Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
2003 FEB 04 CC PACKETAGENDA
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main Street
The City Council, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed agenda items.
Unless otherwise noted in the Agenda, the Public can only comment on City- related business that is within the
jurisdiction of the City Council and /or items listed on the Agenda during the Public Communications portion of the
Meeting. During the first Public Communications portion of the Agenda, comments are limited to those items
appearing on the Agenda. During the second Public Communications portion of the Agenda, comments may be made
regarding any matter within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Additionally, the Public can comment on any Public
Hearing item on the Agenda during the Public Hearing portion of such item. The time limit for comments is five (5)
minutes per person.
Before speaking to the City Council, please come to the podium and state: Your name and residence and the
organization you represent, if desired. Please respect the time limits.
Members of the Public may place items on the second Public Communications portion of the Agenda by submitting a
Written Request to the City Clerk or City Manager's Office at least six days prior to the City Council Meeting (by 2:00
p.m. the prior Tuesday). Other members of the public may comment on these items only during this second Public
Communications portion of the Agenda. The request must include a brief general description of the business to be
transacted or discussed at the meeting. Playing of video tapes or use of visual aids may be permitted during meetings
if they are submitted to the City Clerk two (2) working days prior to the meeting and they do not exceed five (5) minutes
in lenath.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact City Clerk, 524 -2305. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to
make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2003 — 5:00 P.M.
Next Resolution # 4294
Next Ordinance # 1356
5:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
APPOINTMENT OF LABOR NEGOTIATOR FOR CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND
UNREPRESENTED CITY EMPLOYEES
CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government
Code Section §54960, et se q.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator, and /or
conferring with the City Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation; and /or discussing matters covered under
Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and /or conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators; as follows:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov't Code §54956.9(a)) — 2
matters.
1. El Segundo City Employees Association v. City of El Segundo, Public Employee and Relations Board (Charge No.
LA- CE- 53 -M).
2. El Segundo City Employees Association v. City of El Segundo, Public Employment Relations Board (Charge No.
LA- CE- 91 -M).
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(b): -1- potential case (no further public
statement is required at this time); Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(c): -1- matter.
DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957) — None.
Public Employee Appointment — Labor Negotiator for Police and Fire Associations
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6) — None
Agency Negotiator: Mary Strenn, City Manager for negotiations with City Employees Association and unrepresented
City employees.
SPECIAL MATTERS — None.
2
AGENDA
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 350 Main Street
The City Council, with certain statutory exceptions, can only take action upon properly posted and listed agenda items.
Unless otherwise noted in the Agenda, the Public can only comment on City - related business that is within the
jurisdiction of the City Council and /or items listed on the Agenda during the Public Communications portion of the
Meeting. During the first. Public Communications portion of the Agenda, comments are limited to those items
appearing on the Agenda. During the second Public Communications portion of the Agenda, comments may be made
regarding any matter within the jurisdiction of the City Council. Additionally, the Public can comment on any Public
Hearing item on the Agenda during the Public Hearing portion of such item. The time limit for comments is five (5)
minutes per person.
Before speaking to the City Council, please come to the podium and state: Your name and residence and the
organization you represent, if desired. Please respect the time limits.
Members of the Public may place items on the second Public Communications portion of the Agenda by submitting a
Written Request to the City Clerk or City Manager's Office at least six days prior to the City Council Meeting (by 2:00
p.m. the prior Tuesday). Other members of the public may comment on these items only during this second Public
Communications portion of the Agenda. The request must include a brief general description of the business to be
transacted or discussed at the meeting. Playing of video tapes or use of visual aids may be permitted during meetings
if they are submitted to the City Clerk two (2) working days prior to the meeting and they do not exceed five (5) minutes
in lenqth.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact City Clerk, 524 -2305. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to
make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2003 — 7:00 P.M.
Next Resolution # 4294
Next Ordinance # 1356
7:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION - Pastor Timothy Shepman of St. John's Lutheran Church
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Councilmember Kelly McDowell
PRESENTATIONS —
(a) Commendation to Mary Wortman, Advertising and Marketing Communications, The
Boeing Company, for an outstanding job in organizing the Freedom Park Memorial
Dedication held on December 17, 2002.
3
(b) Commendation to the retiring team of K -9, Officer Jeff Leyman, and his K -9 Partner,
Kai. (See Consent Item # 9).
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30
minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of $50 or more to communicate to the City Council on
behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so identify themselves prior to
addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a fine of $250. While all
comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The
Council will respond to comments after Public Communications is closed.
(c) Request of Mr. Kyle Andrich, Vice President, El Segundo Girls Softball, for City
approval to close certain City streets for the El Segundo Girls Softball and Little
League Opening Day Parade from 9:00 a.m. to 10:45 a.m., Saturday, March 1, 2003,
and waiver of all associated fees. (See Consent Item # 8).
A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS
Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda by title
only.
Recommendation — Approval.
B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS
1. Consideration and possible action for a public hearing on the consideration of
$200,000 of operating and capital outlay requests, to be used for "front line law
enforcement ", from the Chief of Police. Adopt resolution accepting the State of
California Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Grant, California State SB 823,
awarding $100,000 in funding to be used by the Police Department per grant
guidelines.
Recommendation — (1) Open Public Hearing to consider funding requests from the Chief
of Police; (2) Discussion; (3) Read Resolution by Title only; (4) Adopt resolution
accepting $100,000 in grant funding, FY 02 -03, and appropriate to the Police
Department to supplement front -line law enforcement requests; (5) Appropriate
$100,000 in COPS grant funds from FY 01 -02 to supplement front -line law enforcement
requests; (6) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
2. Consideration and possible action for a public hearing regarding CEQA approval
of a negative declaration (Environmental Assessment EA 597) for the Douglas
Street Gap Closure /Railroad Grade Separation Project (Fiscal Impact — none at this
time).
Recommendation — (1) Open public hearing; (2) Discussion; (3) Approve the
environmental determination; (4) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to
this item.
3. Consideration and possible action regarding a brief presentation by AKM
Consulting Engineers and the adoption of the City Sewer Master Plan.
Recommendation — (1) Adopt the City Sewer Master Plan; (2) Find the Master Plan
exempt from environmental review as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for repair,
maintenance, and minor alteration to existing public facilities and structures; (3) Direct
staff to file a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act; (4) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
4. Consideration and possible action regarding a brief presentation by Time Warner
representative, Kristy Hennessey, on the current status of their efforts to resolve
past equipment failures and the resulting interruptions of live broadcast service.
Recommendation — (1) Provide direction to Time Warner and staff for improvement of
cable broadcast services; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to his
item.
5. Consideration and possible action regarding assumptions and methodology for the
update to the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
Recommendation — (1) Consider methodology and assumptions for Circulation Element
and provide direction to staff to begin technical analysis based on approved assumptions;
(2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to his item.
D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
5
E. CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed are to be adopted by one motion without discussion and passed unanimously. If a call for discussion of
an item is made, the item(s) will be considered individually under the next heading of business.
6. Warrant Numbers 2530997 to 2531354 on Register No. 8 in the total amount of
$1,452,321.96 and Wire Transfers from 111112003 through 1/24/2003 in the total
amount of $398,663.01.
Recommendation — Approve Warrant Demand Register and authorize staff to release.
Ratify: Payroll and Employee Benefit checks; checks released early due to contracts or
agreement; emergency disbursements and /or adjustments; and wire transfers.
7. City Council Meeting Minutes of January 21, 2003.
Recommendation — Approval.
8. Consideration and possible action regarding the request of Mr. Kyle Andrich, Vice
President, El Segundo Girls Softball, for City Approval to close certain City streets
for the El Segundo Girls Softball and .Little League Opening Day Parade from 9:00
a.m. to 10:45 a.m., Saturday, March 1, 2003, and waiver of all associated fees.
Recommendation — (1) Approve request, provided the event meets all applicable City
requirements; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
9. Consideration and possible action regarding the retirement of Police Service Dog
Kai (pronounced Ki).
Recommendation — (1) Approve retirement of Police Service Dog Kai and authorize the
Mayor to execute the sale of Kai to his K -9 Handler, Officer Leyman, for the nominal fee
of one dollar ($1.00); (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
10. Consideration and possible action regarding acceptance of the project for removal
and storage of Heritage Stones on Main Street — Project No. PW 02 -17 — Approved
Capital Improvement Program. (Final contract cost $46,854.50).
Recommendation — (1) Approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $8,046.50; (2)
Accept the work as complete; (3) Authorize City Clerk to file the City Engineer's. Notice of
Completion; (4) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
11. Consideration and possible action regarding award of contract to Professional
Building Contractors, Inc. (PBC) for construction work of the Residential Sound
Insulation Program required to complete Phase 8 (49 residences). (Amount
requested $1,110,098.00).
Recommendation — (1) Award contract to Professional Building Contractors, Inc. (PBC);
(2) Authorize the City Manager to execute a construction contract in a form approved by
the City Attorney; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
12. Consideration and possible action regarding approval to publish a Request for
Proposal to obtain a qualified architect for the refurbishment of the City Council
Chambers and the replacement of the City Hall exterior windows with energy
efficient windows. (No fiscal impact at this time).
Recommendation — (1) Authorize staff to solicit proposals from architectural firms that
specialize in design and modernization of commercial and /or government facilities; (2)
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
13. Consideration and possible action regarding installation of 3 -way stop signs at the
Mariposa Avenue /Washington Street and the Pine Avenue /Illinois Street
intersections. (No fiscal impact).
Recommendation — (1) Adopt resolution; (2) Authorize staff to install the approved stop
signs; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
14. Consideration and possible action for approval of a Contract Amendment No. 1 to
CJ Construction, Inc., for the annual Curb and Sidewalk Repair Agreement.
(Fiscal Impact $28,777.28).
Recommendation — (1) Approve Contract Amendment No. 1; (2) Authorize the City
Manager to sign the amendment; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related
to this item.
15. Consideration and possible action to retain CWA, Inc., to provide architectural
services for the City Library remodeling project — Approved Capital Improvement
Program. (Estimated cost $43,000.00).
Recommendation — (1) Authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services
Agreement with CWA, Inc., on behalf of the City; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other
action related to this item.
7
16. Consideration and possible action regarding approval to publish a Request for
Proposal to obtain professional services to install Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) compatible automated doors at the Joslyn Center and at the Library. (No
fiscal impact at this time)
Recommendation — (1) Authorize staff to solicit proposals from firms that specialize in
ADA compliant automated door design; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
17. Consideration and possible action regarding adoption of plans and specifications
for elimination of Sanitary Sewer Pump Station No. 12, located on the north side of
Oak Avenue, approximately 150 feet west of Main Street (address is 117 West Oak
Avenue) and construction of a sewer line — Project No. PW 03 -02 — Approved
Capital Improvement Program. (Estimated Cost $374,000.00
Recommendation — (1) Adopt plans and specifications; (2) Authorize staff to advertise
the project for receipt of construction bids; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
18. Consideration and possible action regarding adoption of plans and specifications
for reconstruction of Storm Water Pump Station No. 16, located at 408 Eucalyptus
Drive — PW No. 03 -01 — Approved Capital Improvement Program (Estimated Cost
$1,4155000.00)
Recommendation — (1) Adopt plans and specifications; (2) Authorize staff to advertise
the project for receipt of bids; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to
this item.
19. Consideration and possible action regarding a 1,000 square foot temporary
banner to be displayed on the west facing wall of the Police Department building.
Recommendation — (1) Approve the display of a banner greater than 500 square feet, as
required by Section 15 -18 -81-1 of the El Segundo Zoning Code; (2) Alternatively, discuss
and take other possible action related to this item.
CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA
F. NEW BUSINESS —
20. Consideration and possible action regarding the impact of the State of California's
budget proposal and the impact of the local economy on the City of El Segundo.
Recommendation — (1) Receive and file report; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other
action related to this item.
E'?
21. Consideration and possible action regarding a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with the Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB) concerning a joint
Environmental Impact Report /Environmental Impact Statement (EIR /EIS) and
funding of the EIR /EIS process.
Recommendation — (1) Authorize the Mayor to sign the MOU and direct staff to continue
with the EIR /EIS process; (2) Alternatively, take other action related to this item.
22. Consideration and possible action regarding — (1) Adoption of an urgency
ordinance implementing the pollution control requirements of the 2001 Storm
Water Permit of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Los
Angeles Region by amending Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the El Segundo Municipal
Code; (2) Introduction of a regular ordinance implementing the 2001 Storm Water
Permit of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board by amending
Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the El Segundo Municipal Code.
Recommendation — (1) Discussion; (2) Adoption of an urgency ordinance to take effect
on February 17, 2003; (3) Introduce and have first reading of the second ordinance by
Title only; (4) Schedule second reading and adoption for February 18, 2003; (5)
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
23. Consideration and possible action regarding a request by the Fire Department to
authorize the City Manager to accept a grant (Grant #EMW- 2002 -FG- 08479) from
the Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) and the United States Fire
Administration (USFA) for Firefighter Operations and Firefighter Safety equipment
in the amount of $245,200.00, of which, the Fiscal Impact to the City is $24,520.00.
Recommendation — (1) Accept the FEMA/USFA grant award; (2) Encumber $245,200.00
from the General Fund, $24,520.00 is the local share and $220,680 will be reimbursed to
the City by FEMA; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
G. REPORTS — CITY MANAGER — NONE
H. REPORTS — CITY ATTORNEY— NONE
I. REPORTS — CITY CLERK
J. REPORTS - CITY TREASURER — NONE
K. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member McDowell —
Council Member Gaines —
Council Member Wernick —
Mayor Pro Tern Jacobs —
Mayor Gordon —
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per
person, 30 minute limit total) Individuals who have receive value of $50 or more to communicate to the
City Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so identify
themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and punishable by a
fine of $250. While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow Council to take action on any item
not on the agenda. The Council will respond to comments after Public Communications is closed.
MEMORIALS —
CLOSED SESSION
The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government
Code Section §54960, et se q.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real Property Negotiator, and /or
conferring with the City Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation; and /or discussing matters covered under
Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and /or conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators.
REPORT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION (if required)
ADJOURNMENT
POSTED:
DATE:
11-5 O 3
TIME:
/Q' •• a -•/C�.
NAME:
10
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA HEADING: Special Order of Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION: Consideration and possible action for a public hearing on the
consideration of $200,000 of operating and capital outlay requests, to be used for "front line
law enforcement," from the Chief of Police. Adopt resolution accepting the State of California
Citizens' Option for Public Safety (COPS) Grant, California State SB 823, awarding $100,000
in funding to be used by the Police Department per grant guidelines.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Open. Public Hearing to consider funding requests from the Chief of
Police. (2) Discussion. (3) Read Resolution by Title only. (4) Adopt resolution accepting
$100,000 in grant funding, FY 02 -03, and appropriate to the police department to
supplement front -line law enforcement requests (5) Appropriate $100,000 in COPS grant
funds from FY 01 -02 to supplement front -line law enforcement requests (6) Alternatively
discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
During the 1996 California legislative session the state government adopted legislation to
provide a block grant for law enforcement purposes, known as the Citizens' Option for Public
Safety (COPS), under Government Code Sections 30061 through 30064. These funds are part
of the property taxes collected in California.
In October 2001, the City of El Segundo received $100,000 (FY 01 -02) in grant funding. The
process adopted by the legislation requires a public hearing to consider the expenditure of
funds and to ensure the opportunity for public input. At that time, a public hearing was held to
accept these funds. These funds must be encumbered by June 2003.
On November 5, 2002, the City of El Segundo received an additional $100,000 (FY 02 -03) in
grant money. These funds must be encumbered by June 30 of the following fiscal year.
Continued...
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Resolution
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: $0
Amount Requested: $200,000.00
Account Number: 120- 400 - 000 -8104
Project Phase: N/A
Appropriation Required: x Yes No
Zc'kWayt, Chief of Police
REVIEWED BY- DATE:
Mary S , City Manager
011, 1
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION (continued
All funds received under this grant must be utilized to supplement local law enforcement
activities and cannot be used to supplant existing funding. The process adopted by the
legislation requires a public hearing to consider the expenditure of funds and to ensure the
opportunity for public input.
The funds may be used for "front line law enforcement," including hiring officers, buying
equipment or computers, or paying for anti -crime programs. In the past, the funds have been
used to purchase numerous pieces of equipment that are directly used in "front line law
enforcement." This includes replacement Glock 21 handguns for all officers, less -than- lethal
shotguns, M26 Tasers, replacement gas masks, updated video /audio systems in the patrol
vehicles, and run -flat wheel bands.
The funds received in FY 01 -02 and FY 02 -03 ($200,000 total) have not been encumbered at
this time. The Chief of Police has created the following list of some possible equipment
purchases to be made with the COPS grant funds. The costs are estimates and they are
listed in no particular order. They will be prioritized when more information is available.
1. Vehicle for Sergeant assigned to State Terrorism Task Force, approximately $24,000
2. Supplementing of the equipment replacement budget to purchase new, safer,
advanced motorcycles for the traffic division, approximately $50,000
3. Service and repair of the police department range, approximately $24,000
4. Upgrade of the current SWAT team van, approximately $75,000
5. Implementation of the 911 - For -Kids program, approximately $10,000
6. Modem upgrade necessary to continue MDC operation when AT &T discontinues CDPD
service, approximately $30,000
7. Upgrade of the current Mobile Data Computers in the patrol division vehicles,
approximately $90,000
8. Upgrade of equipment in new patrol division fleet, i.e. lighting, second battery, new
ballistic shields.
9. Communication earphone kits for patrol division officers, approximately $4,000
10. Hardware /software upgrades necessary to enable the communication center to receive
911 cell phone calls directly.
11. Upgrade CAD /RMS system
12. Purchase AVL system and integrate into CAD /RMS system.
13. Hardware /software upgrades necessary to make radio equipment operate on new radio
frequencies.
14. Overtime funding for special enforcement details.
Items on the priority list all meet grant guidelines of "front line law enforcement."
012
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
CITIZENS OPTION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY (COPS) PROGRAM.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the city of El Segundo as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:
A. Senate Bill 823 (SB 823) (Poochigian — Local law enforcement funding) was chaptered
into law on April 6, 2002 for supplemental local law enforcement funding pursuant to the
bill;
B. SB 823 provides $100,000,000 statewide for the Citizens for Public Safety (COPS)
Program;
C. The County of Los Angeles has established a Supplemental Law Enforcement Service
Fund (SLESF) in accordance with Section 30061 of the Government Code to receive SB
823 funds which have been allocated for use in Los Angeles County;
D. The City of El Segundo participates in the COPS Program and receives its share of any
funds available for the purpose of ensuring public safety; and
E. The City has established its own Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund (SLESF)
in accordance with Section 30061 of the Government Code;
F. The City Council has conducted a public hearing to consider funding requests from the
Chief of Police and shall determine the submitted requests as required by SB 823.
SECTION 2: The City Council directs that the City maintain its own Supplemental Law Enforcement
Service Fund (SLESF) as required by SB 823 and State law pursuant to Government Code Sections
30061 and 30063.
SECTION 3: The City Council requests that the City's share of the funding be allocated to SLESF for
purposes of front-line law enforcement.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution; record this Resolution
in the book of the City's original resolutions; and make a minute of the adoption of the Resolution in the
City Council's records and the minutes of this meeting.
SECTION 5. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption, and will remain
effective unless repealed or superseded.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
Mike Gordon,
Mayor
1.
.2003.
013
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) Ss
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
1, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, hereby certify that the whole
number of members of the City Council of the City is five; that the foregoing Resolution No.
was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved and signed by the Mayor
of said City, and attested to by the City Clerk of said City, all at a regular meeting of said Council
held on the day of 2003, and the same was so passed and adopted
by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
F." I a I * 4 & 15C
Cindy Mortesen,
City Clerk
APPROVED T
,
Mark D. H - ad 6lev..,
By:
Karl H. Berger'
Assistant City A
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of
Business — Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action for a public hearing regarding CEQA approval of a
negative declaration (Environmental Assessment EA 597) for the Douglas Street Gap
Closure/ Railroad Grade Separation Project — (Fiscal Impact — None at this time).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Open public hearing; (2) Discussion; (3) Approve the
environmental determination; (4) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this
item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Background and discussion begins on the next page......
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment.
2. Project location map.
3. Notice of open house held on November 21, 2002.
4. Notice of public hearing published on December 26, 2002.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Capital Improvement Program:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required:
ORIGINATED BY: axtfl �-
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY:
Mary Strenn, City Ma4erger
DATE: January 29, 2003
DATE:
s
20030204 — Approval of EA 597 — Douglas Street Project 2
01 5
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Douglas Street is currently a north -south secondary arterial parallel to and between
Aviation and Sepulveda Boulevards. The roadway currently dead ends 1200 feet north of
Rosecrans Avenue at the Metro Green Line Station and the Burlington / Santa Fe Railroad
tracks. The roadway north of these tracks starts at approximately Alaska Avenue and
continues northerly to the 1 -105 Freeway. The proposed project is intended to close this
existing gap in Douglas Street and to create a through north -south corridor to relieve the
congestion on the Aviation / Sepulveda Boulevard corridors.
The Douglas Street gap closure alignment crosses the Santa Fe Railroad tracks and the
Green Line Station. The project scope includes construction of a 4 -lane roadway under the
railroad tracks connecting the two (2) dead ends of Douglas Street, north and south of the
railroad tracks, by means of constructing a grade separation structure. The work includes
lighting, storm drainage facilities, retaining walls, utility relocations, temporary railroad
shoo -fly construction, pedestrian access to the Green Line Station traffic signal
improvements and right -of -way acquisition. Another key component of the project is the
construction of an intermodal transit facility to provide parking for public transit, car pool,
and vanpools to encourage ridership of the Green Line Station.
On May 1, 2001, the City Council approved an agreement with the Parsons
Transportation Group to provide design engineering and environmental services for the
project. The project design is currently 95% complete and design coordination has
been done with the MTA, the Railroad and all impacted utility agencies. The
Environmental Assessment / Initial Study has been reviewed and approved by Caltrans
and the Federal Highway Administration which has provided grant funds for
construction of the project.
A public open house was held on November 21, 2002, in the City Council chambers to
provide information to the interested public and to receive comments. Tonight's public
hearing has been advertised in the newspaper on December 26, 2002, to provide for
the required thirty (30) days notice.
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing and approve the
negative declaration / finding of no significant impact for the project. The project
requires right -of -way acquisition. The Los Angeles County Department of Public
Works, which is the right -of -way agent for the project has informed staff that the right -
of -way negotiations with property owners can commence only after the approval of the
environmental clearance.
20030204 — Approval of EA 597 — Douglas Street Project
016
..��,
� �
'� �
i � = �
.�� ,�
�.
.�
��9
t
����'
�;:
>,.
;.
�;
,�
f
r. ': : �r
i
ti
uj
tc -r J.1Nf10o 53139NV SO'1 3NUGH.LMV-H d0 A113 3
C7
Fes- z ' 078 1 O'J310 kV5 a
C i vg
Z
O u V J
h y h a y p• y y y d y
0 ILL
cI
N
ti m m L. m o N ,., rn r '3Ar SISI A
_ �. _
t
in
o q�
3
� '� •s +a I r �. Noilrtnr
10 A1„1111 ` 13NNOH r• In '`..` spuno 11� 4203
o >
m
Y
a.
3
3
a 1 `
da
noo '�nrooaaaati
I
o a � •c $ > ,rYO�
3I•AIYdi 'AM
Q d j O4 A3lnl� IWARBNUN03
3NIl N331:19
!z < OlilalMV t '
w ; XS CnlOdV'
Z 1S —� --► -w NSVN i• _
NIP iS NCVN ' AVM ANVd =
cn
o � - v
w
l f•, Q
W ' 't3 trnlu�l rl 7� xrM \ m
JtrM 63 Rm r.�._... 3r
Z Z ¢ o Q31llr
z
C V 35 Asl3s 51HOdtllr 'OAIO a W �� Yd�
s W ti IlAil S£1 _ Z
Vaawin43t1 C
1s VNVIONI Arol1:1 S£1 i aw
Nip �� ac — a �ITo
15 SIONtIIt AT Ml3 U.
e 'O
QQ> is No""OHSVM iAV 3tiNid
3s aysNTI! 1 1rtN'iV/t
V
NYOd AV n.O > is VI11Y0l11T0 c ' LL13�N'Od
's 35 N003Y0 ° AV 3ldlrn
as
}
If Oi�It9Vd
_ �'�•� �7 j � 75 VOVA3N � � • Ipr
1s Y31N30 W _ • 12un•l
uj
'YO IIO1VONflti 16 o
CD
Q ; 1/11110'1 C� ®� is Vltl10, N b>r Y1101�!
1� INTO l.— �'1 is VVV315 �
is "Mali O vw 3N NVIs
o ® 15 NOQl7Ns
tV M •N3Y• v v
® W IU
i
tl ddid ��]Qe 1s OYVONVls N
f� r
1S MIT" r Tin -
4 r A9
15 ONONNOIY �:� a y 9 n p (� N�FN 9
r
i 15 OYOONOO
a �` i CC.i M1s
s C
15 VINISVIA C j
c �❑ ���e 15 SHIIINM !
®� ��
° 1S T1SIA 11110, i
tD C V110, m Y ¢ r7
L) W V z J z A3l1Vn '
0 a.1 a J O. 3
7 D 4 riti Is Ls3v3,nlN
° z '
o I '1S 1 Y ,iH =C d
Z
J [ , Li
yS 3 IT r,7A fl
3 V � Rp
-� X06 A11:) 1s•AA �`.�5
J
N 11J
en p OE
� $s
o a LL
e Q U.
Z d
Q L_
v . W
CD
a •
Department of Public Works iiMr"'E l
!olieizav�s �..
/
NOTICE OF PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE AND AVAILABILITY OF THE
PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
DRAFT INITIAL STUDY /ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE
DOUGLAS STREET GAP CLOSURE, INTERMODAL TRANSIT.
CENTER AND RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
The City of El Segundo, in cooperation
with the California Department of EAST GRAND AVE _ : N
Transportation (Caltrans) and the
Federal Highway Administration EAST EL SEGUNDO %,SLVO
(FHWA), proposes to construct the y -
Douglas Street Gap Closure,
m CITY OF r3 '
Intermodal Transit Center and Railroad ELSEOUNOO w.
Grade Separation Project in the City of
El Segundo, Los Angeles County. The HvOHEB? i* urAw ST m
Douglas Street Gap Closure between r+' KA
Alaska Avenue and Park Place would ' �; ���: AV Z
be designed as a 40kph (posted 25 HA HANI
� � y � .� � � TH pRNE
mph) four -lane north -south arterial = „'e�SF- o W ' <
roadway with sidewalks. The proposed ROSE CRANSAVE z ” °
facility would be grade - separated and CITY OF y
pass under the existing at -grade MANHATTAN PROJECT BEACH LOCATION
Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad
tracks and the elevated Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA)
Douglas Street Green Line Light Rail Station. An Intermodal Transit Center would provide
additional bus, van, bicycle, pedestrian and auto access, and parking facilities to the Green
Line Station. The primary purposes of the project are to relieve congestion on the Aviation
and Sepulveda boulevards north -south corridors by the creation of an additional north -
south arterial route;* facilitate access to the MTA Douglas • Street Green Line Station; and
improve efficiency of local and regional transit services, thereby, encouraging transit use.
A Draft Initial Study (IS) /Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to assess
potential impacts of the proposed project. The environmental studies show that the
proposed project will not significantly affect the quality of the environment. The Draft IS /EA
is available for public review and comment beginning November 7, 2002. Written
comments may be submitted through December 6, 2002 to Ms. Maryam Jonas, Civil
Engineering Associate, or Mr. Bellur Devaraj, City Engineer, City of El Segundo,
Engineering Division, Department of Public Works, 350 Main Street; El Segundo, CA
90245.. Members of the public may also submit comments at the project open house.
WHERE TO REVIEW THE DRAFT IS /EA
The Draft IS /EA may be reviewed or copied during normal business hours at the following'
locations:
City of El Segundo El Segundo City of Manhattan City of
Engineering Division Public Library Beach Hawthorne
Dept. of Public Works 111 W. Mariposa 1400 Highland 4455 W. 126th
350 Main Street Avenue Avenue Street
El Segundo, CA El Segundo, CA Manhattan Beach„ CA Hawthorne, CA
INFORMATIONAL OPEN HOUSE
An informational open house will be held to provide the opportunity to comment on the
document and discuss design features with the project designer and City of El Segundo
staff. The tentative construction schedule will also be discussed. Persons wishing to
comment may do so by making a formal statement at the open house or by submitting
comments in writing.
El Seaundo City Council Chambers Thursday, November 21, 2002
350 Main Street 4:00 to 8:00 p.m.
El Segundo, CA
The meeting facilities are ADA accessible. Individuals who will need help with translation
and /or accessible services should call Mr. Roger Groman at (310) 524 -2715, 72 hours prior
to the public hearing. Hearing impaired individuals may obtain meeting information by
calling the Califomia Relay Service and asking the TTY operator to call (800)735 -2529.
For additional information, please contact Ms. Maryam Jonas, Civil Engineering Associate
(310- 524 - 2361), or Mr. Bellur Devaraj, City Engineer (310- 524 - 2358), City of El Segundo,
Engineering Division, Dept. of Public Works, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA 90245.
