The URL can be used to link to this page

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"`/ .' `