Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
2004 SEP 07 CC PACKET - AAGENDA
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 Managers 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, SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 — 5:00 P.M.
Next Resolution # 4386
Next Ordinance # 1378
5:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION — (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.
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)) — 8
matters
1. Flynn v. City of El Segundo, LASC No. YC046253
2. Bressi v. City of El Segundo, LASC Nos. BC288292 and 288293
3. Emazeki v. City of El Segundo, LASC No. YCO47980
4. Hafley v. City of El Segundo, LASC No. YC045092
5. Chen v. City of El Segundo, LASC No. YC049424
6. Pulido v. City of El Segundo, USDC No. USDC No. 03CV9563
7. In the Matter of the Noise Varian Proceeding for Los Angeles International Airport — California Department of
Transportation Case No. L2004060244
8. City of El Segundo v. Stardust West Apartments, LASC No. YC031364
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(b): -0• 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) — 0 matter
CONFERENCE WITH CITY'S LABOR NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54957.6) — 2 matters
1. Represented Group: City Employees Association
Labor Negotiators: Mary Strenn & Bruce Barsook
2. Represented Group: Police Support Services
Labor Negotiators: Mary Strenn & Bruce Barsook
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (Gov't Code §54956.8) — 0 matter
SPECIAL MATTERS — 0 matter
002
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 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, SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 — 7:00 P.M.
Next Resolution # 4386
Next Ordinance # 1378
7:00 P.M. SESSION
CALL TO ORDER
INVOCATION — Reverend SeHee Han of United Methodist Church of El Segundo
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Council Member Carl Jacobson
00J
PRESENTATIONS -
(a) Proclamation in commemoration of the events of September 11, 2001.
(b) Commendation to Janet Miller Sheehan, Planning Commissioner, for her valued services
rendered in the public interest as a Member of the Planning Commission.
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.
A. PROCEDURAL MOTIONS
Consideration of a motion to read all ordinances and resolutions on the Agenda by title
Recommendation - Approval.
B. SPECIAL ORDERS OF BUSINESS
Consideration and possible action to open a public hearing and receive testimony
regarding a certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (including
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations) and adoption of an update
to the Circulation Element of the El Segundo General Plan.
Recommendation - (1) Open Public Hearing; (2) Receive public testimony and other
evidence; (3) Discussion; (4) Reading of Resolution approving Environmental
Assessment No. 579 and General Plan Amendment No. 02 -1 by title only; (5)
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
Consideration and possible action (Public Hearing) regarding the FY 2004 -2005
Preliminary Budget and Five -Year Capital Improvements Plan including
discussion and possible direction regarding all City revenues and expenditures.
Recommendation - (1) Open Public Hearing; (2) Discussion; (3) Close or Continue the
Public Hearing to September 21, 2004; (4) Schedule the budget adoption for the
September 21, 2004 meeting; (5) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to
this item.
004
C. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
3. Consideration and possible action regarding a report to Council on requested
additional information: costs, impacts, and workload for alternative "run short"
scenarios (to "run short" means that on a given day and temporary basis, not
filling a vacant position with overtime personnel). These scenarios were
developed as a result of the Fire Department's budget reduction proposal (running
short in fire suppression staffing up to one person per rank /assignment as
vacancies occur).
Recommendation — (1) Receive and review information; (2) Alternatively, discuss and
take other action related to this item.
4. Consideration and possible action regarding remodeling the existing clubhouse,
located at 300 E. Pine Avenue and authorize an increase in amount paid to the
architect for services relating to the preparation of the remodeling assessment
report. Fiscal Impact $45,000.
Recommendation — (1) Receive assessment report regarding remodeling the clubhouse;
(2) Discuss alternatives regarding remodeling the clubhouse; (3) Defer the Community
Center project for two years; (4) Authorize expenditures of approximately $275,000 for
maintenance work at the clubhouse and city hall and preserve the balance ($5,772,000)
for future use; (5) Authorize staff to develop specifications to abate any hazardous
materials and paint the interior and exterior of the clubhouse; (6) Approve change order
no. 5 of $45,000 to the original purchase order for architect LPA Inc., (7) Alternatively,
discuss and take other action related to this item.
D. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES, BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
5. Consideration and possible action regarding setting a date for interviewing
candidates for one position each on the Planning Commission, Community Cable
Advisory Committee and Economic Development Advisory Council.
Recommendation — (1) Set date for interviews of candidates for Tuesday, October 5,
2004; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
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.
5 005
6. Warrant Numbers 2542521 to 254914 on Register No. 22 in the total amount of
$2,193,625.29 and Wire Transfers from 816/2004 through 8/26/2004 in the total
amount of $1,182,855.71.
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 Special and Regular Meeting Minutes of August 17, 2004.
Recommendation — Approval.
8. Consideration and possible action regarding a status report on legislative bill
number AB2702 seeking to amend state law to allow the development of second
dwelling units in residential neighborhoods.
Recommendation — (1) Receive and file; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
9. Consideration and possible action to adopt a Resolution in support of statewide
ballot measure, Proposition 1A, which would restrict the ability of the Legislature
to utilize funds allocated to local governments.
Recommendation — (1) Adopt Resolution supporting statewide ballot measure
Proposition 1A; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
10. Consideration and possible action to adopt a Resolution establishing City policy
regarding the display of the United States flag at City facilities and public rights of
Recommendation — (1) Adopt resolution establishing policies and procedures related to
the public display of flags; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this
item.
11. Consideration and possible action regarding a letter to the Los Angeles County
Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission supporting the proposed Pacific
Concourse Project that includes 450 residential units in two buildings in the Del
Aire Business Park along La Cienega Blvd.
Recommendation — (1) Approve the letter to the Los Angeles County Board of
Supervisors and Planning Commission; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this item.
006
12. Consideration and possible action regarding a proposal by the Community,
Economic and Development Services Department (CEDS) to establish a new job
classification of Plans Examiner. Fiscal Impact: $38,000 savings.
Recommendation — (1) Approve the Plans Examiner Class Specification; (2) Adopt the
Resolution establishing the month salary range; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other
action related to this item.
13. Consideration and possible action regarding the award of a purchase order to
Knoll, Inc. for furniture and a delivery/installation contract to Associates
Purchasing, for Library Meeting Rooms and Interior Modifications Project -
Approved Capital Improvement Program. Fiscal Impact: $56,000.
Recommendation — (1) Recommend that City Council waive the formal bidding process
per the Municipal Code and approve the City's use of competitively solicited federal
General Services Agreement (GSA) Contract #GS- 28F- 8029H; (2) Authorize the
issuance of a purchase order for meeting rooms and office furniture with Knoll
(manufacturer), in the amount of $39,150; (3) Award of a contract to the authorized
distributor and installers, Associates Purchasing, in the amount of $16,850; (4) Authorize
the City Manager to execute a standard City Professional Services Agreement, as
approved to form by the City Attorney on behalf of the City; (5) Alternatively, discuss and
take other action related to this item.
14. Consideration and possible action regarding Recreation and Parks Drama
Program for Fiscal Year 2004 -2005.
Recommendation — (1) Receive and file information regarding the Fall drama program;
(2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
15. Consideration and possible action regarding the waiver of fees for City services
associated with the Tree Musketeers' first annual "Rock the Earth" event at
Chevron Park located at El Segundo Blvd and Illinois Street. Fiscal Impact:
Recommendation — (1) Waive fees for City services associated with the Tree
Musketeers' first annual "Rock the Earth" event; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other
action related to this item.
16. Consideration and possible action regarding the waiver of fees for City services
associated with the Fire and Police Associations' 4th Annual Pancake Breakfast.
Fiscal Impact: $760.
Recommendation — (1) Approve fees associated with Fire and Police Associations' 4th
Annual Pancake Breakfast; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this
item.
007
17. Consideration and possible action to waive second reading and adopt the
Ordinances increasing the water and wastewater rates on a city -wide basis.
Recommendation — (1) Waive second reading and adopt the Ordinances; (2)
Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
18. Consideration and possible action authorizing the City Manager to execute a
Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Redondo Beach for retention of a
consultant to perform a bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
implementation plan study. Fiscal Impact: $502.
Recommendation — (1) Authorize City Manager to execute a Memorandum of
Agreement with the City of Redondo Beach to perform a bacteria TMDL implementation
plan study; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
19. Consideration and possible action regarding approval of a three -month contract
extension for the City's custodial contract with K & P Janitorial and Maintenance
through December 31, 2004. No Fiscal Impact.
Recommendation — (1) Authorize the City Manager to execute an extension of K & P
Janitorial and Maintenance contract through December 31, 2004 in a form approved by
the City Attorney; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
20. Consideration and possible action to replace a marked police vehicle that was
totaled when struck by a negligent driver. Fiscal Impact $33,200 — City seeking
recovery from second party insurance.
Recommendation — (1) Approve purchase of replacement unit; (2) Alternatively, discuss
and take other action related to this item.
21. Consideration and possible action to approve contract with UCLA Center for Pre -
Hospital Care, for continuing education, as well as program oversight of Citywide
AED (Automatic External Defibrillator) Program. Fiscal Impact: there is no change
in cost for current services being provided ($24,200 for Fire and $4,400 for Police).
Recommendation — (1) Approve contract as presented; (2) Authorize City Manager to
sign agreement; (3) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
CALL ITEMS FROM CONSENT AGENDA
F. NEW BUSINESS
22. Consideration and possible action regarding the Annual Halloween Frolic event
location moving from Recreation Park to Main Street and request for increased
funding for the event. Fiscal Impact: $9,210.
Recommendation — (1) Determine location of the Annual Halloween Frolic event; (2)
Approve increased funding request for Main Street location; (3) Alternatively, discuss
and take other action related to this item.
G. REPORTS —CITY MANAGER— NONE
H. REPORTS —CITY ATTORNEY —NONE
REPORTS —CITY CLERK — NONE
REPORTS — CITY TREASURER — NONE
K. REPORTS — CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Council Member Boulgarides —
Council Member Busch —
Council Member Jacobson —
Mayor Pro Tem Gaines —
Mayor McDowell —
23. Consideration and possible action regarding adoption of a resolution expressing
the City of El Segundo's support of efforts by the California Air Resources Board
to implement measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Recommendation: (1) Adopt resolution supporting California Air Resources Board efforts
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; (2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action
related to this matter.
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.
009
MEMORIALS —
CLOSED SESSION
The City Council may move into a closed session pursuant to applicable law, including the Brown Act (Government
Code Section §54960, It sue.) 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: �l f t7 ,n
TIME: d • 55� ° "l
NAME: o
10
n10
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 7, 2004
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business - Public Hearing
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to open a public hearing and receive testimony regarding
certification of a Final Environmental Impact Report (including adoption of a Statement of
Overriding Considerations) and adoption of an update to the Circulation Element of the El
Segundo General Plan.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1. Open Public Hearing;
2. Receive public testimony and other evidence;
3. Discussion;
4. Reading of Resolution approving Environmental Assessment No. 579 and General Plan
Amendment No. 02 -1 by title only; and /or,
5. Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
On August 12 and 26, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
update to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. After receiving testimony and
documentary information, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 2572, recommending City
Council certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report with a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (Environmental Assessment No. 579) and approval of the Circulation Element
update (General Plan Amendment No. 02 -1). The staff report prepared for the August 12 and
26, 2004 Planning Commission hearings (Exhibit B) contains a full project description. The
draft minutes from the Planning Commission are also included (Exhibit C).
(Continued on next page... )
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft Resolution with attached Circulation Element
B. Planning Commission Staff Reports, dated August 12 and 26, 2004
C. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, dated August 12 and 26, 2004
D. Final Environmental Impact Report (To be distributed separately)
FISCAL IMPACT:
Operating Budget: $244,530
Amount Requested: None
Account Number: 001 -400- 2402 -6214
Project Phase: N/A
Appropriation Required: Yes X No
Hansen, Director of Commun
Economic and
GJl //d
Services
Vv
v,"'
Oil
1
STAFF REPORT: September 7, 2004
Background
Project History
Page 2
In May 2002, the Council authorized staff to begin revising the Circulation Element afterthe
Council reached a consensus in 2001 to stop working on a previous Circulation Element
update from 1998. After Council direction in May 2002, staff held several scoping meetings
with community stakeholders on the issues to address in the Circulation Element update.
The Council then directed staff to issue a Request for Proposals for consultants to prepare
the Circulation Element update and Environmental Impact Report (EIR). On November 19,
2002, the Council selected the team of Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc. and Christopher
A. Joseph and Associates to prepare the Circulation Element update and EIR, respectively.
Staff and the consultants held several workshops with the Council to define the
methodology and assumptions for data sources, traffic model, various land use build out
scenarios, and conclusions of the traffic forecasts. On October 5, 2003, the Council
defined the "project" for environmental review after determining that the land use
assumptions in the updated Circulation Element would not change from the 1992 version
of the Circulation Element. Based upon the project description crafted by the City Council,
staff began environmental review. As a result, a Draft EIR was circulated for public review
from June 25, 2004 to August 9, 2004. The Planning Commission held public hearings on
the EIR and Circulation Element update on August 12, 2004 and August 26, 2004.
Context
It is important to note the City of El Segundo is located in Los Angeles County, home to
over 9,500,000 people. Like so many communities in this region, thousands of people on
their way to and from work drive through this city. Sepulveda and Aviation Boulevards are
especially impacted by this phenomenon that creates traffic congestion above and beyond
levels generated by our businesses and residents. Because this is beyond the direct
control of the City, it adds to the challenge of both planning and funding transportation
improvements.
Project Description
The purpose of the Circulation Element is to establish the City's goals, objectives and
policies for the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares,
transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other public utilities
and facilities, all correlated with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Circulation
Element is intended to provide an assessment of the levels at which the existing circulation
infrastructure operates, and forecast future infrastructure needs based upon anticipated
future land use development in accordance with the Land Use Element of the City's
General Plan.
The goal of the Circulation Element is to spell out the means by which the City will identify
a system capable of responding to the growth that is occurring and that will occur during
the life of the plan (2025) consistent with the Land Use Plan presented in the Land Use
Element of the General Plan.
STAFF REPORT: September 7, 2004
Page 3
The Draft Circulation Element summarizes the key findings of the traffic analysis completed
for the project. By nature, a Circulation Element is more general than the traffic report. Its
purpose is not to provide detailed solutions to every specific traffic problem in the City, but
to establish the framework for future infrastructure planning. The following are the
proposed changes to the existing Circulation Element:
Changes in Roadway Designations
• Deleting the previously planned portion of Mariposa Street between Douglas Street
and Aviation Boulevard.
• Deleting the previously planned portion of Grand Avenue between Douglas Street
and Aviation Boulevard.
• Deleting the east -west secondary arterial between Hughes Way and Douglas
Street.
• Deleting Nash Street as a secondary arterial between El Segundo Boulevard and
Park Place. This action would also result in deleting the truck route along this
segment.
• Converting Nash Street from a one -way southbound street to a two -way secondary
arterial between Imperial Highway and El Segundo Boulevard.
• Converting Douglas Street from a one -way northbound street to a two -way
secondary arterial between Imperial Highway and El Segundo Boulevard.
• Retention of the Grand Avenue truck route between Main Street and Sepulveda
Boulevard in the Recommended Truck Route Plan.
• Re- designation of Park Place between Nash Street and Douglas Street from a
street classification as a local commercial street to a collector street.
Physical Changes in Roadway Confiqurations
• Developing a street system within the site located on the northeast corner of the
intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue (the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans site) consistent with the development concept of that site. It
is expected that there will be a north - south, two -lane, albeit circuitous, roadway
connection between El Segundo Boulevard and Park Place in lieu of the Nash
Street secondary arterial (to be deleted). This connection may not be a linear route
and may entail several turns. A two -lane, east -west collector street connection
between Sepulveda Boulevard and Nash Street along a new alignment would be
provided through the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site.
• Converting Nash Street from a one -way southbound street to a two -way secondary
arterial between Imperial Highway and El Segundo Boulevard.