G#
Ant AM
Owl
Aft
i
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DATE: I February 4, 2003
TIME: 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: City Council Chambers
350 Main Street
E1 Segundo, California
TAKE NOTICE that the El Segundo CITY COUNCIL will hold a public hearing at the
time and place indicated above regarding the following:
Environmental Assessment:
Applicants & Property Owners:
Address:
No. 597
City Of El Segundo
Douglas Street between
Alaska Avenue and Park Place
The City of El Segundo, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), proposes to construct the
Douglas Street Gap Closure, Intermodal Transit Center and Railroad Grade Separation
Project in the City of El Segundo, Los Angeles County. The Douglas Street Gap Closure
between Alaska Avenue and Park Place would be designated as a 40kph (posted 25 mph)
four -lane north -south arterial roadway. The proposed facility would be grade- separated
and pass under the existing at -grade Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad tracks and the
elevated Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Agency (MTA) Douglas
Street Green Line Light Rail Station. An Intermodal Transit Center would provide
additional bus , van, bicycle, pedestrian and auto access, and parking facilities to the
Green Line Station. The primary purposes of the project are to relieve congestion on the
Aviation and Sepulveda north -south corridors by the creation of an additional north -south
arterial route; facilitate access to the MTA Douglas Street Green Line Station; and
improve efficiency of local and regional transit services, thereby, encouraging transit use.
FJ
Aft
The Environmental Assessment, legal description, and related files for the above -
mentioned project are available for public review Monday through Friday between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in the Engineering Division, Department of Public Works, located at
350 Main Street, El Segundo. The public review period begins on December 26, 2002
and ends on January 27, 2003. All persons may give testimony at the public hearing at
the time and place indicated above. Please contact Bellur Devaraj in the Engineering
Division at (310) 524 -2358 for further information.
Be advised that if you bring a legal challenge to the proposed project, you maybe limited
to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in
this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Council at or before the
public hearing.
Andres Santamaria
Director of Public Works
City Of El Segundo
Mailing Date:
Publication Date:
Posting Date:
December 26, 2002
December 26, 2002.
December 26, 2002
r,
Signature: & ,Kai .
Time: l i n too A m
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
Mary Strenn, City Manager
Karl Berger, City Attorney
Chris Ketz, Planning Manager
021
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL . MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of
Business Presentation
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding a brief presentation by AKM Consulting
Engineers and the adoption of the City Sewer Master Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Adopt the City Sewer Master Plan; (2) Find the Master Plan
exempt from environmental review as a Class 1 Categorical Exemption for repair,
maintenance, and minor alteration to existing public facilities and structures; (3) Direct
staff to file a Notice of Exemption in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act; (4) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Background and discussion begins on the next page...........
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT: Projected capital expenditures of $13 million over the next twelve (12) years.
Capital Improvement Program:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required: No
ORIGINATED BY: DATE: January 30, 2003
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
Mary Strenn, City Ma g er /
�►
20030204 - ADOPT CITY SEWER MASTER PLAN
G 2
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
The City's wastewater collection system consists of approximately fifty (50) miles of sewer
mains and ten (10) sewage pump stations to pump sewage from low areas. Generally, the
area of the City west of Sepulveda Boulevard discharges to the Hyperion Treatment Plan
operated by the City of Los Angeles and the area east of Sepulveda Boulevard discharges
to the Los Angeles County Sanitation District's Treatment Plant in the City of Carson.
The City retained AKM Consulting Engineers to develop a Sewer Master Plan for the City.
The purpose of the plan is to perform an engineering evaluation of the existing sewer
system and to develop a twelve (12) year Capital Improvement Plan for sewer capacity
improvement, and rehabilitation /replacement projects to provide for current and future
growth needs.
By adoption of this plan, the Council will provide direction to staff for the future sewer
improvements to be built. The Capital Improvement Program process will be used to make
project recommendations to the Council for funding consideration. During the budget
process, certain recommended projects may be funded for the fiscal year. This Master
Plan will provide a long term guide for the maintenance and upgrade of the City's sewer
system.
It is estimated that the cost per year to construct these improvements would be $1.1
million.
20030204 — ADOPT CITY SEWER MASTER PLAN
a�
0 ' 4
I�
DO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
EL SEGUN AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding a brief presentation by Time Warner
representative, Kris y t Hennessey, on the current status of their efforts to resolve past
equipment ment failures and the resulting interruptions of live broadcast service.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation ---(1)
Provide direction to Time Warner and staff for improvement of
...cable broadcast services; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this
item.
In 2002, the fo g
llowin Council meetings had interruptions of service:
.
1) Can May 7th and September 17th, there was intermittent outages during live broadcast.
Recorded and subsequent playback of meetings were not affected. Recorded
2) On December 3, 2002, there was a total interruption of live broadcast service.
and subsequent playback of meetings were not affected.
After the December 3 incident nt of complete broadcast interruption, Time Warner made repairs
of a cable wire tha t had been in damaged condition on the roof of City Hall. They also replaced
modular equipment at the temporary cable studio in the trailer at the High School.
q p
Staff recommends that Time W arner provide a written evaluation of our existing system,
including a total schematic of wire cables, and make recommendations for implementing
and equipment for the live broadcast areas of City Hall, the School District
improved signals
the Joslyn Cable Playback area and the Time Warner
n Center, the Library, the
Board room, Y
broadcast origination site.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: None
Amount Requested: None
Account Number: None
Project Phase: None
,appropriation Required: Yes X .^ No
ORIGINATED BY:
Q"(1 ?6)i } DATE: 1
Debra Brighto'h, Director
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding assumptions and methodology for the update to
the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Consider methodology and assumptions for Circulation Element and provide direction
to staff to begin technical analysis based on approved assumptions; or,
2. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
At the direction of the City Council, staff contracted with Kimley -Horn and Associates on
November 19, 2002, to update the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan. Updating
the Circulation Element is necessary in order to maintain consistency with State and local
congestion and transportation policies and planning practices.
One of the tasks involved in preparation of the Circulation Element update is forecasting future
traffic conditions. In order to forecast and plan for future transportation needs, a baseline
analysis of existing conditions will be performed and then modified based on the projected
changes in traffic conditions. Future traffic conditions are affected by land use patterns, future
street improvements, and other factors.
(Continued on next page...)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Summary of Assumptions, prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates
B. Comments from El Segundo Employers Association
C. Comments from El Segundo Chamber of Commerce
D. Major and Approved Project list
E. Vacant Land Inventory,
F. Recyclable Building Inventory
G. Residential Growth Projections
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: N/A
Amount Requested: N/A
Account Number: N/A
Project Phase: N/A
Appropriation Required: Yes X No
ORIGINATED BY: DA I I=:
Ja
RE
. Hansen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services
BY:
Mary Strenn,
Manager
DATE:
;KV/03
025
0
STAFF REPORT: February 4, 2003
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (cont.)
Page 2
The purpose of this report is to review the methodology and assumptions staff is proposing to
be used for modeling utilized to forecast traffic. Kimley -Horn and Associates has prepared a
report (Exhibit A) discussing transportation modeling methodologies and assumptions. The
report summarizes the approaches for model characteristics, base year model validation, land
use inputs, network inputs, model runs with the alternative floor area ratio (FAR) assumptions
directed by Council for the Corporate Office (CO) and Mixed -Use North (MU -N) zones,
roadway extensions, and the Nash - Douglas one -way couplet. The report also includes a
discussion of Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology for estimating traffic impacts,
alternative evaluation methodologies, and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
assumptions.
As part of our commitment to involve the community stakeholders in the Circulation Element
process, staff provided an advanced copy of the Kimley -Horn report to the El Segundo
Residents Association (ESRA), El Segundo Employers Association (ESEA), and the El
Segundo Chamber of Commerce for review and comment. Comments from ESEA and the
Chamber of Commerce are attached as Exhibits B and C, respectively. No comments were
received from ESRA by the printing deadline. The discussion below of assumptions and data
sources will address some of the issues raised by their comments.
Assumptions and Data Sources
Whenever possible, staff will utilize data already available as a base. Background studies
conducted in 1995, when the City prepared a Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Study, are a source
of data for the Circulation Element Update. Those studies include an inventory of approved
projects (not yet constructed), vacant or partially vacant buildings, recyclable (underdeveloped)
parcels and vacant land. The information gathered in 1995 has been updated and is proposed
to be used in the projection of potential future development and land uses for the purpose of
updating the Circulation Element.
When the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Study was prepared, the City was divided into 28
geographic zones known as Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ's). The Zones were created because
the level of development was not anticipated to be consistent throughout the City and the
Zones allowed implementation of a flexible and equitable traffic impact fee. Analysis of the
land uses for the Circulation Element Update is also broken down by TAZ. The consultant will
review the previous TAZ structure and develop a system of TAZ's to allocate future
development. The Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees will not be revised in this study. The
Mitigation Fee Study will be prepared after the Circulation Element is adopted, subject to a City
Council direction.
Details of how the various sources of data will be used and the assumptions that will be made
are discussed below.
1. Traffic Counts - New traffic counts at approximately 50 intersections and 70 roadway
segments will form the baseline for the existing traffic conditions. These counts were
conducted for three consecutive mid -week days on January 21, 22, and 23, 2003. All
signalized intersection in the City will be measured. According to the traffic counting y
��1�
STAFF REPORT: February 4, 2003
Page 3
company, there were no unusual traffic occurrences in these days, which would
invalidate the counts as typical for the City. Staff intentionally waited until after the
holiday period to conduct the counts to insure that they were not skewed by unusual
holiday traffic patterns.
2. Major Approved and Active Projects List — All of the projects on the current list of Major
Approved and Active Projects (Exhibit D) will be incorporated into the land use
projections. Traffic generation rates, based on the Institute of Transportation Engineer's
(ITE) Manual, the industry standard, will be used to determine the amount of traffic to
add to the baseline, or actual numbers from traffic studies will be utilized if available.
This methodology is consistent with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
requirements. The only projects outside the City that staff specifically recommends to
be included in the list are potential LAX expansion and Playa Vista development.
a. LAX- Of special concern must be the assumptions made to account for the
downturn in passenger miles since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, and
what level of traffic generation should be incorporated for the potential future
expansion of LAX. In the previous Circulation Element update, LAX traffic
projections were made before the LAX Master Plan was made available. The
most recent traffic projections would be contained in that Master Plan. However,
the City of Los Angeles has indicated that it is developing another new Master
Plan that would likely be based on a smaller build -out than the pre- September
11 plan. Since that plan has not been made public yet, certain assumptions
would have to be made about what level of traffic from LAX to factor into the
Circulation Element. Staff recommends that the difference between the
announced goal of a next Master Plan of accommodating a total 78 million
annual passengers (MAP) and the current traffic level (67 MAP) be factored into
the traffic model.
b. Playa Vista- In the previous Circulation Element, the Council directed staff to
include the development of Playa Vista as an "approved" project. Staff proposes
to again incorporate this development due to its size and its potential impacts on
El Segundo. The Phase II Environmental Impact Report is now available.
Therefore, staff can incorporate the expected traffic generation into the growth
forecasts.
c. SCAG Model —As the Kimley Horn assumptions indicate, staff proposes to use
the Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) traffic model as a
basis for factoring in traffic growth from outside the City. The SCAG model is
designed to account for growth in all areas of the region and incorporates
planned regional transportation projects approved in the Regional Transportation
Plan. The SCAG model forecasts traffic until 2025, which is recommended as
the proposed build -out year for the purposes of the Circulation Element. The
SCAG model assigns trip distribution throughout the region based on census
data, surveys, and traffic counts. As a result, staff believes it would not be
appropriate to attempt to identify every single planned development project in
the region or subregion in order to add it to the approved and major project list.
It is important to note that the 1992 General Plan Land use Element analyzed
027
STAFF REPORT: February 4, 2003
Page 4
the complete build -out of the City over the life of the Plan. However, the previous
Circulation Element update process used a more conservative assumption of a
20 percent build -out of the land uses over the life of the plan. Staff believes that
the Circulation Element would be more consistent with the General Plan if a 100
percent build -out of vacant land, approved projects, and recyclable buildings
were incorporated into the year 2025 traffic projections.
d. "Sphere of Influence" - It is also important to note that the City's "sphere of
influence" as referenced in the Chamber of Commerce comments is limited to
the current City boundaries. Spheres of influence are used by suburban and
rural cities were unincorporated county land surrounds a city, which might be
annexed in the future. In urban settings, spheres of influence are not applicable
for land planning purposes. As discussed above, staff proposes the use of the
SCAG regional traffic model as the source for accounting for traffic from outside
the city. Attempting to devise an inclusive list of current known projects outside
the City, which might impact traffic in town, would be very difficult given the
number of jurisdictions that surround the City and the dynamic nature in which
projects evolve over time. It would be impossible to predict what new
developments may be proposed in future years in surrounding communities. The
SCAG model incorporates growth rates to account for traffic from future projects.
3. Vacant Land Survey — The vacant land survey (Exhibit F) prepared in 1995 serves as
the basis for a revised vacant land survey. Staff reviewed the list of vacant properties
and removed from the list any parcels which have been developed since 1995 and
added any buildings which have been demolished since 1995. For the purposes of
projecting future traffic volumes, Kimley -Horn will assume that all of the vacant land has
been developed up to the maximum FAR by 2025.
4. Vacant Buildings —Vacancy rates of commercial and industrial buildings greater than
four percent will be incorporated into the projections of future traffic volumes, as four
percent vacancy is generally considered to encompass turnover only. Vacancy rate
data is available from local commercial and industrial real estate brokers. The 1995
Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Study did include a number of vacant buildings which
were anticipated to be occupied. Currently, there is an approximately nine percent
vacancy rate for industrial space and an approximately 21 percent vacancy rate for
commercial office space. Since vacancy rates of four percent or less are generally
accepted to be full occupancy as this percentage encompasses standard turnover, staff
proposes to include a five percent vacancy for industrial buildings in the inventory and
17 percent vacancy will be included for commercial office space.
5. Recyclable Buildings — Staff has prepared a list of potentially recyclable buildings
(Exhibit G), which might also be added to the baseline traffic levels. Recyclable
buildings are structures, which are below the allowed FAR, are near the end of their life
span and are likely to be replaced. The list was developed by first conducting a
"windshield survey" of the commercial and industrial areas of the City then by reviewing
the County Assessor parcel data. Data regarding the parcel size, structure size, and
year built was obtained from the Assessor's rolls as well as City building permits. Older
structures, which appear to be in poor condition, are not compatible with the
surrounding development and the zoning district in which they are located, and
028
STAFF REPORT: February 4, 2003
Page 5
structures significantly under the maximum allowed FAR were considered to be
potentially recyclable. The 2025 traffic forecast will include 100 percent build -out of the
buildings on the recyclable building inventory.
a. Honeywell Redevelopment - As Council is aware, Honeywell recently
discontinued their operation at the northeast corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and
Rosecrans Avenue. Combined with vacant land adjacent to their properties, there is
approximately 85 acres of industrial land available for development. Given the
location of some of this land, staff feels it might be appropriate to consider
alternative development scenarios for some or all of this land, since industrial use
may not be the highest and best use in the future. If Council desires, a certain
amount of acreage can be factored in the recycled building inventory and vacant
land inventory with different densities and uses than allowed in the General Plan to
simulate the traffic impacts from a potentially more intensive use of the land. At a
minimum, staff recommends that the three Honeywell parcels (12.2 acres) south of
the railroad tracks be studied with a commercial development.
6. Residential — Staff recently prepared growth forecasts for residential land uses (Exhibit
E) in the City as our local input into SCAG's draft Regional Transportation Plan. In
preparing our forecasts, staff used parcel data to determine the potential build -out of
vacant residentially zoned land, underdeveloped properties in the Two - family (R -2) and
Multiple - family (R -3) zones and examined growth rates in the last 10 years to estimate
our potential housing growth in the next 25 -30 years. In the Single - Family Residential
(R -1) and Two - Family Residential (R -2) Zones there are more dwelling units then there
are lots, due to the number of non - conforming properties that exist. However, there are
a number of R -2 lots with one unit that were entitled to add a second unit. Such
potential development is included in the forecasts. In addition, staff has also analyzed
the Multi - Family Residential (R -3) Zone and found that there are more existing units
then would be permitted under current zoning density limits. Again, this is due to the
number of lots that are nonconforming due to density. Staff did incorporate into the
projections R -3 zoned lots that had fewer units than allowed today, to take into account
potential units that could arise from redevelopment of these lots. Based on these
calculations, staff estimated that an additional 425 units could be developed by the year
2025 (17 units per year). This compares to an additional 1,493 units that SCAG
estimated would be developed in the same time period. Staff proposes that these
estimates be used in the Circulation Element.
7. Roadway Extensions — When the current Circulation Element was prepared in 1992,
potential roadway extensions, which were included in the prior Circulation Element,
were also included in the Master Plan of Streets in order to help alleviate traffic
congestion. Given the significant obstacles in the path of most of the potential roadway
extensions, such as railroads and existing development, the City Council directed staff
to analyze the potential impacts of eliminating roadway extensions identified in the
current Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets as listed below:
a) Nash Street between Park Place and El Segundo Boulevard;
b) Hughes Way between its current terminus and Utah Avenue;
c) Grand Avenue between Duley Road and Aviation Boulevard; and,
020
STAFF REPORT: February 4, 2003 Page 6
d) Mariposa Avenue between Douglas Street and Aviation Boulevard.
8. Truck Route Master Plan — Along with evaluating roadway extensions, the feasibility of
the following truck routes should be evaluated, unless directed otherwise:
a) The Nash Street extension (Nash Street between Park Place and El
Segundo Boulevard);
b) The Grand Avenue extension (Grand Avenue between Duley Road and
Aviation Boulevard); and,
c) Grand Avenue between Main Street and Sepulveda Boulevard.
9. Bicycle Master Plan — No changes are contemplated to the Bicycle Master Plan.
10. One -Way Couplet — At the Council's direction, staff will also evaluate the traffic
implications of eliminating the Nash - Douglas one -way couplet from the Circulation
Element. The couplet has been in operation for approximately five years. However,
based on input from existing businesses and due to recent development in the area, it
has been suggested that these two streets would operate more efficiently as two -way
streets as originally constructed. The traffic improvements expected by the one -way
couplet do not appear to have been realized.
Next Steps
Upon approval of the assumptions by the Council, Kimley Horn will begin the traffic model
validation and testing of the alternative FAR scenarios described in their report. In June, staff
plans on reporting to Council the results of the model validation process and results of the
traffic model analyzing the existing General Plan build -out (i.e., the no project scenario for EIR
purposes). In September, staff will return to Council with the results of the model runs for the
FAR scenarios for a discussion of possible additional model runs and whether or not to pursue
density revisions to the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
PAPlanning & Building Safety\ PROJECTS \576- 599 \EA - 579 \2- 4- 03.ais.doc
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE
TRANSPORTATION MODELING METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
INTRODUCTION
The City of El Segundo last adopted an update to its General Plan in 1992. The General Plan
update included a comprehensive evaluation and update of the Circulation Element. At that time,
a substantial amount of traffic analysis was conducted, and a variety of Land Use and Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) alternatives were tested for the Mixed -Use and Corporate Office areas of the City.
The City Council has initiated this current process to update the Circulation Element and to
revisit the matter of FARs in the Mixed -Use and the Corporate Office areas of the City. The City
Council also wishes to investigate non - traditional means to accommodate the increasing
transportation needs in the City.
The process for the update of the City of El Segundo's Circulation Element will involve the
development of a model to forecast traffic. The model will be used to analyze the traffic
implications of changes in land use, FARs, and network assumptions. A summary of a
generalized process for the update of the Circulation Element is presented on the exhibit on the
next page. As indicated in the process chart, the Council will review model parameters and
assumptions. The modeling process will proceed after concurrence by the Council.
MODEL CHARACTERISTICS
In order to meet the City's analysis needs, it is essential that the modeling process and
methodology be:
+ Technically sound and defensible and consistent with regional transportation planning
Responsive to the types of analyses the City wishes to perform
+ Easy to explain and understand
'► Capable of producing results consistent with changes in model inputs
• Easy to update, as needed, after this current Circulation Element update project is completed
To ensure consistency and technical compatibility with regional transportation planning, regional
trip distribution assumptions will be developed based on the Southern California Association of
Governments (SLAG) Regional Model using the regional input for travel patterns to, from, and
through El Segundo. A subarea model will be developed and will reflect the City's street and
roadway network in much greater detail than possible with the regional model. Likewise, the
subarea model will be refined to reflect the land uses in the City and a refined Traffic Analysis
Zone (TAZ) structure.
The refined and custom - tailored subarea model will depict El Segundo land uses and the roadway
network. Starting the modeling process with the SLAG model data as a base will allow the City
to maintain compatibility with the regional planning process and to account for the effects of
intercity and pass through traffic attributable to regional traffic generators, such as the airport, the
Playa Vista project, and others.
The El Segundo subarea model will first be developed and validated for base year conditions.
After ascertaining that the base year subarea model is capable of reflecting current traffic
EXHIBIT A
conditions in El Segundo, the 2025 subarea model will be developed. The validation of the base
year model would give us the confidence that the modeling process would truly perform the
function of a sound technical analysis tool.
BASE YEAR MODEL VALIDATION
Validation Process
The base year model validation will entail a comparison of actual traffic counts to model results.
These comparisons will be made across "screenlines" as well as for key arterials. A "screenline"
is a hypothetical line that cuts across a number of parallel arterials. The actual ground count
across each screenline (the sum of the traffic on all arterials that the screenline crosses) is
compared to the results produced by the model. The comparison of screenline totals provides an
indication as to whether or not the model is performing well in general.
In transportation modeling practice, at the screenline level, model results within 10 to 12 percent
of actual ground counts are generally considered acceptable. The screenline locations where we
will make comparisons are illustrated in Figure 1. A total of six screenlines will be evaluated.
One screenline will cut across the arterials at the southern boundary of the City, one at the
northern boundary, one at the eastern, and one just east of Vista del Mar. These four screenlines
will indicate whether or not the model is representing correctly the trips that enter, exit, or go
through the City.. The remaining two screenlines, one east west and one north- south, will be
within the City and will help assess model performance within the City.
After it is concluded that the model is performing well at the screenline level, the model results
will be compared at the level of individual facilities. At the facility level, the model is considered
to be performing well if the model results are generally within 15 percent of the actual count. On
some facilities with low traffic volumes, a higher percentage may be acceptable.
Base Year Model Inputs
The purpose of developing a base year model (existing conditions model) is to validate the ability
of the model to produce acceptable results. If the base year model results compare favorably
with actual traffic volume counts, the model can be used confidently as a tool to forecast future
traffic. Following is a discussion of the key inputs to the base year model.
Land use inputs: Staff will compile information about current land uses in the City. Land use
information will be quantified by land use category and by TAZs. It is anticipated that the City
will be subdivided into approximately 50 TAZs. Land use categories will include residential
(single family and multi family), industrial, retail, corporate office, mixed use, and other specific
categories where appropriate. 4
The number of trips associated with these land uses will be estimated (for each TAZ) using
applicable trip generation rates. Trip rates will be obtained from widely recognized sources such
as the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE).
The estimated trips will be incorporated into the subarea model for the City of El Segundo. If
deemed appropriate after reviewing the SCAG information, land uses and trips in the immediate
vicinity of the City may also be modified.
Network inputs: The existing roadway network within the City will be depicted in the model
with the appropriate characteristics such as facility type, number of travel lanes, free -flow speed,
03
2 M
9r-
2
'0
E72
S2 �E
3,3
M
EXHIBIT A
and capacity. Roadway characteristics will be verified in the field before input to the model. All existing
roadways that are a part of the Circulation Element will be included in the model. In some cases, it may be
necessary to include in the model local roadways for purposes of providing access or continuity. The
inclusion of local streets in such cases should not be construed as an indication that these local streets would
be slated to become arterial roadways.
Other inputs: Other inputs such as regional trips and the regional orientation of El Segundo trips will be
obtained from the regional model. For model validation purposes, daily traffic volume counts will be made
starting in the middle of January 2003 on about 50 roadway segments, including segments crossed by one of
the screenlines and other key facilities.
YEAR 2025 MODEL INPUTS FOR MODEL RUN WITH GENERAL PLAN ASSUMPTIONS
Inputs to the 2025 model will be similar to the inputs to the base year model. They are discussed in the
following paragraphs in the same sequence as the base year model inputs. The first 2025 model run will be
for land uses and FARs per the current General Plan Land Use Element. The results of this model run will
provide an assessment of future conditions if no changes are made to the current General Plan.
Land use inputs: Staff will compile information about expected land uses in the City in accordance with the
General Plan Land Use Element. Land use information will be quantified by land use category and by
TAZs. Land use categories will be the same as those to be used for the base year model. Any known
specific development projects such as the Corporate Campus and the Air Force Base site will be reflected
explicitly in the land use tabulations. Likewise, any anticipated in -fill land uses on vacant or underused
parcels will be reflected in the land use assumptions. All of the projects on the current list of Major
Approved and Active Projects will be incorporated into the land use tabulations. The vacant land survey
prepared in 1995 will be updated by deleting any parcels developed since 1995 and by'adding any parcels
where demolition might have taken place.
Vacancy rates of commercial and industrial buildings greater than 4% will be incorporated into the land use
projections. Vacancy rates less than 4% are considered to reflect typical turnover and do not represent new
uses. City staff will review current vacancy rates and will include the appropriate amount of new uses in the
land use projections. Likewise recyclable buildings will be accounted for in the land use projections.
Recyclable buildings are those with FAR less than allowable, are near the end of their life span, and are
likely to be replaced. The City staff compiled a list of recyclable buildings in 1995 and updated it in 1998.
The City staff will update this list of recyclable buildings to represent current conditions for use in the
Circulation Element update.
For residential uses, the number of residential units that could be developed will be determined based on
permitted General Plan densities. Staff will review housing growth assumptions for consistency with
projections generated by SCAG.
The number of trips associated with these land uses will be estimated (for each TAZ) using the base year
model trip generation rates. The estimated trips will be incorporated into the 2025 subarea model for the
City of El Segundo. If deemed appropriate after reviewing the SCAG information, land uses and trips in the
immediate vicinity of the City may also be modified.
Network inputs: The General Plan roadway network reflected in the current Circulation Element will be
depicted in the model with the appropriate characteristics such as facility type, number of travel lanes, free -
flow speed, and capacity. Each roadway segment that is a part of the Circulation Element will be included in
4 0 .34
EXHIBIT A
the model, whether or not the roadway has yet been constructed and whether or not the roadway has the
characteristics of its ultimate General Plan classification.
In the modeling process truck routes are not specifically designated as inputs. Rather, the results of the
modeling process are reviewed and analyzed to develop the Truck Route Master Plan for the City. The
potential designation of new truck routes and/or the deletion of truck routes from the current Truck Route
Master Plan will be evaluated.
Similarly to truck routes, bicycle routes are not specifically designated as inputs in the modeling process.
Unless the planning process indicates otherwise, no changes to the Bicycle Master Plan of the City are
anticipated.
Other inputs: Other inputs such as regional trips and the regional orientation of El Segundo trips will be
obtained from the regional model.
ALTERNATIVE LAND USE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) ASSUMPTIONS
In addition to the analysis of "General Plan Buildout" conditions, a number of model runs will be conducted
to test potential changes to the City's Circulation and Land Use Elements.
The citywide traffic model will be run a number of times to test a variety of FAR assumptions in the Mixed -
Use (MU) Zone and the Corporate Office (CO) areas of the City. Specific FAR scenarios ranging from.0.8
to 1.3 will be developed. The following modeling and analysis sequence will be followed:
1. Make a model run using an FAR of 1.3 in all MU and CO zones (highest traffic volume scenario)
2. Make a model run using an FAR of 0.8 in all MU and CO zones (lowest traffic volume scenario)
3. Make a model run using an FAR of 1.0 in all MU and CO zones (medium traffic volume scenario)
4. Formulate a fourth and fifth optional FAR alternative and make a model run. These alternatives may
be hybrids depending on the results of the high, low, and medium FAR model runs.
5. Analyze the traffic impacts associated with each scenario and determine which roadways and
intersections are affected by these changes in the FAR assumptions. It is expected that some
intersections in the residential areas in the western portion of the City will not be affected.
6. Analyze affected intersections and roadways on the basis of the results of these two additional model
runs.
In addition to the FAR alternatives, two key land use issues are the redevelopment of the Honeywell site and
the use of the Air Force Base site. One or both optional model runs may be used to address these matters,
subject to City Council direction.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY NETWORKS
Network alternatives to be analyzed include:
1. Reverting the Douglas/Nash one -way couplet (between Imperial Avenue and El Segundo Boulevard)
to the previous two -way operation. The one -way couplet operation, with Nash Street southbound
and Douglas Street northbound, has been in effect for about five years. Businesses along the two
roadways have questioned whether the one -way couplet is beneficial for the area and whether the
031
EXHIBIT A
anticipated benefits of the one -way couplet have been realized. The key points to be evaluated in
assessing the relative merits of one -way compared to two -way operation include:
a) Intersection levels of service
b) Effect on I -105 Freeway ramp operations
c) Physical changes needed to revert to two -way operation
d) Accessibility of businesses along the roadways
e) Potential effect, if any, on future development in the corridor
f) Other considerations that may arise
2. Deletion of some roadways from the current Circulation Element, including:
a) Extension of Grand Avenue from Duley Road to Aviation Boulevard,
b) Extension of Nash Street from El Segundo Boulevard to Park Place or Rosecrans Avenue,
c) Extension of Mariposa Avenue from Douglas Street to Aviation Boulevard.
The key points to be evaluated include:
a) Effects on traffib on other roadways and intersections
b) Potential impact, if any, on development
c) Effect on development potential on the parcel that the roadway traverses
d) Other considerations that may arise
The model runs for the network alternatives will be made after the results of the initial FAR runs are
presented. This will allow a preferred land use and /or FAR alternative to be selected for the analysis of
network alternatives.
