CC RESOLUTION 3969RESOLUTION NO. 3969
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL
SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A TRAFFIC IMPACT
MITIGATION FEE PURSUANT TO THE CITY OF EL
SEGUNDO'S GENERAL PLAN
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. In order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City, it is necessary
to make provisions for traffic system improvements which are required by new
development within the City.
B. Existing deficiencies in the traffic system shall be mitigated by the City utilizing funds
allocated via the capital budget and capital improvements programming processes and
relying upon the funding sources indicated therein, other than fees imposed upon new
developments.
C. New and /or expanded land uses cause and impose increased and excessive demands on
the City's traffic system.
D. Planning and zoning projections indicate that such new development will continue and will
place ever increasing demands on the City to provide necessary traffic system
improvements.
E. To the extent that new development places demands on the traffic system which require
mitigation and /or improvements, such mitigations and improvements should be funded
through fees placed upon such new development in proportion to the amount of estimated
additional traffic generated by the new development.
F. A public hearing was duly noticed and held on May 21, 1996 pursuant to Government
Code Section 66000 et seq. to consider adopting a Traffic Mitigation Fee.
SECTION 2. Based upon the testimony and other evidence received before it, and upon the
study and investigation made by the City Council and upon its behalf, the City Council further finds as
follows:
A. The City Council, after careful consideration of the matter, hereby finds and declares that
a Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee ( "Fee ") shall be imposed upon new development in order
to finance specified major traffic system mitigations and /or improvements, the demand
for which is created by such developments, as such shall promote the health, safety and
welfare of the City and its residents.
B. The Fee shall be used to pay for the types of mitigations and /or improvements which are
identified in the "Evaluation of a Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee" report ( "Fee
Report") prepared by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, adopted by the City Council on
March 19, 1996, and which are necessitated by new development.
C. There is a reasonable relationship between the use of the Fee and the new development
upon which the Fee will be imposed because the amount of the fee is estimated to be
proportional to the additional traffic system mitigations and /or improvements which are
necessitated by the additional type and quantity of traffic generated by the particular
development projects.
D. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost of the
traffic system mitigations and /or improvements attributable to new development because
the fee was determined by the type of development and the p.m. peak hour trips
generated by the development.
SECTION 3. Based upon the foregoing facts and findings, the City Council of the City of El
Segundo does hereby resolve, determine, and order as follows:
A. FEE AMOUNT. The Traffic Mitigation Fee amount shall be determined in accordance
with the Fee Report (Exhibit "A "). The Fee shall be applicable to all new development
as determined by the Public Works Director utilizing the following unit rates:
Zone 1
Rate per P.M. Peak
Area Hour Generated Trip
$ 87
Zone 2 - West of Sepulveda Boulevard $ 121
- East of Sepulveda Boulevard $ 115
Zone 3 - West of Sepulveda Boulevard $1,478
- East of Sepulveda Boulevard $1,403
Zone 4
$ 52
The area of the four (4) Zones are identified on Exhibit 3 of the Fee Report.
Any development with a peak hour trip generation which occurs at a time outside of the
p.m. peak period, shall be subject to a special study by the Developer to determine
impacts on the transportation system during the peak hour.
The Public Works Director shall make a determination of the Fee within ten (10)
working days of the date an application for new development is deemed complete by the
Planning/Building and Safety Department. The application shall contain the signature of
the applicant declaring under penalty of perjury the truth of all matters stated in the
application and shall contain the following information:
(1) The designated development area;
(2) The gross floor area and the type of development for which each building permit
is sought;
(3) The hours of operation of the intended uses;
(4) Other features of the development which may affect peak hour trip generation;
and
(5) A traffic trip generation study prepared by a traffic engineer relating to the
proposed new development if the developer is proposing a type of development
and /or PM peak hour trip generation numbers different than those identified in
the Fee Report.
The above - required information shall constitute the factors considered by the Public
Works Director in determining the amount of the Fee on a particular development.
B. OTHER LAND USE TYPES.
For other land use types not covered by the Fee Report, the Public Works Director will
determine the amount of fee based on p.m. peak hour trips based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Publication - Fifth Edition and latest updates,
multiplied by the fee rate specified in Section 3 A.
C. TIME OF PAYMENT OF FEE. The Fee shall be paid at the time of the final inspection
or issuance of the certificate of occupancy, whichever is earlier, unless the fee is
attributable in part or in whole to mitigations and /or improvements for which a fund has
been established and expenditures have been approved for projects which are under
construction or construction that is scheduled to commence, in which case the Fee shall
be collected when a building permit is issued for the new development.
D. APPEALS. All applicants may, within fifteen (15) days after receiving written
notification of the Fee, file a written appeal of the Public Works Director's decision with
the City Clerk. All appeals shall be in writing, shall state the grounds for such appeal,
shall specify the factual basis for the appeal and shall contain a signature asserting under
penalty of perjury the truth of all matters asserted in the appeal. Any appeal regarding
the Fee shall be heard by the City Manager, or by his or her designee, as the hearing
officer. Notice of the hearing shall be sent by certified mail to the appellant and the
hearing shall be held within thirty (30) days of the date a completed appeal is filed with
the City Clerk. Within ten (10) days after the hearing, the hearing officer shall send a
written decision by first class mail to the appellant. The decision of the hearing officer
shall be final.
E. TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO FINANCE DEPARTMENT. Upon receipt of Fees, the
City Finance Department shall be responsible for placement of suchfunds into a separate
account.
SECTION 4. Traffic fees collected prior to the effective date of this Resolution shall be utilized
in accordance with the Fee Report and incorporated into this fee program.
SECTION 5. The provisions of this Resolution are hereby found and declared to be in
furtherance of public health, safety, welfare, and convenience, and it shall be liberally construed to
effectively carry out its purposes.
SECTION 6. All Resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the
extent of such conflict.
SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of
this Resolution or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, such decision shall not
affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution or any part thereof.
SECTION 8. This Resolution shall take effect sixty (60) days following its passage.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause the
same to be posted as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of May , 1996.
ATTESTED:
C) y Mort
/City Clerk (Seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attoiney
Sandra Jacobs, Iay r
of the City of gundo,
California
TRAF- FEE.RSO (ruesday 5/14/% 2:00 pm)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) S.
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 3969 was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
21st day of May , 1996, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mayor Jacobs, Mayor ProTem Wernick, Councilwoman
Friedkin, Councilman Weston, and Councilman Gordon.
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
id ;�
'ity Clerk (SEAL)
City of El Segundo
Evaluation of a Traffic
Congestion Mitigation Fee
Prepared for
City of El Segundo
EXHIBIT "A" Reso. #396c
RECEIVED
MAY 1 3 1996 -
.=
Prepared by
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 488 -0345
Adopted by City Council
March 19, 1996
J95 -012
Tom'
I
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................ ..............................1
1.1 Study Approach ........ ............................... .
1.2 Report Overview 1
...........................
1.3 California State Law and Development Fees .................... 3
....... .
1.3.1 Requirement of Nexus .... ............................... 3
2.0 EXISTING AND PROJECTED DEFICIENCIES IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM . 5
2.1 City of EI Segundo General Plan ......... 5
2.2 Congestion Management Program ...................... 5
2.3 Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology
..................
2.4 Unsignalized Intersection Operations Anal . . . . . . .
P ysis Methodology ................. 6
2.5 Existing Traffic Operations Analysis . ............................... 8
2.6 Summary of Existing System Deficiencies ............................. 8
3.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC GROWTH AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM DEFICIENCIES .. 12
3.1 Future Land Use Development Within EI Segundo ...................... 13
3.2 Future Traffic Growth Due to Development Outside of El Segundo ...... .
3.3 Trip Generation of Future EI Segundo Development ...................... 14
3.4. Forecast Future Intersection Levels of Service 19
3.5 Summary of Findings .......... ............................... 19
4.0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
.................. .
4.1 Other Private Funding Assessments
24
4.2 Transportation System Improvements to Accommodate New Growth .......
.
4.2.1 Physical Transportation System Improvement Projects
......... ......
4.3 Transit System Improvements .....
25
...............................
4.4 Neighborhood Traffic Management Programs
28
..........................
4.5 Additional Costs .............
28
...............................
29
5.0 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE DEVELOPMENT
..........................
5.1 Conceptual Improvement Costs ........
30
5.2 Allocation of Impacts /Benefits and Costs by Zone
30
........... ... ... .....
5.3 Trip Fee by Land Use Category and Zone
30
... .........................
30
6.0 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF A TRAFFIC CONGESTION FEE
PROGRAM...................
...............................
6.1 Advantages ................
35
...............................
6.2 Disadvantages ..............
35
...............................
35
7.0 ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION FEE PROGRAM
.........
Adoption........ ...............................
36
Assessment .............
36
............................... ....
Collection ....................
36
...............................
Accounting...................
37
...............................
38
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
'Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
Disbursement
..... ............................... 38
Variances ...................... ............................... 38
Variances .. ...............................
Refunds ................. 39
..... ............................... 39
. . . . ..................
