The URL can be used to link to this page

1997 MAY 06 CC PACKET - 2EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 6, 1997 AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Recommendation for vehicle replacement and purchase. (Purchase price $16,232 with tax) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Authorize staff to purchase a vehicle as outlined in this report. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: At the December 17, 1996 City Council Meeting, Council authorized staff to proceed with the purchase of a comparable replacement vehicle for Unit #3312, a 1983 Chevrolet station Wagon. DISCUSSION: Since the Chevrolet Station Wagon (Unit #3312) is a 1983 model, there are no vehicles today that match this configuration. The Equipment Maintenance Division located a vehicle which meets the criteria, serves the need, and saves money. The vehicle is a 1995 Mercury Grand Marquis at Enterprise Rental Car Resales in Gardena. The price of the Mercury is $16,232 with tax and it comes with a one year warranty. The retail Blue Book is $19,594 with tax and the wholesale Blue Book is $16,887 with tax. The advantages of this type of purchase are: Price is considerably lower than that of a new vehicle Vehicle will still have monetary value at the end of 3 -5 years when due for replacement The Equipment Maintenance Division has inspected this vehicle and reviewed all of the service records. They found it to be in excellent condition. It is recommended that City Council authorize staff to purchase the 1995 Mercury Grand Marquis from Enterprise Rental Car Resales. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Action Report, City Council Meeting of December 17, 1996 FISCAL IMPACT: (Check one) Operating Budget: x Capital Improv. Budget: Amount Requested: $16.50 estimated Project/Account Budget: Project/Account Balance: $34.060 Date: as of 6 -30 -97 Account Number: 601 -400- 0000 -8104 Project Phase: Appropriation Required - Yes No X ORIGINATED: Date: April 28, 1997 John Hilton, General Services Manager, Public Works Fire Chief, Fire Department ACTION: Date: April 28, 1997 0 ?33 MEMORANDUM Date: December 18, 1996 To: All Department Heads From: James W. Morrison, City Manager Subject: Action Report. City Council Meeting of December 17,1996 DEPARTMENVAGENDA ITEM COUNCIL DIRECTION/DUE DATE Administration Councilman Weston comments: Bret's staff to make the LAX Master Plan informational brochure available for public inspection. Staff to Agendize for January 7, 1997 meeting a discussion of Potlatch case and its implications to cities. Mayor Jacobs - Request for variances from Proceed with approval of request waiver of the the Municipal Code. required permits and ordinances as follows: 1) Conditional Use Permit and waiver of regulations in ESMC Section 20.74.040; 2) The use of air rights and waiver of the Santa Monica Radial 160 R procedure (FAA should be contacted); 3) The ordinance on Animal Regulations (ESMC 8.02.010); 4) The Trespass Ordinance (ESMC 9.28.010) including 8.04. 110 dealing with trespassing animals; 5) Business license for a non -profit organization (ESMC 5.04.050); 6) The Pooper - Scooper regulation (ESMC 9.04.040); 7) The Noise Ordinance to permit the sound of bells (ESMC 9.06.0110); and 8) ESMC 16.04.060 (Driveway Permits Required) and 10.28.110 (Parking on Grades). City Attorney None. 0 234 DEPARTMENT/AGENDA -ITEM COUNCIL DIRECTION/DUE DATE Cijy Clerk City Council meeting minutes of November City Clerk to process and file minutes. 23 and December 3, 1996. Citv Treasurer Comprehensive evaluation of the City's Staff, auditor and Council to prepare revision to investment portfolio and compliance with the investment policy to bring back for Council City's investment policy by auditors Thomas, consideration on January 21, 1996. Bigbie & Smith. Economic Development Councilman Weston comments re Nash car Council to all sign letter urging Nash car club to club. change location for its annual meet from Buellton to El Segundo and combine other technology to coincide with El Segundo's 80th Anniversary. Finance Department Warrant Numbers 235328- 235433 on Distribute wan-ants. Demand Register Summary Number 22 in total amount of $261,375.32, Warrant Numbers 235434 - 235588 on Demand Register Summary Number 23 in total amount of $340,319.07, and Wire Transfers in the amount of $957,328.43. Fire Department Accept $5,000.00 donation from Chevron Staff to proceed with use of the donation for the Products Company. purpose requested by Chevron. Mayor has sent thank you letter. Human Resources/Risk Management None. Library None. 0 235 DEPARTMENT/AGENDA-LT-EM COUNCIL DIRECTION/DUE DATE Planning and Building Safety Public Hearing and Appeal of the Planning Hearing continued to the regular City Council Commission's approval of a Conditional Use meeting of February 4, 1997, as suggested by the Permit (CUP) for the construction of a 20- applicant. Bret to prepare and distribute status inch nominal diameter, high density memo by December 20, 1996. polyethylene, subsurface pipeline in the Open Space (OS) zone; to transfer digester gas produced at the City of Los Angeles Department of Public Works Hyperion Wastewater Treatment Plant to the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power Scattergood Steam Generating Station, where it will be used to produce energy. Public Hearing to consider an extension of Urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance approved the Urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance thereby extending the moratorium for 10 months (Ordinance No. 1262), adopted by the City and 15 days. Staff to return with an ordinance as Council on November 5, 1996. The (current) soon as possible prior to the expiration of the Ordinance imposed a forty-five (45) day moratorium to replace the IZO. moratorium upon the issuance of all permits for Wireless Communication Facilities in the City; and expires, unless extended, on December 20, 1996. Request to increase the Staff to work with the Finance Department to Professional/Technical Specialist (adopted) increase the total amount in account 3301 -6214 for City Budget account no. 3301 -6214 by an the purpose stated by an additional $80,000. additional $80,000; to total $150,000. Review of the Quarterly General Plan and Staff to initiate proposed General Plan and Zoning Zoning Code Amendment Programs. Code text and Map Amendments in the priority order suggested, except that Council does not want to pursue "granny flat" revisions. Police Department Public Communications: Complaint by Tim Grimmond to investigate complaint through Charles Herrick. the appropriate procedures. Request for temporary 90 -day extension of Process extension through City Clerk's office. existing Police Towing Contract and for Staff to advertise for bids for a new contract and approval to advertise for bids for a new receipt of bids through the City Clerk's office. contract. Public Works De artment 0 236 DEPARTMENT /AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL DIRECTION/DUE DATE Acceptance of Modifications to Sanitation City Clerk to file the City Engineer's Notice of Pumping Plant No. 2, Project No. PW 95 -9 Completion in the County Recorder's office. (final contract amount = $130,605.00). Recommendation for FY 1996 -97 vehicle Staff to proceed to purchase vehicles as outlined in purchases. the report, except for vehicle #3312 which will be replaced with a comparable vehicle. Council to form a subcommittee to look into vehicle replacement policy for the future. Recreation & Parks Department Park Vista - Senior Housing Budget for Staff to proceed with implementation of the 1997 1997. Park Vista operating budget as discussed (including recommended salary increases for the staff, but not including increases in management fee, manager salary, bonuses or rent increase). A joint meeting of the Council and Senior Housing Board will be held on Wednesday, January 22, 1997 (Senior Housing Board's regularly scheduled meeting) to discuss the above exceptions as well as the items immediately following. Clarification of Park Vista's Senior Housing January 22, 1997 joint meeting to discuss Board's concerns. (1) adding the Park Vista building to City building insurance coverage or alternatives such as using the same carrier; (2) co- investment of monies with City investments; (3) clarification of the repayment agreement. Staff to look into items 1 and 2 above and report findings and suggestions at joint meeting. Distribution: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk Susan Schofield, City Treasurer Mark Hensley, City Attorney All Department Heads 12- 18- 96.rpt 4 0 237 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 6, 1997 AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Amended Liability Self- Insurance Service Agreement between the City of El Segundo and Colen & Lee, Inc., administrator of the City's general and automobile liability self- insurance programs. (Fiscal Impact: $1,200 additional per year.) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Approve Amended Liability Self- Insurance Service Agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: Colen & Lee, Inc. has administered the City's general and automobile liability self- insurance programs since 1988 pursuant to an Agreement dated June 15, 1988. Colen & Lee has requested an $100 per month increase in their monthly service fee. The history of this agreement and charges follow: Original Contract, dated June 15, 1988, charge $1,500 /month 1st Amendment, effective July 1, 1989, charge $1,600 /month 2nd Amendment, effective July 1, 1995, charge $1,650 /month Proposed 3rd Amendment, to be dated July, 1997, charge $1,750 /month DISCUSSION: ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Amended Liability Self- Insurance Service Agreement. Letter from Colen & Lee dated April 14, 1997 Liability Self- Insurance Service Agreement dated June 15, 1988 FISCAL IMPACT: (Check one) Operating Budget: X Capital Improv. Budget: Amount Requested: $200.00 Project/Account Budget: $20,000.00 Project/Account Balance: $10133.31 Date: 4/28/97 Account Number: Fund 602 -6214 Project Phase: N/A Appropriation Required - Yes_ No X ORI TAKEN: Date: April 3U, 1991 0 238 AMENDED LIABILITY SELF - INSURANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT This Amended Agreement is entered into this day of May, 1997 between the City of E1 Segundo, a municipal corporation ( "City ") and Colen & Lee, Inc., a California corporation ( "Administrator "). Whereas, Administrator has administered City's general and automobile liability self- insurance programs since 1988 pursuant to an agreement dated June 15, 1988 ( "Agreement "); Whereas, City desires to retain the services of Administrator to provide these services; Now therefore, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. Section 9 of the Agreement is amended to read as follows: 119. CONSIDERATION: The City agrees'to pay a service fee to the Administrator based on the monthly sum of one thousand seven hundred fifty dollars ($1,750.00) as compensation for ongoing services rendered under this Agreement. Once a year thereafter, the Administrator may increase or decrease the service fee by giving written notice of the change to the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the anniversary date of this Agreement." 2. Unless expressly modified by this Amended Agreement, all other provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Executed at E1 Segundo, California on the date first written above. CITY OF EL SEGUNDO By Sandra Jacobs, Mayor ATTEST Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk LAX2:179993.1 0 239 ATTEST Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark D. Hensley, City Attorney COLEN & LEE By LM2:179993.1 0 240 COLEN AND LEE 1470 South Valley Vista Drive, Suite 230, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Telephone (909) 861 -0816 Risk Management Services April 14, 1997 Jim Morrison City Manager CITY OF EL SEGUNDO 350 Main Street El Segundo, California 90245 j �� I (o � h�l as Re: General Liability Claims Administration Fee Dear Jim, REC:EWED APR 16 1997 CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE 1�k// This letter will confirm our request for a fee increase. Over the last several years our operating costs have increased significantly. We realize that cities have faced financial difficulty, knowing that, we have held the line on fee increases, as much as possible, for many years. To reduce costs, we have streamlined our internal operations in all areas, including freezing salaries. Unfortunately, we can no longer do so to stay financially viable and continue to deliver high quality claims administration services. Last year postage costs increased 10 %, paper and office supplies have increased by 18 %, office rent by 8.8% and the U.S. Postal services is now contemplating another 6.25% raise in first class postage rates. In spite of this, over the last few years, we have provided additional services, indexing cases through the Index System, at our expense, as well as producing laser checks also at our expense, eliminating check printing costs the city previously incurred. Due to the reasons cited above, effective July 1, 1997, we are requesting a $100.00 per month increase. I will be on vacation till April 30, 1997, if you have questions please call me at that time. Sincerely, -6 a"-' dt G)9— Bernard Colen /BC copy: Mark Hensley, Esq., City Attorney, Burke, Williams & Sorensen co-n Tya c"r- / ef- &0 � 0 241 LIABILITY SELF - INSURANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 15th day of June, 1988 between the City of E1 Segundo, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and COLEN & LEE, INC., a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as the "Administrator." WHEREAS, the City has undertaken to self- insure its general and auto liability; and WHEREAS, the Administrator is engaged in the business of administering general and auto liability self - insurance programs; and WHEREAS, the City desires to retain the services of the Administrator to administer a general and auto liability self- insurance program, hereinafter referred to as the "Program," for the City; NOW, THEREFORE, the City hereby retains the services of the Administrator and the Administrator agrees to perform services for the City under the terms and conditions of this Agreement. 1. TERM: This Agreement shall become effective as of June 15, 1988 and shall continue in effect until terminated by the cancellation procedure provided herein. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICES: The Administrator agrees to supervise and administer the Program for the City and shall act" as the City's representative in connection with the investigation, adjustment and - 1 - 0 242 administration of all general and auto liability claims asserted by third parties against the City. The administrator further agrees to provide the City, during the term of this Agreement, all services more particularly set forth herein. 3. CONFERENCES: The Administrator shall meet with City staff at the beginning of the Program to develop procedures consistent with City policy and to provide orientation and training to City employees involved in the administration of the Program. Thereafter, the Administrator shall meet with City staff every other month to discuss claims and general procedures. 4. CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION: The Administrator agrees to provide supervisory, administrative and adjustment services on liability claims asserted against the City. Such services shall include: A. Screening accident reports for potential claims and initiating contact with claimants. B. Establishing files and setting reserves on new cases. C. Maintaining contact with claimants or their attorneys. D. Deciding upon and initiating a proper course of investigation. E. Periodically reviewing cases for disposition and proper reserving. F. Determining fault. G. Seeking contribution or indemnity from responsible third parties. - 2 - 0 243 H. Evaluating damages and determining settlement value. I. Preparing written reports when recommending settlement in excess of the Administrator's authority or when recommending rejection or denial of a claim. J. Negotiating Settlements. K. Taking releases from claimants. L. Initiating payment of settlements and expenses. M. Sending denial letters to claimants or their attorneys when appropriate. N. Notifying the City's excess liability insurers of all claims which exceed or may exceed the City's self- insurance retention, maintaining liaison between the City and its excess liability insurers on matters affecting the adjustment of such claims and arranging for reimbursement to the City of losses in excess of its self- insurance retention. 0. Closing files when appropriate to do so. 5. INVESTIGATION: The Administrator agrees to provide investi- gative services as follows: A. The Administrator shall conduct office investigation, through the mail and over the phone, which shall include: obtaining written questionnaires or telephone recorded statements from City employees, claimants and witnesses; obtaining police and other official reports; obtaining medical reports from claimants, their doctors or their attorneys; obtaining wage loss information from claimants, their - 3 - 0 244 employers or their attorneys; and all other investigation that can be handled effectively from the office. B. The Administrator shall engage, on behalf of the City, the services of independent, outside investigators to conduct all field investigation that is needed to properly handle general and auto liability claims. The selection of outside investigators shall be made from a list approved by the City. C. The Administrator shall, without compromising the quality of investigation, make every attempt to conduct as much investigation from the office as possible before engaging the services of outside investigators and, in the event that outside investigation is necessary, shall closely control outside investigators to minimize expense. D. Outside investigation fees shall be considered an allocated expense. 6. LITIGATION MANAGEMENT: The Administrator agrees to provide the following services with regard to litigated claims: A. The City Attorney shall supervise and directly manage all litigation for the City in conjunction with the City Manager and with the assistance of the Administrator. B. The Administrator shall audit and approve all legal expenses. - 4 - 0 245 C. The Administrator shall continue all claims administration and investigation functions. 7. STATISTICAL REPORTS: The Administrator agrees to provide, during the term of this Agreement, the City with a monthly statistical report showing the status of each claim reported to the Administrator, the details of each claim, the remaining reserves for each claim and the details of all claims payments made to date and during the month. This report shall be delivered to the City within twenty (20) days of the close of each calendar month. 8. ALLOCATED EXPENSES: The City agrees to pay for check printing, Index Bureau membership, outside adjusters, outside investigators, defense attorneys, legal costs, police and other official reports, remote photocopy, professional photographers, map makers, film makers, medical experts, engineering experts, accident reconstruction experts, process service, messenger service, court reporters, vocational rehabilitation experts, structured settlement consultants and translators. 9. CONSIDERATION: The City agrees to pay a service fee to the Administrator based on the monthly sum of One Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) as compensation for ongoing services rendered under this Agreement. Once a year thereafter, the Administrator may increase or decrease the service fee by giving written notice of the change to the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the anniversary date of this - 5 - 0 246 Agreement. 10. INDEMNIFICATION: The Administrator shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend the City from all claims, legal actions, losses, expenses, injuries or damages arising out of the Administrator's actual or alleged negligence or intentional wrongdoing incident to the performance of this agreement. 11. INSURANCE: The Administrator agrees to maintain in force at all times the following insurance: A. 'Workers' Compensation Insurance covering employees of the Administrator, as required by law. B. Professional Liability Insurance in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), naming the City as an additional insured. C. A Commercial Blanket Bond in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00). D. General liability insurance, in the amount of One Million Dollars (1,000,000.00). E. The City shall be notified, in writing, thirty (30) days prior to any cancellation or reduction in the above coverage. 12. CANCELLATION: This Agreement may be terminated by either party giving to the other, in writing, notice of its intention to cancel this Agreement at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of termination. - 6 - 247 13. RECORDS: The Administrator agrees to establish and maintain, for a period of not less than five (5) years, claim files, logs, transaction documents and all other records associated with the Program. These records shall be the property of the City and shall be available, on five (5) days notice, for review or transfer to another custodian. These records shall not be disposed of or destroyed without the prior, express authorization of the City. 14. NOTICES: All notices, demands, requests, or approvals which are required under this Agreement, or which either the City or the Administrator may desire to serve upon the other, shall be in writing and shall be conclusively deemed served when delivered personally, or forty -eight (48) hours after the deposit thereof in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, registered or certified, addressed as herein provided. A. All notices, demands, requests or approvals from the Administrator to the City shall be addressed to the City of E1 Segundo, 350 Main Street, E1 Segundo, California 90245. B. All notices, demands, requests, or approvals from the City to the Administrator shall be given to Colen & Lee, Inc., 1930 South Brea Canyon Road, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, California 91765. 15. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR: All communications to the City shall be given to the Director of Finance. - 7 - 0 248 16. WARRANTY: The Administrator warrants and guarantees that all services performed hereunder for the City shall be performed in a manner commensurate with the highest professional standards. 17. ENTIRE CONTRACT: This instrument contains the entire Agreement between the parties relating to the rights herein granted and obligations herein assumed. Any oral representations or modifications concerning this instrument shall be of no force or effect. Subsequent modifications may be made in writing. 18. GOVERNING LAW: The validity of this Agreement and of any of its terms and provisions shall be interpreted and construed pursuant to the laws of the State of California. 19. ATTORNEY FEES: If any action at law or equity, including an action for declaratory relief, is brought to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the City shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled if it prevails. 20. ASSIGNMENT: The Administrator shall not assign, sublet or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations of this Agreement without the prior, written consent of the City. - 8 - 0 249 21. CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The Administrator agrees not to accept any employment during the term of this Agreement from any other person, firm or corporation if that employment is likely to result in a conflict between the interests of the City and interests of any third parties. 22. PARTIAL INVALIDITY: If any provision of this Agreement is held by a competent court to be invalid, void or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect. EXECUTED at E1 Segundo, California on the date and year first above written. EL CITY OF /SEGUNDO By Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: By 'City Attorney COLEN & LEE, INC. By Gary! M. Lee Uizy uierx 0 250 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 6,1997 AGENDA ITEMSTATEMENT AGENDA HEADING. Consent AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Authorize the lease of 953 acre feet of adjudicated water rights to the Dominguez Water Corporation. ( Fiscal Impact: $95,300 of revenue to the Water Fund.) RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to sign and execute the attached lease with the Dominguez Water Corporation for the lease of adjudicated water rights to 953 acre feet of non potable water located under the City. INTRODUCTIONAND BACKGROUND: Many years ago, the West Coast Groundwater Basin, located under the City, had potable water. The City developed the water wells needed to pump the water. When, subsequently, there was a sea water intrusion and the groundwater became unusable, the City was left with adjudicated pumping water rights of 953 acre feet which it could not use. It has been the City's practice each year to offer the rights for lease to those companies who could pump the water. Last years revenue from the lease was $200,130. DISCUSSION. Earlier this fiscal year, July 16, 1996, after receiving no bids for the water rights, the City Council authorized the Director of Public Works to negotiate with any interested party for this year's lease of water rights. During the course of research on the potential lease of the Water Fund, the Director of Public Works negotiated the price of $100 ner acre foot for 953 acre feet available with the Dominguez Water Corporation. ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Proposed Lease FISCAL IMPACT: Possible Revenue Source Amount Not Determinable (Check one) Operating Budget: -vr_ Capital Improv. Budget: Amount Projected: Account Number: 503 - 300 - 0000 -3852 Appropriation Required - Yes No--I_ ORIGINATED BY. Date: reKrZinfir., �r�-/2 Euni Director of Finance � y�t9/�1 7 Eduard Schroder, Director of Public Works WED BY.• Manager ACTION TAKEN: Date: q -,OVI- -f I' 0 251 CITY CONTRACT NUMBER WATER RIGHT LICENSE AND AGREEMENT (West Coast Basin) For a valuable consideration, the City of El Segundo hereby grants to Dominguez Water Corporation, a license to extract 953 acre -feet of licensor's Adjudicated Right allocated to licensor (or predecessors in interest) pursuant to Judgment dated August 19, 1961, and entered in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 506806 entitled "California Water Service Company, et al. vs. City of Compton, et al." during the period commencing July 1, 1996 and continuing to and including June 30, 1997 for the amount of $95,300 (ninety five thousand three hundred dollars►. Said License is granted, subject to the following conditions: (1) Licensee shall exercise said right an extract the same on behalf of the City of El Segundo during the period above specified and put the same to beneficial use and licensee shall not by the exercise hereunder of said right acquire any right to extract water independent of the rights of licensor. (2) Licensee shall pay assessments levied on the pumping of said ground water by the Central and West Basin Water Replenishment District. (3) Licensee shall notify the District and the Watermaster that said pumping was done pursuant to this license and provide the Watermaster with a copy of the document. (4) Licensee shall note, in any recording of water production for the period of agreement, that said pumping was done pursuant to this license. (5) Licensee's Adjudicated Right shall be increased by the amount hereby leased when computing carryover or allowable over extraction as provided by Paragraph V in said Judgement. (6) Licensee acquires hereunder pumping rights only and should be responsible to provide the means and location to effect said pumping itself and shall bear the cost of said pumping. The City of El Segundo warrants that it has 953 acre -feet of Adjudicated Right and it has not pumped and will not pump or permit or license any other person to pump any part of said 953 acre -feet during period of July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997. Dated: Licensor: CITY OF EL SEGUNDO Licen`- By: Sandra Jacobs By: Title: Mayor Title: ATTESTED: Cindy Mortesen City Clerk (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ao-- Z Mark D. Hensley City Attorney NAWATEROGHTS.LIC (428/97) 0 252 'S EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 6, 1997 AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Award of contract for the reconstruction of alley east of Main Street, between Holly Avenue and Mariposa Avenue, public works contract PW 97 -9 (contract amount $57,406.50). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: Award contract to C. J. Construction, Inc., in the amount of $57,406.50 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract on behalf of the City. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: On April 1, 1997 the City Council adopted plans and specifications for the reconstruction of the alley east of Main Street, between Holly Avenue and Mariposa Avenue, and authorized staff to advertise the project for receipt of construction bids. DISCUSSION: On April 29, 1997 the City Clerk received and opened the following bids: C.J. Construction, Inc. $57,406.50 Damon Construction Company $72,270.00 Gansek Construction $76,618.00 Excel Paving Company $77,348.00 Engineers Estimate = $71,600.00 The low bidder has recently completed several Public Works projects in the City and staff is satisfied with this Contractor's previous performance. Staff recommends award of contract to the low bidder C.J. Construction, Inc., in the amount of $57,406.50 ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: Map showing alley to be reconstructed. FISCAL IMPACT: Operating Budget: Capital Improvement Budget: Amount Requested: Project/Account Budget: Project/Account Balance: Account Number. Project Phase: Appropriation Required: No Yes $90,000.00 $89,000.00 Date: 4/28/97 301 - 400 - 8203 -8625 Award of Contract No ORIGINATED- Date: 9/Q 7 A and c rnrtpr Director of Public Works REVIE E Date: %.- q 141 7 ACTI OIL f TAKEN: 1 PW- MAY -06.05 (Tuesday 4/29/97 9:00 AM) 253 10 11 I aw n H $ ,A o i w r I- cm A 0 U I D � 1 T CITY North City Boundary -- IMPERIAL -- �TTT.� �iFS'T� � � •� OF LOS A N G E I 2 I ti H H U H II ACACIA I ffj WALNUT v 1:113 N SYCAMORE W F —I 0 a O MAP C� Flo,= a d El:• AK z �m FM I 4.111111111111 11 1 N IIRIIN��1�� e��nunni�i �ul!lJSI�S�. un� IINII��Ii OOII II I II � 14' 13 � N N Vf V1 N VI 0 p 0 Q N H p � N ` O z p > F- O Z d V � Q i Y z Z O i p J a v U z z z t z i Q z U - Q U W 7 = - O - -7 K J it > U Q N W Q I S� i- ffl N N {/f N O Z z CHEVRON U.S.A. 0 254 J z ~ Y W z W Z Z W _ O t H d N J 2 CHEVRON U.S.A. 0 254 EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 6, 1997 AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda AGENDA DESCRIPTION: First Amended agreement between the County of Los Angeles and the City of El Segundo for construction of the Arena Drain and Storm Drain Pump Station No. 19 project. 2. Resolution approving the Arena Drain and Pump Station Project administered by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and conveying the property at 199 East El Segundo Boulevard to the County as the site of the new County pump station. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1. Approve amended agreement and authorize the Mayor to execute the amended agreement on behalf of the City. Adopt resolution. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND: On March 7, 1995, the City of El Segundo executed an agreement with the County of Los Angeles for the construction of a cooperative flood control project in the Smoky Hollow area. This project includes construction of a storm drain system in Franklin Avenue between Sierra Street and Standard Street, and in Standard Street between Franklin Avenue and El Segundo Boulevard. The project also includes construction of a new retention basin /Storm Drain Pump Station No. 19 (to replace the existing out -of- service pump station) at the northwest corner of El Segundo Boulevard and Standard Street and elimination of the existing Storm Drain Pump Station No. 15 at the northwest corner of Franklin Avenue and Arena Street. DISCUSSION: (Discussion begins on next page.....) ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: 1. First amended agreement. 2. Current City - County agreement. 3. Resolution (with Grant Deed). FISCAL IMPACT: Operating Budget: N/A Capital Improvement Budget: Amount Requested: Project/Account Budget: Project/Account Balance: Date: Account Number. Project Phase: Appropriation Required: None ORIGINATED: Date: Eduard S h r Director of Public Works REVIEW r_\� rt Date:L( —� N: U 255 Page 1 of 2 PW- MAY -6.03 (Tuesday 4/29/97 9:00 AM) DISCUSSION: 1. Amendment to City- County Agreement The agreement currently provides for the County to design, construct, and maintain the storm drains and Pump Station No. 19 and for the City to pay $4,365,375 as the City's share of the total estimated project cost of $5,390,775. The County has now completed construction plans and specifications for the project and has revised the total estimated project cost to $6,250,000. The revised amount of the City share based on the current estimate is $4,837,875 which is $472,500 more than the City's share provided in the current City - County agreement. The County however, has offered to absorb this additional cost and to limit the City's contribution to the currently agreed upon amount of $4,365,375. The enclosed amendment to the current agreement will formalize the County's offer. 2. Resolution (includes Grant Deed) The enclosed resolution will formalize the City's approval of the County's plans and specifications and authorization to proceed with the project. The resolution also authorizes the County to occupy City streets as needed to construct the project. Staff has reviewed the County's plans and specifications and is satisfied that the County's design will provide the needed flood control for the area. The resolution also grants the County, the approximately 75' x 140' real property on which the Storm Drain Pump Station No. 19 and its retention basin will be constructed. Since the County will be responsible to own and maintain the new pump station, it has requested the City to grant the property to the County for this purpose. Currently there is a City retention basin and an out -of- service City pump station on this property. Since the property will be utilized for flood control purposes benefitting the City, staff is of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the City to grant the property to the County. If at some time in the future the property was no longer used by the County for flood control purposes, the property would revert back to the City. The County's current schedule anticipates project advertising in May 1997, start of construction in mid -July 1997 and completion of construction by the end of December 1998. Staff recommends City Council approval of the proposed amendment and adoption of the resolution (which includes the Grant Deed). The City Attorney has reviewed these documents and has approved them as to form. Page 2 of 2 0 256 PW- MAY -6.03 (Tuesday 4/29/97 9:00 AM) (If LOS �ryCf! • ��IIFORN�f' HARRY W. STONE, Director COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91803 -1331 �j1 S] b APR 3 0 1997 Ei,DIVIS ON April 29, 1997 Mr. Eduard Schroder Director of Public Works City of El Segundo 350 Main Street E1 Segundo, CA 90245 -3895 Attention Mr. Bellur Devaraj Dear Mr. Schroder: ARENA DRAIN AND PUMP STATION PROJECT APPROVAL ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O.BOX 1460 ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802 -1460 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE. F-0 Enclosed are two sets of final plans and specifications for our proposed Arena Drain and Pump Station project. A Negative Declaration (ND) was prepared for this project in accordance with the Los Angeles County Environmental Document Reporting Procedures and Guidelines. The ND was approved by the Los Angeles County Board Of Supervisors on October 8, 1996. It is requested that your City Council formally approve the plans and specifications; authorize this Department to proceed with the construction of the project as described herein; grant the real property described in the enclosed Grant Deed; grant permission to occupy and use the public streets in the City of E1 Segundo to construct, operate, and maintain said installations; and issue the needed Excavation Permit on a no -fee basis. Your City Council's action should contain the following statements: "The City of E1 Segundo, where legally possible and upon the request by the County of Los Angeles, will grant, transfer, or assign all prior rights over utility companies when necessary to construct and complete this project." In addition, "The County of Los Angeles shall not be held accountable for the expense of relocation, alteration, and modification of this project, once installed, necessitated by future street improvements, realignments, alteration, or reconstruction." 0 257 Mr. Eduard Schroder April 29, 1997 Page 2 The Department of Public Works is administering all contracts for the Los Angeles County Flood Control District under the provisions of its Flood Control Act. The Act requires that this approval be obtained before the construction contract shall be awarded. Also, as requested in your letter dated April 16, 1997, we have enclosed a proposed amendment to our Cooperative Agreement No. 68083 (City Contract No. 2386) for your City Council's approval. Your City's approval on the above items would be appreciated by May 6, 1997. At that time, please forward a certified copy of your City Council's action to this Department. Your staff's cooperation on this project is appreciated. Any questions can be directed to our Project Manager, Ms. Clarice Nash, at (818) 458 -5152. Very truly yours, HARRY W. STONE Director of Public Works DAVID PILKER Supervising Civil Engineer III Flood Management Group CRN:ad ARENA6 Enc. 0 258 F I R S T A M E N D E D A CQ R E E M E N T THIS AMENDED AGREEMENT by and between the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," acting on behalf of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, a body corporate and politic; and the CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a municipal corporation in the County of Los Angeles, hereinafter referred to as "CITY." W I T N E S S E T H WHEREAS, COUNTY is administering all matters for the Los Angeles County Flood Control District pursuant to Section 56 -3/4 of the COUNTY'S Charter and in accordance with an Agreement approved on December 26, 1984, between COUNTY and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District; and WHEREAS, CITY has entered into a Settlement Agreement, hereinafter referred to as "SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT," with the Natural Resources Defense Council, hereinafter referred to as "NRDC," to settle differences regarding alleged CITY discharge of pollutants into the Pacific Ocean; and WHEREAS, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT requires that CITY implement storm water pollution prevention measures, including ability to divert storm drain low flow to a sanitary sewer; and 0 259 -2- WHEREAS, CITY has requested that COUNTY disconnect and remove CITY Pump Station 15, reconstruct CITY Pump Station 19, construct a gravity storm drain in Franklin Avenue from Arena Street to Standard Street and in Standard Street from Franklin Avenue to Pump Station 19 in El Segundo Boulevard, hereinafter referred to as "CITY ADDITION," and to own, operate and maintain CITY ADDITION upon completion; and WHEREAS, COUNTY proposes construction of Arena Drain in Franklin Street from a point east of Sierra Street to Arena Street; and WHEREAS, COUNTY is willing to combine the design and construction of CITY ADDITION with the design and construction of Arena Drain, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT "; and WHEREAS, CITY and COUNTY have heretofore executed Arena Drain Agreement No. 68083, dated March 28, 1995, hereinafter referred to as "AGREEMENT," regarding the construction of the PROJECT; and WHEREAS, AGREEMENT provided for CITY to fund the complete cost of constructing CITY ADDITION, estimated to be $4,157,500, and to deposit $4,365,375 to cover the estimated construction cost for CITY ADDITION plus five percent for contingencies; and 0 260 -3- WHEREAS, subsequent to entering into AGREEMENT, the estimated construction cost for CITY ADDITION increased to $6,025,107; and WHEREAS, to expedite the construction of PROJECT, COUNTY is willing to accept CITY'S proposed deposit of $4,365,375 as its total contribution toward the contract cost of PROJECT; and WHEREAS, COUNTY proposes to finance the remaining costs to construct PROJECT in excess of CITY'S fixed contribution. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual benefits to be derived by both CITY and COUNTY and of the premises herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: (1) COUNTY AGREES: a. To design, prepare specifications, advertise for construction bids, award PROJECT, administer the construction contract, to do all things necessary to complete PROJECT in accordance with said plans and specifications, and to own, operate and maintain PROJECT upon completion, except as noted in Section (3), Paragraph g. b. To submit draft plans and specifications to CITY for review and comment by CITY. 0 261 ILA! c. To prepare and obtain any necessary documents or approvals required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. d. To obtain any necessary permits to construct, operate and maintain PROJECT upon completion, except as noted in Section (2), Paragraph c. e. To indemnify, defend, and hold CITY, their officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any and all claims for damage resulting or alleged to have resulted from design, construction, operation, and maintenance of PROJECT, except as noted in Section (2), Paragraph c., and Section (3), Paragraph e. f. To submit to CITY, within ninety (90) days after comple- tion and acceptance of PROJECT by COUNTY'S Board Of Supervisors, a statement showing the actual construction cost of PROJECT. If construction contract cost of PROJECT is less than CITY'S fixed contribution, COUNTY shall refund to CITY the difference between the con- struction contract cost of PROJECT and CITY'S deposit after final accounting. (2) CITY AGREES: a. To pay COUNTY, upon execution of this Agreement and within ten (10) days of receipt of the invoice therefor, 0 262 -5- but not more than thirty (30) days prior to advertise- ment by COUNTY of its construction contract for PROJECT, the sum of $4,365,375. b. To review preliminary plans and specifications and approve the final plans and specifications for PROJECT. c. To obtain all necessary permits and /or letters of permission for the connection of PROJECT and discharge of low flows from PROJECT to a sanitary sewer including the treatment of this discharge, to provide COUNTY with copy of said permits and /or letters of permission prior to advertisement of PROJECT for construction, to pay all costs for obtaining and /or renewing said permits, to pay all costs for treating said discharge, to accept complete responsibility for said discharge and to indemnify, defend, and hold COUNTY, their officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any and all claims for damage or liability resulting or alleged to have resulted from said discharge. d. To the extent required by any agreement between the CITY and the NRDC, to provide NRDC with copies of plans and specifications for their review and comment, to incor- porate their comments with CITY comments and to provide COUNTY with combined comments. 0 263 e. To provide COUNTY with easements necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of PROJECT. f. To cooperate with COUNTY in conducting negotiations with and, where appropriate, issue notices to public utility organizations and private owners regarding the relocat- ion, removal, operation, maintenance, etc., of all surface and underground utilities, structures and transportation services which interfere with the proposed construction. Where utilities have been installed in public streets or on public property, CITY will obtain the relocation of the interfering utility at said owner's expense to the extent that CITY may legally do so. CITY will provide COUNTY with necessary rights of way and expedite no -cost permits for these utilities when relocation is made necessary by construction of the PROJECT. CITY, where legally possible, upon request of COUNTY, will give jurisdiction and grant, transfer, or assign all prior rights over utility companies now and hereafter when necessary to construct and complete PROJECT. 0 264 -7- (3) IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED: a. That COUNTY may use, at its discretion, the payment described in Paragraph a., of Section (2), to pay its contractor for constructing PROJECT. b. That COUNTY shall have the right to reject all bids and readvertise PROJECT, if said action is in the COUNTY'S best interest. C. It is mutually understood and agreed that COUNTY shall provide contract administration for construction contract and shall furnish an inspector, or other representative to perform the usual functions of an inspector, and CITY may also furnish an inspector at no cost to COUNTY. Said two inspectors shall cooperate and consult with each other to assure that the contractor constructs work that meets the plans and specifications for PROJECT as approved by the CITY Council. The COUNTY'S inspector or his representative shall be responsible for communications with the contractor or other person in charge of construction and the CITY'S inspector shall communicate with the contractor through the COUNTY'S inspector or as mutually agreed upon. It is mutually understood and agreed that the CITY'S inspector shall conduct a final inspection of PROJECT 0 265 after all PROJECT work is complete and before COUNTY acceptance of the contract. Any work found not to meet the requirements of the PROJECT plans and specifications, including revisions thereto, all as approved by the CITY'S engineer, shall be corrected prior to final acceptance of the contract by COUNTY. d. That CITY and COUNTY shall have no financial obligation to each other under this Agreement except as expressly provided herein. e. That this Agreement can be amended or terminated by mutual consent of both CITY and COUNTY. f. That if CITY terminates PROJECT, CITY will, upon receipt of claim therefore, reimburse COUNTY fifty (50) percent of PROJECT design costs to be determined by COUNTY at time of termination. g. That CITY has the sole responsibility of satisfying NRDC under terms of SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT including negotiating any necessary amendments to SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. h. The term or phrase "contract administration," as used or implied in this Agreement, shall include inspection, 0 266 estimating, project coordination, liaison, construction surveys, materials inspection and testing, and general quality control. i. That in contemplation of the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government Code of the State of California imposing certain tort liability jointly upon public entities solely by reason of such entities being parties to an Agreement, as defined in Section 895 of said Code, the parties hereto, as between themselves, pursuant to the authorization contained in Section 895.4 and 895.6 of said Code, will assume the full liability imposed upon it or any of its officers, agents, or employees by law for injury caused by any negligent or wrongful act or omission occurring in the performance of this Agreement to the same extent that such liability would be imposed in the absence of Section 895.2 of said Code. To achieve the above - stated purpose, each party indemnifies and holds harmless the other party for any cost or expense that may be imposed upon such other party solely by virtue of said Section 895.2. The provisions of Section 2778 of the California Civil Code are made a part hereof as if incorporated herein. 0 26; -10- j. That the provisions of any previous Assumption of Liability Agreement heretofore entered into between the parties hereto are inapplicable to this Agreement. k. That this Amended Agreement shall be effective on the date adopted by the COUNTY Board of Supervisors. 1. That as of the effective date of this First Amended Agreement, this First Amended Agreement shall supersede AGREEMENT No. 68083. Any provision of AGREEMENT No. 68083 that conflicts with the provisions of this First Amended Agreement shall be no longer in effect. Provisions of AGREEMENT No. 68083 that do not conflict with provisions of this First Amended Agreement shall remain valid and in effect. 0 268 -11- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers, duly authorized, by the CITY OF EL SEGUNDO on , 1997 and by the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES on 1997. ATTEST: JOANNE STURGES COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, acting EXECUTIVE OFFICER -CLERK on behalf of the Los Angeles OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Flood Control District BY BY DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ATTEST: BY BY CITY CLERK MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM: DE WITT W. CLINTON County Counsel APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney em April 29, 199'7 0 2E City of E1 Segundo CONTRACT #2386 AUREEdEH_1 68083 THIS AGREEMENT by and between the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, a political subdivision of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," acting on behalf of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, a body corporate and politic; and the CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a municipal corporation in the County of Los Angeles, hereinafter referred to as "CITY." WHEREAS, COUNTY is administering all matters for the Los Angeles County Flood Control District pursuant to Section 56 -3/4 of the COUNTY'S Charter and in accordance with an Agreement approved on December 26, 1984, between COUNTY and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District; and WHEREAS, CITY has entered into a SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, hereinafter referred to as "SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT," with the Natural Resources Defense Council, hereinafter referred to as "NRDC," to settle differences regarding alleged CITY discharge of pollutants into the Pacific Ocean; and WHEREAS, SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT requires that CITY implement storm water pollution prevention measures, including ability to divert storm drain low flow to a sanitary sewer; and M 0 270 City of E1 Segundo CONTRACT /2386 -2- WHEREAS, CITY has requested that COUNTY disconnect and remove CITY Pump Station 15, reconstruct CITY Pump Station 19, construct a gravity storm drain in Franklin Avenue from Arena Street to Standard Street and in Standard Street from Franklin Avenue to Pump Station 19 in E1 Segundo Boulevard, hereinafter referred to as "CITY ADDITION," and to own, operate and maintain CITY ADDITION upon completion; and WHEREAS, COUNTY proposes construction of Arena Drain in Franklin Street from a point east of Sierra Street to Arena Street; and WHEREAS, COUNTY is willing to combine the design and construction of CITY ADDITION with the design and construction of Arena Drain, hereinafter referred to as "PROJECT "; and WHEREAS, CITY is willing to fund the complete cost of constructing CITY ADDITION. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual benefits to be derived by both CITY and COUNTY and of the premises herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: (1) COUNTY AGREES: a. To design, prepare specifications, advertise for construction bids, award PROJECT, administer the 0 2 70 t city of El Segundo 0 16 coNTRACr #2386 -3- construction contract, to do all things' necessary to "' complete PROJECT in accordance with said plans and specifications, and to own, operate and maintain PROJECT upon completion, except as noted in Section (2), Paragraph e. b. To include in the design of PROJECT a system that will keep storm water from coming into contact with soil within the retention basin and pump station, a trashrack with an electric rake, a floating oil boom and a system which would allow but not require diversion of low flows into a sanitary sewer. c. To submit draft plans, specifications and final + Engineer's Cost Estimate to CITY for review and comment by CITY. d. To prepare and obtain any necessary documents or approvals required to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970. e. To obtain any necessary permits to construct, operate and maintain PROJECT upon completion, except as noted in Section (2), Paragraph b. f. To submit to CITY, within 90 days after completion and acceptance of PROJECT by COUNTY'S Board of Supervisors, a statement showing the actual construction cost of CITY ADDITION. 0 21e- City of E1 Segundo CONTRACT /2386 r -4- g. To indemnify, defend and hold CITY, their officers, agents, and employees free and harmless from any and all claims for damage resulting or alleged to have resulted from design, construction, operation, and maintenance of PROJECT, except as noted in Section (2), Paragraphs b. and e., and Section (3), Paragraph j. (2) CITY AGREES: a. To deposit with COUNTY, upon execution of this Agreement and within ten days of receipt of the invoice therefor, but not more than 30 days prior to advertisement by _.COUNTY of its construction contract for PROJECT, the sum of $4,365,375 which is the estimated construction cost for CITY ADDITION plus five percent for contingencies, as described in Section (3), Paragraph a. b. To obtain all necessary permits and /or letters of permission for the connection of PROJECT and discharge of low flows from PROJECT to a sanitary sewer including the treatment of this discharge, to provide COUNTY with copy of said permits and /or letters of permission prior to advertisement of PROJECT for construction, to pay all costs for obtaining and /or renewing said permits, to pay all costs for treating said discharge, to accept complete responsibility for said discharge and to indemnify, defend and hold COUNTY, their officers, 0 2 7 3 c. .l City of E1 Segundo CONTRACT 02386 -5- _ agents, and employees free and harmless from any and all claims for damage or liability resulting or alleged to have resulted from said discharge. To provide NRDC with copies of plans and specifications for their review and comment, to incorporate their comments with CITY comments and to provide COUNTY with combined comments. To provide COUNTY with easements necessary for the construction, operation and maintenance of PROJECT. e._ -To operate and maintain a floating oil boom and to maintain records regarding oil collection and disposal, and to indemnify, defend and hold COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees free and harmless from any and all claims for damage or liability resulting or alleged to have resulted from said operation or maintenance. f. To cooperate with COUNTY in conducting negotiations with and, where appropriate, issue notices to public utility organizations and private owners regarding the relocation, removal, operation, maintenance, etc., of all surface and underground utilities, structures and transportation services which interfere with the proposed construction. Where utilities have been installed in public streets or on public property, CITY 0 274 City of E1 Segundo CONTRACT 12386 will obtain the relocation of the interfering utility at � w" said owner's expense to the extent that CITY may legally do so. CITY will provide COUNTY with necessary rights of way and expedite no -cost permits for these utilities when relocation is made necessary by construction of the PROJECT. CITY, where legally possible, upon request of COUNTY, will give jurisdiction and grant, transfer, or assign all prior rights over utility companies now and hereafter when necessary to construct and complete PROJECT. (3) IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED: a. That the CITY deposit, as described in Section (2), Paragraph a., is based on the construction items shown on Exhibit A and summarized as follows: Total estimated cost of $4,157,500 CITY ADDITION Plus contingencies (5 %) $207,875 Grand Total Estimated CITY Cost $4,365,375 Deposit to be made $4,365,375 b. That COUNTY shall provide a final Engineer's Cost Estimate for CITY ADDITION as stated in Section (1), Paragraph c. CITY shall have the right to terminate PROJECT after review of final Engineer's Cost Estimate if said action is in the CITY'S best interest. CITY 0 275 , • 0 City of E1 Segundo CONTRACT 12386 -7- - shall provide written notification to COUNTY within 20 days of receiving final Engineer's Cost Estimate of CITY'S termination of PROJECT. c. That CITY'S share of PROJECT shall be the sum of the following costs: 1. Cost of CITY ADDITION based on the final measured quantities and the unit prices in the contractor's original bid. 2. -One hundred percent of any and all unforeseen costs incurred as a direct result of CITY ADDITION and approved by CITY engineer. d. That if, upon receipt of bids for PROJECT, the revised grand total estimated CITY cost based on the unit bid prices, as described in Paragraph a. of this Section, exceeds by at least $50,000 the sum deposited with COUNTY, CITY will, upon receipt of claim therefor, deposit the difference with COUNTY. Conversely, if the revised grand total estimated CITY cost is at least $50,000 less than the deposit, COUNTY will, upon receipt of claim therefor, refund the difference to CITY. e. That COUNTY may use, at its discretion, the deposit described in Paragraph a. of this Section, to pay its contractor for constructing PROJECT. 0 2i'� 9 • City of E1 Segundo CONTRACT 02386 -8- f. That, upon completion of PROJECT, if the final cost of CITY'S share of PROJECT referred to in Paragraph b. of this Section exceeds CITY'S deposit, as adjusted in accordance with Paragraph c. of this Section, CITY will upon receipt of claim therefor, pay to COUNTY the additional amount within 60 days. Conversely, if the final cost of CITY'S share of PROJECT is less than CITY'S deposit, as adjusted in accordance with Paragraph c. of this Section, COUNTY will refund the difference to CITY within 60 days. g. _That COUNTY shall have the right to reject all bids and readvertise PROJECT, if said action is in the COUNTY'S best interest. CITY shall have the right to inspect all bids and to terminate PROJECT if the lowest responsible bid exceeds the final Engineer's Cost Estimate by more than 5 percent and said action is in the CITY'S best interest. CITY shall provide written notification to COUNTY within 20 days of receiving COUNTY'S determina- tion of the lowest responsible bidder of CITY'S termination of PROJECT. h. It is mutually understood and agreed that COUNTY shall provide contract administration for construction contract and shall furnish an inspector, or other 0 277 City of E1 Segundo CONTRACT #2386 r representative to perform the usual functions of an inspector, and CITY may also furnish an inspector at no cost to COUNTY. Said two inspectors shall cooperate and consult with each other to assure that the contractor constructs work that meets the plans and specifications for PROJECT as approved by the CITY Council. The COUNTY'S inspector or his representative shall be responsible for communications with the contractor or other person in charge of construction and the CITY'S inspector shall communicate with the contractor through the COUNTY'S inspector or as mutually agreed upon: It is mutually understood and agreed that the CITY'S inspector shall conduct a final inspection of PROJECT after all PROJECT work is complete and before COUNTY acceptance of the contract; Any work found not to meet the requirements of the PROJECT plans and specifications, including revisions thereto, all as approved by the CITY'S engineer, shall be corrected prior to final acceptance of the contract by COUNTY. i. That CITY and COUNTY shall have no financial obligation to each other under this Agreement except as expressly provided herein. 