• Converting Douglas Street from a one -way northbound street to a two -way
secondary arterial between Imperial Highway and El Segundo Boulevard.
• Intersection modifications along Nash and Douglas Streets associated with the
change from one -way to two -way operation.
• Incorporation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements onto the
roadway network.
STAFF REPORT: September 7, 2004 Page 4
Intersection Improvements and Revisions to Circulation Element Policies
The proposed Circulation Element Update includes planned intersection
improvements designed to achieve LOS D or better. The proposed project includes
modifications to Circulation Element policies that would limit potential intersection
improvements to those that can be feasibly implemented, by limiting lane additions
beyond the existing right -of -way to those that would not affect buildings, freeway
supports or railroad rights -of -way.
Creation of a significance threshold policy for development project review.
There is a discussion of each of these topics in the draft Circulation Element. Additionally,
staff has reviewed the goals, objectives and policies in the Circulation Element and has
proposed a number of changes to consolidate and clarify several policies. Most
importantly, staff is proposing Policy C3 -1.2 which would formally establish the significance
threshold for use in evaluating the impacts of development on the roadway network. The
proposed threshold would consider a proiect to create a significance impact if it causes a
Level of Service (LOS) to deteriorate from LOS D or better to LOS E or F. If an intersection
is already operating at a deficient level of LOS E or F, a two percent increase in traffic
would be considered a significant impact.
Another policy change of note would be in C4 -3.2. If adopted, this policy would direct the
City to update its Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Program. Since the proposed
Circulation Element contains an updated list of intersection improvement projects, which
will require funding, an update of the fee program study could create a mechanism to raise
funds from developers to pay for a portion of these improvements.
Methodology, Assumptions, and Analysis
Staff and the consultants began work on the Circulation Element by preparing methodology
and a set of data assumptions that would be used in preparing the traffic model to study
the traffic that would be forecast for the year 2025. This review included determining the list
of intersections to study, identifying major projects to incorporate into the background
growth (i.e., LAX expansion, Playa Vista, Campus El Segundo, LAAFB expansion, etc.),
reviewing the use of data from the Southern California Association of Governments'
(SCAG) regional transportation model for regional through traffic inputs, reviewing
inventories of vacant and recyclable land in the City to assess future buildout, and
reviewing previous assumptions regarding planned roadway extensions and the conversion
of the Nash - Douglas one -way couplet to two -way operations. The City Council reviewed
the methodology and assumptions at its February 4, 2003 meeting and approved a working
set of assumptions for the traffic modeling to begin.
Traffic Model
The next step in the update process was for Kimley -Horn and Associates to prepare the
traffic model and present the results of the validation process to the City Council. The
validation process is intended to make sure the traffic model will accurately predict future
traffic growth by comparing the results of the model inputs versus the current traffic levels
which were measured by new counts of all signalized intersections in the City. The model
was also run against the projected buildout in the existing General Plan. This analysis
provided a point of comparison for the projected future traffic that would be expected from
014
STAFF REPORT: September 7, 2004 Page 5
the new Circulation Element assumptions.
accurate forecasts as well. On August 5, 2003, the Council reviewed the results of the
validation effort and directed staff to begin the traffic modeling for three land use scenarios
that it wanted studied as part of the update process.
Development Densitv Scenarios
In an effort to address the density concerns of many stakeholders that were raised in the
aborted Circulation Element update process initiated in 1998, the Council directed staff to
study three different land use buildout scenarios in the Mixed -Use North (MU -N) and
Corporate Office (CO) Zones. The three Floor Area Ratio (FAR) scenarios (0.8, 1.0, and
1.3) would help the decision makers understand if lowering or raising the density limitations
in these two zones would significantly affect the future traffic volumes in the City. Floor
area ratio is the ratio between building size and lot size. The larger the permitted FAR the
larger the development may be on a given size property.
Staff returned to the City Council with the results of the traffic modeling on October 8,
2003. At that time staff presented a comparison of the three land use alternative scenarios,
which also included a comparison with a "No Land Use Change" scenario. The results from
the traffic model concluded that traffic would increase approximately 20 -50 percent
(depending on the intersection) between now and 2025. The difference in traffic volume
between the three land use scenarios was approximately 2 -11 % depending on the location
within the City. After reviewing the comparative impacts of each land use scenario, the
consensus of the City Council was to select the "No Land Use Change" scenario as the
proposed project that would be studied in the Environmental Impact Report. The Council
concluded that the there were not sufficiently significant traffic improvements that would be
derived from reducing the density in the MU -N and CO Zone versus leaving the current
land use densities in place.
Level of Service (LOS)
The draft Circulation Element summarizes the existing traffic conditions in the City using
Level of Service (LOS) criteria; defines the type of street network that would be appropriate
to serve the community though the proposed Master Plan of Streets; and analyzes howthe
proposed network will perform in handling the traffic that could be generated though the
buildout of the City as permitted in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. Level of
Service (LOS) measures the volume of traffic compared to the capacity of the roadway.
Roadways with LOS A, B, C, and D are generally considered to be acceptable levels with
little or no delays. Roadways with LOS E are considered deficient and LOS F means the
volume exceeds the design capacity of the roadway. This criterion should always be
movement at an otherwise well functioning intersection can lower the LOS. Exhibit C -3, C-
4, and C -5 in the draft Circulation Element provide a more detailed discussion of LOS
criteria.
Environmental Review
The Draft EIR discusses the environmental impacts associated with each of the proposed
project elements (i.e., conversion of Nash - Douglas one -way coupletto two -way operations,
114N
STAFF REPORT: September 7, 2004 Page 6
mitigation measures where appropriate if a significant impact is likely to be caused by the
project. The EIR only analyzes the impacts of proposed updates to the 1992 Circulation
Element. Impacts from components that remain unchanged in the Circulation Element,
such as the Master Bicycle Plan and public transportation facilities, were addressed in
1992 and are not part of the new EIR. As required by the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the Draft EIR also examines alternatives to the proposed project. There are
four alternatives, including a "no project" alternative, and buildout of the General Plan using
the 0.8, 1.0 and 1.3 FAR scenarios.
The Draft EIR concluded that there would be significant and unavoidable traffic and
circulation impacts at six of the 55 studied intersections in the City. No feasible mitigation
measures could be identified which would reduce the traffic impacts at these intersections
to a level of insignificance (see discussion on page IV.B -17 of the DEIR). However, feasible
traffic improvements for five of the six intersections are proposed to help improve traffic
conditions from what they would otherwise be without the proposed Circulation Element.
The sixth intersection (Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue) was recently
improved as part of the Sepulveda Boulevard widening project. Additional improvements
would require significant interagency coordination (i.e., Caltrans and City of Manhattan
Beach) and dedications of land from properties abutting the intersection.
The Draft EIR also identified potentially significant and unavoidable air quality impacts for
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) due to temporary construction activities required for improving
intersections listed in the proposed updates. Similarly, significant and unavoidable
temporary construction noise impacts were also identified for those intersections.
Absent a Statement of Overriding Considerations ( "SOC "), a project forwhich an EIR was
prepared cannot be approved by the City with significant and unavoidable impacts. Here, a
SOC must be adopted relating to the unavoidable significant traffic impacts at six
intersections, construction related NOx impacts, and construction related noise impacts at
five intersections in order to certify the FEIR. An SOC acknowledges that a project has
significant environmental impacts, but finds that other aspects of the project, such as
economic benefits, outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts of the project.
The proposed Circulation Element identifies infrastructure improvements that will help
alleviate traffic impacts caused by growth within the City and caused by regional pass -
through traffic that will occur during the life of the Circulation Element (through 2025). The
proposed Circulation Element anticipates that such improvements, along with the other
modifications, will improve overall traffic conditions in the City when compared to the City's
current Circulation Element. The proposed SOC contains findings that benefits of these
improvements for traffic flow and economic development outweigh the temporary
significant construction related air quality and noise impacts.
While there will be unavoidable temporary construction related air quality and noise
impacts due to the improvements incorporated into the proposed Circulation Element, the
long -term traffic benefits from the improvements identified in the DEIR, as stated in the
SOC, outweigh the temporary impacts. Improved traffic flow will help reduce air quality
impacts over time. Additionally, none of the construction related noise impacts would be
adjacent to residential uses in El Segundo.
Ten letters commenting on the Draft EIR were submitted during the public review period
015
STAFF REPORT: September 7, 2004 Page 7
Responses to these comments are included in the Final EIR, which was available for public
review on August 27, 2004.
Plannina Commission Hearin
The Planning Commission held its public hearing on the Circulation Element update on
August 12, 2204 and August 26, 2004. At these hearings the Commission took public
testimony, reviewed the Draft EIR, and considered the proposed changes to the Circulation
Element. The Commission's discussion focused on issues related to the conversion of the
Nash - Douglas one -way couplet, efforts the City could take to pursue regional solutions to
the City's traffic issues, "related projects," and residential traffic control.
At least one speaker during the Planning Commission public hearings noted the City's
previous efforts to update the Circulation Element which began in 1998. As mentioned
earlier, the City Council ended that process in 2001. While the assumptions and
information generated during the previous process are not relevant for the current
environmental review process, it is important to note that the 1998 draft Circulation
Element update included several projects not considered by the current proposed project.
Those projects included revisions to Main Street and Smoky Hollow density that are not
part of the current proposed Circulation Element update. Since the 1998 project contained
different data and assumptions than the current proposed project, the environmental
review and methodology was also different. Direct comparisons between the 1998 project
and the current Circulation Element update are therefore inapplicable to the City's current
environmental analysis.
Several commentators raised the issue of how "related" projects are incorporated into the
Circulation Element analysis. The Draft EIR includes Appendix C that listed all of the
approved and reasonably foreseeable projects within the City boundaries that were
incorporated into the traffic forecasts for the year 2025. This included the Campus El
Segundo project, the Los Angeles Air Force Base project, and development on the
Honeywell properties at Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue. This list is also
incorporated into the Final EIR. Since it is virtually impossible to accurately include every
potential project outside the City limits that might contribute pass- through traffic, early on in
the process, the City Council in 2003 directed staff as part of the Circulation Element
update to use the SCAG regional traffic model as the source of traffic generation to
represent regional through traffic. The SCAG model factors in traffic growth throughout the
region based on the actual General Plan of each community. The SCAG model is used in
place of a detailed list of specific projects outside the city (an approach assessing
cumulative impacts per Section 15130 of CEQA). However, due to the size of the LAX
Master Plan and Playa Vista project, and their proximity to the City, the specific traffic
impacts expected from those two projects were also factored into the growth projections.
While other individual projects outside the City are not specifically analyzed, their effects
on traffic in the City are accounted for in the SCAG model, to the extent that these projects
are built in conformance with the approved General Plans that are the basis of the SCAG
model.
Based on testimony given at the Planning Commission hearing, staff added text to the draft
Circulation Element to describe the summer beach shuttle (page 4 -32) and to acknowledge
that private companies operate several employee shuttles between their facilities in town
which helps reduce traffic (page 4 -39). Staff also revised Exhibit C -9 and the text on page
01.6
STAFF REPORT: September 7, 2004
Page 8
4 -18 to depict the additional intersection improvements that are proposed to supplement
the planned improvements already identified in the existing Circulation Element (as studied
in the traffic analysis and the EIR).
Conclusion
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the draft Resolution approving Environmental
Assessment No. 579 with a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt General
Plan Amendment No. 02 -1.
P:\Planning & Building Safety\Projects\576- 599 \Ea - 579 \9- 7- 04.ais.final.doc
017
Exhibit A with 3 attachments
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 579
AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 02 -1, ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND AMENDING
THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE EL SEGUNDO GENERAL
PLAN.
The City Council of the City of El Segundo does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that:
A. On December 1, 1992, the City of El Segundo Adopted a General Plan for
the years 1992 -2010;
B. On December 1, 1992, the City of El Segundo certified a Final
Environmental Impact Report and adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations for the El Segundo General Plan pursuant to Ordinance
No. 1189;
C. The Circulation Element is a required element of the City's General Plan.
Government Code § 65302(b) requires that a Circulation Element consist
of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major
thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and
ports, and other local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the
General Plan's Land Use Element. To fulfill this goal, the Circulation
Element creates a plan for constructing arterial, residential, and collector
roads; intersections; traffic volume; and other, similar, matters which,
together, create a system capable of responding to urban growth within
the City's jurisdiction;
D. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a)(1), the City Council
began environmental review in 1998 for updating the City's Circulation
Element. While the City determined that updating the Circulation Element
of the General Plan was desirable, California law does not impose a
particular time period for such updates;
E. These efforts continued in 2002 in order to provide a Circulation Element
reflecting the existing traffic conditions and making reasonable forecasts
of anticipated future traffic conditions in the City;
F. The proposed Circulation Element contains descriptions of the general
location and extent of proposed major thoroughfares, transportation
routes, terminals, military facilities, airports and other local public utilities.
1
013
All of these facilities are correlated with the Land Use Element of the
General Plan as required by Government Code § 65302(b);
G. The proposed Circulation Element includes modifications to the roadway
designations, physical changes to roadway configurations, identification of
specific intersection improvements, and revisions to the City's goals,
objectives and policies;
K The City reviewed the project's environmental impacts under the California
Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.,
"CEQA"), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of
Regulations § §15000, et seq., the "CEQA Guidelines "), and the City's
Environmental Guidelines (City Council Resolution No. 3805, adopted
March 16, 1993);
I. During the preparation of the Circulation Element update, the public, civic
organizations, public agencies and other community groups were provided
the opportunity to participate in the preparation of the Circulation Element
update at scoping meetings held on June 5, 2002 and June 25, 2002; and
at City Council meetings held on September 17, 2002, November 19,
2002, February 4, 2003, August 5, 2003, and October 8, 2003 as required
by Government Code § 65351;
J. A duly noticed public hearing was scheduled before the Planning
Commission for August 12, 2004 to receive public comment regarding the
DEIR and Circulation Element update;
K. On August 12, 2004 the Commission opened a public hearing to receive
public testimony and other evidence regarding the application including,
without limitation, information provided to the Commission by City staff.
There were no public speakers at that time and the Planning Commission
continued the public hearing to August 26, 2004;
L. At the continued public hearing on August 26, 2004, the Commission
considered the evidence submitted to the record including, without
limitation, testimony from the public, the City's third -party consultant, and
City staff. The Commission adopted Resolution No. 2572 recommending
approval of the proposed project based upon the evidence presented to
the Commission at its August 12, 2004 and August 26, 2004 hearings
including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by the Community,
Economic and Development Services Department;
M. On September 7, 2004 the City Council conducted a public hearing to
receive public testimony and other evidence regarding the application
including, without limitation, information provided to the Commission by
City staff; and,
z 0.19
N. At the public hearing, the City Council considered the evidence submitted
to the record including, without limitation, testimony from the public, the
City's third -party consultant, and City staff. This Resolution is made based
upon the evidence presented to the City Council at its September 7, 2004
public hearing including, without limitation, the staff report submitted by
the Community, Economic and Development Services Department.
SECTION 2: Environmental Assessment. The City Council makes the following
environmental findings:
A. The purpose for amending the Circulation Element (the "Project ") is to
refine and make appropriate adjustments to the programs, future traffic
forecasts, goals, policies, and objectives in order to address concerns
raised by the community about future traffic growth in the City;
B. CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a)(1) requires environmental review for
amendments to the City's General Plan;
C. An Initial Study and Notice of Preparation were prepared pursuant to the
requirements of CEQA. The Notice of Preparation of the DEIR was
circulated for public review between December 30, 2003 and January 29,
2004. A revised Notice of Preparation was prepared and circulated for
public review from May 7, 2004 to June 7, 2004. The Initial Study found
that the project could cause significant environmental impacts;
D. Accordingly, a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") was
prepared by Christopher A. Joseph and Associates under contract to the
City and under the supervision of the City Community, Economic and
Development Services Department and circulated for public review and
comment between June 25, 2004 and August 9, 2004. A Notice of
Completion was filed with the State Clearinghouse on June 25, 2004;
E. The City received ten comments on the DEIR from public agencies,
groups and individuals;
F. A Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") was prepared, which
includes the DEIR, comments regarding the DEIR and written responses
to such comments, a summary of changes to the DEIR, and all technical
appendices;
G. The FEIR for the proposed Project, entitled "El Segundo Circulation
Element Project Update Final Environmental Impact Report", prepared by
Christopher A. Joseph and Associates under contract to the City and
under the supervision of the City Community, Economic and Development
Services Department on June 25, 2004 (State Clearinghouse No.