SUMMARY OF EXPECTED MODEL RUNS
Following is a summary of the 9 model runs to be made:
1. Base Year for validation purposes (in the validation process, more than one run may be needed)
2. 2025 with current General Plan (this would be considered "no- build" option for purposes of the
EIR)
3. 2025 with high FAR in all MU and CO areas
4. 2025 with medium FAR in all MU and CO areas
5. 2025 with low FAR in all MU and CO areas
6. 2025 with optional additional hybrid FAR Alternative 1
7. 2025 with optional additional hybrid FAR Alternative 2
8. 2025 with preferred FAR (to be determined) to analyze two -way operation on Nash/Douglas
9. 2025 with preferred FAR (to be determined) to analyze deleting Mariposa Avenue, Nash Street, and
Grand Avenue extensions
6
03C)
EXHIBIT A
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND CRITERIA
City's Traffic Analysis Methodology
The City of El Segundo uses a traffic analysis methodology that is consistent with the Congestion
Management Program (CMP) analysis guidelines promulgated by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority ( LACMTA). This methodology uses a capacity analysis technique called
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). Very briefly, ICU is a computation that reflects a ratio of the traffic
volume at the intersection to the capacity of the intersection. Assuming that the number of lanes at the
intersection does not change, higher traffic volumes result in a higher volume to capacity ratio, or higher
ICU value. The computed ICU value is then translated into a Level of Service (LOS) designation. Six LOS
designations are used, A through F. LOS A indicates uncongested conditions with very little or no delay to
motorists. LOS D is encountered at many busy urban intersections during peak periods. Motorists
encounter delays and some motorists must wait more than one traffic signal cycle to travel through the
intersection. LOS E generally indicates that the capacity of the intersection is reached. With LOS E
operations, motorists encounter substantial delay, and many motorists must wait more than one cycle to clear
the intersection. LOS F indicates severe congestion with heavy delays to motorists and long queues.
Most jurisdictions consider LOS D to be an acceptable standard. The CMP guidelines stipulate LOS E to be
acceptable at designated CMP intersections. In El Segundo, the only designated CMP intersection is
Sepulveda Boulevard at El Segundo Boulevard. The City of El Segundo considers LOS D to be acceptable.
Inherent in the ICU computation is an assumed value for the capacity of each lane at the intersection. Per
LACMTA guidelines the capacity of each lane is 1,600 vehicles per hour of green signal time. Expressed
otherwise, if the signal were to remain green for an approach direction for an entire hour, 1,600 vehicles
would be able to go through the intersection in one lane. If the signal were green for that approach 50% of
the time, then 800 vehicles would be able to go through the intersection in one hour.
Also per LACMTA guidelines, an inefficiency factor, or lost time factor of 10% is built into the ICU
computation. In other words, during one hour, it is assumed that the available capacity at the intersection
cannot be used 10% of the time because of amber time and all -red time clearance when the signal indication
changes.
The lane capacity value of 1,600 vehicles per lane per hour of green is low compared to the values used by
other jurisdictions and compared to actual vehicle flow rates observed in the field. Flow rates as high as
1,800 vehicles per lane per hour of green or higher have been observed in some cities. Many jurisdictions
use a value of 1,700, and a few use 1,800. Also many jurisdictions use an inefficiency, or lost time, factor of
5 %, rather than 10 %. Using higher lane capacity values will lower the ICU value and may result in a better
LOS at some intersections.
At intersections with LOS A, B, C, or D on the basis of the current ICU computation parameters, the change
in assumptions for the ICU computation methodology will not have a practical effect, since these
intersections are considered acceptable in any event. The change in methodology may result in some shifts
from LOS E to LOS D and from LOS F to LOS E. Such changes may influence the decision making
process of the City Council.
It is understood that changes in ICU methodology, if any, would not apply to the intersection of Sepulveda
Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard in order not to lose CMP compliance.
f;
EXHIBIT A
Other Evaluation Methodologies
To assess intersection LOS, many jurisdictions use a methodology based on the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM), a document used throughout the transportation planning and engineering industry as a key reference.
The HCM computational procedures result in an estimate of the average delay encountered by motorists.
Ranges are defined for average delay to determine LOS based on the computed average delay value.
Unlike the ICU method, HCM methodology can take into consideration the presence of pedestrians, the
proportion of trucks in the vehicle mix, and signal timing parameters at intersections. For example, if the
signal at an intersection is timed to allocate no more than 10 seconds for a particular movement, this
restriction can be reflected in the HCM computation for delay and LOS.
Similarly to ICU methodology, HCM methodology can be used to analyze individual intersections.
However, the HCM methodology also makes it possible to analyze the performance of an arterial by
considering several intersections along an arterial as a group. The ICU methodology, on the other hand, does
not offer the capability to evaluate a succession of intersections along an arterial street. San Diego, San
Bernardino, and Riverside Counties, and individual municipal jurisdictions in these Counties use HCM
methodology, rather than ICU, for CMP and for other traffic analysis purposes.
HCM computational methodologies also constitute the basis for traffic operational, rather than planning,
level analyses. Such analyses make it possible to reflect the effect of traffic signal progression along an
arterial or the effect of operational and geometric matters, such as the length, of queues and lack of storage
space. Software packages, such as PASSER II, Synchro, Transyt -7F, and others, are used to evaluate how
traffic progresses through a series of traffic signals in addition to evaluating the LOS at individual
intersections along the route. Using an arterial progression methodology to evaluate the performance of key
roadways would enable the City of El Segundo to make a trade -off between expediting arterial flow at the
expense of added delay on the non - arterial side streets, with the objective of minimizing the overall delay
encountered by all motorists using the roadways.
An example of arterial progression may be observed along Sepulveda Boulevard in El Segundo and through
adjoining jurisdictions. During peak traffic periods, traffic along Sepulveda Boulevard moves in platoons,
and the main portion of each platoon travels along Sepulveda Boulevard without encountering a red signal.
To achieve this benefit for the traffic on Sepulveda Boulevard, traffic on the side streets is allowed a lesser
amount of green time at the signal than would be possible if each intersection were to be considered an
isolated case. To repeat, the objective of arterial signal progression is to minimize overall delay to all
motorists, without exceeding the limits of the patience of the motorists on the side streets and without
causing storage and queuing problems.
The City of San Diego uses the Synchro software package to evaluate intersection capacity as well as
progression along arterial routes. Synchro, PASSER II, and Transyt -7F are used widely for signal timing
purposes.
8 V J 8`
EXHIBIT A
EFFECT OF ITS AND DEMAND MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology offers opportunities for expediting traffic flow without
the need for intersection or other roadway improvements. Recognizing this potential, the El Segundo
Employers Association (ESEA) has spearheaded an effort to develop ITS infrastructure in El Segundo and in
the vicinity. ESEA has arranged funding for the implementation and continuing operation of a system. A
contractor has been selected, but work has not been initiated yet.
ITS can result in substantial benefits by allowing motorists to make informed decisions about travel routes,
by enhancing signal operations to expedite traffic flow, and by improving response time to incidents. These
ITS benefits translate to enhancements in the capacity of the roadways and intersections. As an example, the
City of Los Angeles reflects the benefits of advanced traffic control systems by allowing a 0.07 or 0.10
reductions in the ICU value at an intersection, depending on the type of advanced system installed or to be
installed at the intersection.
Demand Management
El Segundo, through the ESEA, has been a leader in promoting travel modes other than the single occupant
vehicle (SOV) for employee travel to and from the City. To the extent that commuters can be
accommodated by travel modes such as transit and ride sharing, the potential load on the roadways would be
diminished.
PAPlanning & Building Safety \PROJECTS \576- 599\EA- 579\Model assumptions- Ldoc
9 ::
EXHIBIT B
EL SEGUNDO
January 20, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jim Hansen
FROM: Don Camph
RE: Comments on Circulation Element Update
Modeling Methodology and Assumptions
Overall
ESEA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Modeling Methodology and Assumptions for the
Circulation Element Update per your memo of January 9, 2003. The Illinois Secretary of Transportation
recently observed: "There has been a maxim in the transportation community for at least two decades that
`you can't build your way out of congestion.' That may or may not be true, but you can't wish your way out
of it either." Apropos of that observation, ESEA believes that the Circulation Element update exercise needs
to be reality- based: we need a fair and open assessment of the nature of the challenges we face, as well as
what the City can reasonably hope to achieve either by itself or acting in concert with neighboring
jurisdictions.
Also, as we've noted before, we believe that the technical exercise for evaluating the effectiveness of
potential traffic solutions should not make what are in effect policy judgements as to whether a potential
solution is politically or financially feasible. That task is more appropriately reserved to the Council in
consultation with stakeholders in El Segundo and, in some cases, with neighboring jurisdictions and/or funding
agencies.
Finally, ESEA sees the Circulation Element Update not as a "plan" per se but rather a compass to help the
City decide its future direction. Thus, the Circulation Element is a tool, but it is only that, and it should not be
used for things for which it was not designed. Inasmuch as regional through traffic is likely to absorb any
street capacity on our major arterials that might be freed up as a result of actions taken by the City, the
Circulation Element is probably not very useful for answering the question, "How do we grow from here ?"
Rather, that question would more appropriately be answered in the context of an update of the Land Use
Element of the City's General Plan.
Model Characteristics
ESEA, is in agreement with the statement that "to meet the City's analysis needs, it is essential that the
Page -1-
01-10
modeling process and methodology be:
• "Technically sound and defensible and consistent with regional transportation planning;
• "Responsive to the types of analyses the City wishes to perform;
• "Easy to explain and understand;
• "Capable of producing results consistent with changes in model inputs; and,
• "Easy to update, as needed, after this current Circulation Element update project is completed."
The City's January 9 memo states that:
"To ensure consistency and technical compatibility with regional transportation planning, regional trip
distribution assumptions will be developed based on the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) Regional Model using the regional input for travel patterns to, from, and
through El Segundo. A subarea model will be developed and will reflect the City's street and roadway
network in much greater detail than possible with the regional model."
ESEA believes that the baseline data and projections of subarea model should be compared with those of two
other subarea models (Playa Vista and LAX) for consistency. If the baselines and projections are
substantially the same, that will provide a high level of comfort as to the technical validity of the El Segundo
model. If there are substantial differences, however, they should be examined, and it should be determined
whether alterations in the El Segundo model or baseline should be made.
Also, ESEA would like to know what assumption will be made about the growth of LAX, and whether
sensitivity runs will be made testing alternative growth scenarios.
Base Year Model Inputs
Traffic in El Segundo obviously comes from all over the L.A. basin, and beyond. ESEA would like to know
the geographic area that is covered by the model that will be used by the consultant, as well as what new
development projects will be included. For example, we assume that new projects in El Segundo and in the
immediate vicinity of El Segundo will be included, but we would like an understanding of how far beyond the
City's borders the net will be cast. Fo example, new apartment developments in Westchester may have a
direct impact on El Segundo, but what about Culver City, Santa Monica, and beyond?
Traffic Counts
ESEA would like to have an understanding of the statistical validation methodology of traffic counts. If traffic
counts constitute the baseline for the study, it is crucial that they accurately reflect current equilibrium
conditions, and not be unduly influenced by transitory phenomena (such as the current downturn in LAX
traffic) or unforeseeable (and perhaps unknowable) events on the day(s) of the counts. For example, the
volume of traffic on Sepulveda Blvd. in El Segundo would be less than normal if there were an accident
partially blocking northbound traffic in Manhattan Beach. ESEA would appreciate an explanation of how the
consultant will carry out the traffic counts and control for such factors and influences.
Page -2-
\J4
Other Evaluation Methodologies
Your January 9 memo states:
"HCM computational methodologies also constitute the basis for traffic operational, rather than
planning, level analyses. Such analyses make it possible to reflect the effect of traffic signal
progression along an arterial or the effect of operational and geometric matters, such as the length
of queues and lack of storage space. Software packages, such as PASSER II, Synchro, Transyt -7F,
and others, are used to evaluate how traffic progresses through a series of traffic signals in addition
to evaluating the LOS at individual intersections along the route. Using an arterial progression
methodology to evaluate the performance of key roadways would enable the City of El Segundo to
make a trade -off between expediting arterial flow at the expense of added delay on the non - arterial
side streets, with the objective of minimizing the overall delay encountered by all motorists using the
roadways."
ESEA is pleased that you will be evaluating the performance of the system using measures in addition to
LOS. ESEA would like to gain a better understanding from the consultant of the "arterial progression
methodology" being proposed.
Intelligent Transportation Systems
ESEA is also pleased that your January 9 memo notes the potential contribution of ITS deployment, noting
that:
"Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technology offers opportunities for expediting traffic flow
without the need for intersection or other roadway improvements. Recognizing this potential, the El
Segundo Employers Association (ESEA) has spearheaded an effort to develop ITS infrastructure in
El Segundo and in the vicinity. ESEA has arranged funding for the implementation and continuing
operation of a system. A contractor has been selected, but work has not been initiated yet.
"ITS can result in substantialbenefits by allowing motorists to make informed decisions about travel
routes, by enhancing signal operations to expedite traffic flow, and by improving response time to
incidents. These ITS benefits translate to enhancements in the capacity of the roadways and
intersections."
It is our understanding that the selected contractor, Iteris, is about to begin work, and we look forward to
working with the City and the consultant to make this program as effective as possible.
Page -3-
04 ,.'
December 17, 2002
TO: Jim Hansen
EXHIBIT B
. SEM N0
EMPLOYERS
SS Cl T 0 21:
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Donald H. Camph, Executive Director
8433 Holy Cross Place
Los Angeles, CA 90045
310- 417 -6660
FAX: 310- 417 -6670
e -mail: EsempAssoc @aol.com
RE: Circulation Element Modeling Methodology and Assumptions: Additional Comments
ESEA appreciates the opportunity to offer input on the Circulation Element Modeling Methodology and
Assumptions, and would like to submit these additional comments and questions as a result of discussion
at the ESEA Board meeting on January 21. We realize that this is after the January 20 deadline for
comments, but we hope that you still take them into consideration.
Lane Capacity: on page 7 of the City's memo on the Circulation Element Modeling Methodology and
Assumptions, there is a discussion of lane capacity, indicating that values of 1,600, 1,700 or 1,800 have
been used by other cities. What assumption will you make for the Circulation Element update? Would
the assumption be the same for all major arterials, or might some be less due to substandard lane widths
(if there are any), roadway configuration, etc.?
Interim Projection Years: the City's memo indicates that projections will be made for the 2025. ESEA
believes that interim projections for 5 and 10 years would be useful, and it is our understanding from
modeling experts that there would be only marginal (if any) cost involved in producing these projections.
ESEA therefore requests that such interim projections be made as part of the technical analysis. If there is
a marginal cost involved, ESEA and its members would consider paying those costs.
ITS Assumption: ESEA very much agrees with the statement on Page 9 of the City's memo which
states: `ITS can result in substantial benefits by allowing motorists to make informed decisions about
travel routes, by enhancing signal operations to expedite traffic flow, and by improving response time to
incidents. These ITS benefits translate to enhancements in the capacity of the roadways and intersections.
As an example, the City of Los Angeles reflects the benefits of advanced traffic control systems by
allowing a 0.07 or 0.10 reductions in the ICU value at an intersection, depending on the type of advanced
system installed or to be installed at the intersection." To reflect the fact that advanced ITS technologies
will be deployed in El Segundo in the near future, will the capacity of the network be adjusted upward
(say, by seven or ten percent) to reflect this deployment?
Addition Opportunities for Input: ESEA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Circulation
Element Modeling Methodology and Assumptions, and requests that we be afforded a similar opportunity
to comment on other assumptions that will be used in the model, specifically land use, development and
socioeconomic assumptions.
C:\ Work\ Donald \Aldaron \05ESEA \CIrculation Element 2002\Additional Comments on CircElement Methods and Assumptions.doc
4%3)
EXHIBIT C
El Segundo Chamber
• The Voice for Business -
January 16, 2003
Hon. Mayor Mike Gordon
And Members of the City Council
City of El Segundo
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 90245
RE: Circulation Element Update
Dear Mayor Gordon and Members of the City Council:
The Chamber appreciates the opportunity to work with Kimley -Horn & Associates and you in
reviewing the modeling methodology and assumptions to be used in the updating of the
Circulation Element of the General Plan. In reviewing the consultant's report, the Chamber has
the following recommendations and questions:
1. The California General Plan Guidelines require that municipal Circulation Elements
include not only the City itself, but also the area within the City's "sphere of
influence" as determined by LAFCO. (Government Code Sections 65300 and 56076).
The Chamber recommends the consultants provide a geographical boundary
describing that "sphere of influence" and list every proposed and /or approved project
within that sphere.
2. The Chamber recommends the consultant reconcile its projected traffic counts with
other major and recent traffic studies prepared by LAX, Playa Vista, El Segundo
Corporate Campus, and any other governmental jurisdictions or private entities.
3. While traffic counts are currently being conducted on Sepulveda Boulevard, the
Chamber recommends the consultant adjust the raw data to account for the current
reduced utilization at LAX. The projection's base year should include a projection for
resumption of LAX traffic to prior levels of utility.
4. In evaluating projected traffic conditions, will the consultant assume all
improvements proposed in the Regional Transportation Plan will be implemented?
(ex: maglev from LAX to Palmdale and March Air Force Base).
As always, we appreciate this opportunity to provide input to the process, and will continue to
work with you to improve our City.
Very truly yours,
Ak:�,�
Liz West
President
427 Main Street • El Segundo, CA 90245 • 310.322.1220 • Fax 310.322.6880
Email info@elsegundochamber.org 044
Zf rN M It to O 000 OrNM� 0
r r T r "► r
C
m
.4+
ca
a)
cri
U
C
a)
Z
N O
0
L Lo
O M
Ln
N ob
c cr
U
w0
Cc
o
a'Q
0 0
c �
rn�
o
wW
L L
O
UU
U) Z
Q
m
M cu
Q Q
a) a)
m m
U U
LL LL
Q Q
J
N
C
O
V r N 0
Q H
O. a)
Q L
co E
= ti 0 X
'p T r
a Q
O •:N- -'000
c
O 000 E
E
c
W
a) Z
N
X0)00
M M C
O O O
0
a a)
— E
0 O
E a.
T T a'
�(00t-
a)
MCN
M ti
M M 0
M
M N
N
N
2 2 a
a)
O x x X
O)
G
a) a) a) a)
a
a)
E E E
a
o
>1 N N N
00000
CUa O
M cm Q Q0Q tm
> V > >> O w V
co
C C C C
a.
a �- 7 7 7
- N m m
a) i
r
a) a) a)
m
OO
O C
v.
W
a. a a
X
!? O 0 2
U a) a) a)
20
0 ,_ U
0 0 0
CL _ _ —
E > >>
_�
Q. L a a. a. L
E E E E v
V0000
or-000
Q>>
(ON NO tnOOOO 00 0000000)
O d' E O "= 0 0 0 0 a) 0 = O LO LO
L
rOON
0 0 (fl co Lo O f--
C O Q O" r
O N O O O O O
0 er Lo "T ^ O 1,-
W
OLo OO Q0001l- O Cc L0 000r0(OMr.
lq L(jLn
N N C) M N� N O O T M 0
O 0 Ln
�N�/�
v/
L") T
M
c
+r
E
C
CL
O
a)
a)
a)
CD
W
06 a)
a) `-
j
O
E
i O 7
)
ac0co
ca
a) N
°)
ca N
Ua
�uc�000p
���
(m
ti d
a
00a:WF- 0W2-JCL 0 U5 0020000002
LO
Qa
Wd
o �
as a
00 E =
m M6
= w
-0m
W
=
.—'a
> a
O c
a
> a) c
U)
�m _Q'
O
U) -6 4i
m m m
ai
m > ca
�a
c
�W o��
aco
a
>_-o >;�
W U Z
Z (n 0
7 p. 0 7 0 L
f. ,0
L-
Lo Z
Z — O
a. L a. cu
a) �
V
W
�� �LLJO
to .0
i/) . U)Q) U1Z
W
rr 06LoL9
LnOOZ
;2 oW Z
0
Q
O LO Lo r 0
M 0 ' O
It
Lo O (o Lo
Lo "t N Lo
W O 0 0 0 M r
M M 0 In M Q O
N r r t
r r N d
M N T r M O 0
N
7
Q
E
tC
U
�
c
Ea
U
Q°
w a aNi
O
CD a) U
U a)
L Q
� Cj '�
W
-�
m a. C
a) x �La�
O Z a)
v2 a)3
�����,�c
CO
ED
a
OX 22m
(D�Qw
-j aL. -i UYYMO
00
A')
N er- 0 In
r
06 N r
a0 O CY) co -h
F-
N
r
Zf rN M It to O 000 OrNM� 0
r r T r "► r
C
m
.4+
ca
a)
cri
U
C
a)
Z
N O
0
L Lo
O M
Ln
N ob
c cr
U
w0
Cc
o
a'Q
0 0
c �
rn�
o
wW
L L
O
UU
U) Z
Q
m
M cu
Q Q
a) a)
m m
U U
LL LL
Q Q
J
N
C
O
V r N 0
Q H
O. a)
Q L
co E
= ti 0 X
'p T r
a Q
O •:N- -'000
c
O 000 E
E
O
W
a) Z
N
X0)00
0) 000 °
0
a a)
— E
0 O
E a.
�42 Ea)E
�(00t-
a)
MCN
M ti
(00
M
M N
N
N
a)
0
O
CD
CL a)
� O
C
O -0 a) —E
aa))�No
w 0 w U
a)
O L
cu
.a d
C
CD
N
w m
V a
.N
0
.N
V
a1
�O
L
a
d
s
0
N
X
0
ti
Lo
a)
m
N
ca
FL
2
CL
O
Lo
Lb
M
O
M
N
W
a) Z
N
N
� N
a a)
— E
0 O
E a.
�42 Ea)E
L-
a)
U Co'
2
a)
m
N
ca
FL
2
CL
O
Lo
Lb
M
O
M
N
d
W
F
z
�z
Wo
O H
� O
a
U �
O �
046'
0
N to
LL. m
F- ST S)
mm 0 E
r w Z ID
X 4)
E
W
cL 0
0
>
a) 2
0
LID
c
2
0
CL
co
Lo
N cli
Iq q
to
r-
Lo
Lo CV' C)
co 0
If) LO
LO CD
M
Co
M
Cli
0 a
rll�
ca
L7 u
If C:I
CO
r-
C,
r�
Cli
CO 10 CO
r� cc)
It (10
co
4-)
g., �,
to g)
a (D
Oo t-
CNI
"j
2 a
C)
04 0
,11 00
CD CD
00 0
(3) 0
LO CO
0) LO
a) 0
C) 04
0 r-_
— M
C) A cy) cq
CD cli 00
0 N C)
ED
O C,4
0 0)
0 co
C�
N
00 co
CL
00 co
'01
11g,
q
0) N
-
C%j Lr)
00 (4
cri
06
co
V31
CL CL
cli 6
t6
6, 6
t.6 q� cs
q
Lo 0
P.:
1:
cli Ld
d cli
. .
CO
.
N C6 LO 0)
M
U)
(n C/)
N
(n
(0
C,4 cli
(D
C14 It
P-
CO 0)
(N
Q
0 11 co
.2- .2-
m w
-j
M
N
U) C/)
It "T
0 -t
cc m
z
—
00
v
(14
CN two
LO
to
LO
0
a
c c
C,
OD
Lo
0)
m
m
m
N
m
N M
CD
CI4
M
co
C)
co
04
0)
a
LO
r
CD
LO rl-
LO LO
co
0
co
I
1
O 0
0
P co
r--
c, r--
V�
to C)
C14
to
C6
g
6%
cd,
g �6
0
F-- CD
04
co 1--
0
0
0
C) CN
L,)
CO 0
(,o 0
0 r -
C',
to
(1)
00
Ira
to LO
C4 N
LO co
cq N
th O
N O
Cl�
r-
CN C%4
Iq
0) 00
C4
cm
r-- r--
N N
co
C'I I-L
co 0
O 00
c� C'i
OD
Cli
04
2
CO
CN
C`
C6
CN
m m
"t
C� Lq
w
C,4
q C11
0
iz co
lc�
V� q
N
0)
IR C�
0 m
N C�
m r--
C� f-L pl-�
0 to Co
co 0)
CR C�
N
in
ED
i r-
r--
1 -1
CO
C6
!,:
cr)
T.,
X:�
,2
pq
gi
cl,
14
1.: ti
cl q)
O
o o
0
T C?
C, C?
m C,
7
to
7
0 0
C?
C?
C')
0
0 0
0 0
0 C)
0 0
0 C?
Q, 10
P! Irl,
�C-
'o
cz
0
0 CO cr)
CO
to CO
co
O�
C6
to
V.
1 1
�i
cs
is
K 'g
d 'd
�1�4 cz,
co
10
I Ic?I
CNI
N�
r-
75
s
--7
C', 0
4)
L
G
r-
rn
u a
0 fn
oC$
CD
(�Cff
C`
(D
C.)
©
10
1:1
1-01
Q
iZil
11§11
N
EF
z0
0 0
C. 1:�
U)
06
as..
Ee
0
93
CO)
Z)
N ca
u N
E
m
C6
ca
E m
0
1-t
cn
0
LL
—I 'S -S ri
t<
to
66
cs
11111MINNIIIIIIIIII
m r. U') 0 0 ID CIIJ 4) to co 0) 0 to 00
CO
r,: P'- L7 'R k k CO co 4 CO ci 4�i C� 1). Cli ai -q� -) -,t — o4 NI O'D IS P� tl-: C-�
m 'o
i W co 0 11) 0 C) r to r to co m w in t,- co 0)
C) 8 64 �2 u
"" ") "" "D 'D
IN t- C)
It m z C5 id �o !�I �4 o co to C2 g g I- g 0 01
A m CO -4
5 N
ce) m 4 m
Cj
1� R
C, co • (o
cc V) a,
MCI!
Ch -e 0 11 010 LO N N 0 w w r, w
C'4 m co r- OD r- N CD co co 0-0 r.- LO w co 0 4 a) oo o r- !p a)
cq t 00 -IT (3) 0 -�T 0 0 0 (M 00 co
E to CS to O'l
2 co
I- lc� P-� C, (M C) -�r 0 00 oc! Lq Cli CNI cli C� r-L P-L . . . . .
Cli C� N r- co
"r c)) U.) co
(N co 0 C6 m CO to cq C6 1 d
U)
04 C6 oj CO CD m v o a
co ,t C14 CO CO co 00 r-- 2 A 44 F, w
t� co to CO co CD
!14
C,3
Cli L, �j .1 .1 001,0� Ni
00
Lo
N cli
Iq q
to
r-
Lo
Lo CV' C)
co 0
If) LO
LO CD
M
Co
M
Cli
0 a
rll�
Lo 10
r`i
C:, ID
Lq
If C:I
CO
r-
C,
r�
Cli
CO 10 CO
r� cc)
It (10
co
D
C
to
a M
0
0 v
r�- c)
co
01
a (D
Oo t-
CNI
CD to
0 �r
Cli
CO CD
co 0
Lq r,
C)
04 0
,11 00
CD CD
00 0
(3) 0
LO CO
0) LO
a) 0
C) 04
0 r-_
— M
C) A cy) cq
CD cli 00
0 N C)
ED
O C,4
0 0)
0 co
C�
N
00 co
CL
00 co
N
1-: 00
to v
q
0) N
-
C%j Lr)
00 (4
cri
I�F
r-
C\j
CL CL
C6
CO r�:
cT CO
q
-4 o
q
Lo 0
P.:
1:
cli Ld
d cli
. .
CO
.
N C6 LO 0)
M
U)
(n C/)
N
(n
(0
C,4 cli
(D
C14 It
P-
CO 0)
(N
Q
0 11 co
.2- .2-
m w
-j
M
N
U) C/)
It "T
0 -t
cc m
z
—
00
v
(14
CN two
LO
to
LO
0
a
c c
C,
OD
Lo
0)
m
m
m
N
m
N M
CD
CI4
M
co
C)
co
04
0)
a
LO
r
CD
LO rl-
LO LO
co
0
co
I
1
O 0
0
P co
r--
c, r--
V�
to C)
C14
co
R
0
F-- CD
04
co 1--
0
0
0
C) CN
L,)
CO 0
(,o 0
0 r -
C',
to
(1)
00
O N
to LO
C4 N
LO co
cq N
th O
N O
Cl�
r-
CN C%4
Iq
0) 00
C4
cm
r-- r--
N N
co
C'I I-L
co 0
O 00
c� C'i
OD
Cli
04
2
CO
CN
C`
C6
CN
m m
"t
C� Lq
w
C,4
q C11
0
iz co
lc�
V� q
N
0)
IR C�
0 m
N C�
m r--
C� f-L pl-�
0 to Co
co 0)
CR C�
N
in
ED
i r-
r--
1 -1
CO
C6
!,:
cr)
T.,
X:�
O
o o
0
T C?
C, C?
m C,
7
7 7
7
0 0
C?
C?
C')
0
0 0
0 0
0 C)
0 0
0 C?
0 0
01
0 0
0
0
0 CO cr)
CO
to CO
co
10
I Ic?I
N�
r-
75
s
--7
C', 0
4)
L
G
r-
rn
u a
0 fn
oC$
CD
(�Cff
C`
(D
C.)
r_ c
0
j5) a)
N
EF
z0
0 0
0
O 22
U)
Ee
0
93
CO)
N ca
u N
E
m
C6
ca
E m
0
0
LL
U-
=
C/)
cn
cu
N 0
0
m
c
-ur-)
U
(D W
'o
co
Cl
E E
E
CL
m
CL
cc
z
=1
0
0
>
CL
> >
. .