0 278 City of E1 Segundo CONTRACT 02386 -10- - j. That this Agreement can be amended or terminated by mutual consent of both CITY and COUNTY. k. That if CITY terminates PROJECT as described in Paragraphs b., and g., above, CITY will, upon receipt of claim therefore, reimburse COUNTY 50 percent of PROJECT design costs to be determined by COUNTY at time of termination. 1. That during the design or operation and maintenance of PROJECT, COUNTY shall retain the right to modify and /or eliminate the electric rake and /or oil boom should either, in the CITY'S and COUNTY'S opinion, prove to be ineffective at preventing debris material and /or oil from entering the ocean or it is shown that the elements block flows and /or cause damage to pumps or inhibit the safe operation of the pump station. m. That CITY has the sole responsibility of satisfying NRDC under terms of SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT including negotiating any necessary amendments to SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. 0 279 City of E1 Segundo CONTRACT 02386 -11- - - n. The term or phrase "contract administration," as used or implied in this Agreement, shall include inspection, estimating, project coordination, liaison, construction surveys, materials inspection and testing, and general quality control. o. That in contemplation of the provisions of Section 895.2 of the Government Code of the State of California imposing certain tort liability jointly upon public entities solely by reason of such entities being parties to an Agreement, as defined in Section 895 of said Code, .the parties hereto, as between themselves, pursuant to the authorization contained in Section 895.4 and 895.6 of said Code, will assume the full liability imposed upon it or any of its officers, agents, or employees by law for injury caused by any negligent or wrongful act or omission occurring in the performance of this Agreement to the same extent that such liability would be imposed in the absence of Section 895.2 of said Code. To achieve the above - stated purpose, each party indemnifies and holds harmless the other party for any cost or expense that may be imposed upon such other party solely by virtue of said Section 895.2. The 0 280' City 8 of E1 Segundo CONTRACT #2386 -12- provisions of Section 2778 of the California Civil Code are made a part hereof as if incorporated herein. p. That the provisions of any previous Assumption of Liability Agreement heretofore entered into between the parties hereto are inapplicable to this Agreement. 0 281 City of E1 Segundo CONTRACT 02386 -13- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their respective officers, duly authorized, by the CITY OF EL SEGUNDO on M.. -,.h, 7 , 1995 and by the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES on MARCH �$ 1995. ATTEST: JOANNE STURGES COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, acting EXECUTIVE OFFICER -CLERK on behalf of the Los Angeles OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS County Flood Control District R, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVED AS TO FORM: DE WITT W. CLINTON County Counsel APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney BY � ADOPTED BOARD OF ;1' ?�RVISORS ca 34 MAR 2 8 1995 CA �Odf_"_ c�-� 1/� JOANNE STURGES' EXECUTIVE OFFICER 0 282 0 283 �.` k IEY UL 61 JCrjY Ut t CONTRACT 82386 EXHIBIT A Page 1 of 2 ESTIMATED PROJECT COST nF.SCRIPTION OF WORK I, CITY share of PROJECT (For the construction of CITY ADDITION) 1. Pump Station $2,000,000 2. Storm drain mainline, laterals and catch basins 1,268,000 3. Street improvement to facilitate drainage 25,000 4. Deepening the existing basin 575,000 5. Demolition of existing Pump No. 19 and temporary ,.__Station pumping 32,000 6. Screen and traveling rake 130,000 7. Generator and controls 15,000 _ 8. Log boom 5,000 9. Sump pump and control 7,500 10. Installation and testing of equipment 50,000 11. Disconnect and removal of r Pump Station 15 50,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION 4,157,500 Contingencies (5 %) 207,875 TOTAL.CITY CONSTRUCTION COST $4,365,375 GRAND TOTAL ESTIMATED CITY COST $4,365,375 0 283 l City of E1 Segundo � CONTRACT N2386 EXHIBIT A Page 2 of 2 II. COUNTY share of PROJECT 1. Construction of Arena Drain mainline, laterals and catch basins $450,000 SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION 450,000 Contingencies (5 %) 22,500 TOTAL COUNTY CONSTRUCTION COST $472,500 2. Design and Contract Administration (12% of SUBTOTAL CONSTRUCTION) CITY ADDITION $498,900 Arena Drain 54,000 TOTAL COUNTY COST OF DESIGN AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION $552,900 GRAND TOTAL ESTIMATED COUNTY COST $1,025,400 III. GRAND TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST $5,390,775 0 284 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ARENA DRAIN AND PUMP STATION PROJECT ADMINISTERED BY THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WHEREAS, the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works has designed the Arena Drain and Pump Station project in the City of El Segundo as shown in Exhibit "A "; and WHEREAS, the County has offered to construct, operate, and maintain the project and provide construction inspection and contract administration during construction; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The plans and specifications are hereby approved and the County is authorized to proceed with the construction of the project. SECTION 2. Permission is granted to the County to occupy and use City streets as necessary to construct, operate, and maintain the project. SECTION 3. City permits needed for the project will be granted to the County on a no -fee basis. SECTION 4. The County shall not be held accountable for the expense of relocation, alteration, and modifications of the project once installed, necessitated by future street improvements, realignments, alteration or reconstruction. 0 285 SECTION 5. The City Council hereby grants to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District the real property described in the Grant Deed Exhibit "B" to facilitate construction and maintenance of the pump station at the northwest corner of El Segundo Boulevard and Standard Street and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Grant Deed on behalf of the City. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution; shall enter the same in the book of original resolutions of said City; and shall make a minute of the passage and adoption thereof in the records of the proceedings of the City Council of said City, in the minutes of the meeting at which the same is passed and adopted. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 1997. Sandra Jacobs, Mayor of the City of El Segundo, California ATTEST: Cindy Mortesen City Clerk (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mark D. Hensley City Attorney Enclosures: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" NARESO'SARENA.RSO (4/7/97) 0 2°6 m n O ti N D z A D r J A n L :7 A z z D 1 i M X r 0 O z A v_ '*1 m 0 m D 3 MAIN STANDARD 9 r In [UCALYPTUS).. c z O I I 0 ARENA AR � 49 7y �2 0 c 3 0 Z $ 0 m 0 SHEL.DON [PENN SIERRA EXHIBIT "A" �c C �C C 28; DUPLICATE RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND MAIL TO: COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS P.O. Box 1460 Alhambra, CA 91802 -1460 Attn: Mapping & Property Management Division R/W Engineering Section THIS DOCUMENT IS EXEMPT FROM DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX PURSUANT TO SECTION 11922 OF THE REVENUE &TAXATION CODE THIS DOCUMENT RECORDED BY LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT PURSUANT TO SECTION 6103 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE EXHIBIT "B" Space Above This Line Reserved for Recorder's Use Assessor's Identification Number: 4135- 001 -900 GRANT DEED For a valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a municipal corporation, does hereby grant to LOS ANGELES COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, a body corporate and politic, the real property in the City of El Segundo, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof. Subject to the following express condition which the District, by the acceptance of this Grant Deed, agrees to keep and perform, viz: The real property conveyed hereby is to be used by District, its successors and assigns, only for a storm drain pump station and/or a storm water retention basin. If this real property is not used for a storm drain pump station and/or a storm water retention basin for a period of twelve (12) consecutive months, it shall revert to the City of El Segundo. Ninety (90) days prior to the end of said twelve (12) month period, the City shall give written notice to the District, or its successors or assigns, of the pending reversion due to non use. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, on , 19 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a municipal corporation, has caused this Grant Deed to be executed by its duly authorized officer pursuant to a resolution adopted by its City Council. CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, a municipal corporation 0 ayor CITY SEAL) ATTEST: ARENA DRAIN P -1 F 596 -RW 1 S.D.4 FG0141 By TKA:sI:MP- 9:48/ar City Clerk - -- -- -- ---------------------------------------- -------------- -- GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY -NO TAX STATEMENT 0 288 'ALE 1" = 60' U) Z CQ L m ;• < o FRANKLIN N N 140 11 N 2 = +- 03 _� _^ h 4 N N @5 034 N 6 o o �@7 N 3' 3 2 8 �0 9 10 BLK: 29 01 1 28 /? 12 '26 @13 ` 314 /515 ; X616 Q17 /8 18 N �9 1 9 /40 /6.95 20 2 0 /z9.ao POs: N R - sB. SO 20 24 AV E . o a kA /40 N Q4O a 39 038 N 37 N _� _^ h `^ @3 5 N N 034 N rev o o N 3' 3 2 N 10 ®31 '30 29 28 (S)2.7 '26 '25 24 :;: ::• ....'...'•'... 60 60 o O `9 0 Q 0 Z I- EL SEGUN DO BLVD: EXHIBIT 'A' 2 of 2 O 289 2 of 3 ARENA DRAIN P -1F 596 -RW 1 A.M.B. 4135 -001 -900 T.G. 732 (E2)New T.G. 56(A6)Old I.M. 23(C6) S.D. 4 FG0141 PARCEL NO. P -1F (Fee): All of Lots 21, 22 and 23, Block 10, of El Segundo, as shown on map filed in Book 18, page 69, of Maps, in the office of the Recorder of the County of Los Angeles. Containing: 10,501 square feet. EXHIBIT "A" ZA:cs:5:LDZA7 0 290 ARENA DRAIN, Grant Deed, Page 3 of 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On , before me, the undersigned, personally appeared (insert name and title) personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (Signature) (Name, Typed or Printed) (Seal) NOTARIES: A17ACH A1301 turvAL UK uinctt rurM3, it MZyU1rcn" STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM (FOR COUNTY USE ONLY) On , before me, CONNY B. McCORMACK, Registrar - Recorder /County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is /are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he /she /they executed the same in his/her /their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her /their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity on behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. CONNY B. McCORMACK, Registrar- Recorder/ County Clerk of the County of Los Angeles LIM Deputy County Clerk APPROVED as to title and execution, 199 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Mapping & Property Management Division MARTIN J. YOUNG Supervising Title Examiner III By MP- 9:32/ack4 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyyed by the within deed or grant is hereby accepted under the authority conferred by Ordinance No. 85 -0108, duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles on the 18th day of June, 1985, and the Grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer. Dated By ASSISTANT DEPUTY DIRECTOR Mapping & Property Management Division 0 291 s% ac�- Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council 921 E. Walnut Ave. City of El Segundo El Segundo, CA. 350 Main Street 90245 El Segundo, CA. 90245 May 3, 1997 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Carls Jr. Drive -thru Restaurant, Environmental Assessment Report EA -387, Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3 My name is Frank W. Von Flue, and I am the property owner of a four unit Apartment at 1624 E. Palm Ave., directly across from the Washington Street Park. This letter reinforces the Planning Commission decision to deny approval of the subject EA/CUP and prompts reference to my letter of February 26, 1997 to the Planning Commission and the following comments: o Traffic would increase along Palm Ave. prompted by the Entrance /Exit at Palm Ave. o A 24 hour drive -thru operation is disturbing to the residents o Loss in my property value at 1624 E. Palm Ave would occur. o Neighborhood Safety is a problem as verified in reviews at other locations for this type of business. o Years ago- Woody's Restaurant was denied a drive -thru permit. o Non - compliance with the approved Zoning Requirements. o The net revenue to the City is very little as identified in the EA.. o Establishment would be adjacent to residential properties. You are requested to deny this subject Conditional Use Permit and EA. Very truly yours, 4 j � JJ jzla 1 Frank W. Von Flue, P.E. EA387CUP.597 ga S_ K% . -:161 , i•YV 'O(M931,; 1*4 )1831c) Alta CITY OF EL SEGUNDO INTER - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DATE: May 2, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council 5 THROUGH: Bret B. Bernard, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Safety FROM: Laurie B. Jester, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Carl's Jr. Appeal (Environmental Asse ment EA -387, Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3) Attached is the appeal letter from the applicant, The Reyes Group, for CKE Restaurants, Inc. (Carl's Jr.) which was inadvertently left out of the agenda packet for the May 6, 1997 City Council meeting. Attachment xc: Jim Morrison, City Manager Mark Hensley, City Attorney To �gant.Clty Attorney Marlene Baker, Executive Assistant Julia Abreu, Legal Assistant pro] ects \ea- 387\apea1- cc.Itr The Reyes Group Inc. License #328590 Deal Estate Development Construction Management April 2. 1997 Ms. Laura Freeman City of El Segundo Office of the City Clerk 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 -0989 Re: Letter of Appeal Carls Jr. Restaurant 639 N. Sepulveda Blvd. C.U.P. 96 -3 & E.A. -387 Dear Ms. Freeman: Please let this letter serve as an official Letter of Appeal of the Planning Commission denial of the Carls Jr. Project, C.U.P. 96 -3 & E.A. -387. The Planning Commission failed to address or consider the planning aspects of the project. After a year of City staff input and meetings with us the applicant, the Commission failed to address the specifics of the project. The City's exhaustive staff report and environmental finding were totally ignored. As of this date, the actual reasons for denial are still not known. We reserve the right to address the findings once they are made public. We respectfully request that we be allowed to present our project before of City Oto cover the cost fahe appeal. Thank have enclosed a check in the amount you for your immediate attention to this request. Sincerely, The Reyes Group Inc. UJ r" or A. As Agents for CKE Restaurants, Inc. 1224 E. Katella Avenue, Suite 105, Orange, CA 92867 (714) 516 -1010 * Fax (714) 516 -1011 Qeur /�a��'.sa:nd-ro.. Jacob ;5 �a n} o r,�►� y and the. o rh e r �l lt. CoILMi1 AeM6Crs -rW We ob jecT re �Iavl it a 6Lr Is Tr. cts acxl "reALL.LrCLht on a .86 acre y)CL -reel o) IL 14 at the Sc'1.i bwest earner �LL1 v e da. Zo•u.�evcL`r4 a.- r a 1pa�O A veh u e, We � «Ye ouY a part MehT5- m-r IL 3 7 `4L)M� whi6l hq.Wr- Ueeh )Ll�-' r Mnfi j��v.4nL'LJQ- (L"r.;� J 'trc•c_�I aLro 5 -r oM t- aCa VcLYc: N\ � `L1 A3 . t W GalA ( -r ecct c� e re c i cLfie h r_ V Q) N e. G� 6-4'r 1' D D L' 7' `j � W � (G i 5 Co LL Y CtCA • �i, t_ GL \ � c tt T r e ci s v n y• I c M e h 110 In a, u be (�) ,ni d 0 h t 1\4 e- e d a h Aore �oLs-t aced eciT- 6-jie•3, , h the wre-a I��ca � (L; NA I'S C� C) paYkS het �,ra b1e�(� �►�r u.al�� AA. MeS roAA LLctYs U- -t-Ot- 1 Gc�crS t,a plc.t�es- brih 15 i`n -LLhciesir•e- U.bias CLV t-mes 7tiiut :.c.gs rUr 1 t'1 e s �Yti a l e T'Y12 h t� e '�- e v e r u� �, 1' i1 N• b r i n c� (h II V1Je �a V e M u- n� vi ?}e r -r e s o n 5. c�Y n ct h,�. v, h `a ca C�aYI s Sr. r, D rLY 7-0V\`t ` ��r at • Th e[� w , 11 b e: fvAL h r, on e_d I `-� 'I 7 i4� nn 0 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council 921 E. Walnut Ave. City of El Segundo El Segundo, CA. 350 Main Street 90245 El Segundo, CA. 90245 May 3, 1997 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Subject: Carls Jr. Drive -thru Restaurant, Environmental Assessment Report EA -387, Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3 My name is Frank W. Von Flue, and I am the property owner of a four unit Apartment at 1624 E. Palm Ave., directly across from the Washington Street Park. t This letter reinforces the Planning Commission decision to deny approval of the subject EA/CUP and prompts reference to my letter of February 26, 1997 to the Planning Commission and the following comments: o Traffic would increase along Palm Ave. prompted by the Entrance /Exit at Palm Ave. o A 24 hour drive -thru operation is disturbing to the residents o Loss in my property value at 1624 E. Palm Ave would occur. o Neighborhood Safety is a problem as verified in reviews at other locations for this type of business. o Years ago- Woody's Restaurant was denied a drive -thru permit. o Non - compliance with the approved Zoning Requirements. o The net revenue to the City is very little as identified in the EA.. o Establishment would be adjacent to residential properties. You are requested to deny this subject Conditional Use Permit and EA. Very truly yours, Frank W. Von Flue, P.E. EA387CUP.597 S I 3l� Jll.l� �� )18 m M m 5 i l mss; c) s (,��;s ;ate -I-© �h Q Co (A a, S - PQ-A- M,� (VSA t S Y1 c)+ C E> yy-\ p - '► b `z- o V-� c\- e Ol�5 Co-) o, v e- 3A I C , C-R My name is Sheila Archibeque and I manage the apartments at 1622 E Palm Ave.. I'm the last apartment house on that block, we sit on the edge of tht park at Palm and Washington. I Thought last month would be the end of Carls Jr. because thats what the people in the area wanted, but here we are again. I have another engagement so I have asked my neighbor Lottie to read this letter in my behalf. Like the last meeting, I still do not want Carls Jr. on my block for the same reasons that I stated before. Our street is too small for anymore traffic that will come from Carls Jr.. We can only park on one side of the street, so when non residents come through Carls Jr. where are we all going to park ?. Our parks are onlly day parks, there are no lights at night and my apartment house f does not need the noise and trash from young people finding a place to eat and do there drinking and there smoking what ever that might be. We have alot of children that play in the park and many people walk their dogs during the day, and nobody is in the parks at night. So lets not start with people from other cities. Please Please keep this from happening. Crime will also be a concern for my neighbors, we do not need the problems that a fast food place will bring. ��l�Cbu�f� ierJ tlecn� Qo�� y'C6 1 (CI � C(9 -7 C 44.4- re s tic LA2 k ax-ck CU e,,r— �NJL 64C V/C,-4/� C OYN J)r CL ,4 f Id Yom` CA-� cl Z -e u'l-k C, jr C�lrt c C--) Karl? LANCE A. ADAIR MARC ALEXANDER THOMAS D. ARNOLD DIANE P. CAREY BRIAN W. CASSERLY JOHN W. COCHRANE JOHN C. CONDAS JAMES R. DEMARCO STEVEN J. DZIDA ROGER M. FRANKS HELENE Z. FRANKZ EDWARD A. GALLOWAY ROGER A. GRAD JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH A LAW CORPORATION 4 PARK PLAZA - 16TK FLOOR P05T OFFICE BOX 19704 IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92623 -9704 WILLIAM M. HENSLEY DARREN L. HEREFORD JOAN M. HUCKABONE F. SCOTTJACKSON ANDREW V. LEITCH THOMAS D. PECKENPAUGH JOHN PETRASICH ANDREW C. SCHUTZ DAVID C. SMITH DOUGLAS P. SMITH JAY R. STEINMAN MICHAEL L. TIDUS BY HAND DELIVERY City Council City of El Segundo City Council Chambers 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 (714) 752 -8585 May 6, 1997 Re: Environmental Assessment EA -387, Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3 Dear Honorable City Councilmembers: REX A. MCKITTRICK RETIRED FAX: (714) 752 -0597 WRITERS DIRECT DIAL NUMBER: (714) 8 ERN7E 22 jcc258 @jdplaw.com OUR FILE NUMBER: 26496 We represent CKE Restaurants, Inc. ( "CKE "), applicant for the above matters. For the reasons discussed below, we believe that the City Council should grant CKE's appeal, overrule the City Planning Commission, and approve Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3 ( "CUP ") and a mitigated negative declaration for the project, a 3,050- square foot fast -food restaurant with a drive -thru at 639 North Sepulveda Boulevard ( "Project "). CKE requests that this letter be included in the administrative record for this application. I. HISTORY OF THE APPLICATION CKE began its efforts to obtain approval of the Project over one year ago. Through this period, CKE and its consultants completely cooperated with the City Planning Staff in order to address their concerns, as the plans for the Project were revised several times at the request of the Staff. On February 27 and March 27, 1997, the Planning Commission held hearings on the CUP, and, in Resolution 2389 ( "Resolution "), denied the CUP and rejected the proposed mitigated negative declaration, finding it to be inadequate. We understand the Planning Commission failed to address the specific impacts of the Project, and ignored the exhaustive JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH City Council May 6, 1997 Page 2 Staff Report and environmental findings recommended by Staff. Also, we understand that the Planning Commission based its denial in part on a future proposed ordinance now being processed by the City which would ban all drive -thru restaurants only in certain areas of the City, which includes the site of the Project, even though this regulation is not a part of the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "MC "). As the January 27, 1997, Initial Study for the Project ( "Initial Study ") concluded, the Project may have significant impacts on the environment, but through the mitigation measures imposed, a mitigated negative declaration was recommended. In response to this exhaustive study, the Planning Commission's Resolution, in Fact 9, provided alleged evidence supporting denial of the CUP. The statements in this "Fact" include that the Project would generate additional vehicular trips which would affect parking, pedestrian and vehicular safety, and traffic flow, especially given the fact that Palm Avenue is a substandard road, as defined in the General Plan, because it is only 40' wide; the Project will increase noise levels in the area, the Project will have air quality impacts, there will be an increase in crime and thus a decrease in property values; a drive -thru will lead to increased trash, a drive -thru does not "promote an upscale image" of the City and is not consistent with the City's "small town" characteristics, and the development of the Project in the vicinity of Washington Park will be detrimental to the safety of children using the park. These statements fly in the face of the objective evidence presented by CKE and its consultants, as reviewed by the Staff. For the reasons discussed below, the City Council should approve the CUP, because the findings which the City Council must make to approve the CUP (MC § 20.74.060) are inescapable, supported by substantial competent expert evidence. II. THE REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CUP SHOULD BE MADE A. Both California State Law and the El Segundo Municipal Code Require the City Council to Make Findings Findings are required to "bridge the analytic gap" between raw evidence and the ultimate decision. Toganga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506, 514 (1974). As will be demonstrated tonight, and was the case before the Planning Commission, virtually all of the evidence dictates that the Project will have no significant environmental impacts, and that a CUP should be approved. The required findings for approval of a CUP are found in MC § 20.74.060: "A. Before a Conditional Use Permit may be granted, it shall be found: JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH City Council May 6, 1997 Page 3 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of this title and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located; 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter." As discussed below, the Project will have no significant environmental impacts, and the City Council should make these three findings to approve the CUP. B. The Conditional Use Is in Accord with the Objectives of the Zoning Code and the Purposes of the Zone in Which the Site Is Located The first required finding of § 20.74.060 is met. The Property is designated general commercial (C -3), and its purposes include: "This Zone is intended to provide for the development of commercial establishments which serve a broad cross - section of the City and surrounding area. Regulations are designed to promote and control their growth in a favorable environment to all abutting and surrounding land uses. Principal uses, therefore, include a broad spectrum of retail and service commercial uses." MC § 20.33.010. As discussed in the Initial Study, the land uses surrounding the Project consist of one and multi -story residential and commercial structures, including apartments and condominiums, a restaurant/bar/billiards establishment, surface parking lot and retail stores, and thus the Project is not expected to produce significant impacts in the pattern or scale of existing development on the Project site, and the drive -thru restaurant use should be compatible with the general scale of surrounding uses and structures. Initial Study at 3 -4. The May 1996 Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by Stevens - Garland Associates ( "Traffic Study "), cites the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual which indicates that the patronage of fast -food restaurants typically consists of between 25% and 56% of those who are driving by the restaurant, with an average of 43 %. Traffic Study at 12. JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH City Council May 6, 1997 Page 4 Consequently, the Project will encourage the spending of more dollars in the City, and will serve many who are driving on Sepulveda Boulevard. Therefore, the purposes of the C3 Zone would be promoted through approval of the CUP. C. Approval of the CUP Will Not Be Detrimental to the Public Health, Safe1y or Welfare The second required finding, that the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which would be operated or maintained, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, (MC § 20.74.060.A.2) should be made. Regardless of which impacts are selected, the impacts are so insubstantial to support this finding. Further, the minor impacts that will be generated can be mitigated through the suggested mitigation measures, which can be imposed as conditions of the CUP. 1. Traffic Impacts Are Minimal Regardless of whether the absolute number of trips to be generated by the Project, or the levels of service on intersections are examined, both lead to the same inescapable conclusion that the Project's traffic impacts are minimal. Regarding Project trip generation, the Project is expected to increase daily traffic volumes along Sepulveda Boulevard by only 1,040 trips, approximately 1.6% of the total daily traffic. Initial Study at 7. The key street in terms of alleged sensitivity to Project impacts is Palm Avenue, west of the Project. However, Palm Avenue, west of the Project site, which has an existing volume of 800 vehicle trips per day, would experience an increase of 100 vehicle trips per day, if the Project is built, only a 12.5% increase. Traffic Study at 25. Concerning the Project impacts on various intersections' levels of service ( "LOS "), the Initial Study concludes that development of the Project would not cause significant changes in utilization of three of the four intersections, not even leading to a change in the LOS. Initial Study at 8. The intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard/Palm Avenue would experience a decrease in its LOS, but the intersection would worsen from LOS A to LOS B, which is not considered significant. Initial Study at 8. Involving the alleged impact of an increased safety risk to children at Washington Park, the Initial Study recommended numerous mitigation measures to limit the impacts of pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and to retain the sidewalk on Palm Avenue. Initial Study at 8 -9. The Initial Study recommended five additional mitigation measures to mitigate these impacts, and recommended prohibiting parking adjacent to the Project site along the entire length of the site on Sepulveda Boulevard, subject to the approval of Caltrans. Initial Study at 9 -10. The JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH City Council May 6, 1997 Page 5 Initial Study concludes that with the implementation of these mitigation measures, circulation and traffic impacts will be mitigated to an insignificant level. Initial Study at 10. Since left turns onto Palm Avenue out of the Project will be prohibited, the Staff Report concluded that there will be an insignificant impact on Washington Park due to additional traffic. Initial Study at 15. Also, CKE's trip consultants studied the potential impacts of cars going through the drive -thru, by analyzing the stacking distance of a minimum queuing for drive- thrus, through studying three existing Carls Jr. locations, and the Initial Study determined that the five recommended mitigation measures would mitigate these queuing impacts. Initial Study at 9 -10. The Initial Study states that if the Project is approved, the Project would be subject to the City's Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program, and that the Project would be subject to a fee of over $82,000. Initial Study at 9. Therefore, even if it is contended that the Project will have substantial traffic impacts (a point clearly contrary to the objective evidence prepared by CKE's consultants and reviewed by the Staff), the payment of this traffic fee can be used to fund traffic improvements to mitigate impacts. The United States and the California Constitutions, as well as California statutory law, require that the funds collected by the City for the Project must be used for traffic improvements that will benefit the Project. Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 CalAth 854 (1996). Therefore, due to these de minimis traffic impacts, the statements in "Fact" 9 concerning traffic and circulation impacts fly in the face of the objective evidence. 2. The ProJect's Noise Impacts Are Minuscule Contrary to the unsubstantiated assertions established in the Resolution, in May 1996 (amended on January 21, 1997), an Acoustical Analysis prepared by Davy & Associates, Inc. ( "Acoustical Analysis "), cited in the Initial Study, proves that the Project will not generate any noise impacts. The Acoustical Analysis concluded that the minimum ambient noise level on the site is 55 dBA and the maximum noise levels generated by the operation of the Project would be between 9 and 17 dBA below the minimum ambient noise level, and thus the noise levels generated by the restaurant operations will have no significant effect on nearby residents. Initial Study at 12. For further protection, Staff recommended that hours of operation for the drive -thru will be limited to further mitigate any potential impacts, and within six months after the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, a post- construction acoustical analysis should be prepared which would lead to an adjustment of the Project's hours of operation based upon the findings of this analysis. Initial Study at 12. JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH City Council May 6, 1997 Page 6 The Initial Study also concluded that the noise and vibration effects of the Project would be insignificant, and the traffic noise generated by the Project would be imperceptible. Initial Study at 12. Therefore, again contrary to the Resolution, reality dictates that the noise impacts will be minuscule. 3. The ProJect's Air Quality Impacts Are Minimal As discussed in the Initial Study, under the worst case assumptions of the South Coast Air Quality Management District's ( "SCAQMD ") CEQA Air Quality Handbook, construction activities of the Project will be well below the applicable thresholds. Initial Study at 5. Similarly, the operation of the Project, including fumes from mobile sources, and stationary sources such as grills and fryers, would not have a significant adverse impact on air quality, since the individual pollutant emissions are well below the significant thresholds established by the SCAQMD. Initial Study at 6. The Initial Study then concludes that because there are no air quality impacts, then no mitigation will be required for the operation of the Project. Id. Therefore, the only objective evidence, reviewed and accepted by the Staff, demonstrate that there will be no air quality impacts generated by the Project. 4. The Projcect Will Have no Parking Impacts Fact 9 also states that because Palm Avenue is a local substandard street, and due to the existing uses on Palm Avenue, the proposed number of parking spaces will be inadequate to accommodate the parking demands for both customers and employees. However, this flies in the face of the true facts. First, the City's Zoning Code requires 37 parking spaces and one loading space for the Project (Initial Study at 8), yet CKE proposes to provide 40 surface parking spaces and one loading space, thereby exceeding City requirements. Initial Study at 8. Therefore, the Project will provide a surplus of parking spaces. 5. The Project's Aesthetics Impacts Will be Minimal The Initial Study concludes that although the Project will introduce new lighting to the area, it will be required to be compatible with, and comparable to, the existing lighting surrounding the site so it will not significantly alter illumination of the area. Initial Study at 14. Additionally, CKE retained a consultant to undertake a photometric study demonstrating that although the lighting of the Project will be adequate for safety and security, the Project will not significantly alter existing light and glare conditions. Initial Study at 14. JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH City Council May 6, 1997 Page 7 6. The Project Will Generate No Other Significant Impacts Fact 9 also includes a panoply of other alleged impacts, none of which are supportable. First, there is the "fact" that the Project will increase crime, and decrease property values. However, CKE will be required to prepare a security plan to be approved by the City Police Department to ensure that security features are incorporated into the building design and the operation of the business. Initial Study at 12. Given this requirement, and the fact that now the site is vacant, since vacant sites often tend to generate more criminal activity than do occupied sites, the Project will not increase crime. Concerning the statement in Fact 9 that a drive -thru does not promote an "upscale" image, this alleged impact should not be considered. First, as the Initial Study concludes, the Project will be one -story in height and of similar character to adjacent commercial structures. Initial Study at 13. Visibility of the site will be buffered from the nearby residential areas with landscaping on all the setbacks, around the building perimeter and within the parking lot, in excess of Code requirements. Initial Study at 14. Further, the Project, as the Initial Study states, will not be aesthetically offensive, but rather would provide a new, modern facility on a vacant lot. Initial Study at 14. The attempt to justify denial on this ground is improper, as a subversion of good planning practice, to prevent in the minds of some, an undesirable land use, a drive -thru restaurant. Such a basis for denial is invalid. Cf. Amel Development Co. v. City of Costa Mesa, 126 Cal.App.3d 330 (1981); Desert Turf Club v. Board of Supervisors, 141 Cal.App.2d 446 (1956). Therefore, the City Council cannot deny approval of the CUP based upon this invalid ground. D. The Proposed CUP Will Comply With Each of The Applicable Provisions of This Chapter The final required finding for the City Council to issue the CUP, that the CUP will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this chapter (MC § 20.74.060A.3), is met. There has been no evidence presented by anyone that the granting of the CUP would violate any provision of the Municipal Code, and therefore, this finding can be made as well. III. THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT DENY THE CUP BASED UPON ITS PROPOSED BANNING OF DRIVE -THRU RESTAURANTS It is improper for the City Council to deny the CUP based upon regulations currently in the pipeline which are not now a part of the ordinances, rules and regulations of the City. If the City Council attempts to deny the CUP based upon this ground, it can be argued that this act JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH City Council May 6, 1997 Page 8 would be in violation of Government Code § 65858, which sets out the requisite standards for imposition of a moratorium. In such a situation, by denying the CUP on this ground, the City is circumventing the strict moratorium requirements of the Government Code. Further, since CKE's application is deemed complete, it would be unfair to subject it to regulations not yet in effect, especially given the Project's sensitivity to the environment. Cf. Government Code § 65961. IV. CONCLUSION City Staff, along with CKE and its consultants, have thoroughly and exhaustively studied the impacts of the Project. The results of this exhaustive review are that the Project will not have any significant impacts on the surrounding area, and actually will benefit the City and its residents. For these resulting negligible impacts, Staff has fashioned feasible and effective mitigation measures to mitigate these impacts. Although some may not support the Project based upon unsupportable assertions, the City Council should take a hard look at the studies and conclude that these claims are without merit. CKE respectfully requests that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission's denial of the CUP by approving the CUP and the mitigated negative declaration for the Project. Ve truly yours, C J C. Condas JCC:cbp 0255607.01 CITY OF EL SEGUNDO INTER- DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DATE: April 15, 1997 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council THROUGH: Bret B. Bernard, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Safety b FROM: Laurie B. Jester, Senior Planner 1 SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment EA- 387 /Conditional Use Permit CUP 96- 3 Carl's Jr. Drive -thru Restaurant - 639 North Sepulveda Boulevard On March 27, 1997 the Planning Commission voted to deny Environmental Assessment EA -387, Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3 for the Carl's Jr. Drive -thru Restaurant. Mr. Lorenzo Reyes (representative for CKE, Inc.) submitted an appeal letter and appeal fee on April 3, 1997, therefore, the City Council has been scheduled to hear this appeal at a public hearing on May 6, 1997. Councilmembers Jane Friedkin and Mike Gordon are within 2,500 feet of this project and may have a potential conflict of interest. City Attorney, Mark Hensley, will be available to discuss these potential conflicts of interest with the Council. Attached you will find the following: ♦ Staff Report and exhibits dated February 27, 1997 (a Staff Report was not re- distributed for the March 27, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting). Exhibits include the following: ♦ Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration ♦ Interdepartmental Correspondence ♦ Petitions and Letters from Surrounding Residents and Chamber of Commerce ♦ Project Applications ♦ Traffic Impact Study and Revisions ♦ Acoustical Analysis and Revisions ♦ Project Plans, January 23, 1997 ♦ Planning Commission Draft Resolution No.2389, approving EA -387 and Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3. ♦ Planning Commission Approved Resolution No. 2389 denying Environmental Assessment EA -387, Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3; and, rejecting a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts. ♦ Planning Commission Minutes dated February 27 and March 27, 1997. ♦ Petitions and Letters from Surrounding Residents and Public Agencies received after distribution of the Planning Commission Packet ♦ Colored reductions of Site Plan and Evaluations, February 19, 1997 Please retain these for your use at the City Council Meeting of May 6, 1997. A Staff Report will be distributed with the City Council Agenda Packet. xc: Jim Morrison, City Manager Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk Mark Hensley, City Attorney projects \ea- 387\ea- 387cc -m em CITY OF EL SEGUNDO INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE MEETING DATE: February 27, 1997 TO: Chair and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Bret B. Bernard, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Safety b� STAFF PLANNER: Laurie B. Jester, Senior Planner V;0__1k SUBJECT: n v EienssessmeEA 3 Conditional Ica E r 1A r^U tP 9R � Carl's Jr Dnve thr � R -ct;; �r nt Address: 639 North Sepulveda Boulevard Applicant: CKE Restaurants Inc., Mr. Tom Wilhelm The Reyes Group Inc., Mr. Lorenzo Reyes Property Owner: N/S Express Inc., Mr. Tom Ennis The Planning Division has received the above referenced applications which request approval to construct an approximate 3,050 gross square foot Carl's Jr. fast food restaurant with a drive -thru, to be located on a 0.86 acre vacant parcel of land at the southwest comer of Sepulveda Boulevard and Palm Avenue, at 639 North Sepulveda Boulevard, in the General Commercial (C -3) Zone. Municipal Code requires that drive -thru restaurants need approval of a Conditional Use Permit in all commercial and industrial zones. RECOMM NDADDN The Planning Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No 2389 approving Environmental Assessment EA -387 and CUP 96 -3; and, find that all of the potential environmental impacts created by the project can be adequately mitigated to an insignificant level by the proposed conditions/mitigation measures. The draft Resolution will be distributed separately, prior to the Planning Commission meeting. PROJECT DESr•RIPTION The proposed project is the construction of a new approximately 3,050 square foot gross (2,966 square foot net) Carl's Jr. fast -food restaurant with a drive -thru. The new drive -thru are foot) lot restaurant would be located on a currently vacant 0.86 acre (37,286 squ located at the southwest comer of Sepulveda Boulevard (State Highway a and Palm Avenue, 639 N. Sepulveda Boulevard. No outdoor dining or alcohol sales are proposed and the restaurant would be owned and operated by CKE; it would not be a franchise. The project includes an 89 seat restaurant which is proposed to operate from 7:00 am to 11:00 Pm Sunday through Thursday and 7:00 am to 2:00 pm on Friday and Saturday. The drive - thru is proposed to operate twenty -four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. The pick- up window and menu board/speaker box are located on the north side of the building with the drive -thru queue on the east side. The building is one story and 25 feet maximum in height. Access to the site would be provided by a new 25 foot wide two -way driveway on Sepulveda Boulevard, on the south end of the site, which would replace an existing 30 foot wide curb cut located near the center of the lot. Three existing curb cuts on Palm Avenue, 0 6 feet, 22 feet and 29 feet in width) would be removed and replaced with curbs, gutters and sidewalks to match the existing. A new 30 foot wide curb cut is proposed, approximately 47 feet east of the westerly side property line. The new curb cut would accommodate a two -way driveway with an accentuated "pork- chop" shaped raised median to accommodate a right -tum only exit off of the property onto Palm Avenue. A 13 foot wide by 50 foot long loading zone is proposed on the west side of the building and 40 total parking spaces are provided, including 38 standard spaces and 2 handicapped spaces. A portion of the Hacienda Hotel surface parking lot, which encroaches approximately 13 feet ten inches onto the west side of the property, is proposed to remain. No new fences or walls are proposed; the existing 6 foot high chain link fence on the south and west sides of the property are proposed to remain. The total site landscaping is approximately 10,838 square feet in area, covering 29% of the total site. A total of thirty -five (35) to forty (40) employees will occupy the site; with a total of six (6) to eight (8) employees per shift. aMEDISMEIM The project site is located within the northwest portion of the City of El Segundo, approximately one mile west of the San Diego (1 -405) Freeway and one -half mile south of the Glenn Anderson (1 -105) Freeway and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The Metro Green Line Light Rail and the closest station at Mariposa Avenue and Nash Street is located approximately one -half mile to the east of the project site. Local jurisdictions near the site include the City of Los Angeles located north of Imperial Highway, the City of Manhattan Beach located south of Rosecrans Avenue, and the City of Hawthorne located east of Aviation Boulevard. According to the City's building permit records, the site has previously received approval, and permits have been issued, for several development projects including a hotel, offices and retail uses; however, the site has never been developed. Most recently, in 1994, a carwash with a mini -mart retail store, two (2) rack lube facility and four (4) gasoline pumps, were proposed for the site. The City Council denied the Conditional Use Permit request on appeal. The site is relatively level with very little vegetation. The site is completely paved containing no unique geologic features, and is rectangular in shape; 181 feet wide by 206.8 feet in length. There is a 13 foot wide surface parking lot encroachment, for the adjacent Hacienda Hotel, along the entire rear, western property line, which would be buffered by 13 foot 6 inches of landscaping. The surrounding area is developed with one and two -story multiple- family residential units (small condominium and apartment complexes, many with underground parking) to the north and west, a two -story restaurant/bar/billiards parlor across Palm Avenue to the north, an eight -story office building and single story commercial shopping center across Sepulveda Boulevard to the east, and a surface parking lot, for the Hacienda Hotel, immediately to the south and west. The Hacienda Hotel parking lot has a curb cut on Palm Avenue with metal "teeth" in the driveway which only allows vehicles to exit, not enter the lot from Palm Avenue. To the west of the parking lot, approximately 74 feet away from the subject property, is a two -story condominium complex with underground parking. The Hacienda Hotel parking lot is separated from the condominium project to the west by a block retaining wall that is approximately four (4) to eight (8) feet in height. A landscape strip approximately fifteen (15) feet in width then separates the parking lot from the six (6) to eight (8) foot high solid block wall on the east side property line of the condominium complex. The first floor elevation of the condominium complex is approximately ten (10) feet higher than the elevation of the subject property. Further west on Palm Avenue, approximately 340 feet west of the subject site is Washington Street Park; a linear city park with a tot lot, picnic tables, grass areas and par - course located under the Southern California Edison power lines. The properties to the north across Palm Avenue are zoned Commercial General (C -3) and Multi - Family Residential (R -3), to the south and west is zoned Parking (P), and further west is zoned Multi - Family Residential (8-3), and to the east across Sepulveda Boulevard is zoned Corporate Office (C -O). Surrounding land uses are as follows: Lance North: Commercial and multi- family residential (condominiums and apartments) South: Parking East: West: Office and Commercial Parking z Z9D� General Commercial (C -3) and Multi- family Residential (R -3) Parking (P) Corporate Office (CO) and General Commercial (C -3) Parking (P) In accordance with Section 20.33.010 of the El Segundo Municipal Code, the purpose of the General Commercial (C -3) Zone is to provide consistency with and implement policies of the General Commercial designation in the General Plan. The Zone is intended to provide commercial establishments which serve a broad cross - section of the City and surrounding area. Regulations are designed to promote and control their growth in a favorable environment to all abutting and surrounding land uses, and therefore principal uses include a broad spectrum of retail and service commercial uses. Section 20.33.040 of the El Segundo Municipal Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for drive -thru restaurants in the C -3 Zone. All commercial and industrial zones in the City have the same Conditional Use Permit requirement. The following site development standards apply to new projects in the C -3 Zone: REQUIREMENTS C -3 ZONE STANDARDS PROPOSED PRO_ JECT Lot Area 10,000 s ft. min. q• 37,286 square feet Lot Frontage 100 ft. min. 181 feet on Sepulveda Boulevard; 206.8 on Palm Avenue Building Area 1:1 FAR (Floor Area Ratio) 0.08:1 FAR Building Height 45 feet 22 feet 9 inches Setbacks Front (Sepulveda Boulevard) 25 foot min. 35 feet 4 inches Street Side (Palm Avenue) Interior 25 foot min. 26 feet 6 inches (South) 15 foot min. 107 feet Rear (West) 15 foot min. 93 feet Landscaping a) Vehicular Use Area - 8.95 % of VUA and 1 tree 5% of VUA, 1 tree per 3,353 s.f. per 3,000 s.f. min. 3 Parking Spaces Loading Spaces Driveway Width Access b) Building perimeter - 5 foot min. -� c) Property perimeter - fully landscaped with max. 50% parking 37 spaces 1 space 30 foot max. Pedestrian access between buildings and to transit facilities 5 foot minimum Fully landscaped with 38% max. parking encroachment, except north side, 60% drive - thru lane encroachment 40 spaces 1 space 25 foot max - Sepulveda Blvd. 11 foot max -Palm Ave. Pedestrian access to Palm Ave. and Sepulveda Blvd. The preliminary landscaping plans submitted with the application indicates there is a shortage of trees provided in the Vehicular Use Area (VUA). Plans indicate there are 5 shade trees proposed in the 17,797 square foot VUA, which requires 6 trees. The applicant will be required to submit a full revised Landscape and Irrigation Plan which is in conformance with all Zoning Code Requirements. The site plans show that the drive -thru lane is setback in one area only ten 00) feet from the north side property line. The Zoning Code (Section 20.12.170) allows parking (and other VUA) to encroach a maximum of 50% into the required setback. Fifty percent of the required 25 foot setback is 12 feet 6 inches and the site plan will need to be revised accordingly. The project site is zoned General Commercial (C -3). The proposed use is not a permitted use in the General Commercial (C -3) Zone, and is allowed only subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit (Section 20.33.040 of the Zoning Code) by the City. Section 20.74.050 of the Zoning Code states that the purpose of a Conditional Use Permit shall be: A. To assure the compatibility of the particular use on the particular site in relationship to other existing and potential uses within the general area in which the use is proposed to be located; _ B. To assure the proposed use is consistent and compatible with the purpose of the zone in which the site is located; and, C. To recognize and compensate for potential impacts that could be generated by the proposed use, such as noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors, and traffic hazards. In accordance with Section 20.74.060 of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission may grant a Conditional Use Permit if it determines that all the following findings can be met (the findings appear in bold, with Staff's analysis following): A. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the Objectives of this title and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located; In accordance with Section 20.33.010, of the El Segundo Municipal Code, the Purpose Section of the General Commercial (C -3) Zone, the Zone is intended to provide commercial establishments which serve a broad cross - section of the City and surrounding area. Regulations are designed to promote and contro their l growth in a favorable environment to all abutting and surrounding land uses, and therefore principal uses include a broad spectrum of retail and service commercial uses. The proposed Carl's Jr. drive -thru restaurant is consistent with the purpose and intent of the C -3 Zone since the fast food restaurant is a commercial establishment which will serve a broad cross - section of the City and surrounding area. B. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and, Traffic - The applicants traffic consultant prepared a detailed Traffic Impact Analysis which evaluated all potential traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed drive -thru restaurant operation and concluded that there would be no impacts to the surrounding street system. The City's Traffic Engineer and Public Works, Police, Fire and Planning and Building Safety Departments also reviewed the analysis and agreed there would be no impacts with the mitigation measures detailed in the Transportation /Circulation portion of the Environmental Review section. The various City Departments and City Traffic Engineer have been working with the applicant and their Traffic Engineer to address potential traffic impacts since June of 1996. The project has been redesigned several times in order to address all of the various concerns. However, an issue that continues to be an ongoing concern with residents in the area is the impacts on Palm Avenue due to development of the project site. Concerns have centered around impacts to parking, pedestrian and vehicular safety and traffic flow. Although Staff believes that the project as currently designed mitigates any project impacts, in order to address the residents concerns, the Planning Commission may want to consider the following options, through the Conditional Use Permit process. The options, and potential concerns with the options as identified by City Staff and the City's Traffic Consultant, are discussed below. 1 • Close Palm Avenue Driveway This option, proposed by many residents in the 1400 and 1500 block of Palm Avenue (west of Washington Street) and the 700 block of Washington Street, would almost ensure that traffic would not "cut through" the adjacent residential neighborhoods to the west to exit the site. Traffic might still use Palm Avenue to access the site from the west, then enter the site via Sepulveda Boulevard. This option would also resolve any potential traffic impacts at the comer of Palm Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard. On -site circulation may not be as "smooth ", but it would still function safely and adequately. The applicant has stated in the past that they object to this option. No Palm Avenue access would make it difficult for El Segundo residents to access the site, since they would have to either enter via Sepulveda Boulevard, walk, bike or park on Palm Avenue or other adjacent streets and walk. Both the Police and Fire Departments object to this option as it is their policies to maintain two emergency access points to all commercial properties whenever feasible. An option that is not preferred, but would be acceptable to both Fire and Police, would be to install a curb cut and "grasscrete ", or other driveable landscaped surface, so that only emergency vehicles could enter and exit the site. Police would object to bollards also being installed as they would potentially impede immediate site access. 2• Close Palm Avenue Driveway Exit (maintain entrance) This option would also promote less traffic from "cutting through" the adjacent residential area to the west. The City's Traffic Consultant estimates, based on his experience, that approximately 30 -40% of those vehicles exiting the site would illegally exit the "do not enter", entrance only lane onto Palm Avenue. He believes that the majority of the people that would potentially violate the one -way entrance would be El Segundo residents returning home who would be avoiding Sepulveda Boulevard traffic and would be familiar with the site and surroundings. Neither the Police or Fire Departments object to this option, however the Fire Department indicated that the driveway must be a minimum of 15 feet in width in order to allow access for the largest fire truck. Installing "spikes" in the entrance only driveway, such as exist in the Hacienda Hotel driveway to the west, would not be recommended as they are not safe and would potentially limit emergency vehicle access. 3. Close Palm Avenue Driveway Entrance (maintain exit) This option is proposed by many residents in the 1600 block of Palm Avenue (see attached petitions). No Palm Avenue entrance would make it difficult for El Segundo residents to access the site, since they would have to either enter via Sepulveda Boulevard, walk, bike or park on Palm Avenue or other adjacent streets and walk. This would not resolve any potential traffic impacts at the comer of Palm Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard and the applicant has stated in the past that they object to this option. This alternative would potentially promote more traffic through the adjacent residential area to the west, since traffic would turn onto Palm Avenue from south bound Sepulveda Boulevard. Then, finding no access to the site from Palm Avenue, the vehicles would either turn around using a private residential driveway, cut through the Stick n' Stein parking lot, or make a U- turn at the Washington Street/Palm Avenue intersection; then drive back down Palm Avenue, east bound to south bound Sepulveda Boulevard and enter the Carl's Jr. property. Although repeat customers would become familiar with the site and not attempt to enter off of Palm, it is difficult to know what percentage of the customers are repeat and what percentage are new. Additionally, the City's Traffic Engineer estimates, based on his experience, that a significant percentage of those vehicles entering the site would illegally enter the "do not enter", exit only lane from Palm Avenue, although this maneuver would be difficult with the "pork -chop" style design of the right -turn only exit. He believes that the majority of the people that would potentially violate the one -way exit would be El Segundo residents who would be avoiding Sepulveda Boulevard traffic and would be familiar with the site and surroundings. Neither the Police or Fire Departments object to this option, however the Fire Department indicated that the driveway must be a minimum of 15 feet in width in order to allow access for the largest fire truck. This could be difficult to achieve with the "pork chop" design of the right turn only exit. Installing "spikes" in the exit only driveway, such as exist in the Hacienda Hotel driveway to the west, would not be recommended as they are not safe and would potentially limit emergency vehicle access. 