Inflation Adjustments ........ ..... 39
Administrative Expenses ............. ... ..................... 40
Additional Traffic Impacts and Analysis ' ' ' '
Program Updates ............... ............................... 40
APPENDIX A. TRAFFIX Model Calculation Worksheets
APPENDIX B. Forecast Land Use Changes
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
ii
, Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City
List of Exhibits
El Segundo
1. City Roadway System and Study Intersections . ............................... 2
2. Existing AM and PM Peak Hour Levels of Service ............................ 11
3. Impact Fee Analysis Zonal System ........ ............................... 15
4. Impact Fee Analysis without Mitigation AM and PM Peak Hour Levels of Service . 23
5. Transportation Improvement Projects ...... ............................... 26
List of Tables
1. Level of Service Interpretation ........... ............................... 7
2. Existing Intersection Levels of Service ...... ............................... 9
3. Aggregate Trip Generation Rates by Zoning Category .......................... 17
4. Trip Generation by Traffic Analysis Zones .. ............................... 18
5. Existing and Baseline Analysis Levels of Service (without Mitigation) ................ 20
6. Estimated Costs of Transportation System Improvements ........................ 32
7. Allocation of Traffic Impacts /Benefits by Zone ............................... 33
8. Proposed Impact Fees by Land Use Type ... ............................... 34
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
iii
ffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Se.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents a detailed evaluation of a potential traffic congestion mitigation fee program for the
City of El Segundo. A transportation fee program would require that new growth throughout the City
which contributes to future transportation system deficiencies (via added traffic on the roadway and transit
systems) should pay its fair share of improvements required to alleviate those deficiencies. All new
vehicle trips would be viewed as both using and benefiting from future transportation improvements. A
fee is being examined because of the 'perceived need for additional funding for improvements to the
transportation system.
Per California law, a city -wide traffic congestion fee program must establish a reasonable relationship
(often called the "nexus test ") between the fee being levied on new development, the impacts of that
development, and facilities paid for by the fee program. Specifically, it must be proven that the need for
transportation system improvements results from new development, not simply from existing deficiencies.
Also, the fee which is charged must not exceed what is required to mitigate the impacts of new
development, otherwise, the impact fee program would be charging new development to pay for
deficiencies resulting from past land development or development outside of the City. A comprehensive
technical analysis has been conducted in E1 Segundo for purposes of establishing the "reasonable
relationship" of new development to the proposed fee.
The objectives of the study are:
• To examine the geographic distribution of projected growth, transportation system
deficiencies, fee generation, and transportation improvements in El Segundo.
• To estimate the required costs to mitigate or partially mitigate projected deficiencies on the
system.
• To estimate the fee levels which would be necessary to cover the costs, or partially cover
the costs.
• To provide a summary of advantages and disadvantages of a uniform fee, and discuss related
policies.
1.1 Study Approach
The study approach has included in -depth technical analysis, as well as meetings and coordination with
City staff. A City -wide traffic impact model has been established to analyze existing transportation
system operations and future projected conditions. The model covers the entire City and includes 34 key
intersections (30 are currently controlled by traffic signals and foul are stop sign controlled). Two peak
traffic periods have been analyzed using the model: AM peak (7:00 -9:00 AM) and PM peak (4:00 -6:00
PM). Both existing (1995) as well as forecast future traffic conditions have been evaluated. The traffic
model has been used as the basis of the technical evaluation of a traffic congestion mitigation fee.
Exhibit 1 illustrates the City's roadway system and displays the intersections included in the analysis.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates. Inc
1 �
0 e
1S a31N30
1S V1007
mo
'
F
U I
�
¢
Cl)
_ O
m
=
W
�I
1 �
0 e
1S a31N30
1S V1007
mo
'
U I
I
OAIANOl1Y/AV �
-'
�
Q
7s�,Jtaii
15 N0073H5
J
yI
1
a0 SnidA7Y0n3
;
is srl0noa
,
-`
p
c
15 NIM
Y /1Y1N3NLL
rl
q
N CO)
N0'J
/�
1
O
7FL
is=0dv
w
1S HSYN
\
cc
'
�
1
pp
�
pp I q
' 1S HSYN
V
'�
e
a•� �
1
Q
C
1
�O
nr
�
e
YS
y
f+OLV
l0
a
�
78 Y1N3NI1N00
"190
o
1
15153a0771H
ISlaOdalv"I
1S
N
A97
e
O
=
1
.—
..1
N
N
° o
N
N
o
10
U
0
c
U
rn
o
N
N
Ci
y
c
U
U
U
OA Y03A7nd3S
U
U
ld
W W
N'^'
y
L
=a
=U
Sa
U C
> .
e
G
0
O
cc
(
1S
NOiSN/HSVM
N
N '
1S VIN80917V0
1
N
N
i
(�
1 �
0 e
1S a31N30
1S V1007
mo
'
U I
W�
y
15 N0073H5
J
yI
1
a0 SnidA7Y0n3
\
p
c
15 NIM
•�
q
1
O
7FL
1S VWISWA
pp
e
e
i
�O
�
e
YS
y
f+OLV
a
"190
o
15153a0771H
e
.—
..1
w
° o
M
o m
o
0
c
a.
c a
rn
o
c
c
W W
N'^'
J
L
=a
=U
Sa
U C
> .
e
G
0
O
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation
of El
As shown in the Exhibit, some of the study intersections are completely controlled by El Segundo, some
are partially within the City and partially outside, some are completely outside the City, and some are
controlled by Caltrans. All intersections are included since they will likely be impacted by future land
use growth.
1.2 Report Overview
Chapter 2 presents the traffic model and network analysis, and identifies the existing deficiencies in the
transportation system. Chapter 3 discusses future forecast traffic growth due to land use development
in the City and identifies the portion of development eligible for the impact fee. Chapter 4 presents a
list of potential transportation system improvements designed to partially mitigate the impacts of future
growth. In Chapter 5, costs to remove deficiencies are calculated and the uniform fee is developed for
various land use types. Chapter 6 presents the advantages and disadvantages of a uniform fee versus a
zonal fee which varies from one portion of the City to another.
1.3 California State Law and Development Fees
The State of California adopted Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987, which created Section 66000 et seq. of the
Government Code and imposed certain conditions on local agencies for the establishment or increase of
any fee related to the development of a project. The conditions imposed by AB 1600 (i) require a nexus
or benefit between the fees imposed and development the fee is imposed on, (ii) specify procedures
related to the use and accounting of fees paid to a public agency, (iii) provide for the dedication of
property in -lieu of fees, and (iv) prescribe when fees can be collected.
1.3.1 Requirement of Nexus
AB 1600 requires that there be a nexus between fees imposed, the use of the fees, and the development
Projects on which the fees are imposed. Furthermore, there must be a relationship between the amount
of the fee and the cost of the improvements. In order to impost a fee as a condition to a development
project, a public agency must do the following:
Identify the purpose of the fee.
2. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the
facilities must be identified.
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed.
4. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and
the type of development project on which the fee is imposed.
These last two requirements appear to be repetitive, but are meant to address the issue raised in Nollan
v. California Coastal Commission. There must be a clear trail from (i) a development project,
(ii) impacts this project has on public facilities, and (iii) fees collected from the project to mitigate the
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
impacts on those facilities. In other words, it would not be appropriate to impose a fee to pay for a
public facility, and justify the fee because the project created impacts on other facilities.
The public agency must also determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of a
fee and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to new development.
Implicit in these requirements is a stipulation that a public agency cannot impose a fee to cure existing
deficiencies in public facilities or improve public facilities beyond what is required based on the impacts
from new development.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
2.0 EXISTING AND PROJECTED DEFICIENCIES IN THE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
2.1 City of El Segundo General Plan
The purpose of a potential congestion mitigation fee is to fund improvements required on the
transportation system due to new development within the City. The City of EI Segundo General Plan has
substantial relevance to the transportation impact fee program. A general plan is a community's
constitution for land use and development and, as required by law, is a comprehensive, long term
document that describes plans for the physical development of the City. The performance standards for
the transportation system are defined in the General Plan in terms of traffic level of service (LOS) as
follows:
Policy C1 -1.2 - Aggressively pursue implementation of all Circulation Element policies such that
all Master Plan roadways are upgraded and maintained at acceptable levels of service.
Policy CI -1.3 - Provide adequate roadway capacity on all Circulation Plan roadways.
Policy CI -1.4 - Construct missing roadway links to complete the roadway system designated in
the Circulation Element as warranted by roadway operating conditions of Level of Service "E"
or "F ".
Policy CI -1.6 - Provide adequate intersection capacity to the extent possible on Major, Secondary
and Collector Arterials to prevent diversion of through traffic into local residential streets.
Policy C1 -1.13 - Require a full evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with proposed
new developments prior to project approval. Further, require the implementation of appropriate
mitigation measures prior to, or in conjunction with, project development. Mitigation measures
shall be provided by or paid for by the project developer.
(Pages 4 -51 and 4 -52, City of El Segundo General Plan Circulation Element.)
There are many additional goals, policies and objectives that relate to the transportation system in the
City. Please refer to the General Plan for additional detailed information.
2.2 Congestion Management Program
The State of California adopted the Congestion Management Program (CMP) in 1992 with the passage
of Assembly Bill 471 and amendments. The requirements for the CMP became effective with voter
approval of Proposition 111 in June 1990, which provided for a nine cent increase in the state gas tax
over a five year period. In passing the CMP statute, the legislature noted increasing concern that urban
congestion was impacting the economic vitality of the state and diminishing quality of life in many
communities. The County of Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) was
appointed the County's CMP agency, responsible for adoption and administration of the CMP.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
The Los Angeles County CMP directly affects El Segundo in several ways. First, the impacts of El
Segundo development activity on CMP designated roadways and intersections must be mitigated or the
City could lose a portion of state gas tax funding that would otherwise be returned to the City. In
addition, the City must track annual development activity and provide appropriate transportation
mitigation measures to offset development impacts on the regional system. A city -wide impact fee, once
adopted, will enable the City to allocate funding to necessary mitigation measures on the CMP system
as well as on non -CMP roadways in the City. This will assist the City in meeting CMP requirements.
2.3 Traffic Operations Analysis Methodology
Consistent with City of El Segundo guidelines for project - related traffic impact analyses, traffic operating
conditions were analyzed using standard intersection capacity analysis techniques known as the
"Intersection Capacity Utilization" (which is referred to hereinafter as 'ICU "). The ICU methodology
was used to analyze signalized intersections.
The efficiency of traffic operations at an intersection is measured in terms of Level of Service (LOS).