020
2004011012), is incorporated by reference;
H. The City, acting as lead agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary
the Draft EIR and the Final El to reflect its own independent judgment to
the extent of its ability, including reliance on City technical personnel from
other departments as well as professional consultants retained by the City
in order to provide technical advice an assistance in evaluating
environmental impacts associated with the Project.
I. Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21082.1(c)(3), the City Council
independently reviewed and analyzed the FEIR. Based upon that review
and analysis, and recommendations made by the City's Planning Agency
as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2572, the City Council
finds the FEIR is an accurate and complete statement of the potential
environmental impacts resulting from the Project. The FEIR reflects the
City's independent judgment as lead agency;
J. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15091, any changes or alterations
required for the Project, or incorporated into the Project, which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect are identified for
the FEIR. Any potential changes or alterations that may be made to the
proposed mitigation measures are addressed and analyzed in the FEIR;
K. The DEIR and FEIR were made available for public review and comment
in the time and manner prescribed by CEQA;
L. The FEIR generally concluded that, with mitigation, the Project would not
have a significant, adverse effect on the environment. Those mitigation
measures are desirable and feasible;
M. The FEIR also identified three environmental impacts that cannot be
mitigated:
1. Traffic impacts at six City intersections;
2. Temporary construction related Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions;
and
3. Temporary construction related noise impacts. The temporary
construction impacts would arise from the construction of planned
roadway and intersection improvements proposed in the Circulation
Element;
N. Based upon a review of all relevant matters in the record, the City Council
finds that the proposed construction of planned roadway and intersection
improvements will improve the overall circulation system of the City and
4 021
reduce long -term air quality impacts. Therefore, the temporary
construction impacts are offset by the long -term benefits;
O. In accordance with § 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, the record on which
the City Council's findings are based is located at the Community,
Economic and Development Services Department, City of El Segundo,
350 Main Street, El Segundo, California 90245. The custodian of records
is the Director of Community, Economic and Development Services;
P. There is no evidence that the project will have the potential for an adverse
effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends,
because the project is in a built -out urban environment;
Q. The City reviewed the FEIR for the project and considered the public
record on the project, including, without limitation, the following:
1. Staff reports prepared by the Community, Economic and
Development Services Department and the DEIR and FEIR
prepared by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates for the City;
2. Staff presentations at public hearings and meetings;
3. All applicable regulations and codes;
4. Public comments, both written and oral, received and /or submitted
at or prior to the public hearings and meetings, supporting or
opposing the proposed project; and,
5. All related documents received and /or submitted at or before the
public hearings;
R. Because of the facts identified in this Resolution, specifically the creation
of significant unavoidable environmental impacts as described above, the
FEIR found that a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be
required in order for the project to be approved.
SECTION 3: General Plan. The proposed project conforms with the City's General
Plan as follows:
A. The proposed Circulation Element General Plan Amendment is consistent
with the 1992 General Plan, as amended, since it provides a set of goals,
objectives and policies to implement a traffic circulation system in the City
capable of supporting the urban development anticipated in the Land Use
Element of the General Plan;
B. The proposed Circulation Element would not create an internal
5 022
inconsistency within the General Plan; and,
C. The proposed Circulation Element, in conjunction with the existing
General Plan, comprises an integrated and compatible statement of
policies.
SECTION 4: Approvals.
A. The City Council adopts Findings of Facts and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations as set forth in attached Exhibit 'A," which are incorporated
into this Resolution by reference;
B. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code §§ 21081(a)
and 21081.6, the City Council adopts a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (MMRP) as set forth in attached Exhibit "B," which is incorporated
into this Resolution by reference. The City Council adopts each of the
mitigation measures expressly set forth in the MMRP as conditions of
approval of the proposed project;
C. The City Council certifies that FEIR SCH No. 2004011012, dated June 2004
for Environmental Assessment No. 579 and General Plan Amendment No.
02 -1 is adequate and was completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.; and,
D. The City Council amends Chapter 4 of the El Segundo General Plan, entitled
"Circulation Element," in its entirety as set forth in attached "Exhibit C," which is
incorporated by reference.
SECTION 5: Reliance on Record. Each and all of the findings and determinations in
this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and
written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and
determinations constitute the independent findings and determinations of the City
Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in
the record as a whole.
SECTION 6: Limitations. The City Council's analysis and evaluation of the project is
based on the best information currently available. It is inevitable that in evaluating a
project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not
exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the City Council's lack of
knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form
accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability
to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City
must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations
inherent in that framework.
023
SECTION 7: Summaries of Information. All summaries of information in the findings,
which precede this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The
absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a
particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
SECTION 8: This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent
resolution.
SECTION 9: According to the El Segundo Municipal Code, a copy of this Resolution
will be mailed to any person requesting a copy.
SECTION 10: This Resolution is the City Council's final decision and becomes effective
thirty (30) days from its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of September 2004.
Kelly McDowell, Mayor
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
Resolution No. 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 7th day of September, 2004, and the same was so passed and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
/_T:T. -1L1NTa
Cindy Mortesen, City Clerk
PAPlanning & Building Safety\Projects\576- 599 \Ea -579)
024
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No.
Exhibit A
After receiving, reviewing, and considering all the information in the administrative
record for this matter, including, without limitation, the factual information and
conclusions set forth in this Resolution and its attachment, the City Council finds,
determines, and declares as follows:
I. FINDINGS REQUIRED BY CEQA.
Public Resources Code § 21081 and CEQA Guidelines § 15091 require the City, before
approving a project, to identify significant impacts of the project and, if significant
impacts are identified, make one or more of three allowable findings based upon
substantial evidence in the record for each significant impact:
A. The first allowable finding is that 'changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR" (CEQA
Guidelines § 15091(a)(1)).
B. The second allowable finding is that "such changes or alterations are
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the
agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other
agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency" (CEQA Guidelines
§ 15091(a)(2)).
C. The third allowable finding is that "specific economic, social, or other
considerations make unfeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives
identified in the Final EIR" (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3)).
II. FINDINGS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF
THE PROJECT.
A. Potential Impacts Found to be Insignificant by the Initial Study.
The Initial Study identified the following environmental effects as not potentially
significant. Accordingly, the City Council finds that the Initial Study, the FEIR, and the
record of proceedings in this matter do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to the areas listed
below.
1. Agricultural Resources
2. Mineral Resources.
3. Public Services
4. Recreation
1
025
Q
Although the Initial Study identified the following environmental effects as potentially
significant, the City Council finds that the Initial Study, the FEIR, and the record of
proceedings in this matter do not identify or contain substantial evidence identifying
significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to the areas listed below.
1. Aesthetics.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The City of El Segundo is an urban environment.
Most of the City is built out with urban uses, with a small
portion of the developed area in parkland, recreational uses,
and open space, much of which is located along public utility
and railroad right -of -ways.
(2) The City does not contain any notable landforms or
natural areas that would be considered scenic resources or
would comprise scenic vistas.
(3) The Pacific Ocean is located along the western
boundary of the City. The Pacific Ocean touches the City
boundary at the site of the Chevron Oil Refinery. North of
the refinery, along the coast but not within the El Segundo
City limits, are the City of Los Angeles Hyperion Wastewater
Treatment Plant and the Department of Water and Power
Scattergood Generating Station. These facilities generally
work to obscure any type of scenic view of the Pacific Ocean
available from the City.
(4) No designated state scenic highways are located in
the City of El Segundo. No notable scenic resources are
present in the City.
(5) The conversion of Nash and Douglas Streets from
one -way to two -way operation, the addition of roadways or
improvement of intersections would not substantially change
the visual character of areas within the City. The proposed
modifications to roadways resulting from implementation of
the Circulation Element roadway designations do not include
massive structures such as bridges, fly -over ramps or large
under- or overpasses that could potentially result in
substantial changes in the visual environment. While
development of an underpass may be required for the Park
Place extension, it would be located underground and would
not change the existing visual landscape. Impacts are
anticipated to be limited to additional traffic signals, roadway
markings or additional street lanes that would be consistent
with the visual character of existing roadways.
2 0 26
b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce
impacts below a level of significance.
C) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record
of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to Aesthetics.
2. Air Quality.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) Implementation of the proposed project would not
have the potential to create odors. The proposed project
consists of reconfiguration of existing roadways and
intersection improvements in certain locations throughout the
City. The project would not generate additional traffic on
existing roadways. Only one new road would be created.
Specific air quality impacts associated with the construction
of this road would be addressed under the EIR being
prepared for the Plaza El Segundo development. The
proposed project does not include substantial odor
generating uses, such as industrial processes, landfills or
wastewater treatment plants.
b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce
impacts below a level of significance.
C) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record
of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to Air Quality.
3. Biological Resources.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The City is a highly urbanized area with only a small
portion of the City undeveloped. There are no known locally
designated natural communities or conservation plans in the
City. The proposed project would not conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation plans.
b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce
impacts below a level of significance.
C) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record
of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to Biological Resources.
3 0 2 i,
4. Cultural Resources.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) Development of the proposed project will not disturb
any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries.
b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce
impacts below a level of significance.
C) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record
of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to Cultural Resources — Human Remains.
5. Geology and Soil.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The City is located within the seismically active
Southern California region and is subject to similar risks from
seismic activity as other communities in the region.
According to the City's General Plan, no known active or
potentially active faults are located within the City. The
proposed project includes the construction of a structure,
specifically the underpass for Park Place associated with its
extension to Sepulveda Boulevard. The only seismic effect
that could be associated with the proposed project would be
as a result of ground rupture and seismic shaking.
(2) The City is located in the vicinity of the San Andreas
Fault Zone, the Newport- Inglewood Fault Zone, the
Cucamonga Fault Zone, the Whittier - Elsinore Fault Zone,
and the San Jacinto Fault Zone.
(3) Roadways and intersection improvements associated
with the proposed project could be affected by ground
shaking as a result from seismic activity on these, as well as
other fault systems located in Southern California.
(4) The only structure associated with the proposed
project is the construction of the Park Place underpass.
Construction of this structure would not expose people or
structures to the adverse effects of seismic groundshaking
greater than those typically encountered in the Southern
California region. In addition, construction of this structure
would be accomplished in accordance with all applicable
building regulations.
(5) The proposed project would not involve use of
wastewater disposal systems. No impact is anticipated.
a 02�
b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce
impacts below a level of significance.
c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record
of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to Geology and Soils.
6. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The proposed project would not involve the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
(2) The proposed project will not result in a release of
hazardous materials into the environment because it would
not involve the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials. Only one new road would be constructed under
this project. The road would connect Park Place to
Sepulveda Boulevard through the property located at the
northeast corner of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans
Avenue. This road is not anticipated to be used for the
transport of hazardous materials.
(3) The proposed project would not involve the transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials and would therefore
not emit hazardous or acutely hazardous materials within a
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The only
new road proposed under this project would be constructed
on the property located at the northeast corner of the
intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue.
No schools are located within a quarter mile of this site.
(4) The City of El Segundo is located directly south of
LAX. The proposed project does not include the
construction of structures that would have the potential to
conflict with the existing airport land use. Any new streets
lights added to the City street system would be shielded and
would be aimed towards the ground. They would not
interfere with the operation of LAX. Compliance with the City
of El Segundo General Plan and any FAA requirements
would result in less than significant impacts from safety
hazards for people utilizing the roadways or intersections
included under the proposed project.
(5) There are no private airstrips located within the City of
El Segundo.
(6) The proposed project would be required to conform to
all applicable City of El Segundo emergency response
5
020
and /or emergency evacuation plans. The proposed project
would be required to comply with all applicable Fire
Department and Public Works Department regulations
pertaining to emergency access and evacuation during
construction.
(7) The City is an urbanized area and is not situated near
wildlands.
b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce
impacts below a level of significance.
C) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record
of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
7. Hydrology and Water Quality.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The proposed project does not propose any
groundwater wells or pumping activities. All water supplied
to any site requiring irrigation will be derived from the City's
existing water supply and infrastructure. Though the
proposed project may result in a slight increase in the
amount of impervious surface in the City through
construction of additional paved roadway and intersection
areas, it would not be substantial enough to interfere with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level.
(2) The proposed project would not include any other
potential sources of runoff pollution that could substantially
degrade water quality, other than those discussed in the
preceding sections. No impact would result.
(3) The proposed project does not involve the
construction of any housing. According to the General Plan,
apart from coastal storm surges, the City is not prone to
flooding during 100 -year storm events.
(4) The City is not located within a 100 -year flood zone.
The facilities that would be built as part of the proposed
project do not include structures that would impede or
redirect flood flows that could occur as part of coastal storm
surges.
s 030
(5) There are no major dams located within the City or
upstream of the City that would expose people or structures
to risk of loss, injury or death as a result of flooding.
b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce
impacts below a level of significance.
C) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record
of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to Hydrology and Water Quality.
8. Land Use.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The proposed project would result in construction of
roadways in an existing street system and modification of
existing streets and intersections. New roadways would not
divide an established community.
(2) The City is a highly urbanized area with only a small
portion of the City undeveloped. There are no known locally
designated natural communities on the site or in the project
vicinity and there are no habitat or natural communities
conservation plans in effect in the City.
b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce
impacts below a level of significance.
C) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record
of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to land use.
9. Noise.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The City of El Segundo is located directly south of
LAX. However, the proposed project would not include
residences or employment locations that would result in
exposure of people to excessive noise levels from airport
operations.
(2) There are no private airstrips located in the City of El
Segundo. Additionally, the proposed project would not
provide places of employment or residence. Therefore, the
project would not expose persons to excessive noise levels
associated with a private airstrip.
' 031
HO
11
b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce
impacts below a level of significance.
C) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record
of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to noise.
Population, Housing, and Employment.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The proposed project would not require the
acquisition of property containing housing. Therefore no
displacement of housing would occur and the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere would not be required.
(2) The proposed project would not require the
acquisition of property containing housing. Therefore no
displacement of people would occur and the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere would not be required.
b) Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required to reduce
impacts below a level of significance.
c) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record
of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to population and housing.
Transportation and Circulation.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) Because the proposed project only includes roadway
and intersection improvements, implementation of the
project would not have the potential to result in a change in
air traffic patterns at the Los Angeles International Airport or
any other airport in the area.
(2) The proposed project would modify the street system.
The proposed project would not directly or indirectly cause
an increase in hazards to a design feature, but would instead
change the street system to accommodate projected traffic
growth and minimize dangerous street conditions.
(3) The proposed project includes modification of the
street system. Design of roadway and intersection
modifications will be undertaken by the City's Public Works
Department and must comply with all Fire Department
requirements regarding emergency access.
034'
(4) The proposed project includes the modification of the
street system. The proposed project would not result in the
need for parking.
(5) The proposed project would not conflict with adopted
goals and policies supporting alternative transportation. The
Bicycle Master Plan would not be affected by the proposed
project. Any development of the proposed project would be
required to adhere to applicable policies or programs
supporting alternative transportation.
b) No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts
below a level of significance.
C) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record
of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to transportation and circulation.
12. Utilities and Service Systems.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The proposed project would not involve the
development of any facilities that would generate
wastewater. Therefore, the project would not impact any
wastewater treatment requirements of the Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
(2) Wastewater conveyance and treatment in the project
area is under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles County
Sanitation Districts. The proposed project would not involve
the development of any facilities that would generate
wastewater and would not require or result in the
construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities.