CL CL
>
,,
CL CL
0 0
0 0
S CL
>
r CL
>
-
2 =
= CL
0 0
0 >>
EL CL
CL IN
a 0.
2. 2.
a CL
U)
(n C/)
N
(n
(D
a)
U)
. ,
U) (h
co/)
0 11 co
.2- .2-
m w
-j
•a 3 WE
-j -j
CO
cn
U) C/)
m
q, _3
w cc
z
cc m
z
_3 _3
as
_3 CU/)
a) r
CU/)
LO
to
LO
0
a
c c
C,
OD
Lo
0)
m
m
m
N
m
N M
CD
CI4
M
co
C)
co
04
0)
a
LO
r
CD
LO rl-
LO LO
co
0
co
I
1
O 0
0
P co
r--
c, r--
V�
to C)
C14
co
to LO
C4 N
LO co
cq N
co
N N
N
cq cq
Iq
m
cm
r-- r--
N N
co
co
co m
co co
co m
co m
f--
r--- N
CD 0
CV M
0000
CO M
CO
in
ED
i r-
r--
1 -1
T.,
X:�
LO
co
10
co
N
0
'0 0 uj
CE
—0 E
(D
CD
o E c
CL 0
0 tm
CD ca
> :3
C)
ma
oil-
a) U.)
0 �� -�
'0 0 uj
ry
0 E
y— Q)
o E
a
a)
>
(D
0
049
pq
O
O O LO (D T-
I,--
m r- UI) Ict LO
Cal*0
0
C '14
I f-
.
CO
"it
CO
to
co
r-:
r.:
C44
0 (D
Lq
0
U")
Lo
0
IqT
cy)
N
m
0)
LO
w
n
le
co
r-:
P-
I,:
r..:
OC-4
ICT
'It
LO
00
CY)
N
M
00
0
N
CY)
cr)
qtr
00
c)
o
N
114-
a
LO
CW)
1�-
N
ce qtr )
N M
00
N:
I.
m
0
cc
N
1'w
CO
N
C)
N
Lf)
N
CV)
N
0100
0
0 CO
00
to
co
co
cc)
CD
Go
w
0
C)
0
0
N:
PZ
N:
CD f-
U) LO
CY)
Lf)
cc
6
C6
C6
00
CF)
cu
U)
0
cu
ui
>
Lij
0 C)
co
<
CD
E
cu
L)
0
C:
L)
=3
.0
—1
0
t5
CL Co.
CL
0
co
.6
co
C:
2
CL
CD
0
m
0
0 -E
0
<
L)
Q
<
0
cn co
o
C)
C
.6-
75
.6—
to
01 (n
m 0
CN
co
R -1 Zone
Vacant land
EXHIBIT G
Summary of Buildout Capacity Analysis
Based on El Segundo General Plan
Parcels Potential Units
3 7
R -2 Zone
Vacant land
Underdeveloped lots
R -3 Zone
Vacant land
Underdeveloped lots
PRD Zone
Redevelopment
MDR Overlay Zone
.Approved projects
Redevelopment
Total buildout capacity
Occupied Housing units
(2.8% vacancy rate)
1
2
88
88
11
2
11
132
260
1
65
2
45
multiple
118
596
579
P \Planning & Building Safety\PAUL\Summary of Buildout Capacity Analysis.doc
0 5 /
❑
z
© "'
z
❑
W J
N ;�
W O0
LL
OF
U �
4
W
F
N_
O
W
0'
M
O
O
N
C'
O
a
m
W
a
O
N
d
_1
0
a.
n.
Q
LL
O
W
a
v
LO
M
M
N
1�-
O
O
O
M
N
O 'a M O O h 0 0
r N00to'Tw C)N
(Ah- r CO 00 (14 O
co v rn cm v
t00 N Or O r r
O
wNw
M
U
ai v v 1-
p^jtLOrM
CV C0 a0 V CN
co co tr>
M o CAN
o v
co O(01�
to
-N
M
Naa00
co —
r
N
M
N
LO
(»
w
p w
LL
D p W Ir
CL
LL
O
1= Q ❑
W W Z t=(. F- Z u W
F O LL Q W W W F-
p g Z ❑ O
Z O Z w
Q ZZZa.0z m�U z >W ❑ ❑F-
e0{Z'°OZ►e =LLLm ��g0 W wzQ»> (n
Z0WLLU[Cd'�OaNO U W �QppUW WLI:F LL LL -►-� Z
LL joC�000 r�ntQ -►=co �w Z�Z V ��tnmw w
zw!LL iwwm° zjzQU�` oaD!5=i '-w¢r2Z1P-P>
LL W� j F- F- zi Z Z U Z W� n w P n Z Z W W w M W d zi Q LL W Q D Ll`2J d d= W R Q (� FQ- Q J w O a J 1�W,� z p p O
W— U Y ZZ� F-
W LL i O W 2 O O d LL Q w LL [C U F- J O m a s 1"
W a1Q- vNi00Oc o1-con QQ0cy<0�i1 �
0 F- (n ¢ Q U a a Q z z ►- m Q U? LL� (9 w .1 �� u� u� O
el'
10 to CA r r .r tp (O .~- c0 W N N >n M N M N m O
0 0 0 0 o r o o O o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0
C) r r r r r r r r r r N m Cl) V' � LO t0 w (0 1- N 1-- N
d
C
W
U
O
aa)
U
W
U
N
�C
Q
O
O
U
a1
c
ro
.0
to
:j
R
.N
d
'v
c
axi
(6
t6 c
J O N
Q W O -
ZO a3 W
Ir Q E O
OO co �U
Q J
U u-
LL 0
0�:
W Z
Z)
O
F-
Z
W
a
z
a
J
d
Fa
W Z
a
N
Y
V
W
S:
V
a
O
9
O
J
U.
w
W
O
Z
O
F-
a
Z
U
N
W
a
O
F-
W
a
N
Y
V
W
S
V
O
D
v
C
to
N
.Q
CL
'ta
(i
t6
°0'
16
E
c
m
>E.
CL
U
c
c
rn
d
E
N
C c0
ia"
as
w m
x0
N
LU
U
'O O
FL
O n.
C O
tm
N
fl. U
U w
w
O 11
U �
c
O
U
4=
R
`O
LL
Y
U
CD
L
U
(D
C
a)
m
a)
a)
O
Q.
W
V
c
a3
O
R
d
n
Q
N
W
O
z
°V
w
ayi
Z
❑.
C
m
g
bi
U voi o �
c
U
O
m c
to
N TL
m > c3
oE-=
ono'. a) '3 Z `o
:5
>
ui
ca
>
n
o m c
°L
c o °
n
7 C U
f6
a1
f6 N II1
to
to L U la c ca
a)
`o w 2:
E
c N 7 Z-
i5i I
\—
+� a 0 .-
m
E a) CL
:F3
Na) E
m of
d V E c
L
,a
-0-0
w
N N C a,
N
U
,=
(D a tn
a1
>
E v, 3 (6
to
m
a
W ca o a m
d'� U x--
m
a)
m 0> 3
�
>
L (/j N O
p
01 (A E c o
E
C�Q
a By E a)
+
Z
E c E C
❑
v� ca
0
z
1
o
0:
0
11
U
n
W
w
W
Q
m
=
O
❑
tj ') L
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PAYMENTS BY WIRE TRANSFER
1/1112003 THROUGH 1124/2003
Date
1/14/03
1/15/03
1/16/03
1/16/03
1/16/03
1/21/02
1/21/02
1/23/03
1/11-1/24/03
Payee Amount
Description
PGC El Segundo LLC
30,924.41
Golf Course Payroll Transfer
US Bank Trust
121,175.76
ABAG
Health Comp
3,890.36
Weekly claims 1/10
Employment Development
34,282.73
State Taxes PR PR 15
IRS
180,608.98
Federal Taxes PR 15
Federal Reserve
150.00
Employee Savings Bonds EE
Federal Reserve
350.00
Employee Savings Bonds I
Health Comp
8,876.18
Weekly claims 1/17
Workers Comp Activity
18,404.59
SCRMA checks issued
DATE OF RATIFICATION: 2/4/03
TOTAL PAYMENTS BY WIRE:
Certified as to the accuracy of the wire transfers by:
398,663.01
/&z,yL--5 ,
DepL ty Trea urer
Dire or of Administrative Service
Date
Date
Date
City anarq -fir
398,663.01
Information on actual expenditures is available in the City Treasurer's Office of the City of El Segundo.
01153
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2003 — 5:00 P.M.
5:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER — Council Member Wernick at 5:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Gordon -
Mayor ProTem Jacobs -
Council Member Gaines -
Council Member McDowell -
Council Member Wernick -
Absent
Present — Arrived at 5:05 p.m.
Present
Present
Present
CLOSED SESSION:
The City Council moved into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act
(Government Code Section §54960, et s_g.) for the purposes of conferring with the City's Real
Property Negotiator, and /or conferring with the City Attorney on potential and /or existing litigation;
and /or discussing matters covered under Government Code Section §54957 (Personnel); and /or
conferring with the City's Labor Negotiators; as follows:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — EXISTING LITIGATION (Gov't Code §54956.9(x))
I. Petition for review of Los Angeles Regional Board Order 01 -182, State Water Resources
Control Board (File No. A1498 (V)).
IL. Application for Certification of the El Segundo Power Redevelopment Project, State Energy
Resources Construction and Development Commission (Docket No. 00- AFC -14).
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(b): -2- potential case (no
further public statement is required at this time); Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government
Code §54956.9(c): -1- matter.
DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL MATTERS (Gov't Code §54957) — None.
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6) — None
SPECIAL MATTERS — None.
Council moved into open session at 6:55 p.m.
7
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2003
PAGE NO. 1
054
REGULAR MEETING OF THE EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2003 — 7:00 P.M.
7:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER — Mayor Pro Tern Jacobs at 7:00 p.m.
INVOCATION — Pastor Bruce Schjeldahl of Hope Chapel
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Mayor Pro Tern Sandra Jacobs
PRESENTATIONS —
(a) Council Member McDowell presented Commendations to recipients of the WRAP
2002 awards by the State of California, Chevron, El Segundo Refinery, Northrop -
Grumman, Integrated Systems Sector and Raytheon Company, Electronic Systems,
for their dedicated attention to implementing programs in waste reduction and
recycling.
(b) Council Member Gaines presented Certificates of Recognition to the recipients and to
the judges, the El Segundo Interact Club members, of the "2002 Lighting Up the
Community" program. Council Member Wernick presented Certificates of Recognition
to the Families of Candy Cane Lane and the Interact Group.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Gordon -
Absent
Mayor ProTem Jacobs -
Present
Council Member Gaines -
Present
Council Member McDowell -
Present
Council Member Wernick -
Present
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS — (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30
minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of $50 or more to communicate to the City
Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so identify
themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and
punishable by a fine of $250. While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow
Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The Council will respond to comments after
Public Communications is closed.
Kevin Rehm, President of the Firefighter Association, spoke on Consent Agenda Item No. 4, the
donation of the fire truck to the City. He further embellished on the attributes of the equipment.
Juli Potter, resident, spoke regarding the trees, and placement on the agenda.
Marc Rener, resident, spoke regarding MAX Buses being donated to El Segundo and then
donated to Guayamas. Asked why purchasing and formal bidding process has been waived on
agenda items 6 and 16.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2003
PAGE NO.2
Thomas Dickton, resident, requested information on the Sound Insulation Program.
Richard Arabian, resident, requested the City Attorney explain the agenda process.
Liz Garnholz, resident, spoke regarding the annexation of property to Hawthorne.
Ms. Stanley, representing Arrow Electronics, addressed agenda item number 18, She was
informed that the item was to be pulled from the agenda and would be agendized at a later date.
Juli Potter, resident, addressed item number 13, 17, 18, and 19.
Diane Sambrano, Inglewood resident, spoke regarding public communications.
Peggy Tyrell, resident, spoke regarding the Downtown street committee. Mayor ProTem Jacobs
requested her to hold her comments till the second public communication.
Jane Tourino, property owner, spoke regarding agenda item 17, the annexation of El Segundo
property to Hawthorne.
A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS
Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda by title only.
MOVED by Council Member McDowell, SECONDED by Council Member Gaines to read all
ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda by Title only. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS
VOICE VOTE. 4/0. MAYOR GORDON ABSENT
B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
E. CONSENT AGENDA
All items listed are to be adopted by one motion without discussion and passed unanimously. If a
call for discussion of an item is made, the item(s) will be considered individually under the next
heading of business.
1. Approved Warrant Numbers 2530387 to 2530785 on Register No. 6 in the total amount of
$1,574,583.28 and Wire Transfers from 12/07/02 through 12/27/02 in the total amount of
$1,081,919.93 and Warrant Numbers 2530786 to 2530996 on Register No. 7 in the total
amount of $673,557.59 and Wire Transfers from 12/28/2002 through 1/10/2003 in the total
amount of $996,125.46. Authorized staff to release. Ratified payroll and employee benefit
checks; checks released early due to contracts or agreement; emergency disbursements
and /or adjustments; and wire transfers.
2. Approved City Council Meeting Minutes of December 17, 2002.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2003
PAGE NO. 3
056
3. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GAINES
4: Accepted donation to the City of El Segundo by the El Segundo Firefighters' Association of a
1968 Crown fire engine, previously in service for the City, to be used as a parade rig. (Fiscal
Impact - Minimal not to exceed $500 first year; not to exceed $1,000 after that.)
5. Authorized the Fire Department to purchase an additional portable UHF radio from Motorola
for the Paramedic Extension Unit (E33) bringing our total purchases in excess of $10,000 for
the year. This radio will provide a required second means of hospital communication and is
a County requirement. The total cost for this radio is $3,560.
6. Waived the purchasing procedures set forth in the El Segundo Municipal Code pursuant to
ESMC Title 1 -7 -10; authorized the purchase and award of a Rescue Ambulance by
piggybacking on the St. John, Florida Bid and purchase of related equipment (not to exceed
$198,000 including tax); authorized the purchase of a Battalion Chief's Command Vehicle off
of State Bid and sole sourcing turn -key installation of command package, to include all
required emergency warning devices and radios, to Command Designs, Inc. ($76,000);
authorized disposal of the surplused vehicles at auction. Fiscal Impact — not to exceed
$274,700.
7. Received and filed report regarding the submission of a grant proposal to,the County of Los
Angeles Office of Emergency Management (OEM) and Office of Justice Programs.
8. Accepted grant from the California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP), Office of
Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP) in the amount of $17,733.26; and appropriation of the
funds to be used by the Police Department for the purchase of "high- technology equipment ".
9. Approved Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $3,469.25; accepted the work as complete
on the project for the rehabilitation of Sanitary Sewer Pump Station No. 5 (737 Center Street)
— Approved Capital Improvement Program — Project No. PW 01 -15 (Estimated Cost
$299,469.25). Authorized the City Clerk to file the City Engineer's Notice of Completion in
the County Recorder's Office.
10. Accepted the work as complete on the construction of sidewalk/curb ramps along Pine
Avenue (east of Sierra Street and west of Maryland Street) and along Center Street (Grand
Avenue to Franklin Avenue) — Project No. PW 02 -05 — Approved Capital Improvement
Program (Estimated cost $21,220.00). Authorized the City Clerk to file the City Engineer's
Notice of Completion in the County Recorder's Office.
11. Accepted the work as complete on the construction of mid -block surface drainage
improvements /curb replacements at nine (9) locations — Project No. PW 02 -09A — Approved
Capital Improvement Program (Estimated Cost $81,950.00). Authorized the City Clerk to file
the City Engineer's Notice of Completion in the County Recorder's Office.
12. Accepted the work as complete on the construction of forty -four (44) curb ramps and
adjacent sidewalks along Mariposa Avenue — Project No. PW 02 -04 — Approved Capital
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2003
PAGE NO. 4
0}t
Improvement Program (Estimated cost $37,830.00). Authorized the City Clerk to file the City
Engineer's Notice of Completion.
13. PULLED FOR DISCUSSION BY MAYOR PROTEM JACOBS.
14. Approved Change Order No. 1 for $3,965.11 to Mel Smith Electric, Inc. for Recreation Park
Electrical Upgrades — Project No. PW 01 -05 (Change Order Amount $3,965.11).
15. Authorized staff to publish a Request for Proposal for a three (3) year City Street Sweeping
contract. (Fiscal Impact - none at this time).
16. Waived the formal bidding process per the municipal code and awarded Contract No. 3115
on a sole source basis for the purchase of a 3M security system to replace the current
system in the library. (Fiscal Impact $13,850.00). Authorized the City Manager to execute
the contract on behalf of the City.
MOVED by Council Member McDowell, SECONDED by Council Member Gaines to approve
consent agenda items 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 141 15 and 16. MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 4/0. MAYOR GORDON ABSENT
CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA
3. Approve acceptance of six surplus MAX vehicles from the City of Torrance to the City of El
Segundo for donation to El Segundo Sister City Association, Inc.; donatee the MAX buses and
authorized City Manager to execute all documentation to effectuate proper transfer of all
vehicles to the El Segundo Sister City Association; Inc.
MOVED by Council Member Gaines, SECONDED by Council Member McDowell to approve the
acceptance of six surplus MAX vehicles from the City of Torrance to the City of El Segundo for
donation to El Segundo Sister City Association, Inc.; donatee the MAX buses and authorized City
Manager to execute all documentation to effectuate proper transfer of all vehicles to the El
Segundo Sister City Association; Inc. MOTION PASSED BY UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 4/0.
MAYOR GORDON ABSENT
13. Approve Change Order No. 1 for $18,350.00 to Howard Ridley Company, Inc. for
professional concrete waterproofing services at City Hall — (Change Order amount
$18,350.00).
MOVED by Council Member Gaines, SECONDED by Council Member McDowell to approve
Change Order No. 1 for $18,350.00 to Howard Ridley Company, Inc. for professional concrete
waterproofing services at City Hall — (Change Order amount $18,350.00). MOTION PASSED BY
UNANIMOUS VOICE VOTE. 4/0. MAYOR GORDON ABSENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2003
PAGE NO. 5
0158
F. NEW BUSINESS —
17. Consideration and possible action regarding the submittal of a detachment and annexation
application to the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to
detach an approximately 49 -acre area of land at the southeast corner of Aviation and El
Segundo Boulevards from the City and allow annexation of that property (Area A of the Los
Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB)) by the City of Hawthorne to facilitate the consolidation
and retention of the LAAFB in the City.
Jim Hansen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services gave a report.
Mark Hensley read by title only:
RESOLUTION NO. 4293
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO SETTING FORTH
ITS INTENT TO CONSIDER A PROPOSED REORGANIZATION INVOLVING DETACHMENT OF
THE LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE AREA A FROM EL SEGUNDO AND ITS ANNEXATION
TO HAWTHORNE.
MOVED by Council Member Gaines, SECONDED by Council Member McDowell to adopt
Resolution No. 4293 setting forth its intent to consider a proposed reorganization involving
detachment of the Los Angeles Air force Base Area A from El Segundo and authorize the City.
Manager to submit a detach ment/annexation application to LAFCO. MOTION PASSED BY THE
FOLLOWING VOICE VOTE. AYES: MAYOR PRO TEM JACOBS, COUNCIL MEMBERS GAINES
AND MCDOWELL. NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER WERNICK. 3/1. MAYOR GORDON ABSENT
18. Consideration and possible action regarding the second amendment to an Agreement
Affecting Real Property (HARP) between the City of El Segundo and Arrow Electronics, Inc.
for real property located at 111 Maryland Street.
Item pulled from consideration and will be agendized at a later date.
19. Consideration and possible action regarding a new Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC)
license for on -site sale and consumption of alcohol (Type 41 — On Sale Beer and Wine
Eating Place and Type 47 — Beer, Wine and Alcohol) at an existing restaurant, The Tavern
On Main, located at 123 Main Street, EA No. 601 and AUP No. 02 -04 (ABC 02 -05).
Applicant - The Tavern On Main, Property Owner - Kristian Krieger
Mayor ProTem Jacobs left the dais due to a possible conflict of interest.
Council consensus not to protest the issuance of the new ABC license for the sale of beer, wine
and alcohol at The Tavern on Main. Mayor ProTem Jacobs, not participating on this item due to a
possible conflict of interest.
G. REPORTS — CITY MANAGER — NONE
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2003
PAG t Q. 6
H. REPORTS - CITY ATTORNEY — The Council has authorized the City of El Segundo to join
a petition with other cities in LA County with regards to the State Water Resources Control
Board's NPDES permit regulations lawsuit.
I. REPORTS — CITY CLERK - NONE
J. REPORTS — CITY TREASURER — NONE
K. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member McDowell —
Spoke on the Downtown revitalization project and presented a time line for improvements to
Main Street and Grand Avenue.
Council Member Gaines — None
Council Member Wernick — None
Mayor Pro Tern Jacobs — Noted that the City was entering it's 86th year of incorporation.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS - (Related to City Business Only — 5 minute limit per person, 30
minute limit total) Individuals who have received value of $50 or more to communicate to the City
Council on behalf of another, and employees speaking on behalf of their employer, must so identify
themselves prior to addressing the City Council. Failure to do so shall be a misdemeanor and
punishable by a fine of $250. While all comments are welcome, the Brown Act does not allow
Council to take action on any item not on the agenda. The Council will respond to comments after
Public Communications is closed.
Joe Brandon, resident, spoke regarding the Air Force base, and school district clarification. He
further spoke about the Downtown revitalization.
Peggy Tyrell, resident, spoke regarding the Downtown revitalization project.
Elyse Rothstein, Chamber Downtown El Segundo Committee, expressed support and appreciation
for the improvements being made downtown.
Edna Freeman, resident, spoke regarding the Main Street Trees, and expressed support for the
program, and requested that the City be very careful with the selection of the replacements.
Request by Juli Potter of Tree Advocates for further discussion on Main Street Ficus Trees and
Main Street 4 -Lane configuration. Ms. Potter expressed displeasure on the removal of the trees.
(Mayor Pro Tern Jacobs left the dais due to a possible conflict of interest.)
James Campbell, Woodland Hills resident, spoke regarding the Main Street trees.
Liz Garnholz, resident, requested information on the amount of acres addressed regarding the Air
Force Base. She also addressed the trees on Main Street.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2003
PAGE NO. 7
6160
Marc Rener, resident, spoke regarding the Main Street trees, Air Force Base, and the new market.
George Funk, resident, spoke regarding the Main Street trees, and stated he was surprised that
people were unaware that the trees were going to be removed. He further stated that he is
disappointed with the same people complaining, over and over.
Jan Cruickshank, resident, spoke about the Air Force Base property.
Deanne Westphal, resident, requested to know if more trees are slated to be removed and if so
when.
Diane Sambrano, Inglewood resident, complained about the removal of the trees.
Jane Tourino, property owner, spoke about the Main Street trees.
Mona Eisman, resident, spoke regarding the Main Street trees.
Joan Parker, resident, spoke regarding the Main Street trees, and commitment to beautifying Main
Street.
Richard Arabian, resident, responded to Mr. Funk's comments. He also spoke regarding the Main
Street Trees.
CLOSED SESSION - None
MEMORIALS — Adjourned in memory of Jack Trystman, Virginia Andridge and Dora Levin.
ADJOURNMENT at 9:45 P.M.
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 21, 2003
PAGE NO. 8
V6i
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding the request of Mr. Kyle Andrich, Vice President,
El Segundo Girls Softball, for City approval to close certain City streets for the El Segundo
Girls Softball and Little League Opening Day Parade from 9:00 a.m. to 10:45 a.m., Saturday,
March 1 2003, and waiver of all associated fees.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Approve request, provided the event meets all applicable City requirements;
(2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: Traditionally, the El Segundo Girls Softball and Little League
have held an Opening Day Parade. The route chosen includes the streets from Eucalyptus
and Grand west to Main Street, north on Main to Pine, and then east to Eucalyptus for the
Girls Softball team and east to Sheldon Street for the Little League.
City support will include three motor officers, and three cadets. Cost of Traffic Division for
traffic control services during the parade is estimated to be $576. Cost for sign posting and
delivery of the lane delineators (which is to occur during the workweek) by the Street
Department is estimated to be $100. No crew will be required the day of the event; the Little
League will distribute and collect the delineators the day of the event under Police Department
supervision. As in the past, the FY 2002 -2003 budget has included provision for City
expenses in connection with this event.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Letter of Mr. Kyle Andrich, Vice President, El Segundo Girls Softball, dated January 15, 2003.
FISCAL IMPACT: $676 (Included in Police Department Operating Budget)
Operating Budget:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project, Phase:
Appropriation Required Yes No X
ORIGINATED: -0 c,R...... DATE: January 23, 2003
Julia O. Abreu, Executive Assistant
REVIEWED BY: DATE: January , 2003
Mary Strenn, City anager
0 62
rr
�L S � I;1'DD � l� �F7". �L
January 15, 2003
Ms. Julia Abreu-Mason
El Segundo City, Hall
350 Main Street
El Segundo, California. 90245
Dear Ms. Abreu-Mason,
Subject: El SegundQ Girl toftball and Utle League Opening Day Parade
Historically, El Segundo Girls Softball and El Segundo Little League hold their parade on the same day
and at same time. In the best interest of both parties we are requesting the following parade route for
this years opening day parade on March 1, 2003 at 10:00am. The teams will gather for the parade in
the upper parking lot of the Recreation Park located on Eucalyptus Street beginning at 9:00am. The
route will begin at the comer of Grand Avenue and Eucalyptus Street, travel west on Grand Avenue to
Main Street, then travel north on Main Street to Pine Avenue, and travel east on Pine Avenue to
Eucalyptus Street. Girls Softball will then turn south onto Eucalyptus Street, the parade will disband,
and the teams and parade watchers will make their way to the Girls Softball field. Little League will
continue to travel east on Pine Street to Sheldon Street turning into the parking lot of Recreation Park at
which point they will disband.
In order to facilitate a safe parade route, we are requesting El Segundo Police Department traffic
control and temporary street closures for the following: 1) West bound lanes from Grand Avenue to
Main Street (10-.00 to 10.15). 2) Two north bound lanes from Main Street to Fine Avenue (10:15 to
100). 3) Pine Avenue from Main Street to Sheldon Street (10:30 to 10:45). 4) Eucalyptus Street from
Pine Avenue to Grand Avenue (9:00 to 10:45). In addition, because of the both leagues limited
financial resour(*s we are respectfully requesting the City Councils consideration that all city charges
associated with this request we waived.
Thanking you in advance for your assistance in this matter. if you have any questions or need further
information; please do not hesitate to contact me at 64"585.
Respectfully,
Vice Presickrit
q Segundo Girls Softball
0 6 '31
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding the retirement of Police Service Dog Kai
(pronounced Ki) a
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Approve retirement of Police Service Dog Kai and authorize the Mayor to execute the sale
of Kai to his K -9 Handler, Officer Leyman, for the nominal fee of one dollar ($ 1.00)
(2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
On January 10, 2003, Officer Jeff Leyman will resign from his position as a Police Service Dog
Handler after five and a half years of service. His Police Service -Dog, Kai, a nine - year -old
Belgian Malinois, has been his canine partner since his appointment in June of 1997. Officer
Leyman has requested that Kai be permitted to retire from police canine service.
Staff has recommended that Kai be retired from police service, as he would be unfit for
continued duty. Kai has several medical conditions. Kai appears to be a single handler dog
and establishing a new working bond with a different K -9 handler would take Kai past his
capable range of police service.
El Segundo Police Department G.O.M. Volume 400, Section 690.15 allows a K -9 handler to
purchase their police service dog for a nominal fee if the dog is considered unfit for duty by the
Chief of Police. The officer will sign a hold harmless agreement releasing the City and the
Department from liability.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Hold Harmless Agreement For Sale of Police K -9
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: N/A
Amount Requested: N/A
Account Number: N/A
Project Phase: N/A
Appropriation Required: —Yes- X No
ORIGINATED BY: DATE: January 23, 2003
J ck Wayt, C&Ief of Police
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
Vary nn, City Manager'''',
PURCHASE CONTRACT FOR
EL SEGUNDO POLICE K-9
This purchase contract arises from the City of El Segundo's offer to sell and Jeff Leyman's offer to
purchase all of City's right, title, and interest in the surplus property identified as the K -9 Police
Service Dog known as "Kai" ( "Dog "). In consideration of being permitted to purchase the Dog, I
agree to the following:
1. I agree and represent that I have read, understand, and agree to the City's rules and policies
for purchasing the Dog. I understand that the Dog was declared to be unfit for duty by the Police
Chief and will be retired.
2. I understand and agree that the description of the Dog offered for sale was compiled from
available data, and there is no guaranty or warranty as to condition or quality. I agree to assume
all liability for the Dog and understand that all property is sold "As is" -and "Where is." THE
CITY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF MERCHANTABILITY
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. IN NO EVENT WILL THE CITY BE
LIABLE FOR DAMAGES IN EXCESS OF THE PURCHASE PRICE. IN NO EVENT WILL
THE CITY BE LIABLE FOR ANY LOSS OF USE, LOSS OF TIME, INCONVENIENCE,
COMMERCIAL LOSS, LOST PROFITS OR SAVINGS OR OTHER INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR
INABILITY TO USE THE DOG, TO THE FULL EXTENT SUCH MAY BE DISCLAIMED
BY LAW.
3. I understand and agree that I was provided the opportunity to inspect the Dog before signing
this contract. Under no circumstances will a refund or adjustment be made on account of
property not coming up to the standard expected nor will failure to inspect the Dog be considered
grounds for a claim against the City.
4. I understand and agree that the Dog is a trained animal that may constitute a "dangerous
weapon" under applicable law. As a result, the Dog can cause serious bodily injury, including
death, to myself, my family, and third parties.