Level of service is a description of traffic performance at intersections. The level of service concept is
a measure of average operating conditions at intersections during an hour. It is based on average vehicle
delay measurements and /or volume -to- capacity ratio. Levels of service range from A to F, with A
representing excellent (free -flow) conditions and F representing extreme congestion. As described in
Section 2. 1, based on the General Plan, LOS E and F are considered to be deficiencies on the arterial
network. Table 1 describes the level of service concept and the operating conditions expected under each
level of service for signalized intersections.
2.4 Unsignalized Intersection Operations Analysis Methodology
Analysis of unsignalized intersections is conducted differently from signalized intersections due to
different operating characteristics. At signalized locations, all approaches to the intersection are subject
to delay by a red signal indication. At unsignalized locations, however, only the minor street traffic (i.e.,
the traffic movements subject to a stop sign) and left - turning traffic from the major street are subject to
delay. The major street through movement is never forced to stop to accommodate other traffic (unless
there is a four -way stop). At unsignalized intersections, the level of service is therefore calculated for
the minor street traffic movements and the major street left turns only. Major street through traffic is
not constrained and measurement of level of service is not necessary.
The end measure of LOS at an unsignalized intersection, the reserve capacity, is the difference between
the potential capacity and the actual or estimated traffic volume. The City of El Segundo has not adopted
a standard criteria to determine unsignalized intersection significant impacts. For purposes of this study,
unsignalized intersections are considered deficient if overall LOS is projected as E or F.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
TABLE 1
LEVEL OF SERVICE INTERPRETATION
Level of
Service
Description
Volume
to
Capacity
Ratio
A
Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite
0 -.59
open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find
freedom of operation.
B
Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted
.60 -.69
within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. An approach
to an intersection may occasionally be fully utilized and traffic queues
start to form.
C
Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait more than 60
.70 -.79
seconds, and back -ups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most
drivers feel somewhat restricted.
D
Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait more than 60
.80 -.89
seconds during short peaks. There are no long- standing traffic queues.
This level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods.
E
Poor operation. Some long - standing vehicular queues develop on
.90 -1.00
critical approaches to intersections. Delays may be up to several
minutes.
F
Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups form locations
Over 1.00
downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of
vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes
carried are not predictable. Potential for stop and go type traffic flow.
Source:
Highway Capacity Manual, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., 1985
and /ntenm Materials on Highway Capacity, NCHRP Circular, 212, 1982.
fic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
2.5 Existing Traffic Operations Analysis
AM and PM peak hour level of service analyses were conducted for the study intersections based on the
peak hour traffic volumes in the City and the Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology described in
this section. The peak hour traffic volumes, which are based on manual turning movement counts, were
used to analyze traffic operating conditions. All traffic counts were taken in 1995 on typical weekdays.
Peak hour counts were taken from 7:00 -9:00 AM and 4:00 -6:00 PM with the highest per hour volume
being used in the analysis process.
All intersection capacity analyses are performed using the TRAFFIX (Traffic Impact Analysis) software
program. The analysis results for the 30 signalized and four unsignalized intersections are summarized
in Table 2. The complete TRAFFIX model output showing all level of service parameters for each
intersection is included in Appendix A to this report.
The data in Table 2 indicates that during the AM peak period, six locations currently operate at LOS E
or F, while the remaining 28 operate at LOS D or better. During the PM peak period, eight locations
currently operate at LOS E or F, with 26 at LOS D or better. Exhibit 2 illustrates the existing
intersections which are operating at LOS E or F and are therefore considered deficient per the General
Plan.
2.6 Summary of Existing System Deficiencies
The results of the City -wide traffic analysis indicate several intersections which currently experience
operating deficiencies, as defined in Section 1. Existing deficiencies are summarized below.
SUMMARY OF EXISTING INTERSECTION DEFICIENCIES
Time Period
Intersections at
LOS PE
Intersections at
LOS F
Total LOS EIF
Intersections
AM Peak Hour
2
4
6
PM Peak Hour
3
5
8
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
TABLE 2
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
Aviation Boulevard / Imperial Highway
Aviation Boulevard / 120th Street
Aviation Boulevard / El Segundo Boulevard
Aviation Boulevard / 135th S[reet
Aviation Boulevard / Rosecrans Avenue
Douglas Street /Imperial Highway
Douglas Street / Mariposa Avenue
Douglas Street / EI Segundo Boulevard
Douglas Street / Utah Avenue (1)
Douglas Street / Rosecrans Avenue
Nash Street / Imperial Highway
Nash Street / Maple Avenue
Nash Street / Mariposa Avenue
Nash Street /Grand Avenue
Nash Street / El Segundo Boulevard
Nash Street / Rosecrans Avenue
Continental Boulevard / Mariposa Avenue
Continental Boulevard / Grand Avenue
Continental Boulevard / El Segundo Boulevard
Sepulveda Boulevard / Imperial Highway
Sepulveda Boulevard / Maple Avenue
Sepulveda Boulevard / Mariposa Avenue
Sepulveda Boulevard / Grand Avenue
Sepulveda Boulevard / El Segundo Boulevard
Sepulveda Boulevard / Hughes Way
Sepulveda Boulevard / Rosecrans Avenue
California Street / Imperial Highway
Center Street / Grand Avenue (2)
PM Peak Hour
TABLE 2
EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE
TAB].TAB 2 -20.96
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
Intersection
Center Street / El Segundo Boulevard (1)
(1)
C
(1)
C
Main Street / Imperial Highway
0.85
D
0.80
D
Main Street / Mariposa Avenue
0.61
B
0.64
B
Main Street / Grand Avenue
0.43
A
0.53
A
Main Street / El Segundo Boulevard (2)
0.35
A
0.74
B
Vista Del Mar Boulevard / Grand Avenue
0.77
C
0.58
A
Notes:
1) Intersection has stop signs on one cross street - no VIC analysis possible
2) Intersection has stop signs on all approaches (all -way stop control)
General notes:
- Level of Service estimates based on traffic counts . conducted in 1995
- Some intersections are partially or wholly under the control of other
jurisdictions ( Los Angeles, Caltmns), but are included in analysis since they
are important traffic control locations'
Bold and shade iddicate Level o
I Service E or F intersection conditions
TAB].TAB 2 -20.96
I
e
ro
h, c
U
i
3
i
a I
E
n
4j
e
LL. f� Ltl e W CJ L
I
1S NOIDNIHSVM I
IS Vill :0V0
N m I
15 a31N3Om U
� I
m U O 2
1S V11W07 2 O
1 W '
W
W
V
� H
y m
W J
tLL.
7
U 0
2
4 Y
o a
a
W M
H !_
W
Q
N
x
W
W
H
J
! V
V C
C
m
=
N
=
0
w
N
q
---------
OA78
m i
i
_
0
NOI1VIAtl
W
z
I
e
ro
h, c
U
i
3
i
a I
E
n
4j
e
LL. f� Ltl e W CJ L
I
1S NOIDNIHSVM I
IS Vill :0V0
N m I
15 a31N3Om U
� I
m U O 2
1S V11W07 2 O
1 W '
W
W
V
� H
y m
W J
tLL.
7
U 0
2
4 Y
o a
a
W M
H !_
W
Q
N
x
W
! V
V C
C
1S N0073H5
_O
N
q
---------
OA78
m i
i
_
NOI1VIAtl
W
�,�
! 0
n
m
,assnonoa
J
m
Q
lssnonoa
ly
,•
J
MIS N
NIVW M
Q 0
M m h
' �IAYM lYUI3NLLNOJ
ti
1S HSVN
1$ 0770dV
" I
'�
Q'
Q
¢
Goa^
•`: 1S HSVNN
IS
I
e y
Q79 V1N3N/1NOO
>6
3
yy
°' �
�� w
15laOdalVl
G[
StPpE`M °
1S
A973S
Z
I
Qa
!
LL
OA717 V03A7nd3S Q
I
e
ro
h, c
U
i
3
i
a I
E
n
4j
e
LL. f� Ltl e W CJ L
I
1S NOIDNIHSVM I
IS Vill :0V0
N m I
15 a31N3Om U
� I
m U O 2
1S V11W07 2 O
1 W '
W
W
V
� H
y m
W J
tLL.
7
U 0
2
4 Y
o a
a
W M
H !_
W
Q
N
x
W
� \ 0 I N
l � i
r r
' Y� U
! V
V C
C
1S N0073H5
a0 SnldAlVOn3
! 0
0
MIS N
NIVW M
Q 0
M m h
h
ti
•
IS
e y
yy
°' �
�� w
w
StPpE`M °
rc
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
3.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC GROWTH AND TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
DEFICIENCIES
Future traffic operating conditions have been forecast using the City -wide traffic model and the
Intersection Capacity Utilization methodology consistent with analysis of existing conditions. The
procedure used to estimate future deficiencies includes the following steps:
1. Define local land use development potential within El Segundo. This includes known
"approved" projects, projects that are currently applied for, and parcels which are likely to
develop or redevelop.
2. Estimate vehicle trip generation for each project and parcel using nationally accepted trip
generation rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
3. Adjust ITE trip generation rates for pass -by trips (retail land uses), the Metro Green Line,
and for short distance "intra - zonal" trips.
4. Develop a future "base" roadway network within the traffic model which consists of existing
roadway geometrics plus anticipated improvements which will be implemented.
5. Assign future forecast trips to the roadway system.
6. Forecast future levels of service using the procedures described in Chapter 1.
7. Identify deficiency locations resulting from future development.
This chapter describes each of the elements listed above and also includes a summary of the results of
the analysis of future traffic conditions.
Typically, city -wide impact fee programs may exclude the impacts of any of the following:
I. Inter - regional travel (trips which pass entirely through the City).
2. Traffic generated by the development of low and very low income housing.
3. Traffic generated by high density residential development within close proximity of a fixed
rail passenger station.
4. Traffic generated by arty mixed use development located within close proximity of a fixed
rail passenger station, if a significant proportion of the land area or floor area is used for
high density residential housing.