4. Close Palm Avenue Exit and/or Entrance During Certain Hours All departments agree that this alternative is not acceptable as it would create a safety hazard. Vehicles driving on Palm Avenue would use residential driveways to tum- around. Motorists may not be able to clearly see the closure and could run into it, and it would be confusing for motorist since sometimes the driveway would be open and other times it would be closed. 5. Palm Avenue One -way East Bound (between Washington Street and Sepulveda Boulevard) This alternative, which is also proposed by many residents in the 1400 and 1500 block of Palm Avenue (west of Washington Street) and the 700 block of Washington Street, would require further traffic study and analysis to determine the total impacts to not only Palm Avenue, but to surrounding streets, in particular Mariposa Avenue, Maple Street and Washington Street, which may experience an increase in traffic due to the redirected vehicular movements. Additionally, the City's Traffic Engineer has stated that there would probably be little benefit from a traffic circulation standpoint derived from this alternative as the existing proposal prohibits left -tums onto Palm Avenue. He also raised concerns that some southbound Sepulveda Boulevard traffic may not be prepared for a one -way street and could turn right on Palm Avenue, creating a potential hazard. Lastly, the one -way street would limit access to the proposed site and potentially inconvenience residents to the west. However, the City's Traffic Engineer has stated that if the City wishes to pursue this option there are design concepts which could be utilized to mitigate the above described potential impacts, while maintaining a safe roadway situation. If the Planning Commission believes it is appropriate to have the applicant study this alternative further, a bond or other surety should be posted to ensure that the study is completed and any recommendations that are approved are implemented. Neighborhood meetings and further public hearings would be necessary to fully study and analyze this alternative. The City Council would have the final approval authority over this type of street modification and General Plan consistency findings would be required to be made. 6. Palm Avenue Choker This alternative would involve the construction of a choker, a raised concrete landscaped traffic diveter, on the north side of Palm Avenue, immediately west of the Stick n' Stein driveway. This would prohibit west bound Palm Avenue traffic from proceeding further west on Palm Avenue, but would still allow east bound Palm Avenue through traffic. This alternative is not recommended by any of the City Departments or the City's Traffic Engineer as it would force motorist who are heading west bound on Palm Avenue to enter private property, either the Stick n' Stein or Carl's Jr., when that may not be their destination. The option would most likely require City Council approval. 7. Palm Avenue Cul -de -sac This option would create a cul -de -sac at Washington Park so that Palm Avenue between Washington Street and Sepulveda Boulevard could only be accessed by vehicles from the east, off of Sepulveda Boulevard. This option basically has the same potential negative aspects as the one -way street alternative. Additionally, the cul -de -sac would need to be designed to accommodate emergency vehicles and additional street right -of -way would need to be obtained from Southern California Edison, who owns the property encompassed by Washington Park. This option would potentially be inconvenient for residents living on Palm Avenue and this would require City Council approval. 8. Palm Avenue Right -turn Pocket at Sepulveda Boulevard The City's Traffic Engineer recommends this modification to improve traffic flow at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard. There is a potential that east bound Palm Avenue traffic could back -up due to vehicles waiting to turn left from east bound Palm Avenue to north bound Sepulveda Boulevard. This traffic movement can be difficult and time - consuming due to the large volume of traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard. Palm Avenue is not currently wide enough to accommodate a free right -turn from east bound Palm Avenue to south bound Sepulveda Boulevard. Existing Palm Avenue traffic is approximately 800 trips per day and the project is anticipated to add a maximum of 670 trips (on Saturdays, 650 on weekdays) east of the project driveway on Palm Avenue. During the weekday noon, PM peak and Saturday noon hours approximately 50, 69 and 85 vehicles, respectively, are expected to turn south bound onto Sepulveda Boulevard from east bound Palm Avenue. During the same peak times approximately 11, 0 and 30 vehicles are expected to turn north bound onto Sepulveda Boulevard from eastbound Palm Avenue. These numbers include existing traffic plus project related traffic. The south side, east bound Palm Avenue traffic lane would need to be widened by 7 feet to accommodate a right -turn pocket since currently the lane is 15 feet wide and Caltrans, Public Works, and General Plan standards for lane widths are 10 feet for the interior lane- and 12 feet for the curb lane. This would require the applicant to dedicate 7 feet of right -of -way for approximately 80 feet from the end of the curb return at Sepulveda Boulevard and Palm Avenue, which includes a 30 foot transition area and 50 feet of stacking distance. A portion of the right turn lane would be within the Sepulveda Boulevard right -of -way and this option would therefore be subject to review and approval by Caltrans. Although the north side, west bound lane, of Palm Avenue is 15 feet wide, Planning and Public Works Staff would not recommend reducing the width of this lane in order to partially accommodate the south side right -turn pocket. Palm Avenue is sub - standard in width (30 feet pavement width vs. 40 feet pavement width General Plan standard), the visibility at the comer of Sepulveda Boulevard and Palm Avenue is limited due to the location of the Stick n' Stein restaurant which is close to the comer and vehicles traveling south bound on Sepulveda Boulevard turning right onto Palm Avenue are traveling at high speeds, 35 + miles per hour. Additionally, the project as currently designed would require approval of two variances if the right -turn pocket is required. The building, which is currently setback 26 feet 6 inches from the north side (Palm Avenue) property line, would only be setback 19 feet 6 inches and a 25 foot minimum setback is required. Additionally, the drive -thru lane would encroach a maximum of 19 feet 6 inches into the north side (Palm Avenue) setback area, where a maximum 12 feet 6 inch encroachment is permitted. Staff believes that the findings to support approval of the Variance could be made, however, a Variance has not been applied for or noticed and therefore the Planning Commission may not consider or act upon such request. It would not be recommended to move the building further to the south to accommodate the right -turn pocket as this would reduce the stacking distance in the drive -thru lane. This stacking distance has been very thoroughly evaluated by City Staff and any reduction in this distance could create a traffic hazard, including the back -up of traffic onto Sepulveda Boulevard. Staff requests that the Planning Commission review these options to address traffic and circulation concerns raised by area residents, and provide direction to Staff to incorporate any that are deemed to be appropriate, to meet the findings required to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Fe 1 - The existing 6 foot high chain link fence on the south and west sides of the property is proposed to remain. This fence is in very poor condition; is bent, broken and rusted in portions. Staff would recommend that this fence be replaced with a wall or fence, to be approved by the Planning and Police Departments. This recommendation has been incorporated into the conditions of approval in the draft Resolution. In the past, residents have raised concerns about the safety of children playing at Washington Park, at the west end of Palm Avenue. Since the proposed project will be adding additional vehicular trips to Palm Avenue the Planning Commission may want to consider requiring that the applicant install a low fence, potentially chain link, in front of the park or contribute a fair -share amount towards the installation of fences in this area. This possibility has been discussed with representatives from SCE, who owns the property where the park is located, and they have no objections as long as the existing curb cuts and maintenance access gates remain. Trash - There is a potential that patrons using the drive -thru restaurant will not Properly dispose of their trash that is generated by the facility. Staff feels it would be appropriate to have Carl's Jr. employees regularly patrol the parking lot, and the area surrounding the restaurant within 500 feet, a minimum of 4 times per day, to pick up and dispose of any trash. Trash pick -up hours should be immediately following the AM, noon and PM peak hours, as well as prior to closing the restaurant. This distance would cover Washington Park. This recommendation is used as a standard condition in several cities and it has been incorporated into the conditions of approval in the draft Resolution. The - Planning Commission may also want to require that the applicant install trash receptacles in Washington Park. Noise - Other drive -thru restaurants have experienced problems with patrons parking in the lot, eating their meals and playing radios loudly or talking loudly, which can impact adjacent residential areas. As a condition of approval in the draft Resolution, Carl's Jr. Staff will be required to patrol the parking lot on a regular basis in order to remind their patrons to respect the privacy of their residential neighbors. Additionally, signs will be required to be installed which remind patrons to refrain from creating loud noises which would disturb the neighbors. Again, this condition is commonly used by other cities. Additionally, as currently designed the location and direction of the menu board/speaker on the north east side of the building is designed to minimize any potential noise impacts. The speaker is located as far as possible away from the residential areas and is adjacent to Sepulveda Boulevard where the ambient noise level will shield any possible speaker noise. With the design and operation of the facility, and the conditions proposed related to traffic, noise, limiting hours of operation, security, signage, landscaping, lighting, trash and environmental hazards, the drive -thru restaurant use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this Chapter. The proposed conditional use complies with the applicable provisions of Chapter 20.74 of the El Segundo Municipal Code since proper notice and hearing were provided, proper hearing decision and records will be complied with, and the required findings will be considered. Additionally, the site plan will be required to be revised to comply with the site development standards of the C -3 Zone (Landscaping and Setbacks) and permits (building, plumbing, electrical) will be required to be obtained. Conditions to mitigate project impacts will be attached to the approval. As described and analyzed above, Staff believes that since the required three (3) Conditional Use Permit Findings can be made, the Conditional Use Permit should be approved, with conditions. The mitigation measures listed in the Environmental Review section are the minimum conditions that Planning Staff believes are necessary to mitigate project impacts to an insignificant level. However, the Planning Commission may consider and impose additional conditions through the Conditional Use Permit process in order to meet the required Conditional Use Permit findings. The General Plan land use designation for the site is General Commercial. This designation allows all retail uses, including restaurants, at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0. Support personnel services offices not to exceed 5,000 square feet are also permitted. The site is zoned C -3 (General Commercial), which permits retail uses, hotels, motels, medical - dental offices, public uses, recreational facilities, restaurants and general offices not exceeding 5,000 square feet at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0. The proposed FAR of 0.08 is well below the 1.0 FAR limit. The proposed land use is permitted under the existing General Plan and is permitted by the Zoning Code with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Many General Plan goals, policies and objectives related to Economic Development, Land Use, Circulation and Air Quality apply to the proposed project. Specifically, Economic Development Objective ED 1 -1 and Policies ED 1 -2.1, ED 1 -2.2 and ED 1 -2.3 apply to the proposed project. Land Use Objective LU 4 -1 and Policies LU 1 -5.6, LU 1 -5.7, LU 3 -23, LU 4 -1.1, LU 4 -1.2, LU 4 -1.4, LU 7 -1.2 and LU 7 -2.3 should be considered when evaluating conformance with the General Plan. Several Circulation Element Objectives C 1 -2 and C 2 -1, apply as well as Goal C -1 and the following Circulation Policies: C 1 -1.13, C 1 -1.8, C 1 -1.13, C 1 -1.15, C 1 -1.16, C 1 -3.2, C 2 -1.6, C 2 -2.2, C 3 -1.1, C 3 -1.5, C 3 -1.7 and C 3- 2. 1. The applicable Air Quality Policies include AO 6 -1.1 and AQ 10 -1.3 and Objective AO 10 -1. Conformance with the General Plan is a policy issue which is determined at the discretion of the Planning Commission or the City Council if the decision is appealed. The Zoning and Municipal Codes incorporate many requirements which will help to mitigate any potential General Plan conflicts such as landscaping, underground utilities, water conservation and storm water control. A draft Initial Study was prepared by City Staff for the project which identified potential adverse environmental impacts related to transportation/circulation, hazards, noise, public services and aesthetics. No significant adverse environmental impacts were identified which could not be mitigated to an insignificant level, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts is proposed. The draft Initial Study was circulated for City inter- departmental and affected public agency personnel review and comments, as required by City Council Resolution No. 3805 and State CEQA guidelines. All Departments have concurred with the Staff recommendation to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, with additional suggested mitigation measures. All of the mitigation measures, as detailed in the draft Initial Study and in the Interdepartmental comments section of this Report, have been incorporated into the conditions of approval of Draft Resolution No. 2389. A final Initial Study will be prepared by Staff based on the actual mitigation measures adopted by the Planning Commission. The following summarizes the Transportation/Circulation, Hazards, Noise, Public Services and Aesthetics analysis in the draft Initial Study: Transportation /Gircul -tine A Traffic Impact Study for the proposed Carl's Jr. project was prepared by the applicant's consultants, Stevens - Garland Associates, in May 1996 and revised in August, October and December 1996 and January 1997, and was reviewed by the City's traffic consultant and Public Works and Planning and Building Safety Departments. This study included an estimate of trip generation for the proposed Carl's Jr. in order to determine a worst -case scenario pertaining to traffic impacts. Stevens - Garland and Associates conducted additional analysis of the specific project site. Table 1 is a summary of the trip generation of the proposed project. Table 1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip Rate Generated Traffic Traffic W/ 25% pass Weekday: AR —au "'V by reduction Noon Hour Total Inbound 46.26 79'x° 140 0 5 10 Outbound 21% 111 PM Peak Hour 29 22 Total Inbound 36.53 111 83 Outbound 52'x° 58 43 DAILY TRAFFIC 45% 53 40 Saturday: 632.12 1,920 1,440 10 Noon Hour Total Inbound 56.63 - 172 129 Outbound 51% o 49 /0 88 66 Existing Plus 1997 Project Cumulative Project 84 63 DAILY TRAFFIC 686.04 2,080 0.637 B 'Note: Trip generation rates are based on the Institute Transportation Weekday PM Peak Saturday Noon 1,560 Generation Manual, 5th Edition. of Engineers (ITE) Trip According to the Traffic Impact Study, the project is expected to increase daily traffic volumes along Sepulveda Boulevard by approximately 1,040 trips, or approximately 1.6 percent of the total daily traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard (58,000 trips /day). Existing Palm Avenue traffic is approximately 800 trips per day and the project is anticipated to add a maximum of 670 trips (on Saturdays, 650 on weekdays) east of the project driveway on Palm Avenue - an 84% increase. West of the project driveway on Palm Avenue, the project is anticipated to generate a maximum of 230 additional trips on Palm Avenue during Saturdays; 100 additional trips are anticipated weekdays. This is a 29% increase above the existing Saturday level and a 13 % increase above the existing weekday traffic level. This increase is considered insignificant since the intersection Level of Service (LOS) is still at A and B and local streets are designed to accommodate a maximum of 10,000 vehicles per day (at LOS E), well above the maximum projected volume of 1,470 trips. The City Engineer has indicated in his Interdepartmental Correspondence, and the City's Traffic Engineer agrees, that a traffic volume of approximately 2,000 vehicles per day is normally associated with residential streets and is a comfortable level for such streets. Palm Avenue has a 30 foot pavement width and a 40 foot right -of -way width with 5 foot wide sidewalks on both the north and south sides of the street. Street parking is prohibited on the north side of Palm Avenue from Sepulveda Boulevard to Washington Street. On the south side of Palm Avenue parking is prohibited along the majority of the street adjacent to the subject site, but is permitted currently beginning thirteen 13 feet 10 inches of the westerly side property line, and then is permitted on the rest of the entire south side of the street on Palm Avenue. Although there currently are no turning restrictions on Palm Avenue, it is very difficult to turn northbound onto Sepulveda Boulevard from eastbound Palm Avenue due to the large volume of traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard. From northbound Sepulveda Boulevard to westbound Palm Avenue, left and U -tums are prohibited from 6:00 am to 9:00 am and 3:00 pm - 6:30 pm Monday through Friday. Parking on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard, north of the project site, north of Palm Avenue is prohibited. Parking on Sepulveda Boulevard adjacent to the project site is also prohibited immediately south of Palm Avenue for approximately 40 feet of frontage. Using the guidelines set forth by the City of El Segundo and the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP), the Carl's Jr. Traffic Impact Study examined a total of four intersections. Based on the findings of the Traffic Impact Study, development of the proposed project would not cause significant changes in capacity utilization at three of the four intersections, nor would they cause changes in LOS. The intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard/Palm Avenue is an exception in that the ICU would increase by a significant amount (0.035 to 0.074). Since the current rating of LOS A would only change to LOS B during the weekday PM peak after project implementation, the increase would not be considered significant. Table 2 PROJECT IMPACT ON INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ICU and Level of Service Intersection Existing Existing Plus 1997 Project Cumulative Project Sepulveda BI. /Maple Ave. Impact Weekday Noon 0.637 B 0.646 B Weekday PM Peak Saturday Noon 0.760 C - 0.462 0.820 D 0.009 0.012 0.457 A 0.463 A - A 0.006 Sepulveda BI. /Palm Ave. Weekday Noon 0.507 A 0.571 A Weekday PM Peak Saturday Noon 0.579 A 0.614 B .0669B 0.064 0.412 A 0.486 A 0.035 Sepulveda BI. /Mariposa - 0.074 Weekday Noon Weekday PM Peak 0.709 C 0.710 C 0.001 Saturday Noon 0.818 D 0.568 A . 0826 D 0.912 E 0.008 Palm Ave./Washington St. 0.573 A - 0.005 Weekday Noon Weekday PM Peak 0.088 A 0.096 A - 0.008 Saturday Noon 0.100 A 0.094 A , 0112 A 0'119 A 0.012 0.108 A - 0.014 ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS = Level of Service The City's Zoning Code requires a total of 37 parking spaces and one (1) loading space for the drive -thru restaurant. The applicant proposes to provide 40 surface parking spaces and one (1) loading space, thereby exceeding City requirements. Standard parking spaces will make up 38 of the spaces and two (2) spaces will be handicapped spaces. The application indicates that deliveries are made to the site using 40 foot trucks with trailers; and delivery hours are limited to 9:00 am - 11:00 am and 2:00 pm - 4:30 pm so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. Pedestrian and bicyclist circulation is estimated to be limited on Sepulveda Boulevard, due to the intensity of development and automobile traffic in the area. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic is expected on Palm Avenue due to the mufti - family residential uses and the nearby Washington Park. A five (5) foot wide sidewalk will remain on Palm Avenue as well as a 12 foot sidewalk on Sepulveda Boulevard to accommodate these needs. The application includes a request to relocate an existing curb cut to the project on Sepulveda Boulevard. The existing 30 foot wide driveway near the center of the lot would be removed and replaced with a new 25 foot wide curb cut at the south end of the property. Since Sepulveda Boulevard is a State facility, a permit must be issued by the Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) prior to any construction along Sepulveda Boulevard. An existing utility box in the public right -of -way may need to be relocated to accommodate the new curb cut. In considering the curb cut, Caltrans would evaluate traffic operations, safety, and the relative advantages and disadvantages of relocating the driveway access. Increased hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists are not anticipated for the project as currently proposed, and therefore considered less than significant. The project will be subject to the City's Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program adopted on May 21, 1996 (Resolution No. 3969), subject to final determination by the Director of Public Works. The Department of Public Works shall determine the precise trip generation rate to utilize to calculate the applicable fee, which has preliminarily been estimated to be over $82,000, and when the fee, if required, will be payable. The City of El Segundo Municipal Code provides no standards for required stacking distance or minimum queuing for drive - thrus. The applicant's traffic consultant conducted queuing studies at three similar Carl's Jr. Restaurant locations, reviewed and approved by the City, in order to determine the peak queuing demand; and therefore the appropriate stacking distance to prevent vehicles waiting in the drive -thru line from blocking on -site circulation and more importantly from backing -up onto Sepulveda Boulevard and potentially creating a safety hazard. The queuing study was conducted at the following two locations on Friday December 20, 1996 during the noontime and PM peak hours of 11:30 am -1:30 Pm and 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm: 9110 Imperial Highway, Downey and 5315 Rosecrans Avenue, Hawthorne. Additionally, counts were conducted from 11:30 am - 1:30 pm on Saturday December 21, 1996 at the Carl's Jr. located at 5601 Woodruff Avenue, Lakewood. The study concluded that the Hawthorne location had the peak drive -thru demand with a maximum of four (4) cars in the pick -up window queue and a maximum of seven (7) cars 12 behind the order -board queue. However, at any one time there were a maximum of nine (9) cars total in the drive -thru (pick -up window plus ordeftoard queue) according to the consultants study. The peak occurred during the lunchtime hour. The project provides for a maximum of nine cars total in the drive -thru queue without impacting on or off -site circulation. This includes two (2) cars in back of the pick -up window and seven (7) cars in back of the order board. The accepted standard distance of 20 feet per car was utilized to determine required stacking distance. Since it is difficult to determine actual peak demand of the drive -thru until the restaurant is operational, mitigation measures, as discussed at the end of this section, will be required in order to mitigate any potential traffic impacts due to the drive -thru. Hazards ' A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed and concluded that although there was no evidence of recognized environmental conditions, contamination or risks, numerous current and historic uses of properties in the immediate area and surrounding vicinity may have resulted in some form of environmental contamination of the site. Therefore, a Phase II Environmental Assessment will be required prior to any grading or construction on the site in order to identify and mitigate any potential impact. All recommendations from the Phase II Assessment will be approved by the City and all approved recommendations will be required to be completed by the project applicant or owner. Consequently, the proposed project would not create a significant health hazard or expose people to significant potential health hazards, and no other mitigation is required. Noise The residential uses to the north and west of the project site are considered to be sensitive to noise and vibrations. Because the traffic using Sepulveda Boulevard to the east and LAX aircraft noise to the north is the predominant noise generator in the area, it will mask noise originating from the project site. An acoustical analysis was prepared by the applicant's acoustical consultant, Davy and Associates, Inc in October 1996 and amended on January 21, 1997; based on a redesign of the project which moved the building, drive - thru and loudspeaker and people ordering food at the drive -thru, and order board approximately 16 feet further to the northwest. The October study analyzed the potential noise impacts on the entire Carl's Jr. operation including the drive -thru, loudspeaker, trash pick -up, deliveries, building operating equipment (i.e., fans, grills, and HVAC) and parking lot noise from vehicles. Actual noise level measurements were taken on a Friday k at a similar existing Carl's Jr, facility on Century Boulevard in Inglewood. Additionally, existing ambient noise level measurements were taken for a 24 hour period at the subject site. The consultant's analysis of the noise level measurements concluded that the minimum ambient noise level on the site is 55 dBA and the maximum noise levels generated by the operation of the Carl's Jr. restaurant would be between 9 and 17 dBA below the minimum ambient noise level. Therefore, the Acoustical Analysis concluded that noise levels generated by the restaurant operations will have no significant effect on nearby residences. However, since the surrounding area includes sensitive noise receptors, and during the nighttime the ambient noise level is at its lowest, drive -thru operations will be prohibited during the late night and early morning hours to mitigate any potential impacts. The hours of operation for the drive -thru will be limited to 8:00 am - 12 midnight on Saturday, 8:00 am - 10:00 pm on Sunday, 7:00 am - 10:00 pm Monday through Thursday and 7:00 am - 12 midnight on Friday. Additionally, a maximum of six (6) months, after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, and annually thereafter, a post - construction Acoustical Analysis shall be performed on -site to determine if the restaurant operations are causing any significant noise or other impacts to the surrounding area. The hours of operation for the facility may be adjusted based on the findings in the Acoustical Analysis. Limiting hours of operation for a drive -thru restaurant is a standard condition of approval that many cities use to mitigate a project's potential impact. Public Services Since the project site is currently vacant, development would generate additional demands for municipal services. As no residential uses are proposed with this project, no direct impacts are expected on local schools, parks, or other public facilities (e.g., recreational). However, limited demands on parks and other public facilities may occur from employees working in the City and patrons of the Carl's Jr. drive -thru restaurant. Demand from 13 employees is not considered significant due to the limited increase in daytime population associated with implementation of the proposed project~ Furthermore, demand from restaurant patrons will also be limited as fast -food restaurant patrons generally have a goal of getting in and out of a facility quickly. The proposed project is expected to generate additional demands on police services; however, this can be mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporating security lighting, hardware and other security features into building design plans as well as business operation criteria, all which will be incorporated into a Security Plan to be approved by the Police Department. Water and sewer lines serving the project site are available and have the capacity to meet the demands of the proposed project. Therefore, the project will not significantly impact municipal services in the area (police, fire, water, school, sewage, parks, or public facilities), and no mitigation measures are required, other than the standard Fire, Police and Library service mitigation fees. The project will be subject to a traffic impact fee to offset certain identified needed traffic improvements, pursuant to Resolution No. 3969. A Fiscal Impact Analysis regarding the project's fiscal impact upon the City of El Segundo has been prepared by the City, based on project information provided by the applicant. This report addresses the project's anticipated revenue generation and municipal service cost burden resulting to the City. Utilizing the El Segundo Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (ESFIAM), the Fiscal Impact Analysis concludes that the project will generate a net fiscal surplus for the City of approximately $29,200 over the first five years of operation, after consideration of City municipal service costs which are estimated to be approximately $36,900. These numbers do not include the payment of a one -time Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee of approximately $82,000, which is payable prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project; subject to a final determination by the Director of Public Works. Therefore, although development of the project is expected to result in expenses to the City for the provision of municipal services, these will be offset by the revenues generated for the City by the project. Aesthetics The project site is not part of, nor adjacent to, a designated scenic view, vista or corridor. The proposed project would be one story in height and of similar character to adjacent commercial structures. Therefore, the project will not block scenic views or vistas from these surrounding commercial or residential uses. Additionally, visibility of the site will be buffered from the nearby residential areas with landscaping in all the setbacks, around the building perimeter and within the parking lot. The trash enclosure, on the southwest comer of the site, would be visible from residents to the west who are at a higher elevation and a covering, such as a trellis, will be required to screen the area from view. New illuminated signage is proposed for the site, including a 20 foot high pole sign on Sepulveda Boulevard. A complete sign plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission through the Conditional Use Permit process to ensure the illumination does not impact adjacent residential areas and is compatible with surrounding uses. The Planning Commission may limit the number, size and location etc., of proposed signs in order to mitigate impacts and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. The project site is currently vacant. Development of the proposed project will introduce new lighting to the area. However, the lighting will be required to be compatible with, and comparable to, the existing lighting surrounding the project site so it would not significantly alter illumination of the area. A photometric study submitted by the applicant indicates a maximum number of footcandles at the property lines, for the proposed lighting as follows: North 9.2, South 1.2, East 10.9, West 0.4 and North -west comer 0.1. The City's Crime Prevention Division of the Police Department normally recommends 1 foot candle minimum of lighting in parking lots and .25 foot candle minimum for walkways, entry doors and buildings for adequate safety and security. Lighting which is directional, and shielded to prevent off -site illumination with weather and vandalism resistant covers, is also commonly recommended by the Police Department. A complete revised lighting plan and photometric study will be required which provides minimum off -site illumination and mitigates any impact to light and glare to a insignificant level, but still complies with the Police Department recommendations. The study and lighting design will take into consideration 14 existing lighting adjacent to the site (commercial security and street lighting) which already partially illuminates the subject property. -t. Transportation/ irculation 1. There will be available an employee to take "pre- orders" in the peak hour line of cars waiting to access the menu /order board. This in effect will eliminate the need to even have an order board between peak hours. The moming /early afternoon peak hours will include 11:30 to 1:30 and the evening hours will be 5:30 to 6:30. 2. At least two parking spaces (the two spaces in the far north west comer of the site) will be immediately available and signed for "Drive Up Window Waiting Area Only ". They are to be monitored and kept free at all times during the peak periods mentioned above. These spaces will accommodate vehicles from the drive -thru, when orders are not immediately available for pick -up. Vehicles will park and wait in these spaces and Carl's Jr. employees will bring orders directly out to the waiting vehicles. The applicant should develop wording for the final sign which would then be reviewed and approved by the City. Two such signs - one for each space, will be required. The City will also approve intended location of the signs as well. 3. Circulation and traffic review will be required a maximum of six (6) months after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the site. The definition of a "review" involves the conduct of another queuing study for the actual operating restaurant identical to that performed for the development of this site. If necessary, the drive - thru operations will be modified by limiting hours of operation or providing a traffic control person to maintain clear circulation and access at all times or other mitigation that the City deems appropriate. Also, periodic monitoring should be done to ensure that the two spaces per item 2 above are kept free as required. 4. The area in front of the drive -thru, within the 25 foot wide drive aisle, shall be striped and labeled as "keep clear" to prevent vehicles from blocking the area which could create a traffic safety hazard. 5. The menu /order board shall be relocated slightly so there is approximately a 40 foot distance between the center lines of the pick -up window and the menu /order board. 6. Parking adjacent to the project site along the entire length of the site on Sepulveda Boulevard shall be prohibited to allow adequate site distance for vehicles entering and exiting the Carl's Jr. driveway on Sepulveda Boulevard, if approved by Caltrans. Ham A Phase II Environmental Assessment will be required prior to any grading or construction. All recommendations must be approved by the City and implemented by the project developer. Noise 1. Drive -thru operations will be prohibited during the late night and early morning hours to mitigate any potential impacts. The hours of operation for the drive -thru will be limited to 8:00 am - 12 midnight on Saturday, 8:00 am - 10:00 pm on Sunday, 7:00 am - 10:00 pm Monday through Thursday and 7:00 am - 12 midnight on Friday. Additionally, a maximum of six (6) months after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project a post - construction Acoustical Analysis shall be performed on -site to determine if the restaurant operations are causing any significant noise impacts to the surrounding area. The hours of operation for the facility may be adjusted based on the findings in the Acoustical Analysis. 2. The plans shall indicate that the location of the speaker /menu board shall be on the north east comer of the building in order to mitigate potential noise impacts. This location is as far from the adjacent residential areas as possible and is adjacent to Sepulveda Boulevard which buffers any potential noise impacts. 15 Public Services A Security Plan must be prepared by the applicant; -and approved by the Police Department, and all plan requirements implemented by the project developer. Aesthetics 1. A complete lighting plan and photometric study must be approved by the Police and Planning and Building Safety Departments and all plan requirements implemented by the project developer. 2. The trash enclosure shall include a covering to screen the area from residents to the west of the project site. 3. The site signage shall be designed to minimize impacts to adjacent residential areas due to illumination, and compatibility with surrounding uses shall be required. General Six months after the restaurant is operational, the Planning Commission shall conduct a noticed public hearing to review the total impacts of the operation. The review shall identify compliance with the conditions of approval. Additionally, any unanticipated impacts may be reviewed and additional conditions placed upon the project in order to mitigate any potential project impacts. A similar review and public hearing shall also be conducted annually, thereafter for the life of the project. Mandatory Finding of ignificance The proposed project is a low intensity use of vacant site located in an urban setting. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and will not achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. There are no foreseeable negative cumulative impacts or any impacts that should have an adverse affect on human beings. It is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to determine the effectiveness of the mitigation measures proposed for the potentially significant impacts identified by Staff. The Planning Commission can require mitigation measures in addition to those in the Draft Initial Study or require alternative mitigation measures in order to substantially lessen or avoid any significant effects. CEQA requires that the applicant agree to the mitigation measures or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the decision making body (Planning Commission) that project impacts can be mitigated to an insignificant level with alternative mitigation measures, or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. If the Planning Commission determines that the impacts can not be mitigated to an insignificant level and that the project may have a significant environmental impact, then CEQA also requires that an EIR be prepared to examine the significant impacts. INTERDEPARTU=K1'rAL GOMMEM The project Draft Initial Study and plans were circulated to all City inter - Departmental Staff and their comments are attached to the Report. The Director of Economic Development, Finance Director, Library Director, the Building Safety Division, and the Departments of Recreation and Parks and Fire had no comments on the project and concurred with the draft Initial Study findings. The City Manager indicated that the Transportation/Circulation mitigation measures, which requires a queuing study for the drive -thru a maximum of 6 months after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, did not state what actions would be taken if problems were identified. The condition has been revised to indicate that the drive -thru operations would be modified, as previously discussed, to mitigate any impacts. He also requested information on the plant size of the shrubs and trees shown on the plans. The applicant has revised the plans (Sheet L -1) to show the trees as 15 gallon to 24 inch box size and the shrubs as 1 -5 gallon size. Staff would recommend that some of the trees be larger sizes such as 36 -48 inch box. The Police Department had several recommendations to mitigate potential security concerns related to the parking lot, pedestrian crossing, landscaping, the trash dumpster, 16 cameras /monitoring system, hardware, fencing, lighting, ATM script, exterior door materials, order window and the menu /order board sign. As a condition in the draft Resolution, the applicant will be required to submit a Security and Crime Prevention Plan, including an exterior lighting plan, to the Police Department for review and approval in order to address all security concerns. The Public Works Department is recommending that all broken curbs and sidewalks on Palm Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard be reconstructed and that a "no left turn" sign be installed at the Palm Avenue exit driveway. The City Engineer also recommends that 6 -12 months after opening of the restaurant that the applicant conduct a traffic signal warrant study for the Palm Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard intersection. If the study justifies a signal and Caltrans approves, then the applicant would be required to design and install the signal. A $100,000 bond to ensure compliance would be required. Public Works Staff also recommends that a maximum of 6 months after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy that the City review the need to restrict left -tums from east bound Palm Avenue to north bound Sepulveda Boulevard to prohibit them from 6 -9 am and 3 -6 pm Monday - Friday, the same restriction as currently exists from north bound Sepulveda Boulevard to west bound Palm Avenue. The draft Initial Study was also circulated to State, County, local agencies and the public for review and comment, and no comments were received. Many petitions and form letters were received from surrounding area residents in the 1400 through 1600 blocks of East Palm Avenue and 700 block of Washington Street and other areas, expressing concerns about potential traffic impacts due to additional traffic on Palm Avenue and surrounding streets. The Chamber of Commerce submitted a letter supporting the Carl's Jr. application. EXHIBITS: A. Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration B. Interdepartmental Correspondence C. Petitions and Letters from Surrounding Residents and Chamber of Commerce D. Project Applications E. Traffic Impact Study and Revisions F. Acoustical Analysis and Revisions G. Project Plans Prepared by: Laurie B. Jester Senior Planner Approved by: Bret . Be ard, A P Dire for of Plannirig and Building Safety, and Secretary to the Planning Commission 17 PAproiects\ea387\ea387.sr toGO L�,y O��Z �71lv�L,�iEC'D t "L 2 5 FEB 06 1997 BOUNTY CLERK NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING. pY � ? � � DEP1 JT` NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 300 -FOOT RADIUS. NOTICE TO ALL OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES. NOTICE OF PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DATE: Thursday, February 27, 1997 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE. City Council Chambers 350 Main Street El Segundo, California NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of El Segundo will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated above on the following: Environmental Assessment EA -387, Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3 Applicant: CKE Restaurants, Inc. (Carl's Jr.) Property Owner: N/S Express, Inc., Mr. Tom Ennis The proposed project is a request to construct a 3,050 gross square foot (approximate) Carl's Jr. fast food restaurant with a drive -thru, to be located on a .86 acre vacant parcel of land at the southwest corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Palm Avenue, at 639 N. Sepulveda Boulevard, in the General Commercial (C -3) Zone. Drive -thru restaurants require approval of a Conditional Use Permit in all commercial and industrial zones. A Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts is proposed for this project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The public review and comment period extends from January 28, 1997 to February 26, 1997. NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Environmental Assessment, Draft Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration, legal description and related files for the above - mentioned proposals are available for public review between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. in the Planning Division of the Planning and Building Safety Department, located at 350 Main Street, El Segundo; and that all persons may give testimony at the public hearing at the time and place indicated above. Please contact Laurie Jester in the City Planning Division at 322 -4670 ext. 212, or any other Planning Division staff person, for further information. If you challenge the proposed action in C..urt, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public heanng described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at or prior to the public hearing. Bret B. emar5, AICP % Directo of Planning and Building Safety City of El Segundo Notification Date: Publication Date: Posting Date: THIS NOTICE WAS POSTED ON FEB o G 1991 UNTIL MAR REGISTRAR - RECORDER /COUNTY CLERK January 23, 1997 Signature: January 23, 1997 Time: -4: 3oQm _ January 23, 1997 EAZF VAR 96.7 97059095 ffi \_�_ CITY OF EL SEGUNDO DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CARL'S JR. DRIVE -THRU RESTAURANT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA -387 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 96 -3 JANUARY 27, 1997 Prepared by: CITY OF EL SEGUNDO DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SAFETY 350 MAIN STREET EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 9'059095 SECTION 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is the construction of a new a pproximately 3,050 square foot(gross) Cart's Jr. fast -food restaurant with a drive -thru. The new drive -thru restaurant would be located on a currently vacant 0.86 acre (37,286 square foot) lot located at the southwest comer of Sepulveda Boulevard (State Highway 1) and Palm Avenue, 639 N. Sepulveda Boulevard. The project includes an 89 seat restaurant which would operate from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm Sunday through Thursday and 7:00 am to 2:00 pm on Friday and Saturday. The drive -thru is proposed to operate twenty -four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. The pick -up window and menu board /speaker box are located on the north side of the building with the drive -thru queue on the east side. The building is one story and 23 feet maximum in height. Access to the site would be provided by a new 25 foot wide two -way driveway on Sepulveda Boulevard, on the south end of the site, which would replace an existing 30 foot wide curb cut located near the center of the lot. Three existing curb cuts on Palm Avenue, (16 feet, 22 feet and 29 feet in width) would be removed and replaced with curbs, gutters and sidewalks to match the existing. A new 30 foot wide curb cut is proposed, approximately 47 feet east of the westerly side Property line. The new curb cut would accommodate a two -way driveway with a " pork -chop" shaped raised median to accommodate a right -turn only exit off of the property onto Palm Avenue. A 13 foot wide by 50 foot long loading zone is proposed on the west side of the building and 40 total parking spaces are provided, including 38 standard spaces and 2 handicapped spaces. A Portion of the Hacienda Hotel surface parking lot, which encroaches approximately 13 feet ten inches onto the west side of the property, is proposed to remain. No new fences or walls are Proposed; the existing 6 foot high chain link fence on the south and west sides of the property are proposed to remain. The total site landscaping is approximately 10,838 square feet in area, covering 29% of the total site. A total of thirty-five (35) to forty (40) employees will occupy the site; with a total of six (6) to eight (8) employees per shift. SECTION 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT The project site is located in the General Commercial (C -3) Zone, which is consistent with the City's General Plan land use designation on the site of General Commercial. The project site is located within the northwest portion of the City of El Segundo, a pproximately one mile west of the San Diego (1 -405) Freeway and one -half mile south of the Glenn Anderson (1 -105) Freeway. The Metro Green Line Light Rail and the closest station at Mariposa Avenue and Nash Street is located approximately one -half mile to the east of the project site. Local jurisdictions near the site include the City of Los Angeles located north of Imperial Highway, the City of Manhattan Beach located south of Rosecrans Avenue, and the City of Hawthorne located east of Aviation Boulevard. According to the City's building permit records, the site has previously received a pproval, and Permits have been issued, for several development projects including a hotel, offices and retail uses; however, the site has never been developed. Most recently, in 1994, a carwash with a mini - mart retail store, two (2) rack lube facility and four (4) gasoline pumps, were proposed for the site. The City Council denied the Conditional Use Permit request on appeal. The site is relatively level with very little vegetation. The site is completely paved containing no unique geologic features, and is rectangular in shape; 181 feet wide by 206.8 feet in length. There is a 13 foot wide surface parking lot encroachment, for the adjacent Hacienda Hotel, along the entire rear, western property line, which would be buffered by 13 foot 6 inches of lands m The surrounding area is developed with one and two -story multiple - family residential units (small condominium and apartment complexes, many with underground parking) to the north and west, a two -story restaurant/bar /billiards parlor across Palm Avenue to the north, an eight -story office building and single story commercial shopping center across Sepulveda Boulevard to the east, and a surface parking lot, for the Hacienda Hotel, immediately to the south and west. The Hacienda Hotel parking lot has a curb cut on Palm Avenue with metal "teeth' in the driveway which only allows vehicles to exit, not enter the lot from Palm Avenue. To the west of the parking lot, approximately 74 feet away from the subject property, underground parking. The Hacienda Hotel parking lot is'separa ed from the o'ndominiumlproje'ct to the west by a block retaining wall that is approximately four (4) to eight (8) feet in height. A landscape strip approximately fifteen (15) feet in width then separates the parking lot from the six (6) to eight (8) foot high solid block wall on the east side Property The first floor elevation of the condominium complex is approximately enh (10) feet h gher than he le elevation of the subject property. Further west on Palm Avenue, approximately 340 feet west of the subject site is Washington Street Park; a linear city park with a tot lot, picnic tables grass areas and par- course located under the Southern California Edison power lines. The properties to the north across Palm Avenue are zoned Commercial General (C -3) and Multi - Family Residential (R- 3), to the south and west is zoned Parking (P), and further west is zoned Multi - Family Residential (R -3), and to the east across Sepulveda Boulevard is zoned Corporate Office (C -O). Soil conditions are suitable to support the proposed drive -thru restaurant building, with re- compaction and filling of the site. There are no known endangered plant species associated with the project site and none that are known to be associated with the immediate project locale. Similarly, there are no known rare or endangered animal species associated with the project site or project locale and no known animal life is located on the project site. Further, there are no known cultural, historic, or scenic resources of recognized value located within the project site nor in the immediate vicinity. SECTION 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Reproduced as Appendix 1 is the City of El Segundo Initial Study and Checklist under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the form is to identify and evaluate potential adverse environmental impacts. The checklist consists of background information, a checklist of environmental impacts, and a determination by the lead agency of the projects potential impacts on the environment and the type of CEQA document that will be prepared. A discussion of the items checked on the form is located in Section 4.0. SECTION 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS LAND USE PLANNING The General Plan land use designation for the site is General Commercial. This designation allows all retail uses, including restaurants, at a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0. Support personnel services offices not to exceed 5,000 square feet are also permitted. The site is zoned C -3 (General Commercial), which permits retail uses, hotels, motels, medical - dental offices, public uses, recreational facilities, restaurants and general offices not exceeding 5,000 square feet at a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.0. The proposed FAR of 0.08 is well below the 1.0 FAR limit. The proposed land use is permitted under the existing General Plan and is permitted by the Zoning Code with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. A Conditional Use Permit requires a public hearing and Planning Commission review and approval; the Planning Commission decision is appealable to the City Council. Specific findings, as required by local Ordinance must be made in order to grant approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Additional conditions of approval, above and beyond the mitigation measures required by CEQA, may be imposed through the Conditional Use Permit Process in order to make the required findings that there are no impacts due to the noise, traffic, odors, lighting, aesthetics, etc. Many General Plan goals, policies and objectives related to Economic Development Land Use, Circulation and Air Quality apply to the proposed project. Specifically, Economic Development Objective ED 1 -1 and Policies ED 1 -2.1, ED 1 -2.2 and ED 1 -2.3 apply to the proposed project. Land Use Objective LU 4 -1 and Policies LU 1 -5.6, LU 1 -5.7, LU 3 -23, LU 4 -1.1, LU 4 -1.2, LU 4 -1.4, LU 7 -1.2 and LU 7 -2.3 should be considered when evaluating conformance with the General Plan. Several Circulation Element Objectives 1 -2 and C 2 -1, apply as well as Goal C -1 and the following Circulation Policies: C 1 -1.13, C 1 -1.8, C 1 -1.13, C 1 -1.15, C 1 -1.16, C 1 -3.2, C 2 -1.6, C 2 -2.2, C 3 -1.1, C 3 -1.5, C 3 -1.7 and C 3 -2.1. The applicable Air Quality Policies include AQ 6 -1.1 and AQ 10 -1.3 and Objective AQ 10 -1. Conformance with the General Plan is a policy issue which is determined at the discretion of the Planning Commission or the City Council if the decision is appealed. The Zoning and Municipal Codes incorporate many requirements which will help to mitigate any potential General Plan conflicts such as landscaping, underground utilities, water conservation and storm water control. As previously discussed, the land uses surrounding the Projec t t and t site consist of one to multi -story and condominiums, a residential and commercial structures which include apartments restaurant/bar /billiards establishment, surface parking l retail stores. The project is not expected to produce significant impacts in the pattern I scale of existing development on the project site or in the general area of the project. Additionally, there are no agricultural land uses within the project vicinity that could be impacted. 9705909s Additionally, the drive -thru restaurant use would be compatible with the general scale of surrounding uses and structures. There are no low- income or minority communities in the area which may be impacted. Therefore, the proposed project would not produce a significant impact to the pattern, scale or character of the general area. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING In 1996, the City of El Segundo had a permanent population of a pproximately 16,000 and a daytime population of approximately 56,000. This resident to employee ratio has contributed to a relatively high demand for housing within the City. In 1995, a total of approximately 7,325 dwelling units existed in El Segundo. All residences in the City are located west of Sepulveda Boulevard, while non - residential uses are located predominantly to the east. The project site is within the residential area, and is surrounded by apartments, condominiums, a restaurant/bar /billiards establishment, a surface parking lot, office and retail uses. Development of the proposed project would not alter the expected distribution of population. Additionally, the proposed project does not propose the development or demolition of any residential land uses, and would not directly generate permanent population growth in the City. Because the proposed project will bring new employment to the area, it will increase the City's daytime population, and potentially generate new permanent population from employees relocating near the site. It is anticipated that the Carl's Jr. drive -thru restaurant will employ approximately 35- 40 employees. This represents a 0.0025 percent increase in the City's 1996 daytime population. This increase is considered a less than significant change. In addition, because the employment opportunities from the proposed uses would mainly require service sector employees typically recruited from the local community, the increase in permanent population from employees relocating to the area would be limited. However, any such increase would be expected to be absorbed within the normal turnover of dwellings with the City. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed population projections, induce substantial growth, create a demand for additional housing or displace housing, and no mitigation is required. 3• GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS The project site consists of 0.86 acres of unimproved land, except for the paved surfaces. The site is essentially level, thus the potential for landslides and mudslides is non - exist. As project development would require minimal grading and no excavation or removal of existing structures, changes in topography and exposure of soils to ( o to ten (10) day period. additional erosion factors would also not be expected. According to the applicant, grading quantlties are estimated to include 800 cubic yards of export, which will entail approximately 100 truck trips over a five Construction of the project is anticipated to take approximately three e months. The existing low retaining wall (two feet five inches maximum in height) topped with a six (6) foot chain link fence on the west side of the property is proposed to remain. The issuance of a grading permit as a standard condition of approval will ensure slope stability and any erosion will be controlled during construction. There are no unique geological or physical features on the project site. Therefore, the project will not impact unique features. The project will not increase or change deposition/erosion either off or on -site; and the project will not modify any body of water as a result of erosion or deposition. Compliance with local storm water and urban runoff regulations will also be required. The site is located within the seismically active Southern California region; therefore, site occupants would be subject to similar seismic risks as other commercial developments of a comparable size which are located in the vicinity of the project. However, no known geologic features exist on the site, and no known active or potential active faults are located on or near the proposed site. Therefore, the risk of surface rupture due to faulting is considered remote, as is the potential for ground failure or other seismic hazards. In addition the development on the project site would comply with all applicable City building guidelines, restrictions, and permit requirements as contained in the Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the El Segundo Municipal Code. Development of the proposed project would, therefore, have a less than significant impact on topography and soils, and would not expose people or property to significant geologic hazards. No mitigation is required. 