(3) The City of El Segundo provides water service to the
entire City and projects that it has sufficient supplies
available to serve the City in the future. Implementation of
the proposed project could result in the need for water only
to irrigate landscaping. This additional demand would be
minimal.
(4) The proposed project would not involve developing
any facilities that would generate wastewater. Therefore, the
proposed project would not affect the capacity of any waste
water treatment provider.
(5) Solid waste generated in the City of El Segundo is
disposed in several landfills in Los Angeles County. The
proposed project would not result in a consistent and
s
0 33
substantial generation of solid waste. Construction debris
and a potential increase in littering might result from
modifications proposed by the project.
(6) Except for the disposal of construction debris that
might result from modifications to existing roadways and
potential littering, the proposed project would not involve
solid waste disposal Any disposal would comply with federal,
state and local statues and regulations. No impact would
occur.
b) No mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts
below a level of significance.
C) Finding: The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record
of proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project with
respect to utilities and service systems.
C.
The City Council finds that although the following environmental effects were
identified as potentially significant in the FEIR, changes or alterations within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and not the City have been
adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agency to
avoid or lessen the potential significant environmental effects listed below to a level of
insignificance.
1. Aesthetics.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The proposed changes in roadway designations and the
construction of the new roadway system identified as part of
the El Segundo Circulation Element Update would not
produce a significant lighting impact.
(2) Under the proposed Circulation Element Update,
modifications to 14 intersections are identified to
accommodate growth in future traffic levels in the City.
Implementation of these intersection improvements would
have the potential to, generate increased lighting levels that
could impact light sensitive receptors. These impacts could
occur at up to four intersections that are located near
residential areas by increasing the amount of street lights
and traffic signals in the immediate area. These
intersections include:
• Intersection #12 — Aviation Boulevard/El Segundo
Boulevard (Hollyglen)
10 034
• Intersection #13 — Aviation Boulevard /Utah Avenue
(Hollyglen)
Intersection #25 — Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans
Avenue (Manhattan Beach)
Intersection #50 — El Segundo Boulevard /Isis Avenue
(Del Aire and Hollyglen)
(3) The Bright Horizons Day Care would not be impacted by
increased night lighting as it is a daytime use.
b) Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) Subsequent environmental documentation must be
prepared for any intersection improvement project proposed
at any of the following four intersections: Aviation
Boulevard/El Segundo Boulevard; Aviation Boulevard /Utah
Avenue; Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue; El
Segundo Boulevard /Isis Avenue; to identify potential impacts
on sensitive receptors that could result from additional
lighting. The subsequent environmental documentation
must address the following:
Before constructing specific intersection improvements,
impacts associated with increased night lighting in the
area must be examined in light of this Program EIR to
determine whether a new Initial Study would be required
to be prepared leading to either an EIR or Negative
Declaration. This examination must address the potential
of the subsequent activity to increase ambient lighting
levels beyond the threshold identified in the Program
EIR. The analysis must incorporate the mitigation
measures identified below as appropriate.
C) Mitigation:
(1) Street lights must be designed and located to
minimize spill over of light into residential areas (C -1).
(2) New lighting sources must be shielded to direct light
downward and not toward the sky to minimize atmospheric
light pollution (C -2).
d) Finding:
(1) Impacts of the conversion of Nash and Douglas
Streets from one -way to two -way operations and intersection
improvements, with the exception of the four listed above,
would be less than significant.
11
03
(2) Impacts of the improvements at the four intersections
identified above would be determined by the subsequent
environmental documentation.
(3) The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project
with respect to Aesthetics.
2. Air Quality.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) Minimal or no construction emissions would be
expected to result from the conversion of Nash and Douglas
Streets from one -way to two -way, as this activity would occur
within the existing right -of -way and would involve only
restriping of the existing roadway and possible installation of
new street lighting or traffic signal poles (i.e., no major
grading or construction activity required), or from the deletion
of roadways from the Circulation Element network. Impacts
from construction emissions associated with these
components of the proposed Circulation Element Update
would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would be less
than significant.
(2) The proposed Circulation Element Update would not
result in any increase in traffic utilizing the City's Circulation
Element roadway network. Therefore, no additional regional
emissions would occur as a result of the proposed
Circulation Element Update and no impacts related to
regional air emissions would occur.
(3) One -hour CO concentrations would range from
approximately 6.4 ppm to 10.3 ppm at worst -case sidewalk
receptors. Eight -hour CO concentrations are anticipated to
range from approximately 4.4 ppm to 7.1 ppm. The State
one- and eight -hour standards of 20.0 ppm and 9.0 ppm,
respectively, would not be exceeded at worst -case sidewalk
receptor locations at the study intersections. Thus, a less
than significant impact is anticipated at the study
intersections. In addition, because the intersections with the
highest levels of traffic and congestion (Imperial /Sepulveda
and Aviation /Rosecrans) would not exceed the State
standard, other intersections in the City would also not
exceed the standard. Impacts related to CO concentrations
would be less than significant.
(4) The proposed Circulation Element Update would
accommodate future traffic levels without resulting in
12 036
violations of state standards for CO. Therefore the proposed
Circulation Element Update would be consistent with the
2003 AQMP.
(5) Impacts of the proposed Circulation Element Update
with respect to regional emissions and localized CO
concentrations would be less than significant.
b) Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
• No subsequent environmental documentation is required
for conversion of Nash and Douglas Streets from one -
way to two -way operation.
C) Mitigation:
(1) Because of the limited construction activity that would
be associated with the conversion of Nash and Douglas
Streets from one -way to two -way operation, no mitigation
measures are required for this component of the proposed
Circulation Element Update
d) Finding:
(1) Construction impacts associated with the conversion
of Nash and Douglas Streets from one -way to two -way
operation would be less than significant.
(2) The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project
with respect to Air Quality.
3. Biological Resources.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) No impacts to biological resources would occur with
the changes in roadway designations as they would not
result in a physical change to the existing environment.
(2) The changes to and along Nash Street and Douglas
Street would not impact biological resources. The entire
area adjacent to these streets is completely developed and
does not contain any sensitive biological resources. No
sensitive or endangered plant or animal species, including
the El Segundo Blue Butterfly, exist in this area, no
riparian /wetland habitat is present, and the area is not known
to be a wildlife corridor. Therefore, no biological resource
impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the roadway
changes and modifications along Nash Street and Douglas
Street.
13 037
(3) The development of a roadway network on the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans site has the potential to significantly
impact biological resources. This area may contain
wetlands /riparian habitat or vernal pools that could
potentially be affected by construction of new roadways. In
addition, this site may include other species in areas that
have not been disturbed.
(4) Most of the intersections where the identified
intersection improvements would be implemented are
located in areas that are completely developed and contain
no biological resources. However, intersection #25
(Sepulveda/ Rosecrans) is located in an area that has or
may have biological resources. Any modifications to this
intersection would have a potentially significant impact.
b) Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) Subsequent environmental documentation must be
prepared for any proposed construction of a new roadway
system on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site and any proposed
improvements to the Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans
Avenue intersection to identify potential biological resources
impacts. Before constructing new roadways on the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans site and any proposed improvements
to the Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue intersection,
impacts associated with biological resources must be
examined in light of this Program EIR to determine whether
a new Initial Study would be required to be prepared leading
to either an EIR or Negative Declaration. The subsequent
environmental documentation must address the following:
• A general biological assessment must be conducted to
determine the presence /absence of sensitive biological
resources and wetlands. If sensitive biological resources
are identified, measures must be identified to reduce
impacts to these resources to less than significant levels.
c) Mitigation:
(a) Impacts of the conversion of Nash and Douglas
Streets from one -way to two -way operations and the other
components of the Circulation Element Update, except as
identified above, would be less than significant and no
mitigation measures are required.
d) Finding:
(a) Impacts of the conversion of Nash and Douglas
Streets from one -way to two -way operations and the other
14 038
components of the Circulation Element Update, except as
identified above, would be less than significant.
(b) Impacts of the improvements at the Sepulveda
Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue intersection and the roadway
network on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site would be
determined by the subsequent environmental
documentation.
(c) The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project
with respect to Biological Resources.
4. Cultural Resources.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) No impacts to historic, archaeological, or
paleontological resources are anticipated as a result of
converting Nash and Douglas Streets from one -way to two -
way operation as this activity would take place within the
existing right -of -way.
(2) The development of a roadway network on the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans site could impact subsurface
archaeological resources as the site is relatively
undeveloped. Archaeological resource 19- 186856 is located
on the northeastern portion of the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site
and could be affected by the new roadway network. In
addition, it is unknown whether paleontological resources
exist on this site. Construction of the remainder of the north -
south connection between Hughes Way and El Segundo
Boulevard could also affect archaeological and /or
paleontological resources. This would be a potentially
significant impact.
(3) No historic resources have been identified and
therefore, no impacts to historic resources are anticipated.
(4) Implementation of the identified intersection
improvements at the 14 identified intersections could
potentially impact archaeological resources located near
these intersections. At all of the intersections requiring the
implementation of traffic mitigation measures, the potential
exists to encounter and disturb previously unknown,
subsurface cultural resources. These impacts would be
potentially significant.
(5) At all of the intersections requiring the implementation
of intersection improvements, the potential exists to
15 03`)
b)
C)
encounter and disturb previously unknown, subsurface
paleontological resources. These impacts would be
potentially significant.
(6) No historic resources have been identified and
therefore, no impacts to historic resources are anticipated.
Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) Subsequent environmental documentation must be
prepared for any proposed project on the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans site to identify potential impacts to
cultural resources (archaeological, paleontological or
historic). Impacts to cultural resources must be examined in
light of this Program EIR to determine whether a new Initial
Study would be required to be prepared leading either to an
EIR or Negative Declaration. The subsequent environmental
documentation must address the following and must
incorporate mitigation measures identified below as
appropriate:
• A records search and /or Phase I Archaeological Survey
must be conducted by a qualified archaeologist before
the implementation of physical changes to the existing
roadway network, involving the construction of new
roadways. If the survey identifies resources within the
construction area of the roadway, follow on studies must
be conducted in accordance with the recommendations
of the records search before commencement of
construction.
Mitigation:
(a) In the event that archaeological or paleontological
resources are encountered during the course of grading or
construction, all development must temporarily cease in
these areas until the resources are properly assessed and
subsequent recommendations are determined by a qualified
archaeologist (F -1).
d) Finding:
(a) Impacts of the conversion of Nash and Douglas
Streets from one -way to two -way operations would be less
than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
(b) With implementation of the listed mitigation measure,
impacts to cultural resources from intersection improvements
would be less than significant.
16
04u
(c) Impacts from the construction of the new roadway on
the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site would be determined by the
subsequent environmental documentation.
(d) The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project
with respect to cultural resources.
5. Geology and Soil.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The conversion of Nash and Douglas Streets from
one -way to two -way operation would occur within the
existing right -of -way. No removal and compaction of fill
material or grading would occur with the implementation of
this component of the proposed Circulation Element Update.
(2) Removal of existing asphalt, removal and compaction
of fill material, grading of areas for new roadway surfaces,
etc. would expose soils to localized erosion during periods of
high winds and heavy precipitation. Control of waterborne
soil erosion during construction is governed by existing
regulations. Windborne erosion during construction would
constitute a significant impact.
(3) None of the proposed roadway network, including the
conversion of Nash Street and Douglas Street, and the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans site, is located in the high risk area for
liquefaction. In addition, none of the intersections requiring
the implementation of traffic mitigation measures are located
in this high risk area.
(4) The roadway network that would be modified and the
14 intersections where improvements have been identified
are not at risk from landslides.
(5) Both Nash Street and Douglas Street as well as 9 of
the 14 intersections where improvements have been
identified are located within soil types that have a high
shrink/swell potential. However, because the conversion of
Nash and Douglas Streets from one -way to two -way
operation would consist of restriping and minor construction
activities within the existing right -of -way, this component of
the proposed Circulation Element Update would have less
than significant impacts with respect to expansive soils.
(6) Depending upon the configuration and specific
location of the new roads proposed for the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans site, and the location of specific
17 0141
intersection proposed for modification, they may be located
on expansive soils. Roads and intersections could be
damaged by the shrinking and swelling of soils if constructed
on expansive soils, which would be a significant impact.
b) Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) Subsequent environmental documentation must be
prepared for any new roadway construction or intersection
improvement project located within areas with expansive soil
hazards, as listed above. The subsequent environmental
documentation must address the following:
• Before constructing new roadways or specific intersection
improvements, impacts associated with expansive soil
hazards must be examined in light of this Program EIR to
determine whether a new Initial Study would be required
to be prepared leading to either an EIR or Negative
Declaration. The analysis must include a comprehensive
geotechnical investigation which must be submitted as
part of the design process for individual portions of the
proposed Circulation Element Update and must also
incorporate the mitigation measures identified below, as
appropriate.
C) Mitigation:
(1) The following mitigation measures must be
incorporated as appropriate for intersections and roadways
located within areas with expansive soil hazards, as listed
above. Mitigation measure G -3 must apply to all
construction activities associated with the proposed
Circulation Element Update to address wind -borne erosion
impacts. Regulatory requirements to address water - related
erosion impacts are contained in Section IV.H, Hydrology
and Water Quality.
• Specific design recommendations presented in a
comprehensive geotechnical report, discussed above
under Subsequent Environmental Documentation, must
be incorporated into the final design and approved by the
City Engineer and City Council prior to construction (G-
1).
• Specifications for site grading must be subject to
approval by the City Engineer (G -2).
• Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved
surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per hour (mph) (G -3).
18 042
d) Finding:
(1) Impacts associated with the conversion of Nash and
Douglas Streets from one -way to two -way operation would
be less than significant. No mitigation measures are
required.
(2) Impacts at the nine identified intersections and the
new roadway system on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site with
respect to expansive soil would be determined by the
subsequent environmental documentation.
(3) With implementation of Mitigation Measure G -3,
impacts related to wind -borne erosion would be less than
significant.
(4) Impacts from landslides, and liquefaction at the
intersections with identified improvements and the new
roadway system on the Sepulveda/ Rosecrans site would be
less than significant.
(5) The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project
with respect to geology and soils.
6. Hydrology and Water Quality.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) Conversion of Nash and Douglas Streets from one -
way to two -way operation would take place within the
existing right of way and would not involve major
construction activity. Impacts related to water quality during
construction for this component of the proposed Circulation
Element Update would be less than significant.
(2) Construction activities associated with implementation
of the proposed Circulation Element Update would likely
involve clearing and grading of one or more acres (not
including the conversion of Nash and Douglas Streets from
one -way to two -way operations), a General Construction
Activity Storm Water Permit must be obtained from the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) prior to the start
of construction. The NPDES requires that a notice of Intent
(NOI) be filed with the SWRCB. By filing an NOI, the
applicant agrees to the conditions outlined in the General
Permit. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) identifies which best management practices
(BMPs) will be implemented such as sandbag barriers, dust
controls, employee training, and general good housekeeping
19 043
practices. With the implementation of the BMPs, as required
under existing regulations, short-term water quality impacts
would be less than significant.
(3) If not properly designed and constructed, the
proposed Circulation Element Update could increase the
rate of urban pollutant introduction into storm water runoff.
In order to prevent these potential impacts, the project will be
required to be designed in compliance with 1) Section 402
(p) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, or Clean
Water Act (CWA); 2) Order No. 01 -182 of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region, which
regulates the issuance of waste discharge requirements to
Los Angeles County and Cities tributary to the County under
NPDES Permit No. CA0061654; and 3) the County of Los
Angeles Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan
(SUSWMP).