Of these potential exclusions, only inter - regional trips may be removed without jeopardizing the
reasonable relationship of the impact fee to new development. If specific land uses such as low income
housing are excluded, then their impacts must also be excluded from the analysis, or the costs to mitigate
them must be removed. If the land uses are excluded but the impacts included, then other development
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
12
Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
would pay more than a fair share of costs. For this City of El Segundo Fee Program Study, the impacts
of all projected development in the City are included, but inter - regional through trips are excluded.
3.1 Future Land Use Development Within El Segundo
City staff conducted detailed research regarding potential future land use changes and growth in the City.
Anticipated land use changes are used to assess the level of traffic impact on the City's roadway system
resulting from new vehicle trips. The traffic analysis is broken down into two parts, including:
1) Baseline analysis covering future traffic conditions due to growth that cannot legally be
included in the traffic impact fee program, but which must be accounted for as "background"
traffic growth, and
2) Impact Fee analysis which covers all other growth which is subject to the fee program.
The types of growth anticipated in El Segundo include the following:
• Approved projects (part of "baseline" analysis, but not subject to fee).
• Future occupancy of currently vacant commercial and industrial buildings (also part of
"baseline" analysis)
• Recycling of older buildings to newer, more dense development. These are sometimes called
"under- utilized" parcels (part of "impact fee" analysis)
• Construction of buildings on currently vacant parcels (part of "impact fee" analysis)
A list of all approved projects, vacant commercial and industrial buildings, recyclable parcels and vacant
parcels is included in Appendix B.
The baseline analysis essentially covers land use changes and growth over which the City has no direct
control at this time, including already approved projects and existing buildings which are wholly or
partially vacant. Approved projects will create trips upon occupancy and vacant buildings will generate
vehicle trips upon re- occupancy. Although this type of growth is not legally subject to an impact fee
program, it must not be excluded from the technical analysis or else the future forecasts of traffic
conditions will be inaccurate.
The other two types of growth, including development of vacant parcels and re- cycling of older buildings,
will occur over a long -term time horizon. Clearly, not every vacant parcel or recyclable building will
develop in the next 10 or 20 years. The impact fee program must therefore reflect a realistic level of
development. For purposes of this analysis, an increment of 20 percent of the anticipated impact fee land
use growth is assumed. That is, it has been assumed that 20 percent of the potential development on
vacant land and recyclable parcels will occur during the planning horizon (through year 2015), and that
the remainder of the growth will occur after 2015.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates. Inc
13
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
The approximate level of new development anticipated in the next 20 years and included in the impact
fee study are as follows:
• Approved Projects (included in baseline) - 1.26 million square feet of office, warehouse,
retail and restaurant, 28 dwelling units, 350 hotel rooms and 3550 theater seats
• Ibcant /Partially %cant Buildings (included baseline) - 4.06 million square feet (assumes
100 percent occupancy)
• %cant Lou (subject to fee) - 6.2 million square feet total buildout, of which 20 percent or
1.24 million square feet is assumed in the next 20 years
• Recyclable Buildings (subject to fee) - 8.98 million square feet total buildout, of which 20
percent or 1.79 million square feet is assumed in the next 20 years. -
Traffic Impact Fee "Zones"
The fee structure is based on relative level of development, impacts and benefits in different parts of the
City. For example, anticipated development is much higher is some areas of the City and therefore the
proportionate impacts will also be higher and more improvements will be implemented to benefit those
areas. Therefore, a proportionately higher fee is recommended in portions of the City, based on
anticipated level of impact to the transportation system.
A geographical zone system has been set up in order to analyze traffic impacts in different parts of the
City. All development activity has been assigned a specific zone number, and traffic impacts and
improvement costs are evaluated based on zonal location. Exhibit 3 illustrates the four traffic analysis
zones.
3.2 Future Traffic Growth Due to Development Outside of El Segundo
Major development projects outside of the City boundaries may also impact future traffic conditions in
E1 Segundo. For purposes of determining system improvements, costs and the traffic congestion fee,
however, those trips must be excluded. This is done to avoid charging City of El Segundo development
with costs associated with projects located outside of the City. The analysis discussed in this report
specifically excludes external traffic growth from the fee calculations per state law.
3.3 Trip Generation of future El Segundo Development
Future increases in AM and PM peak hour vehicle trips have been estimated based on the land use
changes described above. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, Fifth Edition,
1991 publication has been used as the source of the trip generation rates. For each City land use zone
type (C -2, M -1, MU, etc.), we have developed hybrid trip generation estimates from the ITE rates. The
rates were then applied to the land use growth forecasts to obtain future increases in vehicle trips.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
14
�������Y FYM IYI/BWIIp'J i
15077 V'
1S NSYN
3
U'
i
OA79 VO3A7Od3S
eoo
f
i
I
i
.t
e i
2
C '
i
i
(
P
1s193ao-n/H � j.
GIF 1C P P r
P
P
s •
y y
W
c
1.- C
V N
Q
O
'2w a`
v W
W LL
CO r
J V
W to
CL
E
w
c
n
0
V z
y 8
Q �
F
a
� a
w` $
S V
f�
W
F-
U
m
-_
= CO)
= CO
X
0
w
r
O19NIHSVA
0
15 MNaOdI7
c
1SN3/N3O =.
e
U
e
U
•
e
15 tlLNOl
g
�
wi
f r
E
iSNOG73H,S
•1lO SOidA7YJO3
i
�—
1S mm
i
¢
1 @'MAM9NG1
�������Y FYM IYI/BWIIp'J i
15077 V'
1S NSYN
3
U'
i
OA79 VO3A7Od3S
eoo
f
i
I
i
.t
e i
2
C '
i
i
(
P
1s193ao-n/H � j.
GIF 1C P P r
P
P
s •
y y
W
c
1.- C
V N
Q
O
'2w a`
v W
W LL
CO r
J V
W to
CL
E
w
c
n
0
V z
y 8
Q �
F
a
� a
w` $
S V
f�
W
F-
U
m
-_
= CO)
= CO
X
0
w
r
0
z
�������Y FYM IYI/BWIIp'J i
15077 V'
1S NSYN
3
U'
i
OA79 VO3A7Od3S
eoo
f
i
I
i
.t
e i
2
C '
i
i
(
P
1s193ao-n/H � j.
GIF 1C P P r
P
P
s •
y y
W
c
1.- C
V N
Q
O
'2w a`
v W
W LL
CO r
J V
W to
CL
E
w
c
n
0
V z
y 8
Q �
F
a
� a
w` $
S V
f�
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation
City of El Se )zundo
To customize the trip rates for El Segundo, it was necessary to make two adjustments: one for "pass -by"
retail trips and one to account for trip reduction benefits of the Green Line. Studies have shown that
most retail projects generate some trips known as "pass -by" trips and "diverted" trips. Pass -by trips are
not new vehicle trips, but instead are simply diversions of existing trips. When a new retail store is built
on a corner, some of the patrons of the store will be from persons who would drive by that site anyway.
Therefore, that trip is not new (it was on the street system already) but is actually just diverted into the
driveway of the new store. The generation of "pass -by" and "diverted" trips is well documented and
must be accounted for to avoid over- estimating new retail - related trips.
For purposes of this analysis, the pass -by trip estimation procedures recommended by ITE were reviewed.
Based upon the data presented by ITE and the types of retail projects proposed in the City, a 25 percent
adjustment was applied to the trip generation forecast for all retail and restaurant land uses. With this
adjustment, the City -wide increase in retail trip- making has been forecast as accurately as possible without
double counting existing trips. This adjustment is especially applicable in El Segundo where many of the
new retail developments are part of mixed use buildings and where many trips are multi - purpose and
serve more than one land use. This is a relatively conservative assumption since some studies have
documented pass -by trip rates as high as 50 percent of all trips to /from certain retail projects. Since we
do not know the exact nature of the retail development that will occur, the 25 percent adjustment is
reasonably conservative and does not artificially reduce too many future vehicle trips.
Another necessary adjustment accounts for the Metro Green Line. ITE trip rates do not reflect the type
of transit services provided by the Green Line. Therefore, it is necessary to reduce ITE trips to reflect
the persons who will use the Green Line instead of driving into El Segundo for work. A conservative
estimate of five percent reduction due to the Green Line has been applied. This adjustment is consistent
with data developed in the recent Green Line Circulator Study and based on data from MTA. Table 3
describes the aggregate trip generation rates for each land use zoning category in the City. The data in
the table indicates that the highest trip generation rates result from neighborhood commercial land uses,
followed by general commercial, downtown commercial, urban mixed use and corporate office.
The peak hour trip rates for those zones range from a high of 4.40 PM peak hour trips per thousand
square feet for neighborhood commercial land uses to 2.83 PM peak hour trips per thousand square feet
for corporate office type uses. Industrial land use zones generate fewer trips per thousand square feet,
as reflected by the rates in Table 3. They range from 1.08 PM peak hour trips per thousand square feet
for medium manufacturing (zone includes light industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, R & D and other
similar uses), to 0.65 PM peak hour trips per thousand square feet for heavy industrial.
Table 4 breaks down the impact fee trip generation by traffic analysis zone. The data indicates that the
baseline growth is projected to result in 60 to 65 percent of the total future trip increase (varies by peak
hour). The new development subject to the impact fee will generate about 35 percent of the total AM
peak hour traffic growth and 40 percent of the PM peak hour growth.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
16
,aF
V
F
U
C7
N
M
a
F QOQ
CC
W
z
w
t7
a
rF^^
V
v
v
v
�i
m
o
0
gg
ell
O
O
r
C
p
�
.
r
09
N
o
M
b
y+
N
N
N
O
O
O
O
m
O
D:..
