.2
LnGrp LOS B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
183
238
508
644
Approach Delay, s/veh
12.2
13.1
5.3
6.1
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
12.0
22.5
12A
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
4.8
5.0
6.2
6.5
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
2.7
0.9 _
3.6
1.1
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 9
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
9: Main St & Pine Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.1
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
63
56
34
6
28
83
18
267
7 56
331 40
Future Vol, veh/h
63
56
34
6
28
83
18
267
7 56
331 40
Peak Hour Factor '
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87 0.87;
0.87 0.87
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
72
64
39
7
32
95
21
307
8 64
380 46
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0 0
2 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
2
2
'
1
1'
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
2
2
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
11.9
10.7
11.5
12.9
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
12%
0%
41 %
5%
25%
0%
Vol Thru, %
88%
95%'
37%
` 24%
i75%
81 %
Vol Right %
0%
5%
22%..
71 %
0%
19%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
152
141
153
117
222
206
LT Vol
18
0
63
6
56
0
Through Vol
134
134
56
28
166
166
RT Vol
0
7
34
83
0
40
Lane Flow Rate
174
161
176
134
255
236
Geometry Grp
7
7
2'
2
7
7
Degree of Util (X)
0.303
0.276
0.302
0.222
0.433
0.384
Departure Headway (Hd)
6.255
6.159
6.182
15.939
6.123
5857
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
573
581;
579
601
586
612
Service Time
4.015
3.919
4.246
4.008
3.878
3.612
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.304
0.277'
0.304
0.223
0.435
0.386
HCM Control Delay
11.7
11.3
11.9
10.7
13.5
12.2
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
1.3
1.1
1.3
0.8
2.2
1.8
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 10
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
10: Main St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 48 205 45'; 9 160 104 52 142 11 135; 143 68
Future Volume (veh/h) 48 205 45 9 160 104 52 142 11 135 143 68
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 55 233 51 10 182 118 59 161 12 153 162 77
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 198 496 111 121 437 266 477 1226 94 673 687 338
Arrive On Green 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
180
0
159
169
0
141
120
0
112
203
0
189
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1504
0
1609
1839
0
1479
1464
0
1670
1308
0
1586
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.9
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
2.8
0.0
0.0
1.2
2.1
0.0
2.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.7
0.0
3.0i
2.7
0.0
2.8
2.2
0.0
1.2
3.3
0.0
2.2
Prop In Lane
0.31
0.32
0.06
0.84
0.49
0.11
0.75
0.41
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
460
0
346
506
0
318
922
0
874
868
0
830
V/C Ratio(X)
0.39
0.00
0.46
0.33
0.00
0.44
0.13
0.00
0.13
0.23
0.00
0.23
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
931
0
843
1060
0
775
922
0
874
868
0
830
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.9
0.0
11.8
11.7
0.0
11.7
4.2
0.0
4.2
4.7
0.0
4.4
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.5
0.0
1.0
0.4
0.0
1.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.8
0.3
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.0
0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.4
0.0
12.7i
12.0
0.0
12.7
4.5
0.0
45
5.3
0.0
5.1
LnGrp LOS B
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
339
310
232
392
Approach Delay, s/veh
12.6
12.3
4.5
5.2
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
11.9
22.5
11.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
4.2
5.7
5.3
4.8
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
1.1
1.7 ,'
2.1
1.5
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 11
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
11: El Segundo Blvd & Main St Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.6
Intersection LOS A
Future Vol, veh/h 1
4
179
124
145
120
4
Peak Hour Factor ' 0.85
0.85
0.85+
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow 1
5
211,
146
171
141
5
Number of Lanes 0
0
1
1
1
2
0
Opposing Approach WB
EB
Opposing Lanes 2
1
0
Conflicting Approach Left SB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2
0
2
Conflicting Approach Right
SB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 0
2
1
HCM Control Delay 10.4
8.8
10
HCM LOS; B
A
A
Vol Left, %
2%
0%
0%
100%
91 %
Vol Thru, %
98%
100%
0%
` 0%
0%
Vol Right %
0%
0%
100%.
0%
9%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
184
124
145
80
44
LT Vol
4
0
0
80
40
Through Vol
180
124
0
0
0
RT Vol
0
0,
145
0
4
Lane Flow Rate
216
146
171
94
52
Geometry Grp
4
7
7
7
7
Degree of Util (X)
0.307
0.21
0.212
0.163
0.088
Departure` Headway (Hd)
5.112
5.186
4.481
6.252
6.142
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
701
691;
798
, 571
581
Service Time
3.156
2.926
2.221
4.017
3.907
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.308
0.211',
0.214
0.165
0.09
HCM Control Delay
10.4
9.3
8.4
10.2
9.5
HCM Lane LOS
B
A
A
B
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
1.3
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.3
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 12
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
12: Whiting St & W Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.7
Intersection LOS A
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
5
219
46
5
' 205
14
18
19
5 14
12 8
Future Vol, veh/h
5
219
46
5
205
14
18
19
5 14
12 8
Peak Hour Factor '
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93 0.93
0.93 0.93
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
5
235
49
5
' 220
15
19
20
5 15,
13 9
Number of Lanes
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
8.8
8.7
8.6
8.4
HCM LOS;
A
A
A
A
Vol Left, %
43%
4%
0%
5%
0%
41 %
Vol Thru, %
45%
96%
70%
` 95%
88%
:12%
35%
Vol Right %
12%
0%
30%.
0%
24%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
42
115
156
108
117
34
LT Vol
18
5+
0
5
0
14
Through Vol
19
110
110
103
103
12
RT Vol
5
0,
46
0
14
8
Lane Flow Rate
45
123
167
116
125
37
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.065
0.17
0.22
0.161
0.171
0.052
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.166
4.975
4.745
5.016
4.908
5.107
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
693
721;
757
716
1732
700
Service Time
3.203
2.702
2.472
2.744
2.636
3.145
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.065
0.171',
0.221
0.162
0.171
0.053
HCM Control Delay
8.6
8.7
8.8
8.7
8.7
8.4
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A'
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.2
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 13
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
13: Concord St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.8
Intersection LOS A
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
3
3
254
13
7
10
186
15
12
10
15
1
13
9
9
Future Vol, veh/h
3
3
254
13
7
10
186
15
12
10
15
1
13
9
9
Peak Hour Factor '
0.90
0.90
0.90,
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
090
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
090
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
3
3
282'
14
8
11
207
17
13
11'
17
1
14
10
10
Number of Lanes
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
8.9
8.7
8.3
8.4
HCM LOS;
A
A
A
A
Vol Left, %
32%
2%
0%
10%
0%
42%
Vol Thru, %
27%
98%'
91%
` 90%
86%
:14%
29%
Vol Right %
41 %
0%
9%.
0%
29%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
37
133
140
110
108
32
LT Vol
12
3
0
11
0
13
Through Vol
10
130
127
99
93
9
RT Vol
15
0'
13
0
15
9
Lane Flow Rate
41
148
156
122
120
36
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.057
0.203
0.211
0.171
0.163
0.05
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.008
4.95
4.873
'5.041
4.895
5.105
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
715
726
737
; 713
734
701
Service Time
3.042
2.672
2.595
2.764
2.618
3.139
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.057
0.204
0.212
0.171
0.163
0051
HCM Control Delay
8.3
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.6
8.4
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A'
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.2
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.2
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 14
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
14: Eucalyptus Dr & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.2
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
29
273
52
14
225
52
30
30
14 41'
59 23
Future Vol, veh/h
29
273
52
14
225
52
30
30
14 41
59 23
Peak Hour Factor '
0.80
0.80
0.80,
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80 0.80
0.80 0.80
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
36
341
65+
18
281
65
38
38
18 51,
74 29
Number of Lanes
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
11.5
11
10.4
11.1
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
41 %
18%
0%
11 %
0%
33%
Vol Thru, %
41 %
82%'
72%
` 89%
68%
:32%
48%
Vol Right %
19%
0%
28%.
0%
19%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
74
166
189
127
165
123
LT Vol
30
29
0
; 14
0
41
Through Vol
30
137
137
113
113
59
RT Vol
14
0,
52
0
52
23
Lane Flow Rate
92
207
236
158
206
154
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.158
0.337
0.365
0.261
0.323
0.255
Departure Headway (Hd)
6.145
5.868
5.583
'5.932
5.652
5.98
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
583
612;
643
, 606
635
600
Service Time
4.196
3.605
3.32
3.671
3.39
4.027
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.158
0.338
0.367
0.261
0.324
0.257
HCM Control Delay
10.4
11.6
11.5
10.8
11.1
11.1
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.6
1.5
1.7
1
1.4
1
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 15
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
15: Center St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.5
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
75
280
27
21
217
68
12
40
27 45
36 56
Future Vol, veh/h
75
280
27
21
217
68
12
40
27 45
36 56
Peak Hour Factor '
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76 0.76
0.76 0.76
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
99
368
36
28
286
89
16
53
36 59,
47 74
Number of Lanes
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
13.5
11.9
10.9
11.9
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
15%
35%
0%
16%
0%
33%
Vol Thru, %
51 %
65%
84%
` 84%
61 %
:39%
26%
Vol Right %
34%
0%
16%.
0%
41
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
79
215
167
130
177
137
LT Vol
12
75
0
21
0
45
Through Vol
40
140
140
109
109
36
RT Vol
27
0,
27
0
68
56
Lane Flow Rate
104
283
220
170
232
180
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.183
0.486
0.36
0.295
0.379
0.307
Departure Headway (Hd)
6.347
6.183
5.891
6.23
5.874
6.135
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
562
583
609
574
611
584
Service Time
4.423
3.937
3.645
3.989
3.632
4.2
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.185
0.485
0.361
0.296
0.38
0.308
HCM Control Delay
10.9
14.7
12
11.6
12.2
11.9
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.7
2.6
1.6
1.2
1.8
1.3
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 16
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
16: Kansas St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 22 333 21 37 ' 311 15 12 10 16 16 20 44
Future Volume (veh/h) 22 333 21 37 311 15 12 10 16 16 20 44
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1781 1781 1781 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 26 392 25 44 366 18 14 12 19 19 24 52
Peak Hour Factor 0.85 0.85 0.85+ 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 8 8 8 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 136 750 47i 162 695 35 311 268 326 222 277 456
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
233
0
210
221
0
207
45
0
0
95
0
0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl784
0
1666
1559
0
1676
1521
0
0
1639
0
0
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.0
0.0
3.9
0.6
0.0
3.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.8
0.0
3.9i
4.5
0.0
3.8
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
Prop In Lane
0.11
0.12
0.20
0.09
0.31
0.42
0.20
0.55
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
537
0
396
493
0
399
906
0
0
954
0
0
V/C Ratio(X)
0.43
0.00
0.53
0.45
0.00
0.52
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
998
0
847
919
0
851
906
0
0
954
0
0
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.8
0.0
11.8
11.8
0.0
11.7
4.4
0.0
0.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.6
0.0
1.1
0.6
0.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.2
0.0
1.2
1.2 i
0.0
1.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.3
0.0
12.9
12.4
0.0
12.8
4.5
0.0
00
4.7
0.0
0.0
LnGrp LOS B
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
443
428
45
95
Approach Delay, s/veh
12.6
12.6
4.5
4.7
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
12.9
22.5
12.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
2.5
5.9
3.0
6.5
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.1
2.0 _
0.4
1.9
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 17
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
17: Maryland St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Int Delay, s/veh 1.6
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
26
343
3
8
305
3
5
3
3
17
1
25
Future Vol, veh/h
26
343
3
8
305
3
5
3
3
17
1
25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
RT Channelizetl
-
None
,
-
None
-
None
-
None
Storage Length
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
Veh in Median Storage,
# -
0
0
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor '
71
71
71,
71
71
71
71
71
71
71,
71
71
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
9
9
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
37
483
4
11
430
4
7
4
4
24
1
35
Conflicting Flow All
434
0
0
487
0
0
797
1015
244
772
1015
217
Stage 1
-
559
559
-
454
454
Stage 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
238
456
-
318
561
-
Critical Hdwy
4.14
-'
4.14
-
7.68
6.68
7.08
7.54
6.54
6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.68
5.68
-
6.54
5.54
-
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
-
6.68
5.68
-
6.54
5.54
Follow-up Hdwy
2.22
-
-
2.22
-
-
3.59
4.09
3.39
3.52
4.02
3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
1122
-
1072 '
-
265
226
736
289
237
787
Stage 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
464
492
-
555
568
-
Stage 2
-
724
549
-
668
508
Platoon blocked, %
-
-
-
-
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
1122
-
1072
241
213
736
271'
223
787
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
-
-
-
-
-
-
241
213
-
271
223
-
Stage 1
-
443
470
-
530
560
Stage 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
680
541
-
629
485
-
HCM Control Delay, s
0.8
0.3
18.5
14.6
HCM LOS
C
B
Capacity (veh/h) '',
283
1122',
-
1072
-
434
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.055
0.033
-
-
0.011
-
-
0.14
HCM Control Delay (s)
18.5
8.3
0.2
8.4
0.1
-
146
HCM Lane LOS
C
A
A
-
A
A
-
B
HCM 95th,%tile Q(veh)
0.2
0.1
0
05
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 18
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
18: Maryland St & E Franklin Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.3
Intersection LOS A
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h _
1
_1
3
_3
26
_ 2
_ 3
_ 21
1 _
_ 2 _
2
0
10
8
Future Vol, veh/h_
26
2
3
21
1_
2
2
0
10
8
Peak Hour Factor '
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
Mvmt Flow
1
4
36
3
4
29
1
3
3
0;
14
11
Number of Lanes
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
1
1
Conflicting Approach Left
SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
1
1
Conflicting Approach Right
NB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
1
1
HCM Control Delay
7.2
7.2
7.3
7.4
HCM LOS;
A
A
A '
A
Vol Left, %
50%
10%
12%
56%
Vol Thru, %
50%
84%
84%
44%
Vol Right %
0%
6%
4%
0%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
4
32
25
18
LT Vol
2
3
3
10
Through Vol
2
27
21
8
RT Vol
0
2
1
0
Lane Flow Rate
5
44
34
25
Geometry Grp
1
1
1
1
Degree of Util (X)
0.006
0.049
0.038
0.029
Departure Headway (Hd)
4.256
3.993
4.02
4.252
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
838
897
891
840
Service Time
2.297
2.015
2.044
2.288
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.006
0.049
0038
0.03
HCM Control Delay
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.4
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
0
0.2
0.1
0.1
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 19
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
18: Maryland St & E Franklin Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Lan onfigurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
0
Future Vol, veh/h__
0
Peak Hour Factor '
0.73
Heavy Vehicles, %
6
Mvmt Flow
0
Number of Lanes
0
Opposing Approach
Opposing Lanes
Conflicting Approach Left
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right
Conflicting Lanes Right
HCM Control Delay
HCM LOS;
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 20
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
19: Center St & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.6
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
37
138
40
39
125
60
26
136
60 24
85 20
Future Vol, veh/h
37
138
40
39
125
60
26
136
60 24
85 20
Peak Hour Factor '
0.80
0.80
0.80,
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80 0.80
0.80 0.80
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
46
173
50
49
156
75
33
170
75 30
106 25
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
1
1'
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
12.7
12.8
13
11.2
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
12%
17%
17%
19%
Vol Thru, %
61 %
64%
56%
` 66%
Vol Right %
27%
19%
27%..
16%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
222
215
224
129
LT Vol
26
37
39
24
Through Vol
136
138
125
85
RT Vol
60
40,
60
20
Lane Flow Rate
278
269
280
161
Geometry Grp
1
1
1
1
Degree of Util (X)
0.434
0.419
0.432
0.266
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.631
5.617'
5.553
'5.935
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
635
637';
644
600
Service Time
3.703
3.688
3.622
4.019
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.438
0.422`
0.435
0.268
HCM Control Delay
13
12.7
12.8
11.2
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
2.2
2.1
2.2
1.1
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 21
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
20: Center St & E Pine Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10
Intersection LOS A
Future Vol, veh/h 76
21
1
49
138
132
36
Peak Hour Factor ' 0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
Heavy Vehicles, % 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow 115
32
2
74
209
200
55
Number of Lanes 1
0
0
0
1
1
0
Opposing Approach
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes 0
1
1
Conflicting Approach Left SB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
1
0
Conflicting Approach RighNB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
0
1
HCM Control Delay 9.6
10.4
9.7
HCM LOS; A
B
A
Vol Left, %
26%
78%
0%
Vol Thru, %
74%
0%
79%
Vol Right %
0%
22%
21
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
188
97
168
LT Vol
49
76
0
Through Vol
139
0
132
RT Vol
0
21,
36
Lane Flow Rate
285
147
255
Geometry Grp
1
1
1
Degree of Util (X)
0.368
0.211
0.319
Departure Headway (Hd)
4.655
5.168
4.518
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
772
691;
794
Service Time
2.697
3.223
2.56
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.369
0.213
0.321
HCM Control Delay
10.4
9.6
9.7
HCM Lane LOS
B
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
1.7
0.8
1.4
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 22
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
98
11
53
56
4
25
11 25
2019
26
28 4
Future Volume (veh/h)
98
11
53
56
4
25
11 25
2019
26
28 4
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
102
11
55
58
4
26
26
2103
27
4
Peak Hour Factor
0.96
0.96
096
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96 J
0.96
0.96
0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
285
35
176
252
28
182
53
4117
53
10
Arrive On Green
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.03
0.62
0.62
0.01
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
102
0
66
58
0
30
26
1538
592
4
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1380
0
1626
1335
0
1618
1781
1609
1855'
1781
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.0
0.0
2.1
2.3
0.0
0.9
0.8
9.9
9.9
0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.9
0.0
2.1
4.4
0.0
0.9
0.8
9.9
9.9
0.1
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.83
1.00
0.87
1.00
0.05
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
285
0
211
252
0
210
53
3012
1158
10
V/C Ratio(X)
0.36
0.00
0.31
0.23
0.00
0.14
0.49
0.51
0.51
0.42
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
635
0
624
592
0
621
238
4090
1572
238
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
23.8
0.0
22.1
24.1
0.0
21.6
26.8
5.8
5.8
27.8
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.5
0.0
0.3
6.9
0.1
0.4'
26.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In
1.3
0.0
0.8
0.7
0.0
0.3
0.4
1.9
2.3
0.1,
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
24.6
0.0
23.0
24.6
0.0
21.9
33.7
5.9
6.2;
54.1
LnGrp LOS
C
A
C
C
A
C
C
A
A
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
168
88
2156
Approach Delay, s/veh
23.9
23.7
6.3
Approach LOS
C
C
A'
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
48
39.5
11.8
6.2
38.1
11.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
75
47.5
21.5
7.5
47.5
21.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
2.1
11.9
6.9
2.8
12.8
6.4
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
00
20.7
0.5
0.0
20.8
0.2
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
2014
63
Future Volume (veh/h)
2014
63
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
2098
66
Peak Hour Factor
0.96
0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
Cap, veh/h
3873
122
Arrive On Green
0.60
0.60
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
1568
596
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1609
1834
Q Serve(g_s), s
10.8
10.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
108
10.8
Prop In Lane
0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
2895
1100
V/C Ratio(X)
0.54
0.54
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
4090
1554
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
6.6
6.6
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh
0.2
0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In
2.3
2.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
68
7.1
LnGrp LOS
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
2168
Approach Delay, s/veh
7.0
Approach'LOS
A
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
2: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Maple Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
-11 --1. .4--- fl I L* t
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
70
61
56;
41
64
135
36 80
1887
107j
11 68
2022
42
Future Volume (veh/h)
70
61
56
41
64
135
36 80
1887
107
11 68
2022
42
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
71
62
57
42
65
138
82
1926
109
69
2063
43
Peak Hour Factor
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
217
118
109;
184
247
209
107
3972
225
92
4079
85
Arrive On Green
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.06
0.63
0.63
0.05
0.62
0.62
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
71
0
119
42
65
138
82
1481
554
69
1523
583
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl179
0
1722
1273
(1870
1585
1781
1609
1806
1781
1609
1846
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.2
0.0
4.7
2.3
2.3
6.1
3.3
11.9
11.9
2.8
12.7
12.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
&5
0.0
4.7'
7.1
2.3
6.1
3.3
11.9
11.9
2.8
12.7
12.7
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.48
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.20
1.00
0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
217
0
227
184
247
209
107
3054
1143
92
3012
1152
V/C Ratio(X)
0.33
0.00
0.52
0.23
0.26
0.66
0.77
0.48
0.48
0.75
0.51
0.51
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
374
0
457
354
496
421
352
3054
1143
255
3012
1152
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.6
0.0
29.7
33.0
28.7
30.3
34.0
7.1
7.1
34.4
7.6
7.6
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.9
0.0
1.9
0.6
0.6
3.5
10.8
0.6
1.5
11.7
0.6
1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.2
0.0
2.0
0.7
1.0
2.4
1.7
3.1
3.8
1.5
3.4
4.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.5
0.0
31.6
33.7 "
29.2
33.8
44.9
7.7
8.6
46.1
8.2
9.2
LnGrp LOS C
A
C
C
C
C
D
A
A
D
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
190
245
2117
2175
Approach Delay, s/veh
31.9
32.6
9.4
9.7
Approach LOS
C
C
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s8.3
51.0
14.2
8.9
50.4
142
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmag.5
46.5
19.5
14.5
42.5
%5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+114,a
13.9
8.5
5.3
14.7
9.1
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.1
18.6
0.6
0.1
17.5
0.6
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
3: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
-11 --1. .4--- fl I L* t
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
123
208
48;
149
196
151
32 104
1666
116
44 170
1755
88
Future Volume (veh/h)
123
208
48
149
196
151
32 104
1666
116
44 170
1755
88
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
128
217
50
155
204
157
108
1735
121
177
1828
92
Peak Hour Factor
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
161
257
59;
191
359
304
138
2704
666
258
2637
133
Arrive On Green
0.09
0.18
0.18
0.11
0.19
0.19
0.08
0.42
0.42
0.07
0.42
0.42
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
128
0
267
155
204
157
108
1735
121
177
1396
524
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl781
0
1809
1781
` 1870
1585
1781
1609
1585
1728
`.1609
1813
Q Serve(g_s), s
5.7
0.0
11.6
6.9
8.0
7.2
4.8
17.3
3.9
4.0
19.2
19.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
5.7
0.0
11.6
6.9
8.0
7.2
4.8
17.3
3.9
4.0
19.2
19.2
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.19
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
161
0
317'
191
359
304
138
2704
666
258
2014
757
V/C Ratio(X)
0.79
0.00
0.84
0.81
0.57
0.52
0.78
0.64
0.18
0.69
0.69
0.69
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
218
0
403
253
453
384
240
2704
666
363
2014
757
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.1
0.0
32.3
35.3
29.6
29.3
36.6
18.6
14.7
36.5
19.3
19.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.3
0.0
12.3
13.5
1.4
1.4
9.1
1.2
0.6
3.2
2.0
5.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir8.0
0.0
6.1'
3.6
3.5
2.7
2.3
60
1.4
1.7
6.8
8.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.3
0.0
44.6
48.8
31.1
30.7
45.8
198
15.3"
39.7
(21.3
24.5
LnGrp LOS D
A
D
D
C
C
D
B
B
D
C
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
395
516
1964
2097
Approach Delay, s/veh
46.1
36.3
21.0
23.7
Approach LOS
D
D
C
C
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), W.5
38.5
13.2`
18.7
10.8
38.3
11.8
20.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax§.6
34.0
11.5'
18.0
10.9
31.6
9.9
19.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I16,Q
19.3
8.9
13.6
6.8
21.2
7.7
10.0
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.1
10.2
0.1
0.6
0.1
7.8
0.1
1.1
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
4: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
-11 --1. .4--- fl I L* t
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
211
144
172
264
151
175
12 147
1461
170
13 40
1769
139
Future Volume (veh/h)
211
144
172
264
151
175
12 147
1461
170
13 40
1769
139
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
187
205
183
281
161
186
156
1554
181
43
1882
148
Peak Hour Factor
0.94
0.94
0.94'
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
282
297
250;
548
563
251
192
2658
655
69
2109
166
Arrive On Green
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.11
0.41
0.41
0.04
0.34
0.34
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
187
205
183
281
161
186
156
1554
181
43
1482
548
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl781
1870
1586
1728
(1777
1585
1781
1609
1585'
1781
1609
1784
Q Serve(g_s), s
7.7
8.0
8.6
5.8
3.1
8.7
6.7
14.6
5.9
1.9
22.6
22.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
7:7
8.0
8.6
5.8
3.1
8.7
6.7
146
5.9
1.9
22.6
22.6
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.27
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
282
296
251
548
563
251
192
2658
655'
69
:1661
614
V/C Ratio(X)
0.66
0.69
0.73
0.51
0.29
0.74
0.81
0.58
0.28
0.62
0.89
0.89
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
414
435
369
799
822
366
208
2658
655
149
1661
614
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.8
31.0
31.2
30.0
28.9
31.2
34.0
17.7
15.1
36.8
24.2
24.2
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 2.7
2.9
4.1
0.7
0.3
4.5
20.0
0.9
1.0
8.7
7.7
17.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir8.4
3.7
3.4
2.4
1.3
3.5
3.8
5.0
2.1'
0.9
8.9
11.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.5
33.8
35.3
30.7 "
29.1
35.7
54.0
186
16.2
45.6
31.9
41.9
LnGrp LOS C
C
D
C
C
D
D
B
B
D
C
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
575
628
1891
2073
Approach Delay, s/veh
34.2
31.8
21.3
34.8
Approach LOS
C
C
C
C
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.5
36.7
16.8
12.9
31.3
16.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gma4.5
29.4
18.1
9.1
26.8
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll�,%
16.6
10.6
8.7
24.6
10.7
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0
8.5
1.7 ,'
0.0
1.9
1.6
HCM 6th LOS
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
5: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E El Segundo Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
3 126
299
484
395
293
158
37 331
1440
295 i
9 101
2052
71
Future Volume (veh/h)
3 126
299
484
395
293
158
37 331
1440
295
9 101
2052
71
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ';
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
130
308
499
407
302
163
341
1485
304
104
2115
73
Peak Hour Factor
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
097
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
163
821;
366
411
919
410
388
2150
440;
178
2173
535
Arrive On Green
0.09
0.23
0.23
0.12
0.26
0.26
0.11
0.40
0.40
0.05
0.34
0.34
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
130
308
499
407
302
163
341
1328
461
104
2115
73
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777'
1585
1728
1777
1585
1728
1609
1672
1728
1609
1585
Q Serve(g_s), s
6.4
6.6
20.8
10.6
6.2
7.6
8.7
20.6
20.6
2.6
29.2
2.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
6.4
6.6
20.8
10.6
6.2
7.6
8.7
20.6
20.6
2.6
29.2
2.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.66
1.00
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
163
821
366
411
919
410
388
1923
666
178
2173
535
V/C Ratio(X)
0.80
0.38
1.36
0.99
0.33
0.40
0.88
0.69
0.69
0.59
0.97
0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
251
821
366
411
919
410
388
1923
666 '
204
2173
535
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
40.1
29.1
34.6
39.6
27.0
27.6
39.3
22.5
22.5
41.7
29.4
20.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
9.7
0.3
179.7
41.8
0.2
0.6
20.0
2.1'
5.8
3.3
13.9
0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In
3.2
2.7
25.9
6.7
2.5
2.8
46
7.5
8.5
1.2
12.5
1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
49.8
29.4
214.3 '
81.4
27.2
28.2
59.4
24.5
28.3
"45.0
43.3
21.2
LnGrp LOS
D
C
F
F
C
C
E
C
C
D
D
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
937
872
2130
2292
Approach Delay, s/veh
130.7
52.7
30.9
42.7
Approach LOS
F
D
C
D
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.1
40.4
15.2
25.3
14.6
34.9
12.7
27.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (GmaxN.8
35.2
10.7
20.8
10.1
30.4
12.7
18.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+114,@
22.6
12.6
22.8
10.7
31.2
8.4
9.6
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0
8.7
0.0
0.0 _
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.6
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
6: Main St & Imperial Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 107 24 28 27 ` 22 65 24 536 35 81 611 , 141
Future Volume (veh/h) 107 24 28 27 22 65 24 536 35 81 611 141
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 113 25 29 28 23 68 25 564 37 85 643 148
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95+ 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 449 115 133 180 60 133 149 1825 117 236 1431 317
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
113
0
54
119
0
0
326
0
300
450
0
426
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1306
0
1705;
1601
0
0
1790
0
1665
1643
0
1602
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
4.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
1.8
0.0
0.9i
2.1
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
3.0
4.3
0.0
4.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.54
0.24
0.57
0.08
0.12
0.19
0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
449
0
248
374
0
0
1142
0
949
1071
0
" 913
V/C Ratio(X)
0.25
0.00
0.22
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.32
0.42
0.00
0.47
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
1003
0
972
1039
0
0
1142
0
949
1071'
0
913
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.3
0.0
11.9
12.4
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
3.6
3.8
0.0
4.0
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.3
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.9
1.2
0.0
1.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.6
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
06
1.0
0.0
1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.6
0.0
12.4
12.9
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.0
4.4
5.1'
0.0
5.7
LnGrp LOS B
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
167
119
626
876
Approach Delay, s/veh
12.5
12.9
4.3
5.4
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
9.1
22.5
9.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
5.0
3.8
6.9
4.1
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
3.4
0.5
4.7
0.5
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
7: Main St & Maple Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 16.6
Intersection LOS C
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
29
12
27
37
25
36
32
584
22 29
589 15
Future Vol, veh/h
29
12
27
37
25
36
32
584
22 29
589 15
Peak Hour Factor '
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
` 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
32
13
29
40
27
39
35
635
24 32
640 16
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0 0
2 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
2
2
'
1
1'
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
2
2
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
11.1
11.6
17.3
17.2
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
C
C;
Vol Left, %
10%
0%
43%
38%
9%
0%
Vol Thru, %
90%
93%'
18%
` 26%
91 %
95%
Vol Right %
0%
7%
40%..
37%
0%
5%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
324
314
68
98
324
310
LT Vol
32
0,
29
37
29
0
Through Vol
292
292
12
25
295
295
RT Vol
0
22'
27
36
0
15
Lane Flow Rate
352
341
74
107
352
336
Geometry Grp
7
7
2'
2
7
7
Degree of Util (X)
0.6
0.573
0.142
0.201
0.6
0.566
Departure Headway (Hd)
6.138
6.039+
6.908
6.788
6.14
6.06
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
588
597';
517
527
587
592
Service Time
3.895
3.795
4.974
4.851
3.896
3.816
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.599
0.571',
0.143
0.203
0.6
0568
HCM Control Delay
17.8
16.7
11.1
11.6
17.8
16.5
HCM Lane LOS
C
C
B
B
C
C
HCM 95th-tile Q
4
3.6
0.5
0.7
4
3.5
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 8
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
8: Main St & Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 70 30 48 80 117 23 444 45 147 440 41
Future Volume (veh/h) 66 70 30 48 80 117 23 444 45 147 440 41
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 76 33 52 87 127 25 483 49 160 478 45
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ' 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 256 209 72 172 151 183 140 1581 156 404 1095 104
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
181
0
0
266
0
0
293
0
264
316
0
367
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl690
0
0
1644
0
0
1807
0
1647
1170
0
1665
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
3.3
0.0
4.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.0
0.0
0.0i
5.1
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
3.3
6.6
0.0
4.9
Prop In Lane
0.40
0.18
0.20
0.48
0.09
0.19
0.51
0.12
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
537
0
0
506
0
0
1035
0
842
752
0
851
V/C Ratio(X)
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.53
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.31
0.42
0.00
0.43
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
946
0
0
948
0
0
1035
0
842
752
0
851
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.5
0.0
0.0
12.3
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.6
0.0
5.4
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.4
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
1.0
1.7
0.0
1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.9
1.2
0.0
1.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.9
0.0
0.0
13.1
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
6.0
7.3
0.0
7.0
LnGrp LOS B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
181
266
557
683
Approach Delay, s/veh
11.9
13.1
5.8
7.2
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
12.7
22.5
12.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
5.3
5.0
8.6
7.1
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
3.0
0.8
3.4
1.2
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 9
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
9: Main St & Pine Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
57
24
24
10
19
84
38
432
7 54
384 46
Future Vol, veh/h
57
24
24
10
19
84
38
432
7 54
384 46
Peak Hour Factor '
0.92
0.92
0.92'
0.92
` 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
62
26
26
11
21
91
41
470
8 59,
417 50
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0 0
2 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
2
2
'
1
1'
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
2
2
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
11.4
10.9
13.5
13.4
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
15%
0%
54%
9%
22%
0%
Vol Thru, %
85%
97%'
23%
` 17%
i78%
81 %
Vol Right %
0%
3%
23%..
74%
0%
19%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
254
223
105
113
246
238
LT Vol
38
0,
57
10
54
0
Through Vol
216
216
24
19
192
192
RT Vol
0
7
24
84
0
46
Lane Flow Rate
276
242
114
123
267
259
Geometry Grp
7
7
2'
2
7
7
Degree of Util (X)
0.467
0.404
0.208
0.21
0.455
0.422
Departure Headway (Hd)
6.093
5.995
6.567
6.155
6.123
5875
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
591
599j
544
581
586
611
Service Time
3.846
3.748
4.634
4.221
3.877
3.628
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.467
0.404
0.21
0.212
0.456
0.424
HCM Control Delay
14.1
12.8
11.4
10.9
13.9
12.9
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
2.5
1.9
0.8
0.8
2.4
2.1
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 10
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
10: Main St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 234 51 ! 40 178 129 63 273 26 136, 161 , 73
Future Volume (veh/h) 60 234 51 40 178 129 63 273 26 136 161 73
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 241 53 41 184 133 65 281 27 140 166 75
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.970.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 204 513 116 172 404 278 347 1341 127 582 679 321
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
187
0
169
195
0
163
193
0
180
190
0
191
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl421
0
1611:
1701
0
1484
1608
0
1657
1143
0
" 1590
Q Serve(g_s), s
1.0
0.0
3.2
0.1
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
2.1
2.3
0.0
2.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.3
0.0
3.2`
3.3
0.0
3.3
2.0
0.0
2.1
4.3
0.0
2.3
Prop In Lane
0.33
0.31
0.21
0.82
0.34
0.15
0.74
0.39
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
463
0
369
514
0
340
964
0
852
766
0
817
V/C Ratio(X)
0.40
0.00
0.46
0.38
0.00
0.48
0.20
0.00
0.21
0.25
0.00
0.23
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
888
0
828
977
0
762
964
0
852
766
0
817
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.8
0.0
11.6
11.6
0.0
11.7
4.6
0.0
4.6
5.3
0.0
4.7
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.6
0.0
0.9
0.5
0.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.1
0.0
1.0
1.1
0.0
1.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.7
0.0
0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.3
0.0
12.5,
12.1
0.0
12.7
5.1
0.0
52
6.0
0.0
5.4
LnGrp LOS B
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
356
358
373
381
Approach Delay, s/veh
12.4
12.4
5.1
5.7
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
12.5
22.5
12.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
4.1
6.3
6.3
5.3
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
2.0
1.7 ,'
2.0
1.8
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 11
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
11: El Segundo Blvd & Main St Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.2
Intersection LOS B
Future Vol, veh/h 49
297
175
189
178
24
Peak Hour Factor ' 0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow 55
334
197
212
200
27
Number of Lanes 0
1
1
1
2
0
f
Opposing Approach WB
EB
Opposing Lanes 2
1
0
Conflicting Approach Left SB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2
0
2
Conflicting Approach Right
SB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 0
2
1
HCM Control Delay 17
10.6
11.6
HCM LOS; C
B
B
Vol Left, %
14%
0%
0%
100%
71 %
Vol Thru, %
86%
100%'
0%
` 0%
0%
:29%
Vol Right %
0%
0%
100%.
0%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
346
175
189
119
83
LT Vol
49
0
0
119
59
Through Vol
297
175
0
0
0
RT Vol
0
0,
189
0
24
Lane Flow Rate
389
197
212
133
94
Geometry Grp
4
7
7
7
7
Degree of Util (X)
0.608
0.316
0.3
0.261
0.174
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.627
5.793
5.084
7.035
6.684
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
641
621;
707
; 511
537
Service Time
3.653
3.523
2.814
4.77
4.419
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.607
0.317'
0.3
' 0.26
0.175
HCM Control Delay
17
11.2
10
12.2
10.8
HCM Lane LOS
C
B;
A
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
4.1
1.4
1.3
1
0.6
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 12
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
12: Whiting St & W Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.5
Intersection LOS A
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
17
240
24
7
250
15
64
26
6 12
20 9
Future Vol, veh/h
17
240
24
7
250
15
64
26
6 12
20 9
Peak Hour Factor '
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89 0.89,
0.89 0.89
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
19
270
27
8
281
17
72
29
7 13
22 10
Number of Lanes
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
9.6
9.5
9.6
8.9
HCM LOS;
A
A
A
A
Vol Left, %
67%
12%
0%
5%
0%
29%
Vol Thru, %
27%
88%'
83%
` 95%
89%
49%
Vol Right %
6%
0%
17%.
0%
11 %
22%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
96
137
144
132
140
41
LT Vol
64
17
0
7
0
12
Through Vol
26
120
120
125
125
20
RT Vol
6
0'
24
0
15
9
Lane Flow Rate
108
154
162
148
157
46
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.164
0.227
0.231
0.218
0.227
0.07
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.487
5.316
5.136
5.29
5.188
5.432
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
649
671;
694
675
687
653
Service Time
3.559
3.079
2.899
3.053
2.951
3.516
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.166
0.23
0.233
0.219
0.229
0.07
HCM Control Delay
9.6
9.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
8.9
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A'
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.2
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 13
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
13: Concord St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9
Intersection LOS A
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
6
8
244
9
8
11
260
16
12
11'
11
14
13
9
Future Vol, veh/h
6
8
244
9
8
11
260
16
12
11
11
14
13
9
Peak Hour Factor '
0.94
0.94
0.94'
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
6
9
260
10
9
12
277
17
13
12
12
15
14
10
Number of Lanes
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
9
9.1
8.5
8.6
HCM LOS;
A
A
A
A
Vol Left, %
35%
6%
0%
8%
0%
39%
Vol Thru, %
32%
94%'
93%
` 92%
89%
36%
Vol Right %
32%
0%
7%.
0%
11 %
25%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
34
136
131
149
146
36
LT Vol
12
8
0
; 12
0
14
Through Vol
11
128
122
137
130
13
RT Vol
11
0,
9
0
16
9
Lane Flow Rate
36
145
139
159
155
38
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.052
0.202
0.192
0.221
0.211
0.056
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.172
5.032`
4.953
'5.014
4.898
5.22
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
691
713
725
, 716
733
685
Service Time
3.214
2.761
2.682
2.743
2.627
3.261
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.052
0.203
0.192
0.222
0.211
0.055
HCM Control Delay
8.5
9
8.9
9.2
8.9
8.6
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A'
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.2
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.2
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 14
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
14: Eucalyptus Dr & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.2
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
65
281
61
47
289
35
34
65
23 48
45 23
Future Vol, veh/h
65
281
61
47
289
35
34
65
23 48
45 23
Peak Hour Factor '
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98 0.98
0.98 0.98
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
66
287
62
48
295
36
35
66
23 49,
46 23
Number of Lanes
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
11.4
11.2
10.7
10.6
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
28%
32%
0%
25%
0%
41 %
Vol Thru, %
53%
68%'
70%
` 75%
81 %
:19%
39%
Vol Right %
19%
0%
30%.
0%
20%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
122
206
202
192
180
116
LT Vol
34
65+
0
47
0
48
Through Vol
65
141
141
145
145
45
RT Vol
23
0,
61
0
35
23
Lane Flow Rate
124
210
206
195
183
118
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.208
0.347
0.319
0.323
0.29
0.199
Departure` Headway (Hd)
6.025
5.952'
5.577
5.958
5.695
6,061
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
595
604`
646
', 604
630
591
Service Time
4.073
3.686
3.311
3.695
3.432
4.109
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.208
0.348;
0.319
0.323
0.29
0.2
HCM Control Delay
10.7
11.8
10.9
11.5
10.8
10.6
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.8
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.2
0.7
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 15
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
15: Center St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
61
320
13
10
327
61
27
98
27 66
69 71
Future Vol, veh/h
61
320
13
10
327
61
27
98
27 66
69 71
Peak Hour Factor '
0.95
0.95
0.95+
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95 0.95,
0.95 0.95
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
64
337
14
11
344
64
28
103
28 69,
73 75
Number of Lanes
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
13.3
12.9
12.4
13.3
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
18%
28%
0%
6%
0%
32%
Vol Thru, %
64%
72%'
92%
` 94%
i73%
:27%
33%
Vol Right %
18%
0%
8%.
0%
34%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
152
221
173
174
225
206
LT Vol
27
61,
0
10
0
66
Through Vol
98
160
160
164
164
69
RT Vol
27
0'
13
0
61
71
Lane Flow Rate
160
233
182
183
236
217
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.294
0.423
0.322
0.327
0.409
0.385
Departure Headway (Hd)
6.612
6.662`
6.467
6.559
6.335
6.391
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
546
544I
559
552
1572
566
Service Time
4.622
4.362
4.167
4.259
4.035
4.391
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.293
0.428
0.326
0.332
0.413
0.383
HCM Control Delay
12.4
14.2
12.2
12.4
13.3
13.3
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
1.2
2.1
1.4
1.4
2
1.8
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 16
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
16: Kansas St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
-11 � � 7 I*
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
21
416
8;
27
393
14
22
19
76
19
9
29
Future Volume (veh/h)
21
416
8
27
393
14
22
19
76
1 9
9
29
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ';
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1841
1841
1841
1841
1841
1841
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
23
447
9
29
423
15
24
20
82
10
10
31
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.93ii
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
Cap, veh/h
130
799
16
138
759
27
210
192
525
214
222
489
Arrive On Green
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
250
0
229
243
0
224
126
0
0
51
0
0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl794
0
1690
1705
0
1682
1589
0
0
1585
0
0
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.2
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
42
0.0
4.2
4.4
0.0
4.1
1.4
0.0
00
0.6
0.0
0.0
Prop In Lane
0.09
0.04
0.12
0.07
0.19
0.65
0.20
0.61
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
540
0
404
521
0
402
927
0
0
925
0
0
V/C Ratio(X)
0.46
0.00
0.57
0.47
0.00
0.56
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
1000
0
857
969
0
853
927
0
0
925
0
0
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.9
0.0
11.9
11.8
0.0
11.8
4.7
0.0
0.0
4.4
0.0
0.0
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.6
0.0
1.2'
0.6
0.0
1.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.4
0.0
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.5
0.0
13.1,
12.5
0.0
13.1
5.0
0.0
00
4.6
0.0
0.0
LnGrp LOS B
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
479
467
126
51
Approach Delay, s/veh
12.8
12.7
5.0
4.6
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
13.0
22.5
13.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
3.4
6.2
2.6
6.4
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.6
2.2 _
0.2
2.1
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 17
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
17: Maryland St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
12
380
7
8
416
12
3
2
8
5
5
10
Future Vol, veh/h
12
380
7,
8
416
12
3
2
8
5
5
10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
RT Channelizetl
-
None
,
-
None
-
None
-
None
Storage Length
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
Veh in Median Storage,
# -
0
0
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor '
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
13
396
7
8
433
13
3
2
8
5,
5
10
Conflicting Flow All
446
0
0
403
0
0
661
888
202
681
885
223
Stage 1
-
426
426
-
456
456
Stage 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
235
462
-
225
429
-
Critical Hdwy
4.14
-'
4.14
-
7.54
654
6.94
7.54
6.54
6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.54
5.54
-
6.54
5.54
-
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
-
6.54
554
-
6.54
5.54
Follow-up Hdwy
2.22
-
-
2.22
-
-
3.52
4.02
3.32
3.52
4.02
3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
1111
-
1152 '
-
348
281
805
336
282
780
Stage 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
577
584
-
554
567
-
Stage 2
-
747
563
-
757;
582
Platoon blocked, %
-
-
-
-
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
1111
-
1152
332
274
805
325
275
780
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
-
-
-
-
-
-
332
274
-
325
275
-
Stage 1
-
568
575
-
546
562
Stage 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
724
558
-
735
573
-
HCM Control Delay, s
0.3
0.1
12.5
13.8
HCM LOS
B
B
Capacity (veh/h) '',
495
1111;
-
1152
-
431
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.027
0.011
-
-
0.007
-
-
0.048
HCM Control Delay (s)
12.5
8.3
0.1
8.1
0
-
138
HCM Lane LOS
B
A
A
-
A
A
-
B
HCM 95th,%tile Q(veh)
0.1
0
0
0.2
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 18
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
18: Maryland St & E Franklin Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.2
Intersection LOS A
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h _
6
43
_ 5
_ 0
40
8 _ _
_ 0
4 _
0
5'
5
4
Future Vol, veh/h_
6
43
5
0
40
8
0
4
0
5
5
4
Peak Hour Factor '
0.81
081
081
0.81
;0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
7
53
6
0
49
10
0
5
0!
6,
6
5
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
1
1i
Conflicting Approach Left
SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
1
1
Conflicting Approach Right
NB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
HCM LOS;
A
A
A '
A
Vol Left, %
0%
11 %
0%
36%
Vol Thru, %
100%
80%
83%
36%
Vol Right %
0%
9%
17%
29%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
4
54
48
14
LT Vol
0
6
0
5
Through Vol
4
43
40
5
RT Vol
0
5
8
4
Lane Flow Rate
5
67
59
17
Geometry Grp
1
1
1
1
Degree of Util (X)
0.006
0.074
0.065
0.019
Departure Headway (Hd)
4.165
3.982
3.921
4.055
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
853
900
913
877
Service Time
2.22
2.004
1.945
2.108
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.006
0.074
0065
0.019
HCM Control Delay
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.2
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
0
0.2
0.2
0.1
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 19
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
19: Center St & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.7
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
20
143
28;
69
212
34
24
198
66 30
111 24
Future Vol, veh/h
20
143
28
69
212
34
24
198
66 30
111 24
Peak Hour Factor '
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
099
0.99 0.99,
0.99 " 0.99
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
20
144
28
70
214
34
24
200
67 30
112 24
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
1
1'
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
11.4
14
13.2
11.1
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
8%
10%
22%
18%
Vol Thru, %
69%
75%
67%
` 67%
Vol Right %
23%
15%
11 %..
15%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
288
191
315
165
LT Vol
24
20
69
30
Through Vol
198
143
212
111
RT Vol
66
28
34
24
Lane Flow Rate
291
193
318
167
Geometry Grp
1
1
1
1
Degree of Util (X)
0.45
0.308
0.492
0.272
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.571
5.747'
5.571
5.868
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
643
621;
643
, 608
Service Time
3.636
3.819
3.634
3.943
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.453
0.311',
0.495
0.275
HCM Control Delay
13.2
11.4
14
11.1
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
2.3
1.3
2.7
1.1
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 20
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
20: Center St & E Pine Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.4
Intersection LOS A
Future Vol, veh/h 66
50
2
36
202
167
50
Peak Hour Factor ' 0.91
0.91
0.91,
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow 73
55
2
40
222
184
55
Number of Lanes 1
0
0
0
1
1
0
Opposing Approach
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes 0
1
1
Conflicting Approach Left SB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
1
0
Conflicting Approach RighNB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
0
1
HCM Control Delay 9
9.8
9.3
HCM LOS; A
A,
A
Vol Left, %
15%
57%
0%
Vol Thru, %
85%
0%
77%
Vol Right %
0%
43%
23%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
240
116
217
LT Vol
36
66
0
Through Vol
204
0
167
RT Vol
0
50
50
Lane Flow Rate
264
127
238
Geometry Grp
1
1
1
Degree of Util (X)
0.333
0.173
0.292
Departure Headway (Hd)
4.541
4.899
4.407
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
791
730
816
Service Time
2.57
2.942
2.438
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.334
0.174
0.292
HCM Control Delay
9.8
9
9.3
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
1.5
0.6
1.2
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 21
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
65
15
30
13
7
8
4
56
1638
43
22
15
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
65
45
0
13
15
0
0
60
1681
0
0
37
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.95
0.92
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1710
0
1805
1748
0
0
1805
6874
0
0
1805
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
43
3.2
0.0
0.9
1.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
29.3
0.0
0.0
2.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
9.5
9.5
0.0
9.5
9.5
0.0
0.0
9.5
33.8
0.0
0.0
9.5
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
120
1710
120
1748
0
120
1719
0
120
Reference Time A (s)
648
3.2
13.0
1.0
0.0
59.8
29.3
0.0
369
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1710
0
1748
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
123
3.2
8.9
1.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
12.3
8.9
59.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
16.8
13.4
64.3
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
4.3
3.2
0.9
1.0
0.0
4.0
29.3
0.0
2.5
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.3
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.3
3.7
28.6
1.5
1.0
Reference Time (s)
43
4.3
1.0
1.0
29.3
29.3
29.3
33.7
33.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
33.8
33.8
33.8
38.2
38.2
Protected Option (s)
19.0
47.7
Permitted Option (s)
16.8
64.3
Split Option (s)
19.0
72.0
Minimum (s)
168
47.7
64.5
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.7% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Volume (vph)
1731
178
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
1909
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
0.99
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6804
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
33.7
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
38.2
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1701
Reference Time A (s)
33.7
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
36.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
41.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
33.7
Ref Time Seperate (s)
30.5
Reference Time (s)
33.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
38.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
2: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Maple Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I 7 L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
117
100
59
17
43
95
27
27
1515
137
9
143
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
117
159
0
17
43
95
0
54
1652
0
0
152
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1794
0
1805
1600
1615
0
1805
6815
0
0
1805
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
7.8
%6
0.0
1.1
2.7
7.1
0.0
3.6
29.1
0.0
0.0
10.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
12.3
15.1
0.0
9.5
9.5
11.6
0.0
9.5
33.6
0.0
0.0
14.6
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
120
1794
120
1600
0
120
1704
0
120
Reference Time A (s)
116.7
%6
17.0
2.7
0.0
53.9
29.1
0.0
151.6
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1794
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
15.8
%6
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
15.8
17.0
53.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
20.3
21.5
58.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
7.8
10.6
1.1
2.7
0.0
3.6
29.1
0.0
10.1
Ref Time Seperate (s)
7.8
6.7
1.1
2.7
1.8
1.8
26.7
0.6
9.5
Reference Time (s)
10.6
%6
2.7
2.7
29.1
29.1
29.1
27.6
27.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
15.1
15.1
9.5
9.5
33.6
33.6
33.6
32.1
32.1
Protected Option (s)
24.6
48.2
Permitted Option (s)
215
156.1
Split Option (s)
24.6
65.7
Minimum (s)
21.5
48.2
69.6
Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 48.2
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 12.3
Combined (s) 72.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.0% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
2: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Maple Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Volume (vph)
1536
43
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
1579
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
1.00
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6873
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
276
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
32.1
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1718
Reference Time A (s)
27.6
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
151.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
156.1
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
27.6
Ref Time Seperate (s)
26.8
Reference Time (s)
27.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
32.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
3: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
--I. r -4- fl I
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
99
189
46
1
78
93
99
14
56
1451
110
29
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5'
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
99
235
0
0
79
93
99
0
70
1451
110
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91'
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1844
0
0
1805
1600
1615
0
1805
6901'
1615
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
66
153
0.0
0.0
5.3
5.9
7.4
0.0
4.7
25.2
8.2
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
11.1
19.8
0.0
0.0
9.8
10.4
11.9
0.0
9.5
29.7
12.7
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
120
1844
0
120
1600
0
120
1725
0
Reference Time A (s)
98.7
153
0.0
78.8
5.9
0.0
69.8
25.2
00
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1844
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
146
153
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
15.3
78.8
69.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
19.8
83.3
74.3
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
6.6
15.3
0.0
5.3
5.9
0.0
4.7
25.2
0.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
6.6
12.3
0.1
5.2
5.9
0.9
3.7
25.2
1.9
Reference Time (s)
15.3
153
5.9
5.9
5.9
25.2
25.2
25.2
254
Adj Reference Time (s)
19.8
19.8
10.4
10.4
10.4
29.7
29.7
29.7
29.9
Protected Option (s)
29.5
41.0
Permitted Option (s)
83.3
106.2
Split Option (s)
30.2
59.6
Minimum (s)
29.5
41.0
70.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
119
12.7
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
41.0
29.5
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
11;_1
11.3
Combined (s)
63.9
53.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.8% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
3: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
\. 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
169
1381
69
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
198
1450
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.97
091
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.99
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
3505
6852
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
6.8
25A
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
11.3
29.9
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
117
1713
Reference Time A (s)
101.7
25A
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
101.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
106.2
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
6.8
25.4
Ref Time Seperate (s)
5.8
24.2
Reference Time (s)
25.4
25A
Adj Reference Time (s)
29.9
29.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
4: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
146
124
82
48
70
42
10
126
1419"
404
17
168
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5'
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
352
0
48
70
42
0
136
1419
404
0
185
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
0.97
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
5128
0
3505
3618
1615
0
1805
6901 !