(4) In compliance with the SUSWMP requirements,
modifications to intersections and roadways associated with
the implementation of the proposed Circulation Element
Update would be required to provide for the
treatment/filtration of on -site storm water runoff, before it
enters the public storm water conveyance system, in order to
minimize the introduction of pollutants of concern. In
meeting this specific requirement (i.e., minimization of the
pollutants of concern), implementation activities under the
proposed Circulation Element Update will incorporate a BMP
or combination of BMPs best suited to maximize the
reduction of pollutant loadings. Applicable BMPs will be
selected from those approved sources identified in the
County of Los Angeles Standard Urban Storm Water
Mitigation Plan (SUSWMP). As required by the SUSWMP,
the implemented system must remove 85 percent of such
"first flush" storm water pollutants as hydrocarbon
compounds (i.e., automotive oils, lubricants and other fluids)
deposited, as a matter of course, along the proposed streets.
With compliance with the existing regulatory SUSWMP
requirements, the proposed Circulation Element Update's
operational impacts on storm water quality would be less
than significant.
(5) New roads would be constructed and some existing
intersections could be modified in order to accommodate
future traffic growth. This would increase the amount of
impermeable surfaces within the City and thereby increase
the amount of storm water entering the drainage system. If
the existing or future /planned storm drains cannot
accommodate the increase in storm water flow, flooding
20 044
would occur on roadway segments and in intersections.
Additionally, during the widening of existing roadways, storm
drains currently in place may be impacted by construction
activities or need to be relocated in order to accommodate
the roadway modifications. The proposed conversion of
Nash and Douglas Streets from one -way to two -way
operations would take place within the existing right -of -way
and would not increase storm water runoff.
(6) The areas of the City where physical roadway
changes are proposed and intersections improvements have
been identified are not at risk of impact from tsunamis due to
their distance from the Pacific Ocean and any large bodies
of water. Therefore, no impacts from tsunamis on the new
roadway network and intersection improvements would
occur.
b) Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) Subsequent environmental documentation must be
prepared for any proposed roadway construction or
intersection improvement project at any of the 14
intersections listed below to identify potential impacts on the
storm drain system. Before construction of specific roadway
or intersection improvements, impacts to the storm drain
system must be examined in light of this Program EIR to
determine whether a new Initial Study would be required to
be prepared leading to either an EIR or Negative
Declaration:
• The City must prepare a master drainage plan for any
area of the City affected by implementation of the
proposed Circulation Element Update. This plan must
include detailed hydrology /hydraulic calculations and
drainage improvements, showing quantitatively how the
project that implements the proposed Circulation Element
Update would eliminate the potential for downstream
flooding due to increased storm water runoff.
• The City must design a conveyance and detainment
system to meet the LACDPW limits on storm drains that
would convey the discharge from the new and modified
roadways and intersections.
C) Mitigation:
(a) No specific mitigation measures related to drainage
systems have been identified at this time. The subsequent
environmental documentation described above may identify
21 0 4a
mitigation measures pertinent to a specific roadway or
intersection improvement project.
d) Finding:
(a) Impacts associated with conversion of Nash and
Douglas Streets from one -way to two -way operation would
be less than significant. No mitigation measures are
required.
(b) Impacts to storm water drainage from the construction
of the roadway system on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site and
identified intersection improvements would be determined by
the subsequent environmental documentation.
(c) The City Council finds that the FOR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project
with respect to hydrology and water quality.
7. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) There are several contaminated sites located within
the boundaries of the City of El Segundo. These sites tend
to be concentrated in the industrial and commercial areas of
the City due to the nature of the contamination. These lists
continually change as some sites are cleaned up and others
are identified and it is possible that they could be identified
within residential areas. All of the proposed physical
changes in the roadway network would be located on or near
properties with known contaminated sites. Depending upon
the nature of the individual sites and the extent of roadwork
required, workers could be exposed to these hazardous
substances. This would be a potentially significant impact.
(2) Intersections where traffic improvements have been
identified may also be located on or adjacent to
contaminated sites. Implementation of the traffic mitigation
measures may also expose construction workers and
adjacent bystanders to the site contamination. This would
be a potentially significant impact.
b) Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) Subsequent environmental documentation must be
prepared for any proposed intersection improvements or
construction of new roadways to identify potential impacts
that could result from exposure to contaminated sites.
Impacts associated with contaminated sites must be
22 0 4 6
examined in light of this Program EIR to determine whether
a new Initial Study would be required to be prepared leading
to either an EIR or Negative Declaration. The subsequent
environmental documentation must address the following:
A Phase One Environmental Site Assessment must be
conducted for any of the proposed roadway and
intersection modifications to identify potentially
contaminated sites. If contaminated sites are identified
within the boundaries of the project site, appropriate
measures must be taken to protect the well -being of the
construction workers and the surrounding population.
Investigative and remedial activities undertaken in
accordance with this requirement must be undertaken
under the oversight and to the satisfaction of the
cognizant regulatory agency(ies) including but not be
limited to: Department of Toxic Substances Control,
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment,
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles
Region and /or South Coast Air Quality Management
District.
C) Mitigation:
(1) No specific mitigation measures have been identified
at this time. The subsequent environmental documentation
described above would identify the measures required to
address any conditions related to contamination or
hazardous materials that may be encountered by future
roadway or intersection improvements.
d) Finding:
(1) Impacts associated with the conversion of Nash and
Douglas Streets from one -way to two -way operation would
be less than significant. No mitigation measures are
required.
(2) Impacts from the implementation of the intersection
improvements and the new roadway construction would be
determined by the subsequent environmental
documentation.
(3) The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project
with respect to hazards and hazardous materials.
23 04!
8. Land Use.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) With the Circulation Element Update, there would be
no change in the existing land uses throughout the City of El
Segundo. The Circulation Element Update would be
implemented in order to accommodate the existing /future
land uses and anticipated traffic levels. No impact to land
use compatibility would occur.
(2) The proposed Circulation Element Update would not
conflict with any of the applicable policies of the El Segundo
General Plan (Economic Development Element, Circulation
Element, Air Quality Element, Noise Element, and the Public
Safety Element) or Southern California Association of
Government's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide.
Therefore, no impacts with plan consistency are anticipated
as a result of the proposed Circulation Element Update.
b) Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) No subsequent environmental documentation is
required.
c) Mitigation:
(1) Because no significant impacts related to land use
have been identified, no mitigation measures are required.
d) Finding:
(1) Land use compatibility impacts associated with the
proposed Circulation Element Update would be less than
significant. The proposed Circulation Element Update would
be consistent with adopted plans and policies set forth in the
El Segundo General Plan and Regional Comprehensive
Plan and Guide.
(2) The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project
with respect to land use.
9. Noise.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) Deletion of roadways from the Circulation Element
roadway network would have no construction noise impacts
as no construction activity would be associated with this
component of the proposed Circulation Element Update.
24 048
(2) Conversion of Nash and Douglas Streets from one -
way to two -way operation would involve restriping and
reconfiguration within the existing right -of -way to provide for
the movement of two -way traffic at existing intersections on
these streets and would involve minimal construction activity.
Construction noise impacts of this component of the
proposed Circulation Element Update would be less than
significant.
(3) The increase in projected traffic noise levels on the
proposed Circulation Element Update roadway system
would be less than audible (i.e., less than 3 dBA) on six of
the seven roadway segments. The largest increase, 3.5
dBA, would occur on the segment of Aviation Boulevard
located south of Imperial Highway. However, this increase
would be less than the significance threshold of 5 dBA.
Impacts related to vehicular noise sources resulting from
implementation of the proposed Circulation Element Update
would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) No subsequent environmental documentation is
required for conversion of Nash and Douglas Streets from
one -way to two -way operation.
C) Mitigation:
(1) Construction contracts must specify that all
construction equipment must be equipped with properly
working mufflers and other applicable noise attenuation
devices (K -1).
(2) All property owners located within 400 feet of the
construction site must be sent a notice regarding the
construction schedule of the proposed project. All notices
must indicate the dates and duration of construction
activities, as well as provide a telephone number where
residents can inquire about the construction process and
register complaints (K -2).
(3) A "noise disturbance coordinator" position must be
established for the project. The disturbance coordinator is
responsible for responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would
determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too
early, bad mufflers, etc.) and would be required to implement
reasonable measures such that the complaint is resolved.
All notices that are sent to the property owners within 400
25 049
feet of the construction site must list the telephone number
for the disturbance coordinator (K -3).
(4) As stated in the El Segundo Municipal Code,
construction is restricted to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00
P.M. Monday through Saturday, and prohibited at anytime
on Sunday or a Federal holiday (K -4).
d) Finding:
(1) Construction noise impacts from conversion of Nash
and Douglas Streets from one -way to two -way operation
would be less than significant.
(2) Operational traffic noise impacts would be less than
significant.
(3) The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project
with respect to noise.
10. Population, Housing, and Employment.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) No housing would be constructed as part of this
project and no permanent employment opportunities would
be created.
(2) Implementation of the proposed Circulation Element
Update would result in increased temporary employment
opportunities in the construction field during the
modifications of the existing roadways and intersections and
construction of a new roadway network on the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans site. Employment patterns of
construction workers in Southern California are such that it is
not likely that they would relocate their households as a
consequence of the construction employment associated
with the proposed Circulation Element Update. Therefore,
impacts to employment in the region would be less than
significant.
(3) There would be no permanent employment
associated with the proposed Circulation Element Update.
As no permanent employment opportunities are associated
with the implementation of the proposed Circulation Element
Update, no demand for housing or increase in permanent
population is expected. Therefore, no impacts to housing or
population growth would be anticipated.
26 050
b) Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) No subsequent environmental documentation is
required.
C) Mitigation:
(1) As no significant impacts on population, housing, and
employment have been identified, no mitigation measures
are required.
d) Finding:
(1) No significant impacts were identified and no
mitigation measures were required. No impact is anticipated
to employment or population growth as a result of
implementing the proposed Circulation Element Update.
(2) The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying significant environmental effects of the Project
with respect to population, housing, and employment.
A
The City Council finds that in response to each adverse impact identified below,
changes or alterations have been required or incorporated in the Project, which
lessen the significant adverse environmental impact. However, these impacts
cannot be totally avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance if the Project is
implemented.
Air Quality.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) A prototypical construction scenario for intersection
improvements to implement the proposed Circulation
Element Update would involve the construction of up to three
intersection improvements at any given time. Estimated
daily construction emissions for this scenario would exceed
the SCAQMD threshold for NOx emissions. Accordingly,
NOx emissions would have a significant environmental
impact. Emissions of other pollutants would be below the
SCAQMD thresholds and less than significant impacts would
occur.
b) Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) Subsequent environmental documentation must be
prepared for any roadway or intersection improvement
project identified in the proposed Circulation Element Update
27 0 5 1
to identify emissions associated with construction of that
specific roadway or intersection improvement. The
subsequent environmental documentation must address the
following:
Before constructing specific roadway or intersection
improvements, impacts associated with temporary
construction related emissions must be examined in light
of this Program EIR to determine whether a new Initial
Study would be required to be prepared leading to either
an EIR or Negative Declaration. This examination must
provide quantified estimates of construction related
emissions based upon the specific site, schedule and
construction equipment utilization characteristics of the
proposed roadway or intersection improvement and
compare the estimated emissions to the SCAQMD
thresholds for construction emissions. The analysis must
incorporate the mitigation measures identified below as
appropriate, along with any other mitigation measures
identified by the project - specific analysis.
C) Mitigation:
(1) The following is a list of feasible control measures that
the SCAQMD recommends for construction emissions of
PM10. These mitigation measures apply to all construction
activities associated with implementation of the proposed
Circulation Element Update, including construction of new
roadways on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site and construction
of identified intersection improvements at 14 intersections.
Fugitive Dust, PMIO
(a) Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403,
including, but not limited to, the following:
• The construction area and vicinity (500 -foot
radius) must be swept (preferably with water
sweepers) and watered at least twice daily. Site
wetting must occur often enough to maintain a 10
percent surface soil moisture content throughout
all earth - moving activities (D -1).
• All unpaved roads, parking and staging areas
must be watered at least once every two hours of
active operations (D -2).
• Site access points must be swept/washed within
thirty minutes of visible dirt deposition (D -3).
28 052
o On -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or rusty material
must be covered or watered at least twice daily (D-
4).
o All haul trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose
materials must either be covered or maintain two
feet of freeboard (D -5).
o All haul trucks must have a capacity of no less
than twelve and three - quarter (12.75) cubic yards
(D -6).
o At least 80 percent of all inactive disturbed surface
areas must be watered on a daily basis when
there is evidence of wind- driven fugitive dust (D-
7).
o Operations on any unpaved surfaces must be
suspended when winds exceed 25 mph (D -8).
o Traffic speeds on unpaved roads must be limited
to 15 miles per hour (D -9).
o Operations on any unpaved surfaces must be
suspended during first and second stage smog
alerts (D -10).
o Haul trucks must be staged in non - residential
areas (D -11).
o Haul truck routes must be planned to avoid
residential areas, schools, and parks (D -12).
NOx Emissions
o Equipment must be turned off when not in use for
more than 5 minutes (D -13).
d) Finding: The City finds that incorporation of such changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City.
The City finds that although the temporary construction related air
quality NOx impact will remain significant and unavoidable, no
feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or lessen the
impact below a level of significance. The Project benefits set forth
in the Statement of Overriding Considerations outweigh this
significant unavoidable impact.
29 `J i
2. Noise.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) Temporary construction noise impacts associated
with proposed intersection improvements associated with
implementation of the proposed Circulation Element update
would be expected to vary throughout the construction
period. Projected noise levels resulting from the
employment of construction equipment during various
phases of the construction cycle would result in generation
of noise levels in excess of 65 dBA and would have the
potential to exceed existing ambient noise levels at sensitive
receptors by greater than 5 dBA. These resulting noise
levels during construction activity could be experienced in
the vicinity of the Rosecrans /Sepulveda site and at the
following intersections where identified traffic mitigation
measures could be constructed near residential areas.
b) Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) Subsequent environmental documentation must be
prepared for roadway improvements proposed to be
constructed on the Sepulveda / Rosecrans site and
intersection improvements proposed to be constructed at the
intersections located adjacent to residential areas, as listed
in the DER. The subsequent environmental documentation
must address the following:
• A project - specific construction noise analysis must be
prepared that calculates, based on project - specific
parameters and identification of the site - specific sensitive
receptors that could be affected by construction activities,
the noise levels that would be experienced at sensitive
receptors located adjacent to that site. If noise levels
resulting from construction activity would result in
temporary construction noise levels that exceed 65 dBA
at a sensitive receptor, or cause an incremental increase
of 5 dBA over the existing ambient sound level, if the
existing ambient sound level at the sensitive receptor
location is 65 dBA or more, then the study must identify
feasible mitigation measures to be applied to that
roadway or intersection improvement project from the list
of mitigation measures K -1 through K -4 below.
C) Mitigation:
(1) Construction contracts must specify that all
construction equipment is equipped with properly working
30
054
mufflers and other applicable noise attenuation devices (K-
1).
(2) All property owners located within 400 feet of the
construction site must be sent a notice regarding the
construction schedule of the proposed project. All notices
must indicate the dates and duration of construction
activities, as well as provide a telephone number where
residents can inquire about the construction process and
register complaints (K -2).
(3) A "noise disturbance coordinator" position must be
established for the project. The disturbance coordinator is
responsible for responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would
determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too
early, bad mufflers, etc.) and would be required to implement
reasonable measures such that the complaint is resolved.
All notices that are sent to the property owners within 400
feet of the construction site must list the telephone number
for the disturbance coordinator (K -3).
(4) As stated in the El Segundo Municipal Code,
construction is restricted to the hours of 7:00 A.M. to 6:00
P.M. Monday through Saturday, and prohibited at anytime
on Sunday or a Federal holiday (K -4).
d) Finding:
(1) Temporary construction noise impacts would be
significant and unavoidable for planned improvements,
except the conversion of Nash and Douglas Streets from
one -way to two -way operation.
(2) The City finds that incorporation of such changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the
City. The City finds that although the temporary construction
related noise impacts will remain significant and
unavoidable, no feasible mitigation measures are available
to avoid or lessen the impact below a level of significance.