O
O1
vbi
m
N
pmp
a
.r
O
O
—
^n
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
eWyq+
r
V
V
O
N
N
•'•
R
b
V
b
b
vi
�
R
yN
�'+
W
W
W
y
W
a0 om0
00
00 r
�
ramom
N
—eo
—oo
e
0
v
z
ME
m
s
°
u
OD u
C
T
'� C 'O R
C Ep d •6
'�
C N
Y
N
fE
EE N
SP
m vl
v.
t
u s
y .4
u
m .
.V 9
.N
�u
�.�. .u.
L
� w u u
E „a t s
v
u�
°
C
C am—
G C y
d� �
L❑ A�> q
C'y 'g
G
L. ry
2S A
y
�
�
.m
.`
c
•n
O Q gyyy H
6
�
O
>
G }�
L
O
U
��ccK
9
9
r
>
9 C
G
y
Q� j
obi V
Q�
L'•
m
w
,�
A
p y;.
^G
c
i
e
h 1
v k
z
7
r.a
as
R
z
N
h
E'
C
U
W
9
0
z
U
al
W
rn
N
S
N
h
n
O
,e q
a
N
V
�
g
d
Z
3
L'
o
r
a
oo
a
�o
ono
ern
m
o
0.
v
vi
m
&
a
yGLQ
'a
W
N
oo
N
U +ws. Q.
v
J
y
{
_
�
p 4
ip
�R
ep
m
eo
.�i
4y ti
9 V
W m
�.� E.'
fic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
3.4 Forecast Future Intersection Levels of Service
Future intersection levels of service were forecast following completion of the tasks outlined in the
previous sections. The forecasts have been split into the following categories:
Future with Baseline Development, and
Future with Baseline Development plus Development Eligible for the Impact Fee Program
These forecasts were generated by assigning the future trips shown in Table 4 to the local roadway
system, including the 34 study intersections. Table 5 displays the results of the future baseline forecasts
and impact fee forecasts compared to existing conditions.
The table also compares baseline forecast conditions to future intersection operating conditions including
baseline growth and remaining anticipated land use growth which is eligible for the impact fee. It is
important to note that the conditions shown in Table 5 are without mitigation which would be funded and
implemented by the fee program. Those mitigation measures are described in the following chapter.
The future forecasts reveal the following:
Future "Baseline" Conditions. With baseline growth only, the number of intersection
deficiencies (LOS E or F) is projected to increase from eight LOS E or F intersections
currently to 18 in the future with baseline growth. The impact fee cannot be used to directly
fund the improvements needed to mitigate those impacts since they are the result of approved
projects and re- occupancy of vacant or partially vacant buildings.
Future "Impact Fee" Conditions (prior to mitigation). With the remainder of the
anticipated growth in the City, the number of deficiencies is expected to increase from 18
with baseline growth to 23 with total growth. The impact fee can be used to mitigate the
impact of these incremental deficiencies.
3.5 Summary of Findings
Baseline
AM Peak hour - 14 intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F with the addition of
baseline growth (not subject to the fee program)
PM Peak hour - 18 intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F with the addition of
baseline growth (not subject to the fee program)
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
19
kn
a
i
s
s
z
0
F
A
O
U
z
a
O
0
U
W
F
z_
F
W
z
Q
z
F
iC
W
x
Q
Sis
rx,%
'ir.
i�
_.Lsr
m
is,;
a
ITr
ks
3iL
}
m
U
¢
U
A
to
'u
•�
G
�.
�
0\
00
b
O\
�O
h
O�
�.
�
M
7
O\
O�
N
t�
vl
n
W
�O
M
o
uai
rte!
¢
m
m
ra
u.
sc!
a
�
O
P
O
00
N
vi
7
�p
in
N
o
D`
O
V
O
7
a0
O
M
M
O�
O
O
O
.gyp
O
O
O�
O
1
.,�.�
�
•�
V
e��t
00
0�0
N
�
.M.
�
00
M
N
OD
N
O
O
�
O�
O�
�'�.
S
U
a
U
U
m
a"
D
0
0
N
00
h
W
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
�
m
'�
rg
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
U
m
u
(J
Q1
O
p
COOS
z
z
z
VI
z
v1
z
h
z
Q
C
U
C
m
C
0
U
cc
Ca
o
U
a
O
c
rn
y
a
O
c
�
W
..7
F
z
0
F
A
z
0
U
C7
z
�d
w
w
0
z
0
F
U
W
W
F
z.
a
F
U
w
A
C7
z
F
rr
DC
ril
W
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
Baseline Plus Impact Fee Growth
• AM Peak hour - 21 intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F with the addition of
total growth (baseline plus impact fee)
• PM Peak hour - 21 intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F with the addition of
total growth (baseline plus impact fee)
• Total (AM and PM Peak) - 23 intersections are forecast to operate at LOS E or F with the
additional total growth.
A summary and comparison of the existing deficiencies plus deficiencies due to baseline growth and
growth subject to the impact fee is presented below. Exhibit 4 illustrates the intersection deficiency
locations with added baseline and impact fee development growth.
SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND FUTURE
FORECAST INTERSECTION DEFICIENCIES
Time Period
Intersections at
LUS E
Intersections at
LOS F
Total LOS E/F
Intersections
AM PEAK HOUR
Existing
2
4
6
Baseline
1
13
14
Impact Fee
6
15
21
PM PEAK HOUR
Existing
3
5
8
Baseline
2
15
18
Impact Fee
3
18
21
TOTAL (AM AND PM)
Existing
Baseline
Li—mpact Fee
8
18
23
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
22
LU
J
Q m
Z
W
0
F I • �,\ z
Rrte. mI
— — — — V
L• � W LL LL Q � � \5� ��- ^� Qi
i
i5SV7vn0 O
LL•m mn 15 SY1'J/100 LLm �\ � �• y
W m :i a'• ""• W w N
I U� — "� n� 6� ( 11J --; d
�IAYM tY:N3NLLNOJ LL w,
a 1S on Y ( V J
1S HSYN
W Li 1S HSYN `" a
N O
l8 Y1N3NtbVO a;in Q
I 15 1S1G'Od1lY W ' C n
AB73S I W
d
Hi
�I LLN LL LL LLN OA79 Y03A70d3S
Z LL LL i a
1S NOIONIHSYM (
Q
1S Y/NHOd17Y0
N
Ci I
j 15 d31N3O N'
S m LL
� I
O U O N
U J .
} ¢ 1S Y1007
g K .
I ci
f 1S NOO73H5 W � 'g
p a
3 HO SN1dA7Y003 I V
pp m 15 NIYW
i
1S WNISHIA
NW Q y aay°
1S1S3dOnIH �� ~
•
cgPN I u
o
�� 4a
Y� U
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation
4.0 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Citv
El Segundo
Section 3 describes the future transportation system deficiencies which are projected due to growth in El
Segundo. The purpose of a traffic congestion mitigation fee is to fund improvements to completely or
partially reduce the impacts of new development in the City. This section describes the list of
recommended projects and programs that have been developed to mitigate the deficiencies.
It is important to note that these projects and programs are not expected to fully alleviate all deficiencies.
Improvements which would completely eliminate all deficiencies are not feasible since they would require
very costly roadway widening, taking of property to obtain right -of -way, or imposition of extremely strict
trip control measures which may be perceived as harmful to business and to the City's "economy. In
addition, it was shown earlier that the level of development subject to the impact fee generates only about
38 percent of the total increase in tripmaking in the City (excluding external through trip growth). The
fee program has therefore been designed to collect the "fair share" contribution of 38 percent of the total
cost of improvements. Other funding sources such as federal ISTEA funds, grants, state gas tax
collections and other sources must be used to pay for the rest of the improvement costs.
A combination of physical infrastructure improvements plus programs to alleviate transportation system
deficiencies through vehicle trip reduction/transit are recommended as part of the first year mitigation fee
program. The recommended improvement measures are described below. Please note that these
improvements are targeted to the increment of impacts generated above and beyond the impacts due to
the "baseline" growth (approved projects and re- occupancy of vacant buildings).
4.1 Other Private Funding Assessments
There are several development projects for which one -time fair share traffic impact fees have already been
identified as part of the project review and approval process. Those developments will only be
responsible for the fee as stated in the original City Council resolution or ordinance, and shall receive
credits for all one -time fees paid if they participate in the fee program due to future development activity.
This will prevent the overpayment of fees for approved projects. The previously assessed one -time fees
are described below.
1951 -61 East El Segundo Boulevard - Payment of a one -time traffic improvement fee of
$265,000 to fund traffic system improvements to mitigate the adverse impacts on traffic
circulation attributable to the project.
• 1400 E. Holly Avenue - Payment of a one -time traffic improvement fee of $0.20 per square
foot of gross living area and car parking areas, as a fair -share contribution to the cost of
area -wide traffic mitigation.
400 and 444 Continental - Payment of a one -time traffic improvement fee of $251,665 to
fund traffic system improvements to mitigate the adverse impacts on traffic circulation
attributable to the project.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates. Inc
24
fic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Se
• Mixed Use Commercial Project at Northwest Comer of Grand Avenue and Continental
Boulevard - Payment of a one -time traffic improvement fee of $237,000 to fund traffic
system improvements to mitigate the adverse impacts on traffic circulation attributable to the
project.
• 2310 E. Imperial Highway - The applicant shall pay a one -time traffic mitigation fee of
$1.00 per gross square foot of building area.
• 1415 E. Grand Avenue - The applicant shall be required to pay fees, prior to issuance of
building permits, in accordance with a pending study on transportation impact fees and
adoption of a traffic impact fee ordinance by the City.
• 2301 - 2381 Rosecrans Avenue /810 -820 Douglas Street - The applicant shall pay a one-
time traffic mitigation fee of $1.00 per gross square foot of building area.
4.2 17ransportation System Improvements to Accommodate New Growth
In conjunction with City staff, a set of physical transportation system improvements has been developed
to address the forecast system deficiencies. These measures are described below, and the share of their
costs included in the fee program are described. Exhibit 5 illustrates the location of each physical
improvement which is described below and included in the fee program.