4. WATER The project site is located on 0.86 acres of unimproved land and is essentially level. The entire is paved with asphalt, an impervious surface which impedes percolation of on -site water into the 4 9'7059095 groundwater table. On -site surface water run -off is influenced by the existing topography of the Project site. No water conveyance structures (e.g., culverts) which are designed to convey on -site surface water flows to off -site facilities, are currently located on -site. Surface flows which are not absorbed on -site within the property drain off -site into adjacent surface streets and eventually to storm drains which drain into the Pacific Ocean. Ground water was not encountered during soil borings associated with the soils investigation performed on the site, the deepest of which was drilled to 15 feet. No testing of on -site ground water was performed; therefore, ground water quality is unknown. The project site is located within an urbanized environment, and is not near any surface water bodies or within a flood plain designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency or in any area subject to flooding. Development of the parcel would introduce urban contaminants (i.e., tire wear residue, oil and grease, fertilizers, etc.) to the site, thereby degrading on -site surf tes and drace water run -off and ground water quality. Existing absorption raainage patterns would change as well, as proposed improvements (i.e., building, surface parking lot, etc.) would increase the amount of pervious surfaces presently located on -site. Proposed landscaped areas, would permit some surface water absorption, which currently does not exist. Given the decrease in imperviousness, drainage volumes would decrease, and surface water run -off generated by the project site would continue to be collected by storm drains located along Sepulveda Boulevard and Palm Avenue and directed via culverts to the Pacific Ocean. Site run -off and absorption rates will be calculated and analyzed by a licensed civil engineer, who will develop a design to facilitate drainage via the existing storm sewer system currently serving the site. Any improvements will be required to be completed by the project applicant. The design of the site drainage system has not been finalized; however, an engineered drainage system of area inlets and catch basins should accommodate anticipated runoff requirements within the existing storm sewer system due to the small size of the proposed project. The project will be required to comply with the City's Storm Water and Urban Run -off Pollution Prevention Control Ordinance (No. 1235) and the Water Conserving Landscape Ordinance (No. 1194) and Resolution (No. 3806). A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board will not be required because the site is less than 5 acres in size; the City's local requirements will regulate runoff. During construction, the displacement of earth could temporarily cause a change in drainage patterns. New patterns will be established once the project is completed. All drainage during and after construction will be required to drain into drainage facilities in accordance with plans and permits approved by the Departments of Planning and Building Safety and Public Works. Adjacent properties will be required to be protected from drainage and erosion in accordance with standard code requirements. Significant impacts to water availability are not anticipated by the project. While the proposed development would represent a continuation of the region's urbanizing trend, it would not result in significant impacts to ocean or ground water quality, absorption rates, drainage patterns, surface run -off water, or the amount of available water. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation beyond the standard permits is required. 5. AIR QUALITY The proposed project does not include any land use, activity, or source that would produce any significant changes in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in the vicinity, nor would it cause any significant alterations in the air movements, moisture or air temperature. Using the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook and associated computer model, both construction as well as post - construction occupancy of the proposed project would result in insignificant amounts of criteria pollutants. During the proposed project's construction phase, emissions of fugitive dust from demolition and grading activities, exhaust emissions from the construction equipment, delivery of construction material, travel by construction workers, and application of architectural coatings or other building materials, may result in some amount of criteria pollutants. However, an application of the SCAQMD construction screening thresholds in their CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that even under worst case assumptions, project construction activities would be well below the SCAQMD's applicable thresholds. Of all the commercial land uses listed in Table 6 -3 of the Handbook, the minimum square footage for what is considered a potentially significant construction impact is 559,000 square feet of gross floor area. At approximately 3,050 gross square feet in 97059095 area, the project is extremely smaller than the minimum that should have impacts. For grading, a minimum of a 177 acre site is considered potentially significant, and at 0.86 acre the site is more than 200 times smaller than the established threshold. g g will occur during project construction and Therefore, no significant air quality impacts maintained so that it meets SCAQMD air quality standards. Dust control will be required grading. Additionally, construction equipment must be accordance with demolition and grading hermits to be issued by the Department of Planning and Building Safety and in accordance with the City's Dust Control Ordinance and SCAQMD in requirements. Grading will be discontinued during first -stage smog alerts and suspended periods of high wind (i.e. over 15 miles per hour) in accordance with SCAQMD requirements. A hauling trucks shall have loads covered or wetted and loaded below the sideboards to minimize during dust. Therefore, with these standard conditions project construction activities are concluded to n have a significant impact on air quality. of Occupancy of the proposed project would generate fumes from mobile sources such as a exhausts and stationary sources such as grills and emissions are determined b fryers for cooking. Total regional pollutant production and natural gas consumption, source electricity emissions were estimated for operation of the Carl's Jr. restaurant to estimate total Iona emissions from the proposed project. Total daily regional emissions of arbon monoxide, nitrogen en oxides, reactive organic compounds, sulfur oxides, and future development and occupancy of the site by the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on air quality, since individual pollutant emissions fare below resulting from significance thresholds. ow the SCAQMD's The estimated daily emissions for the project include 337.9 pounds of Carbon Monoxide (CO), 38. Pounds of Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC), 48.2 pounds of Nitrogen Oxides Pounds of Sulfur Oxides (SOX), and 5.8 pounds of particulate matter (PM10). These estimated emissions are all under the thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD of 550 lbs /da 3 Of CO, 55 Ibs /day of ROC, Additionally, 55 Ibs /day of NOx, 150 Ibs /day of SOx, and 150 Ibs /day of PM10. one of the mitigation measures discussed in the Transportation/Circulation section the temporary parking for orders not immediately ready for pick -up) is also a measure considered b the SCAQMD to mitigate air quality impacts by improving traffic flow. Therefore, there will be no impact and no mitigation will be required for the operation of the facilities. y The individual conclusions presented above contribute to the overall conclusion that construction and subsequent occupancy of the proposed project would not create, or significantly worsen an existing exceedance of any air pollution standard. Therefore, project development should not result consistent with all regional, State and Federal air quality regul in a significant impact upon air quality within the South Coast Air Basin and would also be significant air quality impacts due to project ations. Furthermore, since no development are anticipated, pursuant to CEQA, no specific mitigation measures for the reduction of air emissions are required. 6• TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION A Traffic Impact Study for the proposed Carl's Jr. Project was prepared by the applicant's consultants, Stevens - Garland Associates, in May 1996 and revised in August, October and December 1996 and January 1997, and was reviewed by the City's traffic consultant and Public Works and Planning and Building Safety Departments. This study included an estimate of trip generation for the proposed Carl's Jr. in order to determine a worst -case scenario pertaining to traffic impacts. Stevens - Garland and Associates conducted additional analysis of the specific Project site. Table 1 is a summary of the trip generation of the proposed project. N ow Tim e F —Frame Weekday: Noon Hour Total Inbound Outbound PM Peak Hour Total Inbound Outbound DAILY TRAFFIC Saturday: Noon Hour Total Inbound Outbound Table 1 SUMMARY OF PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip Rate Generated Traffic Traffic w/ 25% pass (oer_ 1__ p_ p0 M s m by reduction 46.26 140 105 79% 111 83 21% 29 22 36.53 111 52% 58 83 45% 53 43 40 632.12 1,920 1,440 56.63 172 129 51% 88 66 49% 84 DAILY TRAFFIC 63 Trip generation rat 'Note: Tri 686.04 2,080 1,560 es are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 5th Edition. According to the Traffic Impact Study, the project is expected to increase daily traffic volumes along Sepulveda Boulevard by approximately 1,040 trips, or approximately 1.6 percent of the total daily traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard (58,000 trips /day). Existing Palm Avenue traffic is approximately 800 trips per day and the project is anticipated to add a maximum of 670 trips (on Saturdays, 650 on weekdays) east of the project driveway on Palm Avenue - an 84% increase. West of the project driveway on Palm Avenue, the project is anticipated to generate a maximum of 230 additional trips on Palm Avenue during Saturdays; 100 additional trips are anticipated weekdays. This is a 29% increase above the existing Saturday level and a 13 % increase above the existing weekday traffic level. This increase is considered insignificant since the intersection LOS is still at A and B and local streets are designed to accommodate a maximum of 10,000 vehicles per day (at LOS E), well above the maximum projected volume of 1,470 trips. Palm Avenue has a 30 foot pavement width and a 40 foot right -of -way width with 5 foot wide sidewalks on both the north and south sides of the street. Street parking is prohibited on the north side of Palm Avenue from Sepulveda Boulevard to Washington Street. On the south side of Palm Avenue parking is prohibited along the majority of the street adjacent to the subject site, but is permitted currently beginning thirteen 13 feet 10 inches of the westerly side property line, and then is permitted on the rest of the entire south side of the street on Palm Avenue. Although there currently are no turning restrictions on Palm Avenue, it is very difficult to turn northbound onto Sepulveda Boulevard from eastbound Palm Avenue due to the large volume of traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard. From northbound Sepulveda Boulevard to westbound Palm Avenue, left and U-turns are prohibited from 6:00 am to 9:00 am and 3:00 pm - 6:30 pm Monday through Friday. Parking on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard, north of the project site, north of Palm Avenue is prohibited. Parking on Sepulveda Boulevard adjacent to the project site is a immediately south of Palm Avenue for approximately 40 feet of frontage. lso prohibited Using the following guidelines set forth by the City of El Segundo and the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP), the Carl's Jr. Traffic Impact Study examined a total of four intersections: (1) Sepulveda Boulevard /Maple Avenue; (2) Sepulveda Boulevard /Mariposa Avenue; (3) Sepulveda Boulevard /Palm Avenue; and Palm Avenue/Washington Street. According to the County CMP, traffic impacts are considered significant when a proposed project would increase traffic demand by two (2) percent of capacity (i.e., volume -to- capacity (V /C) ratio 7 97059095 ..a increases > 0.02) and causing or worsening level of service (LOS) F conditions (V /C > 1.00). The City of El Segundo considers LOS ratings of E and F unacceptable. The Traffic Study utilizes the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology in its intersection analyses, thus traffic data is Presented in ICU as opposed to V /C. The aforementioned si threshol gnificance ds, however, still apply to ICU figures. Existing (pre - project) and short -term future (without project) traffic conditions were estimated and combined with short-term future conditions including traffic generated by neighboring approved and pending projects. Data included ICU and LOS, and was provided for the noon weekday and evening weekday peak periods, as w ell as the Saturday noon peak, which are the three (3) peak times for the restaurant operation. Based on the findings of the Traffic Impact Study, development of the proposed project would not cause significant changes in capacity utilization at three of the four intersections, nor would they cause changes in LOS. The intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard/Palm Avenue is an exception in that the ICU would increase by a significant amount (0.035 to 0.074). Since the current rating of LOS A would only change to LOS B during the weekday PM peak after project implementation, the increase would not be considered significant. Table 2 PROJECT IMPACT ON INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ICU and Level of Service Intersection Existing Existing Plus Project 1997 Project Sepulveda BI. /Maple Ave. Cumulative Impact Weekday Noon Weekday PM Peak 0.637 B 0 B - 0.009 Saturday Noon 0.760 C 0.457 A 0.7772 72 C 0.820 D 0.012 Sepulveda BI. /Palm Ave. 0.463 A - 0.006 Weekday Noon Weekday PM Peak 0.507 A 0.571 A - 0.064 Saturday Noon 0.579 A 0.412 A 0.614 B .0669 B 0.035 Sepulveda BI. /Mariposa 0.486 A 0.074 Weekday Noon Weekday PM Peak 0.709 C C - 0.001 Saturday Noon 0.818 D 0.568 A .0.710 0826 D 0.912 E 0.008 Palm Ave./Washington St. 0.573 A - 0.005 Weekday Noon Weekday PM Peak 0.088 A 0.096 A - 0.008 Saturday Noon 0.100 A 0.094 A 0.112 A 0.119 A 0.012 0.108 A - 0.014 ICU = Intersection Capacity Utilization LOS = Level of Service The City's Zoning Code requires a total of 37 parking spaces and one (1) loading space for the drive -thru restaurant. The applicant proposes to provide 40 surface parking spaces and one (1) loading space, thereby exceeding City requirements. Standard parking spaces will make up 38 of the spaces and two (2) spaces will be handicapped spaces. The application indicates that deliveries are made to the site using 40 foot trucks with trailers; and delivery hours are limited to 9:00 am - 11:00 am and 2:00 pm - 4:30 pm so as not to interfere with peak hour traffic. Pedestrian and bicyclist circulation is estimated to be limited on Sepulveda Boulevard, due to the intensity of development and automobile traffic in the area. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic is expected on Palm Avenue due to the multi - family residential uses and the nearby Washington 8 Park. A five (5) foot wide sidewalk will remain on Palm Avenue as well as a 12 foot sidewalk on Sepulveda Boulevard to accommodate these needs. The application includes a request to relocate an existing curb cut to the project on Sepulveda Boulevard. The existing 30 foot wide driveway near the center of the lot would be removed and replaced with a new 25 foot wide curb cut at the south end of the property. Since Sepulveda Boulevard is a State facility, a permit must be issued by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) prior to any construction along Sepulveda Boulevard. An existing utility box in the public right -of -way may need to be relocated to accommodate the new curb cut. In considering the curb cut, Caltrans would evaluate traffic operations, safety, and the relative advantages and disadvantages of relocating the driveway access. Increased hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists are not anticipated for the project as currently proposed, and therefore considered less than significant. The proposed project would not entail generation of or alterations to rail, water, or air traffic. The project would function adequately with dependence mainly on vehicular traffic circulation. Occupants of the site would not be expected to use the Metro Green Line for transportation. While Los Angeles International Airport is located approximately one mile to the north of the project site, the proposed development would not interfere with flight pa ems nor would it generate air travel demand. Impacts to rail, water, and air traffic are therefore considered less than significant. No mitigation is required. The project will be subject to the City's Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program adopted on May 21, 1996 (Resolution No. 3969), subject to final determination by the Director of Public Works. The fee program was established to provide a funding mechanism for specified major traffic system mitigation and /or improvements, the demand for which is created by such developments, in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. The project will be assessed a fee based on the rate per PM peak hour number of vehicle trips generated by the project. The Department of Public Works shall determine the precise trip generation rate to utilize to calculate the applicable fee, which has preliminarily been estimated to be over $82,000, and when the fee, if required, will be payable. The City of El Segundo Municipal Code provides no standards for required stacking distance or minimum queuing for drive- thrus. The applicant's traffic consultant conducted queuing studies at three similar Carl's Jr. Restaurant locations, reviewed and approved by the City, in order to determine the peak queuing demand; and therefore the appropriate stacking distance to prevent vehicles waiting in the drive -thru line from blocking on -site circulation and more importantly from backing -up onto Sepulveda Boulevard and potentially creating a safety hazard. The queuing study was conducted at the following two locations on Friday December 20, 1996 during the noontime and PM peak hours of 11:30 am -1:30 pm and 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm: 9110 Imperial Highway, Downey and 5315 Rosecrans Avenue, Hawthorne. Additionally, counts were conducted from 11:30 am - 1:30 pm on Saturday December 21, 1996 at the Carl's Jr. located at 5601 Woodruff Avenue, Lakewood. The study concluded that the Hawthorne location had the peak drive -thru demand with a maximum of four (4) cars in the pick -up window queue and a maximum of seven (7) cars behind the order -board queue. However, at any one time there were a maximum of nine (9) cars total in the drive -thru (pick -up window plus order -board queue) according to the consultants study. The peak occurred during the lunchtime hour. The project provides for a maximum of nine cars total in the drive -thru queue without impacting on or off -site circulation. This includes two (2) cars in back of the pick -up window and seven (7) ears in back of the order board. The accepted standard distance of 20 feet per car was utilized to determine required stacking distance. Since it is difficult to determine actual peak demand of the drive -thru until the restaurant is operational, the following mitigation measures will be required in order to mitigate any potential traffic impacts due to the dive -thru: 1 There will be available an employee to take "pre - orders" in the peak hour line of cars waiting to access the menu /order board. This in effect will eliminate the need to even have an order board between peak hours. The moming /early afternoon peak hours will include 11:30 to 1:30 and the evening hours will be 5:30 to 6:30. 2. At least two parking spaces (the two spaces in the far north west comer of the site will be immediately available and signed for "Drive Up Window Waiting Area Only ". They are to be monitored and kept free at all times during the peak periods mentioned above. These spaces will accommodate vehicles from the drive -thru, when orders are not immediately available for pick -up. Vehicles will park and waft in these spaces and Carl's Jr. employees will bring orders directly out to the waiting vehicles. 9 97059095 The applicant should develop wording for the final sign which would then be reviewed and approved by the City. Two such signs - one for each space, will be required. The City will also approve intended location of the signs as well. 3. Circulation and traffic review will be required a maximum of six (6) months after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the site. The definition of a "review" involves the conduct of another queuing study for the actual operating restaurant identical to that performed for the development of this site. Also, periodic monitoring should be done to ensure that the two spaces per item 2 above are kept free as required. 4. The area in front of the drive -thru, within the 25 foot wide drive aisle, shall be striped and labeled as "keep clear" to prevent vehicles from blocking the area which could create a traffic safety hazard. 5. The menu /order board shall be relocated slightly so there is approximately a 40 foot distance between the center lines of the pick -up window and the menu /order board. As an additional mitigation measure, parking adjacent to the project site along the entire length of the site on Sepulveda Boulevard should be prohibited to allow adequate site distance for vehicles entering and exiting the Carl's Jr. driveway on Sepulveda Boulevard. This measure will require review and approval of Caltrans. With the implementation of the above - referenced mitigation measures, circulation and traffic impacts will be mitigated to an insignificant level. 7• BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES There are no known rare, unique or endangered plant or animal species associated with the project site or within the immediate vicinity. The site is completely paved with asphalt and the only vegetation on the site are weeds growing throughout the cracks in the pavement. Development of the proposed project would include additional landscaping consisting of plant species which readily adapt to urban environments and drought tolerant plant species as required by City regulations. Therefore, the proposed development will not produce significant changes to the number of rare or endangered plant species in the project area (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and micro flora). The project site and immediate locale are not known to contain any rare or endangered animal species. Since the project site is completely paved and located within a highly developed urban area, the potential for animal life on -site is very limited and may only include species that have adapted to such environments. Development of the proposed Project would continuation of a regional urbanizing trend which has permanently al d altered wildlife fe habitat in the area. Given the very limited animal life on -site, the proposed project would not produce significant impacts to the number of rare or endangered species or specimens in the project area, nor would result in significant changes in the diversity of species, reduction in numbers, or deterioration of valuable animal habitats. No mitigation is required. As with any food service use, the proposed drive -thru restaurant will require review and approval by the County Health Department. Standard Heal Department regulations will ensure that the design and operation of the facility will protect the public from potential health hazards associated with the preparation and serving of food. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Development and operation of the proposed project would result in the consumption of renewable and non - renewable natural resources in the form of building materials during construction and water and fossil fuels during project operation. The project site is currently vacant, thus development on the site would result in an increased consumption of natural resources including fossil fuels in the form of electricity and natural gas; however, consumption is expected to be marginal and would be considered insignificant relative to cumulative consumption volumes throughout the City of El Segundo and the airport area as a whole. The proposed Carl's Jr. drive - thru restaurant, would be expected to consume natural resources at relatively low rates, and impacts to energy and mineral resources would therefore be considered insignificant. It is anticipated that existing supplies and infrastructure are adequate to meet the potential additional demands for water and wastewater facilities. In addition, the proposed project would comply with all applicable statutes and regulations set forth in the Uniform Building Code, and all applicable State resource conservation measures. 10 Southern California Edison Company and the Gas Company are the suppliers of electricity and natural gas to the project site. Existing fuel supplies and infrastructure should be adequate to meet the project's needs. The proposed project would comply with all applicable statues and regulations set forth by the respective energy companies, in addition to all applicable State energy conservation measures. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant increases in fossil fuel consumption or to produce any significant impacts upon the use, extraction or conservation of any natural resources, and no mitigation is required. 9• HAZARDS The proposed project would utilize common cleaning solutions, disposed of in accordance with applicable statutes. Although the use of these materials would be considered an increase over existing circumstances since the site is now vacant, the amount to be used represents a marginal increase and is considered insignificant when compared to the total use of hazardous materials in the City and airport area as a whole. Based on the amount of hazardous materials stored, the nature of the packaging, the materials involved, and the project's compliance with applicable regulations, the risk from the project is considered minor. Use and storage of explosives is not expected with the construction or operation of the proposed project. Based on the foregoing, the proposed project will have a less than significant impact regarding the use, disposal, or release of potentially hazardous materials and no mitigation is required. Currently, the project site is accessible to emergency vehicles via Sepulveda Boulevard and Palm Avenue. Based on project generated traffic volumes detailed in the Traffic Impact Study, no unmitigatable traffic impacts are foreseen with development of the proposed project, and evacuation plans and procedures would be incorporated into building design. Therefore, the project is not expected to interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans and no mitigation is required. As with any food service use, the proposed drive -thru restaurant will require review and approval by the County Health Department. Standard Health Department regulations will ensure that the design and operation of the facility will protect the public from potential health hazards associated with the preparation and serving of food. The project site is located within the seismically active southern California region; therefore, the occupants for of the site would be exposed to seismic risks which are similar to those of occupants of other structures of comparable size and scale in the surrounding area. No active or potentially active faults are found on or near the project site and therefore potential hazards from ground failure, surface rupture, and other seismic hazards are considered less than significant. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was performed and concluded that although the Assessment revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions, contamination or risks, numerous current and historic uses of properties in the immediate area and surrounding vicinity may have resulted in some form of environmental contamination of the site. Therefore, a Phase ct II environmental assessment will be required prior to any grading or constru ion on the site in order to identify and mitigate any potential impact. All recommendations from the Phase II Assessment will be approved by the City and all approved recommendations will be required to be completed by the project applicant or owner. Consequently, the proposed project would not create a significant health hazard or expose people to significant potential health hazards, and no other mitigation is required. 10• NOISE The residential uses to the north and west of the project site are considered to be sensitive to noise and vibrations. Because the traffic using Sepulveda Boulevard to the east and LAX aircraft noise to the north is the predominant noise generator in the area, it will mask noise originating from the project site. An acoustical analysis was prepared by the applicant's acoustical consultant, Davy and Associates, Inc in October 1996 and amended on January 21, 1997; based on a redesign of the project which moved the building, drive -thru and loudspeaker and people ordering food at the drive -thru, and order board approximately 16 feet further to the northwest. The October study analyzed the potential noise impacts on the entire Carl's Jr. operation including the drive -thru, loudspeaker, trash pick -up, deliveries, building operating equipment (i.e., fans, grills, and HVAC) and parking lot noise from vehicles. Actual noise level measurements were taken on a Friday at a similar existing Carl's Jr. facility on Century Boulevard in Inglewood. 11 9'7059095 Additionally, existing ambient noise level measurements were taken for a 24 hour period at the subject site. The consultant's analysis of the noise level measurements concluded that the minimum ambient noise level on the site is 55 dBA and the maximum noise levels generated by the operation of the Carl's Jr. restaurant would be between 9 and 17 dBA below the minimum ambient noise level. Therefore, the Acoustical Analysis concluded that noise levels generated by the restaurant operations will have no significant effect on nearby residences. However, since the surrounding area includes sensitive noise receptors, and during the nightime the ambient noise level is at its lowest, drive -thru operations will be prohibited during the late night and early morning hours to mitigate any potential impacts. The hours of operation for the drive -thru will be limitd to 8:00 am - 12 midnight on Saturday, 8:00 am - 10:00 pm on Sunday, 7:00 am - 10:00 pm Monday through Thursday and 7:00 am -12 midnight on Friday. Additionally, a maximum of six (6) months after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project a post - construction Acoustical Analysis shall be performed on -site to determine if the restaurant operations are causing any significant noise impacts to the surrounding area. The hours of operation for the facility may be adjusted based on the findings in the Acoustical Analysis. Noise and vibration effects on the surrounding land uses are analyzed for both short-term construction activities and long -term operation of the proposed project. Construction activities will be short-term in nature (approximately 2 to 3 months in duration) and will occur during permitted hours only, as required by City regulations which restrict construction to 7 am to 6 pm Monday - Saturday. In addition, vibration attributable to construction activities will be minimal due to the type of construction equipment generally employed for a project of this nature. The traffic generated by the proposed development would increase traffic - related noise levels along surrounding streets. A three (3) decibel increase in noise levels is normally needed to create a perceptible change in noise environment. Such an increase would require a doubling of sound energy (which would typically require a doubling of traffic on any given roadway). Due to the incremental increase in traffic generated by the proposed project, it can be concluded that the additional traffic will result in an inaudible increase in ambient noise levels. The types of activities and facilities proposed on the project site would not generate objectionable vibrations that might be noticeable at any adjoining property line. Therefore, due to limited noise and vibrations anticipated with construction and operation of the proposed project, and due to the existing high ambient noise level in the area, no significant impacts from noise or vibrations will occur, and no mitigation is required. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Demands for municipal services are typically determined by permanent residential populations within the service area; however, demands for services (with the exception of school services) are also generated by non - residential land uses. Police and fire services to the project site are provided by the City of El Segundo Police and Fire Departments. Water and park services are also operated by the City of El Segundo. Sewer demands for the proposed project will be accommodated by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's sewer lines and will be treated at Segundo Unified Joint Water Pollution and Control Plant in Carson. School services are provided by the EI School District. Since the project site is currently vacant, development would generate additional demands for municipal services. As no residential uses are proposed with this project, no direct impacts are expected on local schools, parks, or other public facilities (e.g., recreational). However, limited demands on parks and other public facilities may occur from employees working in the City and patrons of the Carl's Jr. drive -thru restaurant. Demand from employees is not considered significant due to the limited increase in daytime population associated with implementation of the Proposed project. Furthermore, demand from restaurant patrons will also be limited as fast -food restaurant patrons generally have a goal of getting in and out of a facility quickly. The non- residential land uses associated with the project would not significantly impa ct fire services, Provided all applicable regulations and criteria are incorporated into building desi conveyance systems and supplies for the project site would be adequate to comply with fire code requirements. The proposed project is expected to generate additional demands on police services; however, this can be mitigated to a less than significant level by incorporating security lighting, hardware and other security features into building design plans as well as business operation criteria, all which will be incorporated into a Security Plan to be approved by the Police Department. Water and sewer lines serving the project site are available and have the capacity to meet the demands of the 12 proposed project. Therefore, the project will not significantly impact municipal services in the area (police, fire, water, school, sewage, parks, or public facilities), and no mitigation measures are required, other than the standard Fire, Police and Library service mitigation fees. As discussed in Section 6, the project will be subject to a traffic impact fee to offset certain identified needed traffic improvements, pursuant to Resolution No. 3969. A Fiscal Impact Analysis regarding the project's fiscal impact upon the City of El Segundo has been prepared by the City, based on project information provided by the applicant. This report addresses the project's anticipated revenue generation and municipal service cost burden resulting to the City. Utilizing the El Segundo Fiscal Impact Analysis Model (ESFIAM), the Fiscal Impact Analysis concludes that the project will generate a net fiscal surplus for the City of approximately $29,200 over the first five years of operation, after consideration of City municipal service costs which are estimated to be approximately $36,900. These numbers do not include the payment of a one -time Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee of approximately $82,000, which is payable prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project; subject to a final determination by the Director of Public Works. Therefore, although development of the project is expected to result in expenses to the City for the provision of municipal services, these will be offset by the revenues generated for the City by the project. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The site is currently unimproved and would necessitate utility connections. Existing utility infrastructure beneath Sepulveda Boulevard and Palm Avenue includes electricity, natural gas, telephone, cable television, water, sewer, and storm drain lines. Utility services would be provided by the appropriate purveyors, including: Southern California Edison Company, The Gas Company, Pacific Belt, Paragon Cable, the City of El Segundo Water and Wastewater Division, and the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts. Given the small size of the proposed project, it is anticipated that the existing utility lines, supplies, infrastructure and /or capacity are adequate to serve the proposed project. The proposed development would submit all registration forms required for service connection, and would adhere to all applicable utility permit guidelines and restrictions. Although the applicant did not provide estimates of utility usage for the proposed project, the application states that the following infrastructure will accommodate the proposed use: a four (4) inch sewer line for 56 fixtures, 600 AMP electrical, 1 % inch water meter with a two (2) inch line and 1,012,000 btu's for gas service. Water utility service is provided by the City of El Segundo Water Department, which purchases water from the West Basin Municipal Water District (WBMWD), WBMWD recently completed the largest water reclamation facility in the State, located in El Segundo. With this project, which initially will process 20 million gallons per day (MGD) and ultimately 70 MGD, water supplies are anticipated to be adequate. Solid waste disposal will provided to the site by a private disposal company, which can use any sanitary landfill in the vicinity. The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939:Sher) requires each city and county, through source reduction and composting, to divert 25 percent of the solid waste stream from landfills and transformation facilities by 1995, and 50 percent by the year 2000. On July 1, 1991, the City of El Segundo adopted a household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) and source reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) Plan in accordance with AB 939, and the City is in the process of implementing the plan. As an additional measure, storage areas for recyclable materials and green waste within the trash enclosure area will be required to be provided as a condition of approval. Therefore, development of the proposed project is not expected to generate the need for new utilities, nor would it cause significant alterations to existing utilities. 13. AESTHETICS The project site is not part of, nor adjacent to, a designated scenic view, vista or corridor. The project site is located within a General Commercial land use zone, is surrounded by surface parking lots, one (1) to three (3) story multi - family residential structures and one to two -story commercial structures, and bounded by Sepulveda Boulevard to the east and Palm Avenue to the north, neither of which are designated as scenic roads. The proposed project would be one story in height and of similar character to adjacent commercial structures. Therefore, the project will not block scenic views or vistas from these surrounding 13 97059095 commercial or residential uses. Additionally, visibility of the site will be buffered from the nearby residential areas with landscaping in all the setbacks, around the building perimeter and within the parking lot. The trash enclosure, on the southwest comer of the site, would be visible from residents to the west who are at a higher elevation and a covering, such as a trellis, will be required to screen the area from view. Thus, existing views or vistas from residential areas would not be adversely effected by the proposed project. It is not expected that existing light and shadow patterns in the project vicinity will be significantly impacted by development of the project, due to the low height of the building. The project would not be aesthetically offensive; it would provide a new, modem facility on a vacant lot. New illuminated signage is proposed for the site, including a 20 foot high pole sign on Sepulveda Boulevard. A complete plan will be reviewed by the Planning Commission through the Conditional Use Permit process to ensure the illumination does not impact adjacent residential areas and is compatible with surrounding uses. The Planning Commission may limit the number, size and location etc., of proposed signs. The proposed project would not significantly change scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas, public lands or roads, nor would it change existing light and shadow patterns. The bar /billiards /restaurant establishment to the north of the project site operates 24 hours per day, and employs nighttime illumination for advertising, safety and security purposes. sensitive receptors to the project site are residences located immediately tot a north, acro sePalm Avenue approximately 40 feet away, and to the west approximately 74 feet away, across the existing Hacienda Hotel surface parking lot. The project site is currently vacant. Development of the proposed project will introduce new lighting to the area. However, the lighting will be required to be compatible with, and comparable to, the existing lighting surrounding the project site so it would not significantly alter illumination of the area. Additionally, the low -rise size and scale of the proposed project and the use of non - reflective building materials, will minimize any reflective glare effects of the proposed project. A photometric study submitted by the applicant indicates a maximum number of footcandles at the property lines, for the proposed lighting as follows: North 9.2, South 1 -2, East 10.9, West 0.4 and North -west comer 0.1. The City's Crime Prevention Division of the Police Department normally recommends 1 foot candle minimum of lighting in parking lots and .25 foot candle minimum for walkways, entry doors and buildings for adequate safety and security. Lighting which is directional, and shielded to prevent off -site illumination with weather and vandalism resistant covers, is also commonly recommended by the Police Department. A complete revised lighting plan and photometric study will be required which provides minimum off -site illumination and mitigates any impact to light and glare to a insignificant level, but still complies with the Police Department recommendations. The study and lighting design will take into consideration existing lighting adjacent to the site (commercial security and street lighting) which already partially illuminates the subject property. Given that surrounding commercial and parking land uses also employ night time illumination for safety and security reasons, and there is street lighting adjacent to the project site, it is not anticipated that the proposed development would significantly alter existing light and glare conditions. Therefore, this project is not expected to produce significant impacts on local light and glare would require standard lighting mitigation measures. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES The project site is vacant, thus no historic structures exist on -site. Similarly, there are no known prehistoric sites or objects associated with the property or located within the immediate vicinity. The surrounding area is a fully urbanized and developed environment. No cultural, religious, or sacred uses or activities of importance to any particular segment of the general population are known to be associated with the project site or locale. The potential for significant impacts to historic or prehistoric sites, cultural, paleontological, archeological, historical or religious structures, or objects is considered remote. Further archaeological studies are not necessary, and preservation efforts are not required as a part of project implementation. Proposed development would not be expected to produce significant impacts upon, or result in the alteration or destruction of, any historic or prehistoric site, building, structure, or object, nor would they result in physical changes which would affect ethnic cultural values or restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the vicinity. Should any previously un- recorded cultural resources be encountered during the construction of the project, all work will be stopped and a qualified archeologist will be consulted to determine the potential significance of the find. No further mitigation is required. 14 IS. RECREATION The nearest park to the project site is Washington Park located approximately 340 feet to the west of of the project site on Palm Avenue. The linear park is located under the Southern California Edison right -of -way east of Washington Street. Demands on parks and recreational facilities are primarily generated by permanent residential populations; and the proposed project is not expected to significantly alter the existing residential population. No residential development is proposed and the Carl's Jr. would attract a patron and local employee population that is not expected to create a significant impact upon park or recreational facilities. Additionally, since left turns onto Palm Avenue out of the Carl's Jr. restaurant will be prohibited, it is anticipated that there will be an insignificant impact to Washington Park due to additional traffic. Therefore, significant impacts upon the quantity or quality of recreational opportunities are not expected as a result of the project, and no mitigation is required. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The proposed project is a low intensity use of vacant site located in an urban setting. Therefore, the project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment and will not achieve short-term goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals. There are no foreseeable negative cumulative impacts or any impacts that will have an adverse affect on human beings. SECTION 5.0 SOURCES 1 • Initial Study Aop ant QuestionnaI and Appli a +inn a CKE Restaurants, Inc May 3, 23 and 28, June 18, July 29, August 27 and 28, September 30, October 1, and 8, December 18, 1996 and January 14 and 23 1997 2. Traffic Imps t Study, Stevens - Garland Associates, Inc., May 1996, Revised August, October 9, and December 26 and 27, 1996 and January 8, 1997 3 Acoust_ icial gnalys_s, Davy and Associates. Inc., June and December, 1996 and January 21, 1997 4. Phase I Environmental Sit Ass c -- , P & D Technologies, Inc., September 1994 5. Air Quality Analy is, South Coast Air Quality Management District, July 16, 1996 6. Fiscal Impact Analysis, Planning Division Staff, July 17, 1996 P:Vr0leM1ea387%EA387.ISR 97059095 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA -387 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 96 -3 DRAFT MITIGATION MEASURES 6.a.b. TMlXR_Qrtation /Circulation 1 • There will be available an employee to take "pre- orders" int he peak hour line of cars waiting to access the menu /order board. This in effect will eliminate the need to even have an order board between peak hours. The moming /early afternoon peak hours will include 11:30 to 1:30 and the evening hours will be 5:30 to 6:30. At least two parking spaces (the two spaces in the far north west comer of the site) will be immediately available and signed for "Drive Up Window Waiting Area Only ". They are to be monitored and kept free at all times during the peak Periods mentioned above. These spaces will accommodate vehicles from the drive -thru, when orders are not immediately available for pick -up. Vehicles will park and wait in these spaces and Carl's Jr. employees will bring orders directly out to the waiting vehicles. The applicant should develop wording for the final sign which would then be reviewed and approved by the City. Two such signs - one for each space, will be required. The City will also approve intended location of the signs as well. 3. Circulation and traffic review will be required a maximum of six (6) months after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the site. The definition of a "review" involves the conduct of another queuing study for the actual operating restaurant identical to that performed for the development of this site. Also, periodic monitoring should be done to ensure that the two spaces per item 2 above are kept free as required. 4. The area in front of the drive -thru, within the 25 foot wide drive aisle, shall be striped and labeled as "keep clear" to prevent vehicles from blocking the area which could create a traffic safety hazard. 5. The menu /order board shall be relocated slightly so there is approximately a 40 foot distance between the center lines of the pick -up window and the menu /order board. 6. Parking adjacent to the project site along the entire length of the site on Sepulveda Boulevard shall be prohibited to allow adequate site distance for vehicles entering and exiting the Carl's Jr. driveway on Sepulveda Boulevard. 9.c.d. liar A Phase II Environmental Assessment will be required prior to any grading or construction. All recommendations must be approved by the City and implemented by the project developer. 10.a.b. Noise Drive -thru operations will be prohibited during the late night and early morning hours to mitigate any potential impacts. The hour, of operation for the drive -thru will be limitd to 8:00 am - 12 midnight on Saturday, 8:00 am - 10:00 pm on Sunday, 7:00 am - 10:00 pm Monday through Thursday and 7:00 am - 12 midnight on Friday. Additionally, a maximum of six (6) months after the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the Project a post - construction Acoustical Analysis shall be performed on -site to determine if the restaurant operations are causing any significant noise impacts to the surrounding area. The hours of operation for the facility may be adjusted based on the findings in the Acousitcal Analysis. 16 11.b. Public Services A Security Plan must be prepared by the applicant, and approved by the Police Department, and all plan requirements implemented by the project developer. 13.c. Aesthetics A complete lighting plan and photometric study must be approved by the Police and Planning and Building Safety Departments and all plan requirements implemented by the project developer. 2. The trash enclosure shall include a covering to screen the area from residents to the west of the project site. The site signage shall be designed to minimize impacts to adjacent residential areas due to illumination, and compatibility with surrounding uses shall be required. 17 9705909; Project # _ EA -387 CUP a -3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Carl's Jr Drive- Thru_Restaur 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of I Segundo 350 Main Street. F_ISegundo GA 90245 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Laurie B. Jester Senior Planner (310) 322 -4670 ext 12 4. Project Location: Southwest comer of Sepulveda Boulvevard (State Hiahwav 1) anfi Palm Avenue 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: CKE - Carl Karcher Enterprises P O Box 499Q Anaheim Ca 92803 6. General Plan Designation: General Commercial 7. Zoning: General Commercial (C -3) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary) Construction of a 3.050 arocs f row lmat ) f'aci'e lr fast fop re aurant with a drive thru to be located n n a 86 acre vacant narcpl of • +6% "lwest comer of Sepulveda Boulevard and Palm Avenue at 639 N Sepulveda Boulevard in the General Commercial( - ne Drive -thru restaurants require approval of a Conditional Use Permit in all commercial and Industrial zones 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings) The surroundina are with one and b— di le family residential units (small condominium and apartment complexes may with underground narking) to the north and west. atwo- gtor�f, restauranribar /bUllards p -rlor across Palm Avenue to the north, a multi -story office building and single story commercial shopping center across Sepulveda Boulevard to the east and a surface parking lot, for the Hacienda Hotel, imme- diately to thg south and west. To the west of the parking lot. a i ly 74 feet away from the subject property is a two -story ondominium complex with undermamn parkins. Furt h r west on Palm Avenue aonroxima+ely 40 feet � �cci west Of the CI IhIPM Qi }p is Washinaton Street Park. a Imear city parr with a tot lot, mass areas and par- course located under the Southern California Edison power lines.- The properties to the north across Palm Avenue are zoned -nmmereinl rpnpral m_z� Multi-Family Residential (R_ -3). to the south and west i in (P) further west is zoned Multi Family Residential (R -3). and to the -act acrncc cepulyeda Boulevard is zoned Co morate Office (C: Chi. 10. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Caltrans for encroachment permits on Sep l�l ede Boulever (State Route 1). for relocation of existing c;,;rF+ .^:a. i :0unty Health rlenuly inn+ t... food preparation and sales ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the follow- ing pages. _ Land Use and Planning — Biological resources X Public Service Population and Housing _ Energy and Mineral _ Utilities and Service Resources Systems Geological Problems -Z— Hazards —X-- Aesthetics Urfnccinnr- _ Water _ CZ Noise _ Cultural Resources Air Quality X Transportation /Circulation III. DETERMINATION: Mandatory Findings of Significance Recreation On the basis of this Initial Study of Environmental Impact, the Planning Commission of the City of El Segundo finds the following: That the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X That although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures, as described on an attached sheet, have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. That the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. That the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the impact is "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuan n ea ier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the propcs d projec . Bre rnar , Secretary -- JanLa y 27 —.19—,u oft e P nninl ommission City of El Segundo IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all answers are required on attached sheets). ISSUES (and Supporting Information Potentially Sources) Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact Land Use Planning. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or �_ zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ___?5_. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (include a low- income or minority community)? No Impact 9707909 9'7059095 Potentially Significant ` ISSUES (and Supporting Information Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 2. Population and Housing. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or X local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either X directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially X affordable housing? 3. Geologic Problems. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? X b) Seismic ground shaking? X c) Seismic ground failure, including X liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? X f) Erosion, changes in topography or X unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? X h) Expansive soils? X 1) Unique geologic or physical features? X 4. Water. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface _X runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? X c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g., �_ temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? �_ e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? �_ f) Change in the quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or X withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifier by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capacity? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of X groundwater? 9'7059095 ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 1) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? 5. Air Quality. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? C) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any changes in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? 6. Transportation /Circulation. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off - site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts? 7. Biological Resources. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats (including, but not limited to, plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Less Than Impact Unless Significant No Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated X X X X X _X X X X X X _--X X X X 970scellOc_ Potentially ISSUES and Su 1 Supporting Information Significant Potentially Unless Sources) Less Than Significant Mitigation 9 Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact B. Energy and Mineral Resources. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? X c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future X value to the region and the residents of the State? 9. Hazards. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not X limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation X plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? X d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? X e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? X 10. Noise. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X 11. Public Services. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? -- X b) Police protection? C) Schools? X d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X e) Other governmental services? X 12. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the Proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X 9705909;; ISSUES and Su ( Supporting Information Potentially Potentially Less Than Significant Sources) Significant Significant act g No Impact Unless Impact Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Sewer or septic tanks? X e) Storm water drainage? X f) Solid waste disposal? X g) Local or regional water supplies? X 13. Aesthetics. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic �- effect? X C) Create light or glare? 14. Cultural Resources. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? X b) Disturb archaeological resources? X c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical X change which would affect unique ethnic X cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 15. Recreation. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational X facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 16. Mandatory Findings of Significance. X a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, X_ substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or _. wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife Population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of X long -term, environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively X considerable? ( "Cumulatively _ considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in conjunction with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Potentially P: Protects yea- 3871787 isc 9'7059095 Potentially Significant Less Than Significant ISSUES and Su Supporting Information Unless Significant No Impact anon Mitigation 9 Impact Impact d) Does the project have environmental Incorporated effects which will cause substantial X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? P: Protects yea- 3871787 isc 9'7059095 .. CITY OF EL SEGLINVO d : NTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDEN CIRCULATION DATE: January 30, 1997 TO: - Jim Morrison, City Ron Danville, SePlans Manager Senior Examiner Jim Fauk, Director of Parks and Recreation Tim Grimmond, Chief of Police R —ECEIVED Jim Hansen, Director of Economic Development Eunice Kramer, Finance Director Jake Nielson, Fire Chief JAN 3 0 1�c` Barbara Pearson, Library Director CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE Ed Schroder, Director of Public Works FROM: Bret B. Bernard, Director of Planning and Building �3 SUBJECT: Safety r vir n I _ Carl's Jr. Drive -thru Restaurant I 639 North Se P Sepulveda Boulevard Applicant: CKE Restaurants, Inc. (Cart's Jr.) Property Owner: NIS Express, Inc., Mr. Tom Ennis The proposed project is a request to construct a 3,050 gross square Carl's Jr. fast food restaurant with a drive -thru, to be located on a 0.86 of land at the southwest corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Palm Avenue, foot (approximate) Sepulveda Boulevard, in the General Commercial C- acre vacant parcel require approval of a Conditional Use Permit in all commercial and industrial at 639 North ( 3i Zone. Drive -thru restaurants Please check one of th zones. as to the �I1 °wince proposed'' after reviewing the attached material and respond responsibility. Project reveew comments environmental impact should be submitted separate) not Pertaining In Your area of all comments by T y please return the p 9 to environmental impact Project, call Laurie Jesat e- Yxb�on Na 212 raft lmbal Study and plans with ---� If you have any questions about the DEPARTMENT FINDINrc /concur with Draft Initial Study with findings as submitted. = Substantially concur with Initial ua Stud added as described below. Y findings and request additional language be request additional contact and information before we determination. See comments below. can make adequate have concerns about project's potential environmental impact as described below and request an interdepartmental meeting before proceeding with review. C MM N w. iewed B Y 3 i!Z it /�-��t �10,w 1 40 g ature and Title Date / 08.387.idc INTER - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Laurie Jester, Planning Dept. FROM: Tim Grimmond, Chief Of Police SUBJECT: Carl's Jr. February 10, 1997 Parking Lot: __1 "Conditions to remain as stated in September 23, 1996 memo. Pedestrian Crossing: There is a concern for the safety and liability of customers crossing through the drive thru driveway on the east side of the building. We would suggest this entry/exit be made an "Emergency Exit" only. "Planning is checking on this recommendation. Landscaping: There is no indication of exactly what type of landscaping will be used. Lining the perimeter with trees and bushes act as a natural barrier. However, ground cover and bushes no higher than 2 to 2 1/2 feet are recommended. There also appears to be large trees (no indication which type) located near the 8 main light standards. Their size indicates that they may be blocking the flow and amount of light to the surface parking area. Palm trees could be used, allowing for more visibility and light to the parking lots. "The ground cover (Gazania, Verbena and Fescue) listed on the plan are approved. Although the placement of trees and bushes are noted by small and large circles but the type of trees used are not listed. "In a discussion with The Planning Department, an additional recommendation was made to add a low /wide hedging along the west line of the driveway to further deter the concern noted In the "Pedestrian Crossing" section. FEB 1 2 ' -. Trash Dumpster: Presently the dumpster will be enclosed by aluminum doors, however, it Is suggested that barred gates be used to eliminate hiding places for criminal activity. "The plans did not indicated what will be used. Cameras /Monitoring System: Presently there is one camera monitoring the counting room and one viewing the drive thru window. It is also recommended there be an additional camera behind the cashier counter facing the customers, with signs posted "Activity is Being Recorded ". "Not indicated on the plans. ADDITIONAL CONCERNS: Is the only window for the "Drive- Thru ", the "Pick -up window "? The west delivery door should have a peephole or window so that employees can see who Is at the door. The Drive -Thru order /menu sign must be elevated and Illuminated with additional light on that end of the building. On many occasions, robberies at fast food establishments have occurred when the suspect hid behind the "order" sign. 2 7 Cam' i f eSeyu�d� INTER - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE September 26, 1996 TO: Laurie Jester, Planning Dept. FROM: Laurie Risk, Crime Prevention Specialist SUBJECT: Carl's Jr. Parking Lot: Both east and west facing parking stalls on the west side of the building should be chained or coned off during late night hours. This will direct all customers to the primary entrance and Its parking stalls, thus deterring loitering and criminal activity on the west side. Pedestrian crossing: There is a concern for the safety and liability of customers crossing through the drive thru driveway on the east side of the building. We would suggest this entry/exit be made an "Emergency Exit" only. Landscaping: There is no indication of exactly what type of landscaping will be used. Lining the perimeter with trees and bushes act as a natural barrier. However, ground cover and bushes no higher than 2 to 2 1/2 feet are recommended. There also appears to be large trees (no indication which type) located near the 8 main light standards. Their size indicates that they may be blocking the flow and amount of light to the surface parking area. Palm trees could be used, allowing for more visibility and light to the parking lots. Trash Dumpster: Presently the dumpster will be enclosed by aluminum doors, however, it is suggested that barred gates be used to eliminate hiding places for criminal activity. Cameras /Monitoring System: Presently there is one camera monitoring the counting room and one viewing the drive thru window. It is also recommended there be an additional camera behind the cashier counter facing the customers, with signs posted "Activity Is Being Recorded ". 17\ �f, - 38 �- Carls Jr. Page 2 Concerns Clarified By Carl's Jr. /Lorenzo Reyes Hardware: Cash register drawers will be installed inside the counter, while the computerized menu ordering portion of the register will remain on top of the counter. There will be an interior unlocking device on the inside of the freezer, office and counting room which will allow employees to exit in the event they are locked inside during a robbery. Perimeter: The existing chain link fence will act as a perimeter wall between the Hacienda Hotel and the Carl's Jr. Lighting: Lighting appears to be adequate around the building. There will be a wall pack directly over the delivery door. ATM Script: ATM Script referenced as #105 is a device which allows customers to use their ATM card when purchasing food. Doors: The office door and counting room door will be constructed of aluminum. Order Window The order window will be by the exit door on Sepulveda. cc: Lorenzo Reyes CITY OF EL SEGUNDO INTER- DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE February 12, 1997 TO Bret B. Bernard Director of Planning and Building Safety r -_ FROM Bellur Devaraj F(' �i y / City Engineer SUBJECT Review Comments - Environmental Assessment EA - 387 (Carps Jr.) Conditional Use Permit 96-3 Address of Project 639 North Sepulveda Boulevard I have reviewed the subject application and offer the following comments: 1. Any work within the Sepulveda Boulevard (State Highway Route 1) right -of -way requires Caltrans approval and encroachment permit. 2. All broken curb and sidewalk along Palm Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard should be re- constructed. Along Palm Avenue, settled sidewalk should be removed and re- constructed level with the existing top of the curb. Existing asphalt sidewalk area along the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard, south of Palm Avenue, should be removed and replaced with concrete sidewalk. 3 In addition to the "RIGHT TURN ONLY" signage at the Palm Avenue driveway, applicant should install a "NO LEFT TURN" sign on the northside of Palm Avenue facing the above driveway. 4. Section 6, Transportation /Circulation states that local streets are designed to accommodate a maximum of 10,000 vehicles per day. Even though this volume is stated in the City General Plan as the estimated roadway capacity, residents in a residential area generally perceive that their street has a high traffic volume when traffic volumes exceed 2,000 vehicles per day. The applicant's Traffic Impact Study estimates that the Palm Avenue traffic west of the project to be a maximum of 1,030 (800 plus 230) vehicles per day, which is less than the assumed comfort level of 2,000 vehicles per day. 5. Within a period not less than six (6) months and not more than twelve (12) months after the opening the restaurant , the applicant should be required to perform a Caltrans Traffic Signal Warrant Study, based on traffic volumes existing at that time, for the Palm Avenue /Sepulveda Boulevard intersection. If the study justifies a traffic signal and receives Caltrans approval, the applicant should be required to design and install the signal at its cost. I recommend a bond of $100,000 before the issuance of the Certificate Of Occupancy to ensure applicant's compliance with the requirements. B KD: dr ��• Enclosure N IA'S1EA- 387.BD L CITY OF EL SEGUNDO INTER - DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM DATE March 28, 1995 TO Laurie Jester Senior Planner FROM Bellur Devaraj City Engineer SUBJECT Conditional Use Permit 94 -6 C639 orth Sepulveda Boulevard coin MINTS CtA This memo is in response to the 3/22/95 letter to you from Mr. Thomas Ennis of N/S Corporation regarding the subject project. In November, 1994, two residents (Mrs. Annette Latshaw, 1547 East Palm Avenue and Mr. A.J. Neil, 729 Washington Street) informally approached the City Traffic Committee consisting of myself and Sgt. Roger Stephenson of the Police Department, to inquire about the feasibility of closing Palm Avenue for westbound traffic. According to these residents, the concept was to install planter barriers across the north half of the Palm Avenue at a point west of Sepulveda Boulevard. The Committee discussed the following issues: 1 • Palm Avenue has a forty -foot (40') right -of -way and thirty -foot (30') pavement width. 2• In the General Plan, Palm Avenue is classified as a local street. Installation of barricades to partially close the street may require a finding by the Planning Commission that the closure is not inconsistent with the General Plan. 3. Section 21101 M of the State Vehicle Code provides authorization for local authorities to prohibit entry to, or exit from, or both, from any street by islands, barriers, etc., to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The Circulation Element of the current City General Plan does not include partial or complete closure of Palm Avenue, west of Sepulveda Boulevard. 4. The City Fire Department requires a minimum twenty foot (20') clear roadway for emergency vehicular access. The maximum width of the barrier can be ten feet (10') for Palm Avenue. Parking should be prohibited a minimum fifty feet (50') on both sides of a barrier to permit access, and there is a potential loss of 4 -5 street parking stalls. -Iof3- Laurie Jester Senior Planner Conditional Use Permit 94 -6 (continued) 5. There are several multiple family residences on Palm Avenue, west of Sepulveda Boulevard. If the barricades are installed, access to these residences from Sepulveda Boulevard will be eliminated. 6. If the barriers are installed the traffic normally westbound on Palm Avenue from Sepulveda Boulevard will use other adjacent east - west streets, such as Mariposa Avenue or Maple Avenue, to access the residential area west of Sepulveda Boulevard. The westbound traffic on these streets and in particular on Mariposa and Maple Avenues will increase and may result in residents on these streets making similar requests to reduce westbound traffic on their particular streets. The above diversion of traffic normally westbound on Palm Avenue to Mariposa and Maple Avenues will also result in increased traffic along Washington Street, between Mariposa Avenue and Maple Avenue. When the barriers are installed an area minimum two feet (2') from the street gutter flow line should be left clear for street drainage. This area, approximately twenty -five feet (25') on both sides of the barrier (for a total fifty feet (501) of the gutter) is not accessible for street sweepers, prone to clogging with leaves and debris, impedes proper drainage and poses a nuisance to the abutting properties. If the barriers are installed, there will not be an adequate turnaround for westbound vehicles from east of the barrier, which are precluded from travelling west of the barrier. The lack of an adequate turnaround will result in unsafe backup maneuvers and /or turns into private property. Adequate turnarounds are generally thirty -five feet (35') radius (70' diameter) and since the street right -of -way is only forty feet (40'), this will require additional right -of -way for construction. -2of3- Laurie Jester Senior Planner Conditional Use Permit 94 -6 (continued) Pursuant to the above discussions, the Traffic Committee recommended against the partial closure of Palm Avenue and recommended that the concerns of the residents may be mitigated by installing appropriate signage at driveways on Palm Avenue properties, east of the residential area, prohibiting westbound travel from vehicles exiting these driveways. These recommendations were verbally conveyed to the two residents on 11/16/94. No further communications have been received from the residents since this date. FOLLOW UP: The above recommendations by the Committee are still valid. Two additional comments are as follows: Palm Avenue westbound traffic from the subject project can be eliminated by providing access to the project only from Sepulveda Boulevard (eliminate any driveway at Palm Avenue). The installation of the barrier will force traffic northbound on Sepulveda Boulevard from the properties between the barrier and Sepulveda Boulevard to travel east on Palm Avenue and to make a left turn at the unsignahzed Palm Avenue / Sepulveda Boulevard intersection. This situation may warrant installation of a traffic signal at this intersection pursuant to approval by Caltrans which has jurisdiction over this intersection. The Traffic Committee is an advisory committee made up from staff of the City Police and Public Works Departments. Recommendations from the Committee may be appealed to the City Council for a final decision on the particular traffic matter. ssssssssss ssssss *ss *ssssssassssasssssssss BKD:dr cc: Sgt. Roger Stephenson, Police Department -3of3- CUP9a6.0 (3n9/9S) 1 AMA iEET t Izx• L I > T A ..58� Amm - -� ® it r� •�� •+ `� CALIFORNIA: z ?EET : I I I 3 ...r :, - -�41 � 1416 f�' - •• • —� � .iTr —}'— IraLG 1421 }��14 _iamb_ • t •+ SEE '... =4`� AA Mfg rid Ts— �•.� _� rwn C gen— C rREETt. - -Z - -- s r n wf�,i n ,,,• i • a. fo .I N_1.� As � •L� tom} a t� � � •:��0 �� WASHINGTON i —' t t w EDISO Tom. t XD -REET t »� •• ••� •. ILLINOIS t CT.i ~ �. o • ;TREET m .z I'C rfuJ rrl u _, - - - -- i----------------- - ------- 80�lLJ;YPRQ! t -- - -- Nf it 1 CALIFORNIA WASHINGTON ' Iz - yu i Lj#Jm L _..!' ! L 4a ' » CA 11;: 1r: ®_. C < Ifl a m.� lz _ COURT : m Peni and Jim Kerkes 1564 Eau Palm Avenue El Segundo. California Qo245 (Po) 321 -6151 Fax (40) 3=-789L February 18, 19 9 7 Bret B. Bernard, AICP Director of Planning and Building Safety The City of El Segundo 3 5 0 Main Street El Segundo, California 90245 B ret , We are sending this letter to voice our concern over the proposed construction of the Carl's Jr. Restaurant, at 638 North Sepulveda Boulevard. Please note, that it is not our intent to stop the construction of this establishment. We are determined, however, to eliminate or re -route any additional traffic generated by this restaurant. As the streets located just west of the proposed site are quite narrow (one way traffic when cars are parked on both sides) we feel that any additional traffic on these streets would propose a safety hazard to our children. After exploring several different avenues, from barricades to one - way streets, we believe that the best method of preventing any additional traffic in our neighborhoods, would be to: 1. Eliminate the planned entrance on Palm Avenue, and 2. Limit the Palm Avenue drive thru exit, to right turn only, by posting signs and by constructing the exit driveway to prohibit any left turns. Peni and Jim Kerkes 1564 East Palm Avenue El Seg ndo. California 9&245 (Sto) 3=-6'9 Fax (YO) Va -769k, F:- 2 0 As you will see from our attachments, we have the support of our neighbors, and we will be attending the February 27, 19 9 7 , Planning Commission meeting to discuss this matter. Your immediate attention to our concerns is appreciated and any planning changes, prior to the meeting, that will accommodate our requests for traffic re- routing will be welcomed. Thank you, im Peni erkes cc: Laurie Jester ..W In the very near future the 1] Segundo Planning Commission will be making their final decisions for the planned Cad's Jr Restaurant on the South West corner of Palm Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard We am convinced that the increased traffic generated by this establishment will impose an extreme safety hand for our children. In an effort to keep any increase in traffic (on Palm Avenue and the adjacent blocks of Washington and California Streets) to a minimum, we we asking the comntission to implement the fol- lowing prior to opening of the planned Carl's Jr Restaurant Eliminate the planed entrance oa Pkdm Avenue and limit the drive through and perking cntnumi of the Cad's Jr Restmaant to SepWva& Boulevard only. Restrict the planed exit on Palm Avenue to right turn (east to Sepulveda) only. We the concerned citizens of E3 Segundo, request that the D Segundo Planning Commission implement the provisions listed above, prior to the opening of the above mentioned Carl's Jr Restaurant MAMMON Signature Signature AOFSf F ,g e ` �' l2 .? f -196 Address //`o 41L Date W /2;z5 - 94 Address Date /630 F P /,w Ae _& 1221F-9Z Address .44& _ A., '�� Doe /a -N 9r Address Doc Address R,,& is �9 9l0 Address /6 ,99 E- /l,P— -d- 7 I GZq� 0 &zW- 0 /Z Dwe Address --bib' /lists E P� /, /J. si ♦t%i� FC Address Date 16:1g E. PAL, AvE W t t �r �7 Address Addnm Detc Address Address Date In the very near future the El Segundo Planning rl Commission will be making their final decisions for the Planned Cad's Jr Restaurant on the South West Comer of Palm Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard We are: convinced that the increased uMTrc gearaated by this establishment will impose an extreme safety hazard for our children. In an effort m keep any increase in traffic on Palm Avenue and the ad' Washington and California Streets) to a minimum. we are asking the commission to)acertt blacks of lowing prior to opening of the planned Cad's Jr Re+starnant piement the fol- El"W rate the Planed emnOwe on Palm Avenue and limit the drive through and pariong entrances of the Carl's Jr Restaurant to Sepulveda Boulevard only. Restrict the planed exit at Palm Avenue to right turn (east to Sepulveda) ady. WeWe the concerned closers of o Segundo, request that the k7 Segundo Planting Commission implement provisions listed above, prior to the opening of the above IMM iared Carl's Jr Restaurant: PA&.JL or- A F•C y- -,— q-� Address r � . / Sigr� 11� zz Address�� Date Signature Address Date Signature Address Date Signature Address Date Signature Address 1]ale Signature Address Date Signature Address Date Signature Address Date Signature Address Dot Signature Address �--- Date Signature Address D Signature Address Date It` 20 In the very near future the D Segundo Planning Commission will be tnalang their final decisions for the planned Carl's Jr Restaurant on the South West comer of Palm Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard. We ate convinced that the increased traffic generated by this establishment will impose an extreme safety hard for our children. In an effort to keep any increase in traffic (on Palm Avenue and the adjacent blocks of Washington and California Streets) to a minimum, we we asking the commission to implement the fol- lowing prior to opening of the planted Carl's Jr Restaurant: Convert the section of Palm Avenue between Washington Street and Sepulveda Boulevard to one way tralfcc, flowing west to east. Iamit the drive through and parking entrance and exits of the Carl's Jr Restaurant to Sepulveda Boulevard only. We the concerned citizens of E l Segundo, request that the 0 Segundo Planning Commission implement the provisions listed above. prior to the opening of the above mentioned Carl's Jr Restaurant: O�.._6 /Signature Signature 'IF — • /54,7 Address pate Daft 2-1647 [late & /i 9J Date Signature Address Date Signature Address Date Signature Address D Signature Address Dote Stgmiure Address —"'-- []ate Signature Address D Signature Address Daft Signature Address Dale �gnature Address [sale In the very near futum the D Segundo planting Commission Will planned Carl's Jr Restaurant on the South West comer of palm Avemi � Sepuuljy� Boulevard. We we convinced that the increased traliic generated by this establishment win impose an extreme safety hazard for Cllr ddldren. In an effort to keep any increase in trallic (on palm Avenue and the ad�amt blacks of Washin" and California Sweet) to a minimum, we are aslong the Commission to implement the fd- lowing prior to opening of the planned Carl's Jr Restataane Convert the section of Palm Avenue between Washington Street and Sepulveda Boulevard to one way traffic, flowing west to east. Limit the drive through and parking enhance and exits of the Cad's Jr Restaurant to Sepulveda Boulevard only. We the Concerned citizens of fl Segundo, request that the E3 Se the provisions listed above, prior to the opening of the above meth Card's J B Commission implement a�9� Signature Address Date Signatum Address Date Signature Address Dad T Signature Address Date Signature Address Dace Signature Address D Signature Address Date Signature Address Date Signature Address --- Date Signature Address Dale Signature Address D�— ate Signature Address ----- Date �, 0 In the very near future the El Segundo Planning Commission will be making their final decisions for the planned Carl's Jr Restaurant on the South West corner of palm Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard. We are convinced that the increased traffic generated by this establishment will impose an extreme safety hamrd for our children. In an effort to keep any increase in traffic (on palm Avenue and the adjacent blocks of Washington and California Streets) to a minimum. we are asking the commissrort to implement the fol- lowing prior to opening of or planned Carl's Jr Restaurant: Convert the section of palm Avenue between Washington Street and Sepulveda Boulevard m one way traffic, flowing west WAM limit the drive through and parking entrance and exits of the Cart's Jr Restaurant to Sepulveda Boulevard only. We the coneerncd citizens of D Segundo, request that the 17 Segundo Planning Commission imlement the ptavi ons listed above. prior to the opening of the above mentioned Card's Jr Restaurant p � iz —s S6 Sign attur Address Date 1 /S�y� • ��,,� Sri ale 4— r� e I 1. Address Date v signature �G Ak L --1 4 (r ,(Z S • 14 — ri SignaqWt Address Date Ate L i7 f1 yL Signagte _ Address si is —,? -96 Address Dwr k A rtes Si _ 'A ddreM D e /' W, I tum_ Address !]ems TV �9A40 Adis= r - -io �. . Address Lzz� Date signet„ ! 3 f v .j/ Ste. �. �� _l% Daic �_—�-- -- pa=lAddress C� ��1� 9.v Signature` .L�/ /- Andrea:; I� 'Signature �`f`fl F PALm s .,110 0 /a —j! 9(. Address Date t-cc 2 0 1 In the very near fugue the o Segundo planning Commission will be making their final decisions for the planned Carl's Jr Restaurant on the South West corner of palm Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard. We we convinced that the increased traffic genetated by this establishment will impose an extreme safety hazrrtk for our children In an effort to keep any increase in Wafirc (an Pakm Avenue and the adjacent blocks of Washington and California Streets) to a minimum, we are asking the commission to implement the fol- lowing prior to opening of the planned Carl's Jr Reamurant Convert the section of Palm Avenue between Washington Street and Sepulveda Boulevard to one way traffic, flowing west to east Limit the drive through and parking entrance and exits of the Carl's Jr Restaurant to Sepulveda Boulevard only. We the concerned ciumns of D Segundo, request that the D Segundo Planning Commission the provisions listed above, prior to the opening of the above mentioned Carl's Jr Restataant: I4K9 E. +N vi Mr Siranature Addrcas Address )gel' Address Address Pas, AIM' � "e Address 1j1� E 1�,.. -a S ature Address k"IMIM • Address Address implement 110846 Date P-AFe,96 Dim Date D /.z 8, 9. Date IBS.. Dare i -;S9c Date IL -f3yL Date eyt� --tG Deft t - -2&q(0 Date I_ -q ca Date 7 n L U I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER ON EAST PALM AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF THE THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARS FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND WEEKEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL AND THE CHILD CARE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA STREET AND EAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, THE VISIBILITY (WITH CARS PARSED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: DATE: ``� V1Co I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER ON EAST PALM AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF THE P9k. Ex :s �:..� e....la..,,'t -•s THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARK FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND WEEKEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL AND THE CHILD CARE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA STREET AND EAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, THE VISIBILITY (WITH CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. NAME: ADDRESS: eZ rf z �04 '4 0z_ PHONE.: , ��1,! - 12-.? Z DATE: 5-/Z 2 7 I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER ON EAST PALM AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF THE PARK. THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARK FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND WEEKEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL AND THE CHILD CARE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA STREET AND EAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, THE VISIBILITY (WITH CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. NAME: AW) , s ADDRESS: PHONE: 9/0 — 607— 96 %% DATE: I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER ON EAST PALM AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF THE PARK. THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARK FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND VEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL AND THE CHILD CARE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA STREET AND EAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD MME T. THE VISIBILITY (WITH CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: 30-�o?- 3 S DATE: ��i�� 2 0 I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER ON EAST PALM AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF THE PARK. THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARK FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND WEEKEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL AND THE CHILD CARE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA STREET AND EAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, THE VISIBILITY (WITH CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. NAME: - -I 1G�°L ya PM'p ( P ADDRESS: $I Ii�C('q.y, a- PHONE: _A0 0 �� DATE: � �uy t I m -__ 2 �l I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER ON EAST PALM AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF THE PARK. THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARK FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND WEEKEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL AND ' M CHILD CARE CEN -17ER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA STREET AND EAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, THE VISIBM= (WITH CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIM. NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: DATE:��" / (� I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER ON EAST PALM AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF THE PARK. THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARK FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND WEEKEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL N THE CHILD CARE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA D STREET AND EAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, THE VISIBILITY (WITH CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. f.ACIFiC BAPTIST CHURCH 859 Mein span fl Segundo. CA MS.2321 NAME: Dr. M. Greer, Petro► i31o2 322.59 R ADDRESS: PHONE: I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER ON EAST PALM AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF THE PARK. THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARK FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND WEEKEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL AND THE CHILD CARE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA STREET AND EAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, THE VISIBILITY (WITH CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. NAME: ADDRESS:i PHONE: DATE: y i .4 I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER ON EAST PALM AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF TIE PARK. THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARK FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND WEEKEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL AND THE CHILD CARE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA STREET AND EAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, THE VISIBILITY (WITH CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. NAME: �D.�4 GS h I y r � G n4 /�'� • JJ J �pr ADDRESS: 15-06 PHONE: Z; �o - 3ZZ�- DATE: Zz I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER ON EAST PALM ~� ? AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF THE PARK. THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARK FOR AF'T'ER SCHOOL AND WEEKEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL AND THE CHILD CARE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA STREET AND EAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, THE VISIBILITY (WITH CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: Loy , '11, DATE: 4z 571n, 1 `� 41 a I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER ON EAST PALM AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF THE PARK. THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARK FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND WEEKEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL AND THE CHILD CARE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA STREET AND EAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, THE VISIBILITY (WITH CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. rA PHONE: Ile _ St. t ,Z, / r , DATE: _ �S ;. b _. Q/ M I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER O'N EAST PALM AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF THE PARK. THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARK FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND WEEKEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL AND THE CHILD CARE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA STREET AND EAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, THE VISIBILITY (WITH CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING W THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. NAME: pp__ v ADDRESS: PHONE: DATE: J-- AS - 9(0 15Vq ti. 841. -n r= I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER ON EAST PALM AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF THE PARK. THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARK FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND WEEKEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL AND THE CIMM CARE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA STREET AND FAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, THE VISIBILTiY (WITH CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED. NAME: q .�� r��ne- i "lwrit q)ii�G ADDRESS: 19 Z D �- LI w., �Jcr..��..� PHONE: (310 ) 64() -139 Z DATE: 1 b - 1 I AM IN FAVOR OF ERECTING A BARRIER ON EAST PALM AVENUE, BETWEEN WASHINGTON STREET AND SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD, JUST EAST OF THE PARK. THIS BARRIER WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND REDUCE THE POSSIBILITY OF INJURY, TO THE CHILDREN LIVING ON THIS STREET, AS WELL AS THOSE CHILDREN OF OTHER EL SEGUNDO RESIDENTS WHO USE THE PARK FOR AFTER SCHOOL AND WEEKEND SPORTS PROGRAMS. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS ARE THE SAFETY OF THE CHILDREN ENTERING AND EXITING CENTER STREET SCHOOL AND THE CHILD CARE CENTER AT THE CORNER OF CALIFORNIA STREET AND EAST PALM. BECAUSE EAST PALM IS A SUBSTANDARD STREET, THE VISIBILITY (WITH CARS PARKED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS STREET) IS GREATLY REDUCED. WITH THE INCREASED TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE CARL'S JR., THE LIVES OF ALL OF OUR CHILDREN PLAYING IN THIS VICINITY WILL BE JEOPARDIZED NAME: ADDRESS: 0 S'r`�� PHONE: DATE: June 10, 1996 vj t,`tb ' Fri[ 1/r�. To the El Segundo Planning Commissioners to It is our understanding that the residents on east Palm Ave. are requesting a barrier be placed on the street near Sepulveda Blvd. This request is based upon their fears for the safety of the children that live on east Palm and for those that enjoy the park on Washington Street. We don't dispute the need for the protection of the children on Palm, what we do question, is the self concerned attitude of ody those on that street. We believe that the closing of Palm will only shift traffic onto the already impacted Maple Ave. or Mariposa Ave Maple Ave. has numerous apartments with many, many children going to and from school. The one -way street on Walnut and the closing of California at Acacia creates a steady stream of traffic onto Maple, and those children need to be protected also. We have lived on Elm Ave. since the 70's and both of us are still working south of El Segundo. Getting to Sepulveda Blvd. in the mornings are not easy, Washington is difficult to make a left turn onto Mariposa because of the limited vision and a left turn is just as difficult onto California to Mariposa because of the school traffic. We have many children going to school also on our street and we are concerned about any increased traffic to endanger their safety. Comments have been made by Palm Ave. residents regarding the pets and their safety. Really, don't we have leash laws.) We truly suggest other solutions be found rather then blocking another street off and we trust a study will be made on what the impact would be on all of our streets before any drastic changes are made. Thank you very much for your consideration Sincerely yours Mr. & Mrs. hn Cruikshank 1509 E. Elm Ave. El Segundo, CA. 90245 322 -2809 EA-3y-1 l � s DATE: February 11, 1997 TO: Members of the El Segundo Planning Commission RE: Position on Carl's Jr. Restaurant Application The El Segundo Chamber Board of Directors voted today to support the permit application from Carl's Jr Restaurant to locate at the southwest corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Palm Avenue. The Board believes that this is an acceptable use for this property for the following reasons: 1. The restaurant portion of the project is by right of zone and does not require a conditional use permit. ?. A conditional use permit is required for the "drive - through* but the Board believes the applicant has arranged the layout of the building and drive - through to minimize the impact on the adjacent residences. The drive - through and queuing area have beets located as far away from the residential buildings as possible and the speaker system, which is state-of- the -art, is pointed away from the residences. Any sound levels will be absorbed by the customary traffic sounds emanating from Sepulveda Boulevard. 3. Problems of traffic flow have been addressed to minimize impact on nearby residents. Because of the proximity of these residential buildings to Sepulveda Boulevard, under any circumstances, the residents will be exposed to some inconvenience from traffi c regardless of what is located on ffi this property. 4. Carl's Jr representatives have demonstrated a willingness to work with the neighbors to minimize or eliminate any problems which might be perceived as coming from this operation. 5. This development will bring a company to El Segundo which has an established reputation as a good corporate citizen. It will generate substantial tax revenue for the City and will provide a source of entry-level employment for our young people. The Chamber's Board of Directors would support favorable action by the Planning Commission on this application. SEGUNDO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE • 427 MAIN STREET • EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA 90245 • (310) 322.1220 • FAX (310) 322-6880 / SEGt1$ DEPARTMIENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING SAFETy yeytenelc 360 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90246 (310) 322 -4670 FAX (310) 322 -4167 APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PROJECT No - `7 4 6- 3 The applicant: Date: 0116 C Rey4aurtiwk� ItVG. P.o. Brno 4949 Anaheim Ca (1*9921323 Owner d €) game Aft t.ocenzo ReyoS Address t one Lessee � Agent _ N �5 6CDIr'L?e L . e s �.► z� . Property Situated at: General Location: 5WC 6& t)VMA AIVA it 4phAd. between + e+aare" an 'treet, venue �N 4P't i�OSA — '3treet, Avenue Existing Zoning: G- 3 Request: Under the provisions of Title 20, Section 20.74 of the Municipal Code, application for consideration of an Conditional Use Permit for the above described property. i !!! 000 ! i i i i i ---7-------------7 i i i i i i i i i i! i i! i r. i! i!! i i i! i i i 1. Describe in detail the entire proposed project (type of construction, materials to be used), uses involved (e.g., bank, general office, industrial, restaurant, etc.) inclu equipment necessary to the project. WG �g buildings and other rura+�t ui►•4G�, driver -fig fin`' a 3,35 SF fast food r iq. CVr iwildt whictl will seta.} +/_ q2, gvests i a Sire, bwld►►eq , ?h' in he-14M W'tik ertu4ao exterior s 14r�5Cd �1G S1tG Is lot w►t1 h&ye, 4Z5FW. trujt9b l trr,provt d wt�4n aSPhaskticr cenccr�FG The 2. Describe the existing development on the site. Include on the site. ♦ square footages and uses of each building 'MiS /- 3't,ac 0 sf lot W4S formerly a Earictvn9 lo• , 14 i5 4vtally YQ.Cartt a c% urn ut eA . 3. Explain in detail why this particular site is especially suited for the proposed development. 11Y, Pmf" is zoned cornmer4ei, R,ft1"r5' is WW4 Avwe •4411 arC, alloWea Wig a Condi,Atettat 056 Pc ► - The Qe, is an a Ma oV* comments.( 40MV5 f M. tie sax► essay accon o� our b,ttdt (+/-a %, ca►ernge), Pnrkuigt kundsc on s't ctt�t�tattor)+t uriN allow u5 sutce,�s'iully open a Carts dr: Res4gauv+aak . 4. Describe how the proposed project will compare /contrast to the development of adjacent properties and the immediate area and will not have detrimental effects to the adjacent neighborhood. How will dl properties or potential impacts be mitigated? Ddr business iS cow►rvter>:tot� tip lnakur� arm lcud-ed on w WA Wr erual •thorn hfore on a commw;A zonrc4 ptecC of �P i• WG ila�►e one d fiY►G butldi to }he NWG of the -dtAe wd plo.cad ft f- Menu board 40 speaker po in fn M OIL bktld ab�o� SC�ktved� 0tv Rim A tvnme drive UJO>4 Prwtdes Sr , a :g,%t AuVn only exrVJ4taik 4hou.ld ellmina- a6A,046ns�l W&O bound i•rk�G on tf� Palm ,a+ &ue. We art also provtAin9 4v%ASC4K fA"% CC /bkFrzrS at aft e*erior pp" t". 5. Describe the technological processes and equipment employed on-site and their compatibility with existing and potential land uses within the general area. Ali esuipn�m .6 iocakeA %Aside tote bt�tldt . The, btitldi is farts awd air condianor►Cr5 w►It noE vtstble f(VM level. The cu} door % K vtda ardPew pock cae located to fh t ap ike bkttdi*t onewkcl `, OWNER'S AFFIDAVIT I,(We) the -undersigned, depose and say that Q am/We are the of e property involved application and that I(we) have familiarized myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City of El Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on all documents and all plans attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. ,19 Signature Date Signature ate — 119 AGENT AUTHORIZATION I hereby authorize Ca R&A. lncAvenze Re es to act for me in all matters relevant to this application. I understand at this person. aaITbe heexclusive contact nn the project and will be sent all information and correspondence. Owner's Signature AGENT AFFMAVIT I,(We) C1t,)✓ Sr &ky hy,, (, –Me the undersigned, depose and say that a am/we are e e property roperty invo v Mi — s cation and that I(we) have familiarised myself (ourselves) with the rules and regulation of the City Al of l Segundo with respect to preparing and filing this application and that the foregoing statements herein contained and the information on all documents and all plans, attached hereto are in all respects true and correct to the best of my /our knowledge and belief. ,19 ignature ate tore Mu I Procedures for filing application 1. File application properly completed in the office of the Department of Planning -and Building Safety along with completed Initial Study Applicant Questionnaire. Signature of the owner /owners, lessee (if applicant), and /or agent shall be required on all applications. 2. Applicant shall provide all information, drawings and other materials as requested.by the Planning Department as indicated on the Notice to ADDlica"t 3. Pay filing fee. (See fee schedule) 4. Applicant and affected property owners will be notified of time of hearing. 6. Applicant must' be present at the hearing and may -offer additional evidence to support his/her tequest. 6. There shall be an . additional fee for filing an appeal. cnPA" Planning Staff.. Date received 5 131 9 � EA 3'B % Signature_ C.U. Ii A NIS EXPRESS 235 WEST FLORENCE AVENUE INGLEWOOD, CA 90301 July 25. 1996 ' c Ms. Laurie Jester CITY OF EL SEGUNDO 350 Main Street El Segundo. CA 90245 (310) 322 -4167 FAX Dear Ms. Jester: This letter is to inform you that there is NO parking agreement between N/S Corporation and the Hacienda Hotel that covers the parking encroachment of +/- thirteen feet, six inches at the West property line. The parking use will remain at this time. The exact status and resolution of encroachment is yet to be decided and will not affect the Carls Jr. development. Please call if you have any questions. Sincerer. / T as G. Ennis N/ S Corporation cc: T. Wilhelm. CKE L. Reves T. fix' F"e'— 3 8? To: City of El Segundo Planning Department Subject: Carls Jr. Restaurant S.W.C. Sepulveda Blvd. & Palm Ave. Initial Study Addendum Date: May 21, 1996 18 Changes in topography are insignificant. There is no increase in exposure to zeoloeIcal hazards or erosion. 19 Changes in dust, ash, fumes, or odors is insignificant. There will be no impact to air movements, moisture or air temperature. 20. No change in water quality, runoff or amount of available water. 21. There are no endangered plants involved with this site. 22. There are no endangered animals or habitat involved with this site. 23. There will be an insignificant change in noise at this site, considering that the site is currently vacant. 24 On site lighting will be provided, and confined to this site. The lights will have light sheilds that will prevent any glare to adjoining properties. Consider that the site is currently unimproved and unused. 25. This project is in conformance with the General Plan. 26. Natural resources are not involved with this site. 27. No use of potentially hazardous materials or explosives in quantities that will cause a threat to the general populace. This project will not affect any emergency response or evacuation plans. 28. This project will not affect the growth rate of human population. 29. This project will not affect housing or the demand for it. 30. Changes to traffic patterns are insignificant. 38. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, Plants and animals, and an �u�t`�formation on topography Boil stability, Y cultural, historical, or scenic aspects. Describe site, and the use of the structures, any existin structures Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid on the accepted. Q{{�stru Ss.E photos will be 39. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and a or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, animals and any cultural, historical, apartment houses, shop,, de commercial, etc,), intensity of land use (one family, yard, etc.). Attach hoto department store,, etc,), and scale of development (height, fronts P graphs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will he accepted. setback, rest `tee atlut4�rd Sd�� CERTIFI a'rtnr� + +- 1 hereby cent' data and �1' that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the uiformation required for this initial evaluation to the beat of my abili ty, Info ation presented are ue and correct to the best of m and that the facts, ,tatemente, and Y knowledge and belief. i (Signature f y� G4 y Lore A (Print Name) FOR PLANNING DIVISION USE ONLY 13 Copies of Plane 300' Notification Map — Fee/Deposit Received $ 3 sets of Property Label, — Date Filed: 2 sets of Envelopes with Postage — Received By: 19 Required Supplemental Info Sheets _ For Phsnain g Div. lnwc•s.pa City of El Segundo July 11, 1996 Page 2 33 A Carls Jr. Restaurant is typically serviced by a 4" sewer line, with the building plumbing totaling + /1= 56 fixture units. A 1 1/2" water meter connected to a 2" service line accommodates the kitchen, restrooms and landscape irrigation system. The restaurant requires a natural gas line with a connected load of 1,012,000 btu's. The building utilizes a 600 amp electrical service. These service requirements are typical for a restaurant of this type and size. Soils Investigation 1) Estimated quantities of grading are 800 cubic yards of soil being exported from this site. Based on an estimated eight cubic yards per truck, one hundred truck trips will be required. Grading operations will be completed should be completed within a five to ten working day schedule. 2) See attached report To: City of El See-undo Planning Department Subject: Carls Jr. Restaurant S. W.C. Sepulveda Blvd. & Palm Ave. Project Description Supplement Date: May 1, 1996 24. This site currently has no site lighting whatsoever. Our parking lot improvements will include parking lot area lights. We plan to light the parking lot creating an inviting, safe well lit parking lot. The lights will have light shields that will prevent any glare to adjoining properties. 36 The site will be lit with parking lot area lights. The scenic view will change from a vacant weeded parking lot to a new, modern fast food restaurant. 38 . The site is a vacant, weeded parking lot. The site is covered with asphalt concrete and weeds, and is in poor condition. The site is generally level. The site slopes from West to East on site The street (Sepulveda Blvd.) slopes North to South. 39. The site is located on a major highway arterial. The area is commercial in nature. The site has commercial property surrounding it on all sides. Specifically, a restaurant to the North (a two story building) as well as a single story residence, a parking lot to the South and West. A commercial office building ( +/_ 5 story building) and shopping center (single story) to the East. West of the West property line, there is a three level condominium project. There appears to be no significant historical or cultural implications to the project. 38. Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on plants and animals, and any cultural, topography, soil stability, historical, or scenic aspects . Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. ye� Cttt�tCd 39. Describe the surrpunding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural. his or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc,), intensity of land use (onefamcal, historical, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be accepted. CERTIFIfAWNW- I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and info ation presented are a and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ' N1av I \ ' (Signature,' — LC A (Print 'Name) FOR PLANNING DMSION USE ONLY 13 Copies of Plans Fee/Depoait Received : 300' Notification Map V_ Date Filed: _�/ % 3 sets of Property Labels Received By 19� 2 sets of Envelopes with Postage Required Supplemental Info Sheets For Planning Div. tntl�ts.Q�s Project No RA The Reyes Group Inc. Construction Management D License #328590 Development Services General Contracting To: City of El Segundo Planning Department Subject: Carls Jr. Restaurant S. W.C. Sepulveda Blvd. & Palm Ave. Project Description Supplement Date: July 11, 1996 25. C�enerAl Plao (nnformwnon I ) Construction of this Carls Jr. Restaurant is in conformance with the City's General Plan. It % ill have a positive effective on Economic Impacts in that the project will create new employment which is largely drawn from the immediate area. The restaurant also brings a new source of revenue, adding to the City's tax base. This restaurant brings good, reasonable cost food to the area. With the convenience of 24 hour service, we will service local residents that work night and graveyard shifts as well as capturing out of town "pass thru" traffic /revenue that travels Sepulveda Boulevard. Real Estate impact is Positive, in that we are improving a previousl-v unproductive, deteriorating piece of property. Our project is a single use. The building is located at the Northeast corner of the site minimizing impact on the surrounding properties. We are making a major real estate investment. The site will be improved with a modern single story, drive thru restaurant that meets all current health and safety standards. The parking lot will has full traffic circulation, and planting throughout the lot, exceeding minimum landscape standards. Community Impacts are vinually all positive. Traffic studies verify that the existing infrastructure is more than adequate to handle proposed traffic. Beautification Of this lot is insured with the on site landscape provided. The project will be serviced by existing City departments, with virtually no increase in demand. Environmental Impacts are minimal. The water and energy demand for a development of this lot area size is minimal compared to what is actually proposed here. Any air quality issues are well within standards set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.. By -• technical report, noise is not an issue. EA- 3B?IC.Up% -3 17853 Santiago Blvd., # 107 -174, P.O. Box 14004, Villa Park, CA 92667 (714) 282 -1323 Fax (714) 282 -2948 G1� Y Ore► its t -ell ZGU�q INITIAL STUDY APPLICANT QUESTIONNAIRE GENERAL INFORMATION V uk, Planning Division 350 Blain Street El Segundo, CA 90245 (310) 322 -4670 FAX (310) 322 -4167 1. Name and address of current property owner: N /.S GOI�pDrlil{tpu> ( (11 unr, provide a written statement )=r'om owners ataung they are aware of this application) 2. Address of project: Assessor's Block and Lot No.: 3• Name, address (include zip code), and telephone number of person to be contacted concerting this project: L rerizc� Re (11 74 2 -13 L' CKE Re<, . Inc. ANrt'• To ►' P.0. E3c C -1 °Lf�L -•LggB ilhei 5DI R (-I14 '491- 4362 V ItIQ Peak Co X12 1 Anctheiw► A 4. 1-ist and describe any other related permits and other public a �� —� P approvals required for this project, including those regtured by city, regional, state, and federal agencies:) (�,(J P t'5U►Id iv►a Pv ��n4.t N n 1kL, r �; ;evti� Annrr,rn I ►n-i 5. Existing zorung district: C 6 Proposed use of site (project for which this form is filed): Fqg} �rIVP. 'lti�v�n � �+uuta4t )I bl PROJECT DESCRIPTION Use additional sheets as necessary. 7. Site size: ± 'Y1. ,')QQ _ r 8. Total square footage of building(s) or structure(s): 3,0 E, 9 Number of floors of construction: 10. Amount of on -site parking provided : 41 11. Proposed scheduling:_ slU ibUn[11grt -nk nom► 1.0 ournw,n 12. Associated projects:�ione, 13. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale price or rents, and type of household size expected. N.A. 14. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of building area, and nature of loading facilities _ provided. N ve +krK. LAAdivi ib doeme n� � 4k r, K 3 ,n0n3 tr bsut.l� d il!5 sw ' "AD ^1 lAwtq wG► :An, ' � ckODr. DeJweneL c►r iv 4A near 400x, 16. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and nature of loading facilities. N, A- 16. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated occu an loading facilities provided and community benefit to be derived from the project. P ry nature of N•A- 17. If the project requires a variance, conditional use permit or rezoning application, why the application is required. A11 fa A ftx)A r�� ,�w} —� elate this and indicate clearly reauice a Cov,&'� j' Vial U;e Pefyr;,t . L&I clr we "wk will Are the tollowing items applicable L„ the Project or its effects? - sheets if ne Discuss below rirp e a to i �teme (attach additional Changes in topography, ineeaee ' hazards such to erosion of soils, e _ ✓ as earthquakes or Jandslidee, or xPo@ure Of people or 19. Chan anY changes is the earth to geological Changes in dust, ash, smoke i arth or 4011• tno _ =/ 20. _ 34 _ 21. _ =/ 22. _ 34 _ 23. ✓ =/ — 24. -" 25. 26. _ 27 _ =/ 28 _ 34 _ 29. _ =/ 30. 37 ,store or temperature. or odors air perature. in vlcuutY. Alterations in air movements. Changes in ocean or ground water quality, Off water, absorptions or reduction m the amount rates, drainage s run• available water. aulage Pattern of surface Changes to or a reduction in the number area (including trees, shrubs, Braes, c'0Pa and �,�il endangered pant species in the Changes to or ) Project a reduction in the number of rare or Changes in the diversity of specie, reduction anima] area. action in numbers or da l,fa In the Project Changes in a terroration of a existing noise or vibration al habitats. n level in the vicinity. Changes in existing Patterns or intensity y of light as , Changes in d glare. Co Pattern, scale, or character of e r,"ct with Genera] Plan, xrating development in General area of Project. Changes in use, extraction. or Conservation of any natural resource. Use, disposal_ IIammablee, `°,ease of potentially or explosives. possible hazardous material, mterfereaoe with a such as toxic substance Changes in 1 emergency response or e location, dietrib evacuation ution, density or plan. Changes in existing hour growth rate of human Population. housing or creating demand for additional housing. Changes in existing Pedestrians or b cy.�1e Including Patterns, traffic volume, Par Alterations in ding vehicular, rail, air, and watery affic,r r+�Creased hazard to 9 facilities, demand for municipal services facilities, etc.). (Police, fore, water, Changes to school, sewage, Parka, Public or impact he pact upon Need for the quantity or quality of nec,eetioasl opportunities. new or substantial Commun'Cat+one systems, water, alterations � axis ty� newer, 4�tm B utilities (electrica], Substantial a�Be, "lid waste natural gas, tial increase in fossil fuel disposst etc ) °onsumPtion (electricity, oil, natural Creation of any health al gas, etc,), hazard or exposure of people to Potential health ha Change m scenic view, or hazards. In light and shadow patterns fi�om existing residential areas, Public leads or roads. Change Alteration or destruction of Physical change, which any historic or pre sacred use, within the yet, affect ethnic cultural values , uilding. structure, or object. restrict existing religious or =/ 31 _ 34 _ 32. =/ 33. 37 ,store or temperature. or odors air perature. in vlcuutY. Alterations in air movements. Changes in ocean or ground water quality, Off water, absorptions or reduction m the amount rates, drainage s run• available water. aulage Pattern of surface Changes to or a reduction in the number area (including trees, shrubs, Braes, c'0Pa and �,�il endangered pant species in the Changes to or ) Project a reduction in the number of rare or Changes in the diversity of specie, reduction anima] area. action in numbers or da l,fa In the Project Changes in a terroration of a existing noise or vibration al habitats. n level in the vicinity. Changes in existing Patterns or intensity y of light as , Changes in d glare. Co Pattern, scale, or character of e r,"ct with Genera] Plan, xrating development in General area of Project. Changes in use, extraction. or Conservation of any natural resource. Use, disposal_ IIammablee, `°,ease of potentially or explosives. possible hazardous material, mterfereaoe with a such as toxic substance Changes in 1 emergency response or e location, dietrib evacuation ution, density or plan. Changes in existing hour growth rate of human Population. housing or creating demand for additional housing. Changes in existing Pedestrians or b cy.�1e Including Patterns, traffic volume, Par Alterations in ding vehicular, rail, air, and watery affic,r r+�Creased hazard to 9 facilities, demand for municipal services facilities, etc.). (Police, fore, water, Changes to school, sewage, Parka, Public or impact he pact upon Need for the quantity or quality of nec,eetioasl opportunities. new or substantial Commun'Cat+one systems, water, alterations � axis ty� newer, 4�tm B utilities (electrica], Substantial a�Be, "lid waste natural gas, tial increase in fossil fuel disposst etc ) °onsumPtion (electricity, oil, natural Creation of any health al gas, etc,), hazard or exposure of people to Potential health ha Change m scenic view, or hazards. In light and shadow patterns fi�om existing residential areas, Public leads or roads. Change Alteration or destruction of Physical change, which any historic or pre sacred use, within the yet, affect ethnic cultural values , uilding. structure, or object. restrict existing religious or 34 _ 35. 36. 