1615'
0
1805
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
Yes
Reference Time (s)
0.0
3.1
0.0
9.0
24.7
30.0
0.0
12.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
9.5
0.0
13.5
29.2
34.5
0.0
16.8
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
171
117
1809
0
120
1725
0
120
Reference Time A (s)
00
102.5
24.6
2.3
0.0
135.6
24.7
0.0
1845
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1701
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
12.9
13.6
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
13.6
24.6
135.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
18.1
29.1
140.1
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
8.2
1.6
2.3
0.0
9.0
24.7
0.0
12.3
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.9
4.4
1.6
2.3
0.7
8.4
24.7
1.1
11.2
Reference Time (s)
8.2
8.2
2.3
2.3
24.7
24.7
24.7
22.7
22.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
12.7
12.7
9.5
9.5
29.2
29.2
29.2
27.2
27.2
Protected Option (s)
NA
46.0
Permitted Option (s)
29.1
189.0
Split Option (s)
22.2
56.3
Minimum (s)
222
46.0
68.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
9.5
34.5
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
46.0
12.7
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
12.7
16.8
Combined (s)
68.2
64.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.8% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
4: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Volume (vph)
1090
185
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
1275
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
0.98
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6751
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
22.7
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
27.2
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1688
Reference Time A (s)
22.7
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
184.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
1890
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
22.7
Ref Time Seperate (s)
19.4
Reference Time (s)
22.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
27.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 8
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
5: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E El Segundo Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
-11 --,, -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
1
88
192
251
127
222
104
27
388
1885
250
14
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
45
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
89
192
251
127
222
104
0
415
2135
0
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
0`95
1.00
0.97
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.91'
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1805
3618
1615
3505
3618
1615
0
3505
6780
0
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
0.0
5.9
6.4
18.7
4.3
7A
7.7
0.0
14.2
37.8
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
10.4
10.9
23.2
9.5
11.9
12.2
0.0
18.7
42.3
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
120
1809
117
1809
0
117
1695
0
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
88.8
6.4
65.2
7A
0.0
213.1
37.8
0.0
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
88.8
65.2
213.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
93.3
69.7
217.6
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
5.9
6.4
4.3
7.4
0.0
14.2 `
37.8'
0.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.1
5.9
6.4
4.3
7.4
1.8
13.3
33.4
0.9
Reference Time (s)
6.4
6A
6.4
7.4
7A
37.8
37.8
37.8
16.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
10.9
10.9
10.9
11.9
11.9
42.3
42.3
42.3
21.4
Protected Option (s)
22.3
51.8
Permitted Option (s)
93.3
217.6
Split Option (s)
22.7
63.7
Minimum (s)
22.3
51.8
74.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
23.2
12.2
14.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
40.1
51.8
22.3
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
95
10.4
18.7
Combined (s)
72.7
74.4
55.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.0% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 9
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
5: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E El Segundo Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
\. 1
Lane Configurations
tiff
r
Volume (vph)
88
971
133
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
45
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
102
971
133
Lane Utilization Factor
0.97
091
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
1.00
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
3505
6901
1615
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
3.5
16.9
9.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
9.5
21.4
14.4
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
117
1725
Reference Time A (s)
52.4
16.9
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
52.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
56.9
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
3.5
16.9
Ref Time Seperate (s)
3.0
16.9
Reference Time (s)
169
16.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
21.4
21.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 10
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
6: Main St & Imperial Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
180
37
45
15
19
110
17
613
29"
60
600
55
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
180
82
0
0
144
0
0
659
0
0
715
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.92
0.85
0.95
0.88
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1744
0
0
1674
0
0
3589
0
0
3561
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
308
1744
0
660
0
980
0
365
Reference Time A (s)
700
5.6
0.0
26.2
0.0
36.2
0.0
78.1
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
9.0
18.3
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
70.0
18.3
36.2
78.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
74.5
22.8
40.7
82.6
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
12.0
5.6
0.0
10.3
0.0
22.0
0.0
24.1
Ref Time Seperate (s)
12.0
2.5
1.0
1.4
1.1
20.5
4.0
20.2
Reference Time (s)
120
12.0
10.3
10.3
22.0
22.0
24.1
24.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
16.5
16.5
14.8
14.8
26.5
26.5
28.6
28.6
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
74.5
82.6
Split Option (s)
31.3
55.1
Minimum (s)
31.3
55.1
86.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 72.0% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 11
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
7: Main St & Maple Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
65
27
25
49
19
82
19
474
43
37
619
18
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
117
0
0
150
0
0
536
0
0
674
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1788
0
0
1716
0
0
3568
0
0
3593
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
1055
0
1603
0
808
0
579
Reference Time A (s)
00
13.3
0.0
11.2
0.0
34.2
0.0
54.5
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
123
15.9
11.3
18.5
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
13.3
11.2
34.2
54.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
17.3
15.2
38.2
58.5
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
7.9
0.0
10.5
0.0
18.0
0.0
22.5
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.3
1.8
3.3
1.4
1.3
15.9
2.5
20.6
Reference Time (s)
7.9
7.9
10.5
10.5
18.0
18.0
22.5
22.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
11.9
11.9
14.5
14.5
22.0
22.0
26.5
26.5
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
17.3
58.5
Split Option (s)
26.3
48.5
Minimum (s)
173
48.5
65.8
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.9% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 12
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
8: Main St & Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
63
59
26
30
43
120
20
357
34
105
373
44
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
148
0
0
193
0
0
411
0
0
522
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1811
0
0
1709
0
0
3564
0
0
3536
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
814
0
1626
0
638
0
118
Reference Time A (s)
00
21.8
0.0
14.2
0.0
31.1
0.0
106.9
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B'(s)
NA
NA
10.0
21.5
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
21.8
14.2
31.1
106.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
26.3
18.7
35.6
111.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
9.8
0.0
13.5
0.0
13.8
0.0
17.7
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.2
3.9
2.0
3.1
1.3
12.0
7.0
12.6
Reference Time (s)
98
9.8
13.5
13.5
13.8
" 13.8
17.7
17.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
14.3
14.3
18.0
18.0
18.3
18.3
22.2
22.2
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
26.3
111.4
Split Option (s)
32.4
40.6
Minimum (s)
26.3
40.6
66.9
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.7% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 13
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
9: Main St & Pine Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
63
56
34
6
28
83
18
267
7
56
331
40
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
153
0
0
117
0
0
292
0
0
427
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95
0.89
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1799
0
0
1693
0
0
3593
0
0
3543
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
467
0
1676
0
519
0
186
Reference Time A (s)
00
39.3
0.0
8.4
0.0
25.4
0.0
65.4
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
122
18.2
8.4
16.3
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
18.2
8.4
25.4
65.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
22.2
12.4
29.4
69.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
10.2
0.0
8.3
0.0
9.8
0.0
14.5
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.2
3.7
0.4
2.0
1.2
8.9
3.7
11.2
Reference Time (s)
10.2
10.2
8.3
8.3
9.8
" 9.8
%5
14.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
14.2
14.2
12.3
12.3
13.8
13.8
18.5
18.5
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
22.2
69.4
Split Option (s)
26.5
32.2
Minimum (s)
22.2
32.2
54.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 45.3% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 14
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
10: Main St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
48
205
45
9
160
104
52
142 '
11 `
135
143
68
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
298
0
0
273
0
0
205
0
0
346
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3507
0
0
3405
0
0
3543
0
0
3442
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
125
0
808
0
118
0
115
Reference Time A (s)
00
50.9
0.0
17.6
0.0
52.8
0.0
141.2
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B'(s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
50.9
17.6
52.8
141.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
55.4
22.1
57.3
145.7
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
10.2
0.0
9.6
0.0
6.9
0.0
12.1
Ref Time Seperate (s)
3.2
7.0
0.6
5.6
3.5
4.8
9.0
5.0
Reference Time (s)
10.2
10.2
9.6
9.6
6.9
6.9
12.1
12.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
14.7
14.7
14.1
14.1
11.4
11.4
16.6
16.6
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
55.4
145.7
Split Option (s)
28.8
28.0
Minimum (s)
288
28.0
56.8
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.4% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 15
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
11: El Segundo Blvd & Main St Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
1
4
179
124
145
120
4
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
0
184
124
145
124
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.97
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
0
1897
1600
1615
3494
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
10.8
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
14.8
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
0
1368
1600
116
Reference Time A (s)
00
0.0
16.1
7.8
63.9
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
16.1
7.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
20.1
11.8
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
0.0
11.6
7.8
4.3
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.1
0.3
11.3
7.8
4.1
Reference Time (s)
116
11.6
11.6
7.8
4.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
15.6
15.6
15.6
11.8
8.3
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
201
Err
Split Option (s)
27.5
8.3
Minimum (s)
20.1
8.3
28.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 0.0
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 156
Combined (s) 30.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 25.3% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 16
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
12: Whiting St & W Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
5
219
46
5
205
14
18
19
5
14
12
8
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
270
0
0
224
0
0
42
0
0
34
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.96
0.85
0.95
0.94
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3522
0
0
3580
0
0
1826
0
0
1795
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
1119
0
1049
0
1398
0
1422
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
13A
0.0
11.7
0.0
3.6
0.0
2.9
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.2
10.8
8.9
10.3
Reference Time (s)
13.4
11.7
3.6
2.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
17.4
15.7
8.0
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
9.2
0.0
7.5
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.3
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.3
7.5
0.3
6.9
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.8
Reference Time (s)
9.2
9.2
7.5
7.5
2.8
" 2.8
2.3
2.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
13.2
13.2
11.5
11.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
17.4
8.0
Split Option (s)
24.7
16.0
Minimum (s)
17.4
8.0
25.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 21.2% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 17
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
13: Concord St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
3
3
254
13
7
10
186
15
12
10
15
1
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
0
273
0
0
0
218
0
0
37
0
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
0`95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.92
0.85
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
0
3588
0
0
0
3566
0
0
1756
0
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
0
1059
0
0
399
0
1506
0
Reference Time A (s)
00
0.0
14.1
0.0
0.0
22.5
'i
0.0 '
2.9
00
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.8
10.5
8.1
Reference Time (s)
14.1
22.5
2.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
18.1
26.5
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
0.0
9.1
0.0
0.0
7.3
0.0
2.5'
0.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.2
0.2
8.5
0.5
0.7
6.2
0.8
0.7
0.1
Reference Time (s)
9.1
9.1
9.1
7.3
7.3
7.3
2.5
2.5'
2`2
Adj Reference Time (s)
13.1
13.1
13.1
11.3
11.3
11.3
8.0
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
265
8.0
Split Option (s)
24.5
16.0
Minimum (s)
245
8.0
32.5
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 27.1% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 18
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
13: Concord St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
\. 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
13
9
9
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
32
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.94
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1780
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
1191
Reference Time A (s)
00
3.2
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
8.9
10.2
Reference Time (s)
3.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
2.2
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.9
0.6
Reference Time (s)
22
2.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
8.0
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 19
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
14: Eucalyptus Dr & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
29
273
52
14
225
52
30
30
14
41
59
23
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
354
0
0
291
0
0
74
0
0
123
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95
0.96
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3523
0
0
3512
0
0
1809
0
0
1816
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
372
0
634
0
1273
0
1501
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
38A
0.0
22.2
0.0
7.0
0.0
9.8
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B'(s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.0
12.9
10.7
16.1
Reference Time (s)
38.4
22.2
7.0
9.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
42.4
26.2
11.0
13.8
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
12.1
0.0
9.9
0.0
4.9
0.0
8.1
Ref Time Seperate (s)
1.9
9.3
0.9
7.7
2.0
2.0
2.7
3.9
Reference Time (s)
12.1
12.1
9.9
9.9
4.9
4.9
8.1i
8.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
16.1
16.1
13.9
13.9
8.9
8.9
12.1
12.1
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
42.4
13.8
Split Option (s)
30.0
21.0
Minimum (s)
30.0
13.8
43.8
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.5% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 20
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
15: Center St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
75
280
27
21
217
68
12
40
27
45
36
56
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
382
0
0
306
0
0
79
0
0
137
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.96
0.85
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.92
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3544
0
0
3485
0
0
1789
0
0
1754
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
118
0
450
0
1622
0
926
Reference Time A (s)
00
76.2
0.0
29.6
0.0
5.8
0.0
17.8
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.8
13.3
11.0
17.4
Reference Time (s)
76.2
29.6
5.8
17.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
80.2
33.6
9.8
21.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
12.9
0.0
10.5
0.0
5.3
0.0
9.4
Ref Time Seperate (s)
5.0
9.4
1.4
7.5
0.8
2.7
3.0
2.5
Reference Time (s)
12.9
12.9
10.5
10.5
5.3
5.3
9A
9.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
16.9
16.9
14.5
14.5
9.3
9.3
13.4
13.4
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
80.2
21.4
Split Option (s)
31.5
22.7
Minimum (s)
31.5
21.4
52.8
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.0% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 21
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
16: Kansas St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
22
333
21
37
311
15
12
10
16
16
20
44
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
376
0
0
363
0
0
38
0
0
80
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.92
0.85
0.95
0.91
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3577
0
0
3577
0
0
1752
0
0
1726
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
543
0
282
0
1081
0
1482
Reference Time A (s)
00
31.8
0.0
45.7
0.0
4.2
0.0
6.5
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.8
10.6
9.1i
13.6
Reference Time (s)
31.8
45.7
4.2
6.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
36.3
50.2
9.5
11.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
12.6
0.0
12.2
0.0
2.6
0.0
5.6
Ref Time Seperate (s)
1.5
11.1
2.5
10.4
0.8
0.7
1.1
1.4
Reference Time (s)
126
12.6
12.2
12.2
2.6
" 2.6
5.6
5.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
17.1
17.1
16.7
16.7
9.5
9.5
10.1
10.1
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
50.2
11.0
Split Option (s)
33.8
19.6
Minimum (s)
33.8
11.0
44.8
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.3% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 22
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
17: Maryland St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
26
343
3
8
305
3
5
3
3
17
1
25
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
372
0
0
316
0
0
11
0
0
43
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.89
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3601
0
0
3608
0
0
1781
0
0
1700
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
456
0
994
0
1303
0
1403
Reference Time A (s)
00
35.2
0.0
17.1
0.0
1.0
0.0
3.7
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.3
8.7
9.1i
11.0
Reference Time (s)
35.2
17.1
1.0
3.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
39.2
21.1
8.0
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
12.4
0.0
10.5
0.0
0.7
0.0
3.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
1.7
11.4
0.5
10.1
0.3
0.2
1.1
0.1
Reference Time (s)
12.4
12A
10.5
10.5
0.7
0.7
3.0
3.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
16.4
16.4
14.5
14.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
39.2
8.0
Split Option (s)
30.9
16.0
Minimum (s)
30.9
8.0
38.9
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 32.4% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 23
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
18: Maryland St & E Franklin Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
1
3
26
2
3
21
1
2
2
0
10
8
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
0
32
0
0
25
0
0
4
0
0
18
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.97
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
0
1870
0
0
1877
0
0
1853
0
0
1847
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00',
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
0
1388
0
1425
0
1568
0
1419
Reference Time A (s)
00
0.0
2.8
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
15
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
8.1
8.2
10.1
8.2
9.6
8.1
8.3
8.7
92
Reference Time (s)
2.8
2.1
0.3
1.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.3
0.0
1.2
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.1
0.2
1.7
0.2
1.3
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.5
Reference Time (s)
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.6
1.6
0.3
0.3
1.2
12
Adj Reference Time (s)
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
80
8.0
Split Option (s)
16.0
16.0
Minimum (s)
80
8.0
16.0
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 13.3% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 24
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
18: Maryland St & E Franklin Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
4/
Lan4Configurations
Volume (vph)
0
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
Protected Option Allowed
Reference Time (s)
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
Reference Time A (s)
Adj Saturation B (vph
Reference Time B (s)
Reference Time (s)
Adi Reference Time (s)
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
Ref Time Seperate (s)
Reference Time (s)
Adj Reference Time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 25
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
19: Center St & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
37
138
40
39
125
60
26
136
60
24
85
20
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
215
0
0
224
0
0
222
0
0
129
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.96
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1831
0
0
1808
0
0
1812
0
0
1839
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
1371
0
1344
0
1520
0
1169
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
1&8
0.0
20.0
0.0
17.5
0.0
13.2
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.7
22.7
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
18.8
20.0
17.5
13.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
22.8
24.0
21.5
17.2
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
14.1
0.0
14.9
0.0
14.7
0.0
8.4
Ref Time Seperate (s)
2.5
9.0
2.6
8.3
1.7
9.0
1.6
5.5
Reference Time (s)
141
14.1
14.9
14.9
14.7
14.7
8A
8.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
18.1
18.1
18.9
18.9
18.7
18.7
12.4
12.4
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
24.0
21.5
Split Option (s)
37.0
31.1
Minimum (s)
240
21.5
45.5
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.9% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 26
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
20: Center St & E Pine Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
fl i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
76
21
1
49
138
132
36
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
97
0
0
0
188
168
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.93
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.97
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
1766
0
0
0
1875
1839
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
118
0
0
368
1839
Reference Time A (s)
989
0.0
0.0
61.3
11.0
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
61.3
11.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
65.3
15.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
6.6
0.0
0.0
12.0
11.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
5.2
0.1
3.3
8.7
8.6
Reference Time (s)
6.6
12.0
12.0
12.0
11.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
10.6
16.0
16.0
16.0
15.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
Err
65.3
Split Option (s)
10.6
31.0
Minimum (s)
10.6
31.0
41.6
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 34.7% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 27
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
98
11
53
56
4
25
11
25
2019"
26
28
4
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
98
64
0
56
29
0
0
36
2045
0
0
32
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.88
0.85
0.95
0.87
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1664
0
1805
1654
0
0
1805
6888
0
0
1805
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
65
4.6
0.0
3.7
2.1
0.0
0.0
2.4
35.6 `
0.0
0.0
2.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
11.0
9.5
0.0
9.5
9.5
0.0
0.0
9.5
40.1
0.0
0.0
9.5
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
120
1664
120
1654
0
120
1722
0
120
Reference Time A (s)
97.7
4.6
55.8
2.1
0.0
35.9
35.6
0.0
319
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1664
0
1654
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
145
4.6
11.7
2.1
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
14.5
11.7
35.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
19.0
16.2
40.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
6.5
4.6
3.7
2.1
0.0
2.4
35.6
0.0
21
Ref Time Seperate (s)
6.5
0.8
3.7
0.3
0.7
1.7
35.2
1.9
0.3
Reference Time (s)
6.5
6.5
3.7
3.7
35.6
" 35.6
35.6 `
36.3
363
Adj Reference Time (s)
11.0
11.0
9.5
9.5
40.1
40.1
40.1
40.8
40.8
Protected Option (s)
20.5
50.3
Permitted Option (s)
19.0
40.8
Split Option (s)
20.5
80.9
Minimum (s)
190
40.8
59.8
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.8% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Volume (vph)
2014
63
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
2077
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
1.00
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6869
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
363
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
40.8
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1717
Reference Time A (s)
36.3
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
36.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
40.8
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
36.3
Ref Time Seperate (s)
35.2
Reference Time (s)
36.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
40.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
2: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Maple Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
70
61
56
41
64
135
36
80
1887
107
11
68
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
70
117
0
41
64
135
0
116
1994
0
0
79
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.93
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1764
0
1805
1600
1615
0
1805
6845
0
0
1805
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
4.7
&0
0.0
2.7
4.0
%0
0.0
7.7
35.0 '
0.0
0.0
5.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
9.5
12.5
0.0
9.5
9.5
14.5
0.0
12.2
39.5
0.0
0.0
9.8
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
120
1764
120
1600
0
120
1711
0
120
Reference Time A (s)
69.8
&0
40.9
4.0
0.0
115.7
35.0'
0.0
78.8
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1764
0
1600
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
12.7
&0
10.7
4.0
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
12.7
10.7
115.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
17.2
15.2
120.2
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
4.7
8.0
2.7
4.0
0.0
7.7
35.0
0.0
5.3
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.7
4.2
2.7
4.0
2.4
5.3
33.1
0.7
4.5
Reference Time (s)
8.0
&0
4.0
4.0
35.0
35.0
35.0 '
36.0
36.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
12.5
12.5
9.5
9.5
39.5
39.5
39.5
40.5
40.5
Protected Option (s)
22.0
52.7
Permitted Option (s)
17.2
120.2
Split Option (s)
22.0
80.0
Minimum (s)
17.2
52.7
69.9
Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 49.2
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 95
Combined (s) 73.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.0% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
2: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Maple Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Volume (vph)
2022
42
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
2064
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
1.00
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6880
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
360
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
40.5
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1720
Reference Time A (s)
36.0
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
78.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
83.3
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
360
Ref Time Seperate (s)
35.3
Reference Time (s)
36.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
40.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
3: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
123
208
48
149
196
151
32
104
1666
116
44
170
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
123
256
0
149
196
151
0
136
1666
116
0
214
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.97
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1847
0
1805
1600
1615
0
1805
6901 !
1615'
0
3505
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
8.2
16.6
0.0
9.9
12.4
11.2
0.0
9.0
29.0 '
8.6
0.0
7.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
12.7
21.1
0.0
14.4
16.9
15.7
0.0
13.5
33.5
13.1
0.0
11.8
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
120
1847
120
1600
0
120
1725
0
117
Reference Time A (s)
122.7
16.6
148.6
12.4
0.0
135.6
29.0
0.0
1099
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
122.7
148.6
135.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
127.2
153.1
140.1
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
8.2
16.6
9.9
12.4
0.0
9.0
29.0
0.0
7.3
Ref Time Seperate (s)
8.2
13.5
9.9
12.4
2.1
6.9
29.0
2.9
5.8
Reference Time (s)
166
16.6
12.4
12.4
29.0
29.0
29.0 '
32.3
32.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
21.1
21.1
16.9
16.9
33.5
33.5
33.5
36.8
36.8
Protected Option (s)
35.5
50.3
Permitted Option (s)
1531
140.1
Split Option (s)
38.0
70.3
Minimum (s)
35.5
50.3
85.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
15.7
13.1
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
45.3
21.1
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
12.7
11.8
Combined (s)
73.7
46.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.6% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
3: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
1
LaAVonfigurations
Volume (vph)
1755
88
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
1843
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
0.99
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6851
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
323
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
36.8
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1713
Reference Time A (s)
32.3
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
109.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
114.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
32.3
Ref Time Seperate (s)
30.7
Reference Time (s)
32.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
36.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
4: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
211
144
172
264
151
175
12
147
1461
170
13
40
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
527
0
264
151
175
0
159
1461
170
0
53
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
0.97
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.93
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
5057
0
3505
3618
1615
0
1805
6901 !
1615'
0
1805
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
Yes
Reference Time (s)
0.0
13.0
0.0
10.6
25.4 '
12.6
0.0
3.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
17.5
0.0
15.1
29.9
17.1
0.0
9.5
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
169
117
1809
0
120
1725
0
120
Reference Time A (s)
00
150.2
135.6
5.0
0.0
158.6
25.4
0.0
529
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
150.2
135.6
158.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
154.7
140.1
163.1
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
12.5
9.0
5.0
0.0
10.6
25.4'
0.0
3.5
Ref Time Seperate (s)
7.0
5.2
9.0
5.0
0.8
9.8
25.4
0.9
2.7
Reference Time (s)
125
12.5
9.0
9.0
25.4
25.4
25.4 '
33.5
33.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
17.0
17.0
13.5
13.5
29.9
29.9
29.9
38.0
38.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
53.1
Permitted Option (s)
154.7
163.1
Split Option (s)
30.5
68.0
Minimum (s)
30.5
53.1
83.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
175
17.1
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
39.4
17.0
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
170
9.5
Combined (s)
73.9
43.6
Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.7% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
4: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Volume (vph)
1769
139
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
1908
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
0.99
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6825
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
33.5
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
38.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1706
Reference Time A (s)
33.5
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
52.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
57.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
335
Ref Time Seperate (s)
31.1
Reference Time (s)
33.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
38.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 8
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
5: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E El Segundo Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
-11 --,, -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
3
126
299
484
395
293
158
37
331
1440
295
9
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
45
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
129
299
484
395
293
158
0
368
1735
0
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
0`95
1.00
0.97
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.91'
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1805
3618
1615
3505
3618
1615
0
3505
6725'
0
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
00
8.6
9.9
36.0
13.5
9.7
11.7
0.0
12.6 `
31.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
13.1
14.4
40.5
18.0
14.2
16.2
0.0
17.1
35.5
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
120
1809
117
1809
0
117
1681
0
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
128.6
9.9
202.8
9.7
0.0
189.0 '
31.0
00
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
128.6
202.8
189.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
133.1
207.3
193.5'
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
8.6
9.9
13.5
9.7
0.0
12.6
31.0
0.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.2
8.4
9.9
13.5
9.7
2.5
11.3
25.7
0.6
Reference Time (s)
9.9
9.9
9.9
13.5
13.5
31.0
31.0 '
31.0
35.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
14.4
14.4
14.4
18.0
18.0
35.5
35.5
35.5
40.2
Protected Option (s)
32.4
57.3
Permitted Option (s)
207.3
193.5
Split Option (s)
32.4
75.6
Minimum (s)
32.4
57.3
89.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
40.5
16.2
9.8
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
57.3
45.0
27.3
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
180
13.1
17.1
Combined (s)
115.8
74.3
54.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 96.5% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 9
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
5: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E El Segundo Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
\. 1
Lane Configurations
tiff
r
Volume (vph)
101
2052
71
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
45
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
110
2052
71
Lane Utilization Factor
0.97
091
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
1.00
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
3505
6901
1615
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
3.8
35.7
5.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
9.5
40.2
9.8
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
117
1725
Reference Time A (s)
565
35.7
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
56.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
61`0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
3.8
35.7
Ref Time Seperate (s)
3.5
35.7
Reference Time (s)
35.7
35.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
40.2
40.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 10
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
6: Main St & Imperial Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
107
24
28
27
22
65
24
536
35
81
611
141
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
107
52
0
0
114
0
0
595
0
0
833
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.92
0.85
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1747
0
0
1717
0
0
3578
0
0
3509
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
548
1747
0
371
0
741
0
296
Reference Time A (s)
234
3.6
0.0
36.9
0.0
40.4
0.0
103.2
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1747
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
15.1
3.6
9.8
16.0
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
15.1
16.0
40.4
103.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
19.6
20.5
44.9
107.7
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
7.'�1
3.6
0.0
8.0
0.0
20.0 !
0.0
28.5
Ref Time Seperate (s)
7.1
1.6
1.8
1.6
1.6
17.9
5.4
20.9
Reference Time (s)
7.1
7.1
8.0
8.0
20.0
20.0
28.5'
28.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
11.6
11.6
12.5
12.5
24.5
24.5
33.0
33.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
20.5
107.7
Split Option (s)
24.1
57.4
Minimum (s)
20.5
57.4
77.9
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.9% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 11
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
7: Main St & Maple Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
29
12
27
37
25
36
32
584
22
29
589
15
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
68
0
0
98
0
0
638
0
0
633
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.92
0.85
0.95
0.93
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1749
0
0
1761
0
0
3590
0
0
3596
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
1283
0
1433
0
626
0
676
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
6A
0.0
8.2
0.0
48.9
0.0
45.9
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
9.9
12.7
10.5
14.7
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
6.4
8.2
48.9
45.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
10.4
12.2
52.9
49.9
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
4.7
0.0
6.7
0.0
21.3
0.0
21.1
Ref Time Seperate (s)
1.9
0.8
2.5
1.7
2.1
19.5
1.9
19.6
Reference Time (s)
4.7
4.7
6.7
6.7
21.3
21.3
21 A
21.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
8.7
8.7
10.7
10.7
25.3
25.3
25.1
25.1
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
12.2
52.9
Split Option (s)
19.3
50.4
Minimum (s)
12.2
50.4
62.7
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.2% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 12
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
8: Main St & Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
66
70
30
48
80
117
23
444
45
147
440
41
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
166
0
0
245
0
0
512
0
0
628
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95
0.92
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1812
0
0
1747
0
0
3562
0
0
3540
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
971
0
1598
0
680
0
118
Reference Time A (s)
00
20.5
0.0
18.4
0.0
37.1
0.0
149.5
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
11.2
24.8
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
20.5
18.4
37.1
149.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
25.0
22.9
41.6
154.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
11.0
0.0
16.8
0.0
17.2
0.0
21.3
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.4
4.6
3.2
5.5
1.5
14.9
9.8
14.8
Reference Time (s)
110
11.0
16.8
16.8
17.2
17.2
21.3
21.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
15.5
15.5
21.3
21.3
21.7
21.7
25.8
25.8
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
25.0
154.0
Split Option (s)
36.8
47.5
Minimum (s)
250
47.5
72.6
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 60.5% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 13
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
9: Main St & Pine Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
57
24
24
10
19
84
38
432 '
7
54
384
46
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
105
0
0
113
0
0
477
0
0
484
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.88
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1785
0
0
1681
0
0
3595
0
0
3546
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
477
0
1683
0
393
0
244
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
26A
0.0
8.1
0.0
49.7
0.0
65.9
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
118
15.1
8.7
16.1
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
15.1
8.1
49.7
65.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
19.1
12.1
53.7
69.9
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
7.1
0.0
8.1
0.0
15.9
0.0
16.4
Ref Time Seperate (s)
3.8
1.6
0.7
1.4
2.5
14.4
3.6
12.9
Reference Time (s)
7.1
7.1
8.1
8.1
15.9
15.9
16A
16.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
11.1
11.1
12.1
12.1
19.9
19.9
20.4
20.4
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
191
69.9
Split Option (s)
23.1
40.3
Minimum (s)
19.1
40.3
59.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 49.5% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 14
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
10: Main St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
60
234
51
40
178
129
63
273
26
136
161
73
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
345
0
0
347
0
0
362
0
0
370
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3507
0
0
3396
0
0
3547
0
0
3446
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
117
0
222
0
118
0
115
Reference Time A (s)
00
61.6
0.0
50.5
0.0
63.9
0.0
142.1
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
61.6
50.5
63.9
142.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
66.1
55.0
68.4
146.6
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
11.8
0.0
12.3
0.0
12.2
0.0
12.9
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.0
8.0
2.7
6.3
4.2
9.2
9.0
5.6
Reference Time (s)
118
11.8
12.3
12.3
12.2
12.2
12.9
12.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
16.3
16.3
16.8
16.8
16.7
16.7
17.4
17.4
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
66.1
146.E
Split Option (s)
33.1
34.1
Minimum (s)
33.1
34.1
67.2
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 56.0% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 15
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
11: El Segundo Blvd & Main St Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
49
297
175
189
178
24
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
346
175
189
202
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
0.97
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.99
1.00
0.85
0.94
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1887
1600
1615
3464
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
14.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
18.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
605
1600
115
Reference Time A (s)
00
68.6
11.1
105.0
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
68.6
11.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
72.6
15.1
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
22.0
11.1
7.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
3.3
18.8
11.1
6.2
Reference Time (s)
220
22A
11.1
7.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
26.0
26.0
15.1
11.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
72.6
Err
Split Option (s)
41.1
11.0
Minimum (s)
41.1
11.0
52.1
Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 0.0
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 260
Combined (s) 44.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.4% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 16
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
12: Whiting St & W Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
17
240
24
7
250
15
64
26
6
12
20
9
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
281
0
0
272
0
0
96
0
0
41
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.96
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3560
0
0
3583
0
0
1819
0
0
1811
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
523
0
979
0
885
0
1812
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
24A
0.0
15.0
0.0
13.0
0.0
2.7
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.3
14.3
8.8
10.7
Reference Time (s)
24.4
15.0
13.0
2.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
28.4
19.0
17.0
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
9.5
0.0
9.1
0.0
6.3
0.0
2.7
Ref Time Seperate (s)
1.1
8.1
0.5
8.4
4.3
1.7
0.8
1.3
Reference Time (s)
9.5
9.5
9.1
9.1
6.3
6.3
2.7
2.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
13.5
13.5
13.1
13.1
10.3
10.3
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
28.4
17.0
Split Option (s)
26.6
18.3
Minimum (s)
26.6
17.0
43.6
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.3% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 17
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
13: Concord St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
6
8
244
9
8
11
260
16
12
11
11
14
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
0
267
0
0
0
295
0
0
34
0
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
0`95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.93
0.85
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
0
3590
0
0
0
3577
0
0
1776
0
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
0
602
0
0
494
0
1417
0
Reference Time A (s)
00
0.0
21.0
0.0
0.0
26.6
0.0 '
2.9
00
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.8
10.3
89
Reference Time (s)
21.0
26.6
2.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
25.0
30.6
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
0.0
8.9
0.0
0.0
9.9
0.0
2.3
0.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.4
0.5
8.1
0.5
0.7
8.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
Reference Time (s)
8.9
8.9
8.9
9.9
9.9
9.9
2.3
2.3
2.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
12.9
12.9
12.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
8.0
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
30.6
8.0
Split Option (s)
26.8
16.0
Minimum (s)
268
8.0
34.8
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.0% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 18
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
13: Concord St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
4/
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
13
9
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
36
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
Turning Factor (vph)
0.94
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
1793
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1321
Reference Time A (s)
3.3
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
Reference Time B (s)
104
Reference Time (s)
3.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
2.4
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.9
Reference Time (s)
2.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 19
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
14: Eucalyptus Dr & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
65
281
61
47
289
35
34
65
23
48
45
23
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
407
0
0
371
0
0
122
0
0
116
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.96
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3508
0
0
3544
0
0
1821
0
0
1805
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
127
0
198
0
1585
0
1145
Reference Time A (s)
00
69.5
0.0
55.5
0.0
9.2
0.0
12.2
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.3
16.0
11.2
15.7
Reference Time (s)
69.5
55.5
9.2
12.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
73.5
59.5
13.2
16.2
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
13.9
0.0
12.6
0.0
8.0
0.0
7.7
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.3
9.6
3.1
9.7
2.3
4.3
3.2
3.0
Reference Time (s)
13.9
13.9
12.6
12.6
8.0
8.0
77
7.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
17.9
17.9
16.6
16.6
12.0
12.0
11.7
11.7
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
73.5
16.2
Split Option (s)
34.5
23.8
Minimum (s)
345
16.2
50.6
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.2% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 20
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
15: Center St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
61
320
13
10
327
61
27
98
27
66
69
71
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
394
0
0
398
0
0
152
0
0
206
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.96
0.85
0.95
0.93
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3572
0
0
3530
0
0
1833
0
0
1773
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
137
0
977
0
1615
0
1026
Reference Time A (s)
00
65.5
0.0
22.0
0.0
11.3
0.0
24.1
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B'(s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
65.5
22.0
11.3
24.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
69.5
26.0
15.3
28.1
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
13.2
0.0
13.5
0.0
10.0
0.0
13.9
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.1
10.7
0.7
11.1
1.8
6.4
4.4
4.7
Reference Time (s)
13.2
13.2
13.5
13.5
10.0
10.0
13.9
13.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
17.2
17.2
17.5
17.5
14.0
14.0
17.9
17.9
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
695
28.1
Split Option (s)
34.8
31.9
Minimum (s)
348
28.1
62.9
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.4% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 21
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
16: Kansas St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
21
416
8
27
393
14
22
19
76
1
9
9
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
445
0
0
434
0
0
117
0
0
0
48
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.89
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.90
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3599
0
0
3589
0
0
1699
0
0
0
1710
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
660
0
513
0
1310
0
0
1232
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
32.8
0.0
38.1
0.0
10.7
0.0
0.0
4.7
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.5
'i 16.3
8.1i
8.6
11.4
Reference Time (s)
32.8
38.1
10.7
4.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
37.3
42.6
15.2
9.5
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
14.8
0.0
14.5
0.0
8.3
0.0
0.0
3.4
Ref Time Seperate (s)
1.4
13.8
1.8
13.1
1.5
1.4
0.1
0.6
0.6
Reference Time (s)
14.8
%8
14.5
14.5
8.3
8.3
3A
3.4
3.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
19.3
19.3
19.0
19.0
12.8
12.8
9.5
9.5
9.5
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
42.6
15.2
Split Option (s)
38.3
22.3
Minimum (s)
38.3
15.2
53.6
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.6% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 22
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
16: Kansas St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
4/
Lan4Configurations
Volume (vph)
29
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
Protected Option Allowed
Reference Time (s)
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
Reference Time A (s)
Adj Saturation B (vph
Reference Time B (s)
Reference Time (s)
Adi Reference Time (s)
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
Ref Time Seperate (s)
Reference Time (s)
Adj Reference Time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 23
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
17: Maryland St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
12
380
7
8
416
12
3
2
8
5
5
10
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
399
0
0
436
0
0
13
0
0
20
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.95
0.91
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3603
0
0
3599
0
0
1705
0
0
1736
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
903
0
1148
0
1312
0
1262
Reference Time A (s)
00
23.3
0.0
21.1
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.9
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.2
8.9
8.3
9.4
Reference Time (s)
23.3
21.1
1.2
1.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
27.3
25.1
8.0
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
13.3
0.0
14.5
0.0
0.9
0.0
1.4
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.8
12.6
0.5
13.9
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.4
Reference Time (s)
13.3
13.3
14.5
14.5
0.9
0.9
1 A
1.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
17.3
17.3
18.5
18.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
27.3
8.0
Split Option (s)
35.8
16.0
Minimum (s)
273
8.0
35.3
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.4% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 24
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
18: Maryland St & E Franklin Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
6
43
5
0
40
8
0
4
0
5
5
4
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
54
0
0
48
0
0
4
0
0
14
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.94
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1863
0
0
1853
0
0
1600
0
0
1786
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
705
0
1853
0
1600
0
273
Reference Time A (s)
00
9.2
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
6.2
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
0
1853
0
1600
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
84
11.5
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.3
8.3
8.9
Reference Time (s)
9.2
3.1
0.3
6.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
13.2
8.0
8.0
10.2
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
3.5
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.9
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.4
2.8
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.3
0.3
0.3
Reference Time (s)
3.5
3.5
3.1
3.1
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
13.2
10.2
Split Option (s)
16.0
16.0
Minimum (s)
13.2
10.2
23.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 19.5% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 25
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
19: Center St & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
20
143
28
69
212
34
24
198
66
30
111
24
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
191
0
0
315
0
0
288
0
0
165
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.96
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1848
0
0
1849
0
0
1827
0
0
1842
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
1632
0
1040
0
1613
0
1047
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
%0
0.0
36.3
0.0
21.4
0.0
18.9
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B'(s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
14.0
36.3
21.4
18.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
18.0
40.3
25.4
22.9
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
12.4
0.0
20.4
0.0
18.9
0.0
10.8
Ref Time Seperate (s)
1.3
9.3
4.6
13.7
1.6
13.0
2.0
7.2
Reference Time (s)
12.4
12A
20.4
20.4
18.9
18.9
%8
10.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
16.4
16.4
24.4
24.4
22.9
22.9
14.8
14.8
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
403
25.4
Split Option (s)
40.8
37.7
Minimum (s)
403
25.4
65.8
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.8% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 26
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
20: Center St & E Pine Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
fl i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
66
50
2
36
202
167
50
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
116
0
0
0
240
217
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.91
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.97
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
1727
0
0
0
1885
1834
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
115
0
0
558
1834
Reference Time A (s)
120.9
0.0
0.0
51.7
142
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
51.7
14.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
55.7
18.2
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
8.1
0.0
0.0
15.3
14.2
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.6
0.1
2.4
12.8
10.9
Reference Time (s)
8.1
15.3
15.3
15.3
142
Adj Reference Time (s)
12.1
19.3
19.3
19.3
18.2
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
Err
55.7
Split Option (s)
12.1
37.5
Minimum (s)
12.1
37.5
49.5
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.3% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 27
f
Existing plus Project Analysis Worksheets
DR "V.7 Local Transportation Analysis
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
85
15
41
13
7
8
4 60
1720
43
22 1,5
Future Volume (veh/h)
85
15
41
13
7
8
4 60
1720
43
22 15
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
87
15
42
13
7
8
61
1755
44
15
Peak Hour Factor
0.98
0.98
098
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
276
46
128
238
84
96
101
3992
100,
33
Arrive On Green
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.06
0.61
0.61
0.02
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
87
0
57
13
0
15
61
1302
497
15
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1398
0
1651
1346
0
1707
1781
1609
1841i
1781
Q Serve(g_s), s
3.1
0.0
1.6
0.5
0.0
0.4
1.7
7.3
7.3
0.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.5
0.0
1.6
2.1
0.0
0.4
1.7
7.3 '
7.3
0.4
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.74
1.00
0.53
1.00
0.09
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
276
0
173
238
0
179
101
2962
1130
33
V/C Ratio(X)
0.32
0.00
0.33
0.05
0.00
0.08
0.61
0.44
0.44
0.45
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
686
0
658
633
0
680
398
4549
1736
260
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
22.4
0.0
21.3
22.3
0.0
20.8
23.7
5.3
5.3
25.0
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh
0.6
0.0
1.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
5.7
0.1
0.3
9.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In
10
0.0
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.8
1.3
1.6
02
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
23.0
0.0
22.4
22.4
0.0
21.0
29.5
5.4
5.5
34.1
LnGrp LOS
C
A
C
C
A
C
C
A
A
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
144
28
1860
Approach Delay, s/veh
22.8
21.6
6.2
Approach LOS
C
C
A'
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
5 5
36.1
9.9
7A
34.1
9.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
75
48.5
20.5
11.5
44.5
20.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
2.4
9.3
5.5
3.7
11.4
4.1
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
00
17.1
0.4
0.1
18.2
0.0
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
1757
184
Future Volume (veh/h)
1757
184
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
1793
188
Peak Hour Factor
0.98
0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
Cap, veh/h
3432
360
Arrive On Green
0.58
0.58
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
1452
529
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1609
1758
Q Serve(g_s), s
9.4
9.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
94
9.4
Prop In Lane
0.36
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
2780
1013
V/C Ratio(X)
0.52
0.52
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
4174
1521
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
6.6
6.6
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh
0.2
0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In
19
2.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
68
7.0
LnGrp LOS
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
1996
Approach Delay, s/veh
7.0
Approach'LOS
A
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
2: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Maple Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
-11 --1. .4--- fl I L* t
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
138
108
74
21
46
96
27 31
1579
148
9 145
1564
50
Future Volume (veh/h)
138
108
74
21
46
96
27 31
1579
148
9 145
1564
50
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
144
112
77
22
48
100
32
1645
154
151
1629
52
Peak Hour Factor
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
281
179
123
180
324
274
57
3278
307
192
3994
127
Arrive On Green
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.03
0.54
0.54
0.11
0.62
0.62
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
144
0
189
22
48
100
32
1316
483
151
1218
463
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl240
0
1743'
1194
1870
1585
1781
1609
1769
1781
1609
1833
Q Serve(g_s), s
8.6
0.0
7.7
1.3
1.7
4.3
1.4
13.1
13.1
6.3
9.9
9.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
102
0.0
7.7'
9.1
1.7
4.3
1.4
13.1
13.1i
6.3
9.9
9.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.41
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.32
1.00
0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
281
0
301
180
324
274
57
2623
961'
192
2986
1135
V/C Ratio(X)
0.51
0.00
0.63
0.12
0.15
0.36
0.56
0.50
0.50
0.79
0.41
0.41
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
398
0
465
293
500
423
197
2623
961'
429
2986
1135
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.3
0.0
29.4
33.6
26.9
28.0
36.6
11.0
11.0
33.4
7.5
7.5
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 1.4
0.0
2.1
0.3
0.2
0.8
8.2
0.7
1.9
7.0
0.4
1.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr2.6
0.0
3.4
0.4
0.7
1.6
0.7
4.0
4.7
3.0
2.7
3.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.7
0.0
31.6
33.9
27.1
28.8
44.8
11.7
12.9
40.4
7.9
8.5
LnGrp LOS C
A
C
C
C
C
D
B
B
D
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
333
170
1831
1832
Approach Delay, s/veh
32.1
29.0
12.6
10.7
Approach LOS
C
C
B
B
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), Q.8
46.2
17.8
7.0
52.0
17.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmat§.6
37.5
20.5
8.5
47.5
20.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+110,3
15.1
12.2
3.4
11.9
11.1
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.3
13.0
1.0 _
0.0
15.0
0.4
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
3: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
122
204
62
1 79
98
100
14 61
1506,
113
29 172
1417
77
Future Volume (veh/h)
122
204
62
1 79
98
100
14 61
1506
113
29 172
1417
77
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ';
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
130
217
66
84
104
106
65
1602
120
183
1507
82
Peak Hour Factor
0.94
0.94
0.94'
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94 I
0.94
0.94
094
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
166
265
81
109
300
254
89
2707
667
276
2835
154
Arrive On Green
0.09
0.19
0.19
0.06
0.16
0.16
0.05
0.42
0.42
0.08
0.45
0.45
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
130
0
283
84
104
106
65
1602
120
183
1155
434
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl781
0
1795;
1781
1870
1585
1781
1609
1585
1728
1609
1809
Q Serve(g_s), s
5.2
0.0
11.1
3.4
3.6
4.4
2.6
14.1
3.5
3.8
12.7
12.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
5.2
0.0
11.1
3.4
3.6
4.4
2.6
14.1'
3.5
3.8
12.7
12.7
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.23
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.19
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
166
0
345
109
300
254
89
2707
667
276
2174
815
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.00
0.82
0.77
0.35
0.42
0.73
0.59
0.18
0.66
0.53
0.53
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
290
0
513
238
480
407
231
2707
667
496
2174
815
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 32.5
0.0
28.3
33.9
27.3
27.7
34.3
16.3
13.3
32.7
14.5
14.5
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 7.8
0.0
6.5
11.0
0.7
1.1
10.7
1.0
0.6 '
2.7
0.9
2.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr2.6
0.0
5.2
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.3
4.7
1.2 `
1.6
4.2
5.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 40.3
0.0
34.9;
44.8
28.0
28.8
450
17.3
13.9
35.4
15.5
17.0
LnGrp LOS D
A
C
D
C
C
D
B
B
D
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
413
294
1787
1772
Approach Delay, s/veh
36.6
33.1
18.1
17.9
Approach LOS
D
C
B
B
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), W.3
35.3
9.0
18.6
8.2
37.5
11.3
16.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmag.5
30.8
9.8
20.9
9.5
"31.8
11.9
18.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+115,a
16.1
5.4
13.1
4.6
14.7
7.2
6.4
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.2
9.5
0.1
1.0
0.0
9.6
0.1
0.6
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
4: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
-11 --1. .4--- fl I L* t
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
175
141
97
48
74
45
10 131
1438
404
17 179
1119
194
Future Volume (veh/h)
175
141
97
48
74
45
10 131
1438
404
17 179
1119
194
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
146
206
103
51
79
48
139
1530
430
190
1190
206
Peak Hour Factor
0.94
0.94
0.94'
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
252
338
162
259
267
119
178
2371
584
237
2233
384
Arrive On Green
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.10
0.37
0.37
0.13
0.40
0.40
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
146
159
150
51
79
48
139
1530
430
190
1031
365
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl781
1870
1664
1728
(1777
1585
1781
1609
1585'
1781
1609
1698
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.9
5.1
5.4
0.9
1.3
1.8
4.9
12.6
15.0
6.6
10.4
10.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4:9
5.1
5.4'
0.9
1.3
1.8
4.9
12.6
15.0
6.6
10.4
10.5
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.69
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.56
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
252
265
235
259
267
119
178
2371
584
237
1936
681
V/C Ratio(X)
0.58
0.60
0.64
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.78
0.65
0.74
0.80
0.53
0.54
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
503
528
470
975
1003
447
310
2371
584
349
1936
681
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 25.6
25.7
25.8
27.7
27.9
28.1
28.0
16.7
17.5
26.8
14.5
14.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.1
2.2
2.8
0.4
0.6
2.2
7.2
1.4
8.1'
8.1
1.1
3.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/lr2.1
2.3
2.2
0.4
0.6
0.7
2.3
4.2
5.9
3.1
3.4
3.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 27.7
27.9
28.7
28.1
28.5
30.3
35.2
18.1
25.5"
34.9
15.6
17.6
LnGrp LOS C
C
C
C
C
C
D
B
C
C
B
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
455
178
2099
1586
Approach Delay, s/veh
28.1
28.9
20.7
18.4
Approach LOS
C
C
C
B
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), Q.0
28.0
13.5
10.9
30.1
9.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gman.5
23.5
18.0
11.1
24.9
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+llo,@
17.0
7.4
6.9
12.5
3.8
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.2
5.1
1.6
0.1
7.0
0.6
HCM 6th LOS
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
5: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E El Segundo Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
1 99
218;
289
127
231
109
27 401
1893,
250
14 104
996
136
Future Volume (veh/h)
1 99
218
289
127
231
109
27 401
1893
250
14 104
996
136
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ';
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
103
227
301
132
241
114
418
1972
260
108
1038
142
Peak Hour Factor
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
096
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
132
766
342
204
714
318
518
2658
350
188
2336
575
Arrive On Green
0.07
0.22
0.22
0.06
0.20
0.20
0.15
0.46
0.46
0.05
0.36
0.36
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
103
227
301
132
241
114
418
1642
590
108
1038
142
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777'
1585
1728
1777
1585
1728
1609
1733
1728
1609
1585
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.8
4.5
15.6
3.2
4.9
5.3
9.9
23.7
23.7
2.6
10.4
5.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.8
4.5
15.6
3.2
4.9
5.3
99
23.7
23.7
2.6
10.4
5.3
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.44
1.00
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
132
766
342
204
714
318
518
2214'
795
188
2336
575
V/C Ratio(X)
0.78
0.30
0.88
0.65
0.34
0.36
0.81
0.74
0.74
0.58
0.44
0.25
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
200
851
379
297
758
338
733
2214'
795
224
2336
575
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
38.6
27.9
32.2
39.0
29.0
29.2
34.8
18.8
18.8
39.1
20.5
18.9
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh
10.7
0.2'
19.3
3.4
0.3
0.7
4.5
2.3
6.2 `
2.8
0.6
1.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In
2.4
1.9
7.5
1.4
2.0
2.0
4.3
8.3
9.8
1.1
3.7
2.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
49.3
28.1
51.5
42.5
29.3
29.9
39.3
21.1'
25.0
41.9
21.1
19.9
LnGrp LOS
D
C
D
D
C
C
D
C
C
D
C
B
Approach Vol, veh/h
631,
487
2650
1288
Approach Delay, s/veh
42.7
33.0
24.9
22.7
Approach LOS
D>
C
C
C
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.1
43.4
9.5:
22.8
17.2
35.3
10.8
21.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (GmaxN.5
38.9
7.3:
20.3
18.0
26.4
9.5
18.1
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+114,@
25.7
5.2
17.6
11.9
12.4
6.8
7.3
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0
10.6
0.1
0.7 ,'
0.8
6.2
0.1
1.3
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
6: Main St & Imperial Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
200
37
69
15
19
110
25
658
29
60,
614
61
Future Volume (veh/h)
200
37
69
15
19
110
25
658
29
60
614
61
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ';
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
247
46
85
19
23
136
31
812
36
74
758
75
Peak Hour Factor
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
498
132
244
115
66
276
120
1821
79
184
1576
151
Arrive On Green
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.56
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
247
0
131
178
0
0
454
0
425
449
0
458
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl227
0
1675
1609
0
0
1781
0
1676
1592
0
1653
Q Serve(g_s), s
2.1
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.2
0.0
0.0
7.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
&0
0.0
2.7'
3.9
0.0
0.0
5.9
0.0
6.2
5.8
0.0
' 7,0
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.65
0.11
0.76
0.07
0.08
0.16
0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
498
0
376
457
; 0
0
1086
0
935
989
0
922
V/C Ratio(X)
0.50
0.00
0.35
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.45
0.45
0.00
0.50
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
758
0
731
791
0
0
1086
0
935
989
0
922
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 14.5
0.0
13.5
13.9
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.0
5.4
5.3
0.0
5.6
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.8
0.0
0.6
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
1.6
1.5
0.0
1.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.9
0.0
0.9
1.3
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.0
1.8
1.8
0.0
2.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 15.3
0.0
14.0;
14.5
0.0
0.0
6.5
0.0
70
6.8
0.0
7.5
LnGrp LOS B
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
378
178
879
907
Approach Delay, s/veh
14.9
14.5
6.8
7.2
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
27.5
13.8
27.5
13.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
23.0
18.0
23.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
8.2
8.0
9.0
5.9
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
5.4
1.2 _
5.6
0.8
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
7: Main St & Maple Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh49.1
Intersection LOS E
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
68
29
25
57
19
83
19
521
63 40
653 19
Future Vol, veh/h
68
29
25
57
19
83
19
521
63 40
653 19
Peak Hour Factor '
0.75
0.75
0.75+
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75 0.75,
0.75 0.75
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
91
39
33
76
25
111
25
695
84 53
871 25
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0 0
2 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
2
2
'
1
1'
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
2
2
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
16.2
17.3
40.3
69.2
HCM LOS;
C
C
E
F
Vol Left, %
7%
0%
56%
36%
11 %
0%
Vol Thru, %°
93%
81%
24%
` 12%
89%
95%
Vol Right %
0%
19%
20%..