5. I agree to pay for the Dog at the time of sale. The Dog cannot be removed until full payment
is made.
6. I release, waive, discharge, and covenant on behalf of myself not to sue the City of El
Segundo, its elected and appointed officials, agents, volunteers, and employees (collectively,
"Releasees ') from all liability for any loss or damage, and any claim or demands on account of
personal or property injury, whether caused by Releasees' negligence or otherwise arising from
my purchase or subsequent use of the Surplus Property.
7. I agree to indemnify and hold the Releasees harmless from and against any and all claims
arising from use of the Dog whether caused by Releasees' negligence or otherwise. I will pay all
costs incident to any claim, including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees.
8. I expressly agree that the foregoing release, waiver, and indemnity agreement is intended to
be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and that if any
portion is held invalid, it is agreed that the balance must, notwithstanding, continue in full legal
force and effect.
Date
Purchaser
3
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
Consideration and possible action regarding acceptance of the project for removal and
storage of Heritage Stones on Main Street — Project No. PW 02 -17 - Approved Capital
Improvement Program - (Final contract cost = $46,854.50).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $8,046.50; (2)
Accept the work as complete; (3) Authorize the City Clerk to file the City Engineer's Notice
of Completion; (4) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND &DISCUSSION:
Background and discussion begins on the next page............
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Notice of Completion.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Capital Improvement Program: $3,709,000.00
Amount Requested: $ 46,854.50
Account Number: 301 - 400 - 8201 -8573
Project Phase: Acceptance of project
Appropriation Required: No
ORIGINATED BY: DATE: January 28, 2003
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: _ DATE:
Mary Strenn, City M
20030204 - Acceptance of Project for Removal of Heritage Stones on Main Street — PW 02 -17
10
0 6 �f
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On September 3, 2002, the City Council awarded a contract to FS Construction for removal
and storage of the Heritage Stones as part of the Downtown Specific Plan Implementation
Project in the amount of $38,808.00.
After award of the contract, the design engineer requested that additional stones be
removed to assure no construction conflicts. This resulted in Change Order No. 1 in the
amount of $8,046.50. The work has now been completed to the satisfaction of staff and
the final contract amount, based on measured quantities, is $46,854.50.
The stones are currently being stored at the City's Maintenance Facility. Once the
Downtown Specific Plan Project is completed, the stones will be installed. This will allow
for greater attention in the correct placement of the stones.
Staff recommends acceptance of this project.
20030204 - Acceptance of Project for Removal of Heritage Stones on Main Street — PW 02 -17 i.}
Recording Requested by
and When Recorded Mail To:
City Clerk, City Hall
350 Main Street
El Segundo, CA 9024:'
NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Project Name : Heritage Stone Removal
Project No.: P)N 02 -17
Notice is hereby given pursuant to State of California Civil Code Section 3093 et seq that:
1. The undersigned is an officer of the owner of the interest stated below in the property
hereinafter described.
2. The full name of the owner is: City of El Segundo
3. The full address of the owner is: City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA, 90245
4. The nature of the interest of the owner is: Public street right -of -way
5. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was field reviewed by the
City Engineer on December 15, 2002. The work done was: Removal of Heritage Stones
6. On February 4, 2003, the City Council of the City of El Segundo accepted the work of this
contract as being complete and directed the recording of this Notice of Completion in the
Office of the County Recorder.
7. The name of the Contractor for such work of improvement was: FS Construction
8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of
El Segundo, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is described as follows:
Removal of Heritage Stones
9. The street address of said property is: Main Street and Grand Avenue
Dated:
Bellur K. Devaraj
City Engineer
VERIFICATION
1, the undersigned, say: I am the City Engineer of the City El Segundo, the declarant of the foregoing
Notice of Completion; I have read said Notice of Completion and know the contents thereof; the same is
true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on , 2003 at E1 Segundo, California.
Bellur K. Devaraj
City Engineer
NOTICE OF COMPLETIONS \PW 02 -17 HERITAGE STONE REMOVAL -F' y��
u t'
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
MEETING DATE: February 04, 2003
AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
Consideration and possible action regarding award of contract to Professional Building
Contractors, Inc. (PBC) for construction work of the Residential Sound Insulation Program
required to complete Phase 8 (49 residences). (Amount requested $1,110,098)
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Award contract to Professional Building Contractors, Inc. (PBC); 2) Authorize the City
Manager to execute a construction contract in a form approved by the City Attorney; 3)
Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
On January 21, 2003 the City Clerk's office opened sealed bids for the City's Residential
Sound Insulation Program Phase 8. Two bids were responsive and the result of the bid
opening was as follows:
1. Professional Building Contractors, Inc. (PBC) $1,009,180
2. Karabuild Development $1,019,999
A third bid from Great West Contractors, Inc. was unresponsive.
Staff was pleased at how close bids were to each other (representative of comprehensive
specifications) and that they were lower than the engineering estimate of $1,042,612.
Continued on attached sheet
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Bidder's Proposal and Statement from Professional Building Contractors, Inc.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Bid Group:
Appropriation Required:
$2,679,100
$1,110,098
116- 400 - 0000 -8960
8
_ Yes X No
O IGINATED: DATE: January 24,
C�;Aw/
James S. O'Neill„ Program Coordinator
REVIEWED BYE DATE:
M
anager
511/000 1
A background check was performed on Professional Building Contractors, Inc. (PBC),
including contacting listed references and the State License Contracting Board and it was
determined that -the company's reputation is favorable. The amount requested includes the
Total Bid of $1,009,180 from Professional Building Contractors, Inc. and an additional 10% of
that Total Bid for, potential change orders due to unforeseen conditions.
When analyzing the bid prices for each home, staff looked at the out -of- pocket expense
associated with each home. Out -of- pocket expenses for each owner are based on 20% of the
improvement costs plus those of any "upgrades" requested by the owner to receive items
which exceed the standard modification requirements. (These items can be eliminated and
only the necessary modifications be made if the owner determines that the upgrades are no
longer desirable.) Bid prices for each property are shown on Attachment A.
07
Attachment A
BIDDERS'S PROPOSAL AND STATEMENT
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Project Number PW02 -20
"Residential Sound Insulation Program - Phase 8"
PROPOSAL
To the Mayor and City Council
City of El Segundo
350 Main St.
El Segundo, CA 90245
The undersigned declares that he /she has carefully examined the location of the proposed
work and has otherwise satisfied himself/herself as to the nature and location of the work,
and is full informed as to all conditions and matters which can in any way affect the work
or cost thereof, that he /she has examined the Contract Documents, and has read the
accompanying "BIDDING INSTRUCTIONS" and hereby agrees to provide the
following:
To furnish all labor, materials,. equipment, transportation, and services and to do all the
work required for the "Residential Sound Insulation Program - Phase 8" in strict
conformity with the Contract Documents and at the following lump sum price, to Wit:
I -C -1
IMPROVEMENT
OWNER
PROPERTY
LOCATION
COSTS
UPGRADES
SUBTOTALS
210 Went Acacia Avenue
•--
� -�
300 West Acacia Avenue
413 West Acacia Avenue
C
ca
-
416 West Acacia Avenue
512 West Acacia Avenue,
•,
520 West Acacia Avenue
9
.�.
624 West Acacia Avenue
711 West Acacia Avenue
'835
-7 3
Dune Street
�-
847 Dune Street
917 Dune Street
1.5?
925 Dune Street
4�
949 Eucalyptus Drive
...
820 Hillc:rest Street
221 v
3
3,
840 Hillc:rest Street
843 Hillc:rest Street
.....-
,� .
909 Loma Vista Street
910 Loma Vista Street
..� .
750
1251?
I -C -1
914 Loma Vista Street
954 Loma Vista Street
941 Lomita Street
916 McCarthy Court
734 Redwood Avenue
._.,
,.
a
918 Virginia Street
634 West S camore Avenue
�'
204 West Walnut Avenue
/950
41 5/37
410 West Walnut Avenue
315 West Walnut Avenue
505 West Walnut Avenue°
F `
.,....
...--
r..
� � •-� ri
528 West Walnut Avenue
770 West Imperial Avenue #01
t
...-
770 West imperial Avenue #10
770 West Imperial Avenue #21
770 West Imperial Avenue #26
I
---
--
770 West Im erial Avenue #27
770 West Imperial Avenue #34
770 West imperial Avenue #36
a-....
57
770 West Imperial Avenue #44
---.
c'
770 West Imperial Avenue #48
770 West, Imperial Avenue #57
.�
LID
770 West Imperial Avenue #58
--"
770 West Imperial Avenue #59
w--
770 West Imperial Avenue #64
770 West Im erial Avenue #68'
'
770 West Im erial Avenue #75
770 West Imperial Avenue #77
770 West Im erial Avenue #$3
s
qTq
-�°
---•
--
.
770 West Im erial Avenue #90
770 West Imperial Avenue #95
..-�
TOTALS:
41,16 60
Total Bird (Contract Sum)
q
' j '
��.�;a
(words)
00
(figures)
In case of •discrepancy between the words and figures, the words must prevail.
�TAR1Y �rti'1 -_
i j%-J' " ji1MUZIUS WILL iN VT BE RELEASED DUE TO ERRORS AP
ILLEGIBLE BIDS MUST BE DISQUALIFIED
I -C -2
i
07
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDAHEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding approval to publish a Request for Proposal to
obtain a qualified architect for the refurbishment of the City Council Chambers and the
replacement of the City Hall exterior windows with energy efficient windows - (No fiscal impact
at this time).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Authorize staff to solicit proposals from architectural firms that
specialize in design and modernization of commercial and /or government facilities; and (2)
Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
The adopted fiscal year 2002 -2003 Facilities Maintenance Program includes projects for the
design and modernization of the City Council Chambers and replacement of the City Hall
exterior windows.
(Background & discussion continued on the next page...)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
$459,000.00
Amount Requested:
None at this time
Account Number:
405 - 400 - 0000 -6215
Project Phase:
Request for Proposal
Appropriation Required:
No
ORIGINATED BY: DATE: January 28, 2003
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
AP
.. ---- -�
...... :Xe
Mary Strenn, it}r M ger
200 _ 1
30204 RFP FOR RE ■
MODEL OF COUNCIL CHAMBERS
07(
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (continued)
The proposed Council Chamber remodeling project could include:
1. Modernization of electrical and audiovisual equipment including timers for the public
comments microphone;
2. Interior painting including the covering of the brick walls;
3. Constructing a new Dais, on a Radius, incorporating side tables. The goal is to change
the appearance of the room and produce a modern style dais with functional
equipment;
4. Incorporating the public address area, public seating, and overflow seating into the
design and modernization;
5. Modernization and upgrades to address all code, structural and Americans with
Disabilities Act accessibility requirements;
6. Other improvements that may be recommended.
The City Hall exterior windows project is a two -year project that involves .removal of the non-
functioning shutter system and replacement of all exterior windows with modern energy
efficient windows. The exterior louvers will be removed and window treatments added.
The first phase will address the windows facing the City Hall Plaza. The second phase will
include the remaining windows. The project will not only enhance the appearance of City Hall,
but will also reduce the amount of energy needed to cool or heat the building.
It is recommended that authorization fora Request for Proposal be approved so the City can
contract with a firm that specializes in design and remodel.
20030204 - RFP FOR REMODEL OF COUNCIL CHAMBERS
0 7 t�
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
Consideration and possible action regarding installation of 3 -way. stop signs at the
Mariposa Avenue / Washington Street and the Pine Avenue / Illinois Street intersections -
(No Fiscal Impact).
RECOMMEND ED► COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Adopt resolution; (2) Authorize staff to install the approved stop
signs; (3) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Background and discussion begins on the next page .............
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Resolution for adoption.
2. Location map.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Capital Improvement Program:
Amount Requested:
Account Numbeir:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required:
ORIGINATED BY: DATE: January 28, 2003
Andres Santarnaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
Mary Strenn, City Manager
13
20030204 — 3 -Way Stop Signs at Mariposa - Washington and Pine - Illinois 076,
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
In the past the City had received several requests for stop signs at the following two (2) T-
intersections abutting the recently completed Freedom Park:
1. For eastbound and westbound Mariposa Avenue at the easterly Washington Street
intersection. Southbound Washington Street currently has a stop sign.
2. For northbound and southbound Illinois Street at the Pine Avenue intersection.
Westbound Pine Avenue currently has a stop sign.
The Traffic Committee had previously recommended evaluation of these requests after
completion of the Freedom Park. The park is now completed and fully operational. The
two (2) intersections do not satisfy Caltrans established justification for installation of stop
signs (this justification is based on existing traffic volumes and accident history at a
particular intersection). However, the Traffic Committee took into consideration the
mitigating factor of the usage of the adjacent park and recommends installation of the
above stop signs.
20030204 — 3 -Way Stop Signs at Mariposa - Washington and Pine - Illinois
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOUTION NO. 4162 REGARDING 3-
WAY STOP- SIGNS AT THE WASHINGTON STREET I MARIPOSA
AVENUE AND ILLINOIS STREET / PINE AVENUE INTERSECTIONS.
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION . 1. Section 5 - Through streets and stop intersections portion of
Resolution No. 4162 is amended to read as follows:
1. Subsection 5.75 is amended to read: Mariposa Avenue at Washington
Street, all entrances for the easterly intersection.
2. Subsection 5.95 is amended to read: Pine Avenue at Illinois Street, all
entrances.
SECTION-?- The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this
Resolution; record this Resolution in the, book of the City's original resolutions; and make
a minute of the adoption of the Resolution in the City Council's records and the minutes of
this meeting.
SECTION 3. This Resolution will become effective immediately -upon
adoption and will remain effective until superseded by subsequent resolution or
ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 4th day of February, 2003.
Mike Gordon, Mayor
of the City of El Segundo,
California
078
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
1, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, hereby certify that
the whole number of members of the City Council of the City is five; that the foregoing
Resolution No. was duly passed and adopted by said City Council,
approved and signed by the Mayor of said City, and attested to by the City Clerk of said
City, all at a regular meeting of said Council held on the day of
2003, and the same was so passed and adopted by the following
roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Cindy Mortesen,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS
Mark D. HensJEf)
0
Karl H. Berger
Assistant City,
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCI:ZIPTION:
Consideration and possible action for approval of a Contract Amendment No. 1 to CJ
Construction, IInc., for the annual Curb and Sidewalk Repair Agreement — (Fiscal Impact -
$28,777.28).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Approve Contract Amendment No. 1; (2) Authorize the City
Manager to sign the amendment; (3) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to
this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Background and nd discussion begins on the next page.........
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Contract Amendment No. 1.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Capital.lmprovernent Program: $74,000.00 (Drainage Improvements)
Amount Requested: $28,777.28
Account Number: 106 - 400 - 8203 -8452
Project Phase: Approve Contract Amendment No. 1
Appropriation Required: No
ORIGINATED BY: ,�.. DATE: January 28, 2003
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: d DATE:
Mary Stren , Ci Manager,►
20030204 - Approve Contract Amendment No. 1 to CJ Construction, Inc., for Curb - Sidewalk Repair 14
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
On March 6, '92002, the City Council awarded an annual contract for curb and sidewalk
repair to CJ Construction, Inc., in the amount of $45,000.00. Additional work was assigned
to CJ Construction, Inc., to facilitate other concrete work. In the course of their contract,
adjacent damaged sidewalk and curb to the proposed list of sites was repaired.
The City Hall Improvement Project required a replacement of two (2) concrete ramps
leading from the sidewalk to the basement entrances on Standard Street. These ramps
were removed to install the drainage pipe system.
Additional work assigned to CJ Construction, Inc., was the removal of concrete adjacent to
the tree wells in the Downtown Specific Plan Project.
Staff recommends approval of this contract amendment for $28,777.28
20030204 - Approve Contract Amendment No. 1 to CJ Construction, Inc., for Curb - Sidewalk Repair , t
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1
Public Works Department, Engineering Division, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, CA 90245
TELEPHONE: 310- 524 -2300
DATE: January 16, 2003
NAME OF COMPANY: CJ Construction, Inc.
PROJECT: Curb and Sidewalk Repair
CHANGE ORDER NIO.: One (1)
PSA NO.: 2982
FACSIMILE: 310-640-0489
You are nereby instructed, subject to the provisions of the above named contract, to make the following amendments thereto:
ITEM DELETE ADD DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE CREDIT ADD
1 X Repair curb and gutter; N/A $14,783.28
Install sidewalk ramps
2 X Sidewalk concrete removal N/A $13,994.00
Time Extension: 1) (Calendar Days)
APPROVED BY:
CJ_ Construction, Inc.
Contractor Name
ACCEPTED:
Name and Title
DATE:
NET: + $28,777.28
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON:
Date
ACCEPTED:
City Manager
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCR'JPTION:
Consideration and possible action to retain CWA, Inc., to provide architectural services for
the City Library remodeling project - Approved Capital Improvement Program
(estimated cost = $43,000.00).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Authorize the City Manager to execute a Professional Services
Agreement with CWA, Inc., on behalf of the City; (2) Alternatively discuss and take other
action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Background and discussion begins on the next page............
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT;;
Capital Improvement Program: $220.000.00
Amount Requested: $ 43,000.00
Account Number: 301 - 400 - 8201 -8497
Project Phase: Design
Appropriation Required: No
ORIGINATED BY': DATE: January 28, 2003
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
Mary Strenn, City M ger r��
15
20030204 — Retain CWA Inc — Architectural Services — Library Remodel
3
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
The adopted FY 2002 -03 Capital Improvement Program includes a project to remodel the
interior space of the City Library. The scope of the remodeling includes:
1. Reconfiguration of the periodical storage area on the north side of the Library to
create three (3) meeting rooms and microfiche storage areas.
2. Re- configuration of the current microfiche area to create two (2) offices for Library
staff. As an alternate option, this area maybe converted to an office for the Library
Director and the Director's current office converted to two (2) staff offices.
3. Re- configuration of the south book processing area to provide for four (4) staff
offices. Currently, this area accommodates six (6) staff members.
Staff solicited 1proposals from qualified architects and four (4) proposals were received.
The responding architects were: CWA, Inc.; Frank Glynn; LPA; and Donald Krotee. A
staff committee, made up from the Library, Public Works and the Community, Economic
and Development Services Departments, reviewed all proposals and recommends CWA,
Inc., to provide the architectural services at a fee of $43,000.00. This recommendation
was based on the extensive Library projects experience of CWA, Inc., and its prior
experience in designing the City Library addition project ten (10) years ago.
20030204 — Retain CWA Inc — Architectural Services — Library Remodel
8
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDAHEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding approval to publish a Request for Proposal to
obtain professional services to install Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compatible
automated doors at the Joslyn Center and at the Library - (No fiscal impact at this time).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Authorize staff to solicit proposals from firms that specialize in ADA
compliant automated door design; and (2) Alternatively discuss and take other action related
to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Cities across America are taking steps to make programs, services and facilities accessible
for all people with disabilities. Evaluation of facilities, identification of barriers, and
development of plans to remove these barriers is ongoing.
(Background & discussion continues on the next page........)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
None.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: $40,000.00
Amount Requested: Not at this time
Account Number: 111- 400 - 2781 -8498 (CDBG funds)
Project Phase: Request for Proposal
Appropriation Required: No
ORIGINATED BY: - DATE: January 28, 2003
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: DATE:]
Mary Strenn, City Mp ger"'
20030204 RFP TO INSTALL ADA COMPATIBLE AUTOMATED DOORS AT JOSLYN CENTER AND THE LIBRARY
16
08 k)
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION: (continued)
ADA projects include the interior elevator at City Hall being installed now and the proposed
automated doors at the Joslyn Center and the Library. The automated doors will help people
with disabilities, as well as the elderly, to enter the facilities easier.
The automated door project includes installing entrance doors at the Joslyn Center and at the
Library, which may require possible removal, realignment and re- installation of door
assemblies, floor systems and mechanical systems to accommodate the installations.
On November 6, 2002, the City Council approved the Community Development Block Grant
Program which added the project "Architecture and Engineering Services" forthe Removal of
Architectural Barrier at Two Public Facilities": Joslyn Center and the El Segundo Library an
allocation of $40,000.00 for this project was made. It is recommended that authorization for a
Request for Proposal be approved.
20030204 - RFP TO INSTALL ADA COMPATIBLE AUTOMATED DOORS AT JOSLYN CENTER AND THE LIBRARY 6
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
Consideration and possible action regarding adoption of plans and specifications for
elimination of Sanitary Sewer Pump Station No. 12, located on the north side of Oak
Avenue, approximately 150 feet west of Main Street (address is 117 West Oak Avenue)
and construction of a sewer line - Project No. PW 03 -02 - Approved Capital Improvement
Program - (estimated cost = $374,000.00).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Adopt plans and specifications; (2) Authorize staff to advertise
the project for ireceipt of construction bids; (3) Alternatively discuss and take other action
related to this iitem.
BACKGROUND IR DISCUSSION:
Background and discussion begins on the next page.........
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Location map.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Capital Improvement Program:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required:
$510,000.00
$374,000.00
302 - 400 - 8204 -8640
Adoption of plans and specifications
No
ORIGINATED BY: DATE: January 28, 2003
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWE%BY: f DATE:
Mary S'frenn, /W Manager
20030204 - Adopt Plans and Specs for Eliminating Sewer Pump Station No. 12 17
0 8
t�
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On April 2, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement with AKM Consulting Engineers
for professional engineering services for the rehabiliation of Sanitary Sewer Pump Station
No. 12. Also included in the scope of services were provisions for an engineering study to
investigate the feasibility of eliminating the pump station. AKM Consulting Engineers
determined that construction of a gravity sewer main was not financially feasible. However,
the study recommended construction of a sewer pipe in Oak Avenue and the elimination of
Sanitary Sewer Pump Station No. 12.
The design is now complete and staff recommends advertising this project for receipt of
construction bids. The complete total estimated construction cost of the project is
$314,000.00.
20030204 - Adopt Plans and Specs for Eliminating Sewer Pump Station No. 12
fw
ti�
2
tt0
�l
0
c�
iL
t
N �
O - AlNt100 S3139NV SO-1 �M3 3NUGH1MVH 40 'kilo
Z I QAJO 0031Q NVS
a I Ira3N3l
w w dl
0 a J I
..I 1•% w w J 0 J t= 1= FF J ca m C
VI H V/ 4 VI 4 Vf V{ VI 4 Vl
I
ti
0
v
a
0
m
v
r
`o
Z
Lj-
U
a
4
a
W
O
NOIIVIAv
'inn OON003a
AvM• >tava =
v
a
w
m
z
a
r
r
a
z
VG3A'7nd3S <
:'3nv 8V0
:'3AV w13 LL.
;'3AY 1nNlvttk y.
My VIL138NI04 r
'3AV wlvd V
"3AV 31dVM
'3AV 3IJI3vd
'3" 13unv1
'ON A3Nano13
UY 314ONT18
M
N
llry
\1. N rIVII, o
U
0 0 u)
Z
\ LL U)
0
W
CL
Q LL
rri
Z �
J I
M
ti
T
0
a
z
W
U-
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM :STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Agenda
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding adoption of plans and specifications for
reconstruction of Storm Water Pump Station No. 16, located at 408 Eucalyptus Drive — PW
No. 03 -01 - Approved Capital Improvement Program - (estimated cost = $1,415,000).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Adopt plans and specifications; (2) Authorize staff to advertise
the project for receipt of bids; (3) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this
item.
BACKGROUND i& DISCUSSION:
Background and discussion begins on the next page............
ATTACHED SUPIPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Location map.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Capital Improvement Program:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required:
$1,610,000.00
$1,415,000.00
302 - 400 - 8205 -8488
Adoption of plans and specifications
No
ORIGINATED BY: �j' yr��, -- DATE: January 28, 2003
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
Mary Strenn, City Ma er
1
20030204 - Adopt Plans and Specs — Reconstruction of Storm Water Pump Station No. 16
0 9
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
The existing Storm Water Pump Station No. 16 (PS16) is located at the corner of Holly
Avenue and Eucalyptus Drive. Storm runoff generated within the general area bounded by
Main and Maryland Streets, and Mariposa and Grand Avenues, collects in the retention
basin, which serves as a baseball field during the dry season (Recreation Park). The storm
runoff collected is then pumped to the ocean. If pump station failure occurs, temporary
pumps are provided.
PS16 is the only El Segundo pump station to have a single pump. The pump is now forty
years old and !in need of repair. The various components of the pump station are also in
need of refurbiishment.
The new pump station building will be located at the present site once the existing pump
station is demolished. The pump station will have two pumps installed as well as all new
modern equipment. This installation will ensure that there is redundancy and reliability to
accomplish the pumping task.
A community meeting was conducted for the nearby residents to provide an opportunity to
ask questions. The new building was reviewed and suggestions made by LPA, the
architectural firm hired to design the nearby Community Center. This process ensured that
compatible design features were incorporated.
A conceptual design of the building is shown below:
City of El Segundo
U nip \Station
20030204 - Adopt Plans and Specs — Reconstruction of Storm Water Pump Station No. 16
t
O _J AlNf100 S313ONV Sol �Md 3NUGH1MVH 30 A113
I
Q i �A�s Iraq 0831(1 NbS
_H
W W W bi
Q ` Q < J 1
P4 PZ _j y Y to y O. y d N Y/ y d y T
a
h
t N
Y P m m m a N N N N N 3AV SISI t�
- - - - -- t n m
1 i >
t J M Q
m 1,. alt LJ1
a I a 1•v
F- � NOIlVIAV
o uno (1 � AVM 1aNNON CO 03
I
0 ;, I _ —
c 3 a HAW
W 1= I a W
< Qti s
I rvP
< I ?' svion0a Is- �� i 3Ar o0N003a
d '� alO is srl9noo
Z 1 3 y 1ra0a Q
c1 % < ��, °� 31VAlad)'AM
Qo a ; •Oa AT=
z m l "a W 1v1H3NI1N00
r
D: - 3N11 N33a�J a Oa13W 3 �Z as cn iodv'
W
IS
1S HSVN AM, Alvd =
2 V
to _ � 1
-1 } i3lVfllad) lVl N3NI1N0� •�6 AVM m cc / ArM S�IIi�J11H o
2 z d °z 03111V Z
O.
a lu s laodaly OA le ° y d
V 1S A81;1S = W h 1
co
7
J W ti Mbl S£1
��� c va3A1nd3s �
C� 1O ; ®Q Q N iS rNr1ON1 MSrra S,cl
r10N1 W M N
M cu >IVO
1 L ?� a
<
61� x is SION1111 . 3Ar w13 u-
N 1'J H C Ar 3NId 0
15 N019NIHSVM 3 �
SrSNrM e 1 3Ar 13SNIOd
1d I�r V111SNIOd H
W
is WINaO.I t a LLL.��3Ar wlyd, 0
S < 1S N003a0
'
Im m C.3Ar 31dVw
#
is VOVA3N a IL- 3AV 311
a� '1S a31N30 > u I�AV 13a11V1
4i 1 �� ��� W ® Q'
J C� Q W ao MolvoNna z
� �� Q ��® is oNrlAavw Q rn 1
z rltwol is vllwol <
1 Oa A3Nanoli
`_ �Q� ®0 N
1 r� is raa3ls �
N 10 A 11lrOOw L� z ® ®� z V{r"1f
D ® 15 NN3d ¢ r�1 tia 3H0Nr19
Bz ®B 1S N0013HS 1J1 <i 0w��
` fn VN3aV � M v
®� - -W N
"
IF e -
1 IS OaVONV1S 1 N
1 ©r- d B '
m 1s Nlrw
r In � V, LIN a 3 ld �B�e 1S ONOwHOta t.Nt•,n `p 4`� -f1 p p �' CHtGNVPN
V aD NO ❑ 1S OaoONOO
` � ❑ ®��L_Je '1S rIN19alA a d
v° �1' �7��® 1S 9NI11HM Oz
'o i ®� o x ¢ 7S V1SIA Vw01 tt Q
m �r
Sit Vwo1
W A311VA LL
a. W u ,t J -� m l
IS 1S3a011iH `
1 a 3 uo o a
�y
0 1 1S 1 3a 11H �¢ a 1
x J
W r
yS3N0t1 is V3,3nA K MPR \ Ui
opunog A110 1s9N1N0���S
_
N X05 0.
O :o
In 0 Q.
LL
0
Q
I 4`
O
<t
w vi
Li Z H }�
V O _j lw..
a y V Cat
CL '4
M
r.-
I
0
of
Z
W
J
iL
1192
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Consent
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding a 1,000 square foot temporary banner to be
displayed on the west facing wall of the Police Department building.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Approve the display of a banner greater than 500 square feet, as required by Section 15-
18-8H of the El Segundo Zoning Code.
2. Alternatively discuss and take other possible action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
On January 6, 2003, removal of the ficus trees along Main Street and Grand Avenue began,
which was one of several key steps in the implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan
project improvements. This activity created renewed interest among residents and business
owners in the scope of the Downtown Specific Plan project. In an effort to enhance public
outreach, staff placed color renderings of the Downtown along the affected streets in order to
provide additional information and create interest in the Downtown improvements. As part of
this effort, a 20 -foot by 50 -foot banner depicting the plaza improvements and the words
"Coming Soon to our Downtown" is proposed for display on the west facing wall of the Police
Department building. Staff obtained quotes from vendors and recommends retaining South
Bay Vital Signs at a cost not to exceed $8,200.
Council is being asked to approve the hanging of a banner (per Section 15 -18 -8H of the
Zoning Code) for a display period of one year. Construction on the streets and sidewalks will
begin mid April 1,15, 2003.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1) Copy of plaza rendering
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
$195,000
Amount Requested:
$8,200.00
Account Number:
001 - 2401 -6201
Project Phase:
none
Appropriation Required:
_Yes X No
ORIGINATED BY: y DATE:, /
Jam H nsen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services
REVIE" BY: DATE:
Mary Stren ity Manager .3
fflvsl�
U 9 4
l�
7V+ �
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 17, 2002
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: New Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding the impact of the State of California's budget
proposal and the impact of the local economy on the City of El Segundo.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Receive and file report.
2) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
On January 10, 2003, Governor Davis released a plan for addressing his projected $34.6
billion General Fund budget shortfall. The plan is to eliminate this shortfall through a
combination of tax increases, program reductions, fund shifts, and a shift of local government
resources back to the State.
The focus of this review is on the impact the Governor's proposal as well as changes in the
local economy will have on the City of El Segundo.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget:
N/A
Amount Requested:
N/A
Account Number:
N/A
Project Phase:
N/A
Appropriation Required:
_ Yes X No
ORIGINATED BY: DATE:
Bret M. Plumlee, Director Administrative Services
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
wrt
Mary nn, City Manager
20
v�
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION CONTINUED:
Local Government Reductions impacted by the State's proposal
The proposed budget shifts $5.1 billion in resources away from local governments to produce
General Fund savings. Key components of the shift include (1) the elimination of three - fourths
of the subventions to backfill the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) revenue losses sustained by
localities when the VLF rate was reduced, (2) a shift of redevelopment - related funds from local
governments to schools, and (3) the elimination of open -space subventions and booking fee
reimbursements. The proposed budget also includes a second year of deferring state
mandated reimbursements to local agencies.
FY 2002 -2003
The main impact on the City is in the proposed reductions in VLF. El Segundo stands to lose
approximately $500,000 in FY 2002 -2003, which represents approximately 1% of the total
General Fund budget. Other impacts in FY 2002 -2003 include the discontinuation of
reimbursing state mandated costs; the discontinuation of reimbursement of booking fees; and
the reduction in state funded Library grants. The combined fiscal impact of these reductions is
approximately $41,000. Staff anticipated a combined state reduction of $258,350, which is
reflected in the FY 2002 -2003 budget.
FY 2003 -2004
The City stands to lose an additional $684,550 in VLF in FY 2003 -2004. So far, no proposed
cuts have been made in State funded gas tax - revenues, restricted to spending on street
projects, or COPS grants, which are used to supplement local Police Department budgets.
Other impacts include the 2nd year discontinuation of reimbursing state mandated costs; the
discontinuation of reimbursement of booking fees; and the reduction in state funded Library
grants. The ongoing combined fiscal impact of these reductions is approximately $41,000.
Future
While there is the possibility of the State increasing vehicle license fees to the taxpayers back
to the pre 1998 level and therefore making the cities and counties whole, staff currently
anticipates that the combined reductions of VLF and other state funded fees of $725,550 will
continue in the future. Staff will continue to monitor the development of the State's budget and
make adjustments as more information is known.
The State of California's fiscal outlook for the next three to five years is dismal with anticipated
annual shortfalls estimated to range from $6 to $12 billion annually.
Local Economy and its impact on City Budget
Although the City is concerned about the impact the State's fiscal situation will have on the
revenues controlled by the State, staff is even more concerned about the revenues that are
directly impacted by changes in the local economy such as sales tax, business license tax,
096
and transient occupancy taxes. Over 60% of the City's total sales tax is business -to- business
and directly impacted by changes in the economy. This revenue source has declined for two
consecutive quarters for the first time in the past three years. The City's business license tax
structure is calculated based on a combination of square footage and the number of
employees and is therefore sensitive to reductions in the number of local jobs. Transient
occupancy taxes significantly decreased in FY 2001 -2002 after September 11 th but have
begun to stabilize in FY 2002 -2003 first quarter ending December 31, 2002. These taxes are
extremely sensitive to changes in the local economy. Sales taxes, business license taxes,
and transient occupancy taxes combined make up over 44% of the total General Fund
revenues.
Other revenue sources that are impacted include plan check fees, and building permits, which
are sensitive to changes in the housing and building industries. These revenues combined
were down $548,150 or 24.4% in FY 2001 -2002. The number, of total permits issued from FY
1999 -2000 to FY 2001 -2002 decreased from 3,006 to 2,429 while total valuation decreased
from a peak of $162.3 million to $59.2 million during the same time period. A slowdown in
the local economy was anticipated and is reflected in lower budget assumptions in these
revenue sources in FY 2002 -2003.
FY 2002 -2003
There are several areas of significant fiscal impact highlighted in the following list:
➢ The City has experienced two consecutive quarters of sales tax declines, and as a
result this revenue source may come in significantly below budget.
➢ Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) safety employer costs will increase
from 6.6% to 17.7% July 1, 2003, which has an estimated increase in cost of
$300,000 in 02 -03. These costs are based on current retirement formulas.
Enhanced formulas are available for Fire and Miscellaneous groups and are not
included in the current assumed increased costs.
➢ Negotiations with Police and Fire are scheduled to begin within the next two months.
FY 2003 -2004
➢ Liability insurance premiums are currently estimated to double to $470,000 in 2003-
2004 with a required Self- Insured - Retention increase from $400,000 to $1,000,000.
➢ Worker's compensation costs will increase by an estimated $70,300. These costs
will be mitigated based on the City joining the new ICRMA worker's compensation
pooled program.
➢ Property insurance premiums are estimated to increase from $25,000 to $75,050.
➢ PERS safety employer costs will increase from 6.6% to 17.7% July 1, 2003 and to
31.1% July 1, 2004 (Estimated increase in cost of $1.2 million in 03 -04)
Future
➢ PERS safety employer costs will increase from 31.1% July 1, 2004 to an estimated
range of 41 % to 45% through FY 1998 -99. (Estimated increase in cost of $1.4
million in 04 -05). Miscellaneous employer costs also anticipated increasing from 0%
to 6.1 % in FY 2004 -2005 and to over 13% in FY 2008 -2009. These costs are based
097
on current retirement formulas. Enhanced formulas are available for Fire and
Miscellaneous groups and are not included in the current estimated cost increases.
)-e Medical costs expected to increase 15% to 20% each year for the next 5 years for
current employees and retirees. Estimated additional cost is $400,000 annually.
Staff will continue to monitor closely the Governor's upcoming budget proposals and keep the
City Council and staff informed as to the future negative fiscal impact. Since El Segundo's
budgetary process begins three months later than most other cities, staff will be monitoring the
State budget closely and incorporating any changes in assumptions into the FY 2003-2004
budget process.
No action is being recommended at this time. Staff will continue to review all revenues and
expenditures, develop and fine-tune a contingency plan, and make any needed adjustments
at the midyear review May 6, 2003.
0 9.8
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: New Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB) concerning a joint Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR /EIS) and funding of the EIR/EIS process.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Authorize the Mayor to sign the MOU, and direct staff to continue with the EIR /EIS
process; or;
2. Alternatively, take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
The City has entered into a contract with Christopher Joseph and Associates (CAJA) to
prepare an EIR /EIS for the Los Angeles Air Force Base (LAAFB) Reuse Project in April 2002.
On December 17, 2002, the City Council authorized an amendment to the contract to analyze
the entire LAAFB project including properties in Hawthorne and the City of Los Angeles. The
project includes the de- annexation of "Area A ", a 49 -acre property located on the southeast
corner of Aviation Boulevard and El Segundo Boulevard to the City of Hawthorne, and the
development of residential use at that site. On January 15, 2003, the Los Angeles Air Force
Base was authorized to participate in a joint document with the City of El Segundo for the
preparation of the EIR/EIS. The MOU obligates the City and LAAFB to jointly prepare an
EIR /EIS and obligates the LAAFB to contribute $80,000 towards the preparation of the
EIR /EIS. The $80,000 will be used to pay a portion of the $626,320 contact with CAJA. The
remainder of the funds may be paid by the chosen developer of the property.
continued on next page
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Memorandum of Understanding
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: $626,320
Amount Requested: N/A
Account Number: N/A
Project Phase: N/A
Appropriation Required: Yes X No
ORIGI[NA-rED by: DATE:
/Ilk 001-111� ��
Jam s ansen, Director of Community, Economic and Development Services
REVI
Mary Strenn` City Manager
DATE:
r
�s
2-1
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION - continued
The staff has attempted to achieve an agreement with Kearney Real Estate and Mar Ventures
that would require whichever of them is successful in the developer selection process to
reimburse the City for the EIR/EIS costs. Currently, the final selection has been delayed due
to an appeal that has been filed by Mar Ventures. Both developers have stated that they will
not agree to reimburse the City until such time as they have negotiated and executed a
contract with the LAAFB. Accordingly, the city staff is recommending that the ElR/EIS process
continue with the understanding the city will not be reimbursed unless and until the LAAFB
enters into a contract with a developer.
P: \Planning & Building Safety \PROJECTS \afbmou.doc
100
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING A JOINT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT /ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This Memorandum of Understanding ( "MOU ") is entered into by and between the City
of El Segundo ( "City ") and the United States Air Force ( "USAF "), by and through the
Commander, 61St Air Base Group (ABG), Los Angeles Air Force Base, respecting the
following matters:
RECITALS
A. Pursuant to Public Law 106 -398, the USAF intends to transfer portions of the Los
Angeles Air Force Base to a private developer in exchange for construction of new
seismically stable facilities that will better protect the base workforce and promote
efficiency in operations.
B. For purposes of this agreement:
1. "Base" means the Los Angeles Air Force Base encompassing the existing
boundaries of that installation;
2. "Redevelopment Area" means those areas of the Base planned for transfer to a
private developer for redevelopment;
3. "Retained Area" means those areas of the Base to be retained for continued
use by the USAF;
4. "Proposed Federal action" means a Federal action that is subject to NEPA and
its associated regulations and involves (a) the transfer of property constituting the
Redevelopment Area to a private developer; and (b) the construction of new facilities on
the Retained Area;
5. "Proposed local action" means a non - Federal action that is subject to CEQA
requirements and involves a private developer's redevelopment of property constituting
the Redevelopment Area; and
6. "Project" means the Proposed Federal action and the Proposed local action.
C. The City and the USAF desire to meet their respective obligations under California
and Federal law to assess the potential environmental impacts of the Project by preparing
a joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). This
cooperative effort is consistent with the Department of Defense strategy for the transfer
and redevelopment of base property and will promote intergovernmental coordination at
the local and federal levels.
�. O
D. The City and the USAF believe that the parties' production of a joint EIR/EIS will
optimize the value of the Redevelopment Area and assist in a timely economic
adjustment to the Project.
E. The City and USAF wish to ensure preparation of an EIR/EIS for the Project that
includes all relevant information and analysis before independently acting on the Project.
F. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), its implementing regulations, and
Article 14 of the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) permit and encourage joint Federal and State processes for environmental
compliance to reduce duplication of effort, expense, and paperwork whenever possible.
Council on Environmental Quality regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 1506.2, and CEQA
Guidelines § 15226 provide for joint Federal and State planning processes, environmental
research and studies, public hearings, and environmental assessment. Those regulations
also provide that in such cases, Federal agencies and State or local agencies shall be joint
lead agencies for purposes of a joint EIR/EIS.
G. The City and USAF support preparation of a j oint EIR/EIS for the Project, with the
expectation that with USAF participation, the resulting study will satisfy EIS
requirements of NEPA, and applicable Federal, Department of Defense and USAF
regulations and directives.
H. The City and the USAF recognize that, with the assistance of contracted consultants
selected by the City and the USAF, the preparation of the joint EIR/EIS can be
accomplished within an expedited timeframe.
MUTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of these recitals and other considerations
herein set forth, it is mutually understood that:
1. A j oint EIR/EIS shall be prepared on the Proj ect in accordance with NEPA and CEQA
and all applicable Federal and State regulations and directives. The Scope of Work is
attached as Exhibit "A ".
2. The City and the USAF shall be joint lead agencies, as provided for in 40 C.F.R.
Section 1501.5(b) and Section 15226 of the CEQA Guidelines. However, the City will
have primary responsibility to ensure that the joint EIR/EIS complies with CEQA, and
the USAF will have primary responsibility to ensure that the joint EIR/EIS complies with
NEPA. In the event that the CEQA and NEPA requirements differ, the joint EIR/EIS
shall reflect the independent judgment of the parties. Both parties concur that the
potential alternatives to the project that will be evaluated in the EIR/EIS are (a) a no
project alternative; (b) a reduced density alternative; (c) a retail commercial alternative
(exclusive of any hotel); and a Retained Area renovation alternative. The parties
acknowledge that the specific proposed alternatives will be decided based upon
2
10 2
information
from the EIR/EIS scoping process and impact analyses that will be
conducted for the EIR/EIS.
3. To the maximum practicable racticable under existing laws and regulations, both parties
agree to share relevant information in a timely manner.
4. COMMITTEE REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR DUTIES:
A. In the preparation of the EIR/EIS, the City and the USAF shall be represented by the
following representatives who shall comprise the "EIR/EIS Committee":
r;r� �f El Segundo
Paul Garry
Senior Planner
350 Main Street
El Segundo CA 90245
Tel. No: 310 -524 -2342
FAX: 310- 322 -4167
E -mail: n¢arry a,else undo.org
USAF
Stephen Brey
Deputy, Redevelopment Office
2420 Vela Way, Suite 1467
61St ABG/RO
El Segundo CA 90245 -4659
Tel. No: 310 - 363 -0676
FAX: 310 - 363 -2316
E -mail: St hen brev(&,losangeles.af mil
B.
The successful preparation of the joint EmJEIS will require full communication
e n
between the parties. It shall be the duty of the EIR/EIS Committee to ensure Membes of the
consultation throughout the document preparation and e review
EIR/EIS Committee shall keep each other advised of developments affecting the
preparation of the EIR/EIS. Meetings of the EIR/EIS Committee shall be held as needed
ssues raised by any Federal, State,
to ensure close consultations including discussion of
regional or local agency and the approach to resolving these issues.
Both parties recognize the benefits of retaining the members named above e member as the
C. p
EIR/EIS Committee; nevertheless, each party reserves the right to replace
on of substitute
needed. The City and USAF shall provide each other written notification
members with their titles, addresses, and telephone numbers.
5. CONSULTANT CONTRACTS:
Y
A.
The City the USAF shall each have a contractor consultant to assist in the the
preparation of the joint EIR/EIS. The City and the USAF agree that h on a share e t
services of a contractor consultant when necessary to facilitate prep
EIR/EIS.
B. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 1506.5(c), each party shall ensure that it contractor has no
consultant has executed a disclosure statement specifying that the co n
financial or other interest in the outcome of the Project.
3 103
C. The parties agree that the total cost of preparation of the joint EIR./EIS will be
$569,327.48. Upon completion of the final EIR/EIS, the USAF shall pay to the City
$80,000 as its equitable share of the total cost.
6. TIME LIMITS AND SCHEDULES:
A. Pursuant to Section 15110 of CEQA Guidelines, the City and USAF agree to waive
the one -year time -limit for completing and certifying a final EIR/EIS.
B. The City and USAF shall make reasonable efforts to comply with the schedule for
completing the EIR/EIS as identified in Exhibit A, or to complete it as soon as practical
thereafter. The City and USAF will mutually identify all applicable actions and
procedures necessary to meet this schedule and delineate all divisions of responsibilities.
In order to meet the schedule, the USAF shall complete and provide as soon as
reasonably possible, USAF studies and work products to be used in development of the
EIR/EIS as identified in Exhibit A.
7. In order to obtain comments from all involved public agencies and from the general
public on the draft EIR/EIS, the City and the USAF shall ensure that scoping meetings
and public hearings are held as required by law.
8. The City and the USAF shall independently assess and certify the adequacy and
completeness of the final EIR/EIS, and each take such other actions as are required to
ensure its respective compliance with CEQA and NEPA.
9. The various headings and numbers herein, the grouping of provisions of this MOU
into separate sections and paragraphs, and the organization hereof, are for convenience
only and shall not be considered otherwise.
10. LIMITATIONS AND AMENDMENTS:
A. Any modification or amendment of this MOU must be in writing and properly
executed by both parties.
B. The City and USAF shall take whatever further steps they deem necessary, including
further MOD's or amendments to this MOU, in order to fulfill the purpose of this MOU.
C. Each provision of this MOU is subject to the laws of the United States.
4 104
17. APPROVAL. Each party signing this MOU expressly warrants and represents that
the person signing this MOU on its behalf has the authority to execute this MOU.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this MOU to be duly executed
on the respective dates set forth opposite their signatures.
CITY
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
I:1
MIKE GORDON
Mayor
City of El Segundo
USAF:
0
BRIAN E. KISTNER
Colonel, USAF
Commander, 61St Air Base Group
Approved as to form:
MARK D. HENSLEY
City Attorney
City of El Segundo
ABBY K. HORWITZ
Attorney- Adviser
U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center
Los Angeles Air Force Base
Dated: , 2003
Dated: , 2003
5
10
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF WORK
The Scope of Work is contained in the Table set forth below. The purpose of the work
is the preparation of an EIS /EIR for the Project that meets all of the requirements of
CEQA and NEPA, and the state and federal regulations that implement those acts
relative to the Project.
Subject to the Mutual Understandings outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding,
all tasks will be performed by, or under the direction of, the City of El Segundo with the
participation of the USAF and its consultant, unless otherwise indicated in the Table by
asterisks. A single asterisk indicates that the task is to be performed solely by the City
or its consultant. Two asterisks indicate that the task is to be performed solely by the
USAF or its consultant.
TABLE
i t
I Preliminary Activities
I -1
Complete Initial Study
January 2, 2003
I -2
Publish Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the EIR*
January 2, 2003
I -3
Publish Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the EIS **
January 28, 2003
I -4
Revise Description of Proposed Action and
January 31, 2003
Alternatives (DOPAA) for insertion in DEIS **
Prepare AF Form 813 (after scoping meeting) **
February 3, 2003
II
Draft EIS/EIR
II -1
Public Scoping of Significant Issues. (Takes into
Begins January 2, 2003
account written public comments received on Sept
2002 Draft EA and Draft EIR.)
II -2
Complete draft EIS /EIR (for internal review, only)
January 20, 2003
that complies with the requirements of both CEQA
and NEPA, utilizing to the maximum extent possible
extent possible the EIR and EA, including related
studies and reports that were previously prepared for
the Project.*
II -3
Release 1 st Draft EIS /EIR for internal reviewers and
January 20, 2003
comment. *
LA #110673 v1
i06
Paul Garry
January 30, 2003
Page 2
LA #110318 vl (�
TABLE
TASK N ,
O .
;. �, ,
II -4
Conduct internal meeting to exchange comments on
January 27, 2003
the 1 st Draft EIS/EIR.
II -5
NOI Published in Federal Register. NOI includes a
January 28, 2003
15 -day comment period. **
II -6
Public Scoping Meeting. **
January 30, 2003
II -7
Release Preliminary Draft EIS/EIR for internal review
February 7, 2003
and comment. (Provide seven (7) copies to LAAFB
and one (1) Compact Disk containing an electronic
version to be uploaded to the Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.
secure web site). *
Receipt of Preliminary Draft EIS /EIR hard copies by
HQ AFSPC and Air Staff. **
February 11, 2003
II -8
Release General Air Conformity analysis for internal
February 11, 2003
review and comment. * *
II -9
Work sessions on the Preliminary Draft EIS /EIR
February 11 - 13, 2003
(includes HQ AFSPC and Air Staff)
II -10
End of public scoping and NOI comment period
February 12, 2003
II -11
Obtain written comments from Cities, USAF on
Preliminary Draft EIS /EIR.
February 14 2003
y
II -12
Prepare Draft EIS /EIR for release.*
Available on secured website for final check. **
February 21, 2003
LA #110318 vl (�
Paul Garry
January 30, 2003
Page 3
TABLE
II -11
• Publish Notice of Completion of the Draft
February 28, 2003
EIS /EIR*
• Submit Draft EIS/EIR to Congressional
No later than February 28, 2003
delegation one week prior to release to public.
• Submit Notice of Availability (NOA) of the
No later than February 28, 2003
DEIR/DEIS for publication in the Federal
Register (FR) one week prior to publication.
• File DEIS /EIR with US EPA.
February 28, 2003
• Publication of NOA in FR. * *
March 7, 2003
II -12
DEIS/DEIR Public Hearing (schedule no earlier than
March 27, 2003
15 days after publication of NOA and no later than 15
days prior to end of public comment period)
II -13
End of the Draft EIS/EIR 45 -day public comment
April 21, 2003
period.
III
Final EIS/EIR
III -1
Release 1st Administrative Final EIS/EIR for internal
May 5, 2003
review and comment. (Provide seven (7) copies to
LAAFB and one (1) Compact Disk containing an
updated electronic version to be uploaded to the
Malcolm Pirnie secure web site).*
III -2
Receive internal comments on the 1 st Administrative
May 12, 2003
Final EIS/EIR. *
II -3
Release Preliminary Final EIS /EIR for internal review
May 23, 2003
and comment.*
LA #110318 v1
108
Paul Garry
January 30, 2003
Page 4
LA #110318 vl
0i
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: New Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding — (1) Adoption of an urgency ordinance
implementing the pollution control requirements of the 2001 Storm Water Permit of the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Los Angeles Region by amending
Chapter 4 of Title 5 of the El Segundo Municipal Code. (2) Introduction of a regular
ordinance implementing the 2001 Storm Water Permit of the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board by amending Chapter of Title 5 of the El Segundo Municipal Code.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
Recommendation — (1) Discussion; (2) Adoption of an urgency ordinance to take effect
on February 17, 2003; (3) Introduce and have first reading of the second ordinance by title
only (4) Schedule second reading and adoption for February 18, 2003; (5) Alternatively
discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Background and discussion begins on the next page .............
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
Proposed Ordinances.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not determined at this time.
Capital Improvement Program:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required:
ORIGINATED BY: DATE: January 30, 2003
Andres Santamaria, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: DATE:,
Mary Strenn , City r
22
20030204 - STORM WATER AND URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTIOIN CONTROL PLAN - EMERGENCY ORDINANCE
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On December 13, 2001, the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the Los Angeles
Region issued "ORDER NO. 01 -182 NPDES PERMIT NO CAS004001 WASTE
DISCHARGE REQUIRMENTS FOR MUNICIPAL STORM WATER AND URBAN RUNOFF
DISCHARGES WITHIN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND THE INCORPORATED
CITIES THEREIN, EXCEPT THE CITY OF LONG BEACH" (the "2001 Storm Water
Permit ") to cities in Los Angeles County, including the City.
The 2001 Storm Water Permit requires that each permittee is to amend its storm water
pollution control ordinance to meet the more stringent requirements of the 2001 Permit.
This City is a permittee under the 2001 Storm Water Permit and therefore is required by
federal and state law to implement all requirements of the 2001 Storm Water'Permit.
The 1972 amendments to the federal Clean Water Act ( "CWA"), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 -1387,
prohibit the discharge of any Pollutant to waters of the United States from a point source
unless the discharge is authorized by a permit issued pursuant to the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System ( "NPDES ") required by CWA § 402 (codified at 33 U.S.C. §
1342).
Section 402(p) of the CWA (codified at 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)) further provides that NPDES
Storm Water permits shall require permittees to reduce the discharge of Pollutants in Storm
Water to the maximum extent practicable, to prohibit illicit discharges to the MS4, to
effectively prohibit discharges other than storm water to the MS4, to prohibit illicit connections
to the MS4 and such other provisions as may be appropriate for the control of Pollutants.
The requirement to amend the City's storm water pollution control ordinance is separate
from and in addition to the requirement of the 2001 Storm Water Permit to adopt a
"Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan" ( "SUSMP ") implementing ordinance, which
regulates land use impacts on storm water pollution. The City adopted a SUSMP
implementation ordinance on August 6, 2002
This City has authority under Article. 11, section 7 of the California Constitution to adopt
ordinances needed to implement these requirements.
This City also has authority under § 13002 the California Water Code to adopt and enforce
ordinances conditioning, restricting, and limiting activities that might degrade the quality of
the waters of the State of California.
The deadline for adopting the Pollution Control ordinance was November 1, 2002, but that
deadline was extended pending settlement discussions on the appeal of the 2001 Storm
Water Permit. The settlement was recently dismissed, and the new deadline for adopting
the ordinance is February 15, 2003.
20030204 - STORM WATER AND URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTIOIN CONTROL PLAN - EMERGENCY ORDINANCE
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: (continued)
Since the next Council meeting is scheduled for February 18, 2003, it is recommended that
the Council adopt an urgency ordinance incorporating the new requirements at the
February 4, 2003 meeting. The new requirements include prohibiting illicit discharges and
connections to the storm drain system, control of pollutants from industrial site activities,
spills, prohibition of dumping and disposal, best management practices required,
construction activities, storm water measures, notices of violations; administrative orders,
inspections; searches and fees. Costs of enforcement of this Ordinance are still to be
determined.
20030204 - STORM WATER AND URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTIOIN CONTROL PLAN - EMERGENCY ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE NO.
AN URGENCY ORDINANCE ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
GOVERNMENT CODE § 36937(B) REGULATING THE DISCHARGE OF
POLLUTANTS INTO THE CITY'S STORM SEWER SYSTEMS AND
WATER OF THE UNITED STATES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF
TITLE 5 OF THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY.
The Council of the City of El Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:
A. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 -1387; "Clean Water
Act" or "CWA "), as implemented by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency ( "EPA"), requires that the city adopt plans and programs for stormwater
quality management;
B. The 1972 amendments to the CWA prohibit the discharge of any Pollutant to waters
of the United States from a point source unless the discharge is authorized by a
permit issued pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
("NPDES") required by 33 U.S.C. § 1342;
C. Municipal separate storm sewer systems ( "MS4s ") which convey urban runoff,
including, without limitation, Storm Water runoff, are within the definition of point
sources under the CWA;
D. Pursuant to the CWA, the EPA defined the term "Municipal separate storm sewer
system" to mean a conveyance, or system of conveyances, including roads with
drainage systems, municipal streets, curbs, gutters, catch basins, and storm drains
owned or operated by a city, used for collecting Storm Water; .
E. CWA § 1342(p) requires that the City obtain a permit for Storm Water and urban
discharges through the City's MS4;
F. Section 1342(p) of the CWA further provides that NPDES permits will require
controls to reduce the discharge of Pollutants to the maximum extent practicable,
including management practices and such other provisions as may be appropriate for
the control of Pollutants;
G. The EPA, in partial implementation of CWA § 1342(p) adopted final rules, known
as the "Phase I and Phase II Storm Water Regulations" at several places in Parts 9,
122, 123, and 124 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( "CFR ");
H. The EPA defines "illicit discharges" to describe any discharge through a MS4 that is
not covered by a NPDES permit and illicit discharges to MS4s that are not
authorized under the CWA;
Page 1 of 14 L r
I. CWA § 1342(p)(3)(B), requires that NPDES permits for discharges from MS4s are
include a requirement to "effectively prohibit" non -Storm Water discharges into
MS4s;
J. CWA § 1342(p)(3)(B) further provides that NPDES permits must require controls to
reduce the discharge of Pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including
management practices and such other provisions needed to control Pollutants;
K. In partial implementation of the CWA, the Phase I Storm Water Regulations and the
California Water Code, the California Regional Regional Water Quality Control
Board - Los Angeles ( "RWQCB -LA ") issued a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ("NPDES ") Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for
Municipal Storm Water and Urban Runoff Discharges within the County of Los
Angeles, Regional Board Order No. 01 -182, NPDES No. Cas004001 (the "2001
Permit "), on December 13, 2001 to each city in Los Angeles County, including the
City;
L. The city of El Segundo is a permittee under the 2001 Permit and therefore is
required by federal and state law to implement all requirements of the 2001 Permit;
M. EPA regulations implementing the CWA and 2001 Permit require the City to
demonstrate that it has the legal authority to control discharge of Pollutants to the
MS4 by Storm Water, or by other methods;
N. Under the California Constitution and the California Government Code, the city of
El Segundo has authority to define public nuisances and to protect the public health
and safety of the residents of and visitors to the City, and the environment, by
abating public nuisances;
O. The City has authority under the California Water Code to adopt and enforce
ordinances imposing conditions, restrictions, and limitations with respect to any
activity which might degrade the quality of waters of the state;
P. The City Council is obligated to take prudent steps to protect the City's property and
its funds and taxpayers from exposure to liability, including the potentially
enormous costs of litigation regarding natural resources allegedly damaged by
pollutants allegedly transported through the City's storm drain system;
Q. This Ordinance is categorically exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.; "CEQA" ),
CEQA regulations (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ 15000, et seq.) and the City's
Environmental Guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 3805, adopted March 16,
1993) since its adoption would generally implement measures to protect the
environment. Accordingly, §§ 15301 (Class 1), 15304 (Class 4), 15305 (Class 5),
15307 (Class 7), 15308 (Class 8), 15309 (Class 9), and 15321 (Class 21) of the
Page 2of14�
CEQA regulations exempt the Ordinance from further environmental review.
R. The City Council has carefully considered the Ordinance and finds that it complies
with the requirements of applicable federal and state law, and further that it provides
an acceptable program for the conservation of water resources within the City of El
Segundo and protection of the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens.
S. In accordance with Government Code § 36937(b), this Council finds that this
Ordinance should be adopted on an emergency basis to preserve public health and
safety. Introduction of pollutants, including hazardous materials, into the City's
storm sewer systems threatens public health and safety, particularly since such
substances drain into the Pacific Ocean which is used for, among other things,
recreational activities by the City's citizens and guests. Taking immediate steps to
protect public health and safety from hazardous substances is in the public interest
and, in addition, required by the City's NPDES permit.