The Project benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations outweigh this significant unavoidable impact.
3. Transportation and Circulation.
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) Future traffic levels generated as a result of land uses
within the City were estimated for year 2025 based on the
existing General Plan land use and zoning designations.
31
0 S Y PC
The analysis used the SCAG regional traffic model as the
basis for factoring in traffic growth from outside the City.
(2) An analysis was conducted to determine the
capability of the roadway system set forth in the adopted
Circulation Element to accommodate future traffic projected
to occur under the No Land Use Change scenario. In the
absence of the proposed Circulation Element Update, it
would be reasonably foreseeable that the City's roadway
system would continue to develop in accordance with the
designations and policies set forth in the adopted Circulation
Element. An additional analysis was conducted to determine
the capability of the roadway system that would result from
the proposed Circulation Element Update to accommodate
future traffic, reflecting the modifications to the existing
Circulation Element roadway system and policies that are
contained in the proposed Circulation Element Update.
(3) The ICU and LOS values for the "Without Project" and
"With Project" scenarios were compared against the City's
threshold of significance to determine locations where
significant impacts would occur. With respect to the
proposed Circulation Element Update, an "impact"
represents a location where the future growth in traffic would
exceed the City's level of service standard, in spite of
implementing all feasible improvements at the intersection.
A total of six intersections would be unable to accommodate
year 2025 traffic in at an acceptable LOS D or better in the
a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour or both, after implementation
of all feasible intersection improvements. The remaining 49
study intersections would not exceed the level of service
standard under future conditions and would not be
significantly impacted. Implementation of the proposed
Circulation Element Update would improve the ICU value at
21 intersections in the a.m. peak hour and 21 intersections in
the p.m. peak hour, which would constitute a beneficial
impact of the proposed Circulation Element Update.
(4) Analysis of freeway segments or designated
intersections would not be required under the Los Angeles
County Congestion Management Program (CMP), based
upon trip generation. No additional traffic beyond that
already anticipated in the El Segundo General Plan and
SCAG regional model would be expected to utilize
Sepulveda Boulevard (State Route 1). Thus, implementation
of the proposed Circulation Element Update would not
impact Sepulveda Boulevard and could potentially have
beneficial effects with regard to future traffic levels that
would use that roadway. The proposed Circulation Element
32
O55
b)
C)
d)
Update would include roadway intersection improvements
designed to accommodate growth in traffic levels projected
to occur in the City through 2025. The Circulation Element
roadway network would be designed to operate in a manner
that would allow for effective flow of traffic through the City
on surface streets and thus would not cause additional traffic
to utilize the surrounding freeways to bypass conditions of
congestion within the City. As such, the proposed
Circulation Element Update would not cause additional traffic
congestion on the Century Freeway (1 -105). Impacts of the
proposed Circulation Element Update with respect to the
CMP would be less than significant.
Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) No subsequent environmental documentation is
required.
Mitigation:
(1) The proposed Circulation Element
policies that provide for the
intersection improvements t
intersections throughout th e
feasible mitigation measure s
the six locations where the
would be exceeded.
Update includes
implementation of all feasible
o achieve LOS D or better at
City. There are no further
that could be implemented at
City's level of service standard
(2) Because no significant impacts would occur with
respect to the Congestion Management Program, no
mitigation measures are required.
Finding:
(1) Because no additional mitigation measures are
available, impacts at the six intersections where the City's
level of service standard would be exceeded would be
significant and unavoidable. Impacts at the remaining 49
intersections would be less than significant. Impacts related
to the CMP would be less than significant.
(2) The six intersections that would exceed the City's
level of service threshold, even after implementation of all
feasible intersection improvements, are:
• Aviation Blvd. /Imperial Hwy.
• Aviation Blvd./El Segundo Blvd.
• Aviation Blvd. /Rosecrans Ave.
• Sepulveda Blvd. /Rosecrans Ave.
33
056
• Sepulveda Blvd./El Segundo Blvd.
• Douglas St./El Segundo Blvd.
(3) The City finds that incorporation of such changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the
City. The City finds that although the transportation and
circulation impact will remain significant and unavoidable, no
feasible mitigation measures are available to avoid or lessen
the impact below a level of significance. The Project
benefits set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations outweigh this significant unavoidable impact.
E. Insignificant Cumulative Impacts.
The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings in this matter
do not identify or contain substantial evidence which identifies significant adverse
cumulative environmental effects associated with the Project with respect to the areas
listed below.
1. Transportation and Circulation
2. Aesthetics
3. Air Quality
4. Agricultural Resources
5. Cultural Resources
6. Geology and Soils.
7. Hydrology and Water Quality
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
9. Land Use
10. Mineral Resources
11. Noise
12. Population, Housing, and Employment
13. Public Services
14. Recreation
15. Utilities and Service Systems
34 051,
F. Cumulative Impacts Identified as Potentially Significant But Which
Did Not Exceed Significance Thresholds in the EIR.
The City Council finds that although the following cumulative environmental
effects were identified as potentially significant in the FEIR, changes or alterations
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies and the City have been
adopted by such other agencies or can and should be adopted by such other agency to
avoid or lessen the potential significant environmental effects listed below to a level of
insignificance.
1. Biological Resources (Endangered Species, Wetlands, or Habitat)
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) The proposed Circulation Element Update, in
conjunction with future development projects within the City
of El Segundo, has the potential to produce cumulative
biological resources impacts.
(2) The proposed Circulation Element Update would
include components that would affect one of the few
remaining, relatively undeveloped areas within the City and
could potentially impact sensitive species and wetlands.
(3) No impacts to biological resources would occur with
the changes in roadway designations as they would not
result in a physical change to the existing environment.
(4) The development of a roadway network on the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans site has the potential to significantly
impact biological resources. This area may contain
wetlands /riparian habitat or vernal pools that could
potentially be affected by construction of new roadways. In
addition, this site may include other species in areas that
have not been disturbed.
(5) Most of the intersections where the identified
intersection improvements would be implemented are
located in areas that are completely developed and contain
no biological resources. However, intersection #25
(Sepulveda / Rosecrans) is located in an area that has or
may have biological resources. Any modifications to this
intersection would have a potentially significant impact.
b) Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) Subsequent environmental documentation must be
prepared for any proposed construction of a new roadway
system on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site and any proposed
improvements to the Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans
Avenue intersection to identify potential biological resources
35
058
impacts. Before constructing new roadways on the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans site and any proposed improvements
to the Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue intersection,
impacts associated with biological resources must be
examined in light of this Program EIR to determine whether
a new Initial Study would be required to be prepared leading
to either an EIR or Negative Declaration. The subsequent
environmental documentation must address the following:
A general biological assessment must be conducted to
determine the presence /absence of sensitive biological
resources and wetlands. If sensitive biological resources
are identified, measures must be identified to reduce
impacts to these resources to less than significant levels.
C) Mitigation:
(1) No mitigation measures are required to reduce
impacts below a level of significance
d) Finding:
(1) Cumulative Impacts of the improvements at the
Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue intersection and
the roadway network on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site
would be determined by the subsequent environmental
documentation.
(2) The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of
proceedings do not identify or contain substantial evidence
identifying a significant cumulative contribution to any
significant unavoidable environmental effects of the Project
with respect to Biological Resources.
2. Transportation and Circulation
a) Facts /Effects.
(1) Future traffic levels generated as a result of land uses
within the City were estimated for year 2025 based on the
existing General Plan land use and zoning designations.
The analysis used the SCAG regional traffic model as the
basis for factoring in traffic growth from outside the City.
(2) An analysis was conducted to determine the
capability of the roadway system set forth in the adopted
Circulation Element to accommodate future traffic projected
to occur under the No Land Use Change scenario. In the
absence of the proposed Circulation Element Update, it
would be reasonably foreseeable that the City's roadway
system would continue to develop in accordance with the
36
059
designations and policies set forth in the adopted Circulation
Element. An additional analysis was conducted to determine
the capability of the roadway system that would result from
the proposed Circulation Element Update to accommodate
future traffic, reflecting the modifications to the existing
Circulation Element roadway system and policies that are
contained in the proposed Circulation Element Update.
(3) The ICU and LOS values for the "Without Project" and
"With Project" scenarios were compared against the City's
threshold of significance to determine locations where
significant impacts would occur. With respect to the
proposed Circulation Element Update, a project "impact"
represents a location where the future growth in traffic would
exceed the City's level of service standard, in spite of
implementing all feasible improvements at the intersection.
A total of six intersections would be unable to accommodate
year 2025 traffic in at an acceptable LOS D or better in the
a.m. peak hour, p.m. peak hour or both, after implementation
of all feasible intersection improvements. The remaining 49
study intersections would not exceed the level of service
standard under future conditions and would not be
significantly impacted. Implementation of the proposed
Circulation Element Update would improve the ICU value at
21 intersections in the a.m. peak hour and 21 intersections in
the p.m. peak hour, which would constitute a beneficial
impact of the proposed Circulation Element Update.
b) Subsequent Environmental Documentation:
(1) No subsequent environmental documentation is
required.
C) Mitigation:
(1) The proposed Circulation Element Update includes
policies that provide for the implementation of all feasible
intersection improvements to achieve LOS D or better at
intersections throughout the City. There are no further
feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented at
the six locations where the City's level of service standard
would be exceeded.
d) Findings:
(1) The analysis of traffic impacts of the proposed
Circulation Element Update considers the effects of both
background growth in the region, as reflected in the SCAG
regional model, and within the City, in accordance with the
existing land use designations of the City's General Plan.
37 060
(2) Consequently, impacts of cumulative growth are
already incorporated into the 2025 traffic model and are
equivalent to those indicated for the Without Project and
With Project conditions in Table IV.13-3 in the DER.
G. Significant Unavoidable Cumulative Impacts.
The City Council finds that the FEIR and the record of proceedings in this matter
do not identify or contain substantial evidence which identifies a cumulatively
considerable contribution to any significant unavoidable cumulative environmental
effects associated with the Project.
H. Project Alternatives.
1. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration.
Various alternatives to the Proposed Action were considered and dismissed
without further study because they failed to accomplish the objectives of the Project or
were otherwise not feasible.
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(c) requires EIRs to identify any alternatives that
were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping
process, and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination.
During the City's 90 year history, its roadway system became highly developed and its
land use patterns are well - established. Accordingly, there is no land currently available
for constructing major new roadways or realigning the existing roadway system to
provide substantial additional roadway capacity. Moreover, it is improbable that
substantial land area will become available within the City's current boundaries without
major displacement of existing commercial or residential uses. Absent available land
area for roadway development, the potential range of changes to Circulation Element
roadways or policies is limited to relatively minor, incremental changes to the City's built
roadway network. The proposed Circulation Element Update addresses all locations
within the City's roadway network where such minor changes would be reasonably
expected to change the performance of the Circulation Element roadway network. The
only alternative roadway network that could reasonably be analyzed would be one
which does not include the proposed changes in roadway designations and proposed
deletion of currently designated roadway segments. However, this alternative is
reflected in the No Project alternative which analyzes the existing Circulation Element
roadway network. Therefore, the City rejected the consideration of alternative
Circulation Element roadway networks, which would include alternative locations where
Circulation Element designations or policies could be applied, as infeasible.
In addition, the City considered the alternative of taking no action (i.e.,
modification of the Circulation Element to reflect the status quo, leaving the City's
roadway network as it currently exists and not undertaking any further roadway or
intersection improvements), as this alternative would avoid impacts related to
construction activities. The City rejected this alternative because traffic growth both
inside and outside of the City will continue because of other factors (economic
development, population growth), even if the Circulation Element were modified in that
38 061
manner. It would be unreasonable for the City to take no action in the face of this
continued growth in traffic.
2. No Project Alternative.
a) Description.
Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed Circulation Element Update
would not be implemented and the policies set forth in the adopted Circulation Element
would remain unchanged. The Circulation Element roadway network would remain as
currently set forth in the adopted Circulation Element. Roadway and intersection
improvements would be constructed to implement the adopted Circulation Element
roadway network and the proposed Circulation Element Update policy that would limit
identified intersection improvements to those that are feasible (i.e., would not affect
building, freeway supports, or railroad rights -of -way) would not be included in the
Circulation Element. Nash and Douglas Streets would not be converted from one -way
to two -way operation. Traffic growth from land uses within the City of El Segundo would
be governed by the adopted General Plan land use designations and increased regional
traffic that would use the City's roadway system would be as currently anticipated in
adopted SCAG regional growth forecasts and associated regional transportation
models.
b) Comparison to Project.
There would be an increase in traffic impacts at three additional locations
compared to the proposed Circulation Element Update, under which 6 intersections
would exceed the City's level of service standard under future traffic conditions. Traffic
impacts of the No Project alternative would be greater than the proposed Circulation
Element Update and would be significant and unavoidable. Aesthetic, biological
resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, land use,
and population, housing and employment impacts would be similar to the proposed
Circulation Element Update and less than significant. Impacts of the No Project
alternative would be similar to the proposed Circulation Element Update and significant
and unavoidable with respect to NOx emissions during construction. Impacts of the No
Project alternative with respect to construction noise would be similar to the proposed
Circulation Element Update and would be significant and unavoidable. Although impacts
of the No Project Alternative would be slightly higher than the proposed Circulation
Element Update with respect to traffic noise, those impacts would be less than
significant. Although impact of the No Project alternative would be higher than the
proposed Circulation Element Update with respect to local CO concentrations, those
impacts would be less than significant. Impacts of the No Project alternative would be
lower than the proposed Circulation Element with respect to hazards and hazardous
material and less than significant.
3. FAR 0.8 Alternative.
a) Description.
Under the FAR 0.8 alternative, the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan
and associated zoning classifications would be amended to provide for a maximum FAR
of 0.8 in the areas of the City that are currently zoned Urban Mixed -Use North (MU -N)
39
06<'
and Corporate Office (CO). Under the existing General Plan designations and zoning
classifications, development in the MU -N zone is presently permitted to a maximum
FAR of 1.3, while development in the CO zone is limited to a maximum FAR of 0.8.
Thus, under the FAR 0.8 alternative, maximum development density in the MU -N zone
would be reduced to 0.8 FAR, while the maximum development density in the CO zone
would remain the same. This would result in lower traffic levels than would be
experienced under the proposed Circulation Element Update, where no land use
designations would be changed. All other land use designations set forth in the General
Plan and zoning code would remain the same. Future levels of regional traffic that
would utilize the City's roadway system would remain as currently anticipated in
adopted SCAG regional growth forecasts and associated regional transportation
models. The proposed changes to Circulation Element policies and roadway
configurations would be the same as under the proposed Circulation Element Update.
Nash and Douglas Streets would be converted from one -way to two -way operations.
b) Comparison to Project.
Impacts of the FAR 0.8 alternative would be greater than the proposed
Circulation Element Update with respect to the number of impacted intersections, but
more beneficial than the proposed Circulation Element Update with respect to improved
operating values at a greater number of intersections.
More intersections would be impacted under the FAR 0.8 alternative and
therefore total construction emissions would be greater than the proposed Circulation
Element Update. However, with respect to individual construction projects required to
implement the FAR 0.8 alternative, impacts would be similar to the proposed Circulation
Element Update and significant and unavoidable with respect to NOx emissions.
Impacts of the FAR 0.8 alternative would be greater than the proposed Circulation
Element Update with respect to local CO concentrations and both would be less than
significant.
Impacts of the FAR 0.8 alternative with respect to construction noise would be
similar to the proposed Circulation Element Update and would be significant and
unavoidable. Although impacts of the FAR 0.8 Alternative would be slightly lower than
the proposed Circulation Element Update with respect to traffic noise, those impacts
would be less than significant.
Aesthetic, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology
and water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, land use, and population, housing
and employment impacts from the FAR 0.8 Alternative would be similar to the proposed
Circulation Element Update and less than significant. Subsequent environmental
documentation shall be prepared, similar to the proposed project, to determine whether
a new Initial Study would be required to be prepared leading to either an EIR or
Negative Declaration for the construction of new roadways and intersection
improvements identified in the Circulation Element.