52%
0%
5%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
280
324
122
159
367
346
LT Vol
19
0,
68
57
40
0
Through Vol
261
261
29
19
327
327
RT Vol
0
63
25
83
0
19
Lane Flow Rate
373
431
163
212
489
461
Geometry Grp
7
7
2'
2
7
7
Degree of Util (X)
0.787
0.89
0.371
0.457
1.035
0.963
Departure Headway (Hd)
7.78
7,605
8.325
7.857
7.622
7,526
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
470
479j
434
462
479
484
Service Time
5.48
5.305
6.325
5.857
5.322
5.226
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.794
0.9
0.376
0.459
1.021
0952
HCM Control Delay
33.6
46
16.2
17.3
78.3
59.6
HCM Lane LOS
D
E
C`
C
F
F
HCM 95th-tile Q
7.1
9.7
1.7
2.3
14.6
12.1
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 8
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
8: Main St & Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
79
61
26;
31
44
129
20
399
36
110
406
49
Future Volume (veh/h)
79
61
26
31
44
129
20
399
36
110
406
49
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ';
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
98
75
32
38
54
159
25
493
44
136
501
60
Peak Hour Factor
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
297
173
59
153
101
233
141
1616
141
366
1184
140
Arrive On Green
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.23
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
0.52
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
205
0
0
251
0
0
295
0
267
332
0
365
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl667
0
0
1634
0
0
1804
0
1653
1337
0
1653
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
1.4
0.0
4.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3A
0.0
0.0i
4.8
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
3.2
4.7
0.0
4.8
Prop In Lane
0.48
0.16
0.15
0.63
0.08
0.16
0.41
0.16
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
528
0
0
487
; 0
0
1044
0
854
836
0
854
V/C Ratio(X)
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.52
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.31
0.40
0.00
0.43
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
942
0
0
947
0
0
1044
0
854
836
0
854
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.8
0.0
0.0
12.3
0.0
0.0
4.8
0.0
4.9
5.0
0.0
5.2
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.5
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
1.0
1.4
0.0
1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.2
0.0
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.9
1.1'
0.0
1.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.2
0.0
0.0
13.1
0.0
0.0
5.5
0.0
5.8
6.4'
0.0
6.8
LnGrp LOS B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
205
251
562
697
Approach Delay, s/veh
12.2
13.1
5.7
6.6
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
12.4
22.5
12A
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
5.2
5.4
6.8
6.8
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
3.0
1.0 _
3.8
1.2
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 9
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
9: Main St & Pine Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.2
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
81
56
42
6
28
87
20
289
7 57
358 46
Future Vol, veh/h
81
56
42
6
28
87
20
289
7 57
358 46
Peak Hour Factor '
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.87 0.87;
0.87 0.87
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
93
64
48
7
32
100
23
332
8 66
411 53
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0 0
2 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
2
2
'
1
1'
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
2
2
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
13.1
11.3
12.4
14.2
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
12%
0%
45%
5%
24%
0%
Vol Thru, %
88%
95%'
31%
. ` 23%
i76%
80%
Vol Right, %
0%
5%
23%
72%
0%
20%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
165
152
179
121
236
225
LT Vol
20
0
81
6
57
0
Through Vol
145
145
56
28
179
179
RT Vol
0
7
42
87
0
46
Lane Flow Rate
189
174
206
139
271
259
Geometry Grp
7
7
2'
2
7
7
Degree of Util (X)
0.341
0.31
0.365
0.24
0.477
0.436
Departure Headway (Hd)
6.495
6.4;
6.381
6.212
6.336
6,068
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
550
557';
560
573
567
590
Service Time
4.277
4.182
4.464
4.306
4.11
3.842
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.344
0.312`
0.368
'0.243
0.478
0.439
HCM Control Delay
12.6
12.1
13.1
11.3
14.8
13.5
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
1.5
1.3
1.7
0.9
2.6
2.2
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 10
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
10: Main St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 59 232 54; 9 175 108 55 152 11 142 164 75
Future Volume (veh/h) 59 232 54 9 175 108 55 152 11 142 164 75
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 67 264 61 10 199 123 62 173 12 161 186 85
Peak Hour Factor 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 208 532 125, 117 " 492 286 449 1185 85 630 693 327
Arrive On Green 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
206
0
186
181
0
151
126
0
121
222
0
210
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl476
0
1607
1840
0
1485
1409
0
1672
1309
0
1586
Q Serve(g_s), s
1.4
0.0
3.5
0.0
0.0
3.1
0.1
0.0
1.3
2.5
0.0
2.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.5
0.0
3.5
2.9
0.0
3.1
2.7
0.0
1.3
3.8
0.0
2.7
Prop In Lane
0.32
0.33
0.06
0.81
0.49
0.10
0.73
0.40
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
484
0
380
543
0
352
868
0
851
842
0
807
V/C Ratio(X)
0.43
0.00
0.49
0.33
0.00
0.43
0.15
0.00
0.14
0.26
0.00
0.26
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
891
0
818
1031
0
755
868
0
851
842
0
807
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.8
0.0
11.7
11.4
0.0
11.5
4.6
0.0
4.6
5.2
0.0
4.9
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.6
0.0
1.0
0.4
0.0
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.8
0.0
0.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.2
0.0
1.1,
1.0
0.0
0.9
0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
0.0
0.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.4
0.0
12.6
11.8
0.0
12.3
4.9
0.0
49
6.0
0.0
5.7
LnGrp LOS B
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
392
332
247
432
Approach Delay, s/veh
12.5
12.0
4.9
5.8
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
12.9
22.5
12.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
4.7
6.5
5.8
5.1
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
1.2
1.9 _
2.3
1.7
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 11
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
11: El Segundo Blvd & Main St Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.1
Intersection LOS B
Future Vol, veh/h 1
4
187
127
159
162
4
Peak Hour Factor ' 0.85
0.85
0.85+
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Heavy Vehicles, % 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow 1
5
220,
149
187
191
5
Number of Lanes 0
0
1
1
1
2
0
Opposing Approach WB
EB
Opposing Lanes 2
1
0
Conflicting Approach Left SB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2
0
2
Conflicting Approach Right
SB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 0
2
1
HCM Control Delay 11
9.3
10.6
HCM LOS; B
A
B
Vol Left, %
2%
0%
0%
100%
93%
Vol Thru, %
98%
100%
0%
` 0%
0%
Vol Right %
0%
0%
100%.
0%
7%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
192
127
159
108
58
LT Vol
4
0
0
108
54
Through Vol
188
127
0
0
0
RT Vol
0
0,
159
0
4
Lane Flow Rate
226
149
187
127
68
Geometry Grp
4
7
7
7
7
Degree of Util (X)
0.332
0.223
0.242
0.223
0.118
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.293
5.366
4.66
6.331
6.248
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
675
666
765
563
569
Service Time
3.356
3.123
2.417
4.123
4.04
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.335
0.224
0.244
0.226
0.12
HCM Control Delay
11
9.7
8.9
11
9.9
HCM Lane LOS
B
A
A
B
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
1.5
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.4
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 12
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
12: Whiting St & W Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 8.8
Intersection LOS A
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
5
219
46
9
218
15
18
19
19 18
12 9
Future Vol, veh/h
5
219
46
9
218
15
18
19
19 18
12 9
Peak Hour Factor '
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93 0.93
0.93 0.93
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
5
235
49
10
234
16
19
20
20 19,
13 10
Number of Lanes
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
8.9
8.8
8.6
8.6
HCM LOS;
A
A
A
A
Vol Left, %
32%
4%
0%
8%
0%
46%
Vol Thru, %
34%
96%
70%
` 92%
88%
:12%
31 %
Vol Right %
34%
0%
30%.
0%
23%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
56
115
156
118
124
39
LT Vol
18
5+
0
9
0
18
Through Vol
19
110
110
109
109
12
RT Vol
19
0,
46
0
15
9
Lane Flow Rate
60
123
167
127
133
42
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.085
0.173
0.224
0.179
0.184
0.06
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.069
5.051
4.821
5.091
4.967
5.19
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
705
710
744
704
721
688
Service Time
3.113
2.784
2.554
2.825
2.701
3.238
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.085
0.173
0.224
0.18
0.184
0.061
HCM Control Delay
8.6
8.8
8.9
8.9
8.8
8.6
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A'
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.2
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 13
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
13: Concord St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.1
Intersection LOS A
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
3
3
271
13
7
17
200
18
14
10
37
1
21
9
10
Future Vol, veh/h
3
3
271
13
7
17
200
18
14
10
37
1
21
9
10
Peak Hour Factor '
0.90
0.90
0.90,
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
090
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.90
090
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
3
3
301,
14
8
19
222
20
16
11',
41
1
23
10
11
Number of Lanes
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
9.2
9.1
8.6
8.7
HCM LOS;
A
A
A
A
Vol Left, %
23%
2%
0%
15%
0%
53%
Vol Thru, %
16%
98%
91%
` 85%
85%
22%
Vol Right, %
61 %
0%
9%
0%
15%
25%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
61
142
149
124
118
41
LT Vol
14
3
0
18
0
22
Through Vol
10
139
136
106
100
9
RT Vol
37
0'
13
0
18
10
Lane Flow Rate
68
157
165
138
131
46
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.094
0.222
0.229
0.199
0.182
0.067
Departure Headway (Hd)
4.99
5.08
5.007
<5.191
5.011
5,297
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
715
706
716
', 690
715
673
Service Time
3.04
2.821
2.748
2.934
2.753
3.351
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.095
0.222`
0.23
' 0.2
0.183
0068
HCM Control Delay
8.6
9.3
9.2
9.2
8.9
8.7
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A'
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.3
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.2
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 14
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
14: Eucalyptus Dr & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.9
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
29
306
53
15
' 237
54
35
30
17 48
59 25
Future Vol, veh/h
29
306
53
15
237
54
35
30
17 48
59 25
Peak Hour Factor '
0.80
0.80
0.80,
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80 0.80
0.80 0.80
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
36
383
66
19
296
68
44
38
21 60
74 31
Number of Lanes
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
12.4
11.5
10.8
11.7
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
43%
16%
0%
11 %
0%
36%
Vol Thru, %
37%
84%
74%
` 89%
69%
45%
Vol Right %
21 %
0%
26%.
0%
31 %
19%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
82
182
206
134
173
132
LT Vol
35
29
0
; 15
0
48
Through Vol
30
153
153
119
119
59
RT Vol
17
0,
53
0
54
25
Lane Flow Rate
102
228
258
167
216
165
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.18
0.379
0.41
0.283
0.349
0.283
Departure Headway (Hd)
6.332
5.997'
5.734
6.102
5.823
6.164
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
565
598
626
', 587
617
581
Service Time
4.397
3.746
3.482
3.855
3.575
4.221
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.181
0.381',
0.412
0.284
0.35
0.284
HCM Control Delay
10.8
12.4
12.4
11.3
11.7
11.7
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.7
1.8
2
1.2
1.6
1.2
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 15
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
15: Center St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 14.3
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
90
323
27
21
231
81
12
40
27 58
36 61
Future Vol, veh/h
90
323
27
21
231
81
12
40
27 58
36 61
Peak Hour Factor '
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76
0.76 0.76
0.76 0.76
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
118
425
36
28
304
107
16
53
36 76
47 80
Number of Lanes
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
16
13.2
11.4
13.1
HCM LOS;
C
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
15%
36%
0%
15%
0%
37%
Vol Thru, %
51 %
64%
86%
` 85%
59%
23%
Vol Right %
34%
0%
14%.
0%
41 %
39%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
79
252
189
137
197
155
LT Vol
12
90
0
21
0
58
Through Vol
40
162
162
116
116
36
RT Vol
27
0,
27
0
81
61
Lane Flow Rate
104
331
248
180
259
204
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.194
0.588
0.421
0.324
0.439
0.363
Departure` Headway (Hd)
6.705
6.392'
6.108
6.49
6.117
6.41
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
530
563
585
, 551
584
557
Service Time
4.805
4.166
3.882
4.271
3.898
4.495
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.196
0.588;
0.424
0.327
0.443
0.366
HCM Control Delay
11.4
18
13.3
12.4
13.7
13.1
HCM Lane LOS
B
C
B
B
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.7
3.8
2.1
1.4
2.2
1.6
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 16
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
16: Kansas St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
25
385
21,
37
326
18
12
10
16
25
20
56
Future Volume (veh/h)
25
385
21
37
326
18
12
10
16
25
20
56
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ';
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1781
1781
1781
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
29
453
25
44
384
21
14
12
19
29
24
66
Peak Hour Factor
0.85
0.85
0.85+
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
8
8
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
135
797
43
156
719
40
305
263
320
255
228
448
Arrive On Green
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
266
0
241
230
0
219
45
0
0
119
0
0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl782
0
1671
1504
0
1673
1516
0
0
1615
0
0
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.2
0.0
4.6
0.5
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.5
0.0
4.6
5.0
0.0
4.1
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
Prop In Lane
0.11
0.10
0.19
0.10
0.31
0.42
0.24
0.55
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
557
0
419
496
0
419
888
0
0
931'
0
0
V/C Ratio(X)
0.48
0.00
0.58
0.46
0.00
0.52
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
981
0
835
884
0
836
888
0
0
931'
0
0
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.8
0.0
11.8
11.6
0.0
11.6
4.6
0.0
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.6
0.0
1.3
0.7
0.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.5
0.0
1.4'
1.2 i
0.0
1.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4'
0.0
0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.4
0.0
13.1
12.3
0.0
12.7
4.7
0.0
00
5.1'
0.0
0.0
LnGrp LOS B
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
507
449
45
119
Approach Delay, s/veh
12.7
12.5
4.7
5.1
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
13.5
22.5
13.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
2.5
6.6
3.4
7.0
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.1
2.3
0.5
2.0
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 17
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
17: Maryland St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Int Delay, s/veh
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
26
383
6
13
319
3
6
4
21
17
4
25
Future Vol, veh/h
26
383
6
13
319
3
6
4
21
17
4
25
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
RT Channelizetl
-
None
,
-
None
-
None
-
None
Storage Length
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
Veh in Median Storage,
# -
0
0
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor '
71
71
71,
71
71
71
71
71
71
71,
71
71
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
9
9
9
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
37
539
8
18
449
4
8
6
30
24
6
35
Conflicting Flow All
453
0
0
547
0
0
881
1106
274
834
1108
227
Stage 1
-
617
617
-
487;
487
Stage 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
264
489
-
347
621
-
Critical Hdwy
4.14
-'
4.14
-
7.68
6.68
7.08
7.54
6.54
6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.68
5.68
-
6.54
5.54
-
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
-
6.68
5.68
-
6.54
5.54
Follow-up Hdwy
2.22
-
-
2.22
-
-
3.59
4.09
3.39
3.52
4.02
3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
1104
-
1018
-
230
199
703
261
209
776
Stage 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
427
463
-
531
549
-
Stage 2
-
699
530
-
642
477
Platoon blocked, %
-
-
-
-
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
1104
-
1018 I
203
185
703
231'
194
776
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
-
-
-
-
-
-
203
185
-
231
194
-
Stage 1
-
407
441
-
506
536
Stage 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
644
517
-
578
454
-
HCM Control Delay, s
0.7
0.4
15.6
17
HCM LOS
C
C
Capacity (veh/h) ",
382
1104`
-
1018
-
364
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.114
0.033
-
-
0.018
-
-
0.178
HCM Control Delay (s)
15.6
8.4'
0.2
8.6
0.1
17
HCM Lane LOS
C
A
A
-
A
A
-
C
HCM 95th,%tile Q(veh)
0.4
0.1
0.1
06
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 18
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
18: Maryland St & E Franklin Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.4
Intersection LOS A
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
1
18
26
2
3
21
1
2
7 '
0
10
15
Future Vol, veh/h
1
18
26
2
3
21
1
2
7
0,
10
15
Peak Hour Factor '
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
0.73
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
Mvmt Flow
1
25
36
3
4
29
1
3
10
0;
14
21
Number of Lanes
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
1
1
Conflicting Approach Left
SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
1
1
Conflicting Approach Right
NB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
1
1
HCM Control Delay
7.5
7.3
7.4
7.4
HCM LOS;
A
A
A '
A
Vol Left, %
22%
39%
12%
34%
Vol Thru, %
78%
57%
84%
52%
Vol Right %
0%
4%
4%
14%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
9
47
25
29
LT Vol
2
18
3
10
Through Vol
7
27
21
15
RT Vol
0
2
1
4
Lane Flow Rate
12
64
34
40
Geometry Grp
1
1
1
1
Degree of Util (X)
0.015
0.073
0.039
0.046
Departure Headway (Hd)
4.247
4.102
4.073
4.167
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
836
870
875
854
Service Time
2.305
2.139
2.116
2.219
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.014
0.074
0039
0.047
HCM Control Delay
7.4
7.5
7.3
7.4
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
0
0.2
0.1
0.1
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 19
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
18: Maryland St & E Franklin Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh
Intersection LOS
Lan onfigurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
4
Future Vol, veh/h__
4
Peak Hour Factor '
0.73
Heavy Vehicles, %
6
Mvmt Flow
5
Number of Lanes
0
Opposing Approach
Opposing Lanes
Conflicting Approach Left
Conflicting Lanes Left
Conflicting Approach Right
Conflicting Lanes Right
HCM Control Delay
HCM LOS;
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 20
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
19: Center St & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.6
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
37
149
40
47
128
60
26
136
85 24
85 20
Future Vol, veh/h
37
149
40
47
128
60
26
136
85 24
85 20
Peak Hour Factor '
0.80
0.80
0.80,
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.80 0.80
0.80 0.80
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
46
186
50
59
160
75
33
170
106 30
10625
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
1
1'
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
13.7
13.8
14.3
11.6
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
11 %
16%
20%
19%
Vol Thru, %
55%
66%'
54%
` 66%
Vol Right %
34%
18%
26%..
16%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
247
226
235
129
LT Vol
26
37
47
24
Through Vol
136
149
128
85
RT Vol
85
40,
60
20
Lane Flow Rate
309
282
294
161
Geometry Grp
1
1
1
1
Degree of Util (X)
0.49
0.453
0.467
0.279
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.71
5.779
5.722
6.239
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
624
616
623
, 579
Service Time
3.804
3.879
3.821
4.239
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.495
0.458
0.472
0.278
HCM Control Delay
14.3
13.7
13.8
11.6
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
2.7
2.4
2.5
1.1
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 21
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
20: Center St & E Pine Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 10.6
Intersection LOS B
Future Vol, veh/h 76
30
1
52
163
140
36
Peak Hour Factor ' 0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.66
Heavy Vehicles, % 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow 115
45
2
79
247
212
55
Number of Lanes 1
0
0
0
1
1
0
Opposing Approach
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes 0
1
1
Conflicting Approach Left SB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
1
0
Conflicting Approach RighNB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
0
1
HCM Control Delay 9.9
11.3
10.1
HCM LOS; A
B
B
Vol Left, %
24%
72%
0%
Vol Thru, %
76%
0%
80%
Vol Right %
0%
28%
20%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
216
106
176
LT Vol
52
76
0
Through Vol
164
0
140
RT Vol
0
30
36
Lane Flow Rate
327
161
267
Geometry Grp
1
1
1
Degree of Util (X)
0.428
0.234
0.342
Departure Headway (Hd)
4.711
5.242`
4.617
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
759
681;
776
Service Time
2.763
3.311
2.671
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.431
0.236`
0.344
HCM Control Delay
11.3
9.9
10.1
HCM Lane LOS
B
A
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
2.2
0.9
1.5
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 22
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
98
11
53
56
4
25
11 25
2019
26
28 4
Future Volume (veh/h)
98
11
53
56
4
25
11 25
2019
26
28 4
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
102
11
55
58
4
26
26
2103
27
4
Peak Hour Factor
0.96
0.96
096
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96 J
0.96
0.96
0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
285
35
176
252
28
182
53
4117
53
10
Arrive On Green
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.03
0.62
0.62
0.01
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
102
0
66
58
0
30
26
1538
592
4
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1380
0
1626
1335
0
1618
1781
1609
1855'
1781
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.0
0.0
2.1
2.3
0.0
0.9
0.8
9.9
9.9
0.1
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.9
0.0
2.1
4.4
0.0
0.9
0.8
9.9
9.9
0.1
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.83
1.00
0.87
1.00
0.05
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
285
0
211
252
0
210
53
3012
1158
10
V/C Ratio(X)
0.36
0.00
0.31
0.23
0.00
0.14
0.49
0.51
0.51
0.42
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
635
0
624
592
0
621
238
4090
1572
238
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
23.8
0.0
22.1
24.1
0.0
21.6
26.8
5.8
5.8
27.8
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.5
0.0
0.3
6.9
0.1
0.4'
26.3
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In
1.3
0.0
0.8
0.7
0.0
0.3
0.4
1.9
2.3
0.1,
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
24.6
0.0
23.0
24.6
0.0
21.9
33.7
5.9
6.2;
54.1
LnGrp LOS
C
A
C
C
A
C
C
A
A
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
168
88
2156
Approach Delay, s/veh
23.9
23.7
6.3
Approach LOS
C
C
A'
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
48
39.5
11.8
6.2
38.1
11.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
75
47.5
21.5
7.5
47.5
21.5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
2.1
11.9
6.9
2.8
12.8
6.4
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
00
20.7
0.5
0.0
20.8
0.2
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
2014
63
Future Volume (veh/h)
2014
63
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
2098
66
Peak Hour Factor
0.96
0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
Cap, veh/h
3873
122
Arrive On Green
0.60
0.60
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
1568
596
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1609
1834
Q Serve(g_s), s
10.8
10.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
108
10.8
Prop In Lane
0.11
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
2895
1100
V/C Ratio(X)
0.54
0.54
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
4090
1554
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
6.6
6.6
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh
0.2
0.4
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In
2.3
2.7
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
68
7.1
LnGrp LOS
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
2168
Approach Delay, s/veh
7.0
Approach'LOS
A
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
2: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Maple Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
-11 --1. .4--- fl I L* t
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
70
61
56;
41
64
135
36 80
1887
107j
11 68
2022
42
Future Volume (veh/h)
70
61
56
41
64
135
36 80
1887
107
11 68
2022
42
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
71
62
57
42
65
138
82
1926
109
69
2063
43
Peak Hour Factor
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
217
118
109;
184
247
209
107
3972
225
92
4079
85
Arrive On Green
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.06
0.63
0.63
0.05
0.62
0.62
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
71
0
119
42
65
138
82
1481
554
69
1523
583
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl179
0
1722
1273
(1870
1585
1781
1609
1806
1781
1609
1846
Q Serve(g_s), s
4.2
0.0
4.7
2.3
2.3
6.1
3.3
11.9
11.9
2.8
12.7
12.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
&5
0.0
4.7'
7.1
2.3
6.1
3.3
11.9
11.9
2.8
12.7
12.7
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.48
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.20
1.00
0.07
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
217
0
227
184
247
209
107
3054
1143
92
3012
1152
V/C Ratio(X)
0.33
0.00
0.52
0.23
0.26
0.66
0.77
0.48
0.48
0.75
0.51
0.51
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
374
0
457
354
496
421
352
3054
1143
255
3012
1152
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 31.6
0.0
29.7
33.0
28.7
30.3
34.0
7.1
7.1
34.4
7.6
7.6
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.9
0.0
1.9
0.6
0.6
3.5
10.8
0.6
1.5
11.7
0.6
1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.2
0.0
2.0
0.7
1.0
2.4
1.7
3.1
3.8
1.5
3.4
4.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 32.5
0.0
31.6
33.7 "
29.2
33.8
44.9
7.7
8.6
46.1
8.2
9.2
LnGrp LOS C
A
C
C
C
C
D
A
A
D
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
190
245
2117
2175
Approach Delay, s/veh
31.9
32.6
9.4
9.7
Approach LOS
C
C
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s8.3
51.0
14.2
8.9
50.4
142
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmag.5
46.5
19.5
14.5
42.5
%5
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+114,a
13.9
8.5
5.3
14.7
9.1
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.1
18.6
0.6
0.1
17.5
0.6
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
3: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
-11 --1. .4--- fl I L* t
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
123
208
48;
149
196
151
32 104
1666
116
44 170
1755
88
Future Volume (veh/h)
123
208
48
149
196
151
32 104
1666
116
44 170
1755
88
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
128
217
50
155
204
157
108
1735
121
177
1828
92
Peak Hour Factor
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
0.96
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
161
257
59;
191
359
304
138
2704
666
258
2637
133
Arrive On Green
0.09
0.18
0.18
0.11
0.19
0.19
0.08
0.42
0.42
0.07
0.42
0.42
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
128
0
267
155
204
157
108
1735
121
177
1396
524
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl781
0
1809
1781
` 1870
1585
1781
1609
1585
1728
`.1609
1813
Q Serve(g_s), s
5.7
0.0
11.6
6.9
8.0
7.2
4.8
17.3
3.9
4.0
19.2
19.2
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
5.7
0.0
11.6
6.9
8.0
7.2
4.8
17.3
3.9
4.0
19.2
19.2
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.19
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.18
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
161
0
317'
191
359
304
138
2704
666
258
2014
757
V/C Ratio(X)
0.79
0.00
0.84
0.81
0.57
0.52
0.78
0.64
0.18
0.69
0.69
0.69
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
218
0
403
253
453
384
240
2704
666
363
2014
757
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 36.1
0.0
32.3
35.3
29.6
29.3
36.6
18.6
14.7
36.5
19.3
19.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 13.3
0.0
12.3
13.5
1.4
1.4
9.1
1.2
0.6
3.2
2.0
5.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir8.0
0.0
6.1'
3.6
3.5
2.7
2.3
60
1.4
1.7
6.8
8.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 49.3
0.0
44.6
48.8
31.1
30.7
45.8
198
15.3"
39.7
(21.3
24.5
LnGrp LOS D
A
D
D
C
C
D
B
B
D
C
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
395
516
1964
2097
Approach Delay, s/veh
46.1
36.3
21.0
23.7
Approach LOS
D
D
C
C
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), W.5
38.5
13.2`
18.7
10.8
38.3
11.8
20.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax§.6
34.0
11.5'
18.0
10.9
31.6
9.9
19.6
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I16,Q
19.3
8.9
13.6
6.8
21.2
7.7
10.0
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.1
10.2
0.1
0.6
0.1
7.8
0.1
1.1
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
4: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
-11 --1. .4--- fl I L* t
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
211
144
172
264
151
175
12 147
1461
170
13 40
1769
139
Future Volume (veh/h)
211
144
172
264
151
175
12 147
1461
170
13 40
1769
139
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
187
205
183
281
161
186
156
1554
181
43
1882
148
Peak Hour Factor
0.94
0.94
0.94'
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
282
297
250;
548
563
251
192
2658
655
69
2109
166
Arrive On Green
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.11
0.41
0.41
0.04
0.34
0.34
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
187
205
183
281
161
186
156
1554
181
43
1482
548
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl781
1870
1586
1728
(1777
1585
1781
1609
1585'
1781
1609
1784
Q Serve(g_s), s
7.7
8.0
8.6
5.8
3.1
8.7
6.7
14.6
5.9
1.9
22.6
22.6
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
7:7
8.0
8.6
5.8
3.1
8.7
6.7
146
5.9
1.9
22.6
22.6
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.27
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
282
296
251
548
563
251
192
2658
655'
69
:1661
614
V/C Ratio(X)
0.66
0.69
0.73
0.51
0.29
0.74
0.81
0.58
0.28
0.62
0.89
0.89
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
414
435
369
799
822
366
208
2658
655
149
1661
614
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 30.8
31.0
31.2
30.0
28.9
31.2
34.0
17.7
15.1
36.8
24.2
24.2
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 2.7
2.9
4.1
0.7
0.3
4.5
20.0
0.9
1.0
8.7
7.7
17.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir8.4
3.7
3.4
2.4
1.3
3.5
3.8
5.0
2.1'
0.9
8.9
11.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 33.5
33.8
35.3
30.7 "
29.1
35.7
54.0
186
16.2
45.6
31.9
41.9
LnGrp LOS C
C
D
C
C
D
D
B
B
D
C
D
Approach Vol, veh/h
575
628
1891
2073
Approach Delay, s/veh
34.2
31.8
21.3
34.8
Approach LOS
C
C
C
C
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s7.5
36.7
16.8
12.9
31.3
16.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gma4.5
29.4
18.1
9.1
26.8
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+ll�,%
16.6
10.6
8.7
24.6
10.7
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0
8.5
1.7 ,'
0.0
1.9
1.6
HCM 6th LOS
User approved volume balancing among the lanes for turning movement.
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
5: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E El Segundo Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
3 126
299
484
395
293
158
37 331
1440
295 i
9 101
2052
71
Future Volume (veh/h)
3 126
299
484
395
293
158
37 331
1440
295
9 101
2052
71
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ';
0
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
130
308
499
407
302
163
341
1485
304
104
2115
73
Peak Hour Factor
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
097
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Cap, veh/h
163
821;
366
411
919
410
388
2150
440;
178
2173
535
Arrive On Green
0.09
0.23
0.23
0.12
0.26
0.26
0.11
0.40
0.40
0.05
0.34
0.34
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
130
308
499
407
302
163
341
1328
461
104
2115
73
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/In
1781
1777'
1585
1728
1777
1585
1728
1609
1672
1728
1609
1585
Q Serve(g_s), s
6.4
6.6
20.8
10.6
6.2
7.6
8.7
20.6
20.6
2.6
29.2
2.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
6.4
6.6
20.8
10.6
6.2
7.6
8.7
20.6
20.6
2.6
29.2
2.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.66
1.00
1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
163
821
366
411
919
410
388
1923
666
178
2173
535
V/C Ratio(X)
0.80
0.38
1.36
0.99
0.33
0.40
0.88
0.69
0.69
0.59
0.97
0.14
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
251
821
366
411
919
410
388
1923
666 '
204
2173
535
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh
40.1
29.1
34.6
39.6
27.0
27.6
39.3
22.5
22.5
41.7
29.4
20.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh
9.7
0.3
179.7
41.8
0.2
0.6
20.0
2.1'
5.8
3.3
13.9
0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/In
3.2
2.7
25.9
6.7
2.5
2.8
46
7.5
8.5
1.2
12.5
1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh
49.8
29.4
214.3 '
81.4
27.2
28.2
59.4
24.5
28.3
"45.0
43.3
21.2
LnGrp LOS
D
C
F
F
C
C
E
C
C
D
D
C
Approach Vol, veh/h
937
872
2130
2292
Approach Delay, s/veh
130.7
52.7
30.9
42.7
Approach LOS
F
D
C
D
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s9.1
40.4
15.2
25.3
14.6
34.9
12.7
27.8
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (GmaxN.8
35.2
10.7
20.8
10.1
30.4
12.7
18.8
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+114,@
22.6
12.6
22.8
10.7
31.2
8.4
9.6
Green Ext Time (p-c), s 0.0
8.7
0.0
0.0 _
0.0
0.0
0.1
1.6
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
6: Main St & Imperial Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 107 24 28 27 ` 22 65 24 536 35 81 611 , 141
Future Volume (veh/h) 107 24 28 27 22 65 24 536 35 81 611 141
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 113 25 29 28 23 68 25 564 37 85 643 148
Peak Hour Factor 0.95 0.95 0.95+ 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 449 115 133 180 60 133 149 1825 117 236 1431 317
Arrive On Green 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
113
0
54
119
0
0
326
0
300
450
0
426
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln1306
0
1705;
1601
0
0
1790
0
1665
1643
0
1602
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
4.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
1.8
0.0
0.9i
2.1
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.0
3.0
4.3
0.0
4.9
Prop In Lane
1.00
0.54
0.24
0.57
0.08
0.12
0.19
0.35
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
449
0
248
374
0
0
1142
0
949
1071
0
" 913
V/C Ratio(X)
0.25
0.00
0.22
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.32
0.42
0.00
0.47
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
1003
0
972
1039
0
0
1142
0
949
1071'
0
913
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 12.3
0.0
11.9
12.4
0.0
0.0
3.5
0.0
3.6
3.8
0.0
4.0
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.3
0.0
0.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.9
1.2
0.0
1.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/Ir0.6
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
06
1.0
0.0
1.1
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.6
0.0
12.4
12.9
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.0
4.4
5.1'
0.0
5.7
LnGrp LOS B
A
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
167
119
626
876
Approach Delay, s/veh
12.5
12.9
4.3
5.4
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
9.1
22.5
9.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
5.0
3.8
6.9
4.1
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
3.4
0.5
4.7
0.5
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
7: Main St & Maple Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 16.6
Intersection LOS C
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
29
12
27
37
25
36
32
584
22 29
589 15
Future Vol, veh/h
29
12
27
37
25
36
32
584
22 29
589 15
Peak Hour Factor '
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
` 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
32
13
29
40
27
39
35
635
24 32
640 16
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0 0
2 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
2
2
'
1
1'
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
2
2
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
11.1
11.6
17.3
17.2
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
C
C;
Vol Left, %
10%
0%
43%
38%
9%
0%
Vol Thru, %
90%
93%'
18%
` 26%
91 %
95%
Vol Right %
0%
7%
40%..
37%
0%
5%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
324
314
68
98
324
310
LT Vol
32
0,
29
37
29
0
Through Vol
292
292
12
25
295
295
RT Vol
0
22'
27
36
0
15
Lane Flow Rate
352
341
74
107
352
336
Geometry Grp
7
7
2'
2
7
7
Degree of Util (X)
0.6
0.573
0.142
0.201
0.6
0.566
Departure Headway (Hd)
6.138
6.039+
6.908
6.788
6.14
6.06
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
588
597';
517
527
587
592
Service Time
3.895
3.795
4.974
4.851
3.896
3.816
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.599
0.571',
0.143
0.203
0.6
0568
HCM Control Delay
17.8
16.7
11.1
11.6
17.8
16.5
HCM Lane LOS
C
C
B
B
C
C
HCM 95th-tile Q
4
3.6
0.5
0.7
4
3.5
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 8
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
8: Main St & Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 66 70 30 48 80 117 23 444 45 147 440 41
Future Volume (veh/h) 66 70 30 48 80 117 23 444 45 147 440 41
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 76 33 52 87 127 25 483 49 160 478 45
Peak Hour Factor 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 ' 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 256 209 72 172 151 183 140 1581 156 404 1095 104
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
181
0
0
266
0
0
293
0
264
316
0
367
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl690
0
0
1644
0
0
1807
0
1647
1170
0
1665
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.3
3.3
0.0
4.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
3.0
0.0
0.0i
5.1
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
3.3
6.6
0.0
4.9
Prop In Lane
0.40
0.18
0.20
0.48
0.09
0.19
0.51
0.12
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
537
0
0
506
0
0
1035
0
842
752
0
851
V/C Ratio(X)
0.34
0.00
0.00
0.53
0.00
0.00
0.28
0.00
0.31
0.42
0.00
0.43
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
946
0
0
948
0
0
1035
0
842
752
0
851
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.5
0.0
0.0
12.3
0.0
0.0
5.0
0.0
5.0
5.6
0.0
5.4
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.4
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
1.0
1.7
0.0
1.6
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.9
1.2
0.0
1.4
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 11.9
0.0
0.0
13.1
0.0
0.0
5.7
0.0
6.0
7.3
0.0
7.0
LnGrp LOS B
A
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
181
266
557
683
Approach Delay, s/veh
11.9
13.1
5.8
7.2
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
12.7
22.5
12.7
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
5.3
5.0
8.6
7.1
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
3.0
0.8
3.4
1.2
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 9
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
9: Main St & Pine Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
57
24
24
10
19
84
38
432
7 54
384 46
Future Vol, veh/h
57
24
24
10
19
84
38
432
7 54
384 46
Peak Hour Factor '
0.92
0.92
0.92'
0.92
` 0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92 0.92
0.92 0.92
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
62
26
26
11
21
91
41
470
8 59,
417 50
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
0 0
2 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
2
2
'
1
1'
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
2
2
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
11.4
10.9
13.5
13.4
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
15%
0%
54%
9%
22%
0%
Vol Thru, %
85%
97%'
23%
` 17%
i78%
81 %
Vol Right %
0%
3%
23%..
74%
0%
19%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
254
223
105
113
246
238
LT Vol
38
0,
57
10
54
0
Through Vol
216
216
24
19
192
192
RT Vol
0
7
24
84
0
46
Lane Flow Rate
276
242
114
123
267
259
Geometry Grp
7
7
2'
2
7
7
Degree of Util (X)
0.467
0.404
0.208
0.21
0.455
0.422
Departure Headway (Hd)
6.093
5.995
6.567
6.155
6.123
5875
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
591
599j
544
581
586
611
Service Time
3.846
3.748
4.634
4.221
3.877
3.628
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.467
0.404
0.21
0.212
0.456
0.424
HCM Control Delay
14.1
12.8
11.4
10.9
13.9
12.9
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
2.5
1.9
0.8
0.8
2.4
2.1
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 10
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
10: Main St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 60 234 51 ! 40 178 129 63 273 26 136, 161 , 73
Future Volume (veh/h) 60 234 51 40 178 129 63 273 26 136 161 73
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 62 241 53 41 184 133 65 281 27 140 166 75
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.970.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 204 513 116 172 404 278 347 1341 127 582 679 321
Arrive On Green 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
187
0
169
195
0
163
193
0
180
190
0
191
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl421
0
1611:
1701
0
1484
1608
0
1657
1143
0
" 1590
Q Serve(g_s), s
1.0
0.0
3.2
0.1
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
2.1
2.3
0.0
2.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
4.3
0.0
3.2`
3.3
0.0
3.3
2.0
0.0
2.1
4.3
0.0
2.3
Prop In Lane
0.33
0.31
0.21
0.82
0.34
0.15
0.74
0.39
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
463
0
369
514
0
340
964
0
852
766
0
817
V/C Ratio(X)
0.40
0.00
0.46
0.38
0.00
0.48
0.20
0.00
0.21
0.25
0.00
0.23
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
888
0
828
977
0
762
964
0
852
766
0
817
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.8
0.0
11.6
11.6
0.0
11.7
4.6
0.0
4.6
5.3
0.0
4.7
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.6
0.0
0.9
0.5
0.0
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.1
0.0
1.0
1.1
0.0
1.0
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.7
0.0
0.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.3
0.0
12.5,
12.1
0.0
12.7
5.1
0.0
52
6.0
0.0
5.4
LnGrp LOS B
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
356
358
373
381
Approach Delay, s/veh
12.4
12.4
5.1
5.7
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
12.5
22.5
12.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
4.1
6.3
6.3
5.3
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
2.0
1.7 ,'
2.0
1.8
HCM 6th LOS
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 11
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
11: El Segundo Blvd & Main St Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13.2
Intersection LOS B
Future Vol, veh/h 49
297
175
189
178
24
Peak Hour Factor ' 0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
Heavy Vehicles, % 2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow 55
334
197
212
200
27
Number of Lanes 0
1
1
1
2
0
f
Opposing Approach WB
EB
Opposing Lanes 2
1
0
Conflicting Approach Left SB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left 2
0
2
Conflicting Approach Right
SB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 0
2
1
HCM Control Delay 17
10.6
11.6
HCM LOS; C
B
B
Vol Left, %
14%
0%
0%
100%
71 %
Vol Thru, %
86%
100%'
0%
` 0%
0%
:29%
Vol Right %
0%
0%
100%.
0%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
346
175
189
119
83
LT Vol
49
0
0
119
59
Through Vol
297
175
0
0
0
RT Vol
0
0,
189
0
24
Lane Flow Rate
389
197
212
133
94
Geometry Grp
4
7
7
7
7
Degree of Util (X)
0.608
0.316
0.3
0.261
0.174
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.627
5.793
5.084
7.035
6.684
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
641
621;
707
; 511
537
Service Time
3.653
3.523
2.814
4.77
4.419
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.607
0.317'
0.3
' 0.26
0.175
HCM Control Delay
17
11.2
10
12.2
10.8
HCM Lane LOS
C
B;
A
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
4.1
1.4
1.3
1
0.6
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 12
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
12: Whiting St & W Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.5
Intersection LOS A
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
17
240
24
7
250
15
64
26
6 12
20 9
Future Vol, veh/h
17
240
24
7
250
15
64
26
6 12
20 9
Peak Hour Factor '
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89
0.89 0.89,
0.89 0.89
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
19
270
27
8
281
17
72
29
7 13
22 10
Number of Lanes
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
9.6
9.5
9.6
8.9
HCM LOS;
A
A
A
A
Vol Left, %
67%
12%
0%
5%
0%
29%
Vol Thru, %
27%
88%'
83%
` 95%
89%
49%
Vol Right %
6%
0%
17%.
0%
11 %
22%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
96
137
144
132
140
41
LT Vol
64
17
0
7
0
12
Through Vol
26
120
120
125
125
20
RT Vol
6
0'
24
0
15
9
Lane Flow Rate
108
154
162
148
157
46
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.164
0.227
0.231
0.218
0.227
0.07
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.487
5.316
5.136
5.29
5.188
5.432
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
649
671;
694
675
687
653
Service Time
3.559
3.079
2.899
3.053
2.951
3.516
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.166
0.23
0.233
0.219
0.229
0.07
HCM Control Delay
9.6
9.7
9.5
9.5
9.5
8.9
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A'
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.2
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 13
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
13: Concord St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9
Intersection LOS A
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
6
8
244
9
8
11
260
16
12
11'
11
14
13
9
Future Vol, veh/h
6
8
244
9
8
11
260
16
12
11
11
14
13
9
Peak Hour Factor '
0.94
0.94
0.94'
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
0.94
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
6
9
260
10
9
12
277
17
13
12
12
15
14
10
Number of Lanes
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
9
9.1
8.5
8.6
HCM LOS;
A
A
A
A
Vol Left, %
35%
6%
0%
8%
0%
39%
Vol Thru, %
32%
94%'
93%
` 92%
89%
36%
Vol Right %
32%
0%
7%.
0%
11 %
25%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
34
136
131
149
146
36
LT Vol
12
8
0
; 12
0
14
Through Vol
11
128
122
137
130
13
RT Vol
11
0,
9
0
16
9
Lane Flow Rate
36
145
139
159
155
38
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.052
0.202
0.192
0.221
0.211
0.056
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.172
5.032`
4.953
'5.014
4.898
5.22
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
691
713
725
, 716
733
685
Service Time
3.214
2.761
2.682
2.743
2.627
3.261
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.052
0.203
0.192
0.222
0.211
0.055
HCM Control Delay
8.5
9
8.9
9.2
8.9
8.6
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A'
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.2
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.2
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 14
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
14: Eucalyptus Dr & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 11.2
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
65
281
61
47
289
35
34
65
23 48
45 23
Future Vol, veh/h
65
281
61
47
289
35
34
65
23 48
45 23
Peak Hour Factor '
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98 0.98
0.98 0.98
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
66
287
62
48
295
36
35
66
23 49,
46 23
Number of Lanes
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
11.4
11.2
10.7
10.6
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
28%
32%
0%
25%
0%
41 %
Vol Thru, %
53%
68%'
70%
` 75%
81 %
:19%
39%
Vol Right %
19%
0%
30%.
0%
20%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
122
206
202
192
180
116
LT Vol
34
65+
0
47
0
48
Through Vol
65
141
141
145
145
45
RT Vol
23
0,
61
0
35
23
Lane Flow Rate
124
210
206
195
183
118
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.208
0.347
0.319
0.323
0.29
0.199
Departure` Headway (Hd)
6.025
5.952'
5.577
5.958
5.695
6,061
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
595
604`
646
', 604
630
591
Service Time
4.073
3.686
3.311
3.695
3.432
4.109
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.208
0.348;
0.319
0.323
0.29
0.2
HCM Control Delay
10.7
11.8
10.9
11.5
10.8
10.6
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
0.8
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.2
0.7
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 15
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
15: Center St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 13
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
61
320
13
10
327
61
27
98
27 66
69 71
Future Vol, veh/h
61
320
13
10
327
61
27
98
27 66
69 71
Peak Hour Factor '
0.95
0.95
0.95+
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.95 0.95,
0.95 0.95
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
64
337
14
11
344
64
28
103
28 69,
73 75
Number of Lanes
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
2
2
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
2
2
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
2
2
HCM Control Delay
13.3
12.9
12.4
13.3
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
18%
28%
0%
6%
0%
32%
Vol Thru, %
64%
72%'
92%
` 94%
i73%
:27%
33%
Vol Right %
18%
0%
8%.
0%
34%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
152
221
173
174
225
206
LT Vol
27
61,
0
10
0
66
Through Vol
98
160
160
164
164
69
RT Vol
27
0'
13
0
61
71
Lane Flow Rate
160
233
182
183
236
217
Geometry Grp
2
7
7
7
7
2
Degree of Util (X)
0.294
0.423
0.322
0.327
0.409
0.385
Departure Headway (Hd)
6.612
6.662`
6.467
6.559
6.335
6.391
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
546
544I
559
552
1572
566
Service Time
4.622
4.362
4.167
4.259
4.035
4.391
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.293
0.428
0.326
0.332
0.413
0.383
HCM Control Delay
12.4
14.2
12.2
12.4
13.3
13.3
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
1.2
2.1
1.4
1.4
2
1.8
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 16
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
16: Kansas St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
-11 � � 7 I*
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h)
21
416
8;
27
393
14
22
19
76
19
9
29
Future Volume (veh/h)
21
416
8
27
393
14
22
19
76
1 9
9
29
Initial Q (Qb), veh
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ';
0
0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Parking Bus, Adj
1.00
1.00
1.00(
1.00
' 1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Work Zone On Approach
No
No
No
No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/In
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1870
1841
1841
1841
1841
1841
1841
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h
23
447
9
29
423
15
24
20
82
10
10
31
Peak Hour Factor
0.93
0.93
0.93ii
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
Cap, veh/h
130
799
16
138
759
27
210
192
525
214
222
489
Arrive On Green
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
0.51
Grp Volume(v), veh/h
250
0
229
243
0
224
126
0
0
51
0
0
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/lnl794
0
1690
1705
0
1682
1589
0
0
1585
0
0
Q Serve(g_s), s
0.0
0.0
4.2
0.2
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s
42
0.0
4.2
4.4
0.0
4.1
1.4
0.0
00
0.6
0.0
0.0
Prop In Lane
0.09
0.04
0.12
0.07
0.19
0.65
0.20
0.61
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h
540
0
404
521
0
402
927
0
0
925
0
0
V/C Ratio(X)
0.46
0.00
0.57
0.47
0.00
0.56
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h
1000
0
857
969
0
853
927
0
0
925
0
0
HCM Platoon Ratio
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 11.9
0.0
11.9
11.8
0.0
11.8
4.7
0.0
0.0
4.4
0.0
0.0
Incr Delay (Q), s/veh 0.6
0.0
1.2'
0.6
0.0
1.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln1'.4
0.0
1.3
1.3
0.0
1.3
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 12.5
0.0
13.1,
12.5
0.0
13.1
5.0
0.0
00
4.6
0.0
0.0
LnGrp LOS B
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
Approach Vol, veh/h
479
467
126
51
Approach Delay, s/veh
12.8
12.7
5.0
4.6
Approach LOS
B
B
A
A
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s
22.5
13.0
22.5
13.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Max Green Setting (Gmax) s
18.0
18.0
18.0
1&0
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s
3.4
6.2
2.6
6.4
Green Ext Time (p-c), s
0.6
2.2 _
0.2
2.1
HCM 6th LOS
User approved ignoring U-Turning movement.
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 17
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
17: Maryland St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Int Delay, s/veh 0.7
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
12
380
7
8
416
12
3
2
8
5
5
10
Future Vol, veh/h
12
380
7,
8
416
12
3
2
8
5
5
10
Conflicting Peds, #/hr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sign Control
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Free
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
RT Channelizetl
-
None
,
-
None
-
None
-
None
Storage Length
-
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
Veh in Median Storage,
# -
0
0
0
0
Grade, %
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
-
0
-
Peak Hour Factor '
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
13
396
7
8
433
13
3
2
8
5,
5
10
Conflicting Flow All
446
0
0
403
0
0
661
888
202
681
885
223
Stage 1
-
426
426
-
456
456
Stage 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
235
462
-
225
429
-
Critical Hdwy
4.14
-'
4.14
-
7.54
654
6.94
7.54
6.54
6.94
Critical Hdwy Stg 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
6.54
5.54
-
6.54
5.54
-
Critical Hdwy Stg 2
-
6.54
554
-
6.54
5.54
Follow-up Hdwy
2.22
-
-
2.22
-
-
3.52
4.02
3.32
3.52
4.02
3.32
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver
1111
-
1152 '
-
348
281
805
336
282
780
Stage 1
-
-
-
-
-
-
577
584
-
554
567
-
Stage 2
-
747
563
-
757;
582
Platoon blocked, %
-
-
-
-
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver
1111
-
1152
332
274
805
325
275
780
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver
-
-
-
-
-
-
332
274
-
325
275
-
Stage 1
-
568
575
-
546
562
Stage 2
-
-
-
-
-
-
724
558
-
735
573
-
HCM Control Delay, s
0.3
0.1
12.5
13.8
HCM LOS
B
B
Capacity (veh/h) '',
495
1111;
-
1152
-
431
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.027
0.011
-
-
0.007
-
-
0.048
HCM Control Delay (s)
12.5
8.3
0.1
8.1
0
-
138
HCM Lane LOS
B
A
A
-
A
A
-
B
HCM 95th,%tile Q(veh)
0.1
0
0
0.2
HCM 6th TWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 18
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
18: Maryland St & E Franklin Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 7.2
Intersection LOS A
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h _
6
43
_ 5
_ 0
40
8 _ _
_ 0
4 _
0
5'
5
4
Future Vol, veh/h_
6
43
5
0
40
8
0
4
0
5
5
4
Peak Hour Factor '
0.81
081
081
0.81
;0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.81
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow
7
53
6
0
49
10
0
5
0!
6,
6
5
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
1
1i
Conflicting Approach Left
SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
1
1
Conflicting Approach Right
NB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
HCM LOS;
A
A
A '
A
Vol Left, %
0%
11 %
0%
36%
Vol Thru, %
100%
80%
83%
36%
Vol Right %
0%
9%
17%
29%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
4
54
48
14
LT Vol
0
6
0
5
Through Vol
4
43
40
5
RT Vol
0
5
8
4
Lane Flow Rate
5
67
59
17
Geometry Grp
1
1
1
1
Degree of Util (X)
0.006
0.074
0.065
0.019
Departure Headway (Hd)
4.165
3.982
3.921
4.055
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
853
900
913
877
Service Time
2.22
2.004
1.945
2.108
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.006
0.074
0065
0.019
HCM Control Delay
7.2
7.3
7.2
7.2
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
0
0.2
0.2
0.1
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 19
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
19: Center St & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 12.7
Intersection LOS B
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h
20
143
28;
69
212
34
24
198
66 30
111 24
Future Vol, veh/h
20
143
28
69
212
34
24
198
66 30
111 24
Peak Hour Factor '
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
099
0.99 0.99,
0.99 " 0.99
Heavy Vehicles, %
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 2
2 2
Mvmt Flow
20
144
28
70
214
34
24
200
67 30
112 24
Number of Lanes
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
1
0 0
1 0
Opposing Approach
WB
EB
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes
1
1
1
1'
Conflicting Approach Left SB
NB
EB
WB
Conflicting Lanes Left
1
1
1
1'
Conflicting Approach RighNB
SB
WB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right
1
1
1
1'
HCM Control Delay
11.4
14
13.2
11.1
HCM LOS;
B
B
!
B
B
Vol Left, %
8%
10%
22%
18%
Vol Thru, %
69%
75%
67%
` 67%
Vol Right %
23%
15%
11 %..