37 ,store or temperature. or odors air perature. in vlcuutY. Alterations in air movements. Changes in ocean or ground water quality, Off water, absorptions or reduction m the amount rates, drainage s run• available water. aulage Pattern of surface Changes to or a reduction in the number area (including trees, shrubs, Braes, c'0Pa and �,�il endangered pant species in the Changes to or ) Project a reduction in the number of rare or Changes in the diversity of specie, reduction anima] area. action in numbers or da l,fa In the Project Changes in a terroration of a existing noise or vibration al habitats. n level in the vicinity. Changes in existing Patterns or intensity y of light as , Changes in d glare. Co Pattern, scale, or character of e r,"ct with Genera] Plan, xrating development in General area of Project. Changes in use, extraction. or Conservation of any natural resource. Use, disposal_ IIammablee, `°,ease of potentially or explosives. possible hazardous material, mterfereaoe with a such as toxic substance Changes in 1 emergency response or e location, dietrib evacuation ution, density or plan. Changes in existing hour growth rate of human Population. housing or creating demand for additional housing. Changes in existing Pedestrians or b cy.�1e Including Patterns, traffic volume, Par Alterations in ding vehicular, rail, air, and watery affic,r r+�Creased hazard to 9 facilities, demand for municipal services facilities, etc.). (Police, fore, water, Changes to school, sewage, Parka, Public or impact he pact upon Need for the quantity or quality of nec,eetioasl opportunities. new or substantial Commun'Cat+one systems, water, alterations � axis ty� newer, 4�tm B utilities (electrica], Substantial a�Be, "lid waste natural gas, tial increase in fossil fuel disposst etc ) °onsumPtion (electricity, oil, natural Creation of any health al gas, etc,), hazard or exposure of people to Potential health ha Change m scenic view, or hazards. In light and shadow patterns fi�om existing residential areas, Public leads or roads. Change Alteration or destruction of Physical change, which any historic or pre sacred use, within the yet, affect ethnic cultural values , uilding. structure, or object. restrict existing religious or TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD AT PALM AVENUE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO Prepared for CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. Prepared by STEVENS- GARLAND ASSOCIATES 16787 Beach Boulevard, Suite 234 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 714 - 840 -9742 MAY 1996 REVISED AUGUST 1996 J96 -505 r 1. 2 8 EA -38"j GUFF qb -3 BILE LoPH TABLE OF CONTENTS Pave I. Introduction and Project Description 1 II. Existing Conditions 5 Street and Highway Network 5 Traffic Volumes 6 Intersection Levels of Service 10 III. Project Generated Traffic 12 IV. Future Cumulative Traffic Conditions 17 V. Traffic Impact Analysis 23 Intersection Analysis 23 Impact on Daily Traffic Volumes 25 Neighborhood Traffic Impacts 28 On -Site Loading 31 VI. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures 32 LIST OF FIGURES No. "W-- Pane 1 Project Location 2 2 Site Plan 3 3 Study Area Street Network 7 4 Existing Traffic Volumes 8 5 Project Generated Traffic 16 6 Cumulative Traffic from Other Projects 19 7 Projected Traffic Volumes 22 LIST OF TABLES No. Pave 1 Existing Intersection Levels of Service 10 2 Project Generated Traffic 13 3 Generated Traffic From Other Projects 20 4 Project Impact on Intersection Levels of Service 24 5 Project Impact on Daily Traffic Volumes 27 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION A Carl's Jr. restaurant is proposed on a currently vacant parcel of land on the southwest corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Palm Avenue in the City of E1 Segundo, as shown on Figure 1. The site, as proposed, would have two driveways, one on Sepulveda Boulevard and one on Palm Avenue, as illustrated on Figure 2. The Sepulveda Boulevard driveway would accommodate only right turns into and out of the site, while the Palm Avenue driveway would accommodate right and left turns into the site but would be restricted to right turns out of the driveway. The 3,035 square -foot restaurant would also be provided with a drive through lane. This report summarizes the findings of a study conducted by Stevens - Garland Associates to evaluate the potential traffic impacts of the proposed restaurant. The methodology for the traffic study, in general, was to 1) establish the existing traffic conditions on the streets providing access to the project site, 2) estimate the level of traffic that would be generated by the project and distribute this traffic onto the street network, 3) conduct a comparative analysis of traffic conditions with and without the project to quantify the traffic impacts, 4) forecast the future traffic conditions for the first full year that the restaurant is expected to be operating (1997) by considering general area -wide growth and the cumulative impacts of other planned development, and 5) develop the recommended mitigation measures. The traffic analysis was based on average daily traffic 1 v 7-1 LA AV -- a c n,,,me,v waD (,-om a,,, Project Location LEGEND W� I-$ . cm, �.ffm M I � -me& C7 ..M7 , 11.oft . -Z 4 Not to Scale FIGURE I Project Location w z w Q Q a .2 0AIig V03A-ind3s =)d % % u:V 4p.Ji <x[zOQr� &Y x -jt==• �roo<r .roau :& IL<LL N C LU CU cc CD m volumes and peak--hour traffic volumes for a- weekday lunch hour, a weekday afternoon peak hour, and a Saturday afternoon peak hour. The analysis addresses traffic volumes on Sepulveda Boulevard, Palm Avenue, and Washington Street as well as the intersection levels of service at the following four intersections: o Sepulveda Boulevard at Maple Avenue o Sepulveda Boulevard at Mariposa Avenue o Sepulveda Boulevard at Palm Avenue o Palm Avenue at Washington Street. 4 EXISTING CONDITIONS The existing traffic conditions on the streets and intersections in the project vicinity have been evaluated based on traffic volume data, field reconnaissance, and an observation of peak period traffic patterns. The roadway network and existing traffic conditions are described below. STREET AND HIGHWAY NETWORK The streets that provide access to the project site are Sepulveda Boulevard, Palm Avenue, Washington Street, Maple Avenue, and Mariposa Avenue. Sepulveda Boulevard is a major eight -lane north - south arterial route which abuts the eastern boundary of the site. It extends north to Los Angeles Airport and Westchester and south to Manhattan Beach. Palm Avenue is a two -lane east -west local street which abuts the northern boundary of the project site. It has a "T" intersection with Sepulveda Boulevard adjacent to the project site and extends west into a residential area. Palm Avenue has a curb -to -curb width of 29.5 feet and has parking on the south side of the street. As a comparison to other local residential streets in the area, Washington Street, Oak Avenue, Elm Avenue, and Sycamore Avenue are 33 feet wide while Maple Avenue is 35 feet wide. These other streets have parking on both sides of the street. Washington Street is a two -lane north -south local street located approximately 600 feet west of the project site. It runs through 5 a residential ar -ea between Walnut Avenue and Mariposa Avenue and abuts Washington Park. Maple Avenue and Mariposa Avenue are two - lane east -west streets located north and south of the project site, respectively, which serve the residential areas to the west of Sepulveda Boulevard and the industrial areas east of Sepulveda Boulevard. Mariposa widens to four lanes east of Sepulveda Boulevard. Figure 3 illustrates the layout of the study area street network and shows the existing number of travel lanes on each street. It also indicates that there are traffic signals at the Sepulveda/ Maple and Sepulveda /Mariposa intersections, a four way stop at the Washington /Palm intersection, and a single stop sign on Palm Avenue at Sepulveda Boulevard. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Peak hour traffic counts were taken by Stevens - Garland Associates during the noon hour and the afternoon peak hour on Thursday, May 9, 1996 and during the noon hour on Saturday, May 11, 1996 to quantify the existing traffic conditions at the four intersections in the study area. The noon hours were addressed as that is when a Carl's Jr. restaurant typically has the highest patronage, while the afternoon peak hour was addressed as that is when the street network experiences the heaviest traffic flows. The peak hour traffic volumes and turning movements are shown on Figure 4. The weekday peak periods were from 12:00 noon to 1:00 p.m. and from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. and the Saturday peak hour was from 6 2 2 2 N © I© ©f N 0 20 in C 0 Ol C t N 3 IJ. co Maple Ave. 2 Palm Ave. 2 OBI PROJECT co SITE Marlpoaa Ave. 2 2 m 2 a as 2 4 ®LEGEND = Traffic Signal © = Stop Sign 4 = Number of Lanes Not roScale FIGURE 9 Study Area Street Network xwxx LEGEND xwxxx --. _ xwxx� Weekday Noon/ PM Peak Hour /Saturday Noon 1XXXX] = Daily Traffic Volume Not to 'cale FIGURE 4 Existing Traffic Volumes 0 o 0 ° ter$ st eat tono Maple Ave. �l� 60/90/6 70/120120 14,000] 3 0? $ t o' 1810001 70/60/60 3 ^ $ R9 O N N r a �m T N b 10 N .— 40/40/50 Palm Ave. C ° 500 ] 10/20/20 [ —► } I 18001 6%20 -t g 3012012 0� s PROJECT a `. a SITE a N N 0 � m O c ° N 3 � � a 0 u 0 a a a C4 ° L 1801280//10 F. Mariposa Ave. *1. t-- 170/210/80 r 100/110,70 [51900] 1160/190/90 [9, 600] 4&40/60 3 3 M' o ANN o0 SOURCE xwxx LEGEND xwxxx --. _ xwxx� Weekday Noon/ PM Peak Hour /Saturday Noon 1XXXX] = Daily Traffic Volume Not to 'cale FIGURE 4 Existing Traffic Volumes 12:00 noon to 1 -b 0 p.m. Also shown on Figure 4 are the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on the study area streets. The ADT's on Mariposa Avenue and Maple Avenue were obtained from the City of E1 Segundo, the ADT's on Palm Avenue and Washington Street were taken by Stevens - Garland Associates, and the ADT's on Sepulveda Boulevard were obtained from Caltrans. As the most recent Caltrans counts were for 1994, they were increased by a growth rate of four percent to estimate 1996 conditions. Sepulveda Boulevard adjacent to the project site has an ADT of 58,000 vehicles per day and Palm Avenue has an ADT of 800 vehicles per day. The City of E1 Segundo has a policy that traffic impact studies should use 1988 traffic counts as the baseline scenario unless it can be demonstrated that current traffic volumes are greater than the 1988 volumes. The reason for this policy is that employment levels in E1 Segundo and the corresponding levels of traffic generated in E1 Segundo were at their peak in 1988 and have subsequently decreased in density. A comparison between the 1988 traffic volumes and the existing traffic volumes, as shown below, indicates that the existing traffic levels on Sepulveda Boulevard are greater than the 1988 levels. This traffic analysis, therefore, uses the existing data for the baseline scenario. COMPARISON OF 1988 AND EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES Average Traffic Peak Hour Traffic Location 1988 1 6 1999 19 Sepulveda Boulevard 57,000 58,000 4,800 5,880 7 SOURCES: Caltrars for ADT's and 1988 peak hour, Stevens - Garland Associates for 1996 peak hour. INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE To quantify the existing traffic conditions on the study area roadways, the four intersections in the project vicinity were analyzed to determine their operating conditions during the peak periods. Based on the peak hour traffic volumes shown on Figure 4, the turning movement counts, and the existing number of lanes at each intersection, the intersection capacity utilization values and levels of service (LOS) have been determined for each intersection, as summarized on Table 1. TABLE 1 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Intersection ICU & Level of Service Weekday Noon Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Saturday Noon Hour Sepulveda /Maple 0.637 B 0.760 C 0.457 A Sepulveda /Palm 0.507 A 0.579 A 0.412 A Sepulveda /Mariposa 0.709 C 0.818 D 0.568 A Palm /Washington 0.088 A 0.100 A 0.094 A 10 Intersection capacity utilization (ICU) is a measure of an intersection's traffic volumes as compared to the theoretical capacity of the intersection. Level of service is a qualitative indicator of an intersection's operating conditions which represents the various levels of congestion and delay at the intersection. It is measured from LOS A (excellent conditions) to LOS F (extreme congestion). The relationship between the ICU values and levels of service is as follows: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ICU AND LEVEL OF SERVICE ICU Value LOS Conditions 0 to 0.600 A Excellent 0.601 to 0.700 B Very Good 0.701 to 0.800 C Good 0.801 to 0.900 D Fair 0.901 to 1.000 E Poor 1.001 + F Failure As shcwn on Table 1, the study area intersections currently operate at LOS A, B, and C during the weekday peak hours and at LOS A during the Saturday peak hour. The ICU values at the Sepulveda Boulevard intersections were calculated by summing the critical movements and adding a ten percent clearance interval. The assumed lane capacity is 1,600 vehicles per hour. The four -way stop intersection of Palm Avenue at Washington Street was evaluated by dividing the sum of all traffic passing through the intersection by the assumed intersection capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour, as outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual. 11 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC The volume of traffic anticipated to be generated by the Carl's Jr. restaurant was determined in order to estimate the impacts of the project on the study area streets and intersections. Table 2 shows the volume of project - generated traffic for the weekday noon hour, the weekday afternoon peak hour, the Saturday noon hour, and for the entire day on a weekday and a Saturday. The trip generation rates were taken from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual (5th Edition, 1991). The table reflects the assumption that 25 percent of the project traffic would be passby traffic; i.e., drivers that are already traveling on the streets adjacent to the project site for purposes other than patronizing the facility (such as home -to -work commuting or visiting nearby shopping facilities or offices) who elect to stop at the Carl's Jr. while passing by the project site. Since research cited in the Trip Generation manual indicates that fast food restaurants typically experience a 25 to 56 percent passby percentage with an average of 43 percent, the more conservative 25 percent assumption would be reasonable for this traffic analysis. Table 2 indicates that the site is expected to generate 1,440 weekday trips, 1,560 Saturday trips, 105 trips during the noon hour on a weekday (83 in and 22 out), 83 afternoon peak hour trips on a weekday (43 in and 40 out), and 129 trips during a Saturday noon hour (66 in and 63 out). 12 TABLE 2 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC The directional orientation of the project traffic was estimated based on the distribution of office and residential development, the existing travel patterns, and the layout of the area's street network. The assumed distribution of project traffic is as follows: 13 Generated Traffic With Time Frame Trip Rate Traffic 25% Passby (per 1,000 sf) (3,035 sf) Reduction WEEIMAY Noon Hour Total 46.26 140 105 Inbound 79% 111 83 Outbound 21% 29 22 PM Peak Hour Total 36.53 111 83 Inbound 52% 58 43 Outbound 45% 53 40 Daily Traffic 632.12 1,920 1,440 SATURDAY Noon Hour Total 56.63 172 129 Inbound 51% 88 66 Outbound 49% 84 63 Daily Traffic 686.04 2,080 1,560 The directional orientation of the project traffic was estimated based on the distribution of office and residential development, the existing travel patterns, and the layout of the area's street network. The assumed distribution of project traffic is as follows: 13 -DISTRIBUTION OF PROJECT TKAFFIC Weekday Sat. o Sepulveda Boulevard north of Maple Avenue (includes an estimated 10% on Imperial Highway west of Sepulveda) 35% 35% o Sepulveda Boulevard south of Mariposa Avenue (includes an estimated 10% on Grand Avenue and E1 Segundo Boulevard west of Sepulveda) 35% 35% o Maple Avenue east of Sepulveda Boulevard 10% 3% o Maple Avenue west of Washington Street 2% 5% o Mariposa Avenue east of Sepulveda Blvd. 10% 3% o Mariposa Avenue west of Washington Street 2% 10% o Washington Street north of Maple Avenue 2% 3% o Washington Street south of Mariposa Avenue 2% 3% o Palm Avenue west of Washington Street 2% 3% The assumed distribution on a Saturday is different from that of a weekday as it is anticipated that there would be less of a demand from the area east of Sepulveda Boulevard and more of a demand from the area west of Sepulveda Boulevard on a Saturday. Using the generated traffic volumes shown on Table 2 and the geographical distribution outlined above, the volume of project traffic on each study area street and at each intersection was 14 determined. Th9- peak hour volume of project traffic at each intersection for the three critical time periods and the daily volume of project traffic on each street link for a weekday and a Saturday are shown on Figure 5. As it is difficult for motorists to turn left from Palm Avenue onto northbound Sepulveda during the weekday peak periods, the traffic destined to the north was assigned to southbound Sepulveda with a U -turn at Mariposa. 15 [30%80] [30/50] O O M Maple Ave. [10/10] 0 M 0 co 1/2/5 -:--1/112 11212 Palm Ave. [100/230] N f �-J [650/670] 6/0/10 J `� 20/49/as , f - {! `' O CD Ln 8 it co [140/501 r-1 O O C7 O 0 0 N .O� Y / .o a N N r 8/4/2 r J � N � i a f � a_N a �-J [650/670] 6/0/10 J `� 20/49/as , f - {! `' O CD Ln 8 it co [140/501 SOURCE: Stevens /Garland Associates xX/Xx� LEGEND � Xx x X = Weekday Noon/ PM Peak Hour /Saturday Noon (XXXXj Daily Traffic Volume [Weekday /Saturday] Not to scale FIGURE 5 Project Generated Traffic � C7 0 0 N O i O 3 a H N CO u N N N N f N � r r � Merlposa Ave. V'� 8/212 f= 0 12/0 [30/160] [60/150] o �, [140/50] N m ^ O� N r^ .O.^ / Y,Y / O O,^ Ln b...1 SOURCE: Stevens /Garland Associates xX/Xx� LEGEND � Xx x X = Weekday Noon/ PM Peak Hour /Saturday Noon (XXXXj Daily Traffic Volume [Weekday /Saturday] Not to scale FIGURE 5 Project Generated Traffic IV. r FUTURE CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS Traffic volume forecasts were made to establish the cumulative traffic conditions for the first full year that the proposed restaurant is expected to be operational, which is 1997. The 1997 traffic volumes were calculated by increasing the existing volumes by two percent to account for the effects of general area -wide growth, then adding the traffic that would be generated by the proposed Carl's Jr. as well as other development projects proposed in the area. The projects considered in the cumulative traffic analysis are those that are within one mile of the proposed project and those that are of a sufficient size that they would contribute traffic to the study area intersections. The projects included in the cumulative traffic analysis are as follows: PROJECTS CONSIDERED IN CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS o Continental Development, 290,096 s.f. office building, 2301 Rosecrans Avenue west of Aviation Boulevard. o Xerox Phase IV, 255,242 s.f. office & 350 room hotel, 1951- 1961 E1 Segundo Boulevard east of Sepulveda Boulevard. o Continental Grand, 233,500 s.f. office building, 400 & 444 Continental Boulevard north of Grand Avenue. 17 o Mattel, 300;-000 s.f. research & development building, 445 & 475 Continental Boulevard north of Grand Avenue. o Kizirian Townhomes, 28 units, 1415 East Grand Avenue west of Kansas Street. o Holly Park Townhomes, 28 units, 1400 East Holly Avenue west of Kansas Street. o Continental Park Retail /Theater Project, 80,000 s.f. retail/ office building and an 18- screen, 3,550 -seat movie theater, northwest corner of Rosecrans Avenue and Nash Street. o Homestead Village, 151 -room hotel & 45,000 s.f. supermarket, 1910 East Mariposa east of Sepulveda Boulevard. o International Rectifier, 39,853 s.f. research & development building, 1521 East Grand Avenue west of Sepulveda Boulevard. The levels of traffic expected to be generated by these projects are shown on Table 3. The table indicates that the projects would cumulatively generate 27,500 vehicle trips per day and 2,670 trips during the afternoon peak hour (1,055 in and 1,615 out). The assumed distribution of these cumulative traffic levels on the study area street network is shown on Figure 6. 18 O O ..r 00 � '0 Maple Ave. [100] 0 0 e Palm Ave. I ,.., O U) o b..W N � � C 0 m L > m � m 3 H Mariposa Ave. [1700] ,00 •= 70 60 ,0 J I� }�� s0 1 00$ 10 O O t+9 I [7001 [6100] xwxx LEGEND xx xx-- xxncx = Weekday PM Peak Hour '�� (XXXX] = Daily Traffic volume Not to Scale FIGURE 6 Cumulative Traffic from Other Projects TABLE 3 GENERATED TRAFFIC FROM OTHER PROJECTS Project PM Peak Hour Daily Traffic In Out Continental Office Building 70 340 3,130 Xerox Phase IV 200 425 5,870 Continental Grand 60 290 2,660 Mattel 50 275 2,310 Kizirian Townhomes 15 10 220 Holly Park Townhomes 15 10 220 Continental Retail /Theater 315 -135 2,710 Homestead Village 295 285 90,300 International Rectifier 5 40 310 TOTAL 1,025 1,540 26,730 As these projects would cumulatively generate the heaviest traffic volumes during the weekday afternoon peak hour, as they would generate much more traffic on a weekday than on a Saturday, and since the existing baseline traffic volumes are heavier on a weekday than a Saturday, the future cumulative traffic analysis only addresses the weekday scenario for daily and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes. The projected 1997 cumulative traffic volumes (existing traffic plus a two percent growth factor plus project traffic plus the 20 cumulative traffte from the other projects r -are shown on Figure 7 for daily and peak hour traffic levels. Sepulveda Boulevard adjacent to the project site is projected to have a 1997 traffic volume of 65,000 vehicles per day while Palm Avenue is projected to have a volume of 920 vpd. 21 [9000] pm OI N N ♦ _ 780 290 Merlpoae Ave. �''� (^ 170 [7800] 240 [16,000] N 0 ,O .W u ;OURCE Srevens /Garland Associates XX/XX LEGEND XX/XXX 7 XxncX r' Weekday PM Peak Hour T 40 [XXXXJ =Daily Traffic Volume Not to Scale FIGURE 7 Projected Traffic Volumes O 0 C _ Le) CO ♦ 155 95 Meplo Ave. 170 .^ ♦^.. [6200] 20 ; as ^ge _m 0 0 eh o 0 0 co �-- 45 Palm Ave. [540] Zs -- [920] [1470] io LO n 1 t�� r N > o CO O O a CO 3 N [9000] pm OI N N ♦ _ 780 290 Merlpoae Ave. �''� (^ 170 [7800] 240 [16,000] N 0 ,O .W u ;OURCE Srevens /Garland Associates XX/XX LEGEND XX/XXX 7 XxncX r' Weekday PM Peak Hour T 40 [XXXXJ =Daily Traffic Volume Not to Scale FIGURE 7 Projected Traffic Volumes V. -W- TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The impacts of the proposed Carl's Jr. restaurant are discussed in the following sections. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS An analysis of traffic impacts was conducted by quantifying the before - and -after traffic conditions at the study area intersections for the "with project" and "without project" scenarios. The ICU values and levels of service for each scenario are summarized on Table 4 for the weekday noon hour, the PM peak hour on a weekday, and the Saturday noon hour at the four study area intersections. In addition, the projected ICU values and levels of service for the future cumulative scenario are shown for the weekday PM peak hour, which represents the period that experiences the heaviest traffic volumes. The lane configuration at each intersection is assumed to be unchanged from the existing conditions. A project is considered to have a significant intersection impact if the intersection is projected to operate at a level of service E or F and if the project would increase the ICU value by 0.02 or greater. Based on these guidelines, the analysis indicates that the project would not have a significant impact at any of the study area intersections. There would be an increase in congestion and delay at the intersection of Palm Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard 23 associated with the additional traffic attempting to turn onto Sepulveda from Palm Avenue or to turn from northbound Sepulveda onto Palm. This additional traffic would not, however, result in a significant impact. TABLE 4 PROJECT IMPACT ON INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE 24 ICU & Level of Service Intersection Existing 1997 Project Existing Plus Cumulative Impact Project Sepulveda /Maple Weekday Noon 0.637 B 0.646 B - 0.009 Weekday PM Peak 0.760 C 0.772 C 0.820 D 0.012 Saturday Noon 0.457 A 0.463 A - 0.006 Sepulveda /Palm Weekday Noon 0.507 A 0.571 A - 0.064 Weekday PM Peak 0.579 A 0.614 B 0.669 B 0.035 Saturday Noon 0.412 A 0.486 A - 0.074 Sepulveda /Mariposa Weekday Noon 0.709 C 0.710 C - 0.001 Weekday PM Peak 0.818 D 0.826 D 0.912 E 0.008 Saturday Noon 0.568 A 0.573 A - 0.005 Palm /Washington Weekday Noon 0.088 A 0.096 A - 0.008 Weekday PM Peak 0.100 A 0.112 A 0.119 A 0.012 Saturday Noon 0.094 A 0.108 A - 0.014 24 It has been suggbsted that Palm Avenue could be widened at the Sepulveda Boulevard intersection to provide separate right -turn and left -turn lanes. This would increase the capacity and reduce delays for eastbound traffic as left - turning vehicles would not impede the vehicles turning right. Such an improvement is not necessary, however, because the intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable level of service, the number of left -turn movements is minor, and the southbound traffic exiting the project site would have the option of using the Sepulveda Boulevard driveway. The traffic volumes used for the impact analysis represent the worst -case scenario that all of the exiting traffic would use Palm Avenue. The intersection of Sepulveda and Palm was also checked to determine if a traffic signal would be warranted based on the Caltrans criteria. As the guidelines suggest that a signal may be justified if the daily approach volumes on the minor street are above 1,200 vehicles per day or if the peak hour volumes are above 100 vehicles per hour, and since the projected traffic volumes on Palm Avenue are below these thresholds, the analysis indicates that a traffic signal would not be warranted. IMPACT ON DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES The impacts of the project on daily traffic volumes are summarized on Table 5, which shows the existing volumes, the project traffic levels, the "existing plus project" traffic volumes, and the 1997 cumulative traffic volumes, which includes a two percent growth factor, project traffic, and the cumulative traffic from the other 25 proposed developments. Sepulveda Boulevard�lietween Palm Avenue and Mariposa Avenue, which has an existing volume of 58,000 vehicles per day, would increase by an estimated 820 vpd to 58,820 vpd with the project. The cumulative effects of the other proposed development would increase the traffic volume on Sepulveda Boulevard to approximately 65,000 vpd. Palm Avenue west of the project site, which has an existing volume of 800 vpd, would increase by 100 vpd to approximately 900 vpd. As parking is prohibited on the north side of Palm Avenue and on the south side of Palm Avenue along the project frontage, there is sufficient width to safely accommodate this increase in traffic. 26 TABLE 5 z PROJECT IMPACT ON DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 27 Daily Traffic Volume Street /Location Ezistinq Ezistinq Project Plus 1997 Traffic Project Cumulative Sepulveda Boulevard North of Maple Maple to Palm Palm to Mariposa South of Mariposa 58,000 58,000 58,000 50,000 500 640 820 500 58,500 58,640 58,820 50,500 65,000 65,000 65,000 56,000 Palm Avenue At Sepulveda West of Project Site West of Washington 800 800 500 650 100 30 1,450 900 530 1,470 920 540 Washington Street North of Palm South of Palm 1,200 1,200 60 70 1,260 1,270 1,300 1,300 Maple Avenue West of Sepulveda East of Sepulveda 6,000 8,000 30 140 6,030 8,140 6,200 9,000 Mariposa Avenue West of Sepulveda East of Sepulveda 1 5,900 9,600 60 140 5,960 9,740 7,800 16,000 27 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC IMPACTS The analysis indicates that the proposed Carl's Jr. restaurant would result in an increase in traffic volumes on the residential neighborhood streets located to the west of the project site, primarily Palm Avenue and Washington Street. Although the impacts of this additional traffic are expected to be minor relative to traffic operations and safety, the affected residents are concerned about the potential increase in traffic volumes. There are several possible modifications to the site plan and /or to Palm Avenue which could be used to discourage the use of Palm Avenue as an access route. These options are outlined below along with a brief discussion of the ramifications of each measure. Sepulveda Driveway Only, No Palm Avenue Driveway - Would result in additional U -turns on Sepulveda at Palm as northbound drivers would have to make a U -turn instead of a left turn. Safety would be sacrificed. - would result in a heavier concentration of traffic and additional turning movements at the Sepulveda Boulevard driveway, thereby affecting traffic flow and safety along Sepulveda. - Would create additional delay for drivers exiting the site as there would be only one egress point instead of two. - Would not reduce the volume of traffic approaching the site from the west on Palm Avenue as these drivers would still use Palm Avenue as an access route. 28 Might resulf- in an increase in site - generated parking on Palm Avenue as residents from the west may elect to park on Palm to avoid being forced onto Sepulveda Boulevard. Barricade on Palm Avenue West of Project Site - Would significantly reduce the traffic volumes on Palm Avenue. - would shift existing Palm Avenue traffic to Mariposa and Maple Avenue, thereby adversely affecting those residential streets. - would be disruptive to emergency access vehicles; i.e., police, fire, paramedics, and ambulances. - Might result in an increase in site - generated parking on Palm Avenue as residents from the west may elect to park on Palm to avoid being forced onto Sepulveda Boulevard. Traffic Diverters - would reduce traffic volumes on some streets and shift traffic to other streets, thereby benefiting some residents and adversely affecting others. - would be disruptive to emergency access vehicles; i.e., police, fire, paramedics, and ambulances. Chokers - Would probably result in slower traffic volumes on the affected street. - May discourage some drivers from using the street as a through travel route. - Would not prevent traffic from using the street. 29 Turning Restrict Dns at Project Driveways - A "No Left Turn" for exiting traffic at the Palm Avenue driveway would reduce the project's impacts on Palm Avenue and other residential streets west of the site. - The restriction would not be 100 percent effective, but would be beneficial, particularly if it were combined with a right turn channelization island at the driveway. - would force residents who live west of the site to use Sepulveda Boulevard and Mariposa Avenue. Turning Restrictions within the Neighborhood - Would reduce traffic volumes on some streets and shift traffic to other streets, thereby benefiting some residents and adversely affecting others. - Could be a nuisance /inconvenience to residents. Stop Sign Installations - Should only be installed if warranted by traffic volumes, safety concerns, pedestrian volumes, etc. - Would result in reduced travel speeds in the immediate vicinity of the stop signs, but would have little or no effect along the street. - Would result in increased noise levels, gasoline consumption, and emissions. - Would not likely result in a decrease in traffic volumes. There is also a concern among the residents that the restaurant, if it is a 24 -hour operation, would generate traffic noise on the neighborhood streets, particularly Palm Avenue. This impact could 30 be partially mitsgated by closing the Palm'Avenue driveway during the late night hours, which might discourage some drivers from using Palm Avenue as an access route (see the above discussion under "Sepulveda Driveway Only, No Palm Avenue Driveway "). ON -SITE LOADING The proposed site plan does not currently provide a designated truck loading space. This would require delivery trucks to temporarily park in multiple parking stalls or to park in a circulation aisle and temporarily block several parking spaces. In effect, this would reduce the available number of parking spaces during the time that the delivery truck was on site. A potential option for rectifying this situation would be to designate several contiguous parking stalls as a loading zone that could be used only during specified non -peak times. With this option, deliveries would be prohibited during times of heavy patronage, such as 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. 31 V1. "- SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The primary conclusions of the traffic and parking analysis are outlined below. o The proposed Carl's Jr. restaurant would generate approximately 1,440 additional vehicle trips on a weekday, 1,560 daily trips on a Saturday, 105 trips during the noon hour on a weekday, 83 trips during the afternoon peak hour on a weekday, and 129 trips during the noon hour on a Saturday. o The project would not result in a significant impact at any of the study area intersections. There would be no justification, therefore, for a street widening or signalization project. o The project would result in an increase in traffic volumes on the streets in the immediate vicinity of the site, particularly Sepulveda Boulevard and Palm Avenue. Although the increases would be noticeable, there would be no significant operational or capacity impacts. o Although the project - generated traffic would not have a significant impact on traffic operations or safety on Palm Avenue, the residents are concerned about the increased traffic volumes that would occur, particularly at night. o If a loading space is not provided on site, delivery trucks would either use available parking stalls or park in the circulation aisle and temporarily block parking spaces. The following mitigation measures are recommended to alleviate the project's traffic and parking impacts. 32' o Restrift the Palm Avenue driveway"7to right- turn -only for exiting traffic to curtail neighborhood traffic intrusion in the residential area west of the project site. A "No Left Turn" sign should be installed at the driveway and on the north side of Palm Avenue facing the exiting vehicles. o Design the vegetation and signage at all access driveways to avoid visibility restrictions; i.e., they should either be less than 30 inches in height or sufficiently narrow to avoid visibility blockages. o If the restaurant operates during the late night hours, the impacts on Palm Avenue associated with traffic noise could be alleviated by closing the Palm Avenue driveway during the late hours; e.g., from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. o If an on -site loading zone is not provided, a potential option for rectifying this situation would be to designate several contiguous parking stalls as a loading zone that could be used only during specified non -peak times. With this option, deliveries would be prohibited during times of heavy patronage, such as 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and from 5:00 to 8:00 p.m. 33 Davy - — Associates, Inc. Consultants in Acoustics 865 Manhattan Beach Boulevard, Suite 202 • Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 -4955 • Telephone. (310) 546 -3387 • FAX (310) 546 -3009 JN 96027 ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS Carl's Jr. Restaurant Sepulveda Boulevard at Palm Avenue El Segundo, California FOR Carl Karcher Enterprises Anaheim, California June 1996 J 10/09/1996 16:44 714- 282 -2948 THE REYES GROLP PAGE 03 dyrf At the direction of Carl Karcher Enterprises, Davy & Assoclatee, Inc. has completed an acoustical onaiysis to determine "rntial noise impact for a proposed Carl's Jr. Restaurant to be located on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard at East Palm Avenue in El Segundo. Noise levels measured at an existing Carrs Jr. Restaurant were used to'trsbulats noise levels at the closest residential property the y of the site. Ambier* noise levels were monitored at the west property line of the site. These ambient noise levels are discussed in this report. 1 10/09/1996 16:44 714 - 282 -2948 TI-E REYES GROW PAGE 04 Noise levels were measured on May 3, 1988 at an existing Cart's Jr. Reftaunint on Century Boulevard in Inglewood, California. Some -noise was generated at this restaurant facility by cars operating in the restaurant parking lot. However, ambient noise levels due to traffic on Century Boulevard were the donninent noise source and cars operating in the restaurant parking lot were not a significant source of noise. The loudspeaker utilized for the drive -thru is on the north side of the restaurant away from Century Boulevard. Noise levels were audible in the parking lot when the loudspeaker was operated and when people were placing orders. The following noise measurements were made at o distance of 40 teat. Table 1 Measured Existing Carl's Jr. Restaurant Norse Z"eh :bt dO at 40 feat Noise Soule Main Laval Ambient 59 - 81 d8A Loudspeaker 62.63 Unamplifled Voice 62-65 These measured noise levels were utilized to calculate noise levels at th6 west property line of the proposed site. Distance effects were included M this calculation. The preliminary site plan indicates that the drive -thru order location will be on the east end of the site fairly close to Sepulveda Boulevard. There will be acoustical shielding provided by the building itself as well as directionallty effects of the loudspeaker that will be facing to the east towards Sepulveda Boulevard. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2 Calculated Drive Thru Noise Levels at the West Prop6V Line Loudspeaker 37 dBA Unamplifled Voice 45 2 I 10/09/1996 16:44 714 - 282 -2948 THE REYES CAP PAGE 05 The site is located on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard just south of °East Palm Avenue in El Segundo, Callbrnia. Ambient noise data was collected from 9 p.m. on Thursday, December S. 1994 to 6 p.m. on Friday, December 9, 1994 utilizing a Larson Davis Mufti 700 Sound Level Meter. The Larson Davis meter was programmed to called data in 1-hour increhants. The Larson Davis Model 700 has Its own internal dock, and the dock was set to the correct time and the run times were programmed. following the monitoring, the Larson Davis unit was collected and the data was down loaded from the sound Ievsl meter to an IBM computer. The results of the ambient measurements are summarized on the enclosed computer printouts in Appendix A. The first column in the tabular date Indicates the starting time of 08th meuurement hour in 24 hour format. The second column Is titled, "LVL". This Is the average noise level (LEQ) in each measurement hour. The LEO is the energy averaged noise level during the measurement period. This is the noise level that would have the some acoustic energy as the time varying noise during the measurement Interval. The columns titled "SEL, Lpk, Ex, Ek, and Ov" are not significant br thi* noise monitoring project. The minimum noise level (LMIN) and the maximum noise level (LMAX) :afr Meted in the fourth and fifth columns. The NW four columns give the L02, IN, L25, and L50 noise levels. These are the noise levels that are exceeded during each measurement hour for 2%, 8 %. 25%, and 50% of the time. These statistical levels correspond to the noise levels exceeded for 1 minute, 5 minutes, 15 minutes, and 30 minutes in each measurement hour. The restaurant will be In open on a 24 hour basis. Average LEO ambibint noise levsls for all 24 hours are summarized in Table 3. K 10/09/1996 16:44 714 - 282 -2948 THE REYES GROIP Table 3 Ambient Noise Levels in d8 6 a.m. 82 dBA 7 64 8 66 9 81 10 62 11 58 12 60 1 P.M. 61 2 80 3 62 4 62 5 66 6 60 7 61 8 61 9 58 10 60 11 60 12 a.m. 60 1 59 2 57 3 55 4 55 5 56 PAGE 06 As can be seen from the data summarized above in Table 3 (and the cdrY putsr printouts in Appendix A). minimum ambient noise levels never get below 55 dBA. This meant that noise from the loudspeaker will be approximately 18 dB' less than minimum ambient noise levels at the quietest hour of the morning. Noise levels from people ordering win be at Fast 10 dB below minimum ambient noise levels during the quietest hour of the morning. n 10/09/1996 16:44 714- 282 -2948 THE RE YES GROUP PAGE 07 Stock will be delivered to the store two to three times per week, and the dufation of these deliveries will be from 10 to 15 minutes. The stock win be taken off of the truck utilizing a hydraulic lift and cart. The stock will then be left at the rear door of the stars. and the truck will exit the lot. Stock Is then broken down by hand and put awry by store personnel. Deliveries will be made during "off peak" hours between the hours of 9 a.m. to 11 a.m and 2 p m to 4,30 p.m. These delivery times are utilized to ovoid customer conflicts. During the delivery hours of 8 a.m. to 11 a.m., ambient noise levels will be' in the 58 to 82 dBA range at the west property line. During the afternoon delivery hours of 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.. ambient noise levels at the west property line will be in the 60 to 08 d8A range. Due to distance effects, there will be a decrease in noise levels of approxlhately 23 dB from a distance of 5' from the delivery truck and the west property line. This means that noise levels from the delivery truck would have to exceed 01 dBA at a distance of 5' for noise to even be audible at the west property line. Based on this analysis-,:noise levels from the delivery truck and hydraulic lift are not considered to be a significant noise impact at the residential buildings to the west and to the north of the pr+opoi;ed site. I The results of this analysis indicate that the noise levels generated by thelbrive -thru loudspeaker and people ordering at the drlve -thru window at the east portion of the site will be between 10 and 18 dB below the minimum ambient at the quieW*hour of the early morning. Noise levels from the restaurant are not likely to be a significant impact sift residential buildings to the north of the site on East Palm Avenue since they will be much less than those noise levels calculated in Table 2, and ambient noise levels will be approximately the same as those listed in Table 3. Noise levels from the restaurant are therefore not considered to be a sigrocent noise imnPeaw at the residential buildings to the west and to the north of the proposed site. Bruce A. Davy Davy & Associates, Inc. I.N.C.E. Board Certified 5 18/09/1996 16:44 714 - 282 -2948 THE REYES GR01P PAGE 02 Davy "- & ASSOciates, Inc. Cmsu)lants in ACOucllcs W1 Mfxiwl& n Arwrb A„inw,J .Swir. 702 • MgxkmdN &w1i CA 90_766.4955 • PrApin e. !!)D) 5.(6�9M7 • FAX! 1.110134&3M 960278 ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS Carla Jr. Restaurant Sepulveda Boulevard at Palm Avenue El Segundo, California FOR Carl Karcher Enterprises Anaheim, Califomia October 1998 3/1 lq,,� BA77: i 7 vszw 7ROM FILE: ON74119 LWA=Nn WEF7 PRCF. UNE L E D kJ 1- 71 N 7 7 N E L 74 HCURLY SAMPLES 6 7 TIME C) ------------------- + ---------+---------+---- 0 0 0 0 i 7M 2 am. 0 Im RM 5 am 7 am E am o or loam !!or 0 n:, r m, nm 4 pm 0 5 Mn C 0 + -- - - - - -- ---- +--- - - - - -- 4 5 6 7 0 0 FROM 71d 8010 9762 STEM 9%G GAR.AM JAN • 08.97 12 :52PM P.801 / - L A GAR As a follow ing inn'TFtovi tbtoC C$rl's Jr. sites, I would the tteu' dt� to,yoti.Prevlo y. emoting like �a clarify tl>$t t&e maaimuai rn>mber outs stncloe8 be>ind ::the i�rdet board and the maximmO mumbo, of rs . beburd$te picdcaap ` �� p �vetiidow: aam aot necessarily additive. 1e niunbiere 13bo va in theobles ttfkxt.the highest . of cars observed at each location during e.. . .. v . minute infrvaI, bdt them aaHy oa utred at differcut times wid& the interrg. For , at a . e�tample ° giraenpoint in-timC dme ma have been four cars in the picker queueand:fiozic:isrs in the order bow queue fo!•dto?te10€ eight cars, while two minutes lst`e there may:haave ban troth ca;s i>R the piidCd q>xe:gt�.,§d '0 the order board queue foi4 total of niter. .As we were reowrdiag the .observations . independently, we w4 1d have errtetgdsfour for the.pick =vP• a Mid a*m for-the order board queue even though there weje never_ a imn as osg atst1t For the three locatiotakhat were 8u14 the nata l anbeo : cot . t servedi6be'Iind up at any one time was >ithe. ;This occurred at the Hawthorne kxM ion if Q:tbe lurid hour on Friday, December 20i!996. Call me if you have *'gix=doj`or UKW:additionai irifor iam at<TI4 =84(i =9`142 fik: j963DS3 t .: ac: Lorenzo Reyes, Tic Rees. ii(iaip. is - 'i aasyor}adoo� LAdti U_ 16d..awiree�sa 1 Cora e low BeW%"1 Q Snipe U4. 000'8ea0ly ilif�tioia 92 4r Usificiviii •it4/t1iMM FwmimtIc ?l*b4o+974Z Davy - — Associates, Inc. Consultants in Acoustics 865 Manhattan Beach Bouieuard, Suitt 202 • Manhattan Beach, CA 902661955 • Telephone. (310) 546- -3387 • FAX (310) 546 -3009 JN 96027 ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS Carl's Jr. Restaurant Sepulveda Boulevard at Palm Avenue El Segundo, California FOR Carl Karcher Enterprises Anaheim, California June 1996 7 1.0 Introduction At the direction of Carl Karcher Enterprises, Davy & Associates, Inc. has completed an acoustical analysis to determine potential noise impact for a proposed Carl's Jr. Restaurant to be located on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard at East Palm Avenue in El Segundo. Noise levels measured at an existing Carl's Jr. Restaurant were used to calculate noise levels at the closest residential property to the west of the site. Ambient noise levels were monitored at the west property line of the site. These ambient noise levels are discussed in this report. 2.0 Existina Restaurant Noise Levels Noise levels were measured on May 3, 1996 at an existing Carl's Jr. Restaurant on Century Boulevard in Inglewood, California. Some.noise was generated at this restaurant facility by cars operating in the restaurant parking lot. However, ambient noise levels due to traffic on Century Boulevard were the dominant noise source and cars operating in the restaurant parking lot were not a significant source of noise. The loudspeaker utilized for the drive -thru is on the north side of the restaurant away from Century Boulevard. Noise levels were audible in the parking lot when the loudspeaker was operated and when people were placing orders. The following noise measurements were made at a distance of 40 feet. Table 1 Measured Existing Carl's Jr. Restaurant Noise Levels in dB at 40 feet Noise Source Ambient Loudspeaker Unamplified Voice 1,11r _ _ 59 - 61 dBA 62-63 62 -65 These measured noise levels were utilized to calculate noise levels at the west property line of the proposed site. Distance effects were included in this calculation. The preliminary site plan indicates that the drive -thru order location will be on the east end of the site fairly close to Sepulveda Boulevard. There will be acoustical shielding provided by the building itself as well as directionality effects of the loudspeaker that will be facing to the east towards Sepulveda Boulevard. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2 Calculated Drive Thru Noise Levels at the West Property Line - ,. Loudspeaker 37 dBA Unamplified Voice 45 2 3.0 Ambient Noise Measurement Procedures and Results The site is located on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard just south of East Palm Avenue in El Segundo, California. Ambient noise data was collected from 6 p.m. on Thursday, December 8, 1994 to 6 p.m. on Friday, December 9, 1994 utilizing a Larson Davis Model 700 Sound Level Meter. The Larson Davis meter was programmed to collect data in 1 -hour increments. The Larson Davis Model 700 has its own internal clock, and the clock was set to the correct time and the run times were programmed. Following the monitoring, the Larson Davis unit was collected and the data was down loaded from the sound level meter to an IBM computer. The results of the ambient measurements are summarized on the enclosed computer printouts in Appendix A. The first column in the tabular data indicates the starting time of each measurement hour in 24 hour format. The second column is titled, "LVL ". This is the average noise level (LEQ) in each measurement hour. The LEQ is the energy averaged noise level during the measurement period. This is the noise level that would have the same acoustic energy as the time varying noise during the measurement interval. The columns titled "SEL, Lpk, Ex, Ek, and Ov" are not significant for this noise monitoring project. The minimum noise level (LMIN) and the maximum noise level (LMAX) are listed in the fourth and fifth columns. The last four columns give the L02, L08, L25, and L50 noise levels. These are the noise levels that are exceeded during each measurement hour for 2 %, 8 %, 25 %, and 50% of the time. These statistical levels correspond to the noise levels exceeded for 1 minute, 5 minutes, 15 minutes, and 30 minutes in each measurement hour. The restaurant will be in open on a 24 hour basis. Average LEQ ambient noise levels for all 24 hours are summarized in Table 3. 3 Table 3 Ambient Noise Levels in dB Hour LEC 6 a.m. 62 dBA 7 64 8 66 9 61 10 62 11 58 12 60 1 P.M. 61 2 60 3 62 4 62 5 66 6 60 7 61 8 61 9 58 10 60 11 60 12 a.m. 60 1 59 2 57 3 55 4 55 5 56 As can be seen from the data summarized above in Table 3 (and the computer printouts in Appendix A), minimum ambient noise levels never get below 55 dBA. This means that noise from the loudspeaker will be approximately 18 dB less than minimum ambient noise levels at the quietest hour of the morning. Noise levels from people ordering will be at least 10 dB below minimum ambient noise levels during the quietest hour of the morning. 4 Summa►v of Results The results of this analysis indicate that the noise levels generated by the drive -thru loudspeaker and people ordering at the drive -thru window at the east portion of the site will be between 10 and 18 dB below the minimum ambient at the quietest hour of the early morning. Noise levels from the restaurant are not likely to be a significant impact at the residential buildings to the north of the site on East Palm Avenue since they will be much less than those noise levels calculated in Table 2, and ambient noise levels will be approximately the same as those listed in Table 3. Noise levels from the restaurant are therefore not considered to be a significant noise impact at the residential buildings to the west and to the north of the proposed site. Bruce A. Uavy Davy & Associates, Inc. I.N.C.E. Board Certified 5 N A MArIOMAL 42.383 uavy JOB NO. �O PROJECT SHEET NO. � OF Associates Inc. siG�9G � a CALCULATED BY �� DATE Consulting Acoustical Engineers (213) 546 -3387 FREQ. HZ i 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 I i i I I I l I ! _ d P L e_c w aji ---+ 3-7 I ' I LIP L. Q'�3� I i I Say L i t Y1 e- j 2.0 Existing Restaurant Noise Levels -- Noise levels were measured on May 3, 1996 at an existing Carl's Jr. Restaurant on Century Boulevard in Inglewood, California. Some-noise was generated at this restaurant facility by cars operating in the restaurant parking lot. However, ambient noise levels due to traffic on Century Boulevard were the dominant noise source and cars operating in the restaurant parking lot were not a significant source of noise. The loudspeaker utilized for the drive -thru is on the north side of the restaurant away from Century Boulevard. Noise levels were audible in the parking lot when the loudspeaker was operated and when people were placing orders. The following noise measurements were made at a distance of 40 feet. Table 1 Measured Existing Carl's Jr. Restaurant Noise Levels in dB at 40 feet Noise Source Ambient Loudspeaker Unamplified Voice I• � 59 - 61 dBA 62-63 62-65 These measured noise levels were utilized to calculate noise levels at the west property line of the proposed site. Distance effects were included in this calculation. The preliminary site plan indicates that the drive -thru order location will be on the east end of the site fairly close to Sepulveda Boulevard. There will be acoustical shielding provided by the building itself as well as directionality effects of the loudspeaker that will be facing to the east towards Sepulveda Boulevard. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2 Calculated Drive Thru Noise Levels at the West Property Line Source Noise Level Loudspeaker 37 dBA Unamplified Voice 45 2 3.0 Ambient Noise Measurement Procedures and Results The site is located on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard just south of East Palm Avenue in El Segundo, California. Ambient noise data was collected from 6 p.m. on Thursday, December 8, 1994 to 6 p.m. on Friday, December 9, 1994 utilizing a Larson Davis Model 700 Sound Level Meter. The Larson Davis meter was programmed to collect data in 1 -hour increments. The Larson Davis Model 700 has its own internal clock, and the clock was set to the correct time and the run times were programmed. Following the monitoring, the Larson Davis unit was collected and the data was down loaded from the sound level meter to an IBM computer. The results of the ambient measurements are summarized on the enclosed computer printouts in Appendix A. The first column in the tabular data indicates the starting time of each measurement hour in 24 hour format. The second column is titled, "LVL ". This is the average noise level (LEQ) in each measurement hour. The LEQ is the energy averaged noise level during the measurement period. This is the noise level that would have the same acoustic energy as the time varying noise during the measurement interval. The columns titled "SEL, Lpk, Ex, Ek, and Ov" are not significant for this noise monitoring project. The minimum noise level (LMIN) and the maximum noise level (LMAX) are listed in the fourth and fifth columns. The last four columns give the L02, L08, L25, and L50 noise levels. These are the noise levels that are exceeded during each measurement hour for 2 %, 8 %, 25 %, and 50% of the time. These statistical levels correspond to the noise levels exceeded for 1 minute, 5 minutes, 15 minutes, and 30 minutes in each measurement hour. The restaurant will be in open on a 24 hour basis. Average LEQ ambient noise levels for all 24 hours are summarized in Table 3. 3 Table 3 — Ambient Noise Levels in dB Hour LE 6 a.m. 62 dBA 7 64 8 66 9 61 10 62 11 58 12 60 1 P.M. 61 2 60 3 62 4 62 5 66 6 60 7 61 8 61 9 58 10 60 11 60 12 a.m. 60 1 59 2 57 3 55 4 55 5 56 As can be seen from the data summarized above in Table 3 (and the computer printouts in Appendix A), minimum ambient noise levels never get below 55 dBA. This means that noise from the loudspeaker will be approximately 18 dB less than minimum ambient noise levels at the quietest hour of the morning. Noise levels from people ordering will be at least 10 dB below minimum ambient noise levels during the quietest hour of the morning. 4 Summary of Resul s The results of this analysis indicate that the noise levels generated by the drive -thru loudspeaker and people ordering at the drive -thru window at the east portion of the site will be between 10 and 18 dB below the minimum ambient at the quietest hour of the early morning. Noise levels from the restaurant are not likely to be a significant impact at the residential buildings to the north of the site on East Palm Avenue since they will be much less than those noise levels calculated in Table 2, and ambient noise levels will be approximately the same as those listed in Table 3. Noise levels from the restaurant are therefore not considered to be a significant noise impact at the residential buildings to the west and to the north of the proposed site. Bruce A. Davy Davy & Associates, Inc. I.N.C.E. Board Certified 4 N udvy 7 JOB NO. (O PROJECT C •" ' SHEET NO. OF _- CS Associates, Inc. s�G�9G _ CALCULATED BY DATE Consulting Acoustical Engineers (213) 546 -3387 FRED. HZ I 63 i 125 250 500 11 1000 2000 1 4000 8000 ! I I i I I SP i i I _ S P A -7 d ,3f1 � I I Wtn_.G— �'+— r�-it_ •iC �11C v C21f_J�' I I I �Ptv I I I - 1 o i � I I L • 4z- e of I I I i ; _ I � I � I � I i I Davy Associates, Inc. _ Consultants in ACOUStics 865 Manhattan Brach Boulevard Suite 202 • Manhattan Brach, CA 90266-4955 • Telephone.- (310) 5461 -3387 • FAX (310) 546 -3009 JN 96027 APPENDIX A AMBIENT NOISE MEASUREMENTS u/S CORP ELSEGL/NDO CAR WASH AMDIE}|T NOISE MEASUREMENTS STAPT TIME: 6:00 P.M. S70P TIME: 6:00 P.M. DATE DEC 9-9. 1994 WEFT P. LINE :477700' AE777� LARSEN-DAVIS LABORATORIES MCDEL 700 EN B107^ DATA 007M/ 004119 12/09/Sa 1G:31:0� D`z- 7 DE7 00710d 01:00 h:m 10 L EEL Lmin Lmax Lok Ex Pk Ov L02 L0G L25 L50 00^0 95.5 51.0 79.0 95.0 0 0 0 69.0 64.0 50.0 56.0 6�.5 06.0 50.5 7E.5 94.5 0 0 0 70.0 64.5 59.0 56.(, ZA17'''v! 10'7 q&,0 51'5 B1.5 96.5 0 0 0 69.0 64.0 59.5 56.0 50.5 B0.0 94.0 0 n 0 66.0 61.0 57,0 54'5 5i'u 76.5 91.0 0 0 0 68.5 63.5 5B,5 55,5 50.0 82.0 94.0 0 O 0 68.0 63.5 5E.0 54.5 4Q'5 84.0 98.5 0 0 0 67.0 62.0 57,0 53.0 4p.5 S0'0 94.0 0 0 () 69,5 62.5 55.5 5Z.0 07'5 4q'0 75'5 92.0 0 0 0 67.5 58.5 53.0 51.5 26'7 =0'0 40.0 76.0 89.5 0 0 0 63.5 54.5 52.0 5i'i:) 01'5 =0'0 4Q.5 79.0 94.0 0 0 V 59.0 55'0 53.0 5200 5:'}''`6} 5&'m 31'5 4P.5 7B.5 93.0 0 0 0 62.5 56'0 53,0 52.0 A:'''`'':«? 61'5 97.0 51.0 82.0 96.5 0 0 0 70.5 65'0 60.0 57,0 7:00:00 64.0 99.5 53.0 B1.5 97.0 O 0 0 72.0 68.0 63.0 60.5 P:00:00 66.0 101'5 52'5 90.0 103.5 0 0 0 73.0 69.0 65.0 62.0 9:00:00 60'5 98'0 49.5 80.0 94.0 0 0 0 69.0 64.0 55.0 56.0 10;0G;00 67'0 92'0 49.5 91'0 98.0 0 0 0 71.5 66.5 60.5 56,0 1Q:!q:5q 52.0 93.5 4B.5 79.5 93.5 0 0 0 66.0 61.0 57,0 54.0 11:5":75 6Q'0 Q5'5 49.0 Bq.0 103.0 0 0 0 67.5 61'5 56.5 53.5 12:59:54 61'0 96.5 45,0 BB.0 99.5 0 0 0 68.5 63.0 57.5 54.0 17'59:50 59.5 95.0 49.5 7B'5 94.5 0 U 0 67.5 63.5 58.0 55.0 1z:59:50 6j.5 97.0 50'5 85.5 100.5 0 0 {) 71.0 65.0 59.5 56.5 15:50:59 62'0 97.5 51.0 86.5 102.5 0 0 0 69.0 64.5 59.5 57.0 16:59:59 66.0 101'5 54.5 B4.5 99.5 O 0 0 74.0 69.5 65.0 61.5 17:59:59 61.0 52.0 61.0 61.0 77.0 0 {) 0 61.() 61.0 61.0 61.0 OVERALL LEQ. 61 - E WRFORATMN 7 LE� DA77: 17/S/W 7ROM FILE: JN74119 OW L1707I7N' WE77 PRCF. UME L E C Qu"= �1.0 C N E L 24 HCURLY SAMPLES 5 6 7 +------------------- + --------- + --------- + --------- + ......... �______-__ o o o � o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o �____-____+_________+_________+_________+_________+_________+_________+ 3 4 5 6 7 B 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C STATE OF CAuFo8NLA- 1IUSINESS AND TAAN."TATION AGENCY �«• �sOiMAO' DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - DISTRICT 7. 120 So. SPRING ST. LOS ANGELES. CA 90012-3606 TDD (213) 897-3610 February 25, 1997 IGR/CEQA/MND/ IS / #970202/CP Carl's Jr. Restaurant CUP -96 -3 Environmental Assessment EA -387 639 N. Sepulveda Blvd. - City of El Segundo Vic.: LA -01 -25.55 SCH# 97011072 Ms. Laurie Jester Department of Planning & Building Safety City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Ms. Jester: Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Carl's Jr. Restaurant project referenced above. The project includes construction of a 3,050 gross square foot fast food restaurant with a drive -thru. Caltrans is concerned that this project will create safety hazards and increased traffic. Based on our evaluation of the information received, we have the following.comments: a) Eastbound turns during P.M. peak period will create high potential for right angle collisions. This move is to be prohibited from 3 -7 P.M., Monday through Friday for safety reasons. b) The Northbound left turn lane may require lengthening to provide additional storage during mid -day peak period. A traffic flow diagram showing anticipated directional volumes will be needed to make this determination C) Caltrans Traffic Investigations has modified and prepared a 20 scale sketch showing needed mitigations. Please see attached sketch for your reference. Our review indicates a Caltrans Encroachment Permit is needed for this project. We recommend that the applicant submit an application along with six (6) sets of engineering plans (including grading) and two (2) sets of hydrology/hydraulics calculations to the Caltrans Permit Office for review. If you have any questions regarding this response please call me at (213) 897 -4429. Sincerely, STEPHEN J. BUSWELL IGR/CEQA Program Manager Transportation Planning Office cc: Chris Belsky State Clearinghouse f-k vc— " - 315-? Ac oL .51 m.e.i, o t %T i'e' C t ,I TWOS q 4 0! ii. 7ii111 a :1 m kV AWAVA4.0 I OL "" -j"03 4 n goviWav C 914lASIXI DAOWPO '200 J 7. 