40 063
4. FAR 1.0 Alternative.
a) Description.
Under the FAR 1.0 Alternative, the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan
and associated zoning classifications would be amended to provide for a maximum FAR
of 1.0 in the areas of the City that are currently zoned Urban Mixed -Use North (MU -N)
and Corporate Office (CO). Under the existing General Plan designations and zoning
classifications, development in the MU -N zone is presently permitted to a maximum
FAR of 1.3, while development in the CO zone is limited to a maximum FAR of 0.8.
Thus, under the FAR 1.0 alternative, maximum development density in the MU -N zone
would be reduced to 1.0 FAR, while the maximum development density in the CO zone
would increase to 1.0 FAR. This would result in substantially similar traffic levels as
would be experienced under the proposed Circulation Element Update, where no land
use designations would be changed. Future levels of regional traffic that would utilize
the City's roadway system would be as currently anticipated in adopted SCAG regional
growth forecasts and associated regional transportation models. The proposed
changes to Circulation Element policies and roadway configurations would be the same
as under the proposed Circulation Element Update. Nash and Douglas Streets would
be converted from one -way to two -way operations.
b) Comparison to Project.
Impacts of the FAR 1.0 alternative would be greater than the proposed
Circulation Element Update with respect to the number of impacted intersections. Ten
intersections would exceed the City's standard for Level of Service. This would be an
increase of four intersections compared to the proposed Circulation Element Update,
under which six intersections would exceed the City's level of service standard under
future traffic conditions.
More intersections would be impacted under the FAR 1.0 alternative and
therefore total construction emissions would be greater than the proposed Circulation
Element Update. However, with respect to individual construction projects required to
implement the FAR 1.0 alternative, impacts would be similar to the proposed Circulation
Element Update and significant and unavoidable with respect to NOx emissions.
Impacts of the FAR 1.0 alternative would be slightly higher than the proposed
Circulation Element Update with respect to local CO concentrations and both would be
less than significant.
Impacts of the FAR 1.0 alternative with respect to construction noise would be
similar to the proposed Circulation Element Update and would be significant and
unavoidable. Although impacts of the FAR 1.0 Alternative would be slightly higher than
the proposed Circulation Element Update with respect to traffic noise, those impacts
would be less than significant.
Aesthetic, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology
and water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, land use, and population, housing
and employment impacts from the FAR 1.0 Alternative would be similar to the proposed
Circulation Element Update and less than significant. Subsequent environmental
documentation shall be prepared, similar to the proposed project, to determine whether
41 (1b
a new Initial Study would be required to be prepared leading to either an EIR or
Negative Declaration for the construction of new roadways and intersection
improvements identified in the Circulation Element.
5. FAR 1.3 Alternative
a) Description.
Under the FAR 1.3 Alternative, the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan and
associated zoning classifications would be amended to provide for a maximum FAR of
1.3 in the areas of the City that are currently zoned Urban Mixed —Use North (MU -N) and
Corporate Office (CO). Under the existing General Plan designations and zoning
classifications, development in the MU -N zone is presently permitted to a maximum
FAR of 1.3, while development in the CO zone is limited to a maximum FAR of 0.8.
Thus, under the FAR 1.3 alternative, maximum development density in the MU -N zone
would remain the same, while the maximum development density in the CO zone would
increase to 1.3 FAR. This would result in higher traffic levels as would be experienced
under the proposed Circulation Element Update, where no land use designations would
be changed. All other land use designations set forth in the General Plan and zoning
code would remain the same. Future levels of regional traffic that would utilize the
City's roadway system would be as currently anticipated in adopted SCAG regional
growth forecasts and associated regional transportation models. The proposed
changes to Circulation Element policies and roadway configurations would be the same
as under the proposed Circulation Element Update. Nash and Douglas Streets would
be converted from one -way to two -way operations.
b) Comparison to Project.
Impacts of the FAR 1.3 alternative would be greater than the proposed
Circulation Element Update with respect to the number of impacted intersections. This
would be an increase of fifteen intersections compared to the proposed Circulation
Element Update, under which six intersections would exceed the City's level of service
standard under future traffic conditions.
More intersections would be impacted under the FAR 1.3 alternative and
therefore total construction emissions would be greater than the proposed Circulation
Element Update. However, with respect to individual construction projects required to
implement the FAR 1.3 alternative, impacts would be similar to the proposed Circulation
Element Update and significant and unavoidable with respect to NOx emissions.
Impacts of the FAR 1.3 alternative would be higher than the proposed Circulation
Element Update with respect to local CO concentrations and both would be less than
significant.
Impacts of the FAR 1.3 alternative with respect to construction noise would be
similar to the proposed Circulation Element Update and would be significant and
unavoidable. Although impacts of the FAR 1.3 Alternative would be slightly higher than
the proposed Circulation Element Update with respect to traffic noise, those impacts
would be less than significant.
Aesthetic, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology
and water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, land use, and population, housing _
42 065
and
tolnyEentimpactsfro
ment Update the FAR 1,3 Alternative
documentation shall be pdate and ative would
a new less than significant. be similar to the
Initial Study would Pared, similar to the Subse proposed
Negative initial Station be required proposed Subsequent environmental
improve for the 'project to determine whether
improvements identified in the elation Ele a prepared lead'
Ele °f new g to either an EIR or
ment. roadways and intersection
6, Findin s Re ardin
Alternatives.
a} Reasonable
alternatives to Council finds Range of Alternatives.
the that that (a) the 'EIR
Project and would Project, which could feasibly escribes
(b) the a avoid or substantially Y attain a reasonable ran
Y Council evaluated Y lessen most of the basic Objectives of
the comparative any s� nificant effects bJectives of the
m merits of the of the Pro'
b) Environmentally Project; and
mentally Superior Alternative.
►'rojectCEQA Guidelines § 15126.6 re
Furthermore one quires
more if the alternative that an anal
environmentally as the environmentally °f alternatives
e EIR must also identify the a mentally superior
to the
alternatives. y mental) alternative is the «No p enor
nviron alternative.
Y superior alternative from ct alternative,
From a strict) among the other
all others. Y environmental standpoint, the
None of the NO Action Alternative is superior unavoidable i alternatives to
air mpacts of the is
in this EIR
quality and construction proposed Circulation would avoid the significant
would be to conduct no noise. The only Element gnificant and
Element Update. construction Y Option available to sPect to
roadway pdate. o activity in conjunction Construction
aY network in the pttOn of taking ti action Junction with the these impact
roadway network City with r Proposed Cir Circulation
s
because as it currentlJ e ' modifying the Circulatio�ct to the
use traffic growth both Y exists Circulation Element
other factors inside and was considered Element to leave the
reasonable development of the Cit and rejected by the City ity's
nable poticY for the Cit pment Y would continue Council
traffic. Similar) , Y to take population growth ntinue
significant impacts all of no action in )and it would as a not suit of
pacts with the alternatives examined face E fRthis continued growth a
roadway
operational noise, and populat on t to aesthetics d in this
or intersection im r would have wth n
housing and e ' Operational air less than
only way to eliminate p Ovements in the mplOYment as are quality, land use,
City, these impacts and was simia i` king no actionuwouldmPlementing
Y considered and r also be the
related to thoe ability differen elected by the
City ability of the Cs between the
ty to the year 2025 alternatives to acco alternatives examine
superior to the ►n this regard the F mmodate Projected din this EIR is
would exceed teoposed Circulation Pro growth in traffic in the
ElementR 0.8 alternative would be environ
compared City's level of service even thou
have beneticiahei Proposed Circulation threshold gh one additional intersectiolln
impacts (i.e., reducing U under the FAR
Ding ICU Pdate, the FAR 0 0.8 alternative
value) at 10 more 8 alternative would
intersections during the
43
0 66
a.m. peak hour and 8 more intersections during the p.m. peak hour than would the
proposed Circulation Element Update. However, the FAR 0.8 alternative would not
meet the objectives of the proposed "No Land Use Change" project as described in the
project description of the DEIR, as it would reduce allowable development density in the
MU -N zone from 1.3 to 0.8, which would potentially affect the City's economic and
employment base, and would therefore be inconsistent with the policies of the General
Plan Economic Development Element. Overall, the No Project, the FAR 1.0 and the 1.3
alternatives would have traffic impacts that are similar to or higher than the proposed
Circulation Element Update and would not be environmentally superior to the proposed
Circulation Element Update.
III. GROWTH- INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES.
The City Council finds on the basis of the FEIR and the record of proceedings in this
matter that:
A. Growth Inducing Impacts
The proposed Circulation Element Update would accommodate future growth by
upgrading the existing circulation system to adequately handle the amount of traffic
anticipated by 2025. The proposed Circulation Element Update would foster economic
growth by adding temporary construction jobs to the surrounding area. These
individuals could, in turn, patronize other local businesses and services in the area.
However, no permanent employment would be created by the implementation of the
proposed Circulation Element Update. The proposed Circulation Element Update does
not include housing and therefore would not include (direct) permanent population
growth. As discussed in Section IV.L of the DEIR, construction workers typically do not
relocate to the area in which they are doing construction, as these employment periods
tend to be short-term. Therefore, no additional housing would be required. Accordingly,
no significant population, housing, or employment impacts would be created by the
proposed Circulation Element Update. As discussed below, the proposed Circulation
Element Update also would not induce growth in an area that is not already developed
with infrastructure to accommodate such growth.
The City of El Segundo is located in a highly urbanized and developed area of
Southern California. The existing utility infrastructure is sufficient to operate any
additional intersection hardware (e.g., traffic signals) which may be implemented as part
of the proposed Circulation Element Update. This infrastructure is located adjacent to
the roadways and intersections proposed for modifications. Therefore, the project
would not result in significant growth inducing impacts.
B. Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes.
The type and level of construction associated with the implementation of the proposed
Circulation Element Update would consume limited, slowly renewable, and non-
renewable resources. Such resources would include the following construction
supplies: aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt such as sand, gravel, and
stone; metals such as steel, copper, and lead; petrochemical construction materials
44 0 6 r'
such as plastics; and water. Fossil fuels such as gasoline and oil would also be
consumed in the use of construction vehicles and equipment.
The implementation of the proposed Circulation Element Update would not add
additional traffic to local roads beyond what is already anticipated by the year 2025.
Construction of the roadway and intersection modifications would result in short-term
increases in ambient noise levels. Potential irreversible damage from environmental
accidents associated with the proposed Circulation Element Update are unlikely and
would be avoided by compliance with the mitigation measures proposed in this EIR as
well as existing city, county, state, and federal safety regulations.
IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS.
The City Council finds on the basis of the FEIR and the record of proceedings in
this matter that the unavoidable significant impacts of the Project are acceptable when
balanced against the benefits of the Project. This determination is based on the
following factors and the substantial public, social, economic, and environmental
benefits flowing from the Project as identified in the FEIR and the record of proceedings
in the matter.
A. The infrastructure and other improvements proposed as part of the
updated Circulation Element will help address future traffic growth in the City.
This will help ensure the community maintains its economic competitiveness with
surrounding communities by facilitating the orderly flow of vehicle traffic
throughout the City's boundaries.
B. The proposed project will help the City address the forecasted growth in
regional traffic.
C. The proposed conversion of Nash and Douglas Streets from one -way to
two -way operations will improve vehicle access to adjacent properties, thereby
improving the marketability and desirability of properties on the two affected
streets.
D. The proposed conversion of Nash and Douglas Streets from one -way to
two -way operations will improve emergency services by providing more direct
access from Fire Station No. 2 to properties in the northeast portion of the City.
E. The incorporation of policies to create significance thresholds for review of
development projects will establish objective criteria for evaluating traffic impacts
of new commercial and residential development, which will help ensure that all
mitigation is properly evaluated and fairly distributed.
F. The incorporation of a policy to update the congestion mitigation fee
program will help ensure the City continues to study and evaluate the
effectiveness of its circulation system and ensure that new development supports
its fair share contribution to future traffic growth.
G. The project facilitates the long -term economic health of the City and its
neighboring cities and communities by providing a comprehensive evaluation of
45 ()G8
future traffic growth, which can be used by the community to guide land -use
decision making in the future.
V. RECIRCULATION.
A. Facts.
1. The City received comments on the DEIR from members of the
public and from public agencies in both written and oral form. The FEIR
contains written responses to all comments ('Responses to Comments ")
received on the DEIR as of August 26, 2004. Some comments were
incorporated into the FOR as factual corrections and minor changes.
Sections I - IV of the FEIR sets forth all factual corrections and minor
changes to the DEIR.
B. Finding.
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline § 15088.5 and Public Resources Code § 21092.1,
and based on the FOR and the record of proceedings in this matter, the City Council
finds that:
1. Factual corrections and minor changes are set forth as additions
and corrections to the DEIR; and
2. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR are not
substantial changes in the DEIR that would deprive the public of a
meaningful opportunity to comment on a substantial adverse
environmental effect of the Project, a feasible way to mitigate or avoid
such an effect, or a feasible Project alternative; and
3. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR will not
result in new significant environmental effects or substantially increase the
severity of the significant effects previously disclosed in the DEIR; and
4. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR will not
involve mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably
different from those analyzed in the DEIR that would substantially reduce
one or more significant effects on the environment; and
5. The factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR do not
render the DEIR so fundamentally inadequate and conclusory in nature
that meaningful public review and comment would be precluded.
Thus, the City Council finds that none of the conditions set forth in CEQA
Guideline § 15088.5 or Public Resources Code § 21092.1 requiring recirculation of a
draft environmental impact report were met. The City Council further finds that
incorporation of the factual corrections and minor changes to the DEIR into the FOR
does not require that the FEIR to be recirculated for public comment.
46 06,9
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. _
IX. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM PROCEDURES
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a Lead Agency to adopt a "reporting or
monitoring program for the changes to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to
mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment" (Mitigation Monitoring Program, Section
15097 of the CEQA Guidelines provides additional direction on mitigation monitoring or reporting).
The Community, Economic and Development Services Department for the City of El Segundo is the
Lead Agency for the El Segundo Circulation Element Update.
An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed project. Where appropriate, this environmental document identified project design
features or recommended mitigation measures to avoid or to reduce potentially significant
environmental impacts of the proposed project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP) is designed to monitor implementation of requirements for subsequent environmental
documentation' and mitigation measures identified for the El Segundo Circulation Element Update.
The MMRP is subject to review and approval by the Lead Agency as part of the certification of the EIR
and adoption of project conditions. The required subsequent environmental documentation and
mitigation measures are listed separately and categorized by impact area, with an accompanying
identification of the following:
• Monitoring Phase, the phase of the project during which the mitigation measure must be
monitored;
Pre- Construction, including the design phase
Construction
Post- Construction
• The Implementing Party, the agency with the power to implement the mitigation measure;
• The Enforcement Agency, the agency with the power to enforce the mitigation measure, and
In addition to mitigation measures, requirements for the preparation of subsequent environmental analysis and
documentation are identified in the EIR. These requirements are intended to provide guidance for
environmental review of future projects that would implement the Circulation Element Update, using the
Program EIR. Because these requirements would also work to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment in accordance with PRC Section 21081.6, they have been included in this MMRP.
El Segundo Circulation Element Update IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report Page IX -1 071
City of El Segundo August 2004
• The Monitoring Agency, the agency to which reports involving feasibility, compliance,
implementation and development are made.
The MMRP performance must be monitored annually to determine the effectiveness of the measures
implemented in any given year and re- evaluate the mitigation needs for the upcoming year.
I. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
Subsequent Environmental Documentation
No subsequent environmental documentation is required.
Mitigation Measures
The proposed Circulation Element Update includes policies that provide for the implementation of all
feasible intersection improvements to achieve LOS D or better at intersections throughout the City.
There are no further feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented at the six locations where
the City's level of service standard would be exceeded.