15%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
288
191
315
165
LT Vol
24
20
69
30
Through Vol
198
143
212
111
RT Vol
66
28
34
24
Lane Flow Rate
291
193
318
167
Geometry Grp
1
1
1
1
Degree of Util (X)
0.45
0.308
0.492
0.272
Departure Headway (Hd)
5.571
5.747'
5.571
5.868
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
643
621;
643
, 608
Service Time
3.636
3.819
3.634
3.943
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.453
0.311',
0.495
0.275
HCM Control Delay
13.2
11.4
14
11.1
HCM Lane LOS
B
B;
B
B
HCM 95th-tile Q
2.3
1.3
2.7
1.1
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 20
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Conditions
20: Center St & E Pine Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Intersection Delay, s/veh 9.4
Intersection LOS A
Future Vol, veh/h 66
50
2
36
202
167
50
Peak Hour Factor ' 0.91
0.91
0.91,
0.91
0.91
0.91
0.91
Heavy Vehicles, % 2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Mvmt Flow 73
55
2
40
222
184
55
Number of Lanes 1
0
0
0
1
1
0
Opposing Approach
SB
NB
Opposing Lanes 0
1
1
Conflicting Approach Left SB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Left 1
1
0
Conflicting Approach RighNB
EB
Conflicting Lanes Right 1
0
1
HCM Control Delay 9
9.8
9.3
HCM LOS; A
A,
A
Vol Left, %
15%
57%
0%
Vol Thru, %
85%
0%
77%
Vol Right %
0%
43%
23%
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Stop
Traffic Vol by Lane
240
116
217
LT Vol
36
66
0
Through Vol
204
0
167
RT Vol
0
50
50
Lane Flow Rate
264
127
238
Geometry Grp
1
1
1
Degree of Util (X)
0.333
0.173
0.292
Departure Headway (Hd)
4.541
4.899
4.407
Convergence, YIN
Yes
Yes
Yes
Cap
791
730
816
Service Time
2.57
2.942
2.438
HCM Lane V/C Ratio
0.334
0.174
0.292
HCM Control Delay
9.8
9
9.3
HCM Lane LOS
A
A
A
HCM 95th-tile Q
1.5
0.6
1.2
HCM 6th AWSC Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 21
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
85
15
41
13
7
8
4
60
1720
43
22
15
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
85
56
0
13
15
0
0
64
1763
0
0
37
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.89
0.85
0.95
0.92
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1691
0
1805
1748
0
0
1805
6876
0
0
1805
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
5.7
4.0
0.0
0.9
1.0
0.0
0.0
4.3
30.8
0.0
0.0
25
Adj Reference Time (s)
10.2
9.5
0.0
9.5
9.5
0.0
0.0
9.5
35.3
0.0
0.0
9.5
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
120
1691
120
1748
0
120
1719
0
120
Reference Time A (s)
848
4.0
13.0
1.0
0.0
63.8
30.8
0.0
369
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1691
0
1748
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
13.7
4.0
8.9
1.0
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
13.7
8.9
63.8
AdJ Reference Time (s)
18.2
13.4
68.3
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
5.7
4.0
0.9
1.0
0.0
4.3
30.8
0.0
2.5
Ref Time Seperate (s)
5.7
1.1
0.9
0.5
0.3
4.0
30.0
1.5
1.0
Reference Time (s)
5.7
5.7
1.0
1.0
30.8
30.8
30.8
34.2
342
Adj Reference Time (s)
10.2
10.2
9.5
9.5
35.3
35.3
35.3
38.7
38.7
Protected Option (s)
19.7
48.2
Permitted Option (s)
18.2
68.3
Split Option (s)
19.7
74.0
Minimum (s)
18.2
48.2
66.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 55.3% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Volume (vph)
1757
184
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
1941
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
0.99
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6803
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
34.2
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
38.7
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1701
Reference Time A (s)
34.2
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
36.9
Atlj Reference Time (s)
41.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
34.2
Ref Time Seperate (s)
31.0
Reference Time (s)
34.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
38.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
2: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Maple Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
138
108
74
21
46
96
27
31
1579"
148
9
145
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
138
182
0
21
46
96
0
58
1727
0
0
154
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1784
0
1805
1600
1615
0
1805
6812
0
0
1805
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
9.2
12.2
0.0
1.4
2.9
7.1
0.0
3.9
30.4 '
0.0
0.0
102
Adj Reference Time (s)
13.7
16.7
0.0
9.5
9.5
11.6
0.0
9.5
34.9
0.0
0.0
14.7
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
120
1784
120
1600
0
120
1703
0
120
Reference Time A (s)
1376
12.2
20.9
2.9
0.0
57.8
30.4
0.0
153.6
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1784
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
17.2
12.2
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
17.2
20.9
57.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
21`7
25.4
62.3
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
9.2
12.2
1.4
2.9
0.0
3.9
30.4
0.0
10.2
Ref Time Seperate (s)
9.2
7.3
1.4
2.9
1.8
2.1
27.8
0.6
9.6
Reference Time (s)
122
12.2
2.9
2.9
30.4
30.4
30.4 '
28.2
282
Adj Reference Time (s)
16.7
16.7
9.5
9.5
34.9
34.9
34.9
32.7
32.7
Protected Option (s)
26.2
49.7
Permitted Option (s)
25.4
158.1
Split Option (s)
26.2
67.6
Minimum (s)
25.4
49.7
75.1
Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 49.7
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 13.7
Combined (s) 75.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.6% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
2: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Maple Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Volume (vph)
1564
50
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
1614
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
1.00
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6869
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
28.2
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
32.7
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1717
Reference Time A (s)
28.2
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
153.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
158.1
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
28.2
Ref Time Seperate (s)
27.3
Reference Time (s)
28.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
32.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
3: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
--I. r -4- fl I
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
122
204
62
1
79
98
100
14
61
1506
113
29
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
122
266
0
0
80
98
100
0
75
1506
113
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91'
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1834
0
0
1805
1600
1615
0
1805
6901'
1615
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
8.1
17A
0.0
0.0
5.3
6.2
7.4
0.0
5.0 '
261
8.4
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
12.6
21.9
0.0
0.0
9.8
10.7
11.9
0.0
9.5
30.7
12.9
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
120
1834
0
120
1600
0
120
1725
0
Reference Time A (s)
121.7
17A
0.0
79.8
6.2
0.0
74.8
26.2
0.0
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1834
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
16.1
17A
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
17.4
79.8
74.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
21`9
84.3
79.3'
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
8.1
17.4
0.0
5.3
6.2
0.0
5.0
26.2
0.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
8.1
13.4
0.1
5.3
6.2
0.9
4.1
26.2
1.9
Reference Time (s)
17.4
17A
6.2
6.2
6.2
26.2
26.2
261
26.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
21.9
21.9
10.7
10.7
10.7
30.7
30.7
30.7
30.7
Protected Option (s)
31.7
42.1
Permitted Option (s)
84.3
107.7
Split Option (s)
32.6
61.4
Minimum (s)
31.7
42.1
73.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
119
12.9
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
42.1
31.7
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
12.6
11.4
Combined (s)
66.6
56.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 61.5% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
3: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
\. 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
172
1417
77
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
201
1494
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.97
091
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.99
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
3505
6847
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
69
26.2
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
11.4
30.7
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
117
1712
Reference Time A (s)
103.2
26.2
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
103.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
107.7
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
6.9
26.2
Ref Time Seperate (s)
5.9
24.8
Reference Time (s)
26.2
26.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
30.7
30.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
4: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
175
141
97
48
74
45
10
131
1438
404
17
179
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5'
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
413
0
48
74
45
0
141
1438
404
0
196
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
0.97
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
5124
0
3505
3618
1615
0
1805
6901 !
1615'
0
1805
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
Yes
Reference Time (s)
0.0
3.3
0.0
9.4
25.0 '
30.0
0.0
13.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
9.5
0.0
13.9
29.5
34.5
0.0
17.5
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
171
117
1809
0
120
1725
0
120
Reference Time A (s)
00
122.9
24.6
2.5
0.0
140.6
25.0'
0.0
1955
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1698
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
13.8
15.0
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
15.0
24.6
140.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
19.5
29.1
145.1
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
9.7
1.6
2.5
0.0
9.4
25.0
0.0
13.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
5.8
5.0
1.6
2.5
0.7
8.7
25.0
1.1
11.9
Reference Time (s)
9.7
9.7
2.5
2.5
25.0
25.0
25.0 '
23.3
23.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
14.2
14.2
9.5
9.5
29.5
29.5
29.5
27.8
27.8
Protected Option (s)
NA
47.0
Permitted Option (s)
29.1
200.0
Split Option (s)
23.7
57.4
Minimum (s)
23.7
47.0
70.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
9.5
34.5
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
47.0
14.2
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
14.2
17.5
Combined (s)
70.7
66.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.9% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
4: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Volume (vph)
1119
194
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
1313
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
0.98
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6748
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
23.3
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
27.8
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1687
Reference Time A (s)
23.3
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
195.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
2000
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
233
Ref Time Seperate (s)
19.9
Reference Time (s)
23.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
27.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 8
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
5: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E El Segundo Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
-11 --,, -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
1
99
218
289
127
231
109
27
401
1893
250
14
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
45
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
100
218
289
127
231
109
0
428
2143
0
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
0`95
1.00
0.97
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.91'
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1805
3618
1615
3505
3618
1615
0
3505
6780
0
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
00
6.6
7.2
21.5
4.3
7.7
8.1
0.0
14.7
37.9
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
11.1
11.7
26.0
9.5
12.2
12.6
0.0
19.2
42.4
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
120
1809
117
1809
0
117
1695
0
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
99.7
7.2
65.2
7.7
0.0
219.8
37.9
00
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
99.7
65.2
219.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
104.2
69.7
224.3'
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
6.6
7.2
4.3
7.7
0.0
14.7
37.9
0.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.1
6.6
7.2
4.3
7.7
1.8
13.7
33.5
0.9
Reference Time (s)
72
7.2
7.2
7.7
7.7
37.9
37.9
37.9
173
Adj Reference Time (s)
11.7
11.7
11.7
12.2
12.2
42.4
42.4
42.4
21.8
Protected Option (s)
23.3
51.9
Permitted Option (s)
104.2
224.3
Split Option (s)
23.9
64.2
Minimum (s)
23.3
51.9
75.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
26.0
12.6
14.6
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
41.0
51.9
23.3
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
95
11.1
19.2
Combined (s)
76.4
75.7
57.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 63.7% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 9
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
5: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E El Segundo Blvd Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
\. 1
Lane Configurations
tiff
r
Volume (vph)
104
996
136
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
45
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
118
996
136
Lane Utilization Factor
0.97
091
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
1.00
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
3505
6901
1615
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
40
17.3
10.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
9.5
21.8
14.6
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
117
1725
Reference Time A (s)
60.6
17.3
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
60.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
65.1
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
40
17.3
Ref Time Seperate (s)
3.6
17.3
Reference Time (s)
173
17.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
21.8
21.8
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 10
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
6: Main St & Imperial Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
200
37
69
15
19
110
25
658
29"
60
614
61
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
200
106
0
0
144
0
0
712
0
0
735
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.95
0.88
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1714
0
0
1674
0
0
3589
0
0
3558
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
308
1714
0
660
0
818
0
377
Reference Time A (s)
77.8
7A
0.0
26.2
0.0
44.9
0.0
78.7
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
9.0
18.3
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
77.8
18.3
44.9
78.7
AdJ Reference Time (s)
82.3
22.8
49.4
83.2
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
13.3
7.4
0.0
10.3
0.0
23.8
0.0
24.8
Ref Time Seperate (s)
13.3
2.6
1.0
1.4
1.7
22.0
4.0
20.6
Reference Time (s)
13.3
13.3
10.3
10.3
23.8
" 23.8
24.8
24.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
17.8
17.8
14.8
14.8
28.3
28.3
29.3
29.3
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
82.3
83.2
Split Option (s)
32.6
57.6
Minimum (s)
32.6
57.6
90.2
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 75.2% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 11
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
7: Main St & Maple Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
68
29
25
57
19
83
19
521
63
40
653
19
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
122
0
0
159
0
0
603
0
0
712
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.91
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1790
0
0
1720
0
0
3555
0
0
3593
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
1118
0
1583
0
867
0
567
Reference Time A (s)
00
13.1
0.0
12.1
0.0
36.5
0.0
58.4
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
125
16.2
11.8
19.1
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
13.1
12.1
36.5
58.4
AdJ Reference Time (s)
17.1
16.1
40.5
62.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
8.2
0.0
11.1
0.0
20.4
0.0
23.8
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.5
2.0
3.8
1.4
1.3
17.6
2.7
21.8
Reference Time (s)
8.2
8.2
11.1
11.1
20.4
20.4
23.8
23.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
12.2
12.2
15.1
15.1
24.4
24.4
27.8
27.8
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
17.1
62.4
Split Option (s)
27.3
52.1
Minimum (s)
17.1
52.1
69.2
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.7% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 12
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
8: Main St & Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
79
61
26
31
44
129
20
399
36
110
406
49
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
166
0
0
204
0
0
455
0
0
565
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1811
0
0
1707
0
0
3567
0
0
3536
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
740
0
1658
0
692
0
118
Reference Time A (s)
00
26.9
0.0
14.8
0.0
32.5
0.0
112.0
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
10.1
22.3
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
26.9
14.8
32.5
112.0
AdJ Reference Time (s)
31`4
19.3
37.0
116.5
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
11.0
0.0
14.3
0.0
15.3
0.0
19.2
Ref Time Seperate (s)
5.3
4.0
2.1
3.1
1.3
13.4
7.3
13.7
Reference Time (s)
110
11.0
14.3
14.3
15.3
15.3
19.2
19.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
15.5
15.5
18.8
18.8
19.8
19.8
23.7
23.7
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
31.4
116.5
Split Option (s)
34.3
43.5
Minimum (s)
31.4
43.5
74.9
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 62.4% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 13
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
9: Main St & Pine Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
81
56
42
6
28
87
20
289
7
57
358
46
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
179
0
0
121
0
0
316
0
0
461
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.89
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1792
0
0
1691
0
0
3594
0
0
3541
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
422
0
1682
0
505
0
206
Reference Time A (s)
00
50.9
0.0
8.6
0.0
28.0
0.0
67.8
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
134
20.0
8.4
16.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
20.0
8.6
28.0
67.8
AdJ Reference Time (s)
24.0
12.6
32.0
71.8
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
12.0
0.0
8.6
0.0
10.6
0.0
15.6
Ref Time Seperate (s)
5.4
3.8
0.4
2.0
1.3
9.6
3.8
12.1
Reference Time (s)
120
12A
8.6
8.6
10.6
" 10.6
15.6
15.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
16.0
16.0
12.6
12.6
14.6
14.6
19.6
19.6
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
24.0
71.8
Split Option (s)
28.6
34.2
Minimum (s)
240
34.2
58.2
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.5% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 14
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
10: Main St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
59
232
54
9
175
108
55
152 '
11 `
142
164
75
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
345
0
0
292
0
0
218
0
0
381
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3502
0
0
3412
0
0
3545
0
0
3445
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
117
0
843
0
118
0
115
Reference Time A (s)
00
60.6
0.0
18.2
0.0
55.9
0.0
148.4
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B'(s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
60.6
18.2
55.9
148.4
AdJ Reference Time (s)
65.1
22.7
60.4
152.9
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
11.8
0.0
10.3
0.0
7.4
0.0
13.3
Ref Time Seperate (s)
3.9
7.9
0.6
6.2
3.7
5.1
9.4
5.7
Reference Time (s)
118
11.8
10.3
10.3
7.4
7.4
13.3
13.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
16.3
16.3
14.8
14.8
11.9
11.9
17.8
17.8
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
65.1
152.9
Split Option (s)
31.1
29.6
Minimum (s)
311
29.6
60.7
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.6% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 15
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
11: El Segundo Blvd & Main St Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
1
4
187
127
159
162
4
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
0
192
127
159
166
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.97
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
0
1898
1600
1615
3497
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
11.8
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
15.8
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
0
1385
1600
117
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
0.0
16.6
8.0
85A
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
16.6
8.0
AdJ Reference Time (s)
20.6
12.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
0.0
12.1
8.0
5.7
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.1
0.3
11.8
8.0
5.6
Reference Time (s)
12.1
12.1
12.1
8.0
5.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
16.1
16.1
16.1
12.0
9.7
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
20.6
Err
Split Option (s)
28.2
9.7
Minimum (s)
20.6
9.7
30.3
Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 0.0
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 16.1
Combined (s) 32.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization 26.6% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 16
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
12: Whiting St & W Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
5
219
46
9
218
15
18
19
19"
18
12
9
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
270
0
0
242
0
0
56
0
0
39
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.93
0.85
0.95
0.94
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3522
0
0
3577
0
0
1774
0
0
1792
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
1119
0
784
0
1556
0
1162
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
13A
0.0
15.8
0.0
4.3
0.0
4.0
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.2
11.8
9.2
10.6
Reference Time (s)
13.4
15.8
4.3
4.0
AdJ Reference Time (s)
17.4
19.8
8.3
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
9.2
0.0
8.1
0.0
3.8
0.0
2.6
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.3
7.5
0.6
7.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
0.8
Reference Time (s)
9.2
9.2
8.1
8.1
3.8
3.8
2.6
2.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
13.2
13.2
12.1
12.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
198
8.3
Split Option (s)
25.3
16.0
Minimum (s)
198
8.3
28.1
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 23.4% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 17
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
13: Concord St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
3
3
271
13
7
17
200
18
14
10
37
1
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
0
290
0
0
0
242
0
0
61
0
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
0`95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
0
3590
0
0
0
3559
0
0
1707
0
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
0
1089
0
0
292
0
1648
0
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
0.0
14.7
0.0
0.0
30.0
0.0 '
4A
0.0
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.9
12.3
8.1
Reference Time (s)
14.7
30.0
4.4
AdJ Reference Time (s)
18.7
34.0
8.4'
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
0.0
9.7
0.0
0.0
8.2
0.0
4.3
0.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.2
0.2
9.1
0.5
1.1
6.7
0.9
0.7
0.1
Reference Time (s)
9.7
9.7
9.7
8.2
8.2
8.2
4.3
4.3
28
Adj Reference Time (s)
13.7
13.7
13.7
12.2
12.2
12.2
8.3
8.3
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
34.0
9.7
Split Option (s)
25.9
16.3
Minimum (s)
259
9.7
35.6
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 29.7% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 18
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
13: Concord St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
\. 1
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
21
9
10
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
41
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.94
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1781
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
859
Reference Time A (s)
00
5.7
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
9.4
%8
Reference Time (s)
5.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
9.7
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
2.8
Ref Time Seperate (s)
1.4
0.6
Reference Time (s)
28
2.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
8.0
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 19
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
14: Eucalyptus Dr & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
29
306
53
15
237
54
35
30
17
48
59
25
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
388
0
0
306
0
0
82
0
0
132
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3530
0
0
3513
0
0
1802
0
0
1812
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
415
0
625
0
1296
0
1492
Reference Time A (s)
00
39.3
0.0
23.6
0.0
7.6
0.0
10.6
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B'(s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.3
13.5
11.2
16.7
Reference Time (s)
39.3
23.6
7.6
10.6
AdJ Reference Time (s)
43.3
27.6
11.6
14.6
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
13.2
0.0
10.5
0.0
5.5
0.0
8.7
Ref Time Seperate (s)
1.9
10.4
1.0
8.1
2.3
2.0
3.2
3.9
Reference Time (s)
13.2
13.2
10.5
10.5
5.5
'i 5.5
8.7
8.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
17.2
17.2
14.5
14.5
9.5
9.5
12.7
12.7
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
43.3
14.6
Split Option (s)
31.6
22.2
Minimum (s)
31.6
14.6
46.3
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.5% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 20
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
15: Center St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
90
323
27
21
231
81
12
40
27
58
36
61
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
440
0
0
333
0
0
79
0
0
155
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.96
0.85
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.92
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3548
0
0
3475
0
0
1789
0
0
1754
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
118
0
490
0
1665
0
852
Reference Time A (s)
00
913
0.0
30.5
0.0
5.7
0.0
21.8
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.8
13.3
11.9
18.6
Reference Time (s)
91.3
30.5
5.7
18.6
AdJ Reference Time (s)
95.3
34.5
9.7
22.6
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
14.9
0.0
11.5
0.0
5.3
0.0
10.6
Ref Time Seperate (s)
6.0
10.8
1.4
8.0
0.8
2.7
3.9
2.5
Reference Time (s)
14.9
%9
11.5
11.5
5.3
5.3
%6
10.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
18.9
18.9
15.5
15.5
9.3
9.3
14.6
14.6
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
95.3
22.6
Split Option (s)
34.4
23.9
Minimum (s)
34.4
22.6
57.0
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.5% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 21
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
16: Kansas St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
25
385
21
37
326
18
12
10
16
25
20
56
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
431
0
0
381
0
0
38
0
0
101
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.92
0.85
0.95
0.91
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3581
0
0
3575
0
0
1752
0
0
1720
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
548
0
302
0
1194
0
1406
Reference Time A (s)
00
36.2
0.0
46.3
0.0
3.8
0.0
8.6
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.8
10.6
9.7
15.0
Reference Time (s)
36.2
46.3
3.8
8.6
AdJ Reference Time (s)
40.7
50.8
9.5
13.1
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
14.4
0.0
12.8
0.0
2.6
0.0
7.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
1.7
12.9
2.5
10.9
0.8
0.7
1.7
1.4
Reference Time (s)
14.4
14A
12.8
12.8
2.6
" 2.6
7.0
7.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
18.9
18.9
17.3
17.3
9.5
9.5
11.5
11.5
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
50.8
13.1
Split Option (s)
36.2
21.0
Minimum (s)
36.2
13.1
49.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.1% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 22
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
17: Maryland St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
26
383
6
13
319
3
6
4
21
17
4
25
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
415
0
0
335
0
0
31
0
0
46
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.89
0.85
0.95
0.90
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3598
0
0
3606
0
0
1690
0
0
1713
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
511
0
767
0
1522
0
953
Reference Time A (s)
00
36.5
0.0
22.1
0.0
2.4
0.0
5.8
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.4
10.2
9.1i
11.2
Reference Time (s)
36.5
22.1
2.4
5.8
AdJ Reference Time (s)
40.5
26.1
8.0
9.8
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
13.8
0.0
11.1
0.0
2.2
0.0
3.2
Ref Time Seperate (s)
1.7
12.7
0.9
10.6
0.4
0.3
1.1
0.3
Reference Time (s)
13.8
13.8
11.1
11.1
2.2
2.2
3.2
3.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
17.8
17.8
15.1
15.1
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
40.5
9.8
Split Option (s)
33.0
16.0
Minimum (s)
33.0
9.8
42.8
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 35.6% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 23
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
18: Maryland St & E Franklin Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
1
18
26
2
3
21
1
2
7
0
10
15
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
0
47
0
0
25
0
0
9
0
0
29
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.96
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
0
1850
0
0
1877
0
0
1879
0
0
1829
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00',
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
0
748
0
1804
0
1620
0
1135
Reference Time A (s)
00
0.0
7.5
0.0
1.7
0.0
0.7
0.0
3.1
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
8.1
9.2
11.0
8.2
9.6
8.1
8.6
8.7
99
Reference Time (s)
7.5
1.7
0.7
3.1
AdJ Reference Time (s)
11.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.6
0.0
1.9
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.1
1.2
1.7
0.2
1.3
0.1
0.4
0.7
1.0
Reference Time (s)
3.0
3.0
3.0
1.6
1.6
0.6
0.6
1.9
19
Adj Reference Time (s)
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
115
8.0
Split Option (s)
16.0
16.0
Minimum (s)
11.5
8.0
19.5
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 16.3% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 24
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
18: Maryland St & E Franklin Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
4/
Lan4Configurations
Volume (vph)
4
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
Protected Option Allowed
Reference Time (s)
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
Reference Time A (s)
Adj Saturation B (vph
Reference Time B (s)
Reference Time (s)
Adi Reference Time (s)
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
Ref Time Seperate (s)
Reference Time (s)
Adj Reference Time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 25
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
19: Center St & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
37
149
40
47
128
60
26
136
85
24
85
20
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
226
0
0
235
0
0
247
0
0
129
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1834
0
0
1809
0
0
1792
0
0
1839
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
1452
0
1260
0
1533
0
1125
Reference Time A (s)
00
18.7
0.0
22.4
0.0
19.3
0.0
13.8
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.7
24.5
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
18.7
22.4
19.3
13.8
AdJ Reference Time (s)
22.7
26.4
23.3
17.8
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
14.8
0.0
15.6
0.0
16.5
0.0
8.4
Ref Time Seperate (s)
2.5
9.7
3.1
8.5
1.7
9.1
1.6
5.5
Reference Time (s)
14.8
%8
15.6
15.6
16.5
'i 16.5
8A
8.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
18.8
18.8
19.6
19.6
20.5
20.5
12.4
12.4
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
26.4
23.3
Split Option (s)
38.4
33.0
Minimum (s)
26.4
23.3
49.7
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 41.4% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 26
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
20: Center St & E Pine Ave Timing Plan: AM Peak Hour
fl i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
76
30
1
52
163
140
36
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
106
0
0
0
216
176
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.92
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.97
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
1754
0
0
0
1877
1842
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
117
0
0
394
1842
Reference Time A (s)
1088
0.0
0.0
65.8
11.5
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
65.8
11.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
69.8
15.5
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
7.3
0.0
0.0
13.8
11.5
Ref Time Seperate (s)
5.2
0.1
3.5
10.3
9.1
Reference Time (s)
7.3
13.8
13.8
13.8
11.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
11.3
17.8
17.8
17.8
15.5
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
Err
69.8
Split Option (s)
11.3
33.3
Minimum (s)
11.3
33.3
44.5
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 37.1% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 27
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
110
11
58
56
4
25
11
35
2066
26
28
4
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
110
69
0
56
29
0
0
46
2092
0
0
32
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.87
0.85
0.95
0.87
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1660
0
1805
1654
0
0
1805
6888
0
0
1805
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
73
5.0
0.0
3.7
2.1
0.0
0.0
3.1
36.4
0.0
0.0
2.1
Adj Reference Time (s)
11.8
9.5
0.0
9.5
9.5
0.0
0.0
9.5
40.9
0.0
0.0
9.5
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
120
1660
120
1654
0
120
1722
0
120
Reference Time A (s)
109.7
5.0
55.8
2.1
0.0
45.9
36.4
0.0
319
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1660
0
1654
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
15.3
5.0
11.7
2.1
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
15.3
11.7
45.9
AdJ Reference Time (s)
19.8
16.2
50.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
7.3
5.0
3.7
2.1
0.0
3.1
36.4'
0.0
21
Ref Time Seperate (s)
7.3
0.8
3.7
0.3
0.7
2.3
36.0
1.9
0.3
Reference Time (s)
7.3
7.3
3.7
3.7
36.4
36.4
36.4
38.0
380
Adj Reference Time (s)
11.8
11.8
9.5
9.5
40.9
40.9
40.9
42.5
42.5
Protected Option (s)
21.3
52.0
Permitted Option (s)
19.8
50.4
Split Option (s)
21.3
83.4
Minimum (s)
198
50.4
70.2
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.5% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 1
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
1: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Walnut Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Volume (vph)
2089
82
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
2171
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
0.99
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6862
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
380
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
42.5
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1715
Reference Time A (s)
38.0
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
38.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
425
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
38.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
36.5
Reference Time (s)
38.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
42.5
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 2
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
2: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Maple Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
81
64
64
48
69
137
36
94
1931
111
11
69
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
81
128
0
48
69
137
0
130
2042
0
0
80
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.93
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1758
0
1805
1600
1615
0
1805
6845
0
0
1805
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
5.4
8.7
0.0
3.2
4.4
10.2
0.0
8.6
35.8
0.0
0.0
53
Adj Reference Time (s)
9.9
13.2
0.0
9.5
9.5
14.7
0.0
13.1
40.3
0.0
0.0
9.8
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
120
1758
120
1600
0
120
1711
0
120
Reference Time A (s)
80.8
8.7
47.9
4.4
0.0
129.6
35.8
0.0
798
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1758
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
13.4
8.7
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
13.4
47.9
129.6
AdJ Reference Time (s)
17.9
52.4
134.1
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
5.4
8.7
3.2
4.4
0.0
8.6
35.8
0.0
5.3
Ref Time Seperate (s)
5.4
4.4
3.2
4.4
2.4
6.2
33.9
0.7
4.6
Reference Time (s)
8.7
8.7
4.4
4.4
35.8
35.8
35.8
37.4
374
Adj Reference Time (s)
13.2
13.2
9.5
9.5
40.3
40.3
40.3
41.9
41.9
Protected Option (s)
22.7
55.1
Permitted Option (s)
52.4
134.1
Split Option (s)
22.7
82.2
Minimum (s)
22.7
55.1
77.8
Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 50.1
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 99
Combined (s) 74.7
Intersection Capacity Utilization 64.8% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 3
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
2: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Maple Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Volume (vph)
2082
61
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
2143
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
1.00
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6871
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
37.4
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
41.9
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1718
Reference Time A (s)
37.4
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
79.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
84.3
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
374
Ref Time Seperate (s)
36.4
Reference Time (s)
37.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
41.9
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 4
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
3: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
135
213
56
151
206
153
32
119
1714
117
44
171
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
135
269
0
151
206
153
0
151
1714
117
0
215
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
0.97
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1841
0
1805
1600
1615
0
1805
6901 !
1615'
0
3505
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
9.0
17.5
0.0
10.0
13.0
11 A
0.0
10.0
29.8
8.7
0.0
7.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
13.5
22.0
0.0
14.5
17.5
15.9
0.0
14.5
34.3
13.2
0.0
11.9
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
120
1841
120
1600
0
120
1725
0
117
Reference Time A (s)
1346
17.5
150.6
13.0
0.0
150.6
29.8
0.0
1104
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
134.6
150.6
150.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
139.1
155.1
155.1
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
9.0
17.5
10.0
13.0
0.0
10.0
29.8
0.0
7.4
Ref Time Seperate (s)
9.0
13.9
10.0
13.0
2.1
7.9
29.8
2.9
5.9
Reference Time (s)
17.5
17.5
13.0
13.0
29.8
" 29.8
29.8
33.6
33.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
22.0
22.0
17.5
17.5
34.3
34.3
34.3
38.1
38.1
Protected Option (s)
36.6
52.7
Permitted Option (s)
155.1
155.1
Split Option (s)
39.5
72.4
Minimum (s)
36.6
52.7
89.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
15.9
13.2
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
46.2
22.0
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
13.5
11.9
Combined (s)
75.5
47.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 74.4% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 5
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
3: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
1
LaAVonfigurations
Volume (vph)
1810
107
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
1917
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
0.99
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6843
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
33.6
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
38.1
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1711
Reference Time A (s)
33.6
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
110.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
1149
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
33.6
Ref Time Seperate (s)
31.7
Reference Time (s)
33.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
38.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 6
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
4: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
--1. -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
227
152
180
264
168
186
12
162 '
1490
170
13
46
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
559
0
264
168
186
0
174
1490
170
0
59
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
0.97
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.91
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.93
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
5059
0
3505
3618
1615
0
1805
6901 !
1615'
0
1805
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00'_
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
Yes
Reference Time (s)
0.0
13.8
0.0
11.6
25.9
12.6
0.0
3.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
18.3
0.0
16.1
30.4
17.1
0.0
9.5
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
169
117
1809
0
120
1725
0
120
Reference Time A (s)
00
161.5
135.6
5.6
0.0
173.5
25.9
0.0
588
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
161.5
135.6
173.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
166.0
140.1
178.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
13.3
9.0
5.6
0.0
11.6
25.9
0.0
3.9
Ref Time Seperate (s)
7.5
5.5
9.0
5.6
0.8
10.8
25.9
0.9
3.1
Reference Time (s)
13.3
13.3
9.0
9.0
25.9
25.9
25.9
34.5
345
Adj Reference Time (s)
17.8
17.8
13.5
13.5
30.4
30.4
30.4
39.0
39.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
55.0
Permitted Option (s)
166.0
178.0
Split Option (s)
31.3
69.4
Minimum (s)
31.3
55.0
86.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
18.3
17.1
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
39.9
17.8
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
178
9.5
Combined (s)
76.0
44.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.9% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 7
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
4: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
1
Lane onfigurations
Volume (vph)
1792
165
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
1957
0
Lane Utilization Factor
0.91
100
Turning Factor (vph)
0.99
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
6814
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
345
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
39.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1703
Reference Time A (s)
345
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
Reference Time (s)
58.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
63.3
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
34.5
Ref Time Seperate (s)
31.6
Reference Time (s)
345
Adj Reference Time (s)
39.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 8
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
5: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E El Segundo Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
-11 --,, -4- fl I L*
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
3
132
312
505
395
319
174
37
365
1462
295
9
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
45
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
135
312
505
395
319
174
0
402
1757
0
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
0`95
1.00
0.97
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.97
0.91'
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1805
3618
1615
3505
3618
1615
0
3505
6727
0
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Yes
Yes
Reference Time (s)
0.0
9.0
10.3
37.5
13.5
%6
12.9
0.0
13.8
31.3'
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
13.5
14.8
42.0
18.0
15.1
17.4
0.0
18.3
35.8
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
120
1809
117
1809
0
117
1682
0
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
134.E
10.3
202.8
%6
0.0
206.4
31.3'
0.0
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
134.6
202.8
206.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
139.1
207.3
210.9'
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
9.0
10.3
13.5
10.6
0.0
13.8
31.3'
0.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.2
8.8
10.3
13.5
10.6
2.5
12.5
26.1
0.6
Reference Time (s)
103
10.3
10.3
13.5
13.5
31.3
31.3
31.3'
359
Adj Reference Time (s)
14.8
14.8
14.8
18.0
18.0
35.8
35.8
35.8
40.4
Protected Option (s)
32.9
58.7
Permitted Option (s)
207.3
210.9
Split Option (s)
32.9
76.3
Minimum (s)
329
58.7
91.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
42.0
17.4
10.5
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
58.7
45.3
28.6
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
180
13.5
18.3
Combined (s)
118.7
76.2
57.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 98.9% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 9
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
5: Pacific Coast Hwy (SR-1) & E El Segundo Blvd Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
\. 1
Lane Configurations
tiff
r
Volume (vph)
109
2066
81
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
45
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
118
2066
81
Lane Utilization Factor
0.97
091
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
1.00
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
3505
6901
1615
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
Yes
Reference Time (s)
40
35.9
6.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
9.5
40.4
10.5
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
117
1725
Reference Time A (s)
60.6
35.9
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
60.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
65.1
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
4.0
35.9
Ref Time Seperate (s)
3.7
35.9
Reference Time (s)
35.9
35.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
40.4
40.4
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 10
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
6: Main St & Imperial Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
119
24
38
27
22
65
42
561
35
81
651
160
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
119
62
0
0
114
0
0
638
0
0
892
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.91
0.85
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
1805
1725
0
0
1717
0
0
3576
0
0
3504
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
548
1725
0
371
0
483
0
324
Reference Time A (s)
26.1
4.3
0.0
36.9
0.0
58.4
0.0
105.0
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
1725
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
159
4.3
9.8
16.0
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
15.9
16.0
58.4
105.0
AdJ Reference Time (s)
20.4
20.5
62.9
109.5
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
7.9
4.3
0.0
8.0
0.0
21.4
0.0
30.5
Ref Time Seperate (s)
7.9
1.7
1.8
1.6
2.8
18.8
5.4
22.3
Reference Time (s)
7.9
7.9
8.0
8.0
21.4
21.4
30.5'
30.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
12.4
12.4
12.5
12.5
25.9
25.9
35.0
35.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
20.5
109.5
Split Option (s)
24.9
61.0
Minimum (s)
20.5
61.0
81.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 67.9% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 11
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
7: Main St & Maple Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
31
13
27
55
27
38
32
625
32
30
635
17
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
71
0
0
120
0
0
689
0
0
682
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.92
0.85
0.95
0.93
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1753
0
0
1768
0
0
3584
0
0
3596
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
1406
0
1359
0
666
0
698
Reference Time A (s)
00
6.1
0.0
10.6
0.0
50.5
0.0
48.3
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
10.1
12.9
11.7
16.1
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
6.1
10.6
50.5
48.3
AdJ Reference Time (s)
10.1
14.6
54.5
52.3
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
4.9
0.0
8.1
0.0
23.1
0.0
22.8
Ref Time Seperate (s)
2.1
0.9
3.7
1.9
2.1
20.9
2.0
21.1
Reference Time (s)
49
4.9
8.1
8.1
23.1
23.1
22.8
22.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
8.9
8.9
12.1
12.1
27.1
27.1
26.8
26.8
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
14.6
54.5
Split Option (s)
21.0
53.8
Minimum (s)
14.6
53.8
68.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.0% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 12
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
8: Main St & Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
74
71
30
49
81
123
23
481
46
154
482
55
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
175
0
0
253
0
0
550
0
0
691
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95
0.92
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1812
0
0
1744
0
0
3565
0
0
3535
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
928
0
1621
0
719
0
118
Reference Time A (s)
00
22.6
0.0
18.7
0.0
38.2
0.0
156.9
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
11.3
25.4
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
22.6
18.7
38.2
156.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
27.1
23.2
42.7
161.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
11.6
0.0
17.4
0.0
18.5
0.0
23.5
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.9
4.7
3.3
5.6
1.5
16.2
10.2
16.2
Reference Time (s)
116
11.6
17.4
17.4
18.5
'i 18.5
23.5'
23.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
16.1
16.1
21.9
21.9
23.0
23.0
28.0
28.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
27.1
161.4
Split Option (s)
38.0
51.0
Minimum (s)
27.1
51.0
78.1
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 65.1% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 13
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
9: Main St & Pine Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
66
24
28
10
19
86
45
459
7
57
409
61
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
118
0
0
115
0
0
511
0
0
527
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.88
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1781
0
0
1680
0
0
3594
0
0
3536
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
459
0
1686
0
346
0
255
Reference Time A (s)
00
30.8
0.0
8.2
0.0
57.3
0.0
70.3
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
0
0
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
12.4
1 &0
8.7
16.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
16.0
8.2
57.3
70.3
AdJ Reference Time (s)
20.0
12.2
61.3
74.3
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
8.0
0.0
8.2
0.0
17.1
0.0
17.9
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.4
1.6
0.7
1.4
3.0
15.3
3.8
13.8
Reference Time (s)
8.0
&0
8.2
8.2
17.1
17.1
17.9
17.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
12.0
12.0
12.2
12.2
21.1
21.1
21.9
21.9
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
20.0
74.3
Split Option (s)
24.2
42.9
Minimum (s)
20.0
42.9
62.9
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.4% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 14
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
10: Main St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
68
251
56
40
205
136
71
293
26
141
174
84
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
375
0
0
381
0
0
390
0
0
399
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.94
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3505
0
0
3406
0
0
3549
0
0
3441
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
117
0
257
0
118
0
115
Reference Time A (s)
00
69.9
0.0
51.5
0.0
72.0
0.0
147.5
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B'(s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
69.9
51.5
72.0
147.5
AdJ Reference Time (s)
74.4
56.0
76.5
152.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
12.8
0.0
13.4
0.0
13.2
0.0
13.9
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.5
8.6
2.7
7.2
4.7
9.8
9.4
6.1
Reference Time (s)
128
12.8
13.4
13.4
13.2
13.2
13.9
13.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
17.3
17.3
17.9
17.9
17.7
17.7
18.4
18.4
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
74.4
152.0
Split Option (s)
35.3
36.1
Minimum (s)
353
36.1
71.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.5% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 15
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
11: El Segundo Blvd & Main St Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
49
301
182
229
200
24
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
350
182
229
224
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
0.97
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.99
1.00
0.85
0.94
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1887
1600
1615
3468
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
17.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
21.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
610
1600
116
Reference Time A (s)
00
68.9
11.5
116.2
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
68.9
11.5
AdJ Reference Time (s)
72.9
15.5
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
22.3
11.5
7.7
Ref Time Seperate (s)
3.3
19.0
11.5
6.9
Reference Time (s)
223
22.3
11.5
7.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
26.3
26.3
15.5
11.7
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
72.9
Err
Split Option (s)
41.8
11.7
Minimum (s)
41.8
11.7
53.5
Cross Thru Ref Time (s) 0.0
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s) 263
Combined (s) 47.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.6% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 16
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
12: Whiting St & W Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
17
246
24
18
256
19
64
26
13
14
20
9
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
287
0
0
293
0
0
103
0
0
43
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3562
0
0
3571
0
0
1806
0
0
1810
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
534
0
517
0
992
0
1756
Reference Time A (s)
00
24.6
0.0
25.6
0.0
12.5
0.0
2.9
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
12.3
14.8
8.9
10.9
Reference Time (s)
24.6
25.6
12.5
2.9
AdJ Reference Time (s)
28.6
29.6
16.5
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
9.7
0.0
9.8
0.0
6.8
0.0
2.9
Ref Time Seperate (s)
1.1
8.3
1.2
8.6
4.3
1.7
0.9
1.3
Reference Time (s)
9.7
9.7
9.8
9.8
6.8
" 6.8
2.9
2.9
Adj Reference Time (s)
13.7
13.7
13.8
13.8
10.8
10.8
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
29.6
16.5
Split Option (s)
27.5
18.8
Minimum (s)
275
16.5
44.0
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 36.6% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 17
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
13: Concord St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
6
9
258
10
8
31
280
23
13
11
23
18
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
0
283
0
0
0
342
0
0
47
0
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
0`95
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.91
0.85
0.95
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
0
3589
0
0
0
3561
0
0
1736
0
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
0
597
0
0
237
0
1544
0
Reference Time A (s)
0.0
0.0
22.4
0.0
0.0
47.1
0.0 '
37
0.0
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.9
111
9.2
Reference Time (s)
22.4
47.1
3.7
AdJ Reference Time (s)
26.4
51.1
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
0.0
9.5
0.0
0.0
11.5
0.0
3.2
0.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.4
0.6
8.6
0.5
2.1
9.4
0.9
0.8
1.2
Reference Time (s)
9.5
9.5
9.5
11.5
11.5
11.5
'i
3.2
3.2
2.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
13.5
13.5
13.5
15.5
15.5
15.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
51.1
8.5
Split Option (s)
29.0
16.0
Minimum (s)
29.0
8.5
37.5
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.2% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 18
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
13: Concord St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
4/
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
13
10
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
41
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
Turning Factor (vph)
0.94
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
1790
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
1096
Reference Time A (s)
45
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
Reference Time B (s)
10.7
Reference Time (s)
4.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
85
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
2.7
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.9
Reference Time (s)
2.7
Adj Reference Time (s)
8.0
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 19
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
14: Eucalyptus Dr & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
66
299
65
49
320
41
37
65
24
51
45
24
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
430
0
0
410
0
0
126
0
0
120
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.96
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3508
0
0
3542
0
0
1819
0
0
1804
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
137
0
218
0
1580
0
1161
Reference Time A (s)
00
72.6
0.0
58.8
0.0
9.6
0.0
12.4
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
10.5
'i 16.3
11 A
16.0
Reference Time (s)
72.6
58.8
9.6
12.4
AdJ Reference Time (s)
76.6
62.8
13.6
16.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
14.7
0.0
13.9
0.0
8.3
0.0
8.0
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.4
10.2
3.3
10.8
2.5
4.3
3.4
3.0
Reference Time (s)
14.7
14.7
13.9
13.9
8.3
8.3
&0
8.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
18.7
18.7
17.9
17.9
12.3
12.3
12.0
12.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
76.6
16.4
Split Option (s)
36.6
24.3
Minimum (s)
36.6
16.4
53.0
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 44.2% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 20
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
15: Center St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
66
344
13
10
368
76
27
98
27
80
69
81
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
423
0
0
454
0
0
152
0
0
230
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.96
0.85
0.95
0.93
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3573
0
0
3523
0
0
1833
0
0
1768
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
135
0
1039
0
1647
0
976
Reference Time A (s)
00
70.5
0.0
23.9
0.0
11.1
0.0
28.3
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B'(s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
70.5
23.9
11.1
28.3
AdJ Reference Time (s)
74.5
27.9
15.1
32.3
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
14.2
0.0
15.5
0.0
10.0
0.0
15.6
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.4
11.5
0.7
12.5
1.8
6.4
5.3
4.7
Reference Time (s)
14.2
142
15.5
15.5
10.0
10.0
15.6
15.6
Adj Reference Time (s)
18.2
18.2
19.5
19.5
14.0
14.0
19.6
19.6
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
74.5
32.3
Split Option (s)
37.7
33.6
Minimum (s)
37.7
32.3
69.9
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 58.3% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 21
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
16: Kansas St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
31
444
8
27
442
22
22
19
76
1
13
9
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.5
4.5
40
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.0
4.5
4.5
4.5
Minimum Green (s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
4.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
483
0
0
491
0
0
117
0
0
0
59
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.89
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.90
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3597
0
0
3583
0
0
1699
0
0
0
1706
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
499
0
576
0
1363
0
0
1169
Reference Time A (s)
00
43.2
0.0
39.9
0.0
10.3
0.0
0.0
61
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B'(s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
9.5
'i 16.3
8.1i
8.9
12.2
Reference Time (s)
43.2
39.9
10.3
6.1
AdJ Reference Time (s)
47.7
44.4
14.8
10.6
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
16.1
0.0
16.4
0.0
8.3
0.0
0.0
4.2
Ref Time Seperate (s)
2.1
14.8
1.8
14.8
1.5
1.4
0.1
0.9
0.6
Reference Time (s)
16.1
16.1
16.4
16.4
8.3
8.3
42
4.2
4.2
Adj Reference Time (s)
20.6
20.6
20.9
20.9
12.8
12.8
9.5
9.5
9.5
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
47.7
14.8
Split Option (s)
41.6
22.3
Minimum (s)
41.6
14.8
56.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 47.0% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 22
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
16: Kansas St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
4/
Lan4Configurations
Volume (vph)
36
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
Ideal Flow
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
Protected Option Allowed
Reference Time (s)
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
Reference Time A (s)
Adj Saturation B (vph
Reference Time B (s)
Reference Time (s)
Adi Reference Time (s)
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
Ref Time Seperate (s)
Reference Time (s)
Adj Reference Time (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 23
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
17: Maryland St & Grand Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
12
400
9
24
452
12
5
5
17
5
7
10
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
421
0
0
488
0
0
27
0
0
22
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
095
1.00
1.00
0.95
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.99
0.85
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.95
0.92
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
3601
0
0
3595
0
0
1705
0
0
1750
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
931
0
638
0
1355
0
1213
Reference Time A (s)
00
24.0
0.0
36.9
0.0
2.4
0.0
2.2
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
0
0
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
8.3
9.9
8.3
9.5
Reference Time (s)
24.0
36.9
2.4
2.2
AdJ Reference Time (s)
28.0
40.9
8.0
8.0
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
14.0
0.0
16.3
0.0
1.9
0.0
1.5
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.8
13.3
1.6
15.1
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.5
Reference Time (s)
14.0
%0
16.3
16.3
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.5
Adj Reference Time (s)
18.0
18.0
20.3
20.3
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
409
8.0
Split Option (s)
38.3
16.0
Minimum (s)
38.3
8.0
46.3
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 38.6% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 24
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
18: Maryland St & E Franklin Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
14
43
5
0
40
8
0
10
0
5
10
18
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
62
0
0
48
0
0
10
0
0
33
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.98
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
1.00
0.85
0.95
0.91
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1856
0
0
1853
0
0
1600
0
0
1731
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
417
0
1853
0
1600
0
529
Reference Time A (s)
00
17.8
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
7.5
Adj Saturation B (vph
0
0
0
1853
0
1600
0
0
Reference Time B (s)
8.9
12A
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.6
8.3
10.3
Reference Time (s)
12.0
3.1
0.6
7.5
AdJ Reference Time (s)
16.0
8.0
8.0
11.5
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
4.0
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
2.3
Ref Time Seperate (s)
0.9
2.8
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.6
0.3
0.7
Reference Time (s)
40
4.0
3.1
3.1
0.6
0.6
2.3
2.3
Adj Reference Time (s)
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
16.0
11.5
Split Option (s)
16.0
16.0
Minimum (s)
16.0
11.5
27.5
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 22.9% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 25
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
19: Center St & E Mariposa Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
� � i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
20
147
28
88
220
34
24
198
77
30
111
24
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
0
195
0
0
342
0
0
299
0
0
165
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
0.95
0.96
0.85
0.95
0.97
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
0
1850
0
0
1848
0
0
1819
0
0
1842
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
00
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
0
1682
0
941
0
1614
0
1032
Reference Time A (s)
00
13.9
0.0
43.6
0.0
22.2
0.0
19.2
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA '
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
13.9
43.6
22.2
19.2
AdJ Reference Time (s)
17.9
47.6
26.2
23.2
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
0.0
12.7
0.0
22.2
0.0
19.7
0.0
10.8
Ref Time Seperate (s)
1.3
9.5
5.9
14.2
1.6
13.1
2.0
7.2
Reference Time (s)
12.7
12.7
22.2
22.2
19.7
19.7
%8
10.8
Adj Reference Time (s)
16.7
16.7
26.2
26.2
23.7
23.7
14.8
14.8
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
47.6
26.2
Split Option (s)
42.9
38.5
Minimum (s)
429
26.2
69.1
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 57.6% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 26
El Segundo Housing Element Update Existing Plus Project Conditions
20: Center St & E Pine Ave Timing Plan: PM Peak Hour
fl i
Lane Configurations
Volume (vph)
66
55
2
45
213
186
50
Pedestrians
Ped Button
Pedestrian Timing (s)
Free Right
No
No
Ideal Flow
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
Lost Time (s)
4.0
4.0
40
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Minimum Green (s)
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
Refr Cycle Length (s)
120
120
120
120
120
120
120
Volume Combined (vph)
121
0
0
0
260
236
0
Lane Utilization Factor
1.00
100
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Turning Factor (vph)
0.91
0.85
0.95
0.95
0.99
0.97
0.85
Saturated Flow (vph)
1722
0
0
0
1883
1840
0
Ped Intf Time (s)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Pedestrian Frequency (%)
0.00
0.00
0.00
Protected Option Allowed
No
No
No
Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Adj Reference Time (s)
0.0
0.0
Permitted Option
Adj Saturation A (vph)
115
0
0
504
1840
Reference Time A (s)
126.5
0.0
0.0
61.9
15A
Adj Saturation B (vph
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time B (s)
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Reference Time (s)
61.9
15.4
Adj Reference Time (s)
65.9
19.4
Split Option
Ref Time Combined (s)
8.4
0.0
0.0
16.6
15.4
Ref Time Seperate (s)
4.6
0.1
3.0
13.5
12.1
Reference Time (s)
8.4
16.6
16.6
16.6
15A
Adj Reference Time (s)
12.4
20.6
20.6
20.6
19.4
Protected Option (s)
NA
NA
Permitted Option (s)
Err
65.9
Split Option (s)
12.4
40.0
Minimum (s)
12.4
40.0
52.4
Cross Thru Ref Time (s)
Oncoming Left Ref Time (s)
Combined (s)
Intersection Capacity Utilization 43.7% ICU Level of Service
Reference Times and Phasing Options do not represent an optimized timing plan.
Intersection Capacity Utilization Synchro 11 Report
Kimley-Horn Page 27
f
Signal Warrant Analysis Worksheets
DR "V.7 Local Transportation Analysis
City of El Segundo Housing Element Update
KimleytA3/8/2024
PEAK HOUR SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS (Warrant #3, California MUTCD 2012 Edition)
INT #1
PROJECT NAME: E't Segigngi44 ttoestng E'tegnent lJpitate
SCENARIO: Ektst"tng Plus Ph"Aloct Condit'a"Ans
COMMENTS:
MAJOR STREET: tllatn Street ❑ NB/SB ❑ EB/WB
# OF APPROACH LANES
MINOR STREET: tlfaPte Avonee ❑ NB/SB ❑ EB/WB
# OF APPROACH LANES
THE STUDY INTERSECTION HAS MORE THAN THREE APPROACHES (Y OR N):
ISOLATED COMMUNITY WITH POPULATION LESS THAN 10,000 (Y OR N):
65TH PERCENTILE SPEED GREATER THAN 40 MPH ON MAJOR STREET (Y OR N):
AM
PM
WORST CASE DELAY FOR MINOR STREET APPROACH: 1 100.0 Iseciveh
1 51.5 IsecIveh
4.42 veh-hr
1 1.72 veh-hr
MAJOR STREET
NB
Approach
SB
Approach
06:00 AM
TO
07:00 AM
07:00 AM
TO
06:00 AM
603
712
06:00 AM
TO
09:00 AM
09:00 AM
TO
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
TO
11:00 AM
11:00 AM
TO
12:00 PM
12:00 PM
TO
01:00 PM
01:00 PM
TO
02:00 PM
02:00 PM
TO
03:00 PM
03:00 PM
TO
04:00 PM
04:00 PM
TO
05:00 PM
05:00 PM
TO
06:00 PM
669
662
06:00 PM
TO
07:00 PM
07:00 PM
TO
06:00 PM
06:00 PM
TO
09:00 PM
09:00 PM
TO
10:00 PM
Total
0
1315
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1371
0
0
0
0
MINOR STREET
EB WB
Approach I Approach
1 122 1 159 1
1 71 1 120 1
Intersection
Heavy Leg
Total
Total
0
0
0
159
261
1596
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
120
191
1562
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MAJOR STREET
MINOR STREET
INTERSECTION
Total
Heavy Leg Total
Total
AM MAX
1315
AM MAX
159
261
AM MAX
1596
PM MAX 1371
PM MAX 1 120 1 191
PM MAX 1 1562
Kimley)>>Horn
3/8/2024
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2012 Califomia Supplement
Scenario: Existing Plus Project Conditions AM
Comments:
PART A or PART B SATISFIED YES
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED YES
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach Yes
controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a
one -lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 Yes
vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds Yes
800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for
intersection with less than four approaches.
PART B SATISFIED No
APPROACH LANES One 2 or More
Both Approaches - Major Street I1315
Highest Approach - Minor Street 1 159
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher
volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable
curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3.
Figure 4C-3. Warrant 3 Peak Hour
N N�
MEMENNEMEN MEN
MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES —
VEHICLES PIER HOUR (VPH)
"Norte: 150 vph applies as the lower threshold volume for a minor -street
approach with two or more, lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor -street approach rrrith one tame.
El Segundo Housing Element Update
Kimley)>>Horn
3/8/2024
Traffic Signal Warrants Worksheet
Warrant 3: Peak Hour
Source: MUTCD 2012 Califomia Supplement
Scenario: Existing Plus Project Conditions PM
Comments:
PART A or PART B SATISFIED NO
PART A
(All parts 1, 2, and 3 below must be satisfied) SATISFIED NO
1. The total delay experienced for traffic on one minor street approach No
controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds four vehicle -hours for a
one -lane approach and five vehicle hours for a two-lane approach; AND
2. The volume on the same minor street approach equals or exceeds 100 Yes
vph for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vph for two moving lanes; AND
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds Yes
800 vph for intersection with four or more approaches or 650 vph for
intersection with less than four approaches.