4.2.1 Physical Transportation System Improvement Projects
There are several transportation improvements currently planned in the City of El Segundo which will
help mitigate both existing and future roadway deficiencies, and several new improvements have also been
recommended. The City -wide traffic impact fee can be used to fund the portion of those improvements
which relate directly to new development subject to the fee. The entire cost of on -going improvements
cannot be funded by the fee since they have been previously identified as needed to relieve existing
deficiencies. However, the improvements will also provide direct mitigation for future development and
therefore the costs can be partially offset by the fair share fee program. The following projects are
included in the fee program:
• Widening of Aviation Boulevard - Rosecrans Avenue to Imperial Highway. The project cost
within El Segundo City limits is $4.6 million. ($3.9 million of MTA and federal grants
have been allocated for this work). The scope of work involves adding one lane in each
direction. The portion of the cost included in the citywide fee is $200,000.
• Widening of Sepulveda Boulevard - Rosecrans to El Segundo Boulevard. The City share of
project cost per City- Caltrans agreement is $870,000. The scope of work involves adding
one lane in each direction.
• Widening of Mariposa Avenue - Nash to Sepulveda Boulevard. The scope of work involves
widening the north side of the roadway between Nash and Sepulveda. The cost included in
the fee program is $89,300.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates. Inc.
25
i
I
I
I 15 N
aA873s
I �
p Q
F U
U
Q
e '
w i
i.
(
LI
is svmnoa
3 7B Y1N3N/1NOO
r�
lS ldOdlllYl
H H y ,I.-
Lu y
is N31N3O
1S Y11WO7
s3aonlH
I
J
U Z
a ¢
U W
¢ °
a °
w
J
m
N
i U)
s 'y
W
z
O
'
Z
E
I
y
OA7B I NO/1V/AY
I
Q
¢
1 �►
n
E
c N
3
2
m
lb
0
°
i
I
I
I 15 N
aA873s
I �
p Q
F U
U
Q
e '
w i
i.
(
LI
is svmnoa
3 7B Y1N3N/1NOO
r�
lS ldOdlllYl
H H y ,I.-
Lu y
is N31N3O
1S Y11WO7
s3aonlH
I
J
U Z
a ¢
U W
¢ °
a °
I
1 pFYM 1Y1N3NI1NOJ
1 a I
I 1 1s onodY
Ca y •L 1S HSYN I
� I
N Iw
x I
IA78 VO3A7nd3S I
y y
i
i
i
Q I
2
W i
O
C
I
I
w
J
m
N
i U)
4
W
z
O
'
Z
I
1 pFYM 1Y1N3NI1NOJ
1 a I
I 1 1s onodY
Ca y •L 1S HSYN I
� I
N Iw
x I
IA78 VO3A7nd3S I
y y
i
i
i
Q I
2
W i
O
C
I
I
w
V
p �O
y C
W
LL E
V
CL
� a
E
0
'2 0
uj
V
ti a
W H
C
m
H
m
C
m
a
0
Q �
a
w
i
r
'
E
n
E
c N
3
2
m
lb
0
°
m
c m
O
N
U
m
Y
Fa
N 'N
a
Oa°li
a
m
o
W,
a
v
o`I
JLL
Q
a;i
Za$
u1
w
5
j
(nO
Q
Y
t
CA
0
l
w
V
p �O
y C
W
LL E
V
CL
� a
E
0
'2 0
uj
V
ti a
W H
C
m
H
m
C
m
a
0
Q �
a
w
i
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
• Construct left turn pocket for northbound Continental Boulevard at Grand Avenue.
Estimated project cost is $65,000; cost included in the fee program is $24,700.
• Douglas Street Extension from Park Place to Alaska Avenue - $2,000,000 of the total $9.5
million cost is recoverable from new development.. The remaining costs are covered by
other funding sources.
• Convert existing two way streets on Nash /Douglas to a one -way couplet - $500,000 cost;
$190,000 included in the fee program.
• Signalization improvements at three intersections - Sepulveda /Maple, Sepulveda /Grand and
Sepulveda /Mariposa - $75,000 cost; $28,500 included in the fee program.
• Extend WB Left turn pocket on Imperial Highway at Main Street by 150 feet - $25,000 cost;
$9,500 included in the fee program.
• Mariposa Avenue Extension - Extend Mariposa Avenue from Douglas Street to Aviation
Boulevard. This improvement . will include traffic signal improvements at Aviation
Boulevard.
• Grand Avenue Extension - Extend Grand Avenue from Duley Road to Aviation Boulevard.
This improvement will include traffic signal improvements at Douglas Street and Aviation
Boulevard.
• Lairport Street Extension - Extend Lairport from Maple Avenue to Walnut Avenue /Selby
Street. This improvement will include traffic signal improvements at Walnut Avenue /Selby
Street.
• Nash Street Extension - Extend Nash Street from Park Place to El Segundo Boulevard. This
improvement will include traffic signal improvements at Hughes Way, at -grade rail crossing
improvements and an underpass.
• Hughes bllzy Extension - Extend Hughes Way from its current eastern terminus to Utah
Avenue. This improvement will include traffic signal improvements at Nash Street and Utah
Avenue as well as at -grade rail crossing improvements.
Please note that for all of the street extensions described above, it is assumed that the developers of the
adjacent parcels will directly pay for the cost of improvement to local street standards (equivalent of a
40 -foot roadway in a 60 foot right -of -way). Improvement to local street standards directly benefits
adjacent land owners and is part of the normal subdivision process. For these reasons, those costs are
not included in the fee program. The additional cost to improve the new streets to secondary arterial
standards (per the General Plan) is included in the fee program. Therefore the costs listed in Table 6 for
the street extensions include the incremental cost of improvement of the new streets from local street
standards to secondary arterial standards. Costs to improve traffic signals, at -grade rail crossings and
an underpass are also included since they are part of the cost to improve to secondary arterial standards.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
27
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
4.3 Transit System Improvements
In addition to physical street system improvements which enhance roadway system capacity for vehicles,
transit system improvements are also recommended which enhance person -trip capacity. In general, if
new person -trips can be accommodated by transit, then fewer costly roadway system improvements will
be required.
The City of El Segundo is already served by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) bus and
rail services as well as a shuttle system connecting El Segundo to the Metro Green Line. These services
are assumed in the forecasts of future transportation system conditions. In addition to MTA transit
services, the following new transit system enhancements are recommended for inclusion in the traffic
mitigation fee program:
Enhanced City-wide shuttle system designed to serve additional local trips between City
activity centers, the Green Line and adjacent communities. This includes additional shuttle
bus service on unserved routes and /or increased or modified service on existing routes. The
significant number of new trips and the levels of service in the future clearly warrant
additional transit services to serve new development. The one -year cost of operations,
assuming eight additional shuttle vehicles at an average cost of $40 per hour, is $489,600
(costs derived from ESEA Green Line Circulator Study). The impact fee can be used to
"capitalize" this service, to get it started and maintain it for a reasonable period of time. It
cannot be used to fund on -going operational costs of the service over time. Therefore, the
cost equivalent to six months of operating expenses is included in the impact fee program.
After that time, additional revenues must be obtained to maintain the service. The cost
included in the impact fee is therefore $244,800.
4.4 Neighborhood Traffic Management Programs
One of the critical impacts of new development is the intrusion of traffic and parking into residential
areas. This can result directly from new development which occurs near residential neighborhoods and
generates vehicle trips which use residential streets for access. It can also occur due to development
along commercial corridors away from residential areas, which contribute to arterial congestion and
results in traffic "spillover" onto residential bypass streets. It is not feasible to predict the precise
location or extent of neighborhood traffic intrusion, therefore, generalized costs associated with initial
setup of a neighborhood traffic mitigation program are included in the fee.
In the past, City staff have reviewed neighborhood traffic management requests from citizens in response
to current residential traffic intrusion problems. Future problems resulting from new development must
be mitigated via an organized neighborhood protection program. This improvement measure includes
the following components:
Costs to design an implement a comprehensive City -wide neighborhood traffic protection
program (estimated cost of $25,000).
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
On
Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation
City of El
Costs associated with implementation of a neighborhood traffic management program - initial
capital fund of $100,000 to cover design and implementation of various neighborhood traffic
management mitigation tools on affected streets and neighborhoods.
4.5 Additional Costs
Additional miscellaneous costs included in the impact fee program include a $35,000 cost for initial set -up
of the fee program plus $25,000 required to update the road impact fee program every five years, over
the 20 year planning horizon included in the study (for a total cost of $135,000 related to fee program
set -up and updating). The costs of updating the program are intended to cover both additional traffic
analysis and reviews of the methodology for determining the impact fees.
Additional costs related to the annual administration of the road impact fee program, equal to three
percent of the fees collected, have been added to the road improvement costs to determine the cost per
trip. The costs of administering the program should be monitored annually, and should the costs be less
than three percent of the fees collected, the percentage should be reduced appropriately.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates. Inc
29
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
5.0 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE DEVELOPMENT
Previous sections of this report have described the analysis of existing and future transportation system
conditions as well as recommended improvements to mitigate deficiencies caused by growth. This section
presents conceptual cost estimates for those improvements and describes trip fees disaggregated by type
of land use and by traffic analysis zone.
5.1 Conceptual Improvement Costs
Table 6 illustrates the estimated conceptual costs of transportation system improvements (both physical
improvement measures and programmatic costs) necessary to accommodate new development. The total
cost of improvements included in the fee is $15,822,608.
5.2 Allocation of Impacts /Benefits and Costs by Zone
The traffic model has been used to determine the relative contribution of each of the four traffic analysis
zones to each intersection/roadway deficiency. The amount of traffic from each zone through each
deficient intersection has been assessed and is presented in terms of percentage of the total traffic increase
through each intersection. This information is used as a guide to the impacts by zone as well as the
relative benefit by zone. Table 7 illustrates the percentage contribution of each zone to each deficient
intersection location. The data indicates that Zone 3 development contributes 85 percent of new trips to
the deficient intersections. The other three zones only contribute from 3 to 7 percent of the new trips
through deficient locations.