SECTION 2: Chapter.4 to Title 5 of the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 4
STORM WATER AND URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL
5 -4 -10. Purpose and Intent. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the city's police powers for
the purpose of protecting and enhancing the water quality of the City's watercourses, water bodies,
and wetlands in a manner consistent with the Clean Water Act and the NPDES Permit, including,
without limitation, any of its amendments or modifications. In addition, this chapter is intended to
ensure the future health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of El Segundo by:
A. Controlling non -storm water discharges to the storm drain system.
B. Eliminating discharges to the storm water drain system from spills, dumping,
or disposal of materials other than storm water.
C. Reducing pollutants in storm water discharges, including those pollutants
taken up by storm water as it flows over urban areas, to the maximum extent
practicable.
D. Reducing pollutants in storm water discharges in order to achieve applicable
water quality objectives for surface waters in Los Angeles County.
5 -4 -20. Limits of Chapter. Nothing in this Chapter will be interpreted to:
Pa e3of14 114
g
A. Infringe any right or power guaranteed by the United States or California
Constitutions, including any vested property right;
B. Require any action inconsistent with the General Plan, any applicable
Specific Plan, vesting tentative map, or other provision of this Code;
C. Restrict otherwise lawful land use except as authorized by the laws of
California, subject to the limitations of this Chapter.
5 -4 -30. Definitions. Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the
following definitions will govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter.
Words and phrases not defined by this chapter have the meanings stated the NPDES Permit and if
not described therein, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.);
regulations implementing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; California Water
Code § 13050; and any successor statutes or regulations.
A. "Automotive Service Facility" means a facility that is in any one of the
following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541,
7532 -7534 or 7536 -7539.
B. "Best Management Practice" (`BMP ") means any schedule of activities,
prohibition of practices, maintenance procedure, program, technology,
process, siting criteria, operational methods of measures, or other
management practices or engineered systems, which when implemented
revent, control, remove, or reduce pollution. BMPs include structural and
nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance procedures which can
be applied before, during and after pollution - producing activities.
C. "Commercial Development" means any development on private land that is
not residential or a site of an industrial activity as defined in 40 C.F.R. §
122.26(b)(14). "Commercial Development" includes, without limitation,
hospitals, laboratories and other medical facilities, educational institutions,
recreational facilities, plant nurseries, multi - apartment buildings, car wash
facilities, mini -malls and other business complexes, shopping malls, hotels,
office buildings, public warehouses and other light industrial complexes not
within the scope of 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14).
D. "Construction" means constructing, clearing, grading, or excavation that
results in soil disturbance. Construction also includes structure demolition. It
does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade,
hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of a facility; emergency construction
activities required immediately to protect public health and safety; interior
remodeling with no outside exposure of construction material or construction
waste to storm water; mechanical permit work; or sign permit work.
Page 4 of 14-
E. "Discharge" means any release, spill, leak, pump, flow, escape, dumping or
disposal, of any Pollutant, from any point source, into the environment,
including waters of the United States, and City's MS4.
F. "Hazardous Materials" means any materials, wastes or mixture of wastes
defined as a "Hazardous Substance 99 or "Hazardous Waste" pursuant to O1
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA 7 42 U.S.C. 69 et ), 'on and
seq., the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensate
Liability Act ( "CERCLA" ), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq., or the Carpenter -
Presley- Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act, ("HSAA "), California
Health and Safety Code §§ 25300, et seq., and all future amendments y
of them, or as defined by the California Integrated Waste Management
Board. Where there is a conflict in the definitions employed by two or more
agencies having jurisdiction over hazardous or solid waste, the term
"Hazardous Waste" will be construed to have the broader, more
encompassing definition.
G. "Illicit Connection" means any device or artifice, excluding roof drains and
other similar connections, connected to the MS4, without a permit, through
or by which an Illicit Discharge may be discharged. Examples include
channels, pipelines, pipes, conduits, inlets and outlets connected directly to
the MS4.
H. "Illicit Discharge" means any discharge to the MS4 not composed entirely of
Storm Water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit, Permitted
Discharges (which are exempt or conditionally exempt in accordant with
any applicable order of the RWQCB -LA) and discharges resulting from fire
fighting activities. Illicit Discharge includes, without limitation, wash waters
from the cleaning of Retail Gasoline Outlets, auto repair garages and similar
Automotive Service Facilities; runoff from mobile auto washing, steam
cleaning and mobile carpet cleaning, and other similar mobile commercial
and industrial operations; discharges from areas where repair of machinery
and equipment, including, without limitation motor vehicles that are visibly
leaking oil, fluid or antifreeze, is undertaken; discharges of runoff to the
MS4 from storage areas of materials containing grease, oil, or other
Hazardous Substances, and uncovered receptacles containing Hazardous
Materials; chlorinated or brominated swimming pool water and filter
backwash; runoff from the washing of toxic materials from paved or
unpaved areas; discharge of runoff from washing impervious surfaces at sites
of industrial activity, unless specifically required by State or local health and
safety codes; discharge of concrete or cement -laden wash water from
concrete trucks, pumps, tools and equipment; litter; construction and
demolition debris; fuel and chemical wastes; animal wastes; garbage, food
and food processing wastes; cooking oil or grease; leaves, grass or other
clippings, dirt or any other landscape debris or wastes; any pesticide,
fungicide, or herbicide banned by or not registered with the United States
Page 5 of 14
Environmental Protection Agency or the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation; wash or rinse water from any Restaurant or Automotive Service
Facility floor mats; any liquid used as a cooling fluid in any radiator of any
engine; batteries; and any other materials or solid waste which has potential
adverse effects on water quality of receiving waters. "Illicit Discharge" also
includes any other discharge to the MS4 that is prohibited by this Code, or
any state or federal law.
I. "Industrial/Commercial Facility" means any facility which is the site of the
production, manufacture, storage, transportation, distribution, exchange or
sale of goods or commodities, and any facility involved or used in providing
professional and non - professional services. This category of facilities
includes, without limitation, any facility defined by the SIC. Facility
ownership (federal, state, municipal, private) and profit motive of the owner
or operator of the facility are not factors in this definition.
J. "Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System" or "MS4 means a conveyance
or system of conveyances including municipal streets, alleys, catch basins,
curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, storm drains, conduits, or other
facilities owned, operated, maintained or controlled by City and used for the
purpose of collecting, storing, transporting or disposing of Storm Water,
which are not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works, and which
discharges directly or indirectly (through another agency's MS4) to waters of
the United States.
K. "Non -Storm Water Discharge" means any discharge to a MS4 not composed
entirely of Storm Water.
L. "NPDES" means the "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System"
established the Clean Water Act at 33 U.S.C. § 1342 and any successor, or
related, statute or regulation.
M. "Permitted Discharge" means the following non -storm water discharges:
Discharges covered by a separate individual or general NPDES permit;
natural flows, including natural springs and rising ground water, flows from
riparian habitats or wetlands, stream diversions, permitted by the State
Board, uncontaminated ground water infiltration [as defined by 40 CFR §
35.2005(20)]; flows from emergency fire fighting activity; flows incidental
to urban activities, including reclaimed and potable landscape irrigation
runoff, potable drinking water supply and distribution system releases
(consistent with American Water Works Association guidelines for
dechlorination and suspended solids reduction practices), drains for
foundations, footings, and crawl spaces, air conditioning condensate,
dechlorinated/debrominated swimming pool discharges, dewatering of lakes
and decorative fountains, non - commercial car washing by residents or by
non - profit organizations, and sidewalk rinsing.
Page 6of14p
t
N. "Pollutant! 'has the same meaning as in 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6), or incorporated
into California Water Code § 13373, discharged into water but does not mean
uncontaminated Storm Water, potable water or reclaimed water generated by a
lawfully permitted water treatment facility, or any substance, the discharge of
which into the MS4, through BW was reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Subject to the foregoing, "Pollutant" also includes, without
limitation, wash waters from the cleaning of Retail Gasoline Outlets, auto
repair garages and similar Automotive Service Facilities; runoff from mobile
auto washing, steam cleaning and mobile carpet cleaning, and other similar
mobile commercial and industrial operations; discharges from areas where
repair of machinery and equipment, including, but not limited to motor vehicles
which are visibly leaking oil, fluid or antifreeze, is undertaken; discharges of
runoff to the MS4 from storage areas of materials containing grease, oil, or
other Hazardous Substances, and uncovered receptacles containing Hazardous
Materials; chlorinated or brominated swimming pool water and filter
backwash; runoff from the washing of toxic materials from paved or unpaved
areas; discharge of runoff from washing impervious surfaces at sites of
industrial activity, unless specifically required by State or local health and
safety codes; discharge of concrete or cement-laden wash water from concrete
trucks, pumps, tools and equipment; litter; construction and demolition debris;
fuel and chemical wastes; animal wastes; garbage, food and food processing
wastes; cooking oil or grease; leaves, grass or other clippings, dirt or any other
landscape debris or wastes; any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide banned by or
not registered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the
California Department of Pesticide Regulation; wash or rinse water from any
Restaurant or Automotive Service Facility floor mats; any liquid used as a
cooling fluid in any radiator of any engine; batteries; and any other materials or
solid waste which has potential adverse effects on water quality of receiving
waters.
O. "Responsible Persoif 'means the owner, occupant, or other person in charge of
day-to-day operations of premises located within the City;
P. "Restaurant" means a facility where prepared food and beverages are sold
for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands
selling prepared food and beverages for immediate consumption (see SIC
Code 5812).
Q. "Retail Gasoline Outlet" means any facility engaged in -selling gasoline and
lubricating oils.
R. "SIC" means Standard Industrial Classification.
Page 7 of 14 118
S. "Solid Waste" has the same meaning as in Public Resources Code § 40191 and
any successor statute or regulation.
T. "Storm Water" means Storm Water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface
runoff and drainage.
U. "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan" or "SWPPP" means a plan, as
required by a State General Permit issued by the State Water Resources
Control Board ( "SWRCB "), identifying potential Pollutant sources and
describing the design, placement and implementation of BMPs, to effectively
prevent non -Storm Water Discharges and to reduce Pollutants in Storm
Water Discharges during activities covered by the General Permit.
V. "Structural Best Management Practice" or "Structural BMP" means any
structural facility designed and constructed to mitigate the adverse impacts of
urban runoff pollution (e.g., a canopy, structural enclosure). This category
may include both Treatment Control BMPs and Source Control BMPs.
W. "Treatment Control Best Management Practice" or "Treatment Control
BMP" means any engineered system designed to remove pollutants by
simple gravity setting of particulate pollutants, filtration, biological uptake,
media adsorption or any other physical, biological, or chemical process.
X. "Wet Season" means the period beginning on October 1" and ending at
midnight on April 15ti', annually.
5 -4 -40. Illicit Discharges Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to cause any Illicit
Discharge to enter the MS4 unless such discharge: (1) is authorized by an NPDES permit; or (2) is
associated with emergency fire fighting activities; or (3) is a Permitted Discharge that is exempt or
conditionally exempt in accordance with an applicable order of the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board - Los Angeles. No Pollutant in Storm Water may be discharged to the MS4
unless the Pollutant has been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
5 -4 -50. Illicit Connections Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to use or allow the use of
any Illicit Connection to convey an Illicit Discharge or any Pollutant to the MS4 from premises of
which that person is an owner or is the person in charge of day -to -day activities. Illicit Connections
are prohibited by the Clean Water Act, NPDES MS4 Storm Water Permits issued by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles and this Chapter. The Responsible Person
for premises at which an Illicit Connection is located must obtain a permit for, or remove, the Illicit
Connection within one hundred and eighty (180) days of confirmation of discovery of the Illicit
Connection.
5 -4 -60. Control of Pollutants from Sites of Industrial Activity.
Page 8 of 14
A. It is unlawful for any person or entity required under federal or state law to
comply with the requirements for a NPDES General Industrial Activities Storm
Water Permit ( GIASP) for a facility or activity in the City to operate such
facility or activity in the City which discharges to the City's MS4 without
complying with all applicable requirements for a General Industrial Activities
Storm Water Permit.
B. Any person or entity in the City required to have a GIASP for a facility or
activity in the City which discharges to the City's MS4 must retain at such
facility or activity the following documents which evidence compliance with
GIASP requirements: (i) a copy of the Notice of Intent to comply with the
General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit; (ii) a waste discharge
identification number (WDID) issued by the California Water Resources
Control Board; (iii) a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (iv) any
required Storm Water quality data; and (v) a plan containing urban runoff Best
Management Practices (BMPs).
C. Any person or entity in the City required to have a GIASP for a facility or
activity in the City which discharges to the City's MS4, upon request from a
duly authorized officer of the City, must make available to the City for review,
copying and inspection all of the documents described in this Section during
any City Storm Water - related educational program or inspection and
demonstrate compliance with the GIASP, including, without limitation,
demonstration of the adequacy of, and compliance with, any required SWPPP
and all applicable BMPs.
5 -4 -70. Spills, Dumping and Disposal Prohibited.
A. It is unlawful for any person to dump, deposit, release, spill, leak, pump, pour,
emit, empty, discharge, inject, bury or dispose into the environment any Solid
Waste or liquid waste, including any Pollutant, in or upon any part of the MS4,
or upon any public or private premises in the City, or to cause, suffer, or permit
any Solid Waste or liquid waste or other Pollutant to come to be located upon,
in, on or under any premises in the City, except in an authorized or permitted
solid waste container or at an authorized or permitted solid waste facility or
publicly owned or privately owned treatment works.
B. It is unlawful for any person to dispose of leaves, grass or other clippings, dirt
or any other landscape debris into any part of the MS4.
C. It is unlawful for any person to dispose of any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide
banned by, or not registered with, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency or the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, or its successor,
into any part of the MS4.
Page 9of14 12("
D. It is unlawful for any person to dispose any Hazardous Materials into any trash
receptacle accessible to the public.
E. It is unlawful for any person to pour oil or grease, or the residue of oil or grease
onto any parking lot, or any part of the MS4.
F. It is unlawful for any person to place any washout water or other liquid in any
container for the disposal of Solid Waste.
G. It is unlawful for any person to wash Restaurant or Automotive Service Facility
floor mats in any place where the wash or rinse water may flow into any part of
the MS4.
5 -4 -80. Best Management Practices Required. The Responsible Person must implement Best
Management Practices as follows:
A. Responsible Persons for parking lots with more than twenty -five (25) parking
spaces exposed to Storm Water which parking lots are associated with
industrial or commercial activities, according to the United States Office of
Management and SIC must use BMPs to reduce the discharge of Pollutants to
the maximum extent practicable. Such measures may include regular sweeping
or other measures, if effective.
B. Responsible Persons of premises where machinery or other equipment is
repaired or maintained, at facilities or activities associated with industrial or
commercial activities, according to the United States Office of Management
and SIC must use BMPs or other steps to prevent discharge of maintenance
related or repair related Pollutants to the MS4.
C. For other premises exposed to Storm Water, the Responsible Person must use
BMPs, if they exist, or other steps to reduce the discharge of Pollutants to the
maximum extent practicable, including the removal and lawful disposal of any
Solid Waste or any other substance which, if it were to be discharged to the
MS4, would be a Pollutant, including fuels, waste fuels, chemicals, chemical
wastes and animal wastes, from all parts of the premises exposed to Storm
Water.
5 -4 -90. Construction Activity Storm Water Measures.
A. Each person applying to the City for a grading or building permit for projects
for which compliance with regulations governing State Construction Activity
Storm Water Permits ( "GCASPs ") is required, must submit satisfactory
proof to City (i) that a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the GCASP
was filed and (ii) that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been
prepared, before the City can issue any grading or building permit on the
121
Page 10 of 14
construction project..A copy of the NOI and the SWPPP must be maintained
on -site during grading and construction and be made available for inspection,
review and copying upon the request of any City inspector.
B. It is unlawful for any person or entity required under federal or state law to
comply with the requirements for a State Construction Activity Storm Water
Permits (GCASP) for construction activity in the City to conduct, authorize or
permit construction activities in the City at any facility which discharges to the
City's MS4 without complying with all applicable requirements for a GCASP.
C. Each person applying for a grading or building permit for any project for which
compliance with regulations governing State Construction Activity Storm
Water Permits is not required, must submit to the City for information, and
implement, a grading and construction activity runoff control program adequate
to accomplish all of the following:
1. Retain on -site the sediments generated on or brought to the project site, using
Treatment Control or Structural BMPs;
2. Retain construction- related materials and wastes, spills and residues at the
project site and prevent discharges to streets, drainage facilities, the MS4,
receiving waters or adjacent properties;
3. Contain non -Storm Water runoff from equipment and vehicle washing at the
project site; and
4. Control erosion from slopes and channels through use of effective BMPs, such
as limitation of grading during the wet season, inspection of graded areas
during rain events; planting and maintenance of vegetation on slopes, if any,,
and covering any slopes susceptible to erosion.
5. Persons generating or producing pavement sawcutting wastes in any street,
curb or sidewalk in the City must recover and properly dispose of such
sawcutting wastes, and in no case may such wastes be permitted or suffered to
enter any part of the MS4, including, without limitation, any storm drain.
6. Persons performing street and road maintenance in any street in the City must
manage street and road maintenance materials in a manner that prevents such
materials from being discharged to the MS4.
7. It is unlawful for any person to wash any concrete truck or any part of any
concrete truck, including, without limitation, any chute, pump or tools, in any
place in the City except an area designated for that purpose by the City, if the
City has designated such a place. It is unlawful for any person to permit or
allow any concrete rinseate or washwater from any truck, pump, tool or
Page 11 of 14
equipment to enter any drain, open ditch, street or road or any catch basin or
any other part of the MS4.
5 -4 -100. Violations. Violation of any provision of this Chapter, any Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan, any provision of any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter, or any Administrative
Compliance Order issued pursuant to this Chapter is a misdemeanor.
5 -4 -110. Notices of Violation; Administrative Orders; and Enforcement.
A. The Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to enforce this Chapter
through any lawful means including, without limitation, issuing Notices of
Violation and Administrative Compliance Orders. Such actions may be used to
achieve compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, any approved Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan or any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter.
Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of such a Notice of Violation
or an Administrative Order is a violation of this Chapter.
B. The City Attorney is authorized to enforce this Chapter, through all
administrative, civil, and criminal means available.
5 -4 -120. Nuisance. Violating any provision of this Chapter is a public nuisance and may be
abated by the City in accordance with this Code.
5 -4 -130. Remedies not Exclusive. The remedies listed in this Chapter are not exclusive of any
other remedies available to the City under any applicable federal, state or local law and it is within
the discretion of the City to seek cumulative remedies.
5 -4 -140. Inspections; Searches. Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any
provisions of this Chapter, the enforcement officer for the City may enter any property in the City
regulated by this Chapter in a manner authorized by State law and take samples; inspect, review and
copy records relevant to any Illicit Connection, Illegal Discharge or the Discharge of any Pollutant.
The owner or other person in charge of day -to -day activities at the premises, upon request of any City
inspector, must make available for inspection, review and copying any required GIASP, GCASP, NoI,
BMPs, SWPPP and any permit relevant to the reduction of the Discharge of any Pollutant to the
maximum extent practicable.
5 -4 -150. Fees. The City Council may establish fees for the services provided under this Chapter
by resolution."
SECTION 3: Repeal or amendment of any provision of the SSMC will not affect any penalty,
forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any
violation occurring before this Ordinance's effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in
full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective
date of this Ordinance.
Page 12 of 14
SECTION 4: This Ordinance will become effective February 14, 2003, pursuant to Government
Code § 36937(b) for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety.
Accordingly, this Ordinance is adopted by a four -fifths vote.
SECTION 5: If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness
of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are
severable.
SECTION 6: The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance;
cause it to be entered into the City of El Segundo's book of original ordinances; make a note of the
passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within fifteen (15) days after the passage
and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California
law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2003.
Mike Gordon, Mayor
Page 13 of 14
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
I, Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance
No. was duly introduced 'by said City Council at a regular meeting held on the
day of , 2003, and was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved
and signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of said Council
held on the day of , 2003, and the same was so passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
10 . :� ►I
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
APPR+
Mark 1
M
Page 14 of 14 12 Aj
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REGULATING THE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS
INTO THE CITY'S STORM SEWER SYSTEMS AND WATER OF THE
UNITED STATES BY AMENDING CHAPTER 4 OF TITLE 5 OF THE EL
SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY.
The Council of the City of El Segundo does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds as follows:
A. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 -1387; "Clean Water
Act "' or "CWA'), as implemented by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency ( "EPA "), requires that the city adopt plans and programs for stormwater
quality management;
B. The 1972 amendments to the CWA prohibit the discharge of any Pollutant to waters
of the United States from a point source unless the discharge is authorized by a
permit issued pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
( "NPDES ") required by 33 U.S.C. § 1342;
C. Municipal separate storm sewer systems ( "MS4") which convey urban runoff,
including, without limitation, Storm Water runoff, are within the definition of point
sources under the CWA;
D. Pursuant to the CWA, the EPA defined the term "Municipal separate storm sewer
system" to mean a conveyance, or system of conveyances, including roads with
drainage systems, municipal streets, curbs, gutters, catch basins, and storm drains
owned or operated by a city, used for collecting Storm Water;
E. CWA § 1342(p) requires that the City obtain a permit for Storm Water and urban
discharges through the City's MS4;
F. Section 1342(p) of the CWA further provides that NPDES permits will require
controls to reduce the discharge of Pollutants to the maximum extent practicable,
including management practices and such other provisions as may be appropriate for
the control of Pollutants;
G. The EPA, in partial implementation of CWA § 1342(p) adopted final rules, known
as the "Phase I and Phase II Storm Water Regulations" at several places in Parts 9,
122, 123, and 124 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations ( "CFR" );
H. The EPA defines "illicit discharges" to describe any discharge through a MS4 that is
not covered by a NPDES permit and illicit discharges to MS4s that are not
authorized under the CWA;
Page 1 of 13 126 6
I. CWA § 1342(p)(3)(B), requires that NPDES permits for discharges from MS4s are
include a requirement to "effectively prohibit" non -Storm Water discharges into
MS4s;
J. CWA § 1342(p)(3)(B) further provides that NPDES permits must require controls to
reduce the discharge of Pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, including
management practices and such other provisions needed to control Pollutants;
K. In partial implementation of the CWA, the Phase I Storm Water Regulations and the
California Water Code, the California Regional Regional Water Quality Control
Board - Los Angeles ( "RWQCB -LA ") issued a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ( "NPDES ") Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for
Municipal Storm Water and Urban Runoff Discharges within the County of Los
Angeles, Regional Board Order No. 01 -182, NPDES No. Cas004001 (the "2001
Permit "), on December 13, 2001 to each city in Los Angeles County, including the
City;
L. The city of El Segundo is a permittee under the 2001 Permit and therefore is
required by federal and state law to implement all requirements of the 2001 Permit;
M. EPA regulations implementing the CWA and 2001 Permit require the City to
demonstrate that it has the legal authority to control discharge of Pollutants to the
MS4 by Storm Water, or by other methods;
N. Under the California Constitution and the California Government Code, the city of
El Segundo has authority to define public nuisances and to protect the public health
and safety of the residents of and visitors to the City, and the environment, by
abating public nuisances;
O. The City has authority under the California Water Code to adopt and enforce
ordinances imposing conditions, restrictions, and limitations with respect to any
activity which might degrade the quality of waters of the state;
P. The City Council is obligated to take prudent steps to protect the City's property and
its funds and taxpayers from exposure to liability, including the potentially
enormous costs of litigation regarding natural resources allegedly damaged by
pollutants allegedly transported through the City's storm drain system;
Q. This Ordinance is categorically exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.; "CEQA "),
CEQA regulations (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, §§ 15000, et seq.) and the City's
Environmental Guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 3805, adopted March 16,
1993) since its adoption would generally implement measures to protect the
environment. Accordingly, §§ 15301 (Class 1), 15304 (Class 4),15305 (Class 5),
15307 (Class 7), 15308 (Class 8), 15309 (Class 9), and 15321 (Class 21) of the
CEQA regulations exempt the Ordinance from further environmental review.
Page 2 of 13 i 21 '
A,
R. The City Council has carefully considered the Ordinance and finds that it complies
with the requirements of applicable federal and state law, and further that it provides
an acceptable program for the conservation of water resources within the City of El
Segundo and protection of the health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens.
SECTION 2: Chapter 4 to Title 5 of the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") is amended in its
entirety to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 4
STORM WATER AND URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION CONTROL
5 -4 -10. Purpose and Intent. This chapter is adopted pursuant to the city's police powers for
the purpose of protecting and enhancing the water quality of the City's watercourses, water bodies,
and wetlands in a manner consistent with the Clean Water Act and the NPDES Permit, including,
without limitation, any of its amendments or modifications. In addition, this chapter is intended to
ensure the future health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of El Segundo by:
A. Controlling non -storm water discharges to the storm drain system.
B. Eliminating discharges to the storm water drain system from spills, dumping,
or disposal of materials other than storm water.
C. Reducing pollutants in storm water discharges, including those pollutants
taken up by storm water as it flows over urban areas, to the maximum extent
practicable.
D. Reducing pollutants in storm water discharges in order to achieve applicable
water quality objectives for surface waters in Los Angeles County.
5 -4 -20. Limits of Chapter. Nothing in this Chapter will be interpreted to:
A. Infringe any right or power guaranteed by the United States or California
Constitutions, including any vested property right;
B. Require any action inconsistent with the General Plan, any applicable
Specific Plan, vesting tentative map, or other provision of this Code;
C. Restrict otherwise lawful land use except as authorized by the laws of
California, subject to the limitations of this Chapter.
5 -4 -30. Definitions. Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the
following definitions will govern the construction of the words and phrases used in this chapter.
Words and phrases not defined by this chapter have the meanings stated the NPDES Permit and if
Page 3 of 13 1
not described therein, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.);
regulations implementing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; California Water
Code § 13050; and any successor statutes or regulations.
A. "Automotive Service Facility" means a facility that is in any one of the
following Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541,
7532 -7534 or 7536 -7539.
B. "Best Management Practice" (`BMP ") means any schedule of activities,
prohibition of practices, maintenance procedure, program, technology,
process, siting criteria, operational methods of measures, or other
management practices or engineered systems, which when implemented
prevent, control, remove, or reduce pollution. BMPs include structural and
nonstructural controls and operation and maintenance procedures which can
be applied before, during and after pollution - producing activities.
C. "Commercial Development" means any development on private land that is
not residential or a site of an industrial activity as defined in 40 C.F.R. §
122.26(b)(14). "Commercial Development" includes, without limitation,
hospitals, laboratories and other medical facilities, educational institutions,
recreational facilities, plant nurseries, multi - apartment buildings, car wash
facilities, mini -malls and other business complexes, shopping malls, hotels,
office buildings, public warehouses and other light industrial complexes not
within the scope of 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14).
D. "Construction' ' means constructing, clearing, grading, or excavation that
results in soil disturbance. Construction also includes structure demolition. It
does not include routine maintenance to maintain original line and grade,
hydraulic capacity, or original purpose of a facility; emergency construction
activities required immediately to protect public health and safety; interior
remodeling with no outside exposure of construction material or construction
waste to storm water; mechanical permit work; or sign permit work.
E. "Discharge" means any release, spill, leak, pump, flow, escape, dumping or
disposal, of any Pollutant, from any point source, into the environment,
including waters of the United States, and City's MS4. .
F. "Hazardous Materials" means any materials, wastes or mixture of wastes
defined as a "Hazardous Substance" or "Hazardous Waste" pursuant to the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( "RCRA "), 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et
seq., the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act ( "CERCLA "), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601 et seq., or the Carpenter -
Presley- Tanner Hazardous Substance Account Act, ( "HSAA "), California
Health and Safety Code §§ 25300, et seq., and all future amendments to any
of them, or as defined by the California Integrated Waste Management
Board. Where there is a conflict in the definitions employed by two or more
Page 4of13
agencies having jurisdiction over hazardous or solid waste, the term
"Hazardous Waste" will be construed to have the broader, more
encompassing definition.
G. "Illicit Connection" means any device or artifice, excluding roof drains and
other similar connections, connected to the MS4, without a permit, through
or by which an Illicit Discharge may be discharged. Examples include
channels, pipelines, pipes, conduits, inlets and outlets connected directly to
the MS4.
H. "Illicit Discharge" means any discharge to the MS4 not composed entirely of
Storm Water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit, Permitted
Discharges (which are exempt or conditionally exempt in accordance with
any applicable order of the RWQCB -LA) and discharges resulting from fire
fighting activities. Illicit Discharge includes, without limitation, wash waters
from the cleaning of Retail Gasoline Outlets, auto repair garages and similar
Automotive Service Facilities; runoff from mobile auto washing, steam
cleaning and mobile carpet cleaning, and other similar mobile commercial
and industrial operations; discharges from areas where repair of machinery
and equipment, including, without limitation motor vehicles that are visibly
leaking oil, fluid or antifreeze, is undertaken; discharges of runoff to the
MS4 from storage areas of materials containing grease, oil, or other
Hazardous Substances, and uncovered receptacles containing Hazardous
Materials; chlorinated or brominated swimming pool water and filter
backwash; runoff from the washing of toxic materials from paved or
unpaved areas; discharge of runoff from washing impervious surfaces at sites
of industrial activity, unless specifically required by State or local health and
safety codes; discharge of concrete or cement -laden wash water from
concrete trucks, pumps, tools and equipment; litter; construction and
demolition debris; fuel and chemical wastes; animal wastes; garbage, food
and food processing wastes; cooking oil or grease; leaves, grass or other
clippings, dirt or any other landscape debris or wastes; any pesticide,
fungicide, or herbicide banned by or not registered with the United States
Environmental Protection Agency or the California Department of Pesticide
Regulation; wash or rinse water from any Restaurant or Automotive Service
Facility floor mats; any liquid used as a cooling fluid in any radiator of any
engine; batteries; and any other materials or solid waste which has potential
adverse effects on water quality of receiving waters. "Illicit Discharge" also
includes any other discharge to the MS4 that is prohibited by this Code, or
any state or federal law.