PART B SATISFIED No
APPROACH LANES One 2 or More
Both Approaches - Major Street I1371
Highest Approach - Minor Street 1 120
The plotted points for vehicles per hour on major streets (both approaches) and the corresponding per hour higher
volume minor street approach (one direction only) for one hour (any consecutive 15 minute period) fall above applicable
curves in MUTCD Figure 4C-3.
Figure 4C,3. Warrant 3 Peak Hour
2 OR MORE LANES & 1 LANE
MEN N
EMENNEMEM MEN
MAJOR STREET —TOTAL OF BOTH APPROACHES —
VEHICLES PIER HOUR (VPH)
"Note: 150 vph applies as She lower Shroshold volume for a minor -street
approach with two or more, lanes and 100 vph applies as the lower
threshold volume for a minor-stroet approach rrrith one Vane.
El Segundo Housing Element Update
Attachment C
Air Quality, Energy,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
and Noise Impact Analyses
626 Wilshire Boulevard CA, G 11"M I
Suite 1100
,"'AAAA/4. Los Angeles, CA 90017
213.599.4300 pon✓
213.599.4301 1';
technical memorandum
date October 31, 2023
to Michael Allen
cc
from Alan Sako, LLED AP BD+C
Luci Hise-Fisher, AICP
subject City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
1. Introduction and Project Description
This Technical Memorandum (Memo) provides screening -level impact analyses for air quality, energy,
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and noise for amendments necessary to implement the City of El Segundo
2021-2029 Housing Element. On November 15, 2022, the City Council adopted a revised 2021-2029 Housing
Element. On January 17, 2023, after the City made some minor technical changes to the Housing Element, the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued a conditional approval letter but delayed full
certification of the Housing Element until the City completes the rezoning described in Program 6 of the Housing
Element. The purpose of this analysis is to provide screening level analyses under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) to inform the City as to the appropriate level of CEQA documentation that may be necessary
for the amendments.
For the 2021-2029 Housing Element, the regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) allocation ("fair share" of
the regional total) from Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) for El Segundo is a total of 492
units. With the City's shortfall of 29 units from the 2014-2021 planning period, the total requirement for the City
during the 6th Cycle Housing Element period is 521 units.
The City has identified four approaches to increase in housing units in the City to comply with the 6th RHNA
cycle allocation. The projected increase in housing that would result from the four approaches would exceed the
521 units allocated to the City in order to provide a buffer given the uncertainty of where redevelopment will
occur as well as considering the overall land use pattern in the City and to project beyond the 2021-2029
timeframe. The four approaches include:
Creation of a Housing Overlay (HO) that would be applied to four areas. The HO will allow for an
increase in density from the current 27 units per acre to up to 65 units per acre. Assuming a density of 65
units per acre, the resulting net increase would be 193 units.
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
• Creation of a Mixed Use Overlay (MU-0) that would be applied to three areas. The MU-0 would allow a
density of 75 units per acre resulting in up to 335 residential units that could be developed on the
identified parcels.
• Increase in R-3 allowable density from 27 units per acre to 30 units per acre. Assuming a density of 30
units per acre, the resulting net increase would be 367 units.
The Downtown Specific Plan is being updated and would result in an increase of 300 residential units in
the Downtown area.
The attached figure shows the locations where increases in residential densities would occur. Amendments to the
City's General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Code will be necessary to establish the HO and MU-0 and to
increase the residential density allowed in the R-3 zone. In total, the amendments to the General Plan and Zoning
Code being evaluated in this Memo would result in up to 1,195 residential units. In addition to the residential
units, a net increase of approximately 64,077 square feet of residential serving commercial (i.e., ground -floor
retail) uses would be anticipated For purposes of this Memo, "the Project" refers to the General Plan and Zoning
Code amendments and "future development" refers to the increase of 1,195 residential units and 64,077 square
feet of residential serving commercial. This Memo considers the analyses and conclusions in the City's General
Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (General Plan PEIR). I The screening level analyses are compared
with the conclusions in the General Plan PEIR.
2. Thresholds of Significance
The significance thresholds to evaluate a project's potential for significant air quality, energy, GHG emissions,
and noise impacts are derived from the Environmental Checklist question in Appendix G of the State CEQA
Guidelines. Accordingly, a project would generally result in a significant impact if the project would result in or
exceed the thresholds discussed below.
The General Plan PEIR evaluated impacts from buildout of the General Plan for Air Quality, Energy (within the
Utilities section), and Noise. At the time the PEIR was prepared, GHG emissions was not a separate section in the
Environmental Checklist question in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. However, buildout of the
General Plan would result in GHG emissions from the same sources that would generate air pollutant emissions
and energy demand.
The potential for the increase in residential and non-residential development to result in new significant
environmental effects or substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in the
General Plan PEIR is determined in the screening impact analysis provided in Section 3.
2.1 Air Quality
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact related to
air quality if it would:
I City of El Segundo, General Plan Environmental Impact Report, SCH# 91041092, December 1991.
2
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region
is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard;
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people.
Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.7), a lead agency may consider using, when available,
significance thresholds established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district
when malting determinations of significance. For purposes of this analysis, the thresholds adopted by the South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in connection with its CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air
Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook, and subsequent SCAQMD guidance are relied upon. While the SCAQMD
CEQA Air Quality Handbook contains significance thresholds for lead, project construction and operation would not
include sources of lead emissions and would therefore not exceed the significance thresholds for lead. Unleaded fuel
and unleaded paints have virtually eliminated lead emissions from commercial land use projects such as the
Project.z As a result, lead emissions are not further evaluated in this Technical Memorandum.
Conflict with Applicable Air Quality Plans. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 requires an analysis of a
project's potential conflict with applicable governmental plans andpolicies. In accordance with the SCAQMD's
CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the following criteria were used to evaluate the Project's potential conflict with the
SCAQMD's 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP):
Criterion 1: Will the Project result in any of the following:
— An increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; or
— Cause or contribute to new air quality violations; or
— Delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the
AQMP.
• Criterion 2: Will the Project exceed the assumptions utilized in preparing the AQMP?
Construction and Operational Emissions. A significant impact may occur if a project would add a
cumulatively considerable contribution of a federal or State non -attainment pollutant. The South Coast Air Basin
is currently designated as non -attainment for ozone, respirable particulate matter (PM10), and fine particulate
matter (PM2.5). SCAQMD methodology recommends that significance thresholds be used to determine the
potential cumulative impacts to regional air quality along with a project's consistency with the current AQMP.
The SCAQMD has established numerical significance thresholds for construction and operational activities. The
numerical thresholds are based on the recognition that the South Coast Air Basin is a distinct geographic area
with a critical air pollution problem for which ambient air quality standards have been promulgated to protect
public health.3 Given that construction impacts are temporary and limited to the construction phase, the
SCAQMD has established numerical significance thresholds specific to construction activity. Based on the
Pursuant to the Consumer Product Safety Act, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission passed regulations prohibiting the use of
lead -containing paints for products manufactured after February 27, 1978. Effective January 1, 1996, the Clean Air Act banned the sale
of all leaded fuel for use in on -road vehicles.
SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
3
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds,4 the Project would potentially result in a significant
impact of a federal or State non -attainment pollutant if emissions of ozone precursors (volatile organic
compounds [VOC] and nitrogen oxides [NOX]), PM10, or PM2.5 would exceed the values shown in Table 1,
SCAQMD Regional Emissions Thresholds.
TABLE 'I
SCAQMD REGIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS (POUNDS PER DAY)
Activity VOC NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55
Operations 55 55 550 150 150 55
SOURCE: SCAQMD, Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019.
Localized Emission Impacts on Sensitive Receptors. In addition, the SCAQMD has developed a methodology
to assess the potential for localized emissions to cause an exceedance of applicable ambient air quality standards
or ambient concentration limits. Impacts would be considered significant if the following would occur:
• Maximum daily localized emissions of NOX and/or carbon monoxide (CO) during construction or operation
are greater than the applicable localized significance thresholds, resulting in predicted ambient concentrations
in the vicinity of the Project Site greater than the most stringent ambient air quality standards for NOZ and/or
CO.5
• Maximum daily localized emissions of PM10 and/or PM2.5 during construction are greater than the
applicable localized significance thresholds, resulting in predicted ambient concentrations in the vicinity of
the Project Site to exceed 10.4 µg/m3 over 24 hours (SCAQMD Rule 403 control requirement).
• Maximum daily localized emissions of PM10 and/or PM2.5 during operation are greater than the applicable
localized significance thresholds, resulting in predicted ambient concentrations in the vicinity of the Project
Site to exceed 2.5 µg/m3 over 24 hours (SCAQMD Rule 1303 allowable change in concentration).
• The following conditions would occur at an intersection or roadway within one -quarter mile of a sensitive
receptor:
— The Project would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the CAAQS
1-hour or 8-hour CO standards of 20 or 9.0 parts per million (ppm), respectively.
— Where the CO standard is exceeded at the intersection, a project would result in a significant impact if the
incremental increase due to the project is equal to or greater than 1.0 ppm for the California 1-hour CO
standard, or 0.45 ppm for the 8-hour CO standard.
The SCAQMD has established screening criteria that can be used to determine the maximum allowable daily
emissions that would satisfy the localized significance thresholds and, therefore, not cause or contribute to an
exceedance of the applicable ambient air quality standards or ambient concentration limits without project -
specific dispersion modeling.6 The localized screening criteria for SCAQMD Source Receptor Area 3 are
' SCAQMD, Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019.
5 SCAQMD, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003 and revised July 2008.
6 SCAQMD, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, June 2003 and revised July 2008.
4
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
applicable to individual projects in the City of El Segundo and are provided in Table 2, SCAQMD Localized
Screening Criteria.
TABLE 2
SCAQMD LOCALIZED SCREENING CRITERIA (POUNDS PER DAY)
Individual Project Size: 1 Acre
Individual Project Size: 2 Acre
Individual Project Size: 5 Acre
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
NOx
CO
PM10
PM2.5
Activity / Receptor Distance
Construction
5 25 meters
91
664
5
3
131
967
8
5
197
1,796
15
8
50 meters
93
785
14
5
128
1,158
23
7
189
1,984
46
11
100 meters
107
1,156
28
9
139
1,597
37
12
202
2,608
60
19
200 meters
139
2,228
56
21
165
2,783
65
25
222
4,119
88
35
500 meters
218
7,269
140
75
233
7,950
148
81
277
9,852
171
96
Operations
5 25 meters
91
664
1
1
131
967
2
1
197
1,796
4
2
50 meters
93
785
4
2
128
1,158
6
2
189
1,984
12
3
100 meters
107
1,156
7
3
139
1,597
9
3
202
2,608
15
5
200 meters
139
2,228
14
5
165
2,783
16
6
222
4,119
21
9
500 meters
218
7,269
34
18
233
7,950
36
20
277
9,852
41
24
SOURCE: SCAQMD, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Appendix C, October 21, 2009.
Toxic Air Contaminants and Sensitive Receptors. Based on the SCAQMD thresholds, the Project would cause
a significant impact by exposing sensitive receptors to toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions if any of the
following would occur:7
• The Project emits carcinogenic materials or TACs that exceed the maximum incremental cancer risk often in
one million or a cancer burden greater than 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas greater than or equal to 1 in 1
million) or an acute or chronic hazard index of 1.0.
Objectionable Odors and Other Emissions. With respect to other emissions, such as odors, the Project's
impacts would be considered significant if it created objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
In addition, based on the thresholds in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 8 the Project would
potentially result in a significant impact of an attainment, maintenance, or unclassified pollutant if emissions of
CO or sulfur dioxide (S02) would exceed the values shown in Table 1.
SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
8 SCAQMD, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 1993.
5
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
2.2 Energy
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact related to
energy if it would:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation; or
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines was prepared in response to the requirement in Public Resources Code
Section 21100(b)(3), which states that an EIR shall include a detailed statement setting forth "[m]itigation
measures proposed to minimize significant effects of the environment, including, but not limited to, measures to
reduce the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy." The analysis utilizes factors and
considerations identified in Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, as appropriate, to assist in answering the
Appendix G questions.
The project's energy requirements and its energy use efficiencies by amount and fuel type for each stage of
the project including construction, operation, maintenance and/or removal. If appropriate, the energy
intensiveness of materials may be discussed.
2. The effects of the project on local and regional energy supplies and on requirements for additional capacity.
3. The effects of the project on peak and base period demands for electricity and other forms of energy.
4. The degree to which the project complies with existing energy standards.
5. The effects of the project on energy resources.
6. The project's projected transportation energy use requirements and its overall use of efficient transportation
alternatives.
The factors to evaluate energy impacts under Threshold (a) include items number 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 above. The
factors to evaluate energy impacts under Threshold (b) include item number 4 above.
2.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact related
to GHG emissions if it would:
a) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment; or
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of GHGs.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 gives lead agencies the discretion to determine whether to assess those
emissions quantitatively or qualitatively. If a qualitative analysis is used, in addition to quantification, this section
recommends certain qualitative factors that maybe used in the determination of significance (i.e., extent to which
the project may increase or reduce GHG emissions compared to the existing environment; whether the project
exceeds an applicable significance threshold; and extent to which the project complies with regulations or
requirements adopted to implement a reduction or mitigation of GHGs). CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 does
6
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
not establish a threshold of significance; rather, lead agencies are granted discretion to establish significance
thresholds for their respective jurisdictions, including looking to thresholds developed by other public agencies,
or suggested by other experts, such as the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), so
long as any threshold chosen is supported by substantial evidence per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7(c). The
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) has also clarified that the CEQA Guidelines focus on the effects of
GHG emissions as cumulative impacts, and that they shouldbe analyzed in the context of CEQA's requirements
for cumulative impact analysis (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)).9
Although GHG emissions can be quantified, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), SCAQMD, and the
City have not adopted quantitative project -level significance thresholds for GHG emissions that would be
applicable to the Project. OPR released a technical advisory on CEQA and climate change that provided some
guidance on assessing the significance of GHG emissions, and states that "lead agencies may undertake a project -
by -project analysis, consistent with available guidance and current CEQA practice," and that while "climate
change is ultimately a cumulative impact, not every individual project that emits GHGs must necessarily be found
to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the environment." 10 Furthermore, the technical advisory states
that "CEQA authorizes reliance on previously approved plans and mitigation programs that have adequately
analyzed and mitigated GHG emissions to a less than significant level as a means to avoid or substantially reduce
the cumulative impact of a project."11
Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be
found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program
that provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the
geographic area of the project.12 To qualify, such a plan or program must be specified in law or adopted by the
public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement,
interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. 13 Examples of such programs
include a "water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management
plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, [and] plans or regulations for the reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions."14 Thus, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) allows a lead agency to make a
finding of non -significance for GHG emissions if a project complies with a program and/or other regulatory
schemes to reduce GHG emissions.
The City has not adopted a numeric threshold for the analysis of GHG impacts. As noted above, CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.4(b)(2) allows the City to determine a threshold of significance that applies to the
Project, and, accordingly, the threshold of significance applied in the analysis below is whether the Project
complies with applicable plans, policies, regulations and requirements adopted to implement a statewide,
regional, or local plan for the reduction or mitigation of GHG emissions. The California Air Resources Board
9 See generally California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009, pages 11-13,
14, and 16; see also Letter from Cynthia Bryant, Director of the Office of Planning and Research to Mike Chrisman, Secretary for
Natural Resources, April 13, 2009.
10 See generally California Natural Resources Agency, Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, December 2009, pages 11-13,
14, and 16; see also Letter from Cynthia Bryant, Director of the Office of Planning and Research to Mike Chrisman, Secretary for
Natural Resources, April 13, 2009.
11 Governor's Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory — CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.
12 CCR, Title 14, Section 15064(h)(3).
13 CCR, Title 14, Section 15064(h)(3).
14 CCR, Title 14, Section 15064(h)(3).
7
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
(CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (Scoping Plan) and the Southern California
Association of Government (SCAG) 2020-2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities
Strategy (RTP/SCS) would apply to the Project and are intended to reduce GHG emissions to meet the
Statewide targets set forth in AB 32 and amended by SB 32. If the Project is not in conflict with the applicable
regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions, then the Project would result in a less than significant
impact with respect to GHG emissions.
2.4 Noise
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact related to
noise and vibration if it would result in the:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies;
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels; or
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such
a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels. The El Segundo Municipal Code (ESMC) Section 7-2-
10 exempts construction activities from the City's Noise Ordinance as provided below:
The following activities shall be exempted from the provisions of this Chapter:
D. Construction Noise: Between the Hours Of 10: 00 P.M. And 7: 00 A.M. Noise sources
associated with or vibration created by construction, repair, or remodeling of any real property,
providedsaid activities do not take place between the hours ofsix o'clock (6:00) P.M. and seven
o'clock (7: 00) A.M. Monday through Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday,
and provided the noise level created by such activities does not exceed the noise standard ofsixty
five (65) dBA plus the limits specified in subsection 7-2-4C of this Chapter as measured on the
receptor residential property line and provided any vibration created does not endanger the
public health, welfare and safety.
The City has not adopted a numeric threshold for temporary construction noise during daytime hours in the
ESMC. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual
provides guidelines on a quantitative assessment.15 The FTA guidelines recommend comparing the combined
average noise level (i.e., over an 8-hour workday) for all equipment for each phase of construction to the criteria
provided in Table 3, Detailed Analysis Construction Noise Criteria. The analysis should identify locations where
the level exceeds the criteria, if any.
15 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
8
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
TABLE 3
DETAILED ANALYSIS CONSTRUCTION NOISE CRITERIA
A -Weighted Decibels (dBA) Leq (8-hour)
Land Use Day Night
Residential 80 70
Commercial 85 85
Industrial 90 90
SOURCE: FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.
Substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. The ESMC Section 7-2-4 establishes noise standards
as provided below:
No person shall, at any location within the City, create any noise, nor shall anyperson allow the
creation of any noise within the person's control on public or private property (hereinafter
"noise source'), which causes the noise level when measured on any other property (hereinafter
"receptorproperty'), to exceed the applicable noise standard, except as set forth in subsection
CI of this section.
A. Residential Property: Five (5) dBA above the ambient noise level.
B. Commercial and Industrial Properties: Eight (8) dBA above the ambient noise level.
C. Adjustments:
1. Increases to the noise standards as set forth in subsections A and B of this
Section may be permitted in accordance with the following [in Table 4,
Noise Standards Adjustments]:
TABLE 4
NOISE STANDARDS ADJUSTMENTS
Permitted Increase (dBA) Duration of Increase (Minutes)*
0 30
5 15
10 5
15 1
20 Less than 1
* Cumulative minutes during any one hour.
SOURCE: ESMC, Section 7-2-4.
2. If the receptor property is located on a boundary between two (2) different
noise zones, the lower noise level standard applicable to the quieter zone
shall apply. (Ord. 1242, 1-16-1996).
The ESMC Section 7-2-8 establishes specific noise prohibitions as provided below:
9
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
The following acts, and the causing thereof, are declared to be in violation of this Chapter if they
occur in such a manner as to disturb thepeace, quiet and comfort of any reasonable person of
normal sensitivity residing in the area; and occur:
A. Between The Hours Of 10: 00 P.M. And 7: 00 A.M.
1. Operating, playing or permitting the operation or playing of any radio,
television, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, sound amplifier, or
similar device which produces, reproduces or amplifies sound.
2. Using or operating any loudspeaker, public address system or similar
device.
3. Loading, unloading, opening, closing or other handling of boxes, crates,
containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects.
4. Repairing, building, rebuilding, adjusting or testing any motor vehicle.
B. Between The Hours Of 8: 00 P.M. And 7: 00 A.M.
1. Refuse Collection Vehicles:
a. Collection ofrefuse with a collection vehicle in a residential area or
within five hundred feet (500) thereof;
b. Operation or permitting the operation of the compacting mechanism
of any motor vehicle which compacts refuse in a residential area or
within five hundred feet (500) thereof.
2. Loudspeakers/Public Address Systems: Using or operating for any
commercial purpose any loudspeaker, public address system, or similar
device on a public right of way or public space.
3. Powered Model: Operating or permitting the operation of powered models.
(Ord. 1242, 1-16-1996)
Excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. The City has not adopted a numeric threshold
for temporary construction groundborne vibration or groundborne noise. The ESMC Section 7-2-9 establishes a
general policy for groundbome vibration as provided below:
Notwithstanding other sections of this Chapter, a person shall not create, maintain or cause any
ground vibration which is perceptible, without the use of instruments, to any reasonable person
of normal sensitivity at any point on any affected property. (Ord. 1242, 1-16-1996)
The FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual provides guidelines on a quantitative
assessment for potential building damage from groundborne vibration.16 The FTA groundbome vibration damage
criteria are shown in Table 5, Construction Vibration Damage Criteria.
16 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-5, September 2018.
10
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
TABLE 5
CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION DAMAGE CRITERIA
Peak Particle Velocity
(PPV) (inches per
Building Category second)
I. Reinforced -concrete, steel, or timber (no plaster) 0.5
II. Engineered concrete and masonry (no plaster) 0.3
III. Non -engineered timber and masonry buildings 0.2
IV. Buildings extremely susceptible to vibration damage 0.12
SOURCE: FTA, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-5, September 2018.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance
Manual provides guidelines on a quantitative assessment for potential human annoyance impacts from
groundborne vibration. According to the guidelines, a groundborne vibration level of 0.4 inches per second PPV
is associated with severe human annoyance potential.17
Airstrip or Airport Excessive Noise Levels. The City of El Segundo is located to the south of Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX). Other local and regional airports are located further than two miles from the City.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) generally identifies 65 dB day -night noise level (DNL) or
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) as the threshold level of aviation noise which is significant.
3. Screening Impact Analysis
3.1 Air Quality
a) Conflict with or Obstruct Air Quality Plan
Criterion No. 1
The first criterion evaluates the potential for a project to result in an increase in the frequency or severity of
existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality
standards of the interim emissions reductions specified in the AQMP. The SCAQMD numerical significance
thresholds for construction and operational emissions are designed for the analysis of individual projects and not
for long-term planning documents, such as the Project. Emissions are dependent on the exact size, nature, and
location of an individual land use type, combined with reductions in localized impacts from the removal of
existing land use types, as applicable (i.e., conversion of commercial or light industrial uses).
Construction
Construction of future projects facilitated by the Project would generate airpollutant emissions through the use of
heavy-duty construction equipment. Details necessary to provide a meaningful quantitative estimate of
construction emissions would be speculative, as specific sites, buildings and uses to be constructed or modified,
construction schedules, and quantities of earthmoving are unknown. Because this information is unknown,
construction emissions modeling is not feasible and would be speculative.
17 California Department of Transportation, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Table 20, April 2020.
11
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
Nonetheless, construction of development that could occur as a result of the Project would be limited in extent
and duration and would emit air pollutants on short-term and temporary basis. Construction truck fleets would be
required to comply with the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which was approved by CARB in June 2020 and
mandates zero -emission vehicle sales requirements for truck manufacturers and a one-time reporting requirement
for large entities and fleets.18 The regulation is designed to accelerate widespread adoption of zero emission
vehicles in the medium -and heavy-duty truck sectorto reduce on -road mobile source emissions on the path to
carbon neutrality by 2045. In addition, trucks would be required to comply with the CARB Airborne Toxic
Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling, which would reduce fuel combustion and
associated emissions (Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Section 2485). In addition to limiting exhaust from
idling trucks, CARB also promulgated emission standards for off -road diesel construction equipment of greater
than 25 horsepower such as bulldozers, loaders, backhoes and cranes, as well as many other self-propelled off -
road diesel vehicles. The regulation adoptedby the CARB on July 26, 2007, reduces emissions by requiring the
installation of diesel soot filters and the retirement, replacement, or repowering of older, dirtier engines with
newer emission control models (13 CCR, Section 2449). The compliance schedule requires construction
equipment fleets to fully meet emissions standards by 2023 in all equipment for large and medium fleets and by
2028 for small fleets.
The City's General Plan PEIR determined that construction emission impacts would be significant but mitigated
to less than significant. The City's Air Quality Element includes policies to reduce construction -related
emissions. Policy AQ10-1.2 and Policy AQ10-1.3 include provisions to prohibit the use of building materials and
methods which generate excessive pollutants and for projects to meet or exceed requirements of the SCAQMD
for reducing PM10 emissions. Emission reduction measures generally consistent with the City's General Plan
PEIR and Air Quality Element policies could include the use of construction equipment certified to meet the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and CARB Tier 4 Final emissions standards, which
substantially reduces exhaust emissions of NOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Emissions of VOCs could be reduced
through the use of low-VOC containing architectural coatings. As such, it is likely that construction emissions
from projects facilitated by the Project could be reduced to below project -level significance and not result in an
increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or
delay the timely attainment of air quality standards. Thus, construction associated with implementation of the
future development would not likely result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to conflicts with or obstruction of
the AQMP.
Operation
The Project would allow for an increase in residential units and non-residential square footage that would occur
as infill development. Although operational details of any future projects are unknown, the future development
would result in air pollutant emissions from building energy demand from new residential and commercial
(residential serving retail) uses and on -going transportation emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the new
residential and commercial (residential serving retail) uses.
18 California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Trucks, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks.
Accessed February 2023.
12
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
The City's General Plan PEIR determined that operational emissions associated with implementation of the
General Plan would potentially conflict with the attainment goals of the AQMP and impacts wouldbe significant
and unavoidable.
Operational emissions from buildout of the residential units and associated non-residential floor area over time
would not generate air pollutant emissions that would exceed the project -level significance thresholds and not
result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new
violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards. Thus, operation of future development
associated with the Project would not likely result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to conflicts with or obstruction of
the AQMP.
Criterion No. 2
With respect to the second criterion for determining consistency with AQMP growth assumptions, the projections
in the AQMP for achieving air quality goals are based on anticipated growth regarding population and housing.
Determining whether or not a project exceeds the assumptions reflected in the AQMP involves the evaluation of
consistency with applicable population, housing, and employment growth projections and appropriate
incorporation of AQMP control measures. The following discussion provides an analysis with respect to this
criterion.
Construction
Future development facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with CARB's requirements to
minimize short-term emissions from on -road and off -road diesel equipment, including the Airborne Toxic
Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling to no more than five minutes at a location (Title
13 California Code of Regulations, Section 2485) and SCAQMD regulations such as Rule 403 for controlling
fugitive dust and Rule 1113 for controlling VOC emissions from architectural coatings. Compliance with these
measures and requirements would be consistent with and meet or exceed the AQMP compliance requirements for
control strategies intended to reduce emissions from construction equipment and activities.
Construction of future development allowed by the Project would facilitate an increase in short-term employment
compared to existing conditions. Although any future construction facilitated by the Project would generate
construction workers, itwould be unlikely to create substantial number of new construction jobs; construction -
related jobs generated by the future development would likely be filled by employees within the construction
industry in the greater Los Angeles County region. Construction industry jobs generally have no regular place of
business, as construction workers commute to job sites throughout the region, which may change several times a
year. Moreover, these jobs would be temporary, lasting only through the duration of construction. As such, the
Project would not result in an unanticipated increase in population or jobs in the City.
Thus, construction associated with the Project would not likely result in new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to conflicts
with or obstruction of AQMP control measures or anticipated growth.
Operation
The operation of future development that could occur as a result of the Project would be required to comply with
CARB motor vehicle standards, SCAQMD regulations for stationary sources and architectural coatings, and
13
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
applicable building energy standards including the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy Code
(Title 24, Part 6) and the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11). The AQMP also includes
land use and transportation strategies that are intended to reduce VMT and resulting regional mobile -source
emissions.
Future development that could occur as a result of the Project would provide opportunities for building energy
conservation to meet and exceed required building energy standards to conserve energy and reduce associated
emissions. The 2021-2029 Housing Element encourages improved building energy strategies such as passive
and/or active solar heating and cooling systems to improve energy efficiency.19 In addition, the City's Air Quality
Element includes policies to reduce building energy demand. Policy AQ12-1.2 includes provisions to incorporate
energy conservation features in the design of new projects that would help to reduce building emissions. The Air
Quality Element also includes policies to reduce transportation -related emissions. Policy AQ9-1.1 directs the City
to consider mixed -use housing development proposals to reduce VMT, which is the intent of the Project. The
Project would promote mixed -use development as residential serving retail uses would be allowed with
residential uses. Mixed -use development encourages reduced vehicle trips and VMT as people may be able to
obtain goods and services from co -located or nearby residential serving retail uses without the need to generate
passenger vehicle trips. The infill locations of the proposed housing opportunity sites would also encourage
reduced VMT as people would live close to existing commercial and retail goods and services from co -located or
nearby residential serving retail uses and close to existing employment centers within and around the City
including the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Facility to the west, LAX to the north, Chevron Refinery to the
south, and the Raytheon campus and Mattel Campus to the east. Thus, the Project would result in a land use
pattern that would allow development that would reduce transportation -related emissions.
The AQMP is based on population, employment and VMT forecasts informed by the Southern California
Association of Governments. A project might be in conflictwith the AQMP if the development's growth is greater
than that anticipated in the local general plan and SCAG's growth projections. As discussed above, the Project
accommodates for population growth by increasing residential density in existing infill locations and allowing for
increased multi -family housing units. The City is generally built out; thus, densification of existing infill sites
with increased multi -family housing units accommodates growth in an efficient manner, since mixed -use infill
development encourages reduced vehicle trips and VMT.
Thus, operation of future development associated with the Project would not likely result in new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects
related to conflicts with or obstruction of AQMP control measures or anticipated growth.
b) Cumulatively Considerable Increase of Non -attainment Pollutant
Construction
As discussed above in Section (a), construction of future development allowed by the Project would generate air
pollutant emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment. However, details necessary to provide
a meaningful quantitative estimate of construction emissions would be speculative, as specific sites, buildings and
uses to be constructed or modified, construction schedules, and quantities of earthmoving are unknown.
19 City of El Segundo, 2021-2029 Housing Element, Chapter 5, Section C, p. 72.
14
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
Construction of future development projects resulting from the amendments would be limited in extent and
duration and would emit air pollutants on short-term and temporary basis. Construction truck fleets would be
required to comply with the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation,20 which is designed to accelerate widespread
adoption of zero emission vehicles in the medium- and heavy-duty truck sector to reduce on -road mobile source
emissions on the path to carbon neutrality by 2045. Trucks would be required to comply with the CARB Airborne
Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling, which would reduce fuel combustion and
associated emissions (Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Section 2485). In addition to limiting exhaust from
idling trucks, CARB also promulgated emission standards for off -road diesel construction equipment of greater
than 25 horsepower such as bulldozers, loaders, backhoes and cranes, as well as many other self-propelled off -
road diesel vehicles requiring the installation of diesel soot filters and the retirement, replacement, or repowering
of older, dirtier engines with newer emission control models (13 CCR, Section 2449). The compliance schedule
requires construction equipment fleets to fully meet emissions standards by 2023 in all equipment for large and
medium fleets and by 2028 for small fleets.
The City's General Plan PEIR determined that construction emission impacts would be significant but mitigated
to less than significant. The City's Air Quality Element includes policies to reduce construction -related
emissions. Policy AQ10-1.2 and Policy AQ10-1.3 include provisions to prohibit the use of building materials and
methods which generate excessive pollutants and for projects to meet or exceed requirements of the SCAQMD
for reducing PM10 emissions. The use of construction equipment certified to meet the USEPA and CARB Tier 4
Final emissions standards, which would generally be consistent with the City's General Plan PEIR and Air
Quality Element policies, would substantially reduce exhaust emissions ofNOX, PM10, and PM2.5. Emissions of
VOCs could be reduced through the use of low-VOC containing architectural coatings. As such, it is likely that
construction emissions from future development projects allowed by the Project could be reduced to below
project -level significance and not result in an increase in a cumulatively considerable increase in nonattainment
pollutants. Thus, construction associated with the Project would not likely result in new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects
related to a cumulatively considerable increase in nonattainment pollutants.
Operations
Future development that would occur as a result of the amendments would result in up to 1,195 multi -family
dwelling units and approximately 64,077 square feet of residential serving commercial (i.e., ground -floor retail)
uses. Operational emissions from buildout of these units over time would generate approximately 6,23 8 average
daily trips.21 Operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod)
(Version 2022.1). The analysis assumes that full buildout would occur in 2040 with a linear buildout distribution
over the interim modeled years 2030 and 2035. The results of the regional criteria pollutant emission calculations
for VOC, NOX, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are presented in Table 6, Estimated Maximum Daily Regional
Operational Emissions.
20 California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Trucks, htips://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks.
Accessed February 2023.
21 Kimley Horn, City of El Segundo Density Increase Trip Generation, August 27, 2023.
15
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED MAXIMUM DAILY REGIONAL OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (POUNDS PER DAY)a
Operational Year
VOc
NOx
c0
S02
PM10
PM2.5
2030 (398 dwelling units; 21,360 retail sq.ft.)
17.8
6.3
81.6
0.2
15.3
4.0
2035 (797 dwelling units; 42,720 retail sq.ft.)
34.3
10.8
154
0.3
30.7
8.1
2040 (1,195 dwelling units; 64,077 retail sq.ft.)
50.2
14.8
216
0.4
46.0
12.0
SCAQMD Significance Threshold
55
55
550
150
150
55
Exceeds Thresholds?
No
No
No
No
No
No
a CalEEMod output files are provided in Exhibit A of this memorandum.
SOURCE: CalEEMod (Version 2022.1); ESA 2023
As shown, future development with implementation of the Project would not generate air pollutant emissions that
would exceed the project -level significance thresholds and would not result in a cumulatively considerable
increase in nonattainment pollutants. Thus, operation of future development associated with the Project
would not likely result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects related to a cumulatively considerable increase in nonattainment
pollutants.
c) Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Pollutant Concentrations
Localized Emissions
Construction
Construction of future individual projects that would occur as a result of the amendments would generate
localized airpollutant emissions from the use of heavy-duty construction equipment. In addition, fugitive dust
emissions would result from demolition and earthmoving activities. Details necessary to provide a meaningful
quantitative estimate of construction emissions would be speculative, as specific sites, buildings and uses to be
constructed or modified, construction schedules, and quantities of earthmoving are unknown. Because this
information is unknown, construction emissions modeling is not feasible and would be speculative.
While the Project would result in the future development of up to 1,195 multi -family dwelling units and
approximately 64,077 square feet of residential serving commercial (i.e., ground -floor retail) uses, construction
would occur in different locations throughout the City corresponding to the areas in which the amendments are
proposed. Temporary construction associated with future individual project developments would not be
concentrated in any one location and would occur over an extended timeframe and, thus, would not expose any
one sensitive receptor location to substantial localized emissions.
Construction emissions would also be controlled via compliance with applicable regulations and General Plan
policies and programs. Construction truck fleets would be required to comply with the Advanced Clean Trucks
regulation, 22 which accelerates the widespread adoption of zero emission vehicles in the medium- and heavy-duty
truck sector to reduce on -road mobile source emissions on the path to carbon neutrality by 2045. In addition,
22 California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Trucks, htips://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks.
Accessed February 2023.
16
Preliminary - Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
trucks would be required to comply with the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel
motor vehicle idling, which would reduce fuel combustion and associated emissions (Title 13 California Code of
Regulations, Section 2485). Heavy-duty construction equipment fleets would also be required to comply with the
In -Use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation, which reduces emissions by requiring the installation of diesel
soot filters and the retirement, replacement, or repowering of older, dirtier engines with newer emission control
models (13 CCR, Section 2449). The compliance schedule requires construction equipment fleets to fully meet
emissions standards by 2023 in all equipment for large and medium fleets and by 2028 for small fleets.
The City's Air Quality Element includes policies to reduce construction -related emissions. Policy AQ10-1.2 and
Policy AQ10-1.3 include provisions to prohibit the use of building materials and methods which generate
excessive pollutants and for projects to meet or exceed requirements of the SCAQMD for reducing PM10
emissions. Emission reduction measures generally consistent with the City's General Plan PEIR and Air Quality
Element policies could include the use of construction equipment certified to meet the USEPA and CARB Tier 4
Final emissions standards, which substantially reduces exhaust emissions of diesel particulate matter.
Regulatory compliance along with implementation of General Plan policies and programs would be effective in
reducing construction emissions from future residential development likely to a level below the significance
thresholds. Future development associated with implementation of the Project would not result in new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects related to localized construction emissions.
Operations
The operation of future individual projects that would occur as a result of the amendments would generate
localized air pollutant emissions from on -site combustion of natural gas from building energy demand, and
landscaping equipment. There are no specific projects proposed at this time; therefore, the specific size, location,
timing, and operation of such future projects are unknown and quantification of localized operational emissions
from individual projects would not be feasible and would be speculative.
Nonetheless, the future development of multi -family dwelling units and residential serving commercial (i.e.,
ground -floor retail) uses within the various identified areas located throughout the City would not include uses
that would generate substantial sources of operational emissions. These uses are not associated with large
stationary sources of emissions such as industrial -sized boilers. Further, any miscellaneous trucks, such as
moving trucks and parcel delivery trucks, would be subject to the five-minute regulatory idling limitation and
would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of the CARB 13 CCR, Section 2025 (Truck and Bus
regulation) to minimize and reduce PM and NOX emissions from existing diesel trucks. Operation of future
residential and retail uses would result in minimal emissions from maintenance or other ongoing activities and
use of architectural coatings and household cleaning products.
The City's Air Quality Element includes policies to reduce operational -related emissions. Policy AQ12-1.2
includes a provision to incorporate energy conservation features in the design of new projects that would help to
reduce emissions from building energy demand Policy AQ9- 1.1 directs the City to consider mixed -use housing
development proposals to reduce VMT, which is the intent of the Project.
Regulatory compliance along with implementation of General Plan policies and programs would be effective in
reducing operational emissions from Project -related future residential development and associated non-residential
17
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
development likely to a level below the significance thresholds. Future development associated with the
Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects related to localized operational emissions.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
The SCAQMD conducted CO modeling for the 2003 AQMP for the four worst -case intersections in the South Coast
Air Basin. These include: (a) Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue; (b) Sunset Boulevard and Highland Avenue;
(c) La Cienega Boulevard and Century Boulevard; and (d) Long Beach Boulevard and Imperial Highway. In the 2003
AQMP CO attainment demonstration, the SCAQMD notes that the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran
Avenue was the most congested intersection in Los Angeles County, with an average daily traffic volume of about
100,000 vehicles per day.23 This intersection is located near the on- and off -ramps to Interstate 405 in West Los
Angeles. The evidence provided in Table 4-10 of Appendix V of the 2003 AQMP shows that the peak modeled CO
concentration due to vehicle emissions (i.e., excluding background concentrations) atthese four intersections was 4.6
ppm (one -hour average) and 3.2 ppm (eight -hour average) at Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue.24
Based on the future development of up to 1,195 multi -family dwelling units and approximately 64,077 square feet
of residential serving commercial (i.e., ground -floor retail) uses that would occur as a result of the Project would
generate approximately 6,238 average dailytrips,25 which is approximately 6.2 percent of the 100,000 vehicles
per day modeled at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue in the 2003 AQMP. However, the
addition of 6,238 average daily trips would not occur at any one intersection or roadway as the trips would be
spread throughout the City at different intersections and roadways as the proposed amendment areas are located
in various locations. Generally, the proposed amendment areas are located: south of Imperial Avenue between the
Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Facility and California Street; along Main Street between Imperial Avenue and
Palm Avenue; the area east of Constitution Park, Washington Park and Freedom Park, west of Pacific Coast
Highway, south of Walnut Avenue and north of Holly Avenue; and at various locations south of Mariposa
Avenue, north of El Segundo Boulevard, east of the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Facility and west of Kansas
Street.
The City's Circulation Element shows projected daily traffic volumes from buildout of land uses per the Land
Use Element. Projected daily traffic volumes along the arterial roadways in the vicinity of the proposed locations
would range from approximately 1,700 to 24,900. Projected daily traffic volumes along Pacific Coast Highway
would be up to approximately 81,100. Thus, operation of future projects facilitated by the Project would not
result in 100,000 vehicles per day at intersection and this comparison demonstrates that the Project would not
contribute to the formation of CO hotspots and that no further CO analysis is required. Future development
associated with the Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to CO hotspots.
Toxic Air Contaminants
The Project would result in increased density and increased number of housing units and supporting residential
serving retail uses at existing infill sites. Although construction and operational details of any future projects are
23 South Coast Air Quality Management District 2003. Final 2003 Air Quality Management Plan Appendix V, pages V 4-24. August.
Available: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2003-air-quality-management-
plan/2003-aqmp-appendix-v.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Accessed March 2023.
24 The eight -hour average is based on a 0.7 persistence factor, as recommended by the SCAQMD.
25 Kimley Horn, City of El Segundo Density Increase Trip Generation, August 27, 2023.
18
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
unknown, the growth that would occur as a result of the Project would result in emissions of TACs from
temporary use of construction equipment and on -going miscellaneous truck trips such as parcel delivery trucks.
During construction activities, temporary TAC emissions would be associated with diesel particulate matter
emissions from heavy construction equipment. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment (OEHHA), health effects from TACs are described in terms of individual cancer risk based on a
residential or lifetime exposure period (i.e., 30-year and 70-year, respectively). While implementation of the
Project would result in the future development of up to 1,195 multi -family dwelling units and approximately
64,077 square feet of residential serving commercial (i.e., ground -floor retail) uses, construction would occur in
different locations throughout the City corresponding to the locations of the proposed amendments. Temporary
construction associated with future individual project developments would not be concentrated in any one
location and, thus, would not expose any one sensitive receptor location to substantial TAC emissions.
Construction TAC emissions would also be controlled via compliance with applicable regulations and General
Plan policies and programs. Construction truck fleets would be required to comply with the Advanced Clean
Trucks regulation,26 which accelerates the widespread adoption of zero emission vehicles in the medium- and
heavy-duty truck sector to reduce on -road mobile source emissions on the path to carbon neutrality by 2045. In
addition, trucks would be required to comply with the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure to limit heavy-
duty diesel motor vehicle idling, which would reduce fuel combustion and associated emissions (Title 13
California Code of Regulations, Section 2485). Heavy-duty construction equipment fleets would also be required
to comply with the In -Use Off -Road Diesel -Fueled Fleets Regulation, which reduces emissions by requiring the
installation of diesel soot filters and the retirement, replacement, or repowering of older, dirtier engines with
newer emission control models (13 CCR, Section 2449). The compliance schedule requires construction
equipment fleets to fully meet emissions standards by 2023 in all equipment for large and medium fleets and by
2028 for small fleets.
The SCAQMD recommends that operational health risks be assessed for substantial sources of operational diesel
particulate matter (e.g., truck stops and warehouse distribution facilities that generate more than 100 trucks per
day or more than 40 trucks with operating transport refrigeration units) and has provided guidance for analyzing
mobile source diesel emissions.27 Future projects facilitated by the Project would result in an increase in the
number of housing units and supporting residential serving retail uses and would not include uses that would
generate substantial sources of operational diesel particulate matter. Further, any miscellaneous trucks, such as
moving trucks and parcel delivery trucks, would be subject to the five-minute regulatory idling limitation and
would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of the CARB 13 CCR, Section 2025 (Truck and Bus
regulation) to minimize and reduce PM and NOx emissions from existing diesel trucks. Therefore, Project
operations would not be considered a substantial source of diesel particulate matter. Operation of future
residential and retail uses would result in minimal emissions of TAC from maintenance or other ongoing
activities and use of architectural coatings and household cleaning products.
The City's General Plan PEIR determined that TAC emission impacts would be significant but mitigated to less
than significant. The City's Air Quality Element includes policies to reduce construction- and operational -related
26 California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Trucks, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks.
Accessed February 2023.
27 SCAQMD, Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Idling Emissions for CEQA Air
Quality Analysis, August 2003, http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/Cega/handbook/mobile-source-toxics-
analysis. doc?sfvrsn=2.
19
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
emissions. Policy AQ10-1.2 and Policy AQ10-1.3 include provisions to prohibit the use of building materials and
methods which generate excessive pollutants and for projects to meet or exceed requirements of the SCAQMD
for reducing PM10 emissions. Emission reduction measures generally consistent with the City's General Plan
PEIR and Air Quality Element policies could include the use of construction equipment certified to meet the
USEPA and CARB Tier 4 Final emissions standards, which substantially reduces exhaust emissions of diesel
particulate matter. Policy AQ 12-1.2 includes a provision to incorporate energy conservation features in the design
of new projects that would help to reduce emissions from building energy demand. Policy AQ9-1.1 directs the
City to consider mixed -use housing development proposals to reduce VMT, which is an intent of the Project.
Regulatory compliance along with implementation of General Plan policies and programs, as well as other
emissions reduction measures as needed, wouldbe effective in reducing construction and operational emissions
from future residential development likely to a level below the significance thresholds. Future development
resulting from the Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to TAC emissions.
d) Other emissions (such as those leading to Odors)
Construction
Potential activities that may emit odors during construction include the use of architectural coatings and solvents,
as well as the combustion of diesel fuel in on -and off -road equipment. SCAQMD Rule 1113 would limit the
amount of VOCs in architectural coatings and solvents. In addition, development resulting from the Project would
comply with the applicable provisions of the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure regarding idling limitations for
diesel trucks. Through mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules, no construction activities or materials are
expected to create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Furthermore, as discussed above,
it is likely that construction emissions from projects facilitated by the Project could be reduced to below project -
level significance for other pollutants, such as those designated as attainment or maintenance (i.e., carbon
monoxide [CO] and sulfur dioxide [S021). Thus, construction resulting from the Project would not likely
result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects related to other emissions such as those leading to odors.
20
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
Operation
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically
include:
• Agriculture (farming and livestock)
• Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Food Processing Plants
• Chemical Plants
• Composting
• Refineries
• Landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass Molding
The operation of future projects that would result from the Project would not include any uses identified by the
SCAQMD associated with substantial odors. Furthermore, as discussed above, it is likely that operational
emissions fromprojects facilitated by the Project could be reduced to below project -level significance for other
pollutants, such as those designated as attainment or maintenance (i.e., CO and S02). Thus, operation of future
development associated with the Project would not likely result in new significant environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to other emissions
such as those leading to odors.
3.2 Energy
a) Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary consumption of Energy
The Project, through the proposed amendments, would result in an increase in the number of housing units at
infill sites. Although construction and operational details of any future projects are unknown, the energy demand
would increase from new residential and commercial (residential serving retail) uses and temporary transportation
fuel demand from construction equipment and on -going transportation fuel demand from vehicles traveling to and
from the new residential and commercial (residential serving retail) uses.
The 2021-2029 Housing Element contemplates opportunities for energy conservation to meet and exceed required
building energy standards to conserve energy and improve affordability of housing energy costs. The 2021-2029
Housing Element encourages improved building energy strategies such as passive and/or active solarheating and
cooling systems to improve energy efficiency. The 2021-2029 Housing Element also encourages the use of
daylight strategies such as properly designed and located skylights and solar tubes, thereby reducing lighting
electricity costs and energy consumption. The City would continue to require the incorporation of energy
conserving (e.g., Energy Star or equivalent) appliances, fixtures, and other devices into the design of new
residential units as required by the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6)
and the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11), and applicable El Segundo Municipal Code
requirements. The City will also continue to review new subdivisions to ensure that each lot optimizes proper
solar access and orientation to the extent possible. The 2021-2029 Housing Element encourages water saving
features including the use of plant materials in residential landscaping adapted to the climate in the El Segundo
21
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
area and the use of mulch to retain soil moisture to reduce irrigation water demand. The City will also continue to
require the incorporation of low -flow plumbing fixtures into the design of all new residential units.
The City implements a Green Building Program that encourages developers to incorporate green building design
in construction activities through the use of"green'building materials, which can be accomplished by measures
outlined in the City's Home Remodeling Green Building Guidelines. The five components of green design
included in the program are:
• Implementing sustainable site planning;
• Safeguarding water and water efficiency;
• Ensuring energy efficiency and employing renewable energy;
• Using conservation of materials and resources; and
• Providing indoor environmental quality
Incorporating building energy efficiency measures into future development facilitated by the Project would align
with building electrification as a major focal point of state agencies and electric utilities in reaching the state's
renewable energy and GHG reduction goals. Building electrification may potentially strain the electricity grid as
the demand for electricity increases. However, building energy efficiency measures would lessen the potential for
the Project to cause substantial strain on the electricity grid during baseload and peak times as state agencies and
electric utility providers continue to work to strengthen and enhance the electricity grid, increase the supply of
renewable electricity, and enhance grid reliability and resilience.
With respect to transportation fuel demand, the Project would promote mixed -use development through the
creation of a Mixed -Use Ordinance and some of the housing would be located within proximity to non-residential
uses. Mixed -use development and proximity to non-residential uses encourages reduced vehicle trips and vehicle
miles traveled as people may be able to obtain goods and services from co -located or nearby residential serving
retail uses without the need to generate passenger vehicle trips. The infill locations of the future development
allowed by the amendments would also encourage reduced VMT as people would be able to live close to existing
commercial and retail goods and services from co -located or nearby residential serving retail uses and close to
existing employment centers within and around the City including the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Facility to
the west, LAX to the north, Chevron Refinery to the south, and the Raytheon campus and Mattel Campus to the
east.
The City's General Plan PEIR determined that building energy (electricity and natural gas) impacts would be less
than significant. The City's Air Quality Element includes policies to reduce building energy demand. Policy
AQ 12-1.2 includes provisions to incorporate energy conservation features in the design of new projects. Policy
AQ 12-1.4 states that new construction not preclude the use of solar energy systems by uses and buildings on
adjacent properties. The City's Conservation Element includes policies to reduce water demand. Policy CN24
requires implementation of water conservation measures as necessary to ensure sufficient water supplies. Policy
CN2-5 require new construction and development to install water -conserving fixtures and appliances to reduce
water demand. Policy CN2-7 requires new construction and development to incorporate water conserving
landscape design and management. The City's Air Quality Element also includes policies to reduce
transportation -related fuel demand. Policy AQ9-1.1 directs the City to consider mixed -use housing development
proposals to reduce VMT, which is an intent of the Project.
22
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
As outlined above, the Project provides for development of housing with mixed -uses located at infill locations to
reduce VMT, generally consistent with relevant General Plan policies to reduce energy and transportation fuel
demand. In addition, the General Plan includes policies to reduce energy demand. As such, the Project would not
result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. Thus, the Project would not likely result
in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects related to energy.
b) Conflict with or Obstruct Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Plan
Future development facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with applicable building energy
standards including the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) and the
California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11). As discussed above, the City implements a Green
Building Program that encourages developers to incorporate green building designs that may exceed code
requirements. As discussed above, the 2021-2029 Housing Element encourages opportunities for energy and
water conservation and reduced VMT. Further, as discussed above, incorporating building energy efficiency
measures into future development that would occur as a result of the Project would align with building
electrification as a major focal point of state agencies and electric utilities in reaching the state's renewable
energy and GHG reduction goals. Building energy efficiency measures would lessen the potential for the Project
to cause substantial strain on the electricity grid during baseload and peak times as state agencies and electric
utility providers continue to work to strengthen and enhance the electricity grid, increase the supply of renewable
electricity, and enhance grid reliability and resilience. In addition, policies in the City's General Plan promote
energy and water efficiency, reduced VMT, and protection of solar energy systems. Thus, the Project would not
likely result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously
identified significant effects related to renewable energy or energy efficiency plan.
3.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
a) GHG emissions that may have a Significant Impact on the Environment; and
b) Conflict with Plan, Policy or Regulation
As discussed in Section 2, the City has not adopted a numeric threshold for the analysis of GHG impacts. If the
Project is not in conflict with the applicable regulatory plans and policies to reduce GHG emissions, then the
Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions. The above checklist
questions are addressed in a combined discussion below.
GHG Emissions and City Policies and Programs
Future projects that would occur as a result of the amendments would result in construction at infill sites.
Although construction details of any future projects are unknown, construction of future projects would likely
require the use of construction equipment that that would typically emit GHGs from combustion of fossil fuels in
diesel and gasoline -powered equipment and vehicles and from the use of electricity that is generated partially
from sources that emit GHGs. Construction of future projects resulting from the Project would be limited in
extent and duration and would emit GHGs on short-term and temporary basis. Construction truck fleets would be
required to comply with the Advanced Clean Trucks regulation, which was approved by CARB in June 2020 and
mandates zero -emission vehicle sales requirements for truck manufacturers and a one-time reporting requirement
23
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
for large entities and fleets.28 The regulation is designed to accelerate widespread adoption of zero emission
vehicles in the medium -and heavy-duty truck sectorto reduce on -road mobile source emissions on the path to
carbon neutrality by 2045. In addition, trucks would be required to comply with the CARB Airborne Toxic
Control Measure to limit heavy-duty diesel motor vehicle idling, which would reduce fuel combustion and
associated emissions (Title 13 California Code of Regulations, Section 2485). Additionally, construction
equipment and vehicles would be required to use fuels that comply with the CARB Low Carbon Fuel Standard,
which reduces the carbon content of fuels and fuel production, which is a strategy that would assist California in
meeting the 2030 GHG emissions reduction target enacted through Senate Bill 32.