5.3 Trip Fee by Land Use Category and Zone
Based on a total of 9,098 PM peak hour trips attributable to new development (proportion eligible for
an impact fee), the per trip cost on average is $1,739. The actual fee differs based on location within
the City due to the differential impacts and benefits by zone. The final step is therefore the allocation
of the fees based on zonal impacts and benefits. Table 8 presents the proposed impact fees by land use
type by zone. The fees in this table have been factored to account for the trip generation rate of each
land use type and the relative impact and benefit of each zone. Overall, Zones 1, 2 and 4 have very low
fees due to the fact that most trips generated by proposed development in these zones do not go through
many deficiency locations, while Zone 3 fees are highest due to the fact that Zone 3 development projects
directly impact many deficient locations on the roadway system.
A summary of the fee structure is as follows (refer to Table 8 for exact fee structure):
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
a
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation
• Single family dwelling
• Multi family dwelling
• General Retail
• General Office
General Light Industrial
• Hotel
of El Segundo
fee ranges from $53 per unit in zone 4 to $123 per DU in zone 2.
$26 per unit in zone 4; no other zones have multi - family housing.
fee ranges from $193 per ksf in zone 4 to $5,466 per ksf in zone 3
fee ranges from $98 per ksf in zone 4 to $2,764 per ksf in zone 3.
fee ranges from $81 per ksf in zone 1 to $1,449 per ksf in zone 3.
fee ranges from $40 per room in zone 4 to $1,123 per room in
zone 3.
Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
31
TABLE 6
ESTIMATED COSTS OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
Proposed. Improvement
lbtal
Estimated Cost
New Development
Share of Costs
Widening of Aviation Boulevard - Rosecrans to
Imperial Highway (Add one lane in each direction)
$4,600,000
$200,000
Widening of Sepulveda Boulevard - Rosecrans
Avenue to El Segundo Boulevard (Add one lane in
each direction)
Not Available
$870,000
Douglas Street Extension - Park Place to Alaska
Avenue
$9,500,000
$2,000,000
Construct left turn pocket for northbound
Continental Boulevard at Grand Avenue
$65,000
$24,700
Widen Mariposa Avenue seven feet (T) on the
northside between Nash Street and Sepulveda Blvd
$235,000
$89,300
Nash /Douglas One -Way Couplet - Convert
existing two -way streets to a one -way couplet
(Nash - Southbound and Douglas- Northbound)
$500,000
$190,000
Signalization Improvements
$75,000
$28,500
Extend westbound left turn pocket
$25,000
$9,500
Shuttle system enhancements
$489,600/yr.
$244,800
Neighborhood Traffic Management Programs
Not known at
this time
$47,500
Mariposa Avenue
$2,410,500
$915,990
Lairport Street Extension
$1,594,250
$605,815
Grand Avenue Extension
$3,678,250
$1,397,735
Nash Street Extension
$15,471,250
$5,879,075
Hughes Way Extension
$7,168,000
$2,723,840
Impact Fee Program Setup and Update Costs
$135,000
$135,000
Administration Costs for Impact Fee Program
3%
3%
$15722,608
TAB7.TAB 2 -5 -96
TABLE 7
ALLOCATION OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS/BENEFITS BY ZONE
Impact Location
Percent of Traffic Contribution by Zone
Zone -.1
(%)
..Zone 2
Zone 3
Zone 4
Aviation Boulevard / Imperial Highway
4%
1%
95%
0%
Aviation Boulevard / 120th Street
11 %
1 %
88%
0%
Aviation Boulevard / El Segundo Boulevard
8%
4%
87%
2%
Aviation Boulevard / 135th Street
13%
2%
84%
j %
Aviation Boulevard / Rosecrans Avenue
16%
7%
74%
2%
Douglas Street / Imperial Highway
I %
1 %
97%
1 %
Douglas Street / El Segundo Boulevard
1 %
4%
92%
2%
Douglas Street / Rosecrans Avenue
48%
24%
21%
7%
Nash Street / Imperial Highway
0%
2%
97%
1%
Nash Street / Maple Avenue
0%
0%
100%
0%
Nash Street / Mariposa Avenue
0%
0%
100%
0%
Nash Street / Grand Avenue
0%
0%
100%
0%
Nash Street / El Segundo Boulevard
0%
7%
90%
4%
Continental Boulevard / El Segundo Boulevard
1 %
17%
72%
9%
Sepulveda Boulevard / Imperial Highway
I%
17%
69%
13%
Sepulveda Boulevard / Maple Avenue
I%
20%
74%
5%
Sepulveda Boulevard / Mariposa Avenue
I %
17%
78%
5%
Sepulveda Boulevard / Grand Avenue
I%
19%
75%
5%
Boulevard / El Segundo Boulevard
1 %
21%
65%
13%
a Boulevard / Hughes Way
I%
20%
72%
6%
rSepulveda
a Boulevard / Rosecrans Avenue
6%
15%
73%
6%
treet / EI Segundo Boulevard
0%
98%
0%
2%
eet / Imperial Highway
0%
4%
0%
961%
Aggregate Percentage
5%
` 7%
85%
3%
TAB8.TAB 2 -I3 -96
00
w
Qi
Q
a
F
W
a
m
W
W
U
a
A
W
QI
rl
a
tV�
Q
M
�+
N
G1 L
z
z
�
O
t-
[�
V1
v1
O
M
O
�.
d9
NVi
di
49
(A
�H
69
69
s9
s'f
fA
69
fH
dyG,
C6
V
�
d
y
o
z
z
c
o
v',
c.
o
g
o
rn
oN0
rn
v
-�•
'v
ar
O
a
6e
to
vi
wi
wj
va
s9
vj
s9
eas
ss
vj
,�
�
b
fA�
'O r
y
Cy
a
z
Z
'�?
ua9
uv
MiA
vi
sv
uY
vi
Nsn
MV3
vj
°0 0
69
ti N W
c w a
tu
'_:
.J-
.,
W
4qq.+
Wyy
4yy.
Wyy
Wyy
Vqy
Wyy
W
4
4n
YyV-r
Syr
y
Wyy
4yyn
iqqL
4
Y
Y
A
E
O N C y
�C
Q As d
-a 4 y
5 r: .0
�• a a
o
�
ap
pp
_y
00J
7p�
p
y
E
a
g
N
o
4
C
Os
'a
x
N
3
a
7
5
¢'
N
S
a
0
c.
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
6.0 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF A TRAFFIC CONGESTION
FEE PROGRAM
The impact fee program will require administrative efforts. The foregoing analysis has estimated the .
future unfunded transportation deficiency improvements and calculated a traffic congestion mitigation fee
.structure for the City of El Segundo. The elected officials, staff, development community and citizens
of El Segundo must now decide whether to proceed with the formulation and adoption of a traffic
congestion fee. Advantages and disadvantages of a traffic fee are summarized below.
6.1 Advantages
• Economically efficient means of providing improvements. All developers pay on the same
basis (depending on location and relative impact), and the process is clear and predictable.
• Provides programmed compliance with the CMP. A uniform fee will help meet
requirements for compliance with the Congestion Management Program to the extent that
regional improvements are included. This would avoid potential sanctions, such as loss of
state gasoline tax Section 2105 revenues or federal Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA) revenues.
• Reduces and streamlines entitlement requirements. A uniform fee will partially reduce
the need for detailed case -by -case traffic analysis and mitigation, as new developments' share
of off -site improvement costs will have already been allocated by the fee. Analysis would
still be required to assess localized impacts of development (i.e., contiguous to the project
property).
• Encourages inter-jurisdictional cooperation. Inter jurisdictional cooperation is required
in order to fund improvements that extend beyond the City boundary; where local fee
programs exist, credit can be given when they already fund regional facilities, and
agreements with other Cities regarding mitigation may be easier if their development only
has to pay a proportional fair share of improvement costs.
6.2 Disadvantages
High fee incidence on non - residential uses. The relatively higher incidence of the fee on
non - residential uses, caused by their high trip generation, should be evaluated and means of
reducing these fees through supplemental funding may be explored.
Need to update the program - The program will require periodic updating for purposes
of reassessing traffic conditions, re- evaluating development levels, adding to or subtracting
from the list of improvements, and finally, amending the fee structure. An update will be
required particularly if the level of development increases in the near future to levels that
were experienced before the economic downturn in southern California. The costs of the
updates are, however, covered by the fee program.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
35
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
7•0 ADMINISTRATION OF THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION FEE PROGRAM
A traffic congestion mitigation fee program will require administrative efforts. The greatest efforts are
related to setting the program up, and include the adopting procedures and training staff. Once these
initial efforts have been completed, the program will be relatively easy to administer. The City should
consider preparing and adopting a procedures manual for the impact fee program. The manual should
be brief and address the issues discussed in this chapter, along with any others identified by the City.
Important administrative issues associated with the fee program include the following
Adoption
The effective data of the impact fee program should be determined. Section 66017 of the Government
Code specifies that any action adopting or increasing a fee on residential development can be effective
no sooner than sixty days after the final action on the adoption of the fee. Delaying the adoption of the
fee serves a useful purpose in not taking the development community by surprise and gives developers
an opportunity to consider the impact of the fee on projects they are planning. The City will also need
sufficient time to prepare and implement administrative procedures prior to the imposition of the fee.
Assessment
The schedules depicting the fees should be clear and allow both City staff and those who will pay the fees
to accurately determine the fee applicable for any project. Inevitably, unconventional cases will arise.
Variances for special or unique circumstances are discussed later in this chapter. Unconventional cases,
other than variances, will generally fall into one of two categories: (1) additions, modification, or
replacement of existing structures, and (2) types of development not described in the fee schedule.