01 kol I 10 k9m OC m U) V�J 10 C, iI 9 ZVONW, < .0-.0 71 m ii 0 L,, .3ml owl _/ II > %-.VW-V i. 1-wt Vas :; "Is "Nau Como Ir .1 I CJAIJ cOQxo IWO rimaw AV N .003 bosmall a MIN .� , �� WW r, eq W4_ V_Zj do Zi Will % a Mbloo wo 9 aY ""a , tOlk, p AklUDAVA 11180-3 1 I-Ne gas Wo O31WWd 1011WA11 '0.- "918 nV.l-ZAlNO. j3wj A 110111 b9_1 V2 Valdw ? -04 Sao 0.yals 01 c w3vjj nam"Alloo Iwo 6. So. ..I ..A —0 MOO. G2lk?Wj 61112M Vvi Do gas 18AvUL jo k4v1 o"'Alvalo .0-4 . Silvis 9 :'0 q0 0000000 DO j Whi 1_� 0 whin Now low) grow: &"I AS, 4110.1 • 0 JAir 400 Novosomvi All 'VO .99 . 931*0111 GOV; 0144.0410 Vy.Cl 0 0 Yj wan Niv com S1V3S 68 0 090C I.ML cowl I*ur s:juyo, 4. low .09,70C M .9C.9S 60, .11w aJV1.a _C, hate Of Cariflomia . MAR - 60 TANOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET PETE WILSON SACRAMENTO 95814 GOVERNOR February 28, 1997 LAURIE JESTER CITY OF EL SEGUNDO 350 MAIN STREET EL SEGUNDO, CA 90245 pp• it? 0101* Subject: CARL'S JR. DRIVE -THRU RESTAURANT SCH #: 97011072 Dear LAURIE JESTER: LEE GRISSOM DIRECTOR The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight -digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief, State Clearinghouse Ve- 3jj/ _ .....u8stN1CLi0" Appendix F s. NOTESdo. 1 I Nast to. SUIC Clearinghouse. 1400 T - h StrceL Sacramento. CA 95814 916945-0613 scH s 1 1 1 0 7 2 project Title, Carl's Jr. ive -thru Restaurant Le dAgency: City of E1 Segundo Cesuapamm Laurie Jester soee Adams: 350 Main Street phone, (310) 322 -4670 X212 ci,y E1 Segundo. CA Zip: 90245 Count)" Los Angeles --------------------------------------- Proieet Location rouruy Los Angeles Ciry/Neaen Commumry. City of E1 Segundo crosssawo: Sepulveda Boulevard (State Highway 1) Total A.: 0. 86 AsseswrsPaedN.. 4139 -024 -013 _ Section: Twp. Rant.: Bac Wi,hm 2 Niles: Stue Hwy e; 1 Waterways: None A,,ns: LAX Railways :AT&SF Schooy.El Segundo Il:cih Sch ou ern Pacific Middle School 6 ----------------------------- Document Typo � e Jl t e r 1 =. =4mc nT bchoo s s St. CEOA: NOP �pp tho 's School ❑ ❑ Suppiement/Subsegttou NEPA: ❑ N01 Ottit�i: � Joan Qoeume,a ❑ Early Cons ❑ EIR (Prior SCH No.) ❑ F A ❑ Find Document Mitigated ®Net Dec ❑Other ❑Draft EIS ❑other ❑ Draft MR ❑ FONSI ----------------------------------------- Local Action Typo ❑ General Han Update ❑ Specific Plan ❑ Reanoe ❑ Annexation El General Hat Ameda as ❑ MWter Plan ❑ Pternne ❑ Redevelopment C General Han Eloren ❑ Plumed Unit Development K) Use Pennit ❑ Coastal Permit eommuntty Plan ❑Site Plan ❑ Lard Divorce (Subdivision. ❑ Other — Pace! Map. Tract Map. ego.) ----------------------- Devo/opment Typo ❑ Reade nuaL• Unus Acre ❑ water Facilities: Type MGD ❑ Office: SIA Aerer Emp/oyea ❑ Tr -- ® Conur=,.L• Sa jP.� 0 Acres-0. *Q Empbyera =— Mining: � Mineral ❑ Industrial: S9/1. Ac cr GLEV E pb)ws ❑ Power: Type Woos ❑ 6euuton- 13 W— Troutman: type ❑ i°eny ❑ Hau dnr West. Type ❑ other:_. ----------------------------------------- Project Issues Discussed In Document ® Ae the idVisual ❑ Flood PlairyFlooding ❑ sclnolfNtu w- ❑ Agricultural Land ❑ Faso LatdXere Hazard ❑ Quality ® Act Query ❑ Geob�ieJSeimtie Q Sepm S 'ry 1 ❑ W�tlarSup yrAvanarate ❑ Artimlo eal/Howncal ❑ Minerals ❑ Sea 1D ° 0 Wildlife �� ❑ D— Zoo ❑ Growth Inducing ❑ Econatd /lobe ws ® PopulnwmM°usini Be— t yaryp Noise ❑ Sa w ``--V ®FeoromtcJJob Q Public Sert wes/Faeifid. 99 r �s Y _ ®�� tJ ❑ Cctmslativa E1Geo I@ FIW41 ($ Reassuommarts ❑ v �ttiom s�' ❑ Other Present Land Use/Zonl -- — - - - -- ng/Gonsral Plan Use iC; \ General Commercial (C -3) Land Use Designati one - ---------------------------- project Description ---- - - - - -- Construction of a 3,050 gross square foot (approximate) Carl's Jr. fast food restaurant with a drive -thru, to be located on a .86 acre vacant parcel of land at the southwest cornet of Sepulveda Boulevard and Palm Avenue, at 639 N. Sepulveda Boulevard, in the General Commercial (C -3) Zone. Drive -thru restaurants require approval of a Conditional Use Permit in all commercial and industrial zones. State Clearinghouse Contact: Mr. Chris nelsky (916)445.0613 State Rc%iew Becan 1_. Ihpt Review to Acatp Agency Rev to SCH IS SCH COMPLIAKC'E Please note SCH Numhcr on all Comments 970 110 72 Please forward late comments directly to the Lead Agency AQMD:APCD 31 (Resources:/ Project Sent to the following State Agencies X Resources Boating Cnaslal Comm — -_ Coastal Coosv Colorado Rvr Bd _ Conservation X Fish & Game _ _ Delta Protection Forestry _T Puk�Rec/OHP _ Reclamation "CDC UW'R _ OES Bus Transp Ilous Aeronautics CHP Caltrans # Trans Planning tiousing & Dove[ Health & Welfare Drinking H2O Medical Waste StateiConsumer Svcs _ General Services Cal /VPA _ ARI) CA Waste Mgnn Bd SW'RCB: Grants SW'RCB: Delta _ SWRCB: Wir Quality SWRCH: W'tr Rights _ 7X - Reg. W'QC B i V UTSC CTc 9th /Adlt Corrections Corrections Independent Comm _ Energy Comm NAHC _ PLC _ Santa Mn Mots X State lands Comm _ Tahoe Rgl Plan Other: WASTEWATIN of CIAMAl10N FF625MIUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS fOIIC WASTE MANAGCYEM OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY 1955 Workman Mill Road, Whittier, CA 90601 -1400 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4998, Whittier, CA 90607.4998 Telephone: (310) 699 -7411, FAX: (310) 695 -6139 Mr. Bret B. Bernard City of El Segundo Department of Planning and Building Safety 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Mr. Bernard: CHARLES W. CARRY Cn:e� Engineer and General Alonage- February 20, 1997 File No: 05- 00.04 -00 Environmental Assessment No. 387 Conditional Use Permit No. 96 -3 The County Sanitation Districts of the Los Angeles County (Districts) received a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the subject project on January 30, 1997. We offer the following comment regarding sewerage service: • Wastewater generated by the proposed project will be treated by the City of Los Angeles Hyperion Treatment System. Questions regarding sewerage service for the proposed project should, therefore, be directed to the City of Los Angeles' Department of Public Works. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at (310) 699 -7411, extension 2717. Very truly yours, Charles W. Carry GL t- Marte L. Pagenkopp Engineering Technician Planning & Property Management Section MLP:eg 3 167 L \ WILLSERV \WPbMLETTERS \ENVIR387.LTR SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS February 20, 1997 Mr. Bret Bernard, AICP Director of Planning and Building Safety City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse #19700049 � ' �1 R v 1Lf 14101, F e, FEB 2 4 ' .-7 Main Office El Segundo Carl's Jr. Drive -thru Restaurant Mitigate Negative M West Seventh Street Declaration 12th Floor Dear Mr. Bernard: Los Angeles, California 90017.3435 We have reviewed the above referenced document and determined that it is not regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria. Therefore, the project does not warrant clearinghouse comments at this t (�t3) 236 t800 time. Should there be a change in the scope of the project, we would f (213) 236 -t825 appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time. www.scag.ca.gov A description of the project has been published in the February 15, 1997 Intergovernmental Review Report for public review and comment. 015cen: • P—dem Mnor Pro Terri Dick Keil, . Prim J"— • Fuit Vice Preuden, Supeeewr Yvonne Brathwaite liver. Lm Ang,l,s Counij Second vice President Mayor Bob Bar w, Cnl of Monroe, • Immediate Pau P—dem Sol-- Bob 6—er. R. —ode County of Imp"Wa Sam Sharp. Imperul Cuunn • D—d DhW.n. Fl Cenoo County of Lm Aot,1m Yvonne Braah —, Burk,, Lot Ang,l,s County • Richard Alucon. lus Angeles • Nichud Nnorre. Lm Angeles • EAmn .Muni. U„mond Bar •Bob Ruder. 4--, • George Mx. Bell • Hal Be—. Lm Angel. • Sue Rau", Glendora • -A— Br.ude. Lm Angela • Robert Brush. Rosemead • L... Chick. Ian Angeles - john C-1, , Camino, • Joe N —dunk. Redondo Mach Doug Drummond. Long Beach • John Fee— Lm Ang,ln • Mn1b.d Feuer. Loa Angel. - Kar1'n Foley. Calab+su• Ruth Galanw. Los Angel. • bleen Gi.em. Glendale • Jackie Goldberg. Lm Angele, •Garland Hudeman. Inglewood • %like Hernando,, Lo. Angeles • tiue Holden. Lo• Angeles • Abbe Ixnd, W- H.11, -ood • Bub., Mauna. Alhambra Wnd %lye.. Palmdale G..rge Nakano, T,,,,-c, • Itnny Cropeaa , Long Mach • R.—ce Prop. Pit. Rarer. • Muk Ridle, Thoma, Lm Angela • Richard 0.aord— lus Angel. • Alh,n Robl., South Gate • M.— Sher. Compton • Ray Stitch. MHfic —r • Rudy Ssoruu<h, Jut Ang,l,s • Joel Wachs, la Angel. Rita W,l—s. Lm Angel., • Judy Wright, Cluemont • Paul Zee. South Pavdena Cowry of orange: Muian Bergeson, Orange County • Ron Baca, Los Alamnm • M Bmoo. Buena Park • Jan Debay. N.wrt Mach • Richard Moon, Lake Form • Sandr. Genic, Cmu Mesa - Candace Haggard. San Clemente • Wally Lila, V Palma • Ber Perry. Brea Coraa,y or Rl,enide: Bob Bus.,. R —,,,d, County • Denis Drafter. Cahm.a • Dick Kelly. Palm Cesert • Ron L—dge, Rirenide • Roo lab—. Tnriecuh Country or Sm Bernardiaro: Lary Wallin. San Bernardino County • MII Alexander, Rancho Cucamonga • Jun Bagley. T—,y. a Patina Deirdre Morten. Colton • Wed Ehl,man, Fontana • Tom Mawr. Sn hernWiia • G,eeun Nonon- Perry, Charm Hills County of Y,rintra Judy Makeh. Wntura County Andrew Fox.Tbnusand Oaks • Sun Cady, Cururdb • John Milan. Snu Panda ® Primed w R,dW Paper 919, The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236 -1833 or Bill Boyd at (213) 236 -1960. Sincerely, Awe..".0 *.-2-, l°v VIVIANE DOCHE Manager, Intergovernmental Review VD:lj Rignt of Way Department PAC I F I C C] B E LL 100 West Alondra Boulevard, Room A207 Gardena. California 90248 FEB 2 4 '-7 A Pacific Telesis Company February 20, 1997 Bert B. Bernard, AICP Director of Planning and Building Safety City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 ENVIRONMENTAL PERIVIII CUP 96-3 Dear Mr. Bernard: This is with reference to your notice of Public Hearing, regarding the above referenced conditional use permit. Pacific Bell has reviewed the Notice of Public Hearing and has no facilities on the private property. Although, Pacific Bell has both underground and above ground facilities in the public property, just outside the proposed project area, see attached map. Pacific Bell will provide plans for service once plans and drawings are made available to US. If you have any questions, please call this office or our Engineer for the area, Mr. Manny Giatan on (310) 515 -4212. Thank you for notifying Pacific Bell. Sincerely, Gloria Munoz Right of Way Administrator (310) 515 -4001 GM Attachment EA3s7 _ T 1 1 � �6 ' •" is 1 r Ir YEA 4T �e Yo woo. - se• -- �- • •I30X �''at w a F ��i SEPULVEDA BLVD. \ I xs I E, / JJ T > r m c m f fnri2frv?ns Mare IF Ci SI' IIIAN ^� jQr'. 9I8C3 1 g «. _ rill, av 13 February 97� Qr Bret B. Berenard, AICP - Director of Planning and Building Safety City of El Segundo 350 Main Street El Segundo, CA 90245 Subject: Environmental Assessment EA -387, Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3 As the owner of the 4 -unit residential property located at 612 Illinois Court in El Segundo, I would like to go on record as being opposed to the building of a Carl's Jr. Restaurant with drive -thru at the proposed location, 639 N. Sepulveda Boulevard. There are a number of residential units on Illinois Court, especially those on the east side of the street, which will be adversely affected if this use is permitted. These units back up to the area where the restaurant would be built. The residents would thus be subjected to the inevitable noise from the drive -thru speaker, the noise from the drive -thru traffic, the pollution generated from idling engines, the odors from food waste in the dumpster, the attractive nuisance of the dumpster for transients and vermin, and the parking lot lighting late into the evening. This would significantly alter the environment from that which the residents currently enjoy. At present, except for some rather muted traffic noise from Sepulveda, it is very quiet after dark, and there are no bright lights nearby. The light and noises from the restaurant would have a significant impact because the source would be much closer, and the noises would be of a more distinct nature and therefore much more likely to disturb relaxation and /or sleep. Surely there must be other suitable developments for this parcel that would be just as profitable to the owner, and much less disturbing to the peace and quiet of the neighborhood. I will be out of town on the date of the hearing, so I hope to be heard through this letter. Sincerely, Jerome R. Hallberg P. O. Box 128 Manhattan Beactt, CA 90267 310- 376 -4839 �A� - rtn ---')e:--7 the need of a Right -turn Pocket at Sepulveda Blvd. Such a pocket has impact on the projects property location and drive. Also, there is an expected back -up from vehicles waiting to turn left from east bound Palm Ave. What a simplification it would be to CLOSE THE PALM AVE. DRIVE. Statistical data used in this letter was extracted from the subject document. Alternative o A Very Least Desireable Option - Close Palm Avenue Driveway Exit (maintain entrance) This least desireable option should be enforced to not allow a left turn or exit to the east from this explicit ENTRANCE only. A "pork chop" and other positive means restricting a westerly turn is needed, including enforcement. I currently find delivery trucks exiting from the Stick and Stein will proceed west in over 60% of the cases observed. Other Comments: o Hours of Operation Clarification is needed to understand the actual hours of intended operation. The Project Description states that the drive -thru is a 24 hour operation and the restaurant will operate at differing hours during the week. In the noise section on page 13 and 15, conflicting drive -thru hours are specified. Question: What are the actual hours of operation for the drive -thru and restaurant? What parameters were used in completing the noise analysis and impact evaluation on the neighborhood? As I am sure you will consider the foregoing comments carefully, My interest is to CLOSE THE PALM AVE. DRIVEWAY. Please let me know when it is possible to make comment to any other report on this EA and CUP. Sincerely, sv�avl�l - Frank W. Von Flue, P.E. Chair and Members of the Planning Commission 921 E. Walnut Ave. City of El Segundo El Segundo, CA. 350 Main Street 90245 El Segundo, CA. 90245 February 26, 1997 Gentlemen, Subject: Environmental Assessment EA -387, Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3 Carl's Jr. Drive -thru Restaurant Report of February 27 My name is Frank W. Von Flue, and I am the property owner of a four unit Apartment at 1624 E. Palm Ave., directly across from the Washington Street Park. This letter contains my comments to the subject project and addresses - surface traffic, traffic flow /congestion, safety and the hours of operation. First, your staff must be complimented on their analysis and summations in the subject report of February 27, 1997. Primary concerns regarding traffic, traffic flow and congestion are related to the Palm Ave. driveway and the potential impacts that could be generated by the proposed use. Increased vehicular traffic, neighborhood safety, and parking on Palm Ave. are serious issues for me and my tenants. o Close Palm Avenue Driveway This action is feasible. Emergency vehicle access can be provided. Undesireable traffic flow would be limited and a potentially difficult traffic situation at Sepulveda and Palm and along Palm Ave. would be avoided. If the Palm Ave. entrance is allowed, it would soon become an entry way for 40 foot trucks with trailers as the Sepulveda Blvd. drive would be found to be a difficult delivery access. Therefore, closing the Palm Ave. drive would require a needed re- thinking of the Sepulveda drive. Only one properly designed entrance /exit is needed. Check other Carl's Jr. locations. Emergency vehicle access requirements are valid, But, there are commonly applied and reasonable solutions to provide access with the closing of the Palm Ave. drive. Traffic is expected to increase from 800 trips per day to 1470 trips on Saturdays and 1450 trips on weekdays along Palm. This condition is intolerable for the nearby and surrounding neighborhoods. Another reason for closing the Palm Ave. drive is that approximately 30-40% of those vehicles exiting the site would illegally proceed west, as estimated by the City's Traffic Consultant. Elimination of the Palm Ave. drive would also avoid FEB 2 6 Jim & Cindy Van Patten 1629 E. Palm #6 El Segundo CA 90245 City of El Segundo Planning Commission 350 Main Street El Segundo CA 90245 This is in reference to the planned Carl's Jr. restaurant at Sepulveda & Palm. I would like to make it known that we are not opposed to the restaurant, however, we ARE OPPOSED TO THE PLANNED ENTRANCE/EXIT ON EAST PALM. We have enough traffic at the present time, and do not need any additional traffic coming down our street to enter the restaurant or to exit from the restaurant. There are a lot of children living on East Palm, and to have more traffic would not be in the best interests of the community. It seems that you could have both an entrance & exit on Sepulveda, all cars can enter the restaurant from Sepulveda and exit on Sepulveda. This would be a logical compromise and keep everyone satisfied. We have lived at this address for the past 5 years, and we will be glad to get rid of that unsightly empty lot on the corner, we think the restaurant will be an improvement, but PLEASE DO NOT PUT AN ENTRANCE/EXIT ON OUR STREET. Thank you. c Jim Van Patten cP� roc 70 /Lt� c Zn) , g ,c- ;,� 2- 27 —,'T - FEB 21 }4ezz-4 ,c,) A� vt 4/.,;4 - 7731V February 27, 1997 City of El Segundo Planning Commission 350 Main St. El Segundo, CA 90245 Re: Granting Carl's Jr. a Permit to add a 24 hr. Drive Through Fast Food Gentlemen: I would like to express my disappointment regarding the issue of the way the traffic will be handled when Carl's Jr. opens its doors to the public. So far, I have heard that a "no left turn sign" will be posted on the South side of the Palm Avenue exit. I belief that our main concern in deciding whether to block or divert traffic in our sub - standard E. Palm Avenue should be THE SAFETY AND WELLBEING OF OUR CHILDREN. Also, have your heard the saying: AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION IS WORTH A POUND OF CURE? All of my neighbors have expressed concern regarding the added traffic to our street. Some are just giving up and moving or selling their condos. Let us pretend that maybe we the residents (at the east blocks of Palm Avenue) in your opinion are overreacting regarding this issue. My question to you and the police department is : If an unfortunate accident happens to one of our children (God forbid) how do you think one of us would feel about suing the responsible parties? (I don't even know who the responsible party would be - -I am not a sue -crazy person). Our city does not need to put itself in that predicament. I am opposed to a 24 hr. drive through (I won't go into details on why the 24 hr. drive through is a terrible idea in hopes that others will take that issue tonight). and posting a "no left turn" sign. Please take into consideration my concerns. Also, consider the anxiety it would create to us, the residents, living adjacent to this proposed fast -food restaurant without adequate safety measures taken on our behalf. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, E- ?ici&aR44V0a` Duyn 1624 E. Palm Avenue, Apt. C, El Segundo, CA 90245 F* ? I r, �x- Cam- 3 c6 7 February 27, 1997 City Hall, El Segundo Planning Commission Re: Carl's Jr. I am a resident on Palm Street in opposition of the development of a Carl's Jr. on the corner of Palm and Sepulveda. My biggest concern is that there are two parks located on the north and south sides of Palm. These parks are used throughout the day by many people, mostly children. Allowing the additional cars from Carl's Jr. to have access to Palm coming from the east will increase traffic. This traffic adds potential danger to children, pedestrians, and residents in the area. The city of El Segundo is reputable for its safety and security; one of the very reasons I wanted to become a resident. I would hate to think that the welfare of El Segundo residents is becoming an insignificant matter. I strongly suggest blocking Palm, preventing westbound cars from entering the residential area. This will maintain the safety of residents who are in constant threat of unnecessary traffic, because their street is in close proximity of a major boulevard, like ours. In regards to the latest update of a 24 -hour drive- through, I believe there should be a cutoff time of 9 pm or earlier. Most residents are in their homes in search of peace and quiet, away from noise pollution. A round - the -clock drive- through located so closely to residents is unreasonable. The many disturbing elements that could result from the development of Carl's Jr. at this location is enough reason to question permissibility. Please consider my letter of concerns, as well as others, in preserving our city. Thank you. Sincerely, 161 Wft v-'- W1,�:5— Sharon Hunt 1622 E. Palm Ave. #C El Segundo, CA 90245 �NM 4 � z q AV IF v`g �41f ,t,°,{,g ✓ "-.. l 1�� 6_.Ym�<""t �4:�� +,°�,.U� d:i P+.�'�i'F.P:. ':��F{y�c i N5, Y j +!F �-Iv .4�'�y � i {'M ''i� � a• p S�z �� i H �ty4yd��.�� MINUTES Or E REGULAR MEETING OF THE P,,ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA February 27, 1997 Chairman Robert Yeagley called the regular meeting of the El Segundo Planning CALL TO ORDER Commission to order at 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the City of El Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California. Commissioner Palmer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PLEDGE TO FLAG PRESENT: Wycoff, Palmer, Boulgarides, Yeagley. ABSENT: Crowley (excused). ROLL CALL Chairman Yeagley apologized to the public and all present at the meeting for the inconvenience with the power outage. Director Bernard presented the minutes of the January 23rd and 30th, 1997 meetings. CONSENT Commissioner Palmer stated on Page 7, 5th paragraph, last sentence, of the January 23 CALENDAR minutes it should read "restrict gas stations being on the east side of Sepulveda." Chairman Yeagley stated on the January 30 minutes, Page 2, the statement "Chairman Yeagley asked how a truck drives up a steep 48 inch climb to pull into the ground level door with a forklift?" should be deleted, since it was out of context. Also on Page 3, 5th paragraph down, the word "ambiguous" should be "arbitrary." Commissioner Boulgarides moved to accept the minutes of January 23 and 30, 1997. Commissioner Palmer seconded. Passed 4 -0. Director Bernard stated the Draft Resolution for Carl's Jr. was supplied in the WRITTEN supplemental distribution. Also, there are six letters from nearby property owners COMMUNICATIONS included. Director Bernard stated that the Commission should open the hearing and consider a motion. The Agenda was changed and New Business was presented first on Environmental NEW BUSINESS Assessment EA -387, Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3, Applicant: CKE Restaurants, EA -387 Inc. (Carl's Jr.), Property Owner: N/S Express, Inc., Mr. Tom Ennis. Commissioner Wycoff was excused due to a conflict of interest, being his property is too close to the property involved. Chairman Yeagley apologized to the applicant and public for the power outage. In all fairness, the meeting should be postponed to the next regularly scheduled meeting of March 27, 1997. Chairman Yeagley will not be available for the meeting of March 6, the Planners Institute is on March 13, and Commissioner Boulgarides has a conflict on March 20. Commissioner Boulgarides moved to postpone the meeting to March 27, 1997 and continue the public hearing to that date, and Commissioner Palmer seconded. Passed 3 -0. Director Bernard suggested waiving reading the Staff Report at this time. Chairman Yeagley suggested to the public that anyone who cannot attend the March 27 PUBLIC meeting should speak this evening and it will be recorded and read on the 27th. COMMENTS Carl Leon, 1630 E. Palm Avenue #6, El Segundo Allowing traffic from the project onto Palm Avenue will be a real problem. The neighbors find this totally unacceptable. There is a park down the road with a lot of children. Also, having a 24 -hour operation is totally unacceptable. He has called the police many times regarding the Hacienda Hotel. Their parking lot is filled with cars of people going to the airport for weeks at a time and the alarms go off. At two in the morning, about 70% of the people who go to a drive -thru to get fast food have taken an alcoholic drink. Years ago when he first came to this country, he used to do this too, but he does not drink and drive anymore. People going through the drive - thru's are drinking, blowing their homs, laughing, singing, their radios are blaring, and so forth. This is not acceptable. He will not be here on the 27th; it will be Easter and he is going to Washington D.C. He wanted to present some of his thoughts in hopes the Commission will come to the right decision. Liz Garnholz, 442 Whiting Street, El Segundo 2- 27min.PC She will be back on the 27th. U the General Plan Consistency, Item 2 n 'es conformance with the Zoning Code and CEQA and requires buffers between resioential and non - residential areas. When she comes back on the 27th, she would like very defined buffers. Sheri Long, 755 Washington Street, El Segundo They just moved to El Segundo last year, buying a home. The reason they bought here was that they were told that this City puts its children first. She feels that having an entrance onto Palm will increase the traffic a lot. Living on the comer of Oak and Washington, they have a problem as it is with cars running the stop sign. There is a park entrance there and the cars don't look at this entrance. They look to see if there are cars coming in the other direction, so they run that stop sign. She feels increased traffic increases chances of children being hurt. She is a mother of two young children, and is very concerned about the traffic and trash being thrown in the park. People who live in the City are aware of this so they pick up after themselves. In general, people that don't live in the City don't care as much. When she was at a meeting a couple of months ago, she heard someone say they would promise they will pick up their trash, but talk is cheap. Sheila Argibeck, 1692 East Palm Avenue, El Segundo She doesn't want Carl's Jr. there. She doesn't want the traffic and a 24 -hour drive thru. She doesn't want customers getting their hamburgers and going to the park across from where she lives at 2:00 or 4:00 in the morning. They had a problem last year with people drinking right behind their apartment house at 12:00 and 1:00 in the morning. Now they may have to deal with people eating their hamburgers, talking loud, and drinking. She doesn't need it nor do her neighbors. She will be back on the 27th. Chairman Yeagley reminded everyone that he opened the public hearing for those who cannot make it on the 27th. Chris Pingle, Woody's Smorgasbord He will return on the 27th. Chairman Yeagley again moved to continue the public hearing to March 27, 1997. MOTION Commissioner Palmer seconded. Passed 3 -0. Ms. Jester stated they will send out notices to everybody within the 300 foot radius, as well as everybody that has submitted letters and petitions and they will put in the paper. Commissioner Wycoff returned to the dial. Commissioner Boulgarides moved to continue the other two items on the Agenda to their MOTION special meeting of March 6, 1997. Commissioner Wycoff seconded. Passed 4 -0. Director Bernard noted they are still looking forward to meeting with a limited number of REPORT FROM Commissioners in Monterey on the 13th. Regretfully, both Chairman Yeagley and THE DIRECTOR Commissioner Boulgarides cannot attend, but the Commissioners who will attend look forward to learning what they can and bringing back as much material as possible to the two Commissioners who cannot attend. Commissioner Boulgarides asked the City Attorney if a traffic sign posted on private COMMENTS FROM property has the same legal weight as on a public right -of -way? Can a person be cited? THE COMMISSION Ms. Jester stated the Public Works Department has recommended that a sign be put in the public right -of -way across the street from Carl's Jr. and this would take care of this issue. It is in the memo as well as in the Resolution. Director Bernard stated there is a necessity for a quorum, which is 3 of the 5 members, and the next opportunity is on March 27. Ms. Jester stated they have distributed a memo to the Commission to keep their packets which include everything needed for the 6th and 27th. Tomorrow they will be distributing the packet for the 6th and all it will have is a new set of minutes. There being no further discussion, Commissioner Boulgarides moved to adjourn the ADJOURNMENT meeting at 7:45 p.m. to the special meeting of the 6th. Commissioner Palmer seconded. Passed 4 -0. The next El Segundo Planning Commission meeting will be a special meeting on Thursday, March 6, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. 2- 27min.PC 2 PASSED AND APPROVED ON IS 6th DAY OF MARCH, 1997. Bret B. ern rd, ICP Director of anni and R e Yeagley Ch irm of the P mt oms on Building Safety, and Secretary City of El Segundo, of the Planning Commission California City of El Segundo, California 2- 27min.PC MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA March 27, 1997 Chairman Yeagley called the regular meeting of the El Segundo Planning Commission to order at 7:50 P.M. in the Council Chamber of the City of El Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California. PRESENT: WYCOFF, PALMER, CROWLEY, BOULGARIDES, YEAGLEY Director Bernard stated a letter from Tom Pingle from Woody's Restaurant regarding the proposed Carl's Jr. has been received today. Secondly, a letter has also been received today from the Boudreau Family regarding the proposed Carl's Jr. Vice - Chairman Crowley and Commissioner Wycoff informed the Commission that they will not be participating in this discussion because of a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Jester presented the Staff Report as outlined in the Agenda packet. In addition to the Resolution, Staff recommends adding one more condition of approval (number 34) to address hours of delivery which would be limited to 9:00 to 11:00 am and 2:00 to 4:30 pm to minimize impacts during the peak hours. Commissioner Boulgarides asked for clarification regarding the $29,200 over 5 years - is this about $6,000 per year? Ms. Jester stated that this was correct after the cost for City services was deducted. Commissioner Palmer asked if there had been any applicant/citizen meetings? Director Bernard stated that he believes there have been meetings between the applicant and citizens, but it would be appropriate for the applicant to address this question. Lorenzo Reyes, CKE, Inc., 4999 Anaheim, California Mr. Reyes stated that Carl's Jr. has been a leader in the fast -food industry for a number of years. The site was attractive because of the high volume of traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard. CKE chose to orient the building to the northwest comer of the site in order to make this a workable site. One main issue being raised relates to Palm Avenue traffic. Mr. Reyes states that the volume of traffic on Palm Avenue will be below the allowable amount, and the people utilizing Palm Avenue access will be the residents of El Segundo. He would like to see stricter Police enforcement, speed bumps, and lowering of the speed limit west of the Carl's Jr. site. CKE is looking for the on -site circulation that comes in from Sepulveda Boulevard and is able to exit onto Palm Avenue. The `porkchop' method would be utilized for a right turn only driveway. From a site - design standpoint there is nothing CKE could do and still maintain that drive. From a layout standpoint they are exceeding the landscape requirement. Thirty percent of the site will be landscaped. Carl's Jr. does not abut the adjacent residential area. The issue of yard lights will have no effect on the adjacent condominum project to the west of the project site. There is over 90 feet from the light source to the adjacent condominums. Mr. Reyes feels that the $80,000 traffic fee is to address the types of traffic concerns that face the Carl's Jr. site and Palm Avenue. Based on the Acoustical Study, the noise generated by the restaurant is 17 decibles below the ambient, with the drive -thru in full operation, at the quietest hour of the morning. Mr. Reyes stated that the drive -thru will 03- 27min.pc CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS EA -387, CUP 96 -3, CARL'S JR. DRIVE - THRU RESTAURANT not operate 24 -hours a day unless there is a need to do so. Carl's Jr. would like to have the same closing time as the Stick -n- Stein. Mr. Reyes and CKE do not see any forseeable problems relating to traffic, lighting, and noise level. Chairman Yeagley asked Mr. Reyes why CKE utilized the northeast corner vs. the southeast corner. Mr. Reyes stated that access was the reason for utilizing the northeast corner. From a design standpoint, you want the drive -way as far away from the intersection as possible. Commissioner Boulgarides asked Mr. Reyes if CKE has ever opened a restaurant without a drive -thru? Mr. Reyes stated that this would happen only in a mall situation. Commissioner Boulgarides asked how much revenue was generated from the drive - thru? Mr. Reyes stated that about 20-40% of the income is generated by the drive -thru. Shiela Archiback,1622 East Palm Avenue Ms. Archiback lives in the last apartment on Palm Avenue closest to the park. She does not want a fast food/drive -thru restaurant on the corner. Her concerns are with the traffic issues and the hours of operation. She believes that people will be eating their hamburgers in the park and bothering the tenants who live closest to the park. Lottie Gillig, 1637 East Palm Avenue Ms. Gillig stated that El Segundo does not need a Carl's Jr. drive -thru restaurant. She is concerned about traffic, noise, crime, a decrease in property value, air quality (pollution) and what will happen to the already established restaurants in town. She also believes that there will be insufficient parking on -site. Ms Gillig would like to see the lot re- zoned. There are too many residents for the current zoning. Gert Veagley, Mariposa Avenue Ms. Veagley's concerns are related to traffic. She believes there is too much traffic on Mariposa Avenue already. Rick Henn, 1445 East Palm Avenue Mr. Henn is not opposed to Carl's Jr., but has some concerns about how it will affect his property. He believes that the increased traffic on the street will decrease the value of his property and is concerned about the numerous children that live on the block. Mr. Henn feels that some of the mitigation measures may work. Chris Pingle, Woody's Mr. Pingle opposes the Carl's Jr. project because his restaurant has never been able to put in a drive -thru. Secondly, he believes that it will be unfair competition to those who have only a carry-out business. Mr. Pingle believes that the services in El Segundo are very adequate, but the addition of the Carl's Jr. drive -thru could hurt not only the businesses on Sepulveda Boulevard, but also those businesses in downtown who are hurting for business already. Elaine Rock, 1600 East Palm Avenue Ms. Rock is opposed to the Carl's Jr. project and she stated that the negatives outweigh the positives. It is clear to her that noise and traffic levels will increase and that property values will decrease. 03- 27min.pc 2 Penny Kerkes, 1564 East Palm Avenue Ms. Kerkes is not opposed to the Carl's Jr. project. Her main concern is with the safety of the children. Ms. Kerkes believes that Palm Avenue cannot handle any additional traffic on the street. Mitch Green, 1560 East Palm Avenue Mr. Green is shocked that the Carl's Jr. project will not generate more revenue for the City and believes that a better revenue - generating project can be used for that site. He is also concerned about the safety of the children. Mr. Green is opposed to the project, but if approved he would like to see the Commission use Option 1 which prohibits exiting or entering on Palm Avenue. Jim Laskey, 1524 East Palm Avenue Mr. Laskey's biggest concern is related to the traffic and the safety of the children on the street. If approved, Mr. Laskey would like to see traffic Option 1 adopted to keep cars from the residential area. Peggy Turrel, Oak Street Ms. Turrel stated she would not like a fast food restaurant but a nicer dining establishment. David Steele, El Segundo Chamber of Commerce Mr. Steele stated the Chamber voted to endorse the Carl's Jr. proposal because it is permitted by right of zone with a Conditional Use Permit for the drive -thru, CKE has been willing to work with the community, and CKE has been a corporate good citizen according to other communities. Liz Garnholz, 442 Whiting Street Ms. Garnholz stated she is against the drive -thru. She believes that the noise will be detrimental to the overall area, health, welfare and safety and is materially injurious to surrounding properties. The noise, smell, trash and traffic will impact the property value. Ms. Garnholz views the park as going downhill and does not want Washington Park to become a fearful place. Tom Pingle, Woody's, Return Mr. Pingle stated he is against the Carl's Jr. project. Ron Swanson, S &S Hardware, 629 California Street Mr. Swanson stated not everything in this world was fair - competition is competition. As far as he knows, the parcel in question has been vacant for many years, and those people who bought property next to the parcel on Palm Avenue knew that the possibility existed for the parcel to be developed. Mr. Swanson stated that we have invited these developers to develop in the City through our Economic Development program - business pays for the services in this town. If this is a viable project, the Commission should proceed with approval. 03- 27min.pc 3 Richard Garland, Stevens, Garland Associates Mr. Garland's firm conducted the Traffic Analysis for this project. Mr. Garland clarified the 600 number reflects the traffic between the driveway of Carl's Jr. and Sepulveda Boulevard. It is estimated that 100 cars per day would use the section of Palm Avenue between the Carl's Jr. driveway and Washington Street. Only 30 cars per day west of Washington Street is estimated. The increase in traffic is not as devastating as it seems. Mr. Reyes, Return Mr. Reyes stated CKE will employ 30-40 people at this establishment and these would be local residents. CKE is a good neighbor and is concerned with youth and senior groups. In answer to Commissioner Palmer's question, CKE has met with local business groups and the local Homeowner group chaired by Willard Krick. Liz Garnholz, Return Ms. Gamholz stated she is concerned with parking for the customers and employees. Mr. Reyes stated that the employees cover all shifts. The City Parking Code takes into consideration employee parking. Chairman Yeagley stated the parking issues were addressed in the traffic mitigation and documented in the paperwork provided. Commissioner Boulgarides moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Palmer MOTION seconded. Passed 3 -0 Commissioner Boulgarides would like to congratulate those who came to voice their opinion and stated that the Commission likes to hear what the public has to say regarding any issue. Commissioner Boulgarides moved to deny the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner MOTION Palmer seconded. Commissioner Palmer gave high marks to Staff and the applicant for all of the hard DISCUSSION work. The Commission decided that drive -thrus are not something that El Segundo should encourage. Chairman Yeagley stated the discussion is moving too quickly. He believes the residents stated that they did not point out the issues for why they don't want a drive - thru - they want something upscale. Carl's Jr. can be there by right of zone. Chairman Yeagley stated that Carl's Jr. has worked with the residents on the traffic issues. The issue of an adequate fence around Washington Park is not a newly raised concern. There has never been an adequate fence there. He does not believe in denying a property owner a right to put a viable business on his property. Commissioner Boulgarides stated he heard several concerns relating to traffic and this could impact the quality of life. He does not believe that El Segundo is a "pit stop" for commuters. Drive -thrus will impact residential areas on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard. The traffic created will be a problem and affect the property value of surrounding residential areas. Commissioner Boulgarides believes that a better use for this land can be found. 03- 27min.pc 4 Director Bernard stated a Conditional Use Permit is before the Commission. There are three purposes for a CUP as well as three findings that are required to be made by the Commission, and he suggested that the previous motion be amended. Commissioner Boulgarides amended his previous motion and instructed Staff to bring back a Resolution denying a Conditional Use Permit on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of El Segundo or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Passed 2 -1. Director Bernard stated Staff will draft a Resolution and bring it back to the April 10, 1997 meeting. Ms. Jester and Mr. Altmayer stated a ten day appeal period will start from the date the Resolution is addressed by the body. If approved on April 10, it will be from that date. Director Bernard stated a revised Departmental Approved Projects Activity List has been distributed to the Commission. Commissioner Palmer thanked the City and the Planning Department for coordinating COMMISSIONER'S the trip to Monterey. She submitted three tapes from this meeting to the Planning COMMENTS Division and would like a copy of them. Commissioner Crowley also stated the conference was good. He appreciated the validation he received from the conference. Staff is doing a good job and the Commission is keeping on top of things. Commissioner Boulgarides asked if the Commission would be receiving the second quarter's packet for Zone Text Amendments. Ms. Jester stated that it would be distributed and these will be discussed at the April 24, 1997 meeting. There being no further discussion, Commissioner Boulgarides moved to adjourn the ADJOURNMENT meeting at 10:00 pm and Vice -chair Crowley seconded. The next El Segundo Planning Commission Meeting will be on Thursday, April 10, 1997 at 7:00 pm. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 10th DAY OF APRIL, 1997. Bret B. Berparq, AICP Director oyPlyfining t Building Safety, and,Secretary of the Planning Commission City of El Segundo, Calfiornia Robert Yeagley, Chairman of the Planning Commission City of El Segundo, California 03- 27min.pc 5 Mr. Bob Yeagley Commissioner El Segundo Planning Commission El Segundo City Hall El Segundo, CA 90245 To Be Read In Entirety At Planning Commission Public Hearing on February 27, 1997 by FEB 2 7 Annette Latshaw 1547 East Palm Ave El Segundo, CA 90245 Mr. Bob Yeagley Commissioner El Segundo Planning Commission El Segundo City Hall El Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Commissioner Yeagley, February 25, 1997 A business trip to San Francisco has prevented me from attending the public hearing. I currently reside at 1547 East Palm Ave in El Segundo. I have followed with great interest the proposed development of a CARL'S JR. fast food restaurant on the northwest corner of Palm and Sepulveda Blvd. in El Segundo. My home is located a short distance away from this proposed development; I have lived at this location for more than ten years. Like many of my neighbors, I was attracted to this area because of the adjacent parks and absence of traffic. This area has remained a safe environment for our children due to a large part because our neighborhood has had no visibility to the 60,000 daily vehicle trips down Sepulveda Blvd. Palm Avenue is a sub- standard street - a very narrow street designed to serve only the local residents. There are parks on either side of the street to accommodate the local residents. Many, many small children live on Palm Avenue and play in these parks. When cars are parked on the street, there is barely enough street left for two way traffic. I am concerned about the increase flow of traffic that would result from the restaurant as it pertains to the safety of the local inhabitants and children. I am concerned about the narrowness of the street unable to support any growth in vehicular trips. And I am concerned about the increased introduction of non-El Segundo residents to the parks where our small children play and the possible jeopardy of their safety. I am very interested in seeing El Segundo attract more business - to grow and to prosper. The city must have a growing base to maintain a strong fiscal solvency. I think that it is incumbent upon the planning commission to balance the concerns of both points of view and try its utmost to achieve a mutually beneficial resolution. The local residents have signed a petition asking the commission to mitigate future traffic by installing a barrier along Palm Avenue. At the very least we need to prevent left -hand turns from the CARL'S JR. exit on to Palm Avenue by a curbed concrete structure. A "No Left Turn" sign at this exit will not suffice. I hope that these concerns will be given meaningful consideration in the review of the CARL'S JR. project. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. Sincerely, awu� s Annette Latshaw 3/27/97 To: El Segundo Planning Comm. Re: Carl's Jr. on Sepulveda /Palm We are the Boudreau Family at 1543 E. Palm Ave. It is felt by us that a Drive- Thru exiting on East Palm Ave. will create a danger to our children. We are sure the resturant does not intend to cause harm, but it is hard to regulate the driving habits of patrons. Therefore, we are against any kind of driveway on the Palm Ave. side. Thank You xare V Er Jea V111 Ui*BOUZLrea.W T1 \.At—, fo�pr - 3 1b ? CITY OF EL SEGUNDO INTER - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DATE: February 27, 1997 TO: File Environmental Assessment EA -387 Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3 FROM: Tamara Mann, Office Assistant SUBJECT: Carl's JR Restaurant I took a PHONE CALL from Joann Moor on Thursday, February 27th at approximately 10:15 AM. She lives at 1628 E. Palm Ave. and wanted to voice her concern over the Carl's Jr. Restaurant. She told me she was unable to attend the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for tonight and also was unable to write a letter and bring it in before the meeting. She is in opposition to a 24 hour Drive Thru Carl's Jr but in favor of a Drive Thru which would close at 9pm or IOpm at night. She said she is upset about the planned entrance of the Carl's Jr and is in favor of a right turn only exit. cc: Planning Commission Bret Bernard Tom Altmayer Laurie Jester t -,IQ <J� '. WOODY' S BROILER 18726 Western Ave. #206, Gardena, Ca. 90248 * 310 -523 -3494 * fax 310- 523 -4569 March 26, 1997 MAR 2 7 To the El Segundo City Council Members, 1 �J I am writing to show my deep concern on the Carl's Jr. proposal. My concerns along with many others are fair competition, safety to the community and the general welfare of the community. Being a prominent businessman in the community, I have been approached by numerous other restaurant propietors in the area along with a large number of residents in this area. All of them extremely upset about the possibility of a large chain restaurant in our own backyard. Therefore, I am not only speaking for myself but for the community as a whole. Since my family and its business has been here longer than most (since 1963), 1 was asked to submit a letter and perhaps speak at the hearing. Woody's Smorgasburger open its doors in 1963. We gave the community a chance when the big chains said there wasn't enough people in this small community to be worth their while. We knew since this was a family oriented business, the community would accept us. Sure enough it did! The community is one of a kind. Where else does the manager of a restaurant get asked to be a guest speaker for a class of third graders at Center Street School! One reason we are successful is because we give back to the community. We sponsor them all - soccor, baseball, football and hockey for boys and girls. We also serve St. Anthony's Catholic School hot lunch at a price where we're really not making money, but we do it as a service for the children. We also participate in many functions at El Segundo High School, donating numerous gift certificates etc. Just today, we donated dinner for four to their Senior Tea. We also participate in the community scrip program and the El Segundo Eagle Card. We have also supported and participated in the El Segundo Chamber of Commerce. Even when aerospace chose to leave El Segundo and there were not enough cutomers to stay open, we chose to tough it out - believing in the community. Believing the community still deserved to have a family establishment where they could have their childrens birthdays and team parties. This attitude exemplifies the attitude of this community. Page 2 We believe, along with numerous other restaurants in this area, that allowing a restaurant with a drive -thru would be allowing unfair competition. This city would not allow other restaurants to put a drive -thru in. In 1987, we looked into opening an El Polio Loco at that exact location but were told we could not put in a drive -thru so we did not pursue the idea further. We had also asked if we could reconstruct our building to allow for a drive -thru, again we were told numerous times that El Segundo does not allow drive - thrus. We are not that type of fast paced community they said. Other businesses that have come into the area such as El Polio Loco and the Green Burrito I'm sure would have put in drive -thrus had they been allowed. Some restaurants would not have come into this community if they'd known drive - thrus would be allowed in the future. I just want to let you know that I have spoken with an attorney and the lawfirm agrees that we have an excellent case aginst the city. I'll say this much, if this project is allowed to go through, I will be the first one to file a suit and I will also organize all the businesses in the area to file a joint suit against the city. This project would hurt all the restaurants in the area and perhaps even cause some of them to close their doors. This could potentially cost a lot of people their jobs. This is why not only will a lawsuit be filed against the City but the restaurants -will actively go out and find new council members to run against those who vote it in. We will support our candidates with the funds needed to takes the seats. We are also concerned about the traffic on Palm and in the general area. Many residents in the area have expressed great anger over this. They are concerned about the safety of their children. If families stop using the park that means that less people will be up this way, a lot of whom buy lunch to take to the park or come in to relax afterwords. Many residents have already told me they will vote for other councilmen who stand with the community. I've been told I can count on them to help get new councilmen elected if this goes through. I think the number of residents who are against this is astounding. As council members you have an obligation to the children and the people of this community. You said a car wash which closes at dusk was too much. Then allow Carl's Jr. with a drive -thru that wants to be open 24 hours - that's hypocritical! You can be assured that Carl's Jr. knows there is not enough business in El Segundo at night to be open 24 hours. It has asked for this only as a ploy to appear compromising when they will suggest Page 3 that they close at 11:00 pm. I can assure you they have no intentions of staying open 24 hours. Don't be fooled into big companies tricks or slick ways to appear compromising. They don't care about this communty at all - only dollars and cents. At the meeting let's take a look at them when people are speaking their concerns. Just like last time, they will be there with their high profile laywers - hair slicked back, smiling and shaking their heads, knowing that money talks in most places. It is your job to tell them the community comes first. Please don't make a mistake that will drastically hurt and change this community. Respectfully submitted, Thomas C. Pin &l Woody's Broiler FROM 710 1340 9762 STEUENS GARLAND OCT. 11.95 8 :16AM F.001 S.. T, E fc � t , i _ rt y •r _ r i f. Y .C�IATS, October 9, 1996 Pow4rFwrwie -767a tic Jerry Grabill ; x' R I h' PhOM r ` Hartzog.& Crabill , I M. k F ' 275 Cemennial way; Sic 7.08.r f f Tustin, CA 92680:;: r L `44 Subject: Carl's Jr Tragic k' tie- �. �` .t t, ". °. • .. Mr. Crsblll. in response to' your L Cr to Laiutie:j� - 'at AM-'., , , { :Y W the j ass*vb 06r the proposed Carl's Jr. at vada 13oiii�var�d4nd• -Pdo i'A i w #b ub>mlf t •inllowing clarifications. - 1. With regard to-t f l c: t1 ' "" th'b6isi i` epulveda assumed rtlfdfgp ,. ajpg' ; stteti> S Boulevard, the on - ginaloct u[d�t;?6 ve)�idtr'§ b�: tm�itiigiedk ',�'almlkveiiue�dparia�g the PM peak hour. 'Ilu'volttme tgssefoots;� passg''i9 f the 191aew trips, it r had been assumed ' `. that5 carne �irc#rtt v�iia r.+ >dtf :,vtaiute �titl that 4 wme. from Mariposa cast of SepaiOda, as afiact�l-on -, i :5rdMe �i►n'8iiial �eport.•''l ocause of-616. left, restriction during the peakpeFtaft4e Sep L eds > i tl�CtSac is n;:dlG�i ;ttwa'.triFis rivers with the • reassigned asido�rt on t�'i�''�''o Rreul�d�e 1Vianpde$�' 3�3'tm�a$;�(CapprbaCh routs and that 50 °,b wcii d trtvclpast site and MWie a °[,fi -'tomat ip[e i ua: `'i'jii5 ticsults in 10 vehicles Ong the Madpwa•Muting�g let.. tiu �sEi'21sre+xboua a� movements at the Sq#- 0veda/N 4PM0se•.intersecY%phywo g�.veltides ns i g>tlte xl urn .><out northbound sa through .stioveme :aildd 2 rwestlldand. tntns :at �eptiiwetariposa intersection). �'be Ma posy =Wash iigtna- f!al#n rbutsiig wai'�nscd i Afd X50 lest VMe• be criticized for dcflattng ffit possible t#apa'cxt the ' : i iuc the neighborhood impact S*ubablrthb maid fir is sssae f ;ti .pr ect :p ?'he 7 passby trips thijjjad origipaily U n assumed toter tine *e firiin ;tlia'nt�rtlif�ound traffic stream of Sepulveda IkWevard *as ca�assigned to tine soutl bouijdd- . nit is'ual^ikel that .. drivers on northbound �� y ?M Sepulveda :woad spanranains�y c�ioose; to• patrti�ti� t ia:cail'� If: duei�g the peak hour becaasa,of the left tErtlt testi#Ctronl 3'fYeaboveVtioitls' 't�c8acttd on F"tgarc r 5 of the revised report gust 19961L... r:; r ,; As a sensitivity cite value for the "Fsisfa .scenario would be 0 and D, respectively, at;, 26'iJ -te> we cUA9Mdto--th6 Sepiil ate oct Via; iilwtJ gnus Projax" so io wcu�ltt ba �i)s'i83'iitd the C`IJ'vwe: fot: W CUMUhstioe Tlleleve7s: �srrv�aswoutd :be'6leaamcaa�lwpvtr:itf�the � atIAS••C �, co�tls+vns�'vould�c�e:saine: T rL .�ar.Mw��WY /•V�G WY Cpl... ' ••, ,1� �.A'�.1'J_ �t 2210 Wibhim 8[i ,54ce.729, nb tglatio , G:il otiu�r 9b10� ":.: - ' • T lepi�a,l. 31 .. •• r 1 2 With regard to.tife poss"ity of widening Palm Avmue at iO in oonwith Sepulveda, it is agreed that this world eertaialy reduce Bela ys as .a SeparatekM would 'lie provided for left tam and right turn traffic. k :pazticaltlr, it.would eliminate the delays caused,b} 4AVers v iting-to tarn ldtt onto Sepulveda. HOivevcr, to' provide, an. exclusive left u= lane to a000 todatei a movement which currently has a vtNu me of-6 veiudds during the wcck&y nooa.-liM. 0ved�udes during the PM Pak hour, and 20 vehk6 during die Saba-day noon -hour, tar wNeh tk project n ight,add about 10 s • F tie, if Palm Avenue werrb to be st idmed at.Se}nr 4.4 there is a possibility that the rnrrr+eased capacitroould am= additional traffic toPS&n Avenue as more drivers originating ham -the west niay elect to aw.tbe itttproved- Patrtr AvenuiL-n a dMMgb travel route. If the City detex*m thut-Palm Avenue should die widened in co gluuraion with this project, it is suggested that only'3 or 4 addidonat =fax would ine required to paridemMugh Spam for right turning vehicles to rn aver past the vebides that are•waift to torn k$„' Standard, painted left turn and right turn lanee:would be antieoessany. 3. According to the pubLicatian :titled TranspodMiarr 4td I.mrd-0*6 n wd- gnstitatc of Transportation Enginect�s, t9gg);: "atoiage £or at list four des siiotild � hided in advance of the menu board" at s fast -foal reaaaxant With a drive -4=911 window. q=u;ng that. each vehicle requires 20 feet,; including ft car aW the spM between � this goidelme indicates that a minimum of. 80 feat mould be provided behind the order board, wirer. has been done on the Proposed site plan. The,krggMUC) t fo provide at least JM fiett:vrvouid; of Course; be battier as it would Provide even more MddM distance: and would fintber guard egaitist then dde- through queues interfering with the other parkirtg and circulation acdvities; howl, it is excessive as compared to the 1TE guideline and the industry standard for Carlos Jr. . 4. The Sepulveda:$oulevard driveway could ao=uMOdate the , rags of a passenger car design vehicle (24 40t outside 15�foot ' $ inside railias).as:a car could euoer the site fume, the sub lane without eritt+oaching into-the second lane of Seepvh►eda Bbakwak&':A Semi -truck (WB- 40 semitrailer Combination, 40 -foot outside radius, 19.9400t inside- Oft0�` hoa►eVer, would be required to use both the.curb lane and the second lane of veda ` the driveway. $o:srd to swing wide into 5. The site could pftysic�Ily ccomrnodaft truck rnovemt t$ ontio the Boulevard and out of th& pr+operty on Palm.Avenue, A the ' . .o Sepulveda �g� uogrets�m�vetnetnt would require the use of both the curb 6C and dre second lane of Sepulveda Boulevard aml the egrets Movement would result in the trucks Crosdag partially into the wets"Und lane of Pant Avenue. The moat recent site plan has beei� forwarded for your verifladon. I concur with your ootnClusion ttlat it would not be pnximw djVV Pabi ,![Ceara to a one -way street because it would -divert traffirtoother residential streets and dna+eby result in adyer9e UnPacts on tense streets, it wou�d not alter.the PMject's aooess.pattesn as UONe fit ere west could still approach the site along Paim Avemrre, it could c�eate� an accident h.and k tine .PakUSepalveda FROI1 714 840 9762 STEVENS GPM -OM OCT-11-36 8e1anm P.003 r' 3erry C;rabill Page 3 October 9, 1996 intersection, it would fix= northbomW traffic on Sq*vedaBoulevard 16 citba make a U-turn, or use the Mariposa -Wasb kgtW -Palm MUW.ID approach the siw, and it would force the residents along Palm Avenge to drive era SePulvcda Brriilevard everyAme theyleft their property. For these reasons, I recommend against the eonversionto£ Palm Avcnne to-a ono -way street. _ If you need to discuss these issues farther, call me at 7144$44 -9742. Regards, STEVENS- GARLAND. ASSOCIATES . Richard Garland, P.E. Principal cc: Laurie Jester, El Segundo Lorenzo Reyes, 1* Reyes Group file: J96 -5052 STEVENs r'LAN13. DEC • 26 • 35 1 07PM P .001 SS-0 ATES, Tsme nc rai o�'Yes�icles in Onbr &miM Qneae 11:10Z M35 �. 11:31!'= 11:40 11:40 11:45 L, 11:45 - 1 1:50 3 I1:5G;' 11:55 12:00., 12:05 12-.05,.. 12:10 3 ; . 12:10., 12:15 .3. 1224? 12:25 2- 12:25r_-- 1130 z,.. 12:34: =12:35 3 12:35. 12:40 A.: 12:40 -- 1245 3 12:45' 12:50 12:5Q = 12:55 2 12:55•:- IsOd � : . 1:WQ 1:05 2: i:dsCj I:iQ -� 1:15:: -1:2a 3 1:21.= 1:25 2 1:25. ;1:30 3 J y ' :VaiC6 11:3 x'11;40 1#5 11:45.