The operation of future developments facilitated by the Project would result in an increase in the number of
housing units at infill sites. Although operational details of any future projects are unknown, development
resulting from the Project would result in GHG emissions from building energy demand from new residential and
commercial (residential serving retail) uses and on -going transportation GHG emissions from vehicles traveling
to and from the new residential and commercial (residential serving retail) uses.
The 2021-2029 Housing Element contemplates opportunities for building energy conservation to meet and exceed
required building energy standards to conserve energy and reduce associated GHG emissions. The 2021-2029
Housing Element encourages improved building energy strategies such as passive and/or active solarheating and
cooling systems to improve energy efficiency. The 2021-2029 Housing Element also encourages the use of
daylight strategies such as skylights and solar tubes to reduce GHG emissions from lighting electricity. The City
would continue to require the incorporation of energy conserving (e.g., Energy Star or equivalent) appliances,
fixtures, and other devices into the design of new residential units as required by the Title 24 Building Energy
Efficiency Standards Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) and the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24,
Part 11), and applicable El Segundo Municipal Code requirements. The 2021-2029 Housing Element encourages
water saving features including the use of water efficient residential landscaping to reduce irrigation water
demand and associated GHG emissions. The City will also continue to require the incorporation of low -flow
plumbing fixtures into the design of all new residential units to reduce indoor water demand and associated GHG
emissions.
The City implements a Green Building Program that encourages developers to incorporate green building design
in construction activities through the use of"green'building materials, which can be accomplished by measures
outlined in the City's Home Remodeling Green Building Guidelines. The five components of green design
included in the program are:
• Implementing sustainable site planning;
• Safeguarding water and water efficiency;
• Ensuring energy efficiency and employing renewable energy;
• Using conservation of materials and resources; and
• Providing indoor environmental quality
Incorporating building energy efficiency measures into future development resulting from the Project would align
with building electrification as a major focal point of state agencies and electric utilities in reaching the state's
28 California Air Resources Board, Advanced Clean Trucks, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/advanced-clean-trucks.
Accessed February 2023.
24
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
GHG reduction goals. Incorporation of building energy efficiency measures would lessen the potential for the
Project to cause substantial strain on the electricity grid during baseload and peak times as state agencies and
electric utility providers continue to work to strengthen and enhance the electricity grid, increase the supply of
renewable electricity, and enhance grid reliability and resilience.
With respect to transportation -related GHG emissions, the Project would promote mixed -use development
through the creation of a Mixed -Use Ordinance resulting in residential serving retail uses in the development of
residential uses. Mixed -use development encourages reduced vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled as people
may be able to obtain goods and services from co -located or nearby residential serving retail uses without the
need to generate passenger vehicle trips. The infill locations where increases in housing would occur will also
encourage reduced vehicle miles traveled as people would be able to live close to existing commercial and retail
goods and services from co -located or nearby residential serving retail uses and close to existing employment
centers. Thus, the Project would promote strategies that would reduce transportation -related GHG emissions.
The City's Air Quality Element includes policies to reduce building energy demand. Policy AQ12-1.2 includes
provisions to incorporate energy conservation features in the design of new projects that would help to reduce
GHG emissions. Policy AQ 12-1.4 states that new construction not preclude the use of solar energy systems by
uses and buildings on adjacent properties. The City's Conservation Element includes policies to reduce water
demand and associated GHG emissions. Policy CN2-4 requires implementation of water conservation measures
as necessary to ensure sufficient water supplies. Policy CN2-5 require new construction and development to
install water -conserving fixtures and appliances to reduce water demand. Policy CN2-7 requires new construction
and development to incorporate water conserving landscape design and management. The City's Air Quality
Element also includes policies to reduce transportation -related GHG emissions. Policy AQ9-1.1 directs the City
to consider mixed -use housing development proposals to reduce VMT, which is an intent of the Project. Projects
facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with applicable building energy standards including the
Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6) and the California Green Building
Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11). Code requirements would include solar ready buildings and vehicle parking
space that includes electric vehicle supply equipment. As discussed above, the City implements a Green Building
Program that encourages developers to incorporate green building designs that may exceed code requirements.
GHG Emissions and 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality
The CARB 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality29 (Scoping Plan) outlines the strategies the state
will implement to achieve carbon neutrality by reducing GHGs to meet the anthropogenic target and by expanding
actions to capture and store carbon through the state's natural and working lands and using a variety of mechanical
approaches. The major element of the 2022 Scoping Plan is the decarbonization of every sector of the economy.
This requires rapidly moving to zero -emission transportation for cars, buses, trains, and trucks; phasing out the use
of fossil gas for heating; clamping down on chemicals and refrigerants; providing communities with sustainable
options such as walking, biking, and public transit to reduce reliance on cars; continuing to build out solar arrays,
wind turbine capacity, and other resources to provide clean, renewable energy to displace fossil -fuel fired electrical
generation; scaling up new options such as renewable hydrogen for hard -to -electrify end uses and biomethane
where needed.
29 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, November 16, 2022.
25
Preliminary - Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
The 2022 Scoping Plan presents a non -exhaustive list of impactful GHG reduction strategies that can be
implemented by local governments within the three priority areas (see Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan,
Priority GHG Reduction Strategies for Local Government Climate Action Priority Areas). An assessment of the
Project relative to the GHG reduction strategies in the three priority areas is providedbelow. As discussed below,
the Project would support relevant and applicable strategies. Based on the discussions below, the Project would not
conflict with applicable 2022 Scoping Plan strategies and regulations to reduce GHG emissions.
Transportation Electrification
The priority GHG reduction strategies for local government climate action related to transportation electrification
are discussed below and would support the Scoping Plan action to have 100 percent of all new passenger vehicles
to be zero -emission by 2035 (see Table 2-1 of the 2022 Scoping Plan).
The CARB approved the Advanced Clean Cars II rule which codifies Executive Order N-79-20 and requires 100
percent of new cars and light trucks sold in California be zero -emission vehicles by 2035. The State has also
adopted AB 2127, which requires the CEC to analyze and examine charging needs to support California's EVs in
2030 and to support decision -makers allocation of resources to install new electric vehicle chargers where they are
needed most.
The Project would not conflict with this strategy as future residential development would be required to comply
with the applicable requirements of the Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Energy Code (Title 24, Part
6) and the California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11). The CALGreen Code was updated in 2022
to include new mandatory measures for residential and non-residential uses including requirements for electric
vehicle supply equipment and electric vehicle ready spaces. As such, the Project would support the electrification
of transportation -related sources of emissions and wouldreduce vehicle and equipment emissions. Thus, the Project
would not conflict with this strategy.
Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction
The priority GHG reduction strategies for local government climate action related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
reduction are discussed below and would support the Scoping Plan action to reduce VMT per capita 25 percent
below 2019 levels by 2030 and 30 percent below 2019 levels by 2045.
The Project would not conflict with the strategy to reduce VMT. Although operational details ofany future projects
are unknown, the Project would allow for mixed -use development as residential serving retail uses would be
contemplated with the development of residential uses. Mixed use development encourages reduced vehicle trips
as people maybe able to obtain goods and services from co -located or nearby residential serving retail uses without
the need to generate passenger vehicle trips. The infill locations where increases in housing would occur will
encourage reduced VMT as people would be able to live close to existing commercial and retail goods and services
from co-locatedor nearby residential servingretail uses andcloseto existing employment centers within andaround
the City including the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Facility to the west, LAX to the north, Chevron Refinery
to the south, and the Raytheon campus and Mattel Campus to the east. As such, the Project would not conflict with
this strategy.
Building Decarbonization
The priority GHG reduction strategies for local government climate action related to electrification are discussed
below and would support the Scoping Plan actions regarding meeting increased demand for electrification without
26
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
new fossil gas -fire resources and all electric appliances beginning in 2026 (residential) and 2029 (commercial) (see
Table 2-1 of the 2022 Scoping Plan).
California's transition away from fossil fuel —based energy sources will bring GHG emissions associated with
building energy use down to zero as California's electric supply becomes 100 percent carbon free. California has
committed to achieving this goal by 2045 through Senate Bill 100, the 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018.
Senate Bill 100 strengthened the State's RPS by requiring that 60 percent of all electricity provided to retail users
in California come from renewable sources by 2030 and that 100 percent come from carbon -free sources by 2045.
The land use sector will benefit from RPS because the electricity used in buildings will be increasingly carbon -free,
but implementation does not depend (directly, at least) on how buildings are designed and built.
Future projects facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with applicable State and City requirements
forbuilding energy efficiency and electrification and wouldadhereto applicable CALGreen (Title 24) requirements
for energy efficiency and electrification of newbuildings. Additionally, incorporating building energy efficiency
measures into future development allowed by the Project would align with building electrification of state agencies
and electric utilities and lessen the potential for the Project to cause substantial strain on the electricity grid during
baseload and peak times as state agencies and electric utility providers continue to work to strengthen and enhance
the electricity grid, increase the supply of renewable electricity, and enhance grid reliability and resilience. Thus,
the Project would not conflict with this strategy.
Summary
As outlined above, the 2021-2029 Housing Element includes provisions for building energy and water efficiency
and provides for housing opportunity sites with mixed -uses located at existing infill locations to reduce VMT,
generally consistent with relevant General Plan policies to reduce building energy and transportation GHG
emissions. As such, the Project would not generate GHG emissions that may have a significant impact on the
environment and not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation for reducing GHG emissions. Thus,
the future development resulting from the Project would not likely result in new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to GHG
emissions and conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation for reducing GHG emissions.
3.4 Noise
a) Substantial Temporary or Permanent Increase in Noise
Construction
Future projects facilitated by the Project would result in construction at existing infill developed sites. Although
construction details of any future projects are unknown, construction of housing projects would likely require the
use of construction equipment that that typically are associated with temporary noise, such as cranes, dozers, and
forklifts. Depending on the type and model of equipment used for construction, typical hourly average noise
levels for heavy construction equipment range from approximately 65 to 86 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet from
the equipment.30 Equipment such as pile drivers and vibratory rollers generate highernoise levels; however, such
equipment would not likely be necessary for the future residential development projects. Actual exposure levels
would depend on the number and types of equipment, the intensity of the construction activity, the distance of
30 Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Construction Noise Model User's Guide,
27
Preliminary - Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
sensitive receptors to the noise source, and any intervening structures, topography, and noise absorption
characteristics of the ground that might affect noise attenuation.
Future projects facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with the ESMC including generally
prohibiting construction between the hours of 6:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M. Monday through Saturday, or at any time
on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Furthermore, the City's Noise Element Policy N1-2.1 and Program N1-2.1 B
includes provisions for implementing construction noise reduction measures such as noise suppression equipment
and/or the use of temporary barriers.
The City's General Plan PEIR determined that construction noise would be a significant impact but would be
mitigated to less than significant with implementation of Noise Element policies and programs. The use of
temporary barriers, as provided in the Noise Element PolicyNl -2.1 and Program NI-2.1B would be capable of
reducing noise by 10 dBA or more for barriers that block the line -of -sight from the noise -generating construction
equipment and noise sensitive receptors. Noise reductions can also be achieved through the use of equipment
enclosures, noise -attenuating or noise absorbing sound blankets, and other similar measures. Implementation of
Noise Element policies and programs to reduce construction noise, as well as other noise reduction measures as
needed, would be effective in reducing construction noise from future residential development likely to a level
below the FTA guidelines for construction equipment noise shown in Table 3. Thus, the development resulting
from the Project would not likely result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to temporary construction noise.
Operations
Future projects resulting from the Project would result in an increase in number of housing units at infill sites.
Although operational details of any future projects are unknown, the Project would promote mixed -use
development as residential serving retail uses would be contemplated with the development of residential uses.
Mixed -use development encourages reduced vehicle trips as people may be able to obtain goods and services
from co -located or nearby residential serving retail uses without the need to generate passenger vehicle trips.
The future development of up to 1,195 multi -family dwelling units and approximately 64,077 square feet of
residential serving commercial (i.e., ground -floor retail) uses that would occur as a result of the Project, would
generate approximately 6,238 average daily trips.31 These trips would occur on roadways spread throughout the
City as the identified areas for amendments are located in various locations. Generally, the areas are located:
south of Imperial Avenue between the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Facility and California Street; along Main
Street between Imperial Avenue and Palm Avenue; the area east of Constitution Park, Washington Park and
Freedom Park, west of Pacific Coast Highway, south of Walnut Avenue and north of Holly Avenue; and at
various locations south of Mariposa Avenue, north of El Segundo Boulevard, east of the Hyperion Wastewater
Treatment Facility and west of Kansas Street.
A doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3 dBA increase in noise level. In other words, when two sources are
each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be approximately
3 dBA higher than one of the sources under the same conditions. Thus, a general doubling of traffic volumes
would be required to increase traffic noise levels by 3 dBA, assuming a similar mix of passenger vehicles and
31 Kimley Horn, City of El Segundo Density Increase Trip Generation, August 27, 2023.
28
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
heavy-duty trucks. In order to increase traffic noise levels by 5 dBA, traffic volumes would have to increase by
more than triple, assuming a similar mix of passenger vehicles and heavy-duty trucks.
The identified areas for amendments are located in urban areas throughout the City are generally developed
properties. Thus, the sites already generate vehicle traffic on local roadways from existing residential, school,
commercial, and light industrial uses as well as from employment centers within and around the City including
the Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Facility to the west, LAX to the north, Chevron Refinery to the south, and
the Raytheon campus and Mattel Campus to the east. Because the future development would be scattered
throughout the City, development resulting from the Project would not result in a concentrated increase in vehicle
traffic volumes in any one location or on any one roadway. Thus, the Project would not likely result in a tripling
of the existing vehicle traffic volumes on local roadways.
The City's General Plan PEIR determined that traffic generated noise would be a significant impact but would be
mitigated to less than significant with implementation of General Plan Noise Element policies and programs. The
City's General Plan Noise Element Policy N1-1.8 includes provisions for continuing to develop zoning,
subdivision, and development controls to prevent future encroachment of noise -sensitive uses into present or
planned industrial or transportation system noise -impacted zones. The Noise Element Policy N1-1.9 and Program
N1-1.9A include provisions for reviewing all new development projects in the City for conformance with
California Noise Insulation Standards to ensure interior noise will not exceed acceptable levels. Thus, the
Project would not likely result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects related to operational noise.
b) Excessive Groundborne Vibration or Groundborne Noise
Construction
Future projects resulting from the Project would result in construction at existing infill developed sites. Although
construction details of any future projects are unknown, construction of future projects would likely require the
use of construction equipment that typically are associated with temporary groundbome vibration, such as dozers,
caisson drilling, and jackhammers. As shown in Table 5, the FTA guidelines show that a vibration level of up to
0.20 inches per second PPV would not result in construction groundbome vibration damage for non -engineered
timber and masonry buildings, which are typically residential structures. As discussed in Section 2.4 above, a
groundborne vibration level of 0.4 inches per second PPV is associated with severe human annoyance potential.
According to the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, temporary groundbome vibration
levels for construction equipment, such as dozers and caisson drilling, would be up to 0.191 inches per second at
a reference distance of 15 feet and 0.089 inches per second at a reference distance of 25 feet from the
equipment.32 Equipment such as pile drivers and vibratory rollers generate higher groundbome vibration levels;
however, such equipment would not likely be necessary for the future residential development projects. With a
relatively buffer distance of at least 15 feet from adjacent structures, which is generally achievable at infill project
site locations, construction equipment used for future projects would not be anticipated to generate groundborne
vibration levels that would exceed the thresholds for building damage or annoyance. Furthermore, ESMC Section
7-2-10 prohibits construction between the hours of six o'clock (6:00) P.M. and seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. Monday
through Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a Federal holiday. Thus, construction, and any associated
groundborne vibration would not normally occur during evening and nighttime hours or on Sundays or Federal
32 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 7-4, September 2018.
29
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
holidays, whenpeople tend to be more sensitive to vibration impacts. Thus, the Project would not likely result
in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects related to construction groundborne vibration or groundborne noise.
Operations
The operation of future projects resulting from the Project would include residential and commercial (residential
serving retail) uses, which typically do not include substantial sources of groundbome vibration. According to the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), stationary equipment such
as pumps and compressors generate groundborne vibration levels of 0.5 in/sec PPV at 1 foot.33 This vibration
level drops to approximately 0.009 inches per second PPV at 15 feet and 0.004 in/sec PPV at 25 feet Furthermore,
any future project that includes stationary equipment would locate such equipment on building rooftops or within or
near buildings such that the equipment would not generate groundborne vibration off the future development site.
Therefore, groundborne vibration from the operation of such mechanical equipment is not expected to generate
excessive groundborne vibration in excess of significance thresholds.
Caltrans has studied the impacts of propagation of vehicle vibration on sensitive land uses and notes that "heavy
trucks, and quite frequently buses, generate the highest earthborne vibrations of normal traffic." 34 Caltrans further
notes that the highest traffic -generated vibrations are along freeways and state routes. Their study finds that
"vibrations measured on freeway shoulders (5 in [meters] from the centerline of the nearest lane) have never
exceeded 2 mm/s [millimeters per second], with the worst combinations of heavy trucks.1135 "This amplitude
coincides with the maximum recommended `safe level' for ruins and ancient monuments (and historic
buildings)." 36 A vibration level of 2 millimeters per second is approximately 0.08 inches per second PPV.
Vehicles traveling along freeways and state routes would cause infrequent and inconsistent vibration events that
would attenuate quickly after onset. Sensitive receptors would likely be located further away than 15 meters from
a roadway or highway and would therefore experience levels lower than 0.08 in/sec. Furthermore, future projects
facilitated by the Project, which would include residential and commercial (residential serving retail) uses, would
generally not result in substantial truck trips and would primarily generate passenger vehicle trips, which generate
substantially less groundborne vibration levels.
Thus, operation of future projects facilitated by the Project would not be expected to generate excessive
groundborne vibration in excess of significance thresholds. Thus, the Project would not likely result in new
significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant
effects related to operational groundborne vibration or groundborne noise.
c) Excessive Noise from Airstrip or Airport (Less than Significant)
The Project would result in development of residential uses that would be located close to or within the Planning
Boundary/Airport Influence Area (AIA) for LAX as designated within the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The
FAA is required to provide noise exposure and land use information from noise exposure maps prepared under
33 American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air -Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 1999 ASHRAE Applications Handbook.
http://www.hvac.amickracing.com/Miscellaneous/HVAC_Applications_Handbook-ASHRAE.pdf. Accessed September 25, 2023.
34 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.
September 2013.
35 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.
September 2013.
36 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol.
September 2013.
30
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
City of El Segundo 2021-2029 2021-2029 Housing Element — Screening Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Noise Impact Analyses
Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150. The FAA Part 150 Noise Exposure Map for LAX shows
that the 65 dBA CNEL noise contourwould include portions of the existing R3 Zone generally north of Mariposa
Avenue and west of California Street.37 The 70 dBA CNEL noise contour would include the northern most
portions of the existing R3 zone generally north of Walnut Avenue and west of California Street. The 75 dBA
CNEL noise contour would not include any of the identified areas for the proposed amendments.
Pursuantto ALUP Policies G-1 andN-3, the compatibility of proposed land uses is determinedby consulting the
land use compatibility table provided in Section V of the ALUP. The land use compatibility table identifies land
uses by category, including residential, commercial, and industrial land use. The Project would allow for the
future development of residential and commercial (residential serving retail) uses. The compatibility criteria in
the ALUP land use compatibility table guidelines provides the following recommendations for residential uses
within the 65 to 70 and 70 to 75 dBA CNEL noise contours:
Where the community determines that residential or school uses must be allowed, measures to
achieve outdoor to indoor NLR [noise level reduction] of at least 25 dB to 30 dB should be
incorporated into building codes and be considered in individual approvals. Normal residential
construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus, the reduction requirements are
often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction and normally assume mechanical
ventilation and closed windows year round. However, the use of NLR criteria will not eliminate
outdoor noise problems. 38
Therefore, for future proposed housing within the 65 to 70 and 70 to 75 dBA CNEL noise contours, enhanced
building noise level reduction measures should be used. The City's Noise Element Policy N1-1.9 and Program
N1-1.9A requires new habitable residential uses to include noise reduction measures for airport -related noise,
such as dual pane windows and insulation, to ensure conformance with California Noise Insulation Standards
(California Code of Regulations Title 24) and to ensure interior noise would not exceed acceptable levels.
The City's General Plan PEIR determined that aircraft noise would be a significant and unavoidable impact even
with implementation of General Plan Noise Element policies and programs to reduce aircraft noise impacts.
Based on the above, the Project would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to aircraft noise.
37 Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Information, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Part
150 Noise Exposure Map, 2/12/2016. https://www.faa.gov/airports/enviromnental/airport noise/noise_pxposure_maps. Accessed
September 25, 2023.
38 FAA, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning Information, Los Angeles International Airport (LAX), Part 150 Noise Exposure Map,
2/12/2016. https://www.faa.gov/airports/environmental/airport_noise/noise exposure_maps. Accessed September 25, 2023.
31
Preliminary — Subject to Revisions
Ln
cu
:h! Ln
CU 0
c 41
0
>
tio Ln
cu
Ln Ln in
LU cc
c
O
f�
L
Q
�L
aj
N
m
aj
L
U
C
.N
W
0
O
C
to
aj
L-
O
A
S
_
'
tD
Q
CM
COO
a
co
't
�
�
M
d
7
O
CO
Nto
O
"'
°'
M
LO
Coo
M
M
N
�
Q
M
�
N
ti
o
qt
00
LO
Go
C
G F
L
r-
co
qt
N
M
N
tD
r+
C
C
.0
C
C
f/J
::)
::)
D
::)
CA
CA
O
CA
co
3
NLo
CM
I--O
M
PM
O
—
CO
CM
O
PM
C
co
�+
N
IL
�
L
Co
L
U
�H
H
>
p
>
U
to
Cl)
c.
a
U
m
+_
H
J
N
MO
Q
O
d
X
0
C
'p
M
o
a`
o
�
0
a d
J0
U
N
N
N
N
1!J d
N
N
N
N
M
N
O
N
n
N
Exhibit A
CaIEEMod Output Files
`11jjjjjESA
O
M
O
N
I
D
W
N
O
N
N
O
N
O
W
V
W
L
O
U
Q)
U)
U)
c
O
U)
T
E
W
cc
0
0
U
0
0
o
O
E
cn
0
L
E
cc
0
0
W
�+
o
U
O
O
aL
C
m
a
V
cc
m
=
c
J
N
a�
U)`�
L
M
cn
0
T
E
W
N
0
cc
4-
cn
c
cc E
a
L
O
Q U
E (n
0 -8,
C C
.O O
n .nMn
W W
cn cn
c c
0 0
0 0
Lo
N N
0
N
D
c
cc
J
0
0
P
Mn
D
E
ai
W
W
cn
O
c
�
D
o
O
T
C
N
14
cc rn
LM
c J
cc
J m
m
O
O
E W
W N
cc
•L
U �
a�
cu
W Z
T— M
N N
U
O
U)
N
c
O
cn
Mn
W
cc
Q
ai
14
4—
m
_O
E
c
D
M
N
C
cc
J
2
O
C
O
O
W
0
4
14
4—
ca
_O
E
c
D
14
N
cn
D
C
cc
J
O
C
O
Mn
E
W
4-
cn
cc
L6
14
4—
m
_O
c
D
L6
N
C
m
J
N
C
O
cn
Mn
E
W
C
C
rn
m
_O
c
D
(6
N
Q
C
c�
C
Q
.5
cr
W
m
O
C
O
cn
O
E
W
m
0
O
ti
14
4—
m
_O
c
D
ti
N
Q
C
c�
C
Q
.5
cr
W
m
O
C
O
cn
O
W
L
m
c
0
cc
U)
4—
m
_O
E
c
D
O
N
C.
C
C.
.5
cr
W
m
O
c
O
cn
Mn
E
W
N
C
a�
O
Z)
O
14
4—
m
_O
c
D
O
N
Q
C
0
++
cc
N
CD
m
C
O
4—
cc
E
U
Q
c
O
E.
U
0
U)
_O
N co
O O O
N
C7
N
cc
O
0
U
Q
c
O
++
Q
E
cn
c
O
U
L
0
3
n
a�
+'
Ecc
cc
00
�-
U
0
o
c
c
U
crc�
L
cc
cc
LU
L
c
O
o
-c
Li
Q
Q
W
4—
5
w
ccE
O
C
c0
P
O
O
a=O.
?
C
4-
O
s
O
E
O
_
Q
J
N
D
L
N
Q
O
N
M
Q
Q
Q
vl-
O
O
L6
O
O
L6
LO
LO
�
11�
T-
L6
L6
L6
L6
cc
O
E
D
N_
L6
c
O
m
a�
c
a�
4-
cn
cc
c
O
C
N
Q
O
co
T-
L6
4—
O
O
E
D
_M
L6
++
C
c�
E
Q
cr
W
CD
c
.E
O
++
c
O
U
0
c
cc
c
O
tm
O
c
O
N
Q
O
L6
4—
O
O
E
D
L6
c
a�
E
CL
cr
w
cc
O
O
c
O
C
N
Q
O
LO
T-
L6
4-
O
D)
c
D
L6
L6
if
cn
Q
E
a
a�
L_
U-
cc
In
O
W
U
c
N
rn
w
LO
Ln
N
O
m
O
O
ci
0
a
N
_ic
if
c
O
cc
N
c6
if
W
CD
c
cc
U
N
O
c
m
J
co
LO
4—
cc
_rn
E
c
c6
T-
s
W
Q
i
O
U
O
O
cc
O
m
co
LO
cn
O
O
W
4
c
E
ao
Li
0
N
U)
nj
oo
LO
W
_
4
c
E
oo
L6
i
W
4—
0
�
E
—
cc
E
E
n
O
U
U)
cc
V
O
N
'V^
_w
W
cc
E
U
N
Q
M
U
CO
CO
CO
L
cc
CN
G
O
ci
T
4-
O
E
N
Cl)
N
C7
Lr)
7;
cc
a�
4—
cr
W
c
cc
s
cc
N
2
N N
V U
U)O
o x
c
cn
oa
U)
L
U
U)U)
c
W
=
a�i
_
Co
N
>4o
w
'O
cc
N
U)w
:3
U)
m
U
.; >,
c
W
U 2
L
O
ca
2
cc
�=
W
s
cc
2
Ir N
M
4
L6
6
ti ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
cc
a�
O
a�
rn
c
cc
s
U
L
ti co
0
cn
0
N
I
W
_
=
uJ
0
U1
Cn
Sri
0
=o
m
�
W
C9
CD
N
O
L
p
m
m
CA
o
o
CDa
N
E
�
5
v
m
m
U
U
v°
c
E
c
c
o
o
c
c
0
rn
c
U
U
r
a)
r
r
r
r
CO
CCD
m
0O
CD
co
w
CO
7
7
�
7
7 N
lL
W
N
I a
O
C7
r
W
J
W
w
w
v
r
W
W N
O
-A
cu
i
O
L
++
Lo
R
c
a--+
U
cuc
C
L
c
(D
•O
4-1 U
a)
•0
y
:3
^L
I..L
cn
•CU
'
O
co
M
...
���"W�
L ^
E
Z
a
a3
O
c-
o
01
ao
of )
J
N
U)
v
m
J
p
ZO
fA
c
a
uJ
a
c
Ul
T
0
0
a
O
m
o
J
�
O
U
U
15
.7
�
a
m
a
fN�
Q
H
LL
p
W
U
�
a)
w
N
y a
a
a
N
cn
N
0
N
C7
CA
N
T
m a)
aw
N
C7
CO
u
Lq
aq
o
m
I
c
I
m
cli
rn
m
o
rn
C6
4
O
O
N
17
O
I
O
I
O
I
O
M
M
M
N
I
N
I
N
I
N
I
N
N
r
N
(7
Ify
1
r
l
r
l
co
r
l
Ct
c)
IIIIII�I
N
o
r
C6
I
I
l
I
I
N
I
N
I
N
I
Cl)
cu
II'
cn
0)
cn
0)
I
I
I
°�
I
o
N
O
IIIIIIIIIII
0
N
L
i
1
cn
I
cn
1
cn
I
O
H
ra^)
VJ
•iB
i.�
r0
O
co O
N
�'
m
I
O
I
CDI
CDI
O
O CD
c
L
O
L
0
CD
0
co
co
cu''....
iu����d
c'7
c9
N
h
cu
•�
I
�'
I
�'
I
�'
I
N
LU
IIIIIIIII
N
o
cn
N
0
co
I
a)
-Fa
1
O
I
O
I
O
I
O
•c—
C
cm
r_
�ij
+=
Q
O
Ify
CO
cn
a)
I
O
I
O
I
O
I
O
L
10
y
O
o
a)
0
C
0
co
h
rn
(n
0
�
U
III
I
�
I
�
I
�
I
r
�
o
N
�
cocu
N
0
0
o
N
v
�°
O
0
I
I
I
I
r
w
•�,
•2
E
° r
a)
W
LLJ
:2
Ncncn
.:........
cn
1
I
!P
I
rcn
cn
cn
o
cu
•O
VJ
�'
O
N
Oco
N
•�
a)
a
I
I
co
I
I
r
a)
a
N (p
cn
U
O
cu
IIIIIIIIIII
O
cLu
E
-
>;a
EwU m
_
E
E
+)a
a
M
-
0
m:3�
0
c
❑
0
m
❑-❑
c
c
c
❑z
N
U
N
co co
O0) 1N l'T CO N N O
00 'T 00 w r 0 w T 0 00 w r 0 00 M T 00 w r Co O
Ld 4 00 T O O OI Ld 0 00 T O O 06 Ld 4 00 T O O Oi
r CO N N In N r I r O N N In N T I T V N N In N T
O Co O r Co Co r Co O
I Lo
M I I I I Ncn-: I O I I I I N M I r l I I I N °T°
LO LO
O o
h O N 00 O h O O N 00 O O O 0 N 00 O O
Un O O O O CO CO O O O O h Co CD CD CD0 h
CD CD O I O I O O O O O I O I O V O O O I O
In In
O O
Lo O O v M h O O V M h O O v M
CO O M N r CO O Cl? N r CO O M N r
O V O M r I N I O O O M r I N I O V O M T I N
O 00 N coo 00 COO 00 CNO
Co N T O 0w T r T O co T Cl
In co h OD 00 0 h 00 In h 00
T Co N T T I T I T O N T T I T I T V N T T I T
O 00 N coo 00 N COO 00 COO
Co N Co LO O Co O O Co In O O O Co In 0
CWO N ONO CD - I O N M O I rLd I V N M O I OT
O LO N 0 In N O In N
CD 9 I I O I M r I N I I O I M r I N I I CDI M T I N
N T N 0 M 00 T - O
cy�I M CD CD l l y I M O CDI l l y I M O O I I I M
CD CD
CR
I M I I I I I M I M I I I I I M I M I I I I I M
N
M
00 T T (3) 00 O T co 00 T T (n
I O O O I I I O I O O O I I I O I O O O I I I o
N T T M N O T M O T T N
I U6 CD CDI I I _ I - O CDI I I T I �' O O I I I —6
O O
I LO T I I I I I T I LO T I I I I I T I LO T I I I I I T
00 r 0 00 0 - 0) 00 r CD
I CD CD CD I I" I CD CDI I I O I CD CD O I I I O
In In
O O
In 0 r co In O r LO Lo 0 r m
r O O r T O O r T CD CDr
I O V O I I I O I CD CDI I I O I CD O I I I O
In Co h Co In 0 h T O N h h
I � N O I I I � I � O O I I I � I LO m CDI I I o1-
In N T co h O T co N LO T co
I v o T I I I co I v O T I I I co I LO o T I I I co
M h 00 00 h M 00 h M r 00 r
I Co T CDl I I T I LO m CDI I I T' I in T o l I I T
N M LO O Co 0 In N M In O
I m N O I I I rn I co O O I I I Co I co r o I I I 0o
� o c m m a)o o m m o > m o
oco 2¢ w 3: w o m¢ w ¢o M¢ 1 13:
T
v
o
r
T
rn
rn
T
m
N
Ih
V
M
M
O
M
O
O
CA
I N
I
I
I
I
O
N
LO
LO
O
O
O
O
0
T
O
N
T
O
O
O
O
T
O
V
V
O
O
I
O
If•)
O
O
1f)
v
N
N
O
O
LO
0D
Lr)
O
V
O
O
N
I
M
w
LO
O
Co
LO
CA
Co
M
Co
C7
I N
S
v
—
N
I
m
w
N
1Lq
N
Cn
C6
`T
O
O
I N
r-
v
O
1
Ch
O
q
in
I I
CD
LO
N
I
Cn
l o
LO
O
b
N
o
I
I
I
Cn
o
cc
m
L
0
1 6
1
1
1
1
1
0
o
O
Cn
—
1N
O
o
O
I
I
I
O
L
LO
0
LO
O
O
N
h
Cu
CV
I N
O
I
I
I
N
U)
Cn
Cl
I N
I
I
I
I
I
N
N
LO
O
O
N
0
C
Cu
I OCVD
O
I
I
I
O
c4
Cn
LO
CD
O
LO
CD
O
Cn
C/
'm
C
I O
o
o
I
I
I
O
a--+
C)
Co
0
Z
C
L<7
I M
N
L<7
N
O
CDLn
O
N
I
I
I
T
OT
♦�
vI
O
'�
♦♦^�
vI
'E
Cu
J
^
0
_
Cu
L
I O
O
O
I
I
I
T
W
C
o
10
Cu
00
1
I
C 0
N
N
Co
o
O
T
CDI
Cn
o
O
I
CO
I
I
+a)
C6
1
I
O
N_
Ch
r
Cn
C
O-
(
CL
O
.N
N
w
a)
m
r
+=
E
D
T
T-
cc
o
a.
N
Co
O
C7
LO
Co
O
Co
Ld
I
w
rn
CDT
I
m
v
O
O
ri
0
I
T
N
CDCn
I
N
N
LO
M
O
O
h
Cn
O
O
O
O I
LO
N
O
v
O
O
LO
Co
O
O
O
O I
LO
M
Co
O
O
1L
O
Co
Lo-
1
m
rn
O
T I
LO
M
Co
O
O
1
O
Co
I
w
m
o
I
I
I
LO
I
I
o
I I
m
1
T
N
O
of I
C7
O
OD
I
T
N
O
M I
N
C7
Cn
O
O
0
O
Co
O CA
O
O
O
O I
T
rn
O
q
O
O
N
I
V)
m
o
I
00
OR
LO
N
O
O
I
LO
m
O
T
M
LO
O
Co
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O I
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
O I
M
T
00
Cn
I
N
CCn
O
ii I
�1- Co
O
LO
1
I
T
N
O
v I
CV7
CO
O
O
1
N
Ch
O
Co I
C
r
o
I
N
v
O
Co I
E
Q'
0)
;a c m
T
(b
co
cn
T
OD
N
O
If)
co
LO
Vi
O
1V
Cn
O
O
T
I
O)
r
O
N
C
Ci
q
O
q
(
O
qC
O
O
O
O
I
O
r
O
N
N
CO
O
COO
O
O
O
TO
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
CO
O
h
v
h
O
N
O
CO
O
O
O
T
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
N
r
0o
O
O
O
v
C7
W
O
o
O
LQ
Cn
O
O
T
I
O
r
O
N
N
OO
O
O
m
lC(
O
ll
If)
O
O
I
r
O
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cu
N
O
O
N
co
CO
O
T
U?
14:
O
Cn
I
N
ll�
O
h
r
N
O
Cl)
O
O
O
O
L
0
�
O
CN
t
O
O
L
CCi
OD
CO
r
N
O
CO
I
O
O
O
O
C�
G
cn
O
O
CD
O
co
O
O
O
O
O
_i
.cu
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
L
0
T
O
O
N
h
co
O
IC7
(u
O)
CO
O
If)
O
CO
O
h
'0
If)
O
O
I
T
r
O
N
co
1f)
O
CO
h
O
M
''U)^
V
OD
N
O
If)
O
CO
O
I�
Cn
O)
O
r
I
r
r
O
N
UI
M
Cn
O
00
r
r
O
N
cu
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
0)
(Q
E
c
CO
O)
O
Cf)
r
N
O
CO
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
O
L
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
0
U
L
D
,It
17
CD
O
N
Cl)
O
O
OR
�
0
CD
N
N
M
O
1f)
I
CO
CO
O
O)
W
L
O
O
O
O
M
q
O
q
0
r
M
CDv
I
O
O
O
O
>
0
cu
CN7
C(O
O
�
COO
O
O
C
C
N
M
O
Cf)
I
O
O
O
T
W
N
�+
++
C
+_
cu
CD
L
o
o
CR
o
N
2
N
CD
co
I
CD
CD
CDa
T
O)
O)
m
O)
O)
0)
M
�
LU
W
fO
w
a o
a o
c
c
m
7
c
m
w
o a
v
c
m
N
T
N
a-i
y3
a c
in
O
c
a
a y3
a c
� a
y3
c
in
O
4
U
4
r
Cc7
N
I
I
I
I
Cn
T
T
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
O)
O
N
O
I
O
O
O
LO
I
cn
r
T
cn
�'
I
I
I
�
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
C7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
I T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'Q—i E
An
I
I
I
I
i.
o
�n
n
a
a
N r coN 00 O CDT I cn � T I L N N I co
LO LO LO LO LO U)
O O O O O O
N r r O N O O O OO
O O O O O O O O O ^"'M' O
O I O O V O I V V V V I V
In
O
LO O N 1p T N C9 m��r.. c0
O O O T O O O O um'iuu O
O I O O O O I O O V O liiiiil I O
CD cn CD 0 cn 0 cq CD co
r l N � r N I LO N N N Icn
IIIII�I
co
O v cn O O cn O °4 O i��... 00
N I N � �' N I� N N N Icn
cu
L '.. IIIIIIIIIII
0cu
CD
�O
ca kid v
I I I I I I I I I I I _0CD
� IIIIIIIIIII
cc
I I o
CD
c c ,�.,
o
I10I o
c 0
I I I I I I I I I I cu
mcc
o, I CD
cn w Cl)
I I I I I I I I I Icc o
c�
cc
co
I I I I I I I I I I I a I cc
cc
co
a a
cYj ` E
o m e a y3 o a Y3 o c a Y3 o a Y3 o N a y3 0
H ❑ Q c Q c in H Q Q c Q c in H V fiu "dl 0 to Q c
in
O
`°
o)
in
O
`°
(o
ch
CD
co
'I
0o
T
T
I
cn
c
T
I
CD
co
N
I
In
I
In
I
In
I
I
In
I
In
I
In
I
In
I
I
In
I
In
I
In
I
In
Im
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
^"V'
V
V
V
I
V
V
V
V
I
V
V
V
V
In
O
In
O
In
O
O
I?Lo
(o
O
O
Lo
T
T
I?N
O
O
r
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
O
um um
O
V
O
I
O
O
V
O
I
O
O
V
O
VIIIIIIIIIV
N
00
O
T
(o
co
M
N
00
O
T
(o
co
O
fh
CO
O)
LO
h
r^„,
u
CD
v
T
I
(o
(D
v
T
I
T
T
(o
N
llllulllll l
N
O
CO
co
co
N
CDO
cofh
O)
I�
LO
ml.m
00
T
v
r
l
('7
(o
00
(D
r
v
r
l
O
(o
(o
�
N
I�;I',IIII
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
U)
U)
O
U)
^IIIIIIIIIIIII
cc
'
CD
O
v
(D
T
T
0
N
O
O
T
I
O
O
CDO
T
I
O
O
O
Illli...0
O
V
O
O
O
V
O
O
O
V
O
Im
O
IIIIIIIIIIIII
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IIiIIuIIuIIuIIuIIu
C�
G
N
O
O
O
i+
CO
O
O
O
T
v
O
O
O
O
CD
T
r
r
O
O
CD
N
CD
�
ull
iull�.
N
O
V
O
I
O
O
V
O
I
O
O
V
O
_0
T
"gym
uuuuum
0
(fl
U)
O
T
v
(D
U)
O
T
T
T
U)
O
N
>% /
�
lull
O
O
T
O
O
O
T
O
O
O
O
-0
Illli..,,u
O
V
O
I
O
O
V
O
I
O
O
V
O
--
Im
IIIIIIIIIIIII
V
LO
LO
LO
CD
co
O
r
v
co
O
r
r
r
O
N
cu
O
O
T
O
O
O
T
O
O
CD
CD
CD
O
I
CD
V
O
I
O
O
V
O
Im
Lo
LO
LO
Ln
LO
LO
LO
LO
LO
�ij
O
0
O
CD
O
0
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
O
O
T
O
O
O
O
T
O
O
O
O
OCD
L
V
V
O
I
V
V
V
O
I
V
V
V
V
oIIIII
L
c
cn Cl?
O
L
N
(�7
O
L
O
O
O
N
0
V
0
0
o
I
o
0
0
o
I
o
0
0
o
i
h
h
M
O
T
M
I
CD
In
1-
h
M
O
T
M
I
O)
O
r
O
N
V)
0
.
O
O
T
O
O
O
T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
c
In
O
co
M
lf7
O
co
r
r
r
O
u "mll
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
N
"Im
CD
O
CD
V
O
CD
CD
O
N
�
E
C-
o)
O
O
Lo
Co
o)
O
O
Lo
N
O
O
fh
�'�"�
++L.
Ilm
1
0
0
CD
1
0
0
CD
o
ca
E
ICI
CD0
0
0
a
y
y
L
Q
E
'Q—i
f0
'Q—i
CL
O
@
a
0
CL
CL
p
C
CL
0
a
p
M
L
O
O
O
O
I
O
I
I
co
co
I
O
I
I
O
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
In
I
In
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
O
O
O
0
CD
CD
CD
I
CDI
I
o
v
I
CDI
I
CDI
O
I
I
In
O
In
O
O
O
O
CD
CD
CD
I
CDI
I
o
v
I
CDI
I
CDI
O
I
I
O
N
N
O
O
O
I
O
I
I
w
w
I
O
I
I
O
I
O
I
I
O
N
N
O
O
O
I
O
I
I
co
w
I
O
I
I
O
I
O
I
I
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
I
O
I
I
I
O
I
O
I
I
O
I
O
I
I
CD
CD
CD
CD
I
O
I
I
O
O
I
O
I
I
O
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
C7
CD
CD
CD
CD
C7
r
I
O
I
I
O
O
I
O
I
I
O
I
OCD
I
I
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
o
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
I
I
CD
I
I
I
I
I
I
CD
I
I
I
CD
I
I
CD
I
I
I
o
f
I
o
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
LO
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
v
I
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
O
co
co
O
O
CD
I
CDI
I
N
N
I
CDI
I
CDI
OCD
I
I
N
N
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
o
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
O
O
O
00
M
h
r
r
h
O
O
O
00
M
h
M
c0
O
O
N
c0
M
r
O
w
O
N
r
I
O
co
O
O
I
O
r
O
I
O
I
I
N
N
I
O
I
I
O
I
O
I
I
7
r-I
aL+
3
_�
y
_O.
aL-�
7
d
7
E
a)
0C
O
U
C
,�.,
T >C_ f4
f4
C
U
l6
yd
C
f4
C
U
l6
co
2
d
N a
Q 70
J
a W C
�
�>�
2
00
N a
Q
7 0
�
Q
2
0
N a
Q
7 0
µ
N CD m N I O T N N
In In
O O
O O N U) r CO N In T 00
O O ^"'M' O O O O O O O O
v v I O O O O I O O O O I
In In
O O
O O ulr.. O CO T CD M T
CD um'iuu O O C'7 N O O
v v „ „I I O N O m I O N O cn
CD 0
r r I T T I T T
IIIIIII
00 00 ','"„ O 00 r Uf O 00 r U?
I N � °° c I N Lo °° c I
0 o LO Cl) U)
I o I C6 — C; Cl I C6 — Cl) ch I
IIIIIII II
U) U) cc
CD 0 0 uml'
o O
v v„ I I I I I I I I I I I
L
0
Ilo,
I I � liuuuuu I I I I I I I I I I I
N
0 0
CD o c0
v v I I I I I I I I I I I T
LO LO of
� 0 0 III
cu
CD 0 v v
IIIIIIIIIIIII
C�
LO LO
CD c
0 o ca
CD o
v v 'Imllllllll I
Lo L
CD 0
0 0 �
N
LO LO 0
N N
J cu
L
0 0 O I I I I I I I I I I I
O
co N
C) N
� II IIIIIII
W P
NCB 0 a I I I I I I I I I I I
mH ? m �Eto �
0a wr-
m -o c
m 3 3 a o�7 a a c ca
;g 0c'cS s
O co m CDT 'I in c2 r- CD0 N cn cn I T cn v LO
l T
N � � (IIIIIIIIIII
LO LO
O O
O T O r O O O O O
vv ci w c; I o 0 0 o I (D
�n v U) v CD T T co
M O In um'iuu OD N OD
CD CD CDICI I r r r I
''.... uullum
LOT T OT I v T T T I v
0f NT O00 O O O O
I CD O O I O C7 OD r
�.I
N IOn N ° CO O T CO
�\I IIIIIIIIIIIII
co N co
cn CD LO
cc
91
L '.. IIIIIIIIIII
O'
��IIII I I I I I I
II III I I I I I I
cu
0``
CU
luill
I I I I _0
� IIIIIIIIIII
cu
C
I I I I � ',�IIIIIIII I I I I I I
C
II
co
�;cu
III I I I I I I
cu
J`
10
ce
/1 L
C
O
,cn
I I I I Mn
E °? c
w cc
°,
I I I I a I I I I I I I
_ D cc
y y •L EIp
'a IL6 y y y
Q' a T7 CD
ao CLo c Lq III ❑
a 0a—i a 0 co a a in
Lo
C7
r
N
r
O
O
O
co
m
N
ItLn
CD
I
00
N
m
r
rn
I
O
I
O
I
O
I
I
O
I
O
I
O
I
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
N
r
OOR
OND
N
N OD
T
r
r
I
O
r
O
N
O
T
T
In
O
N
C6
O
O
M
N
T
T
T
I
00
T
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
O
T
r
r
LO
O
N
O
O
O
M
T
I
00
r
N
N
cc
C
L
0
E.
G
cu
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
0
cu
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-0
V
V
cu
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c4
W
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Z)
0
L
m
J
_O
co
co
C
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'0
N
W
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
4-
4—
rn
r
cc
V7
V7 E
w
CL
o
c
CL
0 0- 33
o
T'
CO
CD
N
�
fT
�
O
T
O
N
M
�
CDM
�
T
w
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
C7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
I T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
CL
co
a
-0i a
�
fT
0�
C7
O
O
r
O
N
I
O
O
O
O
M
O
cn
co
O
L
r
M
N
O
O
ll�
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
H�
E
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cr
w
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
0
co
co
�E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
w
�40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
o�
a�a`
m
c
m
a
a
r
�n
2
f`
I I I Icu
E.
0
cu
I I I I
-0
//cn�
V
I I I I
V
cu
a
W
I I I I
EE
0
1 -
L
cLU
0
cu
co
0
I I I I
.N
•E
�
LU
I I I I
L
—
C
P
++
I I I I
O
a
a
////��
VJ
D
cc
L
co
T
co
g o 0
�
�
U
cu
c
c
m
L
0
E.
G
cu
T
V
L
0
cu
W
L^
ram'
cu
I
I I I I I
�
W
E
Q
0
c
L
W
0
m
I
I I I I I
co
cu
0
•0
cn
I
I I I I I
A2
10
W
I
I I I I I
a
-
m
cc
Q
i+
I
I I I I I
a)
c
a
w
D
D
cc
L
C�
C
xm
C
T
7
0 U)-
y m y C y6CD
� o§� a
4
6
4
+L+
U
N
C7
co
T
I I I I I I BII I I I I I I
I I I I I I Im I I I I I I
ummm
I I I I I II;II;I I I I I I I
„III�I
I I I I I ';III I I I I I I
IIIII�I
I
I I I I I �II'w�l I I I I I I
IIII���
I
-^ IIIIIIIIIIIII
I I I I I � Ismllilll I I I I I I
L Iuuum
o III°
I I I I I I � Imlulu I I I I I I
�_ IIIIIIII
I I I I I CU
-ocu
"Imlllll I I I I I I
O IIIIIIIIIIIII
cu
llu
I I I I I I � � Ilmlllll I I I I I I
rn cn
I I I I I I a)E � I''mlulll I I I I I I
c cu'I
oCL,� IIII
� ° � IIIIIIIIIIIII
m � �
I I I I I �° o cu
ca
L
E °,
Q V
Q
N cu cu
I I I I 'o 0
Iul;ll, l
E m
O p CDm m
>, E m
(4 C p
IIIII
cc
C
L
0
C-
G
L
0
/2
V
cc
0
0
III U
I I I I I I
BII
I
I
I I
I I I
I I I I I I
mlllllll
I
I
I I
I I I
I I I I I I
ummm
II„;;II
I
I
I I
I I I
mil
I
I I I I I I
luiw�
I
I
I I
I I I
V
�
IIIIIIIIIIIII
I I I I I I
m,llll
I
I
I I
I I I
�
I I I I I I
�
m111111
I
I
I I
I I I
C
C
U
IV
N
C7
I I I I I
CU
-o
I
I
I I
CD
I I I I N
°ID
IIIIIIIIIIIII
lulllllllll
I I I I I
co
—
u
'mllllll
I
I
I I
I I
C
cn
I I I I I I
�
vml.11llll
I
I
I I
I I I
1
�
cu
I I I I ICLcn
I
I
I I
I I
L
I I I I I
o
0
II
III
I
I
I I
I I
cn
0
I I I I I ImoLU
I
I
I I
I I I I
IIII
++
W
U
L
c
''N^
vJ
-�
I I I I I IcnIII
cu
I
I
I I
I I I I
cc
I I I I I I
I
I
I I
I I I I
Q'
�
uIIllllllll
N
E N O
:�i
.L
��,��
'liii';
II.
N
E
'O
'a V
O
'a > 'a
O O O
.� E fx4 aO+ T C fx4 aO.. C aO.
-7
U
�' E fx4
o n �
O
Q
n n LD
E
�n a)
I�I����I�
a'
N
C7
N
co
a)
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
i
rr0^
VJ
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
a)
z
cu
4-/cu
CO
L
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
C)
C
p
fd
P
}A
'O
f4 fA
f4 N l6
'O
f4 fA
f4 N l6
�
Q
O
T r X
O
O O
�
D
a)
w� n
C p
I
Q
o�
o W -o o I
rn
of
CO CO
co
a` a'
co
Ln
L6
Sri
v
Cl)
co
co
N
O
M
Cl)
CA
N
co
Cl)
CA
N
CO
Cl)
CA
N
co
v O
N
CD N
O O (D O N O O O O
I O O O O N O C7
N
O LO
N
O
c0 ll)
0) w
O
N v
O
O
0 N O
co — O
0
O
N
O
co
OOD
O
a)
L
rO
VJ
ca
CD
O
Q
f`
N
O
N
CA
O
N
co
O
cc
O
OO
O
o
C%
f
O
U)
}
ISO)
p
Op
y
yN
m
y
'p
3
gy
=
3
v
w
CA
CA
Q
IL
U C
0
LL
a
OO
LL
O
E
N
CUm
LLNN"ZE
C
.L
`
ay
R
a
O.
O
m
2N
w
O
O
f0
O
QI
a
O
C6
2N
w
O O
Q
Q
cn
Ln
L6
Lri
Q
C9
a
z
0
0
z
a
Q
C9
LL
z 0
O O
O Lf)
O N
O
co
co
O
N O
N - �;
O If•) 00
co co O r
N
T (7 T
O O O
v v v
O O O
O O O
N
C7
N
N
m
I
O
CU
................................