Fees are often levied on additions, modifications, or replacement of existing structures based on the
incremental change in the structure. This is determined differently for commercial and residential
structures. Fees are levied on residential projects based on the number of dwelling units. Accordingly,
an addition, modification, or replacement of a residential structure would not be subject to an additional
fee unless quarters for a new household are created. Quarters for a new household are determined by
whether the addition will have a bathroom, kitchen, and a private entry. Fees would not be levied on
a mobile home if it were previously permanently installed on a foundation at another location in the City.
Fees are levied on commercial development based on the square footage of the structure. An addition,
modification, or replacement of a commercial building would be subject to a fee based on any increase
in the size of the building. For example, if a manufacturing structure of 100,000 square feet is being
replaced by a structure of 150,000 square feet, only the additional 50,000 square feet would be subject
to the impact fee. This presumes that the new structure will have a similar use as the one demolished
and will not increase traffic relative to its previous use.
The impact fee schedule includes 17 types of development. These types of development are general and
are to be broadly interpreted. Still, some types of development will not completely fall within one of
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
0
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
these categories. In these cases, the City should determine the appropriate trip generation rate for the
development in question. To maintain consistency with the impact fees levied on other development, the
trip generation rate should be the peak, weekday PM traffic for the type of development most similar to
the proposed project, as estimated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Trip Generation may
not include adequate data for some land uses. In these cases, the City should determine the appropriate
trip generation rate. Note that all retail and "quality" restaurant uses are reduced by 25 percent to reflect
pass -by trips, and fast -food restaurants are reduced by 50 percent. In addition, a 5 percent reduction is
applied to all parcels east of Sepulveda Boulevard to account for potential use of the Green Line to reduce
vehicle trips.
Some projects may fall into more than one category. In these cases, the appropriate fee for the amount
of development in each category should be determined and these fees added together to determine the total
traffic congestion mitigation fees for the project. For example, the retail category used in this study is
a broad category that includes many different types of retail uses. Large shopping centers or mixed -use
projects may justify computation of specialized rates that apply more specifically to the proposed tenant
mix.
Collection
Section 66007 requires fees on residential development to be collected at the earliest of the date of final
inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever comes first. An exception is made if the
fees are collected to reimburse a public agency for expenditures previously made or the fee is for public
facilities for which (1) the public agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan, and (2)
an account has been established for the fees received and funds in the account appropriated. This study
includes a capital improvement plan which, if adopted, will meet the requirement for a proposed
construction schedule or plan. The City can meet the requirement for the establishment of an account
when the fee program is adopted.
Administration of the road fee program will be simplified if fees are collected when building permits are
issued. Most public agencies collect fees at this time.
A single department of the City should be responsible for the collection of all fees. If fees are collected
when a building permit is issued, there is a certain efficiency in having the building department collect
fees when a permit is issued. Staff in the building department should also be experienced at determining
the type of development a permit is issued for, which is necessary to determine the appropriate fee to be
collected.
Whichever department collects the fees, this department must keep other agencies that have responsibility
related to the fee program informed of all fees collected. For example, a five -copy receipt may be made
when fees are paid: one copy would be given to the fee payer and the other copies sent to accounting,
public works, planning, and building department (assuming one of these is the department responsible
for collecting the fee).
There should be procedures in place for occasionally auditing the records of fees collected, to ensure that
fees are being collected from all of the projects subject to fees.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
37
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
Accounting
State law imposes a number of conditions related to the accounting for fees. Public agencies are required
to deposit any fees received in a separate capital facilities account and to avoid any commingling with
other funds of the public agency. The fees may be spent for only the purposes for which the fees were
imposed. Any interest earned on the account must be left in the account and used for the same purpose
as the fees.
Within 60 days of the end of each fiscal year, the public agency must make available to the public the
beginning and ending balance in the fund for the fiscal year, the fee, interest, and other income, and the
amount of expenditure by public facility Any fee that remains unexpended after five years is subject to
certain findings, and if these findings cannot be made, the fee must be refunded to the then'current owner
of the property from which the fee was collected. The amount of arty refunds paid from a development
fee account must also be included in the information provided to the public each year. Accounting
records must be kept that will allow the City to comply with these requirements.
Disbursement
Fees should be disbursed according to the capital improvement plan, which should be updated as needed.
Developers, particularly those who have paid or are subject to fees, should be invited, along with other
interested members of the community, to attend a public meeting to discuss the capital improvement when
it is updated.
All of the projects for which fees are being collected should be included in the capital improvement plan,
even if the improvements are deferred or partially unfunded. Justification should be provided for projects
deferred beyond five years; this justification should demonstrate that the transportation system will be
sufficient until improvements are scheduled and development will be able to proceed without interruption.
Disbursements should also be made for administrative expenses and the costs of updating the fee study.
These expenses are discussed further in the sections of this report on administrative expense and program
updates.
Credits
The City should clearly define the circumstances under which credits shall be provided. There may only
be two circumstances for which developers may be allowed to qualify for credits against the impact fees
(other than as described under 'Existing Projects "). The first is the donation of right -of -way for a road
improvement included in the road impact fee program that the City would otherwise be obligated to
purchase. The second is the construction of improvements that are included in the impact fee program.
The amount of the credit should not exceed the lesser of (1) the value of the right of way and the cost
of the improvements, and (2) the fees owed by the project. The value of the right of way or cost of the
improvements should be determined by the City.
Credits should not be paid in excess of the fees owed on a project, otherwise the City will end up paying
for development. This should not prevent a developer from entering into a reimbursement agreement
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates. Inc
W.
Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation City of El Segundo
with other property owners, whereby the developer who improves a road will agree to make the
improvements for other developers who would obligated to pay fees. These property owners will qualify
for a credit against fees as a result of the construction of the road improvements, and will instead, agree
to pay this amount to the developer who improved the road. Preparing and negotiating reimbursement
agreements of this type should be the responsibility of the developers who request them; although clearly,
the City will need to approve the agreement and should be a part. of the process of the agreement.
Variances
There may be special or unique circumstances that apply to some projects that warrant a variance in the
fee that would normally be levied. Suggested procedures for variances are to have developers request
a variance if they believe their project qualifies for one; this request should include the basis for the
variance and a calculation of the fee that should apply. The request should be submitted to the planing
department and reviewed by public works.
The trip generation rate in the fee schedules are averages based on data collected by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE). Some projects will generate traffic higher and some lower than these
rates. Variances should be granted to projects with special or unique circumstances that do not fall within
the normal range of variation in the ITE rates.
A project should not qualify for a variance on the basis that the type of project proposed is not included
in the land use types in the fee schedule. The City can determine the impact fee for projects that do not
fall within one of the categories in the impact fee schedule. This is discussed in the section of the Report
on assessment of fees.
Refunds
Fees cannot be diverted to any other purpose other than that for which they were collected. If fees are
not used as intended, they must be refunded. For arty fee that remains unexpended after five years, the
City must make findings (1) to identify the purpose for which the fee was collected, and (2) tc
demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged. If the
City is not able to make these findings for all or a portion of the unexpended fee, this portion of the fee,
along with interest, must be refunded to the then current owner of the property from which the fee was
collected.
Inflation Adjustments
The congestion mitigation impact fees in this report are based on current cost estimates. Many of the
improvements in the fee program will be built in future years when costs will be higher as a result of
inflation. The impact fees should be adjusted for inflation, if they are to keep pace with the costs of
constructing the improvements included in the program. This adjustment is usually made by increasing
the fees each year according to an inflation index, such as the Engineering News Record Cost Index for
the Los Angeles area. Fees can be increased by inflation administratively each year if this is provided
for in the ordinance adopting the program.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
39
}
Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation
Administrative Expenses
City of El Segundo
Administrative expenses related to a development impact fee program are highest when the program is
being set up. Once the program is in place, the cost of administering the program should be relatively
modest. According to the American Planning Association, the cost of administering most development
impact fees programs is between two and five percent of the fees collected. Administrative expenses for
the City of El Segundo Congestion Mitigation Fee Program have been estimated to be three percent of
the fees collected. The accounting for the impact fee program should include a means of estimating the
costs of administration, and should these costs be less than three percent, the road impact fees should be
decreased accordingly.
Additional Traffic Impacts and Analysis
The general plan and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) require the preparation of traffic
analyses for all projects which are determined to be large enough to have potentially significant traffic
impacts. The adoption of the impact fee program will affect this determination. The impact fee study
partially mitigates the impacts of new projects on the roads included in the impact fee program, unless
a project amends the general plan land use element or circulation plan diagram. The impact fee program
does not mitigate the impacts on roads not included in the program.
There may also be cases where a project may create a large volume of traffic on a road that is not
included in the impact fee program, and this traffic requires a road to be built or improved during or
before development. If the capital improvement program for roads does not provide for the road to be
built in time, the City may need to condition development of the project on the construction of these road
improvements. In these cases, the developer should be able to qualify for a credit against other impact
fees owed by the project.
To avoid confusion, the City should adopt policies regarding when a project (1) requires additional traffic
analysis, (2) must mitigate impacts in addition to the payment of congestion mitigation impact fees, and
(3) should be conditioned to construct road improvements included in the impact fee program.
Program Updates
The impact fee is based on assumptions regarding the costs of improvements, growth patterns and rates,
demographic variables, and a number of other factors. These variables may change over time or future
experience may show other assumptions to be more accurate. To maintain the fairness and validity of
the congestion mitigation impact fee program, the City should commit itself to updating the program on
a periodic basis. The frequency of these updates should be established and honored. These updates may
occur every five years or sooner, if a major amendment to the general plan is made. To ensure the funds
to pay for the update, the impact fee program includes $25,000 for each five years of the planning period
analyzed in the program (20 years). These funds are to cover the cost to re- examine the fee methodology
and of traffic studies conducted to determine road impacts.
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
40