±31:50 11:SDi � �11�5 ` • ' 11:SS 12:b0 12:00' =12.05 -70 12:14 = `�2. "15 : • 5 , 11151 12:151 42:20 12:20n= '•12:25 7: 6. . 12:30.1:32:55 12:35; = ;32:40 12:40' 32:45 12:45=12:" 12:50 = `12:35 6 1:05 >4:10 1:10' `.1:15 :S 1:25'-1:30 . .. � �� - .:fl0 .. In Ot+det 11:30::11 :35,.. �l 11:40:-411.45 , 11:45 -'-911 :50 � 11:50:.-11•:55 11:55` =32:o0 Z 12:00 - x-12 -05 . 12:05'- `12:10 3 12:10_x:12:15 12:15. - :;12:20 3 12:25:412-.30 12:30 -4215 12:35'•- :12:40 12:40 x.-112:45 12:45. -42:50 12:55-n` 1:00 Z . 1:00 -3:0 1:10,^2:15 1:15r - ;:1:20 1:20;- -1:25 1:25 - x:30 �l FROM 71d 840 9762 STEVENS GARLAND DEC-27.96 8:39AM P.001 8:39AM P.002 W\.�111v1�: DAY/DAM _ '1'na OF DAY: ,. TimeI�estat Isbamiuin:i 6fvehuo in:Pu�t- np"Wim'f�► �Qt�ae 11:30 - 1:35 , Z 11:35 =11:40 11:40 - . 1:45 3 11:45 -"11:50 11:50 = 11:55 11:55 -12:00 . 12:00 -42:05 33' 12:05 -' 2:10 12:10 12:15 11-15 - :42:20 Z- 12:20 :42:25 12:251:42-.30 12:30 :. 2 :35 12:35 jj2:40 12:40 42:45 12.45:-1.2.-50 12:50: x12:55 12:55-y 1:00 1:00 41 :05 1:05 -`x:10 1:1041:35 3. 1:15't-Ni :20 1}- 1:20 f1:25 1:25 `1:30 3 5:00 - &k5 5:05 5:10 5:10 - 5.15 5:15 - 5-20 5:20 - 5:25 5:25 - $So 5:30 - 5 5:35 - "0 5:40 -145 5:45 - 5:30 5:50 - y:55 3 5:55 -"0 6:00 - 6:05 6:05 - 6:! 0 6:10 - 6a5 6:15 �0 A. 6:2o - 6AC 6:25 - 00 6:30 - 4:35 6:35 - 640 6:40.60.45 3 6-45- 6e50 6:50 - 05 6:55 - 7..o Time Lgarval in Mink - i .V Q. 11:30 -:-1 1:3.5 r 11:35 -31:40 11:40 11:45 - X1:511 11:50 - 21:55 11:55 - X2:00 12:00 - t12 :05 1205 -. U 10 12:10 - 12--15 12:15 - r2:20 12:20 - :13:25 12:25 - :3D 12.30-'M35 12-35 - 1240 12:40 -1145 12:45 -42:50 12:50 - ;12:55 1255 A -00 3. 1:00 -1:05 1:05 - 116 1:10 - :1:15 1:15 -1:20 s� 1:20 -�,' :25 1:25 --1:30 3, ,, � � ��; o o -- 7� o a� � °. 714 840 9762 STEUEI%.S ram enn rl=n — WCAnON: DAT ATI TIME Of DAY: 8.42AM P.006 Tlmc Laierr.,ol in tlp-up a Qnene 11:30 -A-1:35 11:35 - II-A0 11:40 - 1:1:45 11:45 -11 :50 11:50 -1-1:55 11:55 - 11--oo 12:00 - 1,i :05 12:05 - -42:10 12.10 - :12:15 12:15 -.1.2 12:20 -12 :25 12:25 -.42:30 12:30 - 122:35 12:35 -42:40 12:40 =11:45 12:45 - 'x'1:50 .. 12:50 -4-2-55 12.55 -; -1-00 1:00 - .1:-05 1:05 -1y10 1 :10 -:1~15 1:15 -1-:20 3 1:20 -5 1:25 -r3o TO: Laurieuester, Placing -.{fty -of M Segundo-, FROM: Richard .Gatland; Sko - Carlsnd Assocaatei 'BATE: January 8, 1997 SUBJECT: Carl's Ot - Sepulvdi[oalm As a follow -up to the aeu"mg idDCMW6nI tr vidtsf to.yotii oaisl thine iisdng Cad's Jr. •�'� Y, .. . sites, I would like clarify that tfie ma aimam ratmbcrol'4Csts stzl ked behind he ordet board and the maxim4ft nembet of tars stacked op. beiwsd $te pidc-up wil5dew: Aft .not necessarily additive. he numbensi shown.in.the;tab�les mildctlhe highest- tnntbet.d� cars observed at cacti loc�On dming: nfinut.e interval, bit the m sisaaflyoocurtnd at different times with the inwzrhl. ; Por examPl e,: at a giv!eapoiint }n-timC time may have been four cars in the pick -up queeue and:'forit:eacs sr1 tic s�tdcr boners qu=0 foi•tl total of€ eigi#t cars, while two minutes later there may baye<beeri tw6 cars•in.die Iick,�UO-queuC:sttd., n call W the order board queue fors total of mine -Ass we wem mwrdiag dm ma�wffi.Amrvations independently, we wOedd have esrte O,"Afo u for the -pick- up-queue and $ vea ta•thc order board queue even tho6gh there wets never- eleven casts waiting at ffii s st t ire: For the throe Iocationir'rhat were surv" the maxRown-amber of :wtt srrie 6� be lined ., uP at any one time was site.: -.Ais oocnrted at the Hawthorne lemon dwjng;tba loath' hoar on Friday, December 26,1996. Call me if you have • gimsdoras' orneed.additional•isfmmggoa•ae7 4W9T42; j964053 t' ' cc: Lorenzo Reyes, 'fl-c K,cyes irrda�. �iataslpoco� tow Use tad Consakie� ` r', 1687 i��as� Li4. Hies�000'tlaaitiC:Itioaia 91�i+{T' T •114/84447#2 hadmi{e 714►84O*M ', . 12 :52PM P -001 18/09/1996 16:44 714 - 282 -2948 THE REYES GROIP PAGE 02 Davy -- C7" ASSociates, Inc. Consultants in ACOWsnt_s 861 MOdMIU r barb ApsI wd...Sriti 202 • Mew ar,". r4 90.""(955 7'dVO -IM! 010) 5464W • *AX 0101 N6.3W 4)V 960278 ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS Carla Jr. Restaurant Sepulveda Boulevard at Palm Avenue El Segundo, California FOR Carl Karcher Enterprises Anaheim, Califomia October 1998 C,�q A 10/09/1996 16:44 714 - 282 -2948 THE REYES GROLP PAGE 03 At the direction of Carl Karcher Enterprises. Davy b Associates, Inc. had-completed an acoustical analysis to determine potential noise impact for a proposed Carl's Jr. Restaurant to be located on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard at East Palm Avenue in El Segundo. Noise levels measured at an existing Carl's Jr. Restaurant were used to' ;alculate noise levels at the closest residential property to the west of the site. Ambierti noise levels were monitored at the west property line of the site. These ambient noise levels ere discussed in this report. 1 9 10/09/1996 16:44 714 -2B2 -2940 THE REYES GRQP PAGE 04 + i • : - , �l Noise levels were measured on May 3, 1999 at an existing Carl's Jr. Restaurant on Century Boulevard in Inglewood, Califomia. Some noise was generated at this restaurant facility by cars operating in the restaurant parking lot. However, ambient noise levels due to traffic on Century Boulevard were the dominant noise source and cars operating in the restaurant perking lot were not a significant source of noise. The loudspeaker utilized for the drive -thru is on the north side of the restaurant any from Century Boulevard. Noise levels were audible in the parking lot when the loudspeaker was operated and when people were placing orders. The following noise measurements were made at a distance of 40 feat. Table 1 Measrmd Existing Carl's Jr. Jtau wnt Norse La Wi In d6 at 40, set • i , Ambient 59 - 01 dBA Loudspeaker 62.63 Unampiified Voice 62-05 These measured noise levels were utilized to calculate noise levels at ft west property line of the proposed site, Distance effects were included M this calculation. The preliminary site plan indicates that the drive thru order location will be on the east and of the site fairly close to Sepulveda Boulevard. There will be acoustical shielding provided by the building itself as well as directionality effects of the loudspeaker that will be facing to the east towards Sepulveda Boulevard. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 2 below. Table 2 Calculated Drim nru Noise Levels at the West Prop6V Line Loudspeaker 37 dBA Unamplftd Voice 45 I 10/09/1996 16:44 714 - 282 -2948 THE REYES GROLP PAGE 05 The site is located on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard just south of East Palm Avenue in El Segundo, California. Ambient noise data was collected from 8 p.m. on Thursday, December S. 1994 to e p.m. on Friday, December 9, 1894 utilizing a Larson Davis Model 700 Sound Level Meter. The Larson Davis meter was programmed to collect data in 1 -hour incrothents. The Larson Davis Model 700 has ft own internal dock, and the dodo was set to the correct time and the run times were programmed. Following the monitoring, the Larson Davis unit was coge0ed and the delta was down loaded from the sound level meter to an IBM computer. The rowks of the ambient measurements are summarised on the enclosed computer printouts in Appendix A. The first column in the tabular data Indleatee the starting time of each me' asurement hour in 24 hour format. The second column In titled, "LVL". This Is the average noise level (LED) in each measurement hour. The LEO is the energy averaged noise level during the measurement period. This is the noise level that would have the some acoustic energy as the time varying noise during the messur went Irftrval. The columns titled "SEL, Lpk, Ex, Ek, and Ov" are not signfflcmnt for thli noise monitoring project. The minimum noise level (LMIN) and the maximum noise level (LMAX)i6re listed in the fourth and fifth columns. The last four columns give the L02. L08, L25, and L50 noise levels. These are the noise levels that are exceeded during each measurernent hour for 2%, 8 %, 25%, and 50% of the time. These statistical levels correspond to the noise levels exceeded for 1 minute, 5 minutes, 15 minutes, and 30 minutes in ouch measurement hour. The restaurant will be In open on a 24 hour basis. Average LEO ambibint noise levels for all 24 hours are summarized in Table 3. K7 18/89/1996 16:44 714 - 282 -2948 THE REYESS GROtp Table 3 Ambient Noise Lewls in d8 HQyr LEQ e a.m. 62 dBA 7 94 a as 9 61 10 62 11 58 12 60 1 P.M. 61 2 60 3 62 4 62 5 8s 6 60 7 61 e 61 9 58 10 60 11 60 12 a.m. 80 1 59 2 57 3 55 . 4 55 5 PAGE 86 As can be seen from the data summarized above in Table 3 (end the Wr, puter printouts in Appendix A), minimum ambient noise levels never pet below 55 dBA, This means that noise from the loudspeaker will be approximately 18 dB' less than minimum ambient noise levels at the quietest hour of the moming. Noise Noels from people ordering will be at least 10 dB below minimum ambient noise levels, during the quietest hour of the morning. 2 18/89/1996 16:44 714 - 282 -2948 THE REYES GROLP PAGE 87 Stock will be delivered to the store two to three times per week, and the dUrrtian of these deliveries will be from 10 to 15 minutes. The stock will be taken off of the truck utilizing a hydraulic lift and Cart. The stock will then be left at the near door of the store, and the truck will exit the lot. Stock Is then broken down by hand and put awry by store personnel. Deliveries will be made during "off peak" hours between the hours of 9 a.m. to 11 a.m and 2 p m to 4.30 p.m. These delivery times are utilized to avoid customer conflicts. During the delivery hours of 8 a.m. to 11 a.m., ambient noise fowls will be, in the 58 to 82 dBA range at the west property line. During the afternoon delivery hours of 2 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., ambient noise levels at the west property line will be in the 60 to 68 d8A range. Due to distance effects, there WHI be a decrease in robe levels of approxi4intely 23 dB from a distance of 5' from the delivery truck and the west property line. This means that noise levels from the delivery truck would have to exceed 91 dBA at a dislAnce of 5' for noise to even be audible at the west property line. Based on this analysis; °noise level$ from the delivery truck and hydraulic lift are not considered to be a signifimnt noise impact at the residential buildings to the west and to the north of the propOW site. The results of this analysis indicate that the noise levels generated by #*61rive -thru loudspeaker and people ordering at the drive -thru window at the east porObn of the site will be between 10 and 18 dB below the minimum ambient at the quietesthour of the early morning. Noise levels from the restaurant are not fkely to be a significant impact gift residential buildings to the north of the site on East Palm Avenue sines they will be much less than those noise levels calculated in Table 2, and ambient node levels will be approximately the same as those listed in Table 3. Noise levels from the restaurant are therefore not considered to be a sigrAwnt noise imp at the residential buildings to the west and to the north of the propoised site. Bruce A. Davy Davy 8 Associates, Inc. I.N.C.E. Board Certified 5 01/22/1997 08:54 310 - 546 -3009 DAVY & ASSOCIATES PAGE 01 Davy &Associates. Inc. Consultants in Acou5tica 865 Mat6ttstt Brwrb ihjulewrd .Swisr 202 - Msnbwum &welt. G 902664955 - Td givw; (310) 546-3387 FAX (310) 546- -3009 PROJECT MEMORANDUM TO: LORENZO REYES FROM: BRUCE DAVY PROJECT: CARL'S JR. RESTAURANT - SEPULVEDA AND PALM EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA DATE: JANUARY 21, 1997 JN: 96027 MEMO NO: P96027 -1 SUBJECT: NOISE IMPACT - LOUDSPEAKER RELOCATION 1. In accordance with your request, we have reviewed a portion of you!" revised site plan that shows the loudspeaker incorporated into the orderboard. The loudspeaker has moved approximately 16 feet to the northwest from the location: we analyzed in October 1996. 2. In its new location, the loudspeaker will be closer to the west propetty line by 14 feet. This means that noise levels will increase by 1 dB. In our October 1996 analysis, we calculated noise levels from the loudspeaker at 37 dBA. They will increase to 38 dBA based on the new location. 3. Noise levels from the loudspeaker will still be approximately 17 dB less than minimum ambient noise levels at the quietest hour of the morning. This means that the new speaker location will not have any significant impact on noise levels heard to the west. 4. Noise levels from the loudspeaker and people ordering will also indreease by approximately 1 dB to the northwest. Based on minimum ambient noise levels that were monitored in this area, noise levels in the northwest residential area will still be significantly below the minimum ambient noise in this residential area. Therefore, the new speaker location will also have no significant effect on these residences. Distribution: Laurie Jester Lorenzo Reyes m RESOLUTION NO. 2389 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT EA -387 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP 96 -3; AND, REJECTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, TO ALLOW A 3,050 GROSS SQUARE FOOT CARL'S JR. DRIVE - THRU RESTAURANT AT 639 NORTH SEPULVEDA BOULEVARD. PETITIONED BY CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. WHEREAS, an application has been received from CKE Restaurants, Inc., requesting approval of an Environmental Assessment and a on a 0.86 acre currently avac vacant property development ocated at 639 North Sepulveda Boulevard Jr. drive -thru restaurant development in the General Commercial (C -3) Zone; and, WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment (EA -387), including a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for the proposed use, has been prepared and circulated to all interested parties, City Staff, and affected public agencies for review and comment in the time and manner prescribed by law; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the application and supporting evidence with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act, State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of El Segundo Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (Resolution No. 3805); and, WHEREAS, a Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Stevens - Garland Associates to evaluate potential transportation and circulation impacts associated with the project and submitted with the application, and was subsequently reviewed by the City's Traffic Consultant -- Hartzog & Crabill, Inc; and, WHEREAS, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the proposed project by P and D Technologies to evaluate potential subsurface environmental hazards associated with the current and past uses of the property and submitted with the application; and, WHEREAS, an Acoustical Analysis was prepared by Davy and Associates to evaluate potential noise impacts associated with the project and submitted with the application; and, WHEREAS, a Fiscal Impact Analysis was prepared by City Staff using the El Segundo Fiscal Impact Analysis Model and information provided by the applicant to evaluate the project's anticipated revenue generation and municipal service costs; and, WHEREAS, an Air Quality Assessment was prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) using the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook and Computer Model and information provided by the applicant to evaluate the project's anticipated air quality impacts; and, WHERE, AS,a Photometric Study was prepared by Dan Lew Electrical Design to evaluate the number of foot candles of illumination and the potential impacts to surrounding properties associated with the project and submitted with the application; and, WHEREAS, a Soils Investigation was prepared by Sladden Engineering to evaluate the subsurface soil characteristics of the site for building foundation design for the project and submitted with the application; and, WHEREAS, on February 27 and March 27, 1997, the Planning Commission did hold, pursuant to law, duly advertised public hearings on such matter in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 350 Main Street, and notice of the public hearing was given in the time, form and manner prescribed by law; and, WHEREAS, opportunity was given to all persons present to speak for or against the findings of Environmental Assessment EA -387, and Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3; and, WHEREAS, at said hearings the following facts were established: The proposed project is the construction of a new approximately 3,050 gross square foot (2,966 square foot net) 89 seat Carl's Jr. fast -food restaurant with a drive -thru. No outdoor dining or alcohol sales are proposed and the inside sit -down portion of the restaurant would be owned and operated by CKE. The restaurant is proposed to operate from 7:00 am to 11:00 pm Sunday through Thursday and 7:00 am to 2:00 am on Friday and Saturday. The drive -thru is proposed to operate twenty -four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. The menu board/speaker box are located on the northeast corner of the building with the drive -thru queue on the east side, and pick -up window on the north side. The building is one story and 25 feet maximum in height. 2. Access to the site is proposed by a new 25 foot wide two -way driveway on Sepulveda Boulevard, on the south end of the site. Three existing curb cuts on Palm Avenue would be removed and a new 30 foot wide curb cut is proposed, approximately 47 feet east of the westerly side property line. The new curb cut is proposed to accommodate a two -way driveway with an accentuated "pork- chop" shaped raised median to accommodate a right -turn only exit off of the property onto Palm Avenue. A 13 foot wide by 50 foot long loading zone is proposed on the west side of the building and 40 total parking spaces are provided. A portion of the Hacienda Hotel surface parking lot, which encroaches approximately 13 feet ten inches onto the west side of the property, is proposed to remain. No new fences or walls are proposed. The total site landscaping is approximately 10,838 square feet in area, covering 29% of the total site. A total of thirty -five (35) to forty (40) employees will occupy the site; with a total of six (6) to eight (8) employees per shift. The site is relatively level with very little vegetation. The site is completely paved containing no unique geologic features, and is rectangular in shape; 181 feet wide by 206.8 feet in length. 4. The site has previously received approvals, and City Permits have been issued, for several development projects including a hotel, offices and retail uses; however, the site has never been developed. Most recently, in 1994, a carwash with a mini -mart retail store, two (2) rack lube facility and four (4) gasoline pumps, were proposed for the site, and the application was denied. 5. The project site is located within the northwest portion of the City of El Segundo, approximately one mile west of the San Diego (I -405) Freeway and one -half mile south of the Glenn Anderson (I -105) Freeway and Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). The Metro Green Line Light Rail and the closest station at Mariposa Avenue and Nash Street is located approximately one -half mile to the east of the project site. 6. The surrounding area is developed with one and two -story multiple - family residential units (small condominium and apartment complexes, many with underground parking) to the north and west, a two -story restaurant/bar/billiards parlor across Palm Avenue to the north, an eight -story office building and single story commercial shopping center across Sepulveda Boulevard to the east, and a surface parking lot, for the Hacienda Hotel, immediately to the south and west. The Hacienda Hotel parking lot has a curb cut on Palm Avenue with metal "teeth" in the driveway which only allows vehicles to exit, not enter the lot from Palm Avenue. To the west of the parking lot, approximately 74 feet away from the subject property, is a two -story condominium complex with underground parking. The Hacienda Hotel parking lot is separated from the 2 7 8. condominium project to the west by a block retaining wall, a landscape strip, and a property line block wall. The first floor elevation of the condominium complex is approximately ten (10) feet higher than the elevation of the subject property. Further west on Palm Avenue at Washington Street, approximately 340 feet west of the subject site is Washington Street Park; a linear city park with a tot lot, picnic tables, grass areas and par- course located under the Southern California Edison power lines. The properties to the north across Palm Avenue are zoned Commercial General (C -3) and Multi - Family Residential (R -3), to the south and west is zoned Parking (P), and further west is zoned Multi- Family Residential (R -3), and to the east across Sepulveda Boulevard is zoned Corporate Office (C -O). The proposed project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with State guidelines and local requirements, a Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and circulated for interdepartmental and affected agency review. No significant adverse impacts were identified which could not be mitigated to an insignificant level, including impacts to: transportation /circulation, hazards, noise, public services, and aesthetics. At the public hearings, on February 27 and March 27, 1997, public testimony was presented that indicated that the project would generate additional vehicular trips which would impact parking, pedestrian and vehicular safety, and traffic flow on the streets in the immediate vicinity of the site, particularly Palm Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard; Palm Avenue is a local street, substandard in width (40 feet compared to the General Plan standard of 50 feet) and sloped; on- street parking on Palm Avenue is very limited since it is only allowed on the south side of the street, the block contains multi - family residential units with limited on -site parking; the proposed number of the parking spaces will be inadequate to accommodate the parking demands for both customers and employees; the drive -thru operations would serve commuters at the expense of residents of the City and the surrounding neighborhood; the proposed project would result in an increase in noise levels due to the facility operations including the honking of car horns, loudspeakers, and car stereos, and the sound will travel upwards since the condominiums to the west are at a higher elevation; the increase in vehicle fumes and odors from the drive -thru operations will result in significant air quality impacts to the adjacent residential areas which will be hazardous to the health of the residents; the proposed project will increase crime and decrease property values; the drive -thru operations will generate trash which will negatively impact the neighborhood; the proposed drive -thru does not promote an upscale image of the town and is not consistent with the City's "small town" characteristics; the development of the proposed facility in the vicinity of Washington Park will be detrimental to the safety of children using the park and will negatively impact activities in the park and residents adjacent to the park; and there are many children which live in the area, particularly Palm Avenue, who will be impacted by the additional vehicles. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after considering the above facts and study of proposed Environmental Assessment EA -387 and Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3, the Planning Commission makes the following findings and in so doing, Denies the proposed project: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 1. The Draft Initial Study was made available to all local and affected agencies and for public review and comment in the time and manner prescribed by law; and, 2. In reviewing the project the Planning Commission considered the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration along with testimony and evidence received at the public hearings, during the public review process. The Planning Commission received testimony and evidence at the public hearings which established a fair argument that significant environmental impacts may occur which cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Based on the testimony and evidence related to negative impacts on parking, circulation, traffic, aesthetics, and noise, 3 the Planning Commission rejects the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts and finds the Mitigated Negative Declaration to be inadequate. The site is zoned C -3 (General Commercial), which permits retail uses, hotels, motels, medical- dental offices, public uses, recreational facilities, restaurants and general offices not exceeding 5,000 square feet at a FAR of 1.0. The proposed drive -thru restaurant is permitted under the existing Zoning designation with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed FAR would be 0.08, well below the 1.0 FAR limit. All development standards required by the General Commercial (C -3) Zone would be met. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1. The proposed project may not be a compatible use on the particular site in relationship to other existing and potential uses within the general area in which the use is proposed to be located; due to the close proximity of the project to residential and recreational land uses. 2. The proposed drive -thru restaurant use is not consistent nor is it compatible with the purpose of the zone in which the site is located because application of the applicable development standards in the zone can not mitigate the negative impacts on the abutting and surrounding land uses that will be created by the project; and, The proposed project does not recognize nor compensate for potential impacts that could be generated by the proposed use, such as noise, smoke, dust, fumes, vibration, odors, traffic, aesthetics, and hazards. Specifically, the development of the project would result in an increase in noise levels generated by the drive -thru restaurant. The adjacent residential area is already heavily impacted by traffic and business operations noise from existing adjacent commercial uses and Sepulveda Boulevard. The development of the proposed facility in the vicinity of the existing park will also be detrimental to the safety of children using the park and will negatively impact activities in the park; and, 4. The proposed location of the proposed project is not in accord with the objectives of this title, which require a project to serve the public health, safety, and welfare and provide the economic and social advantages resulting from orderly planned use of land resources due, to existing infrastructure conditions, the project's location, and traffic impacts, and conflicts with the purposes of the zone in which the site is located; and, 5. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and be materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity since the proposed project will generate additional vehicular trips and parking demand, particularly during the weekdays' afternoon peak hours and during the Saturday afternoon peak hours of 1 -2 p.m. This will impact vehicular and pedestrian safety and parking on the streets in the immediate vicinity of the site, particularly Palm Avenue, which is a local residential street with a sloping substandard pavement width of 30 feet and limited on- street parking only on the south side. The increase in traffic volumes and vehicle fumes will have an impact to the residential areas to the west and north of the proposed project. The proposed project would result in an increase in noise levels due to the facility operations including the honking of car horns, loudspeakers, and car stereos. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that according to the El Segundo Municipal Code, a copy of this Resolution shall be mailed to the applicant at the address shown on the application and to any other person requesting a copy of same. Pursuant to the El Segundo Planning Commission's adopted "Rules" (adopted January 12, 1988), the decision of the Planning Commission as set forth in this Resolution 4 shall become final and effective ten (10) calendar days after the date of the Planning Commission action, unless an appeal in writing is filed with the City Council. That date shall be considered to be when the vote on the matter is taken -- in this case, 27 March 1997. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of April 1997. Bret'll. Bel-nard, AWP, Diregtor dt'Flanning and Building Safety; and, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of E1 Segundo, California VOTE Boulgarides - Aye Crowley - Not Participating Palmer -Aye Wycoff - Not Participating Yeagley - No Robert Yeagley, Chairman of the Planning Commission of the City of El Segundo, California 5 EA387.3.res MINUTES Ot E REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA February 27, 1997 Chairman Robert Yeagley called the regular meeting of the El Segundo Planning CALL TO ORDER Commission to order at 7:15 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the City of El Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, Califomia. Commissioner Palmer led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. PLEDGE TO FLAG PRESENT: Wycoff, Palmer, Boulgarides, Yeagley. ABSENT: Crowley (excused). ROLL CALL Chairman Yeagley apologized to the public and all present at the meeting for the inconvenience with the power outage. Director Bernard presented the minutes of the January 23rd and 30th, 1997 meetings. CONSENT Commissioner Palmer stated on Page 7, 5th paragraph, last sentence, of the January 23 CALENDAR minutes it should read "restrict gas stations being on the east side of Sepulveda." Chairman Yeagley stated on the January 30 minutes, Page 2, the statement "Chairman Yeagley asked how a truck drives up a steep 48 inch climb to pull into the ground level door with a forklift ?" should be deleted, since it was out of context. Also on Page 3, 5th paragraph down, the word "ambiguous" should be "arbitrary." Commissioner Boulgarides moved to accept the minutes of January 23 and 30, 1997. Commissioner Palmer seconded. Passed 4 -0. Director Bernard stated the Draft Resolution for Carl's Jr. was supplied in the WRITTEN supplemental distribution. Also, there are six letters from nearby property owners COMMUNICATIONS included. Director Bernard stated that the Commission should open the hearing and consider a motion. The Agenda was changed and New Business was presented first on Environmental NEW BUSINESS Assessment EA -387, Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3, Applicant: CKE Restaurants, EA -387 Inc. (Carl's Jr.), Property Owner: N/S Express, Inc., Mr. Tom Ennis. Commissioner Wycoff was excused due to a conflict of interest, being his property is too close to the property involved. Chairman Yeagley apologized to the applicant and public for the power outage. In all fairness, the meeting should be postponed to the next regularly scheduled meeting of March 27, 1997. Chairman Yeagley will not be available for the meeting of March 6, the Planners Institute is on March 13, and Commissioner Boulgarides has a conflict on March 20. Commissioner Boulgarides moved to postpone the meeting to March 27, 1997 and continue the public hearing to that date, and Commissioner Palmer seconded. Passed 3 -0. Director Bernard suggested waiving reading the Staff Report at this time. Chairman Yeagley suggested to the public that anyone who cannot attend the March 27 PUBLIC meeting should speak this evening and it will be recorded and read on the 27th. COMMENTS Carl Leon, 1630 E. Palm Avenue #6, El Segundo Allowing traffic from the project onto Palm Avenue will be a real problem. The neighbors find this totally unacceptable. There is a park down the road with a lot of children. Also, having a 24-hour operation is totally unacceptable. He has called the police many times regarding the Hacienda Hotel. Their parking lot is filled with cars of people going to the airport for weeks at a time and the alarms go off. At two in the morning, about 70% of the people who go to a drive -thru to get fast food have taken an alcoholic drink. Years ago when he first came to this country, he used to do this too, but he does not drink and drive anymore. People going through the drive- thru's are drinking, blowing their horns, laughing, singing, their radios are blaring, and so forth. This is not acceptable. He will not be here on the 27th; it will be Easter and he is going to Washington D.C. He wanted to present some of his thoughts in hopes the Commission will come to the right decision. Liz Garnholz, 442 Whiting Street, El Segundo 2- 27min.PC She will be back on the 27th. U the General Plan Consistency, Item 2 n 'es conformance with the Zoning Code and CEQA and requires buffers between resiocmial and non - residential areas. When she comes back on the 27th, she would like very defined buffers. Sheri Long, 755 Washington Street, El Segundo They just moved to El Segundo last year, buying a home. The reason they bought here was that they were told that this City puts its children first. She feels that having an entrance onto Palm will increase the traffic a lot. Living on the comer of Oak and Washington, they have a problem as it is with cars running the stop sign. There is a park entrance there and the cars don't look at this entrance. They look to see if there are cars coming in the other direction, so they run that stop sign. She feels increased traffic increases chances of children being hurt. She is a mother of two young children, and is very concerned about the traffic and trash being thrown in the park. People who live in the City are aware of this so they pick up after themselves. In general, people that don't live in the City don't care as much. When she was at a meeting a couple of months ago, she heard someone say they would promise they will pick up their trash, but talk is cheap. Sheila Argibeck,1692 East Palm Avenue, El Segundo She doesn't want Carl's Jr. there. She doesn't want the traffic and a 24 -hour drive thru. She doesn't want customers getting their hamburgers and going to the park across from where she lives at 2:00 or 4:00 in the morning. They had a problem last year with people drinking right behind their apartment house at 12:00 and 1:00 in the morning. Now they may have to deal with people eating their hamburgers, talking loud, and drinking. She doesn't need it nor do her neighbors. She will be back on the 27th. Chairman Yeagley reminded everyone that he opened the public hearing for those who cannot make it on the 27th. Chris Pingle, Woody's Smorgasbord He will return on the 27th. Chairman Yeagley again moved to continue the public heating to March 27, 1997. MOTION Commissioner Palmer seconded. Passed 3 -0. Ms. Jester stated they will send out notices to everybody within the 300 foot radius, as well as everybody that has submitted letters and petitions and they will put in the paper. Commissioner Wycoff returned to the dias. Commissioner Boulgarides moved to continue the other two items on the Agenda to their MOTION special meeting of March 6, 1997. Commissioner Wycoff seconded. Passed 4 -0. Director Bernard noted they are still looking forward to meeting with a limited number of REPORT FROM Commissioners in Monterey on the 13th. Regretfully, both Chairman Yeagley and THE DIRECTOR Commissioner Boulgarides cannot attend, but the Commissioners who will attend look forward to learning what they can and bringing back as much material as possible to the two Commissioners who cannot attend. Commissioner Boulgarides asked the City Attorney if a traffic sign posted on private COMMENTS FROM property has the same legal weight as on a public right -of -way? Can a person be cited? THE COMMISSION Ms. Jester stated the Public Works Department has recommended that a sign be put in the public right -of -way across the street from Carl's Jr. and this would take care of this issue. It is in the memo as well as in the Resolution. Director Bernard stated there is a necessity for a quorum, which is 3 of the 5 members, and the next opportunity is on March 27. Ms. Jester stated they have distributed a memo to the Commission to keep their packets which include everything needed for the 6th and 27th. Tomorrow they will be distributing the packet for the 6th and all it will have is a new set of minutes. There being no further discussion, Commissioner Boulgarides moved to adjourn the ADJOURNMENT meeting at 7:45 p.m. to the special meeting of the 6th. Commissioner Palmer seconded. Passed 4 -0. The next El Segundo Planning Commission meeting will be a special meeting on Thursday, March 6, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. 2- 27min.PC PASSED AND APPROVED ON IS 6th DAY OF MARCH, 1997. Bret B. ern rd, ICP Director of anni and Building Safety, and Secretary of the Planning Commission City of El Segundo, California 2- 27min.PC R e Yeagley Ch irm of the P ommts on City of El Segundo, California MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA March 27, 1997 Chairman Yeagley called the regular meeting of the El Segundo Planning Commission to order at 7:50 P.M. in the Council Chamber of the City of El Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California. PRESENT: WYCOFF, PALMER, CROWLEY, BOULGARIDES, YEAGLEY. Director Bernard stated a letter from Tom Pingle from Woody's Restaurant regarding the proposed Carl's Jr. has been received today. Secondly, a letter has also been received today from the Boudreau Family regarding the proposed Carl's Jr. Vice - Chairman Crowley and Commissioner Wycoff informed the Commission that they will not be participating in this discussion because of a potential conflict of interest. Ms. Jester presented the Staff Report as outlined in the Agenda packet. In addition to the Resolution, Staff recommends adding one more condition of approval (number 34) to address hours of delivery which would be limited to 9:00 to 11:00 am and 2:00 to 4:30 pm to minimize impacts during the peak hours. Commissioner Boulgarides asked for clarification regarding the $29,200 over 5 years - is this about $6,000 per year? Ms. Jester stated that this was correct after the cost for City services was deducted. Commissioner Palmer asked if there had been any applicant/citizen meetings? Director Bernard stated that he believes there have been meetings between the applicant and citizens, but it would be appropriate for the applicant to address this question. Lorenzo Reyes, CKE, Inc., 4999 Anaheim, California Mr. Reyes stated that Carl's Jr. has been a leader in the fast -food industry for a number of years. The site was attractive because of the high volume of traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard. CKE chose to orient the building to the northwest corner of the site in order to make this a workable site. One main issue being raised relates to Palm Avenue traffic. Mr. Reyes states that the volume of traffic on Palm Avenue will be below the allowable amount, and the people utilizing Palm Avenue access will be the residents of El Segundo. He would like to see stricter Police enforcement, speed bumps, and lowering of the speed limit west of the Carl's Jr. site. CKE is looking for the on -site circulation that comes in from Sepulveda Boulevard and is able to exit onto Palm Avenue. The `porkchop' method would be utilized for a right turn only driveway. From a site - design standpoint there is nothing CKE could do and still maintain that drive. From a layout standpoint they are exceeding the landscape requirement. Thirty percent of the site will be landscaped. Carl's Jr. does not abut the adjacent residential area. The issue of yard lights will have no effect on the adjacent condominum project to the west of the project site. There is over 90 feet from the light source to the adjacent condominums. Mr. Reyes feels that the $80,000 traffic fee is to address the types of traffic concerns that face the Carl's Jr. site and Palm Avenue. Based on the Acoustical Study, the noise generated by the restaurant is 17 decibles below the ambient, with the drive -thru in full operation, at the quietest hour of the morning. Mr. Reyes stated that the drive -thru will 03- 27min.pc CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS EA -387, CUP 96 -3, CARL'S JR. DRIVE - THRU RESTAURANT not operate 24 -hours a day unless there is a need to do so. Carl's Jr. would like to have the same closing time as the Stick -n- Stein. Mr. Reyes and CKE do not see any forseeable problems relating to traffic, lighting, and noise level. Chairman Yeagley asked Mr. Reyes why CKE utilized the northeast corner vs. the southeast comer. Mr. Reyes stated that access was the reason for utilizing the northeast corner. From a design standpoint, you want the drive -way as far away from the intersection as possible. Commissioner Boulgarides asked Mr. Reyes if CKE has ever opened a restaurant without a drive -thru? Mr. Reyes stated that this would happen only in a mall situation. Commissioner Boulgarides asked how much revenue was generated from the drive - thru? Mr. Reyes stated that about 20-40% of the income is generated by the drive -thru. Shiela Archiback, 1622 East Palm Avenue Ms. Archiback lives in the last apartment on Palm Avenue closest to the park. She does not want a fast food/drive -thru restaurant on the corner. Her concerns are with the traffic issues and the hours of operation. She believes that people will be eating their hamburgers in the park and bothering the tenants who live closest to the park. Lottie Gillig, 1637 East Palm Avenue Ms. Gillig stated that El Segundo does not need a Carl's Jr. drive -thru restaurant. She is concerned about traffic, noise, crime, a decrease in property value, air quality (pollution) and what will happen to the already established restaurants in town. She also believes that there will be insufficient parking on -site. Ms Gillig would like to see the lot re- zoned. There are too many residents for the current zoning. Gert Veagley, Mariposa Avenue Ms. Veagley's concerns are related to traffic. She believes there is too much traffic on Mariposa Avenue already. Rick Henn, 1445 East Palm Avenue Mr. Henn is not opposed to Carl's Jr., but has some concerns about how it will affect his property. He believes that the increased traffic on the street will decrease the value of his property and is concerned about the numerous children that live on the block. Mr. Henn feels that some of the mitigation measures may work. Chris Pingle, Woody's Mr. Pingle opposes the Carl's Jr. project because his restaurant has never been able to put in a drive -thru. Secondly, he believes that it will be unfair competition to those who have only a carry-out business. Mr. Pingle believes that the services in El Segundo are very adequate, but the addition of the Carl's Jr. drive -thru could hurt not only the businesses on Sepulveda Boulevard, but also those businesses in downtown who are hurting for business already. Elaine Rock, 1600 East Palm Avenue Ms. Rock is opposed to the Carl's Jr. project and she stated that the negatives outweigh the positives. It is clear to her that noise and traffic levels will increase and that property values will decrease. 03- 27min.pc 2 Penny Kerkes, 1564 East Palm Avenue Ms. Kerkes is not opposed to the Carl's Jr. project. Her main concern is with the safety of the children. Ms. Kerkes believes that Palm Avenue cannot handle any additional traffic on the street. Mitch Green, 1560 East Palm Avenue Mr. Green is shocked that the Carl's Jr. project will not generate more revenue for the City and believes that a better revenue - generating project can be used for that site. He is also concerned about the safety of the children. Mr. Green is opposed to the project, but if approved he would like to see the Commission use Option I which prohibits exiting or entering on Palm Avenue. Jim Laskey, 1524 East Palm Avenue Mr. Laskey's biggest concern is related to the traffic and the safety of the children on the street. If approved, Mr. Laskey would like to see traffic Option 1 adopted to keep cars from the residential area. Peggy Turrel, Oak Street Ms. Turrel stated she would not like a fast food restaurant but a nicer dining establishment. David Steele, El Segundo Chamber of Commerce Mr. Steele stated the Chamber voted to endorse the Carl's Jr. proposal because it is permitted by right of zone with a Conditional Use Permit for the drive -thru, CKE has been willing to work with the community, and CKE has been a corporate good citizen according to other communities. Liz Garnholz, 442 Whiting Street Ms. Gamholz stated she is against the drive -thru. She believes that the noise will be detrimental to the overall area, health, welfare and safety and is materially injurious to surrounding properties. The noise, smell, trash and traffic will impact the property value. Ms. Garnholz views the park as going downhill and does not want Washington Park to become a fearful place. Tom Pingle, Woody's, Return Mr. Pingle stated he is against the Carl's Jr. project. Ron Swanson, S &S Hardware, 629 California Street Mr. Swanson stated not everything in this world was fair - competition is competition. As far as he knows, the parcel in question has been vacant for many years, and those people who bought property next to the parcel on Palm Avenue knew that the possibility existed for the parcel to be developed. Mr. Swanson stated that we have invited these developers to develop in the City through our Economic Development program - business pays for the services in this town. If this is a viable project, the Commission should proceed with approval. 03- 27min.pc 3 Richard Garland, Stevens, Garland Associates Mr. Garland's firm conducted the Traffic Analysis for this project. Mr. Garland clarified the 600 number reflects the traffic between the driveway of Carl's Jr. and Sepulveda Boulevard. It is estimated that 100 cars per day would use the section of Palm Avenue between the Carl's Jr. driveway and Washington Street. Only, 30 cars per day west of Washington Street is estimated. The increase in traffic is not as devastating as it seems. Mr. Reyes, Return Mr. Reyes stated CKE will employ 30-40 people at this establishment and these would be local residents. CKE is a good neighbor and is concerned with youth and senior groups. In answer to Commissioner Palmer's question, CKE has met with local business groups and the local Homeowner group chaired by Willard Krick. Liz Garnholz, Return Ms. Garnholz stated she is concerned with parking for the customers and employees. Mr. Reyes stated that the employees cover all shifts. The City Parking Code takes into consideration employee parking. Chairman Yeagley stated the parking issues were addressed in the traffic mitigation and documented in the paperwork provided. Commissioner Boulgarides moved to close the public hearing. Commissioner Palmer MOTION seconded. Passed 3 -0 Commissioner Boulgarides would like to congratulate those who came to voice their opinion and stated that the Commission likes to hear what the public has to say regarding any issue. Commissioner Boulgarides moved to deny the Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner MOTION Palmer seconded. Commissioner Palmer gave high marks to Staff and the applicant for all of the hard DISCUSSION work. The Commission decided that drive -thrus are not something that El Segundo should encourage. Chairman Yeagley stated the discussion is moving too quickly. He believes the residents stated that they did not point out the issues for why they don't want a drive - thru - they want something upscale. Carl's Jr. can be there by right of zone. Chairman Yeagley stated that Carl's Jr. has worked with the residents on the traffic issues. The issue of an adequate fence around Washington Park is not a newly raised concern. There has never been an adequate fence there. He does not believe in denying a property owner a right to put a viable business on his property. Commissioner Boulgarides stated he heard several concerns relating to traffic and this could impact the quality of life. He does not believe that El Segundo is a "pit stop" for commuters. Drive -thrus will impact residential areas on the west side of Sepulveda Boulevard. The traffic created will be a problem and affect the property value of surrounding residential areas. Commissioner Boulgarides believes that a better use for this land can be found. 03- 27min.pc 4 Director Bernard stated a Conditional Use Permit is before the Commission. There are three purposes for a CUP as well as three findings that are required to be made by the Commission, and he suggested that the previous motion be amended. Commissioner Boulgarides amended his previous motion and instructed Staff to bring back a Resolution denying a Conditional Use Permit on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of El Segundo or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Passed 2 -1. Director Bernard stated Staff will draft a Resolution and bring it back to the April 10, 1997 meeting. Ms. Jester and Mr. Altmayer stated a ten day appeal period will start from the date the Resolution is addressed by the body. If approved on April 10, it will be from that date. Director Bernard stated a revised Departmental Approved Projects Activity List has been distributed to the Commission. Commissioner Palmer thanked the City and the Planning Department for coordinating the trip to Monterey. She submitted three tapes from this meeting to the Planning Division and would like a copy of them. Commissioner Crowley also stated the conference was good. He appreciated the validation he received from the conference. Staff is doing a good job and the Commission is keeping on top of things. Commissioner Boulgarides asked if the Commission would be receiving the second quarter's packet for Zone Text Amendments. Ms. Jester stated that it would be distributed and these will be discussed at the April 24, 1997 meeting. There being no further discussion, Commissioner Boulgarides moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 pm and Vice -chair Crowley seconded. The next El Segundo Planning Commission Meeting will be on Thursday, April 10, 1997 at 7:00 pm. PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 10th DAY OF APRIL, 1997. Bret B. Berttiardf. A1CP Director o Pl�ftning d Building afety, an ecretary of the Planning Commission City of El Segundo, Calfiornia Robert Yeagley, Chairman of the Planning Commission City of El Segundo, California 03- 27min.pc 5 COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bob Yeagley Commissioner El Segundo Planning Commission El Segundo City Hall El Segundo, CA 90245 To Be Read In Entirety At Planning Commission Public Hearing on February 27, 1997 by Annette Latshaw 1547 East Palm Ave El Segundo, CA 90245 FEB 2 7 _I 1 u` Mr. Bob Yeagley Commissioner El Segundo Planning Commission El Segundo City Hall El Segundo, CA 90245 Dear Commissioner Yeagley, February 25, 1997 A business trip to San Francisco has prevented me from attending the public hearing. I currently reside at 1547 East Palm Ave in El Segundo. I have followed with great interest the proposed development of a CARL'S JR. fast food restaurant on the northwest corner of Palm and Sepulveda Blvd. in El Segundo. My home is located a short distance away from this proposed development; I have lived at this location for more than ten years. Like many of my neighbors, I was attracted to this area because of the adjacent parks and absence of traffic. This area has remained a safe environment for our children due to a large part because our neighborhood has had no visibility to the 60,000 daily vehicle trips down Sepulveda Blvd. Palm Avenue is a sub- standard street - a very narrow street designed to serve only the local residents. There are parks on either side of the street to accommodate the local residents. Many, many small children live on Palm Avenue and play in these parks. When cars are parked on the street, there is barely enough street left for two way traffic. I am concerned about the increase flow of traffic that would result from the restaurant as it pertains to the safety of the local inhabitants and children. I am concerned about the narrowness of the street unable to support any growth in vehicular trips. And I am concerned about the increased introduction of non-El Segundo residents to the parks where our small children play and the possible jeopardy of their safety. I am very interested in seeing El Segundo attract more business - to grow and to prosper. The city must have a growing base to maintain a strong fiscal solvency. I think that it is incumbent upon the planning commission to balance the concerns of both points of view and try its utmost to achieve a mutually beneficial resolution. The local residents have signed a petition asking the commission to mitigate future traffic by installing a barrier along Palm Avenue. At the very least we need to prevent left -hand turns from the CARL'S JR. exit on to Palm Avenue by a curbed concrete structure. A "No Left Turn" sign at this exit will not suffice. I hope that these concerns will be given meaningful consideration in the review of the CARL'S JR. project. Thank you for the opportunity to express my views. Sincerely, a4�L� s Annette Latshaw 3/27/97 To: El Segundo Planning Comm. Re: Carl's Jr. on Sepulveda /Palm We are the Boudreau Family at 1543 E. Palm Ave. It is felt by us that a Drive- Thru exiting on East Palm Ave. will create a danger to our children. We are sure the resturant does not intend to cause harm, but it is hard to regulate the driving habits of patrons. Therefore, we are against any kind of driveway on the Palm Ave. side. Thank You Karen. F.r, jea v ,laui-Bo c4-eau. 'f N \,At--, VA--3b? CITY OF EL SEGUNDO INTER - DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE DATE: February 27, 1997 TO: File Environmental Assessment EA -387 Conditional Use Permit CUP 96 -3 FROM: Tamara Mann, Office Assistant SUBJECT: Carl's JR Restaurant I took a PHONE CALL from Joann Moor on Thursday, February 27th at approximately 10:15 AM. She lives at 1628 E. Palm Ave. and wanted to voice her concern over the Carl's Jr. Restaurant. She told me she was unable to attend the Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for tonight and also was unable to write a letter and bring it in before the meeting. She is in opposition to a 24 hour Drive Thru Carl's Jr but in favor of a Drive Thru which would close at 9pm or l Opm at night. She said she is upset about the planned entrance of the Carl's Jr and is in favor of a right turn only exit. cc: Planning Commission Bret Bernard Tom Altmayer Laurie Jester < �� —� 3 S WOODY' S BROILER 18726 Western Ave. #206, Gardena, Ca. 90248 * 310 -523 -3494 * fax 310 - 523 -469 March 26, 1997 MAR 2 7 To the El Segundo City Council Members, I am writing to show my deep concern on the Carl's Jr. proposal. My concerns along with many others are fair competition, safety to the community and the general welfare of the community. Being a prominent businessman in the community, I have been approached by numerous other restaurant propietors in the area along with a large number of residents in this area. All of them extremely upset about the possibility of a large chain restaurant in our own backyard. Therefore, I am not only speaking for myself but for the community as a whole. Since my family and its business has been here longer than most (since 1963), 1 was asked to submit a letter and perhaps speak at the hearing. Woody's Smorgasburger open its doors in 1963. We gave the community a chance when the big chains said there wasn't enough people in this small community to be worth their while. We knew since this was a family oriented business, the community would accept us. Sure enough it did! The community is one of a kind. Where else does the manager of a restaurant get asked to be a guest speaker for a class of third graders at Center Street School! One reason we are successful is because we give back to the community. We sponsor them all - soccor, baseball, football and hockey for boys and girls. We also serve St. Anthony's Catholic School hot lunch at a price where we're really not making money, but we do it as a service for the children. We also participate in many functions at El Segundo High School, donating numerous gift certificates etc. Just today, we donated dinner for four to their Senior Tea. We also participate in the community scrip program and the El Segundo Eagle Card. We have also supported and participated in the El Segundo Chamber of Commerce. Even when aerospace chose to leave El Segundo and there were not enough cutomers to stay open, we chose to tough it out - believing in the community. Believing the community still deserved to have a family establishment where they could have their childrens birthdays and team parties. This attitude exemplifies the attitude of this community. Page 2 We believe, along with numerous other restaurants in this area, that allowing a restaurant with a drive -thru would be allowing unfair competition. This city would not allow other restaurants to put a drive -thru in. In 1987, we looked into opening an El Pollo Loco at that exact location but were told we could not put in a drive -thru so we did not pursue the idea further. We had also asked if we could reconstruct our building to allow for a drive -thru, again we were told numerous times that El Segundo does not allow drive - thrus. We are not that type of fast paced community they said. Other businesses that have come into the area such as El Pollo Loco and the Green Burrito I'm sure would have put in drive -thrus had they been allowed. Some restaurants would not have come into this community if they'd known drive -thrus would be allowed in the future. I just want to let you know that I have spoken with an attorney and the lawfirm agrees that we have an excellent case aginst the city. I'll say this much, if this project is allowed to go through, I will be the first one to file a suit and I will also organize all the businesses in the area to file a joint suit against the city. This project would hurt all the restaurants in the area and perhaps even cause some of them to close their doors. This could potentially cost a lot of people their jobs. This is why not only will a lawsuit be filed against the City but the restaurants -will actively go out and find new council members to run against those who vote it in. We will support our candidates with the funds needed to takes the seats. We are also concerned about the traffic on Palm and in the general area. Many residents in the area have expressed great anger over this. They are concerned about the safety of their children. If families stop using the park that means that less people will be up this way, a lot of whom buy lunch to take to the park or come in to relax afterwords. Many residents have already told me they will vote for other councilmen who stand with the community. I've been told I can count on them to help get new councilmen elected if this goes through. I think the number of residents who are against this is astounding. As council members you have an obligation to the children and the people of this community. You said a car wash which closes at dusk was too much. Then allow Carl's Jr. with a drive -thru that wants to be open 24 hours - that's hypocritical! You can be assured that Carl's Jr. knows there is not enough business in El Segundo at night to be open 24 hours. It has asked for this only as a ploy to appear compromising when they will suggest Page 3 that they close at 11:00 pm. I can assure you they have no intentions of staying open 24 hours. Don't be fooled into big companies tricks or slick ways to appear compromising. They don't care about this communty at all - only dollars and cents. At the meeting let's take a look at them when people are speaking their concerns. Just like last time, they will be there with their high profile laywers - hair slicked back, smiling and shaking their heads, knowing that money talks in most places. It is your job to tell them the community comes first. Please don't make a mistake that will drastically hurt and change this community. Respectfully submitted, �> c. P Thomas C. PincJel Woody's Broiler