O
IIIillliiil
Q
cu
uumiiiu
Z
VV
N
N
N
ml
m
cu
V
p
N
Z
N
N
N
II
a
c
cB
N
III
cn
W
co
C
U
O
um
N
p
ul
c
�
III
N
u'
ii-
N
O
m o,lllll
m
o
o
O
um u
r
N
a)
cc
p
U
ICI
cr
W
-�
c
w
cc
o
N
C
"
Q
4—
ca
U
ccO
c0
=
y
O
c0
o O
y
N
N
U)
_O
_y
_O
>>�
g=
w
L
3
v
L
O
-O
L
uuuuup,
cc
y
@
QCL
C6
E
E
`
0 z°
a
IIIImm�
�
l(�
mm�
L6
cc�
w
I
a
a
L6
L6
O N
co r- r-
(D If)
N lf) O
N V N
w O
O IC) 00
h 00 N
1L N co
O
,�T T r
c
O
4-
ca
L
N
c
CD
N
N
ca
ca
c
y
O
ca
y
w
P
++
3 �o
Co
J
a)
EE
a a
D
O
T-
M
m m
a a
y
T-
cM
T—
a a
L6
L;
a)
C
Q
cr
w
N
v
O
N
N
�=
O
U
Q
c
ca
c
O
ca
N
O]
Na)
ca
c
y
O
ca
y
R
4-+
CD
++
3 v
i
J
a)
E
c
a a
D
O
T-
T
m C
a a
F
_y
�
�
a a
�5
L6
L;
o o o0 0
T T T T T T
If) 0 Uf O O o
1Ln (00 lLO (00 O O
N O N O 4 r
lf) lf) lf)
O O O
O O O O
V O V O V O
co N co N co N
O 'T O 'T O 'T
N T N T N T
o o
La La
atS U � aa U �
CL a a m
2O�NE� 'O a -0 p_ C
cm 0)
N L U) L N L V7 N L C M N
ao m_ m ao m_ m o C. � 2
y _y
3 3 v v
J J
E E E E 2 2
m m m a a
a a a a �5 �5
N
Cl)
CN
N
O
O
N
O
lf)
O
lf)
N
N
0)
C7
a
C)
0
w
c
a)
E
n
cr
W
ca
O
O
ca
c
O
N
N
Q
O
L6
T-
L6
ca
_rn
E
c
D
L6
T-
L6
^N
W
i
rO
VJ
i
N
O
N
U)
co
T-
cn
Q
a
a�
1,L
1.�
cc
V)
O
C
N
C
r�
V
U
c
rn
N
W
LO
O
m
cn
v
O
a
N
T-
N
N
co
Z)
ti
C
O
N
N
c6
T-
N
C
cc
L
U
N
C
co
J
T7
co
T-
LO
4—
ca
_rn
E
C
co
T-
L6
W
Q
H�
O
U
U)
cn
cc
O
m
c6
T-
L6
0
0
cc
CU
E
E
C
cr
C
U
t
N
N
c6
c6
gyp'
LO
LO
IN
r
C6
0.
E
E
L
a
C
0
m
c
c
0
Ln
a)
a)
E
1N 0) O O
Lo 'T O O
f4
0
0
E
W O
c a
a) •U fOA
y a
J `
Ea) _
w can) �
w C
O O Y >
m O 'O fY0 L U E LO
v E a 0 r CL
a
> y en E C a) O
0 U C 0 +' a) 5 +'
E U O C E C
N
a) U .� aS
w — C E — C
N C yig y o
co L
C
` N C N C
0 a d 0 H
E 0 F- c
a) -O — '`C p U •'`C—
E E 0
U
O U w O
O 0 7� a) 0
C
EE '00 f400
•C L 01 C Uf
'E M 9) L r a) co a)
a) _0
> a
E E 'o o) � ;= 2
0 O
E f 3 N -00 c c.0 c
meL O c a) 0 a)
t C:)oU 0 aU
M 3 a) y f00 y
D o c a: g c-°
> _
v Eo as '3 v �Y o a m o U o
U O L f6 .0 U c) U
a .0c r rn N 0 rn
•C .— O. f� C) O f�
a
o y�•• � �a N �a
E OAn - o) -;
L 0ari y �U Q LU
0o
0) Y r U
o Z Z
y m y N> U -> U
0- > N O 0 0
'O U Q E m y v o y V
a) O a) C a) O- C a)
U) c y a) 0 3 0 3
y c E 0 'YO 7 E 0 y 0
•-
0 W C) E Y fA (�
N
U w co O a) -a co m co O W $Ci O W•
0a o EN D Ec� E
0 V y E y 7 cD E- 2 1-
c W >, � 0 W cn
F- L
r E2 _O '0 .0 >�
0 E 0 0 E
'O N r O m$ Q m
c L 0 0- 2 m:U H E o U` y E
D a) _0 O. a) 0) p 0) N y
a0+ -he
L
a) > 0 y~ y 0 f�0 0
U
0 rn 0 0 E >� o a E E M
p. c) a) -O U a) > m H Q)
O
U •C O fA to
p N p7 0 0 •O Z) Y
T O O L f/1 a) a) a)
N
o U a) E m m
U - W 0>> Lo O y,-0
C a L O O. E O- i-. a) m p_ Y
m y L L 0 in —asU) a) a) La
y as r
.O E C o U E C N a c:)C E
O — N a) a) a) C) a)
E
a) U 0 3 X O A Y
_0 a)
'O 'O C N C LO >' C CD
0 2) L L
E rn C— y U t y
o i n U a0i 0 3
'O C 'c U
_ 0 v
> 0 Xtm `° X
N O O y U a) L V O L
= E a) a) U 'O fA 7 c.)O m y6 >_ y O m '� O a)
E 1p - C L W L W
y y� U��
� E o a)m a>i c U � c c U
W 0 — as 20 oay .2 0
'0 v :°
In E 0- E
y U y w O a) O- 2
'0 a y USU) m C y
0 E J E aci a _� m aci a
E o > 0 0 y �_ rn 0 y
HtwvU) c CL >v a
N
cn
O
N
N
N
O
rrU^^
VJ
N-�d
LL
N
4-+
C
U
N
C6
a a a a a a a a
z z z z z z z z
a a a a
o Z o o Z Z Z o
a a a a
o Z o o Z Z Z o
a a a a
Z r Z Z Z o
f4
N
2
N
L C C O
W m
r :3 Lu
c 'a
m U y � ❑
i
7
w con Li0
o U)
L �
� y
C m
N
E
� C
O
O. U
N 7
LO N
O N An
C
U N
fA f4
m E
L U
3 0
�; c
O
0 N
N E
N
a
E
m m
c v
O
-O U
O C
L O
y C
U fA
O. N
U 8
N �
CL
m
_ a L
y U
-O iy
iy N
m —0
L y
O C
E E
U y
y
N y
N
N m
a U
m
Q
w N
N
a
La m
m v
c c
� m
N U
U m
7 O.
N
E
-o m
C C
m m
O O
m a
m
c m
c
0 0
N
m �
m a U
o m
U CO
_N
U
N m a)
Q N a o ca
m U _
w y
U
m
ma o
Qj O m
7 •m0 W >
O m O M
a a a a
N Z N N Z Z Z N
a a a a
r Z r Z Z Z r
r Z r Z Z Z r
a a a a
r Z r Z Z Z r
N
N
cn
r-
N
r
rn
C
ul
C 4)
y �
y
N
� CO
CL N
N E
LO C
w O
O U
N '0O
U �
y Y
CO y
'C
L
N •3
m
Ld E
O U
—0
O C
O
y,,',,..
CO E
O C1
O E
C
2
_y
En
CO
a
p
•mp t
�
ul
•p
CO
IVlljjll
@ O
N
p�
L ay
C
�
•p ''..,,,,
IIViIIIIViI
E W
!,
r
O
CO
LO
O)
C)
O)
1-
CO
N
I-
1-
O
co O
I
m
v
w
w
I
w
m
0
m
I
N N
o
w
o
0
a
a
Q
t
m
a�i v
c c
m
>
Ln
c
� n
r
c �
�
iy
tm
rn a
c p CO)
m r
`o
E i�
O O
Co
�
42
C)fUA
0a
o
Oy cLD
r.........
UU,,,,,',,.
CD
NO.
W
CD
N
y0
a O
U ,L
_0
U
c
_m y
'O
CO
L
•;
W
�..............
O
N
a=.
p
m
O
•�
l6 C
�
V ,,,
...........................
U
7
00CL
y
•�
7
CO
ca
j a �
w
�
>�
65
f6
N
>�
>
y
a
QUA
•C
C1 CO @( 1
/��
W
( 1
C
2
tm
_y
N
_N
N
O_
O
III^;
N
7
•a
•C
f�0
a
a
0c
•y
U
N
'O
L 'O
H H
H
W
Q
a
s
0
J
a
H
H
W
1_
uuumuu
N
C7
N
N
CO N N O I- v
I U� �
w C�7 v
LD
2
8
y
U)
a)
L
0
U
U)
X
N
0
co
N
N
o
U
a
� LL
it
tm U
E
C
$
O
U
.y
�
O
c
a
2
O
O
�
E
3 L)
U
>
F
>
rn
U
o
N
con
w
M
:D
ao
D
ti
O
T
Ocn
r- N
CO
Lo
co
O
O
In
co
O
O
O co
O
CO
LO
CO
In
In
'T
CA N
CO
T
T
co
N
Oi
'T
T
T co
cn
co
co
aco
w
co
O
�
If
N
O CN7
_
_
I w
CD
I °'
o
c
I�
co
I
L I N
c
E
O E L
`O C 7 U) 'O
O O N O E 7 O
O_=
L L 7O E8O O OE a
O LD
Lt
O O m C 0O
wQw
m w a cn Nz aa3
N
C7
O
N
-
1-
co
v
co
N
I\
O
w
m
w
m
N
N N
C7
C7
In
In
OD
r
N
In
O
1f
O
co
w
w
w
M
N
—
—
0 h
o
m
N
h
h
M
w
v
0
O
N
w
O
m
O
v
00
m w
O
m
w
w
I--
m
m
I--
LO
MNNV
w v
N
v
I
�
O
0
I I--
O
w
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
w
w
O
O
O
�
O _
O
M
C
N
P
7
� C
N
O 'O y
O N
C y uJ
y 8 0
0 f6
N U1 CO C
7 O
O O
m L C C uJ 7 L .y O fUA
O Y
y uJ Mn N m N �% y
y uJ uJ Q p
fU4 L
B OE 0' Eci Ui y W
L Op Y" Z �+
r c
O c p c L L N 7 W O 4:
c0i �o E m o �' o 0 3 v r c6 ay o o K
I U y a) uJ 5 5 Q :E L .c E m E c c c W c cg c ur
�° a a) m E � 3 3 U m � r L L c L o o rn >, m c o
a W c'n H = _ _ _ Q = U U U o U a = m U O
O O O O O O O O O m v v N N LO O C'7 In O
N
� O O I O O O I O O C'7 COO � - � I � � N I � I � ''.... i�i N �
U)
0
U
c
�
o
U
O
J
N
.'
w
O
a z°
� aL-.
'C CO
CO =
00 >,
N L
a s
Y
O
co
y
O
m
L
O
m
y
_y
m
N
2
O
C
L
°
N
0
m
N
E
N
7
(i
U
Q
fA
L
a
°
y
N
J
O
Z
y
K
W
O
C
U
r
CO
E
(i
Y
�
w
v
>
>
¢`
C
C
Q'
J
fA
v
L
0
,,
N
W
rn
c
Y
@
co
y
rn
C
W
C
O
�,
N
LL
�,
O
O
o
O
U
a
N
Q
C
c
L
U
r
�p
Ci
N
p
j
y
o
c.
C
°
_.)
FE
O
H
N
U
a
_U
F
CO
H
y
v
L
a
L
y
P
2
a
CO
C
Oo
.0
N
°
-
L
c
°
co
N
0
+-,
=
—
I
L
0
0
M
IL
o
O
Cj
O
v
c
N
Q
>
C
W
(i
O
O
r
Z Z Z
N N
O
U
O y
N _Lm
L L
�a
t
a_o
_O fA
y L �
O y CO)
8 cu
CD
L y
U U ,
o f4
C (L � '
W O ...
f6 N W
EEC
E (Q
E E 2
t t
H H �
id .6 ti
m
CO)
4-/
m
p
N
Co
z
a
a)
E
�
^^W
U
N
l6
Q
N
ccn
'2
w
O
ca
U
y
p
U'
g
y
U)
O
Er
O
C
N
c
Z6
W
7
m
2
p
a
o
U�
�ca
W
�U
W
+-,
W
L
t
>
3
w
ca
CD
°�
N
m
LLI
ca
=
m
O
=
LO
L
m
CO
N
=
Z
I`
=
f`
Z
IJ
C
7
T
E
7
E
O
N
O
N
'D
O
3
O
fA
m
O.
N
w
O
Z
N
ch
N
co
O
Q
N�
L.L
r)
LO
M
O
N
I
D
W
N
O
N
N
O
N
O
W
V
W
L
O
U
Q)
U)
U)
c
O
U)
T
E
W
cc
0
0
U
0
0
o
O
E
cn
0
L
E
cc
0
0
W
�+
o
U
O
O
aL
C
m
a
V
cc
m
=
c
J
N
a�
U)`�
L
M
cn
0
T
E
W
N
0
cc
4-
cn
c
cc E
a
L
O
Q U
E (n
0 -8,
C C
.O O
n .nMn
W W
cn cn
c c
0 0
0 0
Lo
N N
0
N
D
c
cc
J
0
0
P
Mn
D
E
ai
W
W
cn
O
c
�
D
o
O
T
C
N
14
cc rn
LM
c J
cc
J m
m
O
O
E W
W N
cc
•L
U �
a�
cu
W Z
T— M
N N
U
O
U)
N
c
O
cn
Mn
W
cc
Q
ai
14
4—
m
_O
E
c
D
M
N
C
cc
J
2
O
C
O
O
W
0
4
14
4—
ca
_O
E
c
D
14
N
cn
D
C
cc
J
O
C
O
Mn
E
W
4-
cn
cc
L6
14
4—
m
_O
c
D
L6
N
C
m
J
N
C
O
cn
Mn
E
W
C
C
rn
m
_O
c
D
(6
N
Q
C
c�
C
Q
.5
cr
W
m
O
C
O
cn
O
E
W
m
0
O
ti
14
4—
m
_O
c
D
ti
N
Q
C
c�
C
Q
.5
cr
W
m
O
C
O
cn
O
W
L
m
c
0
cc
U)
4—
m
_O
E
c
D
O
N
C.
C
C.
.5
cr
W
m
O
c
O
cn
Mn
E
W
N
C
a�
O
Z)
O
14
4—
m
_O
c
D
O
N
Q
C
0
++
cc
N
CD
m
C
O
4—
cc
E
U
Q
c
O
E.
U
0
U)
_O
N co
O O O
N
C7
N
cc
O
0
U
Q
c
O
++
Q
E
cn
c
O
U
L
0
3
n
a�
+'
Ecc
cc
00
�-
U
0
o
c
c
U
crc�
L
cc
cc
LU
L
c
O
o
-c
Li
Q
Q
W
4—
5
w
ccE
O
C
c0
P
O
O
a=O.
?
C
4-
O
s
O
E
O
_
Q
J
N
D
L
N
Q
O
N
M
Q
Q
Q
vl-
O
O
L6
O
O
L6
LO
LO
�
11�
T-
L6
L6
L6
L6
cc
O
E
D
N_
L6
c
O
m
a�
c
a�
4-
cn
cc
c
O
C
N
Q
O
co
T-
L6
4—
O
O
E
D
_M
L6
++
C
c�
E
Q
cr
W
CD
c
.E
O
++
c
O
U
0
c
cc
c
O
tm
O
c
O
N
Q
O
L6
4—
O
O
E
D
L6
c
a�
E
CL
cr
w
cc
O
O
c
O
C
N
Q
O
LO
T-
L6
4-
O
D)
c
D
L6
L6
if
cn
Q
E
a
a�
L_
U-
cc
In
O
W
U
c
N
rn
w
LO
Ln
N
O
m
O
O
ci
0
a
N
_ic
if
c
O
cc
N
c6
if
W
CD
c
cc
U
N
O
c
m
J
co
LO
4—
cc
_rn
E
c
c6
T-
s
W
Q
i
O
U
O
O
cc
O
m
co
LO
cn
O
O
W
4
c
E
ao
Li
0
N
U)
nj
oo
LO
W
_
4
c
E
oo
L6
i
W
4—
0
�
E
—
cc
E
E
n
O
U
U)
cc
V
O
N
'V^
_w
W
cc
E
U
N
Q
M
U
CO
CO
CO
L
cc
CN
G
O
ci
T
4-
O
E
N
Cl)
N
C7
Lr)
7;
cc
a�
4—
cr
W
c
cc
s
cc
N
2
N N
V U
U)O
o x
c
cn
oa
U)
L
U
U)U)
c
W
=
a�i
_
Co
N
>4o
w
'O
cc
N
U)w
:3
U)
m
U
.; >,
c
W
U 2
L
O
ca
2
cc
�=
W
s
cc
2
Ir N
M
4
L6
6
ti ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
cc
a�
O
a�
rn
c
cc
s
U
L
ti co
IC7
C7
0
N
I
W
_
=
uJ
0
U1
Cn
Sri
0
=o
m
�
W
C9
CD
N
O
L
p
m
m
CA
o
o
CDa
N
E
�
5
v
m
m
U
U
v°
C
E
C
O
C
O
O
C
C
0
c
U
U
a)
rn
r
r
r
r
r
(/�
CCD
m
0O
CD
co
w
CO
7
7
�
7
7 N
LCD
O
W
I a
O
C7
r
W
J
W
w
w
v
r
W
W N
O
4-A
cu
E
cc
L
++
Lo
R
c
a--+
U
cuc
C
L
c
(D ��
U
N
•0
y
:3
^L
I..L
•CU
'
O
M
...
���"W�
L ^fN�
Z
a
a3
O
c-
o
01
ao
of )
J
N
U)
v
m
J
p
ZO
fA
c
a
uJ
a
-0
Ul
T
0
0
a
O
m
o
J
�
O
U
U
15
.7
�
a
m
a
Q
H
LL
p
W
U
�
a)
w
N
y a
a
a
cn
N
CD -
CD
ca
04
T-
LO
N
0
r-
LO
N
0
0
CA
Lo
N
LO
v
N
O
J
ay
C
N
E
m a)
aw
N
C7
CO
PIIIuII�,
cn
1-
co
N
I
T
I
�
I
ITV
Cl)I
Lr)
v
l
I
N
I
c)
u�
N
N
N
N
r
l
r
l
r
l
O
cn
N
I
N
I
N
coI
muuV
1
CD
O
N
N
N
I
m
I
c
I
c
I
L6
N
Cl)C
coo
LO cn
I
C6
I
c
I
O
ui
uuuuu
I
I
I
I
CO
ul
CO
Lr)
o
I
0
I
coI
1-
I
ca
N N
L
091
L
0
Lf) v
L
\
IIIII'�
O
O
N
N
L
VJ
•cu
V?
Cl?
Cl?
O
•cu
N O
..............................
I
O
I
O
I
O
I
O
O N
0
0
0
1N
,N
li�'�d
• co
iB
IIIIII
I
h
I
h
c
I
C'7
c
I
v
iB
cc
u
w
o
C7
C'7
CD
h
V
'
I
I
C
I
C
I
�,
CC
LO
c�
LO 00
CD
a•+
r O
:n
C
iu��d
h
CO
h
N
C
ca
cu
ca
I
vi
O
I
CDI
CDI
CD
++
�ij
•C
O,�
T
O
CD
In
}'
0„„I
I
O
I
O
I
O
I
O
L
0
O
y
Cc�',,
N
po
C
O
O
N
rn
co
U)
0
U
I
�
I
�
I
r
l
N
�
o
�
N
.�cn
co
.cu
''
I
I
I
r
I
N
W
.cn
•�
U)
E
P-
E
N N
w
ICI
co
0
00
u j
a
I
'
I
c
I
c
I
U,
c
Cl)
o
o
•O
cu
y
•�
acl.
I
I
r
l
r
l
Na)
a
aN
>mc
x
'c
+L)a
CM
�
0
4
U
m�
❑
c
❑❑3a
:
c
❑
> m
a❑—
c
❑
c
❑
N
U
z
N
v Cl)
0) N O Cl) (00 N CO 1- O N CO O
LC7 O) r r _O N T M 0 1- r 0 N 1- 1-m 1- r _O N N
r M O r 00 0 r M O) Ln 00 06 r M O CO
N lC7 T lC7 M I N O In v T In M I N 00 In v T In M
N N r 0) N r 00 N r
I cn I I I I Ln v l O I I I I Ln � I r l I I I Ln N
Ln Ln
O o
O v 0 O O 0 v w0 00 0 O v wO 0)
O CD CDT CDN O O O r O N O O O r O I N
I r v O O O I r I r O O O O I r I r v O O O r
Ln
O
_ O O N v O O w N M 9 O w N
r O O CO 4 N T O O v 4 N r CD (O v � N
I I v I T O CD M I v I T v O m M I v
cn N v COO v N v v
N O) v O N O O 0 v co N M M O O N r
N r In N M I COS) I N 0 In N m I An I N wIn N m I cn
N O O N v v CCD O
N O) v O 00 N O 00 v O 00 O) M O v O 00 M
N N Ln - O I ML I N O V) - O I CMO I N M Ln - O I N
O O N O O O N O O O N O
I I O I COCD C6 cn I v l I O I (0 cn I v I I CD CO cn I v
N N r Ln N O r v v T r (O
00 O N O 00 O N O r O N O)
I r CD CDI I I 00 I r 0 CDI I I co I r o o I I I
I CD I I I I I0 I CD
N
M
N_ N r Ln N_ 0 r v N r r Ln
CD NI O O O I I I O I CD O I I I O I O O O
v N T r v O r r T N r M
I M O O I I I M I M O O I I I M I M O O I I I M
M M M M O O
I CD CD CD
M I I I I I M I M I I I I I I I M I I I I I M
cn N r r cn 0 r cn N r O
I O O O I I I O I CD CDI I I O I CD CD O I I I O
Ln Ln
O O
0 O N r r O N 0) 00 O N O
N O O M N O O N N CD CDM
I CD CDI I I O I CD CDI I I CDI CD O I I I O
N M lC7 0 T O Ln N r v Ln O)
ICD v T I I I T I 0 O T I I I rn I 0) cn T I I I T
v M M Ln m O M 00 CD CD r
I r N o I I I o I 00 O N I I I o I 00 O N I I I T
(O Ln Ln M (O M Ln O Ln N Ln 00
I m oN - NCD— CD cn N
00 c0 c0 r- O o W m o
I T v o l I I `T° I T o o l I I T I T M o l I I T
o m m o o m m o > m o
oco 2¢ w o m¢ w ¢o M,¢ w
C7
'T
In
Co
O
C7
co
CO
d)
I v
M
h
O
0
LO
CO
M
I NCDCn
LO
O
00
9
T
M
O
r
T
O
O
O
O
N
O
V
O
O
O
I
O
In
O
O
O
h
0
N
_O
O
T
O
Co
O
O
V
O
T
In
I
h
N
N
m
co
co
co
LO
T
I
T
M
M
0
I
LO
N
LO
m
0
v
O
00
T
LoN
I v
0
I
Lo
O
v
Co
O
o
L
I l
I
I
co
I
LO
O
ov
o
I
I
I
LO
cu
c
m
L
0
cn
TLO
I
I
I
I
I
I
~�
G
O
%
O
v
co
cu
10
O
o
O
I
I
I
O
L
LO
0
O
O
O
cu
o
I in
O
I
I
I
�
�
V
I C
I
I
I
I
I
L
N
L
O
O
v
h
cu
I O
o
O
I
I
I
O
c4
In
In
CD
c/
_
'm
C
C
O
I O
O
V
O
V
I
I
I
O
CD}'
co
0
Z
C
I T
In
LO
O
O
I
I
I
N
O
cn
C:
0
'Fcu
♦'^^
V/
'E
cu
J`
^
0
L
0
I T
CD
0
1
I
I
N
W
c
o
cu
I °'
N
I N
C 0
V
CO
O
O
o
CO
O
T
N
I
I
CO
I
I
0)
CO
I
I
Lo
N
CO
C
O
Q
O
w
a)
5 0
L
r
a
+'
?
T-
U)
cc
a
m
N
Lo
Co
v
O
LO
O
O
O
In
I
T
T
00
r
O
CA
N
M
O
O
N
N
0
I
T
Co
cn I
O
14:
M
CO
O
O
'T
O
O
O
O
r I
M
CO
O
_
O
O
O
r I
In
00
co
m
M
N
M
00
O
O
N
I
T
r
O
d
N
lf)
00
CO
M
M
N
M
00
O
O
N
I
r
O
d
N I
I
I
LO
o
I
co
�
I
o
I I
cq
I
C7
CD
r I
0
CDO
CD
I
m
v
O
1-I
N
C7
O
co
O
CD
O
N O
O
O
O
O I
O
Co
O
'T
ro
O
I
T
CD
cn I
00
In
O
O
M
I
T
00
T
CD
O
m I
In
CO
O
O
CD
CD
_M
O
O
C5
O I
T
h
O
O
T
r
O
N
O
O
O
O I
00
cn
00
N
M
Co
CDOT
I
�
1LP
O
I
N
v
O
1 I
v
co
o
Co
o
I
v
co
CD
I
U°
N
o
°°
I
CD
T I
a)
_
yr-
C0
03
E ^
w
o
a�
a
;a c m
o�
CO
1C7
Co
T
co
CO
N
r
CO
CD
cn
�
r
O
OOD
�
O
r
T
O
N
I
T
N
O
v
M
LP
O
00
q
O
14:
O
O
O
O
I
O
r
O
N
N
CO
O
CA
h
r
O
00
ll�
CO
O
O
O
T
O
T
O
O
O
T
I
O
O
O
O
O
O
v
h
O
O
I�
O
T
O
r
O
T
O
O
O
T
I
O
O
O
O
7�
T
O
!P
N
CD
O
T
h
CD
O
CDN
00
N
CC)
CO
CC)
O
O
CA
CO
r
T
O
N
I
T
N
O
v
T
!P
O
N
CD
O
CD
O
CDN
00
N
CO
CO
CC)
O
O
CA
CO
O
N
I
r
N
O
v
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cu
LO
00
O
N
Cn
CO
O
T
O
h
O
CO
I
UC
CO
O
CO
O
I-
O
O
O
T
L
0
CD
O
r0
O CD
Or
u)
LO
0D
CD
O
m
M
L
M
v
O
h
I
O
O
O
r
C�
G
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
_i
.�
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
L
0
7
LO
CD
m
cu
O
0
M
O
�
r
T
CDCO
I
N
CO
O
Lo
00
q
O
M
CO
O
h
V
r
00
O
O
7C'O
O
r
T
O
M
I
N
M
O
LO
/ 11
u)
00
O
�
r
r
CD
cu
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
C
(Q
E
c
r
h
O
h
N
M
O
Cn
L
CD
CD
CDI
CD
CD
CD
0
U
L
D
CO
CO
O
O
T
O
0D
h
O
O
Cn
_0
Q
++
COO
fO
CD
O
I
CO
OT
O
>
CO
O
m
CO
r
CD
m
L
q
O
71C7
O
q
0
M
v
C7
CO
I
C7
O
C7
T
>
0
cu
_LO
r
CD
O
CD
h
r
CD
O
_
O
C
CO
CDI
6
O
r
O
T
LU
N
�+
++
C
+_
cu
h
CO
O
h
M
O
O
N
L
U?
O
T
0D
CO
O
L
++
�
h
O
r
I
O
T
O
N
�
0
a
0) A0)
03
0)
a) 0)
E
0)
f4
LU
W
_cc
w
a o
a o
c
c
'ac
7
m
�
o a
v
r
c
m
N
N
CD
a-i
y3
a c�
6-5a
o
c
a y3
s c-i
a
y3
c�
��
o
U
4
f`
Cn
I
co
T
CD
c0
I
I
I
I
Cn
r
N
O
�
O
O
O
O
O
V
CO
O
CO
r
O
I
O
O
O
CO
CD
Co
T
CO
r
CO
O
I
I
co
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
CO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
I T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
�5
0 n
a
-i a
m 1- m v
M r LO N CO N O fh �, co
N I coT M N I T N 1LO v �„ "" I N
N ''...... Vuuuuu T
I I I I I I I I I I I �ouii�u I
In In In In U)
O O O O O
T N O O O O T O
O O O O O O O O O °"'M' O
O I O O V O I V V V O I V
co co T T M T ICy mr..
CO O T O CO O O O O um'iuu r
O I O O O O I O O O O ViiiV I O
h co h O
T T O T O c0 CD co
N I ccoo r COO N I r N 0) CDIII II I r
r co CD
r CDr O CD
co
N I w COO c I r N I N
cc
co
o
L '.. IIIIIIIIIII
0co
cu
I I I I I I I I I I II I CD
�O
ca k "' co
I I I I I I I I I I I _0CD
� IIIIIIIIIII
cc
co
I I o
c c
I I I I I I I I I I o I CD� I
❑ Cl)
o
mcc
°cn ,
wI
I I I I I I I I I Icc o
c�
I I I I I I I I I I I a I cc
cc
co
a a
cYj ` E
o m e a y3 o a Y3 o c a Y3 o a Y3 o N a y3 0
H ❑ Q c Q c in H Q Q c Q c in H V fiu IIII kdl 0 to Q c
O
h
N
Co
CO
v
Co
O
h
N
Co
CO
Cl)
co
CO
N
°'
T
N
�
Cl)
Cl)
I
Tcl�
°'
co
Cl)I
N
�
LO
IIIIIIIIIIII
I
In
I
In
I
I
I
In
I
In
I
In
I
I
I
In
I
In
I
In
I
In
Im
O
O
O
O
T
O
O
O
O
O
O
T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
V
V
O
I
V
V
V
O
I
V
V
V
V
Lr)
O
T
O)
T
h
T
O)
N
C'7
O
Lo
O
N
r
r
O
N
O
O
O
O
um'iuu
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
V
O
VIIIIIIIIIV
In
co
O
h
N
O
Co
In
CO
(D
1-
N
N
If)
O
N
CO
N
O
Nro
I
N
CO
If)
u
T
00
Cl)
T
T
c
N
C7
T
lf)
llllulllll l
LO
O
N
coO
CEO
CD
N
If)
°coo
cT
°'
�
0No
Cl)
I
cNo
cn
I
N
c
I�;I'IIIII
LCD
0
^IIIIIIIIIIIII
�I
T
O
T
N
I
co
O
Cl)
T
O
T
N
I
T
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
Sm
10
G
N
O
i+
v
T
O
T
N
co
O
M
T
O
T
N
T
O
N
O
0
CD
v
CD.�
_
��'
N
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
V
O
_0
uuuuum
0
co
M
T
T
T
N
If)
O
0
v
>%
CU
O
N
O
T
O
N
O
O
O
O
uo�^,
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
V
O
--
Sm
V
LO
CD
C
co
M
T
T
T
N
0
v
cu
Ilu��l
O
N
O
T
O
N
O
O
CD
CD
O
O
CD
I
C7
O
C7
CD
I
C7
C7
V
O
uu
�
C
C
�ij
O
N
T
T
CD
CDCD
O
O
CD
Iuy,Nµ
O
CDO
O
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
CD
L
O
V
O
I
O
O
V
O
I
V
V
V
V
0
uoum
L
c
OOr
�
co
Co
co
r
co
N
O
N
000
V
)o
O
o
C)
)
)
o
o
i
In
In
1-
O
M
CO
r
O
Ln
In
1-
O
M
CO
co
cor
N
CD
CO
It
V)
^.
I
I
0
r
O
N
r
r
C7
N
O
C7
C7
O
>
O
O
O
co
C
ce
O
In
Co
O)
Lo
r
N
C9
O
II "mll
O
O
r
I
O
O
O
r
I
O
O
O
O
Ism
O
V
O
O
O
V
O
O
O
V
O
0
+U)
—
uuuuu
U)
.
Eca
++
c
OCD
W
L.
0
0
0
l
o
0
6
6
l
o
o
CD
o
cu
E
ICI
a
y
L
Q
'm
a
r
c m
m
3
a
a
C
a
O
m
ain
v
M
L
a=
C
a
�
a=
=�
a
=
UIIII
CD
m
N
m
N
CD
CD
CD
I
CD
I
I
CDf
I
CDI
CDI
I
I
I
I
I
I
LO
I
LO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
v
I
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
CD
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
o
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
oCD
I
I
r
r
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
l
o
f
I
o
I
oCD
I
I
N
N
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
I
o
f
I
o
I
oCD
I
I
CD
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
I
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
oCD
I
I
CS1
CS1
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
o
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
C7
CD
N
N
CD
CD
CD
C7
r
I
o
f
I
o
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
oCD
I
I
N
N
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
o
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
I
I
CD
I
I
I
N
I
N
I
I
CD
I
I
I
CD
I
I
CD
I
I
I
o
f
I
o
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
LO
LO
C)
0
9
0
9
O
O
C)
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
v
I
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
o
o
cn
cn
o
o
0
o
0
oCD
I
f
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
m
m
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
o
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
�
�
fh
O
r
�
N
C6
N
O
r
oi
O
N
N
C)
r
T
I
O
r
I
O
C7
C)
CD
co
co
CD
CD
CD
I
O
I
I
v
l
O
I
I
O
I
O
I
I
7
�
r-I
�
�
aL+
_�
y
aL-�
7
d
�
7
�
E f4
Ca) 0
O
U
C
,�.,
T >C_ f4
f4
C
U
l6
yd
C
f4
C
U
l6
fn
2
d
N a
Q 70
J
a W C
�
�>�
2
00
N a
Q
7 0
�
Q
2
0
N a
Q
7 0
µ
CO CO r^I N C'7 I- N C'7 I-
�
In In
O O
O O u,C,w 'T O N CO O N CO
C7 O ^"'M' O r O r O r O r
v v I O O O O I O O O O I
In In
O O
O O ulr.. O CO NCO CD co N CO
CD um'iuu CAD O CO CAD O CO
III I r o co l r O co l
co co„, Co cn co Co cn co
v v
r r I � r N N I Cco r N N
CO CO r CO Ln r v CO Lo
III
CD o Lr) Co I CD o Lr) Co
O `' ^ Uf CO O U) CO O
O I I r Cl) Co m l r Cl) m Co l
^IIIIIIIIIIIII
U) U) cc
0 0 uml'
o O
v v I I I I I I I I I I I
L
0
Ilo,
I I � liuuuuu I I I I I I I I I I I
N
0 0
CD o c0
v v I I I I I I I I I I I r
LO LO °I
� 0 0 III
cu
C; 0 v v
IIIIIIIIIIIII
C�
LO LO
CD c
0 o ca
CD o
v v 'Imllllllll I
Lo L
CD 0
0 0
N
L6 L6'I, I
� L
J �
0 0 O I I I I I I I I I I I
C) cn v
v
� II IIIIIII
W P
Lo 0 0 a I I I I I I I I I I I
mH ? m �Eto �
0a wr-
m -o c
m 3 3 a o� a a c 0 ca
;g Cc'cO s
CO M"'� N O co O N
O °) N I � coo I cn N � � I--(IIIIIIIIIII
LO
O
0
0 0 �v o I o 0 0 o I o
O h O h CO O N N CO
V? CO T O um'iuu f` N ll� 4 f`
O O O r VIII iIIV I CA N N m I O
LP h CA CO r .I CO O N N CO
Ocn T N C'7 C7 ICI I CD N N N I CD
III
m � o 0 0 0 0
I- N N I O O O O I O
�.I
O M O v O N N CO
CA IA O 0 °' I N N v N CO T r III'illlii"III
cc
91
L '.. IIIIIIIIIII
O'
��,,,, I I I I I I
II III I I I I I I
cu
0``
CU
luiil
I I I I _0
� IIIIIIIIIII
cu
co
cu
10
cu
ce
C
I I I I � ',�IIIIIIII I I I I I I
C
J`
/1 L
C
O
•cn
I I I I •N
E °? c
wcc
I I I I a I I I I I I I
_ D cc
CA CA •L EIp
'a IL6 CA CA y
Q' a
ao CLo c Lq LI❑
aa—i a 0 co a a in �
O
co
co
rn
LO
r
o
co
1-
00
r
I
LO
r
m
I
CD
O
I
CD
O
I
CD
O
I
I
O
I
O
I
O
I
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
N
�
CNO
CEO
�
COO
N
N
M
I
r
M
O
In
O
N
N
N
It
O
O
Co
N
N
m
I
—
CO
v
LO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
O
N
N
N
It
O
O
Co
N
N
m
I
M
v
O
cc
C
L
0
E.
G
cu
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
0
cu
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-0
//cn�
V
V
cu
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c4
W
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Z)
0
L
m
J
_O
co
co
C
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'0
N
W
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
4-
4—
rn
c
cu
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
DD
a
cu
a y3
o
c
a y3
0 0 33
.r
�
o
(0
r'
CO
CD
a c2
a
s ��
a ��
4
4
U
OOD
OOD
N
�
r
M
O
LO
Co
00
O
CO
r
N
N
O)
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
m
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
LO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
C7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CO
I r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ei.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'Q—i y
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
a
o E
a
-0i a
CO
CAD
O
00
h
N
N
O
q
M
CO
v
O
CO
O
I
r
CO
O
In
I
O
O
O
O
000.
000
N
q
M
C(O.
O
q
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
cn
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
In
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
H�
E
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cr
w
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
0
co
co
�E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
w
�40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
o�
a�a`
m
c
m
a
a
r
�n
2
f`
I I I Icu
E.
0
cu
I I I I
-0
//cn�
V
I I I I
V
cu
a
W
I I I I
EE
0
1 -
L
cLU
0
cu
co
0
I I I I
.N
•E
�
LU
I I I I
L
—
C
P
++
I I I I
O
a
a
////��
VJ
D
cc
L
co
T
co
g o 0
�
�
U
cu
c
c
m
L
0
E.
G
cu
T
V
L
0
cu
W
L^
ram'
cu
I
I I I I I
�
W
E
Q
0
c
L
W
0
m
I
I I I I I
co
cu
0
•0
cn
I
I I I I I
A2
10
W
I
I I I I I
a
-
m
cc
Q
i+
I
I I I I I
a)
c
a
w
D
D
cc
L
C�
C
xm
C
T
7
0 U)-
y m y C y6CD
� o§� a
4
6
4
+L+
U
N
C7
co
T
I I I I I I BII I I I I I I
I I I I I I Im I I I I I I
ummm
I I I I I II;II;I I I I I I I
„III�I
I I I I I ';III I I I I I I
IIIII�I
I
I I I I I �II'w�l I I I I I I
IIII���
I
-^ IIIIIIIIIIIII
I I I I I � Ismllilll I I I I I I
L Iuuum
o III°
I I I I I I � Imlulu I I I I I I
�_ IIIIIIII
I I I I I CU
-ocu
"Imlllll I I I I I I
O IIIIIIIIIIIII
cu
llu
I I I I I I � � Ilmlllll I I I I I I
rn cn
I I I I I I a)E � I''mlulll I I I I I I
c cu'I
oCL,� IIII
� ° � IIIIIIIIIIIII
m � �
I I I I I �° o cu
ca
L
E °,
Q V
Q
N cu cu
I I I I 'o 0
Iul;ll, l
E m
O p CDm m
>, E m
(4 C p
IIIII
cc
C
L
0
C-
G
L
0
/2
V
cc
0
0
III U
I I I I I I
BII
I
I
I I
I I I
I I I I I I
mlllllll
I
I
I I
I I I
I I I I I I
ummm
II„;;II
I
I
I I
I I I
mil
I
I I I I I I
luiw�
I
I
I I
I I I
V
�
IIIIIIIIIIIII
I I I I I I
m,llll
I
I
I I
I I I
�
I I I I I I
�
m111111
I
I
I I
I I I
C
C
U
IV
N
C7
I I I I I
CU
-o
I
I
I I
CD
I I I I N
°ID
IIIIIIIIIIIII
lulllllllll
I I I I I
co
—
u
'mllllll
I
I
I I
I I
C
cn
I I I I I I
�
vml.11llll
I
I
I I
I I I
1
�
cu
I I I I ICLcn
I
I
I I
I I
L
I I I I I
o
0
II
III
I
I
I I
I I
cn
0
I I I I I ImoLU
I
I
I I
I I I I
IIII
++
W
U
L
c
''N^
vJ
-�
I I I I I IcnIII
cu
I
I
I I
I I I I
cc
I I I I I I
I
I
I I
I I I I
Q'
�
uIIllllllll
N
E N O
:�i
.L
��,��
'liii';
II.
N
E
'O
'a V
O
'a > 'a
O O O
.� E fx4 aO+ T C fx4 aO.. C aO.
-7
U
�' E fx4
o n �
O
Q
n n LD
E
�n a)
I�I����I�
a'
N
C7
N
co
a)
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
i
rr0^
VJ
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
a)
z
cu
4-/cu
CO
L
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
C)
C
p
fd
P
}A
'O
f4 fA
f4 N l6
'O
f4 fA
f4 N l6
�
Q
O
T r X
O
O O
�
D
a)
w� n
C p
I
Q
o�
o W -o o I
rn
of
CO CO
co
a` a'
co
Ln
L6
Sri
co
C7
lf)
co
O
M
lf)
co
O
T
cn
Lr)
cq
co
cn
v
N O
lf) O
O O
M
O
O O
O
N O
cn
0)
O O
CD O
N O
If)
N N
O O CD CD CD CD CD
O O O O 10 O fh
N
CO O
N
M O
CO O
O N
O
LO O
O
O
N v O
CO L O
r N O
N
v
O
CO
L
O
co
r
N
O
a)
L
rO
VJ
cu
CD
T
O
Q
CO
Lq
O
y
>
T
N
CD
�
(c
O
N
O
2)
A
N
C%
f
O
U)
a_'
w
(D
0)
m
fA
O
'p
3
gy
cc
3
aw
wv
O.
f6
N
U
C
>p
fA
rL
f6
U C
a
LL
LL
.0
>
U
y6
O
U
O
LL
LL
O
E
E
T•
T•
_�
LL
N
C
U
'C
m
>
>
E
I„L
N
N+
ay
R
a
O.
O
m
c9
N
O
O
f0
O
N
a
O
m
2N
w
O O
Q
Q
�
Ln
L6
Lri
¢
a
w
z
0
0
z
a
Q
C9
a
z 0
O O
O If)
O N
O
co
C7
N
O I-
oq � CD
v O h
� Lo
M CO N
O O O
v v v
O O O
O O O
N
C7
N
N
m
j
0
U)
CD
lilli
IIliil
U ................................
p
III
Q
cc
cu
uumiiiu
Z
VV
N
N
N
ml
m
cu
V
p
N
Z
N
N
N
II
a
c
cB
Iul
N
III
Lf)p
U
III
CO
C
CD
cu
O ',,,,,,,,,
0)
.CD
Im u
N
'T
a)
ccIllpuum
Q
a)
U
U
cr
w
C
>�
W
cc
O
ca
N
"
Q
4-
o
IT
CIO
E
UU
o
Q
�:�IIII'�
lip,
J
>,
�
��
'
J
49
r
ai
�
'
y6
>,
O
0
D
U
f°
�_
N
III
p
C•7
m
m
U
'p
uumll
N
E
N
E
f4
9
p
°
co
°°
p
o
E
�_
C)
uuuuuu
m
`
m
11
N
N
o
n'
�'
a
s
i s z
a
ium a
lri
o
m
L6
ui
w
mii
rn
L6
L6
CO v
Lr) v M
C7
In CO
v O O
v O Lr)
00
r _M co
co If) CO
N h 'T
Cl) in c0
T O T
O N C'7
c
O
4—
ca
L-
a)
c
a)
a)
N
ca
ca
c
y
O
ca
y
w
P
++
3 �o
Co
J
a)
EE
a a
D
O
T-
M
m m
a a
y
T-
cM
T—
a a
L6
L;
a)a)
C
Q
cr
w
T co
q
O
co
�
�
O
U
Q
c
ca
c
O
ca
a)
O]
Na)
ca
c
y
O
ca
y
R
4-+
CD
++
3 v
i
J
a)
E
c
a a
D
O
T-
T
m C
a a
F
_y
�
�
a a
�5
L6
L;
o o o0 0
T T T T T T
Lq 0 Un O O o
1Ln coOLO coOO O
N O N O 4 r
In In In
O O O
O O O O
V O V O V O
co cn co cn co cn
O 'T O 'T O 'T
N T N T N T
o o
La La
atS U � aa U �
CL a a m
O '-O a v N O M -0 N E p_ C
m t m t $ m LO Ln
cm 0)
N L U) L N L y N L C M N
ao m_ m ao m_ m o C. � 2
y _y
3 3 v v
J J
E E E E 2 2
m m m a a
a a a a �5 �5
N
Cl)
CN
N
O
O
N
O
lf)
O
lf)
N
N
0)
C7
a
C)
0
w
c
a)
E
n
cr
W
ca
O
O
ca
c
O
N
N
Q
O
L6
T-
L6
ca
_rn
E
c
D
L6
T-
L6
^N
W
i
rO
VJ
i
N
O
N
U)
co
T-
cn
Q
a
a�
1,L
1.�
cc
V)
O
C
N
C
r�
V
U
c
rn
N
W
LO
O
m
cn
v
O
a
N
T-
N
N
co
Z)
ti
C
O
N
N
c6
T-
N
C
cc
L
U
N
C
co
J
T7
co
T-
LO
4—
ca
_rn
E
C
co
T-
L6
W
Q
H�
O
U
U)
cn
cc
O
m
c6
T-
L6
0
0
cc
CU
E
E
C
cr
C
U
t
N
N
c6
c6
gyp'
LO
LO
IN
r
C6
0.
E
E
L
a
C
0
m
c
c
0
Ln
a)
a)
E
1N 0) O O
Lo 'T O O
f4
0
0
E
W O
c a
a) •U fOA
y a
J `
Ea) _
w can) �
w C
O O Y >
m O 'O fY0 L U E LO
v E a 0 r CL
a
> y en E C a) O
0 U C 0 +' a) 5 +'
E U O C E C
N
a) U .� aS
w — C E — C
N C yig y o
co L
C
` N C N C
0 a d 0 H
E 0 F- c
a) -O — '`C p U •'`C—
E E 0
U
O U w O
O 0 7� a) 0
C
EE '00 f400
•C L 01 C Uf
'E M 9) L r a) co a)
a) _0
> a
E E 'o o) � ;= 2
0 O
E f 3 N -00 c c.0 c
meL O c a) 0 a)
t C:)oU 0 aU
M 3 a) y f00 y
D o c a: g c-°
> _
v Eo as '3 v �Y o a m o U o
U O L f6 .0 U c) U
a .0c r rn N 0 rn
•C .— O. f� C) O f�
a
o y�•• � �a N �a
E OAn - o) -;
L 0ari y �U Q LU
0o
0) Y r U
o Z Z
y m y N> U -> U
0- > N O 0 0
'O U Q E m y v o y V
a) O a) C a) O- C a)
U) c y a) 0 3 0 3
y c E 0 'YO 7 E 0 y 0
•-
0 W C) E Y fA (�
N
U w co O a) -a co m co O W $Ci O W•
0a o EN D Ec� E
0 V y E y 7 cD E- 2 1-
c W >, � 0 W cn
F- L
r E2 _O '0 .0 >�
0 E 0 0 E
'O N r O m$ Q m
c L 0 0- 2 m:U H E o U` y E
D a) _0 O. a) 0) p 0) N y
a0+ -he
L
a) > 0 y~ y 0 f�0 0
U
0 rn 0 0 E >� o a E E M
p. c) a) -O U a) > m H Q)
O
U •C O fA to
p N p7 0 0 •O Z) Y
T O O L f/1 a) a) a)
N
o U a) E m m
U - W 0>> Lo O y,-0
C a L O O. E O- i-. a) m p_ Y
m y L L 0 in —asU) a) a) La
y as r
.O E C o U E C N a c:)C E
O — N a) a) a) C) a)
E
a) U 0 3 X O A Y
_0 a)
'O 'O C N C LO >' C CD
0 2) L L
E rn C— y U t y
o i n U a0i 0 3
'O C 'c U
_ 0 v
> 0 Xtm `° X
N O O y U a) L V O L
= E a) a) U 'O fA 7 c.)O m y6 >_ y O m '� O a)
E 1p - C L W L W
y y� U��
� E o a)m a>i c U � c c U
W 0 — as 20 oay .2 0
'0 v :°
In E 0- E
y U y w O a) O- 2
'0 a y USU) m C y
0 E J E aci a _� m aci a
E o > 0 0 y �_ rn 0 y
HtwvU) c CL >v a
N
cn
O
N
N
N
O
rrU^^
VJ
N-�d
LL
N
4-+
C
U
N
C6
a a a a a a a a
z z z z z z z z
a a a a
o Z o o Z Z Z o
a a a a
o Z o o Z Z Z o
a a a a
Z r Z Z Z o
f4
N
2
N
L C C O
W m
r :3 Lu
c 'a
m U y � ❑
i
7
w con Li0
o U)
L �
� y
C m
N
E
� C
O
O. U
N 7
LO N
O N An
C
U N
fA f4
m E
L U
3 0
�; c
O
0 N
N E
N
a
E
m m
c v
O
-O U
O C
L O
y C
U fA
O. N
U 8
N �
CL
m
_ a L
y U
-O iy
iy N
m —0
L y
O C
E E
U y
y
N y
N
N m
a U
m
Q
w N
N
a
La m
m v
c c
� m
N U
U m
7 O.
N
E
-o m
C C
m m
O O
m a
m
c m
c
0 0
N
m �
m a U
o m
U CO
_N
U
N m a)
Q N a o ca
m U _
w y
U
m
ma o
Qj O m
7 •m0 W >
O m O M
a a a a
N Z N N Z Z Z N
a a a a
r Z r Z Z Z r
r Z r Z Z Z r
a a a a
r Z r Z Z Z r
N
N
cn
r-
N
r
rn
C
ul
C 4)
y �
y
N
� CO
CL N
N E
LO C
w O
O U
N '0O
U �
y Y
CO y
'C
L
N •3
m
Ld E
O U
—0
O C
O
y,,',,..
CO E
O C1
O E
C
2
_y
En
CO
a
p
•mp t
�
ul
•p
CO
IVlljjll
@ O
N
p�
L ay
C
�
•p ''..,,,,
IIViIIIIViI
E W
!,
r
O
CO
LO
O)
C)
O)
1-
CO
N
I-
1-
O
co O
I
m
v
w
w
I
w
m
0
m
I
N N
o
w
o
0
a
a
Q
t
m
a�i v
c c
m
>
Ln
c
� n
r
c �
�
iy
tm
rn a
c p CO)
m r
`o
E i�
O O
Co
�
42
C)fUA
0a
o
Oy cLD
r.........
UU,,,,,',,.
CD
NO.
W
CD
N
y0
a O
U ,L
_0
U
c
_m y
'O
CO
L
•;
W
�..............
O
N
a=.
p
m
O
•�
l6 C
�
V ,,,
...........................
U
7
00CL
y
•�
7
CO
ca
j a �
w
�
>�
65
f6
N
>�
>
y
a
QUA
•C
C1 CO @( 1
/��
W
( 1
C
2
tm
_y
N
_N
N
O_
O
III^;
N
7
•a
•C
f�0
a
a
0c
•y
U
N
'O
L 'O
H H
H
W
Q
a
s
0
J
a
H
H
W
1_
uuumuu
N
C7
N
N
CO N N O I- v
I U� �
w C�7 v
LD
2
8
y
U)
a)
L
0
U
U)
X
N
0
co
N
N
o
U
a
� LL
it
tm U
E
C
$
O
U
.y
�
O
c
a
2
O
O
�
E
3 L)
U
>
F
>
rn
U
o
N
con
w
M
:D
ao
D
ti
O
T
Ocn
r- N
CO
Lo
co
O
O
In
co
O
O
O co
O
CO
LO
CO
In
In
'T
CA N
CO
T
T
co
N
Oi
'T
T
T co
cn
co
co
aco
w
co
O
�
If
N
O CN7
_
_
I w
CD
I °'
o
c
I�
co
I
L I N
c
E
O E L
`O C 7 U) 'O
O O N O E 7 O
O_=
L L 7O E8O O OE a
O LD
Lt
O O m C 0O
wQw
m w a cn Nz aa3
N
C7
O
N
-
1-
co
v
co
N
I\
O
w
m
w
m
N
N N
C7
C7
In
In
OD
r
N
In
O
1f
O
co
w
w
w
M
N
—
—
0 h
o
m
N
h
h
M
w
v
0
O
N
w
O
m
O
v
00
m w
O
m
w
w
I--
m
m
I--
LO
MNNV
w v
N
v
I
�
O
0
I I--
O
w
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
w
w
O
O
O
�
O _
O
M
C
N
P
7
� C
N
O 'O y
O N
C y uJ
y 8 0
0 f6
N U1 CO C
7 O
O O
m L C C uJ 7 L .y O fUA
O Y
y uJ Mn N m N �% y
y uJ uJ Q p
fU4 L
B OE 0' Eci Ui y W
L Op Y" Z �+
r c
O c p c L L N 7 W O 4:
c0i �o E m o �' o 0 3 v r c6 ay o o K
I U y a) uJ 5 5 Q :E L .c E m E c c c W c cg c ur
�° a a) m E � 3 3 U m � r L L c L o o rn >, m c o
a W c'n H = _ _ _ Q = U U U o U a = m U O
O O O O O O O O O m v v N N LO O C'7 In O
N
� O O I O O O I O O C'7 COO � - � I � � N I � I � ''.... i�i N �
U)
0
U
c
�
o
U
O
J
N
.'
w
O
a z°
� aL-.
'C CO
CO =
00 >,
N L
a s
Y
O
co
y
O
m
L
O
m
y
_y
m
N
2
O
C
L
°
N
0
m
N
E
N
7
(i
U
Q
fA
L
a
°
y
N
J
O
Z
y
K
W
O
C
U
r
CO
E
(i
Y
�
w
v
>
>
¢`
C
C
Q'
J
fA
v
L
0
,,
N
W
rn
c
Y
@
co
y
rn
C
W
C
O
�,
N
LL
�,
O
O
o
O
U
a
N
Q
C
c
L
U
r
�p
Ci
N
p
j
y
o
c.