I. "Industrial/Commercial Facility" means any facility which is the site of the
production, manufacture, storage, transportation, distribution, exchange or
sale of goods or commodities, and any facility involved or used in providing
professional and non - professional services. This category of facilities
includes, without limitation, any facility defined by the SIC. Facility
Page 5ofl3 .,.3(1)
ownership (federal, state, municipal, private) and profit motive of the owner
or operator of the facility are not factors in this definition.
J. "Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System" or "MS4" means a conveyance
or system of conveyances including municipal streets, alleys, catch basins,
curbs, gutters, ditches, man -made channels, storm drains, conduits, or other
facilities owned, operated, maintained or controlled by City and used for the
purpose of collecting, storing, transporting or disposing of Storm Water,
which are not part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works, and which
discharges directly or indirectly (through another agency's MS4) to waters of
the United States.
K. "Non -Storm Water Discharge" means any discharge to a MS4 not composed
entirely of Storm Water.
L. " NPDES" means the "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System"
established the Clean Water Act at 33 U.S.C. § 1342 and any successor, or
related, statute or regulation.
M. "Permitted Discharge" means the following non -storm water discharges:
Discharges covered by a separate individual or general NPDES permit;
natural flows, including natural springs and rising ground water, flows from
riparian habitats or wetlands, stream diversions, permitted by the State
Board, uncontaminated ground water infiltration [as defined by 40 CFR §
35.2005(20)]; flows from emergency fire fighting activity; flows incidental
to urban activities, including reclaimed and potable landscape irrigation
runoff, potable drinking water supply and distribution system releases
(consistent with American Water Works Association guidelines for
dechlorination and suspended solids reduction practices), drains for
foundations, footings, and crawl spaces, air conditioning condensate,
dechlorinated/debrominated swimming pool discharges, dewatering of lakes
and decorative fountains, non - commercial car washing by residents or by
non -profit organizations, and sidewalk rinsing.
N. "Pollutant' ' has the same meaning as in 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6), or incorporated
into California Water Code § 13373, discharged into water but does not mean
uncontaminated Storm Water, potable water or reclaimed water generated by a
lawfully permitted water treatment facility, or any substance, the discharge of
which into the MS4, through BMP was reduced to the maximum extent
practicable. Subject to the foregoing, "Pollutant" also includes, without
limitation, wash waters from the cleaning of Retail Gasoline Outlets, auto
repair garages and similar Automotive Service Facilities; runoff from mobile
auto washing, steam cleaning and mobile carpet cleaning, and other similar
mobile commercial and industrial operations; discharges from areas where
repair of machinery and equipment, including, but not limited to motor vehicles
which are visibly leaking oil, fluid or antifreeze, is undertaken; discharges of
Page 6 of 13
runoff to the MS4 from storage areas of materials containing grease, oil, or
other Hazardous Substances, and uncovered receptacles containing Hazardous
Materials; chlorinated or brominated swimming pool water and filter
backwash; runoff from the washing of toxic materials from paved or unpaved
areas; discharge of runoff from washing impervious surfaces at sites of
industrial activity, unless specifically required by State or local health and
safety codes; discharge of concrete or cement -laden wash water from concrete
trucks, pumps, tools and equipment; litter; construction and demolition debris;
fuel and chemical wastes; animal wastes; garbage, food and food processing
wastes; cooking oil or grease; leaves, grass or other clippings, dirt or any other
landscape debris or wastes; any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide banned by or
not registered with the United States Environmental Protection Agency or the
California Department of Pesticide Regulation; wash or rinse water from any
Restaurant or Automotive Service Facility floor mats; any liquid used as a
cooling fluid in any radiator of any engine; batteries; and any other materials or
solid waste which has potential adverse effects on water quality of receiving
waters.
O. "Responsible Person" means the owner, occupant, or other person in charge of
day -to -day operations of premises located within the City;
P. "Restaurant" means a facility where prepared food and beverages are sold
for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands
selling prepared food and beverages for immediate consumption (see SIC
Code 5812).
Q. "Retail Gasoline Outlet" means any facility engaged in selling gasoline and
lubricating oils.
R. "SIC" means Standard Industrial Classification.
S. "Solid Waste" has the same meaning as in Public Resources Code § 44191 and
any successor statute or regulation.
T. "Storm Water" means Storm Water runoff, snow melt runoff, and surface
runoff and drainage.
U. "Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan" or "SWPPP" means a plan, as
required by a State General Permit issued by the State Water Resources
Control Board ( "SWR.CB "), identifying potential Pollutant sources and
describing the design, placement and implementation of BMPs, to effectively
prevent non -Storm Water Discharges and to reduce Pollutants in Storm
Water Discharges during activities covered by the General Permit.
V. "Structural Best Management Practice" or "Structural BMP" means any
structural facility designed and constructed to mitigate the adverse impacts of
Page 7of13 r)
urban runoff pollution (e.g., a canopy, structural enclosure). This category
may include both Treatment Control BMPs and Source Control BMPs.
W. "Treatment Control Best Management Practice" or "Treatment Control
BMP" means any engineered system designed to remove pollutants by
simple gravity setting of particulate pollutants, filtration, biological uptake,
media adsorption or any other physical, biological, or chemical process.
X. "Wet Season" means the period beginning on October 1" and ending at
midnight on April 15th, annually.
5 -4 -40. Illicit Discharges Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to cause any Illicit
Discharge to enter the MS4 unless such discharge: (1) is authorized by an NPDES permit; or (2) is
associated with emergency fire fighting activities; or (3) is a Permitted Discharge that is exempt or
conditionally exempt in accordance with an applicable order of the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board - Los Angeles. No Pollutant in Storm Water may be discharged to the MS4
unless the Pollutant has been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
5 -4 -50. Illicit Connections Prohibited. It is unlawful for any person to use or allow the use of
any Illicit Connection to convey an Illicit Discharge or any Pollutant to the MS4 from premises of
which that person is an owner or is the person in charge of day -to -day activities. Illicit Connections
are prohibited by the Clean Water Act, NPDES MS4 Storm Water Permits issued by the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board - Los Angeles and this Chapter. The Responsible Person
for premises at which an Illicit Connection is located must obtain a permit for, or remove, the Illicit
Connection within one hundred and eighty (180) days of confirmation of discovery of the Illicit
Connection.
5 -4 -60. Control of Pollutants from Sites of Industrial Activity.
A. It is unlawful for any person or entity required under federal or state law to
comply with the requirements for a NPDES General Industrial Activities Storm
Water Permit ( GIASP) for a facility or activity in the City to operate such
facility or activity in the City which discharges to the City's MS4 without
complying with all applicable requirements for a General Industrial Activities
Storm Water Permit.
B. Any person or entity in the City required to have a GIASP for a facility or
activity in the City which discharges to the City's MS4 must retain at such
facility or activity the following documents which evidence compliance with
GIASP requirements: (i) a copy of the Notice of Intent to comply with the
General Industrial Activities Storm Water Permit; (ii) a waste discharge
identification number (WDID) issued by the California Water Resources
Control Board; (iii) a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (iv) any
required Storm Water quality data; and (v) a plan containing urban runoff Best
Management Practices (BMPs).
Page 8of13 13 �10
C. Any person or entity in the City required to have a GIASP for a facility or
activity in the City which discharges to the City's MS4, upon request from a
duly authorized officer of the City, must make available to the City for review,
copying and inspection all of the documents described in this Section during
any City Storm Water - related educational program or inspection and
demonstrate compliance with the GIASP, including, without limitation,
demonstration of the adequacy of, and compliance with, any required SWPPP
and all applicable BMPs.
5 -4 -70. Spills, Dumping and Disposal Prohibited.
A. It is unlawful for any person to dump, deposit, release, spill, leak, pump, pour,
emit, empty, discharge, inject, bury or dispose into the environment any Solid
Waste or liquid waste, including any Pollutant, in or upon any part of the MS4,
or upon any public or private premises in the City, or to cause, suffer, or permit
any Solid Waste or liquid waste or other Pollutant to come to be located upon,
in, on or under any premises in the City, except in an authorized or permitted
solid waste container or at an authorized or permitted solid waste facility or
publicly owned or privately owned treatment works.
B. It is unlawful for any person to dispose of leaves, grass or other clippings, dirt
or any other landscape debris into any part of the MS4.
C. It is unlawful for any person to dispose of any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide
banned by, or not registered with, the United States Environmental Protection
Agency or the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, or its successor,
into any part of the MS4.
D. It is unlawful for any person to dispose any Hazardous Materials into any trash
receptacle accessible to the public.
E. It is unlawful for any person to pour oil or grease, or the residue of oil or grease
onto any parking lot, or any part of the MS4.
F. It is unlawful for any person to place any washout water or other liquid in any
container for the disposal of Solid Waste.
G. It is unlawful for any person to wash Restaurant or Automotive Service Facility
floor mats in any place where the wash or rinse water may flow into any part of
the MS4.
5 -4 -80. Best Management Practices Required. The Responsible Person must implement Best
Management Practices as follows:
Page 9of13 1311.1
A. Responsible Persons for parking lots with more than twenty -five (25) parking
spaces exposed to Storm Water which parking lots are associated with
industrial or commercial activities, according to the United States Office of
Management and SIC must use BMPs to reduce the discharge of Pollutants to
the maximum extent practicable. Such measures may include regular sweeping
or other measures, if effective.
B. Responsible Persons of premises where machinery or other equipment is
repaired or maintained, at facilities or activities associated with industrial or
commercial activities, according to the United States Office of Management
and SIC must use BMPs or other steps to prevent discharge of maintenance
related or repair related Pollutants to the MS4.
C. For other premises exposed to Storm Water, the Responsible Person must use
BMPs, if they exist, or other steps to reduce the discharge of Pollutants to the
maximum extent practicable, including the removal and lawful disposal of any
Solid Waste or any other substance which, if it were to be discharged to the
MS4, would be a Pollutant, including fuels, waste fuels, chemicals, chemical
wastes and animal wastes, from all parts of the premises exposed to Storm
Water.
5 -4 -90. Construction Activity Storm Water Measures.
A. Each person applying to the City for a grading or building permit for projects
for which compliance with regulations governing State Construction Activity
Storm Water Permits ( "GCASPs ") is required, must submit satisfactory
proof to City (i) that a Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the GCASP
was filed and (ii) that a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan has been
prepared, before the City can issue any grading or building permit on the
construction project. A copy of the NOI and the SWPPP must be maintained
on -site during grading and construction and be made available for inspection,
review and copying upon the request of any City inspector.
B. It is unlawful for any person or entity required under federal or state law to
comply with the requirements for a State Construction Activity Storm Water
Permits ( GCASP) for construction activity in the City to conduct, authorize or
permit construction activities in the City at any facility which discharges to the
City's MS4 without complying with all applicable requirements for a GCASP.
C. Each person applying for a grading or building permit for any project for which
compliance with regulations governing State Construction Activity Storm
Water Permits is not required, must submit to the City for information, and
implement, a grading and construction activity runoff control program adequate
to accomplish all of the following:
Page 10 of 13
I.3
1. Retain on -site the sediments generated on or brought to the project site, using
Treatment Control or Structural BMPs;
2. Retain construction- related materials and wastes, spills and residues at the
project site and prevent discharges to streets, drainage facilities, the MS4,
receiving waters or adjacent properties;
3. Contain non -Storm Water runoff from equipment and vehicle washing at the
project site; and
4. Control erosion from slopes and channels through use of effective BMPs, such
as limitation of grading during the wet season, inspection of graded areas
during rain events; planting and maintenance of vegetation on slopes, if any,
and covering any slopes susceptible to erosion.
5. Persons generating or producing pavement sawcutting wastes in any street,
curb or sidewalk in the City must recover and properly dispose of such
sawcutting wastes, and in no case may such wastes be permitted or suffered to
enter any part of the MS4, including, without limitation, any storm drain.
6. Persons performing street and road maintenance in any street in the City must
manage street and road maintenance materials in a manner that prevents such
materials from being discharged to the MS4.
7. It is unlawful for any person to wash any concrete truck or any part of any
concrete truck, including, without limitation, any chute, pump or tools, in any
place in the City except an area designated for that purpose by the City, if the
City has designated such a place. It is unlawful for any person to permit or
allow any concrete rinseate or washwater from any truck, pump, tool or
equipment to enter any drain, open ditch, street or road or any catch basin or
any other part of the MS4.
5 -4 -100. Violations. Violation of any provision of this Chapter, any Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan, any provision of any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter, or any Administrative
Compliance Order issued pursuant to this Chapter is a misdemeanor.
5 -4 -110. Notices of Violation; Administrative Orders; and Enforcement.
A. The Public Works Director, or designee, is authorized to enforce this Chapter
through any lawful means including, without limitation, issuing Notices of
Violation and Administrative Compliance Orders. Such actions may be used to
achieve compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, any approved Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan or any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter.
Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of such a Notice of Violation
or an Administrative Order is a violation of this Chapter.
Page 11 of 13 136
B. The City Attorney is authorized to enforce this Chapter, through all
administrative, civil, and criminal means available.
5 -4 -120. Nuisance. Violating any provision of this Chapter is a public nuisance and may be
abated by the City in accordance with this Code.
5 -4 -130. Remedies not Exclusive. The remedies listed in this Chapter are not exclusive of any
other remedies available to the City under any applicable federal, state or local law and it is within
the discretion of the City to seek cumulative remedies.
5 -4 -140. Inspections; Searches. Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any
provisions of this Chapter, the enforcement officer for the City may enter any property in the City
regulated by this Chapter in a manner authorized by State law and take samples; inspect, review and
copy records relevant to any Illicit Connection, Illegal Discharge or the Discharge of any Pollutant.
The owner or other person in charge of day -to -day activities at the premises, upon request of any City
inspector, must make available for inspection, review and copying any required GIASP, GCASP, NoI,
BMPs, SWPPP and any permit relevant to the reduction of the Discharge of any Pollutant to the
maximum extent practicable.
5 -4 -150. Fees. The City Council may establish fees for the services provided under this Chapter
by resolution."
SECTION 3: Repeal or amendment of any provision of the ESMC will not affect any penalty,
forfeiture, or liability incurred before, or preclude prosecution and imposition of penalties for any
violation occurring before this Ordinance's effective date. Any such repealed part will remain in
full force and effect for sustaining action or prosecuting violations occurring before the effective
date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4: If any part of this Ordinance or its application is deemed invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the effectiveness
of the remaining provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are
severable.
SECTION 5: The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance;
cause it to be entered into the City of El Segundo's book of original ordinances; make a note of the
passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and, within fifteen (15) days after the passage
and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California
law.
Page 12 of 13
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2003.
Mike Gordon, Mayor
ATTEST:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SS
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO )
L Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk of the City of El Segundo, California, do hereby certify that the
whole number of members of the City Council of said City is five; that the foregoing Ordinance
No. was duly introduced by said City Council at a regular meeting held on the
day of 2003, and was duly passed and adopted by said City Council, approved
and signed by the Mayor, and attested to by the City Clerk, all at a regular meeting of said Council
held on the day of 5 2003, and the same was so passed and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
m3am
ABSTAIN:
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
APPRI
Mark I
Lem
14
Page 13 of t3 J 0
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: New Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding a request by the Fire Department to authorize the
City Manager to accept a grant (Grant #EMW- 2002 -FG- 08479) from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and the United States Fire Administration (USFA) for Firefighter
Operations and Firefighter Safety equipment in the amount of $245,200.00, of which, the
Fiscal Impact to the City is $24,520.00.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Accept the FEMA/USFA grant award; 2) Encumber $245,200.00 from the General Fund.
$24,520.00 is the local share and $220,680 will be reimbursed to the City by FEMA; 3)
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
After a Fire Department needs assessment was completed, the department prepared a draft
grant proposal for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Assistance to
Firefighter's Equipment Grant Program in the category of Firefighter Operations and Firefighter
Safety. This grant is provided on a "90/10" cost formula, the federal government provides 90%
and local government (under 50,000 population) provides a 10% cost share. On March the
2002, the Council authorized the Fire Department to submit a grant. On March 29, 2002,
grant proposal was submitted to FEMA/USFA with a projected cost of $400,500.00 and
the
local cost share of $40,500.00. On December 10, 2002, the Fire Department was advised by
FEMA/USFA that its grant proposal under consideration had been reduced from $400,500.0
to approximately $245,000.00.
On January 14, 2003, the City of El Segundo was officially notified its grant proposal was
approved and issued an award in the amount of $245,200.00 $220,680.00 (90% federal
share) and the local cost share being $24,520.00 (10 %). (Continued on next page.)
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
FEMA Grant Award Letter
FEMA Grant Agreement Articles
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: 0
0
Amount Requested: $
$24,520
Account Number: 0
001- 400 - 3202 -8106
P r
.
Appropriation Required: X. Yes No (City matching will be funded with Fire Mitigation Fees
designated within the General Fund)
ORIGINATED BY: DATE:
Norm Angel , Fire Chief
REVIEWED BY:
Mary Strenn, Cit)tMan
DATE:
9
Continued from Page 1:
The grant funds will be utilized to purchase mobile vehicle and hand -held radios, mobile data
computers, and a personnel accountability system to track personnel responding to the scene
of an emergency. The mobile radio system will integrate into a fully interoperable
communications network which is being developed.
140
Panel Review
Mr. David Burns
City of El Segundo Fire Department
314 Main Street
El Segundo, California 90245 -3850
Re: Grant No. EMW- 2002 -FG -08479
Dear Mr. Burns:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
Page 2 of 8
Congratulations. Your grant application submitted under FEMA's FY 02 Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Program for Fire Operations and Firefighter Safety has been approved. The approved project costs amount to
$245,200.00. The Federal share is 90 percent or $220,680.00 of the approved amount and your share of the
costs is 10 percent or $24,520.00.
As part of your award package, you will find FEMA's Grant Agreement Articles. Please make sure you read and
understand the Articles as they outline the terms and conditions of your Grant award. Maintain a copy of these
documents for your official file. You establish acceptance of the Grant and FEMA's Grant Agreement
Articles when you request and receive any of the Federal Grant funds awarded to you.
For your convenience, we will have an on -line system that will accept payment requests. The first step to
request your grant funds is to ensure that FEMA has your correct Direct Deposit Information on -line. Once you
have confirmed your Direct Deposit information, print a copy of it by clicking the Print SF 1199A button on the
screen. Sign the form and take it to your bank to complete the bottom portion of the form. Once your bank has
completed and signed the form, mail it, with the original signatures, to the address below:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Financial & Acquisition Management Division
Grants Management Branch
Attn: Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program
500 C Street, SW, Room 350
Washington, DC 20472
The second step will be to request your grant funds. You will receive notification via email when you can request
payments on -line. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the process to request your grant funds,
please contact the Grants Management Branch at 1- 877 - 510 -6762. Your Grants Management Specialist is
Marilynn Grim and can be reached at 202 -646 -3459.
Sincerely,
a
Patricia A. English
Senior Procurement Executive
https :llportal.fema.gov /firegrant/ new /fire_admin/ awards / spec /award package..isp ?agreeme... 1/15/2003
Panel Review
Agreement Articles
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Washington, D.C. 20472
AGREEMENT ARTICLES
ASSISTANCE TO FIREFIGHTERS GRANT PROGRAM
GRANTEE: Ell Segundo Fire Department
PROGRAM: Fire Operations and Firefighter Safety
AGREEMENT NUMBER: EMW- 2002 -FG -08479
AMENDMENT NUMBER:
Article I
Article 11
Article III
Article IV
Article V
Article V1
Article VII
Article Vill
Article 1X
Article X
Article XI
Article XII
Article 1 - Project Description
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Description
Grantee Concurrence
Period of Performance
Amount Awarded
Requests for Advances or Reimbursements
Budget Changes
Financial Reporting
Performance Reports
FEMA Officials
Other Terms and Conditions
General Provisions
Audit Requirements
Page 4 of 8
The grantee shall perform the work described in the approved grant application's Program Narrative. That
narrative is made a part of these grant agreement articles by reference. The purpose of the Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program is to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire
and fire- related hazards. After careful consideration, FEMA has determined that the grantee's project, as
detailed in submitted project narrative and budget information, submitted as part of the grantee's application
(and considered part of this agreement by reference), was consistent with the program's purpose and worthy of
award. As such, any deviation from the approved program narrative must have prior written approval from
FEMA.
Article 11 - Grantee Concurrence
httpsa/ portal. fema .gov /firegrant /new /fire_adrnin /awards/ spec /award_package Jsp ?agreeme... 1/15/2003
4
Panel Review Page 5 of S
By requesting and receiving Federal grant funds provided by this grant program, the grantee accepts and agrees
to abide by the terms and conditions of the grant as set forth in this document and the documents identified
below. All documents submitted as part of the application are made a part of this agreement by reference.
Article III - Period of Performance
The period of performance shall be from 15- JAN -03 to 14- JAN -04.
The grant funds are available to the grantee for obligation only during the period of performance of the grant
award. The grantee is not authorized to incur new obligations after the expiration date unless the grantee has
requested, and FEMA has approved, a new expiration date. The grantee has 90 days after period of
performance to incur costs associated with closeout or to pay for obligations incurred during period of
performance. Award expenditures are for the purposes detailed in the approved grant application only. The
grantee cannot transfer funds to other agencies or departments without prior written approval from FEMA.
Article IV - Amount Awarded
The amount of the award is detailed on the Obligating Document for Award attached to these articles. Following
are the budgeted estimates for object classes for this grant (including Federal share plus grantee match):
Personnel
$0.00
Fringe Benefits
$0.00
Travel
$0.00
Equipment
$245,200.00
Supplies
$0.00
Contractual
$0.00
Construction
$0.00
Other
$0.00
Indirect Charges
$0.00
Total
$245,200.00
Article V - Requests for Advances or Reimbursements
Grant payments under the Assistance to Firefighter Grant Program are made on an advance or reimbursable
basis for immediate cash needs. When the grantee needs grant funds, the grantee fills out the on -line Request
for Advance or Reimbursement.
Payments under this grant program are made via direct deposit, therefore before a payment is made, grantees
must confirm their on -line Direct Deposit information, print a copy, sign it and mail (with an original signature) the
hardcopy to FEMA at the following address:
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Financial & Acquisition Management Division
Grants Management Branch
500 C Street, SW, Room 350
Washington, DC 20472
Attn: Sylvia A. Carroll
Article VI - Budget Changes
Generally, changes in the budget -line items are permitted, as long as the original program narrative is
accomplished. The only exception to this provision is for grants where the Federal share is in excess of
$100,000.00. In grants where the Federal share exceeds $100,000.00, the budgeted line items can be changed,
https: / /portal .fema.gov /firegrant /new /fire_admin /awards /spec /award_package..i sp ?agreezne... 1/15/2003
Panel Review
Page 6 of 8
but if the cumulative changes exceed ten (10) percent of the total budget, FEMA must approve those changes.
Article VII - Financial Reporting
The Request for Advance or Reimbursement mentioned above, will also be used for interim financial reporting
purposes. At the end of the performance period, or upon completion of the grantee's program narrative, the
grantee must complete, on -line, a final financial report that is required to close out the grant. The Financial
Status Report, is due within 90 days after the end of the performance period.
Article Vlll - Performance Reports
The grantee must submit a semi - annual and a final performance report to FEMA. The final performance report
should provide a short narrative on what the grantee accomplished with the grant funds and any benefits derived
there from. The semi- annual report is due six months after the award date.
Article IX - FEMA Officials
Program Officer: Brian A. Cowan, Chief of the Grants Program Office, is the Program Officer for this grant
program. The Program Officer is responsible for the technical monitoring of the stages of work and technical
performance of the activities described in the approved grant application.
Grants Assistance Officer: Richard Goodman, Chief of the Grants Management Branch, or Sylvia A. Carroll,
Grants Management Specialist, is the Assistance Officer for this grant program. The Assistance Officer is the
Federal official responsible for negotiating, administering, and executing all grant business matters.
Grants Management Specialist: Marilynn Grim 202 -646 -3459 is the Grants Management Specialist for this
grant award and shall be contacted for all financial and administrative grant business matters.
Article X Other Terms and Conditions
A. Pre -award costs directly applicable to the awarded grant are allowable if approved in writing by the FEMA
program official.
B. The grantee agrees to maintain their operating expenditures in the funded grant category at a level equal to
or greater than the average of their operating expenditures in the two fiscal years preceding the fiscal year in
which assistance is awarded.
C. The grantee agrees to provide information to the National Fire Incident Reporting System for the period
covered by the grant.
Article XI - General Provisions
The following are hereby incorporated into this agreement by reference:
44 CFR, Emergency Management and Assistance
Part 7 Nondiscrimination in Federally- Assisted Programs
Part 13 Uniform administrative requirements for grants and cooperative
agreements to state and local governments
Government -wide Debarment and Suspension (Non - procurement)
Part 17 and Government -wide Requirements for Drug -free Workplace
(G rants)
Part 18 New Restrictions on Lobbying
https : / /portal.fema.gov /firegrant /new /fire_admin /awards /spec /award_package.j sp ?agreeme... 1/15/2003
Panel Review Page 7 of 8
31 CFR 205.6 Funding Techniques
OMB Circular A -122 Cost Principles for Non - Profit Organizations
OMB Circular A- Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Agreements With Institutions of Higher
110 Education, Hospitals, and Other NonProfit Organizations Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Application and Assurances contained therein.
Article Xll- Audit Requirements
All grantees must follow the audit requirements of OMB Circular A -133, Audits of States, Local Governments,
and Non - Profit Organizations. The main requirement of this OMB Circular is that grantees that expend
$300,000.00 or more in Federal funds (from all Federal sources) must have a single audit performed in
accordance with the circular.
As a condition of receiving funding under this grant program, you must agree to maintain grant files and
supporting documentation for three years after the conclusion of the grant. You must also agree to make your
grant files, books, and records available for an audit by FEMA, the General Accounting Office (GAO), or their
duly authorized representatives to assess the accomplishments of the grant program or to ensure compliance
with any requirement of the grant program.
https: // portal. fema .gov /firegrant/new /fire_admin /awards /spec /award package.jsp ?agreeme... 1/15/2003
Panel Review
Page 8 of 8
. FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
OBLIGATING DOCUMENT FOR AWARD/AMENDMENT
1a' AGREEMENT NO. o' mwEwomewT o. RECIPIENT NO. 4. TYPE oF s. CONTROL NO.
eae0007oo �oT��w
Emvv-u000'po'na47o NO. - W358161 xvvAno
a. RECIPIENT NAME AND 7. ISSUING FEmA OFFICE AND ADDRESS e. PAYMENT OFFICE AND ADDRESS
AoonsSe FEmA/Fmuncia| and Grants Management pEmA/pinanc}a| Services Branch
E| Segundo F|moepartmont Division a000 Street, S.vv.. Room 72a
314 Main Street eooc Street, e.vv.. Room oon Washington DC, 2o47o
�/o� vndu vvaamn�onDC, 2u4,u
�--"-aou4s-aoso Specialist: Marilynn California, — �ow�m�o�r�w�Pno��oT000�o/w/nT)� PHONE NO.
m.wmm�or�so|p|smT PHONE NO. '
pRoJEoTorF|oEn 310-524-2252 Brian Cowan (202) 646-2821
Jeanie Moxu|ay
11 e�p�cr|v�oxrsop 12. METHOD 1u.xee|oTAwosAnRAwasmswT �4.��nponm�wo�pen|oo
' p—Ym�wT cna,oxanno Fmm:1e-J*w- To.��_��w_o4
r*|S AoT|ow * oo To:
14-JAN-04
oF-270
Budget Period
Fmm'01'ooT' To:an'aEp-»u
ou
1o. DESCRIPTION oF ACTION
a. (Indicate funding data for awards or financial changes)
PR|on AmouwT
ounRENTcuMMuL»
T|»
s
PROGRAM CFoAwo. ACCOUNTING DATA
wmwE TOTAL AWARDED THIS TOTAL AWARD .~,
xx�� ^^^-^^^^^^'^^^°"' AWARD xoT|ow FEDERAL
ACRONYM nxxxwxxx'x +�n(� COMMITMENT
xpo
ao' as* 2003-53' e41on*,64000000' $0.00 *000.meo.ou $220.680.00 $24.520.00
4101 -D
TorAua $0.00 $uuo.oeo.00 $220.680.00 $24.520.00
b. To describe changes other than funding data or financial changes, attach schedule and check here.
N/A
16 a. FOR wom-o|aAeTsn pRoonAma: RECIPIENT IS REQUIRED TO S|am AND RETURN THREE (o) ooP|Eg OF THIS 000umEwT
To Fsmx (See Block for address)
Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program recipients are not required to sign and return copies of this document. However, recipients should
print and keep a copy m this document for their records.
16u. FOR DISASTER PROGRAMS: RECIPIENT IS NOT REQUIRED To SIGN
This assistance |asubject to terms and conmuona attached to this award notice o,uv incorporated nm e,e n oe mp,ognam|agia|aoono|mu
above.
DATE
17. RECIPIENT SIGNATORY OFFICIAL (Name and Title) mm
N/A
1e. FEmx a|GmATonv oFF|o\aL (Name and Title) DATE o> 17'oEo-02
Rick Goodman
1 /UC
ap7u�ro�oz� l/l�/�OOS '
httpo:/hportal.Beoz� rzne_ado�u/uwu/uslsvowu',"^d_p"^kaa"`/ .' `