C
°
_.)
FE
O
H
N
U
a
_U
F
CO
H
y
v
L
a
L
y
P
2
a
CO
C
Oo
.0
N
°
-
L
c
°
co
N
0
+-,
=
—
I
L
0
0
M
IL
o
O
Cj
O
v
c
N
Q
>
C
W
(i
O
O
r
Z Z Z
N N
O
U
O y
N _Lm
L L
�a
t
a_o
_O fA
y L �
O y CO)
8 cu
CD
L y
U U ,
o f4
C (L � '
W O ...
f6 N W
EEC
E (Q
E E 2
t t
H H �
id .6 ti
m
CO)
4-/
m
p
N
Co
z
a
a)
E
�
^^W
U
N
l6
Q
N
ccn
'2
w
O
ca
U
y
p
U'
g
y
U)
O
Er
O
C
N
c
Z6
W
7
m
2
p
a
o
U�
�ca
W
�U
W
+-,
W
L
t
>
3
w
ca
CD
°�
N
m
LLI
ca
=
m
O
=
LO
L
m
CO
N
=
Z
I`
=
f`
Z
IJ
C
7
T
E
7
E
O
N
O
N
'D
O
3
O
fA
m
O.
N
w
O
Z
N
ch
N
co
O
qql-
N
I
D
W
N
O
N
N
O
N
O
W
V
W
L
O
U
Q)
U)
U)
c
O
U)
T
E
W
cc
0
0
U
0
0
o
O
E
cn
0
L
E
cc
0
0
W
�+
o
U
O
O
aL
C
m
a
V
cc
m
=
c
J
N
a�
U)`�
L
M
cn
0
T
E
W
N
0
cc
4-
cn
c
cc E
a
L
O
Q U
E (n
0 -8,
C C
.O O
n .nMn
W W
cn cn
c c
0 0
0 0
Lo
N N
0
N
D
c
cc
J
0
0
P
Mn
D
E
ai
W
W
cn
O
c
�
D
o
O
T
C
N
14
cc rn
LM
c J
cc
J m
m
O
O
E W
W N
cc
•L
U �
a�
cu
W Z
T— M
N N
U
O
U)
N
c
O
cn
Mn
W
cc
Q
ai
14
4—
m
_O
E
c
D
M
N
C
cc
J
2
O
C
O
O
W
0
4
14
4—
ca
_O
E
c
D
14
N
cn
D
C
cc
J
O
C
O
Mn
E
W
4-
cn
cc
L6
14
4—
m
_O
c
D
L6
N
C
m
J
N
C
O
cn
Mn
E
W
C
C
rn
m
_O
c
D
(6
N
Q
C
c�
C
Q
.5
cr
W
m
O
C
O
cn
O
E
W
m
0
O
ti
14
4—
m
_O
c
D
ti
N
Q
C
c�
C
Q
.5
cr
W
m
O
C
O
cn
O
W
L
m
c
0
cc
U)
4—
m
_O
E
c
D
O
N
C.
C
C.
.5
cr
W
m
O
c
O
cn
Mn
E
W
N
C
a�
O
Z)
O
14
4—
m
_O
c
D
O
N
Q
C
0
++
cc
N
CD
m
C
O
4—
cc
E
U
Q
c
O
E.
U
0
U)
_O
N co
O O O
N
C7
N
cc
O
0
U
Q
c
O
++
Q
E
cn
c
O
U
L
0
3
n
a�
+'
Ecc
cc
00
�-
U
0
o
c
c
U
crc�
L
cc
cc
LU
L
c
O
o
-c
Li
Q
Q
W
4—
5
w
ccE
O
C
c0
P
O
O
a=O.
?
C
4-
O
s
O
E
O
_
Q
J
N
D
L
N
Q
O
N
M
Q
Q
Q
vl-
O
O
L6
O
O
L6
LO
LO
�
11�
T-
L6
L6
L6
L6
cc
O
E
D
N_
L6
c
O
m
a�
c
a�
4-
cn
cc
c
O
C
N
Q
O
co
T-
L6
4—
O
O
E
D
_M
L6
++
C
c�
E
Q
cr
W
CD
c
.E
O
++
c
O
U
0
c
cc
c
O
tm
O
c
O
N
Q
O
L6
4—
O
O
E
D
L6
c
a�
E
CL
cr
w
cc
O
O
c
O
C
N
Q
O
LO
T-
L6
4-
O
D)
c
D
L6
L6
if
cn
Q
E
a
a�
L_
U-
cc
In
O
W
U
c
N
rn
w
LO
Ln
N
O
m
O
O
ci
0
a
N
_ic
if
c
O
cc
N
c6
if
W
CD
c
cc
U
N
O
c
m
J
co
LO
4—
cc
_rn
E
c
c6
T-
s
W
Q
i
O
U
O
O
cc
O
m
co
LO
cn
O
O
W
4
c
E
ao
Li
0
N
U)
nj
oo
LO
W
_
4
c
E
oo
L6
i
W
4—
0
�
E
—
cc
E
E
n
O
U
U)
cc
V
O
N
'V^
_w
W
cc
E
U
N
Q
M
U
CO
CO
CO
L
cc
CN
G
O
ci
T
4-
O
E
N
Cl)
N
C7
Lr)
7;
cc
a�
4—
cr
W
c
cc
s
cc
N
2
N N
V U
U)O
o x
c
cn
oa
U)
L
U
U)U)
c
W
=
a�i
_
Co
N
>4o
w
'O
cc
N
U)w
:3
U)
m
U
.; >,
c
W
U 2
L
O
ca
2
cc
�=
W
s
cc
2
Ir N
M
4
L6
6
ti ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
cc
a�
O
a�
rn
c
cc
s
U
L
ti co
0
v
0
N
I
W
_
=
U0
Ul
rn
Sri
0
=o
�
W
C9
CDas
N
O
L
p
m
m
o
o
o
a
N
E
�
5
v
m
m
U
U
v°
c
E
c
c
o
o
c
c
0
rn
c
U
U
r
rn
r
r
v
COC)
m
0O
CD
co
U)
CO
7
7
ccn
7
7 N
lL
W
N
a
U
co
r
W
J
W
CO
CO
v
r
CO
CO N
O
4-A
cu
E
cc
L
++
Lo
R
c
a--+
U
cuc
C
L
c
(D ��
U
N
•0
y
:3
^L
I..L
•CU
'
O
M
...
���"W�
L ^
Z
(L
a3
O
c-
o
01
ao
of )
J
N
U)
v
m
J
p
ZO
fA
c
a
uJ
a
c
Ul
T
0
cai
a
O
m
o
J
O
U
U
15
.7
a
m
a
fN�
Q
H
LL
p
W
U
a)
w
N
y a
a
a
cn
N
CD -
CD
ca
04
T-
CD
co
0
N
0
co
ch
0
N
0
0)
co
M
N
N
1-
CD
co
O
J
ay
C
N
E
m a)
aw
N
c7
CD
ull
CQ
Oi
�
o
III I
� I
- I
� I
co
O
co
co
N_
c
c
I
I
I
O
M
M
M
In
uV I
C I
c
cq
00
0o
CDv
o
r
co
CDIII
I
I
v I
L
N
OOD
U)
LO Iv
co
ui
uuuuu
I
O
I
C
I
C
I
o
co 00
N
I
N
I
r
l
N
Oj ViLO
�............
lilili�l �
Lr)
Lr)
co
N
,,
IIIII'
cn
��.,
°:.
O
1-ll�
011�
O
I
O
I
O
I
O
I
O
Q
O
0
1 CDco
cu
co
C6
w
Q
co
V
In
In
�
O
V
I
I
I
N
coCD
c�
co 1
~
C
N r
�-+
co
N
O
r
O
m
�L...
uo„,:.�
I
I
I
I
++
ca
O
O
O
Ocm
�ij
C
<
c
C
•C
Om
}'
�i
I
v
I
N
I
C7
I
co
L
`�
0„„I
O
O
O
O
0
y
N
i ,
❑
c
C
0 ',,.
u,
O
Cl)V,
In
/°�
0
i
U
ICI
I
N
I
r
l
I
cn
co
N
E
r
.�
0
in
oo
c�
O
°
E
N
L;"
I
r
l
r
l
r
l
N
N
LU
'E
ran
E
-o
c
N
W
a ���,I
N
oo
O
h
w
2
co to
cn
•Q-i
O
'OfNA
rr�^^
v♦��
Ncn
CDaiCL
CL
@
•E
a
NaME
I
c
E
c
D
a
°
z
cv
�
❑U
❑
❑
❑
c
a
❑
U�a+c_Lu
coo v Cl) Oro Cl)v cn v r M lr
In m If') U O w w w O In U O w 0 M N 0 U, O w 0
I v - 00 W M I v O W 0 � W 0 I v T oo CEO � W 1CR N
T co O O co co c0 co co
I N I I I I co cn l O I I I I co rn l rn l I I I co °T°
LO LO
O O
0 O O M O c0 M O w M O N M O O M O M
v O O N O h UC O O N O Oo In O O N O I I Oo r V O O O 1 r I r O O CD I r I r V O O O r
CO O N N cn O O O N N M O O N N M
O O I� _ Uf O O r*.: C6O O r*.: vi
I T O O m in I co I T 0 0 0 in I co I T O O rn in I w
coo N v v N co T N CD
O cn r N N I� M O T N N OD OD N T N N
I v °T' CO cn in I I v 0 w m in I v I v T M v CD
M in I LO
Oi N T T T C7
co N v v N O N O
O cn 00 CDr C7 O O N co N O co
CD OD N O I IC7 I v O co N O I I CO N O
CD 0 CDI I CD
O I rn If) I CO I I O I rn If) I co I 1 0 1C43) If) I CO
h M N O h O N O c0 N N O
CD m
I r 0 0 1 I I N I r 0 0 1 I I N I r 0 0 1 I I r
I T I I I I I T I T I I I I I T I T I I I I I T
N
C7
c0 M N O c0 O N h c0 N N O
I O O O I I I O I CD CDI I I O I CDCDO
w v N O co O N O T N N LO
I ui
v 0 0 I l I v I v 0 0 I l l v I v 0 0 I l l v
In In In In q q
I LO LO
v l I I I I v l v l I I I I v l v l I I I I v
1- v N N � O N O � N NCD cn r
I O O O I I I O I CD CDI I I O I CDCDO I I I O
In In
O O
T O M v O O M N O O M M
It O OI v O O O O
OVO I I I IO O
v q N co T O N cn LO c0 N LO
I T O T I I I N I T O T I I I C I T v T I I I °T°
LO LO v LO O O v co O v v M
I rn o co I I I T I co I I I T I co I I I T
ui
h N M N h O M co c0 N M O
I4 M O I I I L I - N o I I I v I - N o I I I v
C'7 w LO M O c0 h T O c0 N
I m co CDI I I N I m O CDI I I m I m v o I I I N
tm
o m m o o m m
co 2¢ w o ¢ w ¢o ¢ w
O
c7
r
v
o
m
00
OT
r
1-
0
CO
N
T
N
r
00
LO
h
N_
I
I
I
I
I
T
c7
LO
0
In
O
T
v
O
0
N
O
O
O
O
M
O
V
O
O
O
I
O
In
O
In
O
In
00
In
N
O
T
O
V
O
O
V
O
T
6
I
T
co
co
In
O
N
h
00
v
0
W
N
r
M
I
00
r-
co
LO
Lo
O
N
CD
CD
r
r
'
r
O
N
I co
N
r
v
O
I
co
o
co
0o
0
I I
D
I
T
00
I
I N
LO
o
Dv
co
O
I
I
I
N
cu
m
L
0
00
co
o
cn
O
'vO
—
10
I
I
I
O
L
LO
0
M
O
O
w
O
cu
DV
cclo
IW
0
I
I
I
O
O
V
106
I
I
I
I
I
c
v)
L
o
O
co
0
cu
l 0
v
o
I
l
l
o
LO
o
LO
CD
o
co
cnc
•m
c
m
I O
I
I
I
CD}'
co
0
Z
C
♦�
0
I N
0
O
co
co
O
O
N
r*-:00
I
I
I
ch
CD
vI
C:
0
'�
♦^
9
'E
cu
J`
^
u
L
0
I N
CD
CDI
I
I
N
W
c
o
cu
I N
I N
C O
a` 2
co
v
O
O
<
O
co
O
T
N
LU
I
I
l0
I
I
0)
l6
I
I
co
ch
O
C
O
CL
O
co
w
a)
5°
L
r
0
.
T-
cc
a
U
w
r-
r-
o
cn
0o
LO
O
O
O
In
I
cd
N
CDv
I
00
r
r
O
T
I
00
CDN
I
h
Uf
O
00
O
O
co
O
O
0
r I
h
In
O
00
O
O
co
O
O
0
r I
M
00
w
0
0
00
M
I.-
00
0
I
m
N
O
v I
cn
00
co
0
0)
00
M
I.-
00
0
I
CO
N
o
v I
I
I
I
17w LO
I
o
I I
I
v
r-
0
T I
LO
o
o
I
v
O
T I
N
C7
O
OT
O
co 0
O
O
O
O I
00
0
O
co
N
O
I
T
CDv
I
r-
co
o
0
LO
I
T
N
CDv
I
O
CD1-
0
T
o
I
o
0
0
o I
N
O
v
O
O
O
O I
co
o
v
I
LO
co
O
T I
0o0
O
O
q
I
cn
co
o
m
o
o
1-
I
Lo
CD
oLO
I
q
w
�
o CD
c6
I
w
o;
CDI
0)
a
_
0) 0)
03
E^
o
a0
a
m c m
o�
CO
in
m
v
°o
coo
m
O
coo
m
r
O
v
L
�i
O
o
m
T
O
o0
r
N
O
v
I
N
v
O
CO
CO
h
O
O
v
T
O
In
N
M
O
CO
CO
O
O
CO
O
O
O
O
I
O
T
O
T
0)
c0
O
c0
O
LO
O
In
In
O
O
In
T
r
O
N
O
O
O
T
I
O
O
O
O
co
O
l
r
O�
r
ONVO
O
O
O
r
I
O
O
O
O
CO
0
00
r
N
O
m
COO
N
O
If
IC7
v
O
O
CO
T
O
h
r
N
O
I
N
O
CO
CO
00
r
0
(q
N
O
Cl)
COO
O
If
�
v
O
6
CO
T
O
I�
N
O
v
I
N
v
O
CO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cu
CO
IC7
O
h
N
0)
O
T
UC
T
O
I
00
N
O
I--
O
r
O
T
O
N
L
0
0)
In
O
In
r
h
O
00
L
ll�
O
O
T
0D
N
O
O
v
h
O
r
I
O
r
O
N
C�
G
O
TO
O
c
O
N
O
O
_i
.�
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
L
0
aq
CD
O
cu
r
N
O
N
O
O
N
O
v
I
CO
If)
O
00
h
CO
O
IC7
0)
O
O
''U)^
V
1-
O
T
O
O
N
r
N
O
v
I
CO
In
O
00
UI
h
O
O
1-
T
N
O
c0
cu
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
(O
E
c
LO
v
O
O
CO
O
h
r
N
O
O
O
O
O
L
CD
CD
CDI
CD
CD
CD
0
L
O
O)
O
O
T
CO
UC
O
O
O
CO
Q
++
O
In
O)
h
O
c)
r
I
0)
L6
r
O
4
N
E
W
L
N
CO
O
0
�
N
O
O
0
v
CO
O
r
I
O
r
O
N
>
0
cu
��
O
O
N
CO
O
O
CO
cc
�_�...
If
00
CD
I
T
r
O
N
W
CA
�+
++
C
+_
cu
cn
LO
L
CO
O
O
-
00
O
O)
L
a.+
CO
O)
O
I
T
T
O
N
CD
Q)
a
N
N
C0
N
N
0)
@
LU
a o
a o
c
c
m
7
c
m
o a
v
r
c
m
N
N
CD
a-i
y3
a c�
8
o
c
a
a y3
a c-i
a
y3
c�
o
CU
4
c0
o
LO
c0
LO
I
N
I
I
I
I
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
fT
N
co
O
O
O
00
co
CD
LO
r
N
co
COO
O
O
r
LO
I
I
N
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
C'O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
I T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
�5
0 n
a
-i a
N C7 In N C7
In cq 00 fh LOco N O �, N
cn I o N Lo v cn I `� cn 1-� I °'
LO LO U)
O O O
0
0 0 0 0 o O o O o O
o f o 0 0 o I v o v o
c0 M h c0 w N in T co
ll� T N O 14: O O O O um'iuu T
O I O O O O I O O O O I O
'T co O v co
N O c0 O N O O O i^„,i r
cn I N v Lo cn I cn�� I °'
co 0) ICI„
N o co CD co rn CD
cn l T N v cn l CD �� I T
17
I I cc
L '.. IIIIIIIIIII
0cu
I I I I I I I I I I I o
o
CU
��d N
IIIIIIIIIII
cc N
1 ollp.
I I o
C ❑
I I I I I I I I I I o„,CD
cu
c 0
o
mcc
°cn , I r
w
I I I I I I I I I Icc o
c�
I I I I I I I I I I I a I cc
cc
co
a a
cYj ` E
o m e a y3 o a Y3 o c a Y3 o a Y3 o N a y3 0
H ❑ Q c Q c in H Q Q c Q c in H V fiu 0 to Q c
Co
In
Ch
N
O
C'7
N
Co
Ln
Ch
N
O
co
CA
00
N
In
I
N
Ln
I
C'7
'T
N
ONO
ICI
In
In
In
In
In
In
In
O
O
T
O
O
T
O
O
T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
I
V
O
V
O
I
V
V
V
V
In
O
Co
T
h
Co
T
M
'T
O
1-
CD
O
O
um'iuu
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
V
O
ViiiV
�
Co
Co
h
Co
'T
O
C7
N
co
C7
r
CA
'T
O
C7
N
co
O
co
co
Co
CDN
O
N
T
I
r
N
r
�
I
C'7
'T
N
co
Vumum
1-
'T
Co
00
Co
h
'T
Co
00
fh
N
fh
N
Co
Co
co
O
I....
mom
N
T
I
N
T
I
C'7
N
coN
lull
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
nm
uuuuum
LO
CD
Illlui '
O
N
Cl?
I
17
17
O
C
I
O
O
O
O
I.
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
10
G
N
O
i+
2
O
T
O
N
C'7
N
CA
T
O
N
C'7
N
O
CQ
O
Q
O
Co
O
_
.�
Illli'
N
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
V
O
T
0
O
T
N
N
0)
r
N
N
C9
1f7
O
Co
>
CU
O
C9
T
T
O
V?
O
O
CD
CDuu�^,
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
V
O
--
Sm
V
LO
CD
C
O
T
N
N
Cn
r
N
N
C9
9
Co
cu
O
C'7
T
T
O
C'7
O
O
CD
CD
O
O
O
I
O
O
C7
O
I
C7
C7
V
O
uu
�
C
C
�ij
O
M
r
T
CD
Ocn
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
CD
O
Iuy,Nµ
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O0
L
O
V
O
I
O
O
V
O
I
V
V
V
V
0
uoum
L
c
�
O
�
(9
q
O
�
N
Or
O
C'7
ai
V
0
0
T
I
o
0
o
T
I
o
0
0
o
i
�;
IIIIII
N M
O
'Tr
O
I
In
N
Ci
CD'T
O
I
Co
N
N
N
O
N
h
VJ
0
N
O
M
r
N
O
M
C7
O
C7
O
O
C
c
'
T
M
CA
'
r
M
N
N
9
'T
O
r
O
N
I
O
r
O
N
I
O
O
CD
CD
•N
Ism
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
O
cn
0
+U)+
uuuuu
LO
;Co
�
C
co
Or
CD
o
W
++
N
O
Nco
O
I
O
O
CDO
ca
C
0
0
CDI
o
0
0
o
o
o
v
o
N
a
y
OS
_
N
y
N
CO
iy
L
f0
C1
O
@
C1
O
�'
m
p
c'
C
m
�-
3
0
m
C-
v
p
(rj
M
+�
L
=�
o
o
o
o
I
f
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LO
I
LO
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CD
CD
D
o
D
D
D
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
v
I
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
CD
o
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
CDf
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
CD
m
m
CD
CD
CD
I
CDI
I
r
r
l
CDI
I
CDI
oCD
I
I
o
cn
m
CD
o
CD
o
CD
oCD
I
f
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
CD
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
I
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
oCD
I
I
cn
cn
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
o
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
C7
CD
cn
cn
CD
CD
CD
C7
r
I
D
I
I
D
D
I
D
I
I
o
I
oCD
I
I
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
o
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
I
I
CD
I
I
I
I
I
I
CD
I
I
I
CD
I
I
CD
I
I
I
o
f
I
o
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
LO
LO
D
D
D
D
D
O
O
D
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
v
I
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
D
o
0)
0)
D
o
D
o
D
oCD
I
f
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
LO
LO
CD
CD
CD
I
o
f
I
o
o
f
o
f
I
o
I
o
I
I
OO
h
C)
17
'T
N
OD
1-
D
17
D
O
C10
CD
CD
D
N
N
CO
fc
I
D
N
N
N
I
D
'T
D
CD
CD
CD
CD
I
O
I
I
CO
w
I
O
I
I
D
I
D
I
I
7
r-I
aL+
3
_�
y
_O.
aL-�
7
a)
7
E
a)
0C
O
U
C
,�.,
T >C_ f4
f4
C
U
l6
yd
C
f4
C
U
l6
fn
2
d
N a
Q 70
J
a W C
�
�>�
2
00
N a
Q
7 0
�
Q
2
0
N a
Q
7 0
µ
N _O Cfl Ln N _O q Lo
T T I w coI Ln °° co co I LO
N N mmu T T
I I Im I I I I I I I I I I I
In In
O 0
O O u, CO IC) N cn CO In N M
C7 O ^"'M' o r O N o r O N
v v I O O O O I O O O O I
In In
O 0
O O ulr.. C) co V N C) co v N
C)O um'iuu O O O O r-
v v VI IV I N w O O I N Co O O
C
Cn cy � C'7 v Un N Cl? v Un N
C N CNO cn I C N CN'�7 c7
rn rn T U) Co T U) Co
CA ui Cl) v CA IC7 Cl) v
N N I CD N N I CO N N
lull
I
00 N T O N T O
CO 0)v CO 0)v o I N U) rn 0)I N U) rn 0) I
^IIIIIIIIIIIII
U) U) cc
CD 0 0 uml'
0 0
v v I I I I I I I I I I I
L
0 III'
Ilo,
I I � liuuuuu I I I I I I I I I I I
N
0 0
C) o c0
v v I I I I I I I I I I I T
LO LO °I
� 0 0 III
cu
C; 0 v v
IIIIIIIIIIIII
C�
LO LO
c
0 o ca
C) o
v v 'Imllllllll I
Lo L
0 0
N
co co'I, I
J cu
co 00
L
0 0 O I I I I I I I I I I I
C) 0
� II IIIIIII
W P
co CD 0 a I I I I I I I I I I I
mH ? m �Eto �
0a wr-
m -o c
m 3 3 a o�7 a a c ca
;g Cc'cO s
Cl)LO
CO r O N
vim) w CD LO T T T I Ln
I I I I ,III I I I I I I
In
O
O
O O OV O Io I O O O O I O
IA CO O N N CO
Cti
v o r m I T Cl)cCl)in I T O T o r C
Cn Uf co r „„ CO O N CO
ir) ir) q m
T cn LO LO III III I T cn co I T
IIIIIII�I„
I
CD
CD CD CD
r irri cqq CDo 0 0 0 0
r N cnv I O O O O I O
0) CO O N_ CO
0) T T iM I T Cl) Cl)� I T
IIIIIIIIIII
cc
91
L '.. IIIIIIIIIII
O'
��IIII I I I I I I
II III I I I I I I
cu
0CU
I I I I _0
� IIIIIIIIIII
cu
co
cu
10
cu
ce
C
I I I I � ',�IIIIIIII I I I I I I
C
J`
/1 L
C
O
,cn
I I I I Mn
E °? c
w cc
°,
I I I I a I I I I I I I
_ D cc
y y •L EIp
'a IL6 y y y
Q' a T7 CD
ao CLo c Lq III ❑
a 0a—i a 0 cn a a in
LO
Ln
r
cn
rn
1-
O
r
000
0
N
N
I
O
I
O
I
O
I
I
O
I
O
I
O
I
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
O
O
C
N
N�co
(9
�
M
M
In
I
N
In
O
00
O
fh
N
N
(9
O
O
00
cn
�
I
N
w
co
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
t
o
0
0
0
O
fh
N
N
O
O
O
00
cn
m
co
m
I
N
LO
co
co
cc
c
L
0
E.
G
cu
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
0
cu
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-0
V
V
cu
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c4
W
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Z)
0
L
m
J
_O
co
co
C
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'0
N
W
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
4-
4—
rn
c
cu
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
D
c
a
E V7
V7 E V7
0.
?
_c
a y3
o
c
a y3
0 0 33
.r
�
o
(0
r
CO
CD
a c2
a
s ��
a ��
4
4
U
°r'
m
v
o000
N
In
O
00
O
r-
O
co
O
v,
00
co
I
I
I
N
I
I
I
ui
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N
C7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
I r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
�
a
o
a
a
�
CCR
ORO
N
In
CD
00
I
O
O
CD
r
�
CCR
o
co
O
�
I
I
I
I
I
N
I
I
I
I
I
In
I
I
I
I
I
CD
I
I
I
I
I
00
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
O
I
I
I
I
I
CD
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
H�
E
n
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
cr
w
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
0
co
co
�E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
w
�40
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
c
o�
a�a`
m
c
m
a
a
r
�n
2
f`
I I I Icu
E.
0
cu
I I I I
-0
//cn�
V
I I I I
V
cu
a
W
I I I I
EE
0
1 -
L
cLU
0
cu
co
0
I I I I
.N
•E
�
LU
I I I I
L
—
C
P
++
I I I I
O
a
a
////��
VJ
D
cc
L
co
T
co
g o 0
�
�
U
cu
c
c
m
L
0
E.
G
cu
T
V
L
0
cu
W
L^
ram'
cu
I
I I I I I
�
W
E
Q
0
c
L
W
0
m
I
I I I I I
co
cu
0
•0
cn
I
I I I I I
A2
10
W
I
I I I I I
a
-
m
cc
Q
i+
I
I I I I I
a)
c
a
w
D
D
cc
L
C�
C
xm
C
T
7
0 U)-
y m y C y6CD
� o§� a
4
6
4
+L+
U
N
C7
co
T
I I I I I I BII I I I I I I
I I I I I I Im I I I I I I
ummm
I I I I I II;II;I I I I I I I
„III�I
I I I I I ';III I I I I I I
IIIII�I
I
I I I I I �II'w�l I I I I I I
IIII���
I
-^ IIIIIIIIIIIII
I I I I I � Ismllilll I I I I I I
L Iuuum
o III°
I I I I I I � Imlulu I I I I I I
�_ IIIIIIII
I I I I I CU
-ocu
"Imlllll I I I I I I
O IIIIIIIIIIIII
cu
llu
I I I I I I � � Ilmlllll I I I I I I
rn cn
I I I I I I a)E � I''mlulll I I I I I I
c cu'I
oCL,� IIII
� ° � IIIIIIIIIIIII
m � �
I I I I I �° o cu
ca
L
E °,
Q V
Q
N cu cu
I I I I 'o 0
Iul;ll, l
E m
O p CDm m
>, E m
(4 C p
IIIII
cc
C
L
0
C-
G
L
0
/2
V
cc
0
0
III U
I I I I I I
BII
I
I
I I
I I I
I I I I I I
mlllllll
I
I
I I
I I I
I I I I I I
ummm
II„;;II
I
I
I I
I I I
mil
I
I I I I I I
luiw�
I
I
I I
I I I
V
�
IIIIIIIIIIIII
I I I I I I
m,llll
I
I
I I
I I I
�
I I I I I I
�
m111111
I
I
I I
I I I
C
C
U
IV
N
C7
I I I I I
CU
-o
I
I
I I
CD
I I I I N
°ID
IIIIIIIIIIIII
lulllllllll
I I I I I
co
—
u
'mllllll
I
I
I I
I I
C
cn
I I I I I I
�
vml.11llll
I
I
I I
I I I
1
�
cu
I I I I ICLcn
I
I
I I
I I
L
I I I I I
o
0
II
III
I
I
I I
I I
cn
0
I I I I I ImoLU
I
I
I I
I I I I
IIII
++
W
U
L
c
''N^
vJ
-�
I I I I I IcnIII
cu
I
I
I I
I I I I
cc
I I I I I I
I
I
I I
I I I I
Q'
�
uIIllllllll
N
E N O
:�i
.L
��,��
'liii';
II.
N
E
'O
'a V
O
'a > 'a
O O O
.� E fx4 aO+ T C fx4 aO.. C aO.
-7
U
�' E fx4
o n �
O
Q
n n LD
E
�n a)
I�I����I�
a'
N
C7
N
co
a)
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
i
rr0^
VJ
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
a)
z
cu
4-/cu
CO
L
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
C)
C
p
fd
P
}A
'O
f4 fA
f4 N l6
'O
f4 fA
f4 N l6
�
Q
O
T r X
O
O O
�
D
a)
w� n
C p
I
Q
o�
o W -o o I
rn
of
CO CO
co
a` a'
co
Ln
L6
Sri
O
Cli
Lf) 00
_O N O
V O
O — O
CO O
'T v
O O
v 0) O
N M O
CO O
'T v
O O
V O
N M O
CO O
'T v
O O
v 0) O
N M O
1-
c N
O O CD CDm O O O O
I O O O O w O fh
�
N
co
N
N O
O
co n
00 —
O
00 _O
N O
N M O
co
—O
O
'
00
O
co
N
M
O
a)
L
rO
VJ
ca
a)
co
0
Q
y
>
N
N
M
O
c
ccO
—
O
_O
N
y
fA
y
N
(%
fA
y
O
c
cn
L
4—�
a_'
y
N
m
fA
'O
p
p
'O
O
y
>
y
w
y
N
fA
'O
p
3
g
3
a`�i
w
v
0
pQ
@fA
UO60 CN
LL
'
O
LCL
LL
.CO
E
E
E
LLC
Nl6
'
ay
a_O
O
O
c9awzUUza¢�C9awzUE
O
O
0
O
0)
a
O O
¢
¢n
Sr
Sr
C) C)
O If)
O N
Cn
Cl)
C)
N
Cl)
Cl) co
co v�
N
co co
� co
Ln 0) Cl)
O O C)
v v v
O O O
O O C)
N
C7
N
N
T
U
O
ul�'IIIIIV�
II,
I•!
•�
/\
III
cu
�
Imp
uumiiiu
�
�
VIIiIIV
N
N
N
O
�
cu
0
N
Z
N
N
IIII
N
a
c
cu
IIII nW
�E
T
of
VI
C
U
o^
N
T
>
m um
0
M
N
�
IIII
c
LO
N
m II,
/11
o
N
O
IIIIIIIIIIIII
T
C6
co
a)
0
U
cr
r♦/RV
LU
c
w
cc
oIII
N
ca
Q
0
4—
cc
cc
y
0
=
_y
US0
Lm-
o
J
r
'
>,'
0
+y'
0
°'
c`)
U
N
N
m
9
O
r
�
o
E
�_
T
c)
uuuuuu
m
`
m
a
N
N
_
a
s
0 Z
a
L6
ium u
N
LO
of
w
Ln
L6
W
mii ilm
L6
L6
_O
N LQ If)
co N co
CD co
C O
(D T 00
coo O If)
,�T r- Cl
O N
r- O co
co 00 NT
M (5
r M �
c
O
4—
ca
L-
a)
c
a)
a)
N
ca
ca
c
y
O
ca
y
w
P
++
Co
J
a)
E
a a
D
O
T•
M
m m
a a
°
y
T-
cM
T-
a a
(n
Lj
Li
a)a)
C
Q
cr
w
r N
fh
O
N CO
CEO
�=
O
U
Q
c
ca
c
O
ca
a)
O]
Na)
ca
y y
R iR
3 v
J
a a
c
O
i
a)
O
ca
E
D
T•
m C
a a
°
_y
T
�
�
a a
(n
Lj
Li
o o o0 0
T T T T T T
Lq 0 Un O O o
1Lq (00 q (00 O O
In In In
O O O
O O O O
V O V O V O
co N co N co N
O ' O ' O '
N T N T N T
o o
La La
atS U � aa U �
CL a a m
° a v aNi ° N v a v ai a c
N L U) 0 L N L U) 0 N L C M N
y _y
3 3 v v
J J
.4
E E E E
m m m a a
a a a a �5 �5
N
c7
N
O
O
N
O
lf)
O
lf)
N
N
0)
C7
a
C)
0
w
c
a)
E
n
cr
W
ca
O
O
ca
c
O
N
N
Q
O
L6
T-
L6
ca
_rn
E
c
D
L6
T-
L6
^N
W
i
rO
VJ
i
N
O
N
U)
co
T-
cn
Q
a
a�
1,L
1.�
cc
V)
O
C
N
C
r�
V
U
c
rn
N
W
LO
O
m
cn
v
O
a
N
T-
N
N
co
Z)
ti
C
O
N
N
c6
T-
N
C
cc
L
U
N
C
co
J
T7
co
T-
LO
4—
ca
_rn
E
C
co
T-
L6
W
Q
H�
O
U
U)
cn
cc
O
m
c6
T-
L6
0
0
cc
CU
E
E
C
cr
C
U
t
N
N
c6
c6
gyp'
LO
LO
IN
r
C6
0.
E
E
L
a
C
0
m
c
c
0
Ln
a)
a)
E
1N 0) O O
Lo 'T O O
f4
0
0
E
W O
c a
a) •U fOA
y a
J `
Ea) _
w can) �
w C
O O Y >
m O 'O fY0 L U E LO
v E a 0 r CL
a
> y en E C a) O
0 U C 0 +' a) 5 +'
E U O C E C
N
a) U .� aS
w — C E — C
N C yig y o
co L
C
` N C N C
0 a d 0 H
E 0 F- c
a) -O — '`C p U •'`C—
E E 0
U
O U w O
O 0 7� a) 0
C
EE '00 f400
•C L 01 C Uf
'E M 9) L r a) co a)
a) _0
> a
E E 'o o) � ;= 2
0 O
E f 3 N -00 c c.0 c
meL O c a) 0 a)
t C:)oU 0 aU
M 3 a) y f00 y
D o c a: g c-°
> _
v Eo as '3 v �Y o a m o U o
U O L f6 .0 U c) U
a .0c r rn N 0 rn
•C .— O. f� C) O f�
a
o y�•• � �a N �a
E OAn - o) -;
L 0ari y �U Q LU
0o
0) Y r U
o Z Z
y m y N> U -> U
0- > N O 0 0
'O U Q E m y v o y V
a) O a) C a) O- C a)
U) c y a) 0 3 0 3
y c E 0 'YO 7 E 0 y 0
•-
0 W C) E Y fA (�
N
U w co O a) -a co m co O W $Ci O W•
0a o EN D Ec� E
0 V y E y 7 cD E- 2 1-
c W >, � 0 W cn
F- L
r E2 _O '0 .0 >�
0 E 0 0 E
'O N r O m$ Q m
c L 0 0- 2 m:U H E o U` y E
D a) _0 O. a) 0) p 0) N y
a0+ -he
L
a) > 0 y~ y 0 f�0 0
U
0 rn 0 0 E >� o a E E M
p. c) a) -O U a) > m H Q)
O
U •C O fA to
p N p7 0 0 •O Z) Y
T O O L f/1 a) a) a)
N
o U a) E m m
U - W 0>> Lo O y,-0
C a L O O. E O- i-. a) m p_ Y
m y L L 0 in —asU) a) a) La
y as r
.O E C o U E C N a c:)C E
O — N a) a) a) C) a)
E
a) U 0 3 X O A Y
_0 a)
'O 'O C N C LO >' C CD
0 2) L L
E rn C— y U t y
o i n U a0i 0 3
'O C 'c U
_ 0 v
> 0 Xtm `° X
N O O y U a) L V O L
= E a) a) U 'O fA 7 c.)O m y6 >_ y O m '� O a)
E 1p - C L W L W
y y� U��
� E o a)m a>i c U � c c U
W 0 — as 20 oay .2 0
'0 v :°
In E 0- E
y U y w O a) O- 2
'0 a y USU) m C y
0 E J E aci a _� m aci a
E o > 0 0 y �_ rn 0 y
HtwvU) c CL >v a
N
cn
O
N
N
N
O
rrU^^
VJ
N-�d
LL
N
4-+
C
U
N
C6
a a a a a a a a
z z z z z z z z
a a a a
o Z o o Z Z Z o
a a a a
o Z o o Z Z Z o
a a a a
Z r Z Z Z o
f4
N
2
N
L C C O
W m
r :3 Lu
c 'a
m U y � ❑
i
7
w con Li0
o U)
L �
� y
C m
N
E
� C
O
O. U
N 7
LO N
O N An
C
U N
fA f4
m E
L U
3 0
�; c
O
0 N
N E
N
a
E
m m
c v
O
-O U
O C
L O
y C
U fA
O. N
U 8
N �
CL
m
_ a L
y U
-O iy
iy N
m —0
L y
O C
E E
U y
y
N y
N
N m
a U
m
Q
w N
N
a
La m
m v
c c
� m
N U
U m
7 O.
N
E
-o m
C C
m m
O O
m a
m
c m
c
0 0
N
m �
m a U
o m
U CO
_N
U
N m a)
Q N a o ca
m U _
w y
U
m
ma o
Qj O m
7 •m0 W >
O m O M
a a a a
N Z N N Z Z Z N
a a a a
r Z r Z Z Z r
r Z r Z Z Z r
a a a a
r Z r Z Z Z r
N
N
cn
r-
N
r
rn
C
ul
C 4)
y �
y
N
� CO
CL N
N E
LO C
w O
O U
N '0O
U �
y Y
CO y
'C
L
N •3
m
Ld E
O U
—0
O C
O
y,,',,..
CO E
O C1
O E
C
2
_y
En
CO
a
p
•mp t
�
ul
•p
CO
IVlljjll
@ O
N
p�
L ay
C
�
•p ''..,,,,
IIViIIIIViI
E W
!,
r
O
CO
LO
O)
C)
O)
1-
CO
N
I-
1-
O
co O
I
m
v
w
w
I
w
m
0
m
I
N N
o
w
o
0
a
a
Q
t
m
a�i v
c c
m
>
Ln
c
� n
r
c �
�
iy
tm
rn a
c p CO)
m r
`o
E i�
O O
Co
�
42
C)fUA
0a
o
Oy cLD
r.........
UU,,,,,',,.
CD
NO.
W
CD
N
y0
a O
U ,L
_0
U
c
_m y
'O
CO
L
•;
W
�..............
O
N
a=.
p
m
O
•�
l6 C
�
V ,,,
...........................
U
7
00CL
y
•�
7
CO
ca
j a �
w
�
>�
65
f6
N
>�
>
y
a
QUA
•C
C1 CO @( 1
/��
W
( 1
C
2
tm
_y
N
_N
N
O_
O
III^;
N
7
•a
•C
f�0
a
a
0c
•y
U
N
'O
L 'O
H H
H
W
Q
a
s
0
J
a
H
H
W
1_
uuumuu
N
C7
N
N
CO N N O I- v
I U� �
w C�7 v
LD
2
8
y
U)
a)
L
0
U
U)
X
N
0
co
N
N
o
U
a
� LL
it
tm U
E
C
$
O
U
.y
�
O
c
a
2
O
O
�
E
3 L)
U
>
F
>
rn
U
o
N
con
w
M
:D
ao
D
ti
O
T
Ocn
r- N
CO
Lo
co
O
O
In
co
O
O
O co
O
CO
LO
CO
In
In
'T
CA N
CO
T
T
co
N
Oi
'T
T
T co
cn
co
co
aco
w
co
O
�
If
N
O CN7
_
_
I w
CD
I °'
o
c
I�
co
I
L I N
c
E
O E L
`O C 7 U) 'O
O O N O E 7 O
O_=
L L 7O E8O O OE a
O LD
Lt
O O m C 0O
wQw
m w a cn Nz aa3
N
C7
O
N
-
1-
co
v
co
N
I\
O
w
m
w
m
N
N N
C7
C7
In
In
OD
r
N
In
O
1f
O
co
w
w
w
M
N
—
—
0 h
o
m
N
h
h
M
w
v
0
O
N
w
O
m
O
v
00
m w
O
m
w
w
I--
m
m
I--
LO
MNNV
w v
N
v
I
�
O
0
I I--
O
w
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
w
w
O
O
O
�
O _
O
M
C
N
P
7
� C
N
O 'O y
O N
C y uJ
y 8 0
0 f6
N U1 CO C
7 O
O O
m L C C uJ 7 L .y O fUA
O Y
y uJ Mn N m N �% y
y uJ uJ Q p
fU4 L
B OE 0' Eci Ui y W
L Op Y" Z �+
r c
O c p c L L N 7 W O 4:
c0i �o E m o �' o 0 3 v r c6 ay o o K
I U y a) uJ 5 5 Q :E L .c E m E c c c W c cg c ur
�° a a) m E � 3 3 U m � r L L c L o o rn >, m c o
a W c'n H = _ _ _ Q = U U U o U a = m U O
O O O O O O O O O m v v N N LO O C'7 In O
N
� O O I O O O I O O C'7 COO � - � I � � N I � I � ''.... i�i N �
U)
0
U
c
�
o
U
O
J
N
.'
w
O
a z°
� aL-.
'C CO
CO =
00 >,
N L
a s
Y
O
co
y
O
m
L
O
m
y
_y
m
N
2
O
C
L
°
N
0
m
N
E
N
7
(i
U
Q
fA
L
a
°
y
N
J
O
Z
y
K
W
O
C
U
r
CO
E
(i
Y
�
w
v
>
>
¢`
C
C
Q'
J
fA
v
L
0
,,
N
W
rn
c
Y
@
co
y
rn
C
W
C
O
�,
N
LL
�,
O
O
o
O
U
a
N
Q
C
c
L
U
r
�p
Ci
N
p
j
y
o
c.
C
°
_.)
FE
O
H
N
U
a
_U
F
CO
H
y
v
L
a
L
y
P
2
a
CO
C
Oo
.0
N
°
-
L
c
°
co
N
0
+-,
=
—
I
L
0
0
M
IL
o
O
Cj
O
v
c
N
Q
>
C
W
(i
O
O
r
Z Z Z
N N
O
U
O y
N _Lm
L L
�a
t
a_o
_O fA
y L �
O y CO)
8 cu
CD
L y
U U ,
o f4
C (L � '
W O ...
f6 N W
EEC
E (Q
E E 2
t t
H H �
id .6 ti
m
CO)
4-/
m
p
N
Co
z
a
a)
E
�
^^W
U
N
l6
Q
N
ccn
'2
w
O
ca
U
y
p
U'
g
y
U)
O
Er
O
C
N
c
Z6
W
7
m
2
p
a
o
U�
�ca
W
�U
W
+-,
W
L
t
>
3
w
ca
CD
°�
N
m
LLI
ca
=
m
O
=
LO
L
m
CO
N
=
Z
I`
=
f`
Z
IJ
C
7
T
E
7
E
O
N
O
N
'D
O
3
O
fA
m
O.
N
w
O
Z
N
ch
N
co
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
EXHIBIT "B"
El Segundo General Plan Land Use Element Excerpt - Page 3-6
Modify the following text on page 3-6
Single -Family Residential
Permits one single-family home on one legal lot at a maximum density of
eight dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot size for new lots is 5,000
square feet.
Two -Family Residential
Permits two residences on one legal lot, either attached or detached, at a
maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. The minimum lot size for
new lots is 7,000 square feet.
Multi -Family Residential
Permits multiple dwelling units in either a condominium or apartment
configuration. A condominium or apartment is a structure or group of
structures containing three or more dwelling units, as defined by the Zoning
Code. The maximum permitted density for multi -family residential is 2-730
dwelling units per acre ��e�-,ua�l -:5.Q0-sAq+m e
feet-an44-8-duAic-on-w-ope if, ater...I eet, excel fair
ro erties that have the Housing Overlay H-O designation that.
permits a maximum densily of 60 dwelling units per acre."
540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan
Permits a mix of residential uses with two possible development options.
Option 1 would allow up to a maximum of 304 units in a Senior Housing
Community with a Multi- Family Residential (R- 3) component, or Option 2
would allow up to a maximum of 58 units in a Mixed Residential
Development (single-family and multi -family units). This designation is
intended to encourage design flexibility and provide transitional densities
and uses that are compatible with surrounding land uses. This designation
is not intended to be used elsewhere within the City.
Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan
Permits a mix of hotel, commercial, and residential uses. The existing
Fairfield Inn & Suites by Marriott and Aloft Hotels, which have 350 and 246
rooms respectively remain and are considered conforming uses. The
maximum allowed gross floor area for the commercial uses is 11,252
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 12 of 17
square feet. The maximum number of residential units is 263.
"Housing Overlay
The overlay applies in combination with the Multi -Family Residential
designation, to �ro erties identified in the General Plan Housing
Element. Permits multiple dwellin units at hi h densities to facilitate
meeting the Cit ''s Regional Housing Needs Allocation RHNA and
Housing Element goals, The maximum permitted density in the
Housing Overlay is 60 dwelling units per acre."
"Mixed -Use Overlay
The overlay applies in combination with Commercial designations to
properties identified in the General Plan Housing Element. Permit;
multiple dwelling units, at high densities in combination with perm,ifted
commercial uses to facilitate meeting the Ci 's Re ional Housin
Needs Allocation RHNA and Housing Elementgoals. The maximum
permitted residential densily in theMixed-Use Overlay is 75 dwelling
units per acre."
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 13 of 17
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
EXHIBIT "C"
General Plan Land Use Plan Excerpt Pages 3-10 thru 3-12
Modify the following text on pages 3-10 and 3-12:
Proposed Land Use Plan
"The following is a discussion of the 1992 Land Use Plan, which indicates
future land uses for the entire City. For ease of discussion, the City is
divided into four quadrants and the proposedland use designations within
that quadrant are discussed. To know what is allowed under each
designation, please reference the land use definitions listed above.
Northwest Quadrant
The northwest quadrant of the City has the most varied mix of uses within
the City. All of the City's residential units, the Downtown area, the Civic
Center, and the older industrial area of SmokyHollow, are located in this
quadrant. The 1992 Plan retains the three residential designations found
on the old Plan: single-family, two-family, and multi-family,pWs-two-new
desjgnafief-s-ofthe 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan 2012 and
the Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan (2022), which is a mixed -use,
high -density residential and commercial designation. In addition this
uadrant contains two high-densily overlay,,designations added in
2024: the Mixed -Use Overlay and the Housing Overlay. These two
designations occupy 4.47 and 5.56 acres respectively and apply
over the existing multi -family and commercial designations. The
overlay designations are Projected to generate approximately 678
additional dwelling units to help meet the 2021-2029 Housin..
Element Regional Housing Needs ,allocation RHNAgoals. The Plan
shows 357.2 acres of single-family, 57.4 acres of two-family, 126.74 acres
of multi- family, 5.65 acres of 540 East Imperial Avenue Specific Plan, and
6.38 acres of Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan. The total number of
dwelling units projected by the Plan is "g-18,67. One of the major goals
of the 1992 Plan is to preserve the residential neighborhoods.
The Smoky Hollow area, which houses many of the City's older industrial
uses, has been designated Smoky Hollow Specific Plan. -The Specific
Plan allows a combination of office, industrial, research and
development, public facilities, parking facilities, and limited retail and
restaurant uses. The Smoky Hollow area is approximately 94.3 acres.
The 222 Kansas Street Specific Plan (222 KSSP) consists of 4.83 acres,
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 14 of 17
which were previously a part of the Smoky Hollow area. The
222 Kansas Street Specific Plan permits primarily office, light industrial,
manufacturing, and research and development uses. The southerly
portion may be used for governmental purposessubject to a development
agreement. Commercial retail and restaurant uses are prohibited.
The Downtown area is designated as Downtown Commercial (8.4acres)
and Downtown Specific Plan (26.3 acres), where existing uses are already
of a community -serving nature. There are also 7.0 acres designated for
Neighborhood Commercial uses along Grand and Imperial Avenues and
at Mariposa and Center Streets. These have been designated only where
there are existing neighborhood -serving commercial uses.
The public schools, private schools, Library, and other public uses are all
shown as Public Facilities. The Civic Center is included in the Downtown
Specific Plan area. In addition, each of the existing public parks are
designated as such. The open space areas under utility transmission
corridors and the preserve for the Blue Butterfly are designated as Open
Space.
The areas designated for parking on the Plan include public- and privately -
owned lots which are necessary to serve existing businesses and the
Downtown area.
The southwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Imperial Avenue is
designated Corporate Office (17.8 ac) allowing a mix of office uses, similar
to what exists there now, with retail in the lobby.
There are General Commercial uses indicated along Pacific Coast
Highway, where there are existing commercial uses. There is also one
General Commercial area along Imperial Avenue, where the Crown
Sterling Suites Hotel now exists."
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 15 of 17
RESOLUTION NO.5474
EXHIBIT "D"
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PLAN EXISTING TRENDS BUILDOUT
1992 General Plan
Summary of Existing Trends Buildout
Land Use Category
Acres
Dwelling
Square Footage
Units
_........._.mm-
... n .....
Si le-Famil Residential
g Y-
357.2
..
2,858....._.
Two -Family Residential
57.4
934
-
540 East Imperial Avenue Specific
-
-
Plan
5.65
3W58
-
Multi -Family Residential
119.7
3,531
-
Pacific Coast Commons Specific Plan
6.38
263
293,650
Mixed -Use Qverlav3
-
335
-
Housing Oerla r
-
195
-
Neighborhood Commercial
6.6
85'
89,110
Downtown Commercial
8.8
18'
383,328
General Commercial
32.62
-
1,421,093
Corporate Office
213.62
-
12,461,324
Commercial Center
85.8
-
850,000
Smoky Hollow Specific Plan
94.3
126
2,973,010
Urban Mixed -Use North
232.5
-
13,166,010
Urban Mixed -Use South
70.6
3,997,936
1241" Street Specific Plan
3.9
1
73,530
Aviation Specific Plan
5.4
-
66,000
Downtown Specific Plan
26.3
232'
1,145,628
Corporate Campus Specific Plan
46.5
-
2,550,000
199 North Continental Boulevard
-
-
-
Specific Plan
1.75
-
70,132
222 Kansas Street Specific Plan
4.65
-
121,532
888 No. Sepulveda Boulevard
-
Specific Plan
2.98
-
206,710
El Segundo South Campus
-
-
-
Specific Plan
142.28
-
4,231,547
Parking
9.95
-
-
Light Industrial
213.82
-
16,190,266
Heavy Industrial
1001
-
z
Public Facilities
87.9
-
-
Federal Government
90.6
-
-
Open Space
77.0
-
-
Parks
50
-
Street and Railroad R.O.W
442.6
-
-
Totals
3,49'
��8
60,290,806
mPopulation Projectio _.-
n
..........
17,8 27
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 16 of 17
I Existing construction and recently constructed, renovated commercial centers and legal non -conforming
residential uses at densities that are currently higher than allowed by the land use designations in this plan will not
realistically be converted to mixed commercial/residential uses and these buildings are expected to remain for the
life of the Plan.
2 The heavy industrial shown on this plan includes the Chevron Refinery and former Southern California Edison
Generation Station. These facilities have processing equipment and tanks rather than buildings and are expected to
remain for the life of the Plan. Therefore, no estimated building square footage is shown.
3 l is Faambek el�seaattlaeiaaa aua..nauaevel l iaag�t that as lee geed4trw....: tle
{ is taw iel Aw t�ae l ec Oat , lf:..01 l i nit built; tl i u m n� r V+1+ems-that-'0anbe- levelopM
Overlay and the Housing1.�� e al ��u p wci i Pl resi ea i l l�lli�t t r T6�e Mixed Use
nine sites ovenµ fand in addition, to the existing multi -family and
commercial Band use designations 7las aro'ected adutviber of dwel,lin units avithin the overha s aare In
addition to any existin dwelling units on the applicable sites
RESOLUTION NO. 5474
PAGE 17 of 17
S
LI
ffiON
w
L
m
r:
Resolution No. 5474 - Exhibit "E"
egend
', Mixed -Use Overlay
wrAt_wuAE
Parcel
eneral Plan
J R-1
SYCAMORE AVE'
R-2
R-3
.. .....
MAPLE AVE
Ell C-2
Nl C-3
OAK AVE
_
k CO
P-F
O-S E
,.. 222KS SP.
888NSBSP
,,,,,_ELM AVE
SHSP
PCCSP
w MARVPOSAAVd
c
C
LU
9NE AVE
PINE AVE
us
Ix
„
OLLY y n°
AVE
City of El Segundo
1-9LLY
PALM
Proposed Mixed -Use Overlay
over the existing General Plan