No mitigation measures are required with respect to the Congestion Management Program.
II. AESTHETICS
Subsequent Environmental Documentation
Subsequent environmental documentation must be prepared for any intersection improvement project
proposed at any of the following four intersections: Aviation Boulevard /El Segundo Boulevard;
Aviation Boulevard /Utah Avenue; Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue; El Segundo Boulevard /Isis
Avenue; to identify potential impacts on sensitive receptors that could result from additional lighting.
The subsequent environmental documentation must address the following:
• Before constructing specific intersection improvements, impacts associated with increased night
lighting in the area must be examined in light of this Program EIR to determine whether a new
Initial Study would be required to be prepared leading to either an EIR or Negative
Declaration. This examination must address the potential of the subsequent activity to increase
ambient lighting levels beyond the threshold identified in the Program EIR. The analysis must
incorporate the mitigation measures identified below as appropriate.
Mitigation Measures
C -1. Street lights must be designed and located to minimize spill over of light into residential
areas.
El Segundo Circulation Element Update IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report Page IX -2 072
City of El Segundo August 2004
Monitoring Phase:
Construction, Post - Construction
Implementation Party:
City of El Segundo
Enforcement Agency:
Public Works Department, Planning Division
Monitoring Agency:
Public Works Department, Planning Division
C -2. New lighting sources must be shielded to direct light downward and not toward the sky
to minimize atmospheric light pollution.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
III. AIR QUALITY
Subsequent Environmental Documentation
Construction, Post - Construction
City of El Segundo
Public Works Department, Planning Division
Public Works Department, Planning Division
Subsequent environmental documentation must be prepared for any roadway or intersection
improvement project identified in the proposed Circulation Element Update to identify emissions
associated with construction of that specific roadway or intersection improvement. The subsequent
environmental documentation must address the following:
• Before constructing specific roadway or intersection improvements, impacts associated with
temporary construction related emissions must be examined in light of this Program EIR to
determine whether a new Initial Study would be required to be prepared leading to either an
EIR or Negative Declaration. This examination must provide quantified estimates of
construction related emissions based upon the specific site, schedule and construction equipment
utilization characteristics of the proposed roadway or intersection improvement and compare the
estimated emissions to the SCAQMD thresholds for construction emissions. The analysis must
incorporate the mitigation measures identified below as appropriate, along with any other
mitigation measures identified by the project - specific analysis.
Mitigation Measures
Construction
Fugitive Dust, PM,o
Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403, including without limitation the following:
D -1. The construction area and vicinity (500 -foot radius) must be swept (preferably with
water sweepers) and watered at least twice daily. Site wetting must occur often enough
El Segundo Circulation Element Update IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program �l
Final Environmental Impact Report Page IX -3 V 7
City of El Segundo August 2004
to maintain a 10 percent surface soil moisture content throughout all earth- moving
activities.
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Implementation Party: City of El Segundo
Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD)
Monitoring Agency: Public Works Department
D -2. All unpaved roads, parking and staging areas must be watered at least once every two
hours of active operation.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
City of El Segundo
SCAQMD
Public Works Department
D -3. Site access points must be swept/washed within thirty minutes of visible dirt deposition.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
City of El Segundo
SCAQMD
Public Works Department
D -4. On -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or rusty material must be covered or watered at least
twice daily.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
City of El Segundo
SCAQMD
Public Works Department
D -5. All haul trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials must either be covered or
maintain two feet of freeboard.
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Implementation Party: City of El Segundo
Enforcement Agency: SCAQMD
Monitoring Agency: Public Works Department
D -6. All haul trucks must have a capacity of no less than twelve and three- quarter (12.75)
cubic yards.
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Implementation Party: City of El Segundo
El Segundo Circulation Element Update IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 13'14
Final Environmental Impact Report Page IX -4
City of El Segundo August 2004
Enforcement Agency: SCAQMD
Monitoring Agency: Public Works Department
D -7. At least 80 percent of all inactive disturbed surface areas must be watered on a daily
basis when there is evidence of wind - driven fugitive dust.
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Implementation Party: City of El Segundo
Enforcement Agency: SCAQMD
Monitoring Agency: Public Works Department
D -8. Operations on any unpaved surfaces must be suspended when winds exceed 25 mph.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
City of El Segundo
SCAQMD
Public Works Department
D -9. Traffic speeds on unpaved roads must be limited to 15 miles per hour.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
City of El Segundo
SCAQMD
Public Works Department
D -10. Operations on any unpaved surfaces must be suspended during first and second stage
smog alerts.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
City of El Segundo
SCAQMD
Public Works Department
D -11. Haul trucks must be staged in non - residential areas
Monitoring Phase:
Construction
Implementation Party:
City of El Segundo
Enforcement Agency:
SCAQMD
Monitoring Agency:
Public Works Department
D -12. Haul truck routes must be planned to avoid residential areas, schools, and parks.
Monitoring Phase:
Construction
Implementation Party:
City of El Segundo
Enforcement Agency:
SCAQMD
El Segundo Circulation Element Update IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 0
Final Environmental Impact Report Page IX -5
City of El Segundo August 2004
Monitoring Agency:
NO= Emissions
Public Works Department
D -13. Equipment must be turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Operation
Construction
City of El Segundo
SCAQMD
Public Works Department
No mitigation measures are required with respect to operational impacts.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Subsequent Environmental Documentation
Subsequent environmental documentation must be prepared for any proposed construction of a new
roadway system on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site and any proposed improvements to the Sepulveda
Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue intersection to identify potential biological resources impacts. Before
constructing new roadways on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site and any proposed improvements to the
Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue intersection, impacts associated with biological resources must
be examined in light of this Program EIR to determine whether a new Initial Study would be requiredto
be prepared leading to either an EIR or Negative Declaration. The subsequent environmental
documentation must address the following:
• A general biological assessment must be conducted to determine the presence /absence of
sensitive biological resources and wetlands. If sensitive biological resources are identified,
measures must be identified to reduce impacts to these resources to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Subsequent Environmental Documentation
Subsequent environmental documentation must be prepared for any proposed project on the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans site to identify potential impacts to cultural resources (archaeological,
paleontological or historic). Impacts to cultural resources must be examined in light of this Program
El Segundo Circulation Element Update IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10176
Final Environmental Impact Repon Page IX -6
City of El Segundo August 2004
EIR to determine whether a new Initial Study would be required to be prepared leading either to an EIR
or Negative Declaration. The subsequent environmental documentation must address the following and
must incorporate mitigation measures identified below as appropriate:
• A records search and /or Phase I Archaeological Survey must be conducted by a qualified
archaeologist before the implementation of physical changes to the existing roadway network,
involving the construction of new roadways. If the survey identifies resources within the
construction area of the roadway, follow on studies must be conducted in accordance with the
recommendations of the records search before commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measures
F -1. In the event that archaeological or paleontological resources are encountered during the
course of grading or construction, all development must temporarily cease in these
areas until the resources are properly assessed and subsequent recommendations are
determined by a qualified archaeologist.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Subsequent Environmental Documentation
Construction
City of El Segundo
Public Works Department
Planning Division
Subsequent environmental documentation must be prepared for any new roadway construction or
intersection improvement project located within areas with expansive soil hazard, which include the
following intersections:
• Aviation Boulevard /Imperial Highway
• Aviation Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue
• Aviation Boulevard /El Segundo Boulevard
• Aviation Boulevard /Utah Street
• Atwood Way /I -105 Eastbound Ramp Entrance
• Douglas Street/El Segundo Boulevard
• El Segundo Boulevard /Isis Avenue
• Sepulveda Boulevard /Imperial Highway
• Continental Boulevard /Grand Avenue
El Segundo Circulation Element Update IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program r,
Final Environmental Impact Report Page IX-7 U 7r
City of El Segundo August 2004
The subsequent environmental documentation must address the following:
• Before constructing new roadways or specific intersection improvements, impacts associated
with expansive soil hazards must be examined in light of this Program EIR to determine
whether a new Initial Study would be required to be prepared leading to either an EIR or
Negative Declaration. The analysis must include a comprehensive geotechnical investigation
which must be submitted as part of the design process for individual portions of the proposed
Circulation Element Update and must also incorporate the mitigation measures identified below,
as appropriate.
Mitigation Measures
G -1. Specific design recommendations presented in a comprehensive geotechnical report,
discussed under Subsequent Environmental Documentation, must be incorporated into
the final design and approved by the City Engineer and City Council before
construction.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Pre - construction
City of El Segundo
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
G -2. Specifications for site grading must be subject to approval by the City Engineer.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Pre - construction
City of El Segundo
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
G -3. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles
per hour (mph).
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Construction
City of El Segundo
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
No mitigation measures are required for the conversion of Nash and Douglas Streets from one -way to
two -way operation.
VII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Subsequent Environmental Documentation
El Segundo Circulation Element Update IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report Page IX-8 0 17
City of El Segundo August 2004
Subsequent environmental documentation must be prepared for any proposed roadway construction or
intersection improvement project at any of the 14 intersections listed below to identify potential impacts
on the storm drain system. Before construction of specific roadway or intersection improvements,
impacts to the storm drain system must be examined in light of this Program EIR to determine whether
a new Initial Study would be required to be prepared leading to either an EIR or Negative Declaration.
• Aviation Boulevard /Imperial Highway
• Aviation Boulevard /El Segundo Boulevard
• Aviation Boulevard /Utah Avenue
• Aviation Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue
• Sepulveda Boulevard /Imperial Highway
• Sepulveda Boulevard /Maple Avenue
• Sepulveda Boulevard /Mariposa Avenue
• Sepulveda Boulevard /Grand Avenue
• Sepulveda Boulevard/El Segundo Boulevard
• Sepulveda Boulevard /Rosecrans Avenue
• Atwood Way /I -105 Eastbound Ramp Entrance
• Douglas Street/El Segundo Boulevard
• Continental Boulevard /Grand Avenue
• El Segundo Boulevard /Isis Avenue
The subsequent environmental documentation must address the following
• The City must prepare a master drainage plan for any area of the City affected by
implementation of the proposed Circulation Element Update. This plan must include detailed
hydrology /hydraulic calculations and drainage improvements, showing quantitatively how the
project that implements the proposed Circulation Element Update would eliminate the potential
for downstream flooding due to increased storm water runoff.
• The City must design a conveyance and detainment system to meet the LACDPW limits on
storm drains that would convey the discharge from the new and modified roadways and
intersections.
El Segundo Circulation Element Update IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program O ,7
Final Environmental Impact Report Page IX -9
City of El Segundo August 2004
Mitigation Measures
No specific mitigation measures related to drainage systems are identified at this time. The subsequent
environmental documentation described above may identify mitigation measures pertinent to a specific
roadway or intersection improvement project.
No mitigation measures are required for the conversion of Nash and Douglas from one -way to two -way
operation.
VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Subsequent Environmental Documentation
Subsequent environmental documentation must be prepared for any proposed intersection improvements
or construction of new roadways to identify potential impacts that could result from exposure to
contaminated sites. Impacts associated with contaminated sites must be examined in light of this
Program EIR to determine whether a new Initial Study would be required to be preparedleading to
either an EIR or Negative Declaration. The subsequent environmental documentation must address the
following:
• A Phase One Environmental Site Assessment must be conducted for any of the proposed
roadway and intersection modifications to identify potentially contaminated sites. If
contaminated sites are identified within the boundaries of the project site, appropriate measures
must be taken to protect the well -being of the construction workers and the surrounding
population. Investigative and remedial activities undertaken in accordance with this
requirement must be undertaken under the oversight and to the satisfaction of the cognizant
regulatory agency(ies) including but not be limited to: Department of Toxic Substances Control,
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Los Angeles Region and /or South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Mitigation Measures
No specific mitigation measures are identified at this time. The subsequent environmental
documentation described above would identify the measures required to address any conditions related
to contamination or hazardous materials that may be encountered by future roadway or intersection
improvements.
No mitigation measures are required for the conversion of Nash and Douglas Streets from one -way to
two -way operation.
El Segundo Circulation Element Update IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8
Final Environmental Impact Report Page IX -10 O
City of El Segundo August 2004
IX. LAND USE
Subsequent Environmental Documentation
No subsequent environmental documentation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
X. NOISE
Subsequent Environmental Documentation
Subsequent environmental documentation must be prepared for roadway improvements proposed to be
constructed on the Sepulveda /Rosecrans site and intersection improvements proposed to be constructed
at the intersections located adjacent to residential areas, as listed above. The subsequent environmental
documentation must address the following:
• A project - specific construction noise analysis must be prepared that calculates, based on
project- specific parameters and identification of the site - specific sensitive receptors that could
be affected by construction activities, the noise levels that would be experienced at sensitive
receptors located adjacent to that site. If noise levels resulting from construction activity would
result in temporary construction noise levels that exceed 65 dBA at a sensitive receptor, or
cause an incremental increase of 5 dBA over the existing ambient sound level, if the existing
ambient sound level at the sensitive receptor location is 65 dBA or more, then the study must
identify feasible mitigation measures to be applied to that roadway or intersection improvement
project from the list of mitigation measures K -1 through K -4 below.
Mitigation Measures
K -1. Construction contracts must specify that all construction equipment must be equipped
with properly working mufflers and other applicable noise attenuation devices.
Monitoring Phase:
Implementation Party:
Enforcement Agency:
Monitoring Agency:
Pre - construction
City of El Segundo
Public Works Department
Public Works Department
K -2. All property owners located within 400 feet of the construction site must be sent a
notice regarding the construction schedule of the proposed project. All notices must
indicate the dates and duration of construction activities, as well as provide a telephone
081
El Segundo Circulation Element Update IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Final Environmental Impact Report Page IX -11
City of El Segundo August 2004
number where residents can inquire about the construction process and register
complaints.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - construction, construction
Implementation Party: City of El Segundo
Enforcement Agency: Public Works Department, Planning Division
Monitoring Agency: Public Works Department, Planning Division
K -3. A "noise disturbance coordinator" position must be established for the project. The
disturbance coordinator is responsible for responding to any local complaints about
construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would determine the cause of the noise
complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad mufflers, etc.) and would be required to
implement reasonable measures such that the complaint is resolved. All notices that are
sent to the property owners within 400 feet of the construction site must list the
telephone number for the disturbance coordinator.
Monitoring Phase: Pre - construction, construction
Implementation Party: City of El Segundo
Enforcement Agency: Public Works Department, Planning Division
Monitoring Agency: Public Works Department, Planning Division
K -4. As stated in the E1 Segundo Municipal Code, construction is restricted to the hours of
7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday, and prohibited at anytime on
Sunday or a Federal holiday.
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Implementation Party: City of El Segundo
Enforcement Agency: Public Works Department
Monitoring Agency: Public Works Department
No mitigation measures are required for the conversion of Nash and Douglas Streets from one -way to
two -way operation.
XI. POPULATION, HOUSING, AND EMPLOYMENT
Subsequent Environmental Documentation
No subsequent environmental documentation is required.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
PAPlanning & Building Safety\Projects \576- 599\Ea- 579\EA- 579.CEQA Resolution Exh B MMRP.doc
El Segundo Circulation Element Update IX. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program }
Final Environmental Impact Report Page IX -12
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No.
EXHIBIT C
El Segundo General Plan - 1992
4. Circulation Element
Table of Contents page
Introduction 4 -1
Summary of Existing Conditions 4 -2
Future Conditions 4 -12
Master Plan of Streets 4 -19
Alternative Modes of Travel 4 -30
Goals, Objectives, and Policies 4 -44
Goal C1: Provision for a Safe, Convenient, and Cost
Effective Circulation System 4 -44
Goal C2: Provisions for Alternative Modes of
Transportation 4-47
Goal C3: Development of Circulation Policies that
are Consistent with other City Policies 4 -51
Goal C4: Compliance with all Federal, State, and
Regional Regulations 4 -53
0 83
4. Circulation Element Draft 917104
Introduction
4. Circulation Element
The circulation system is one of the most important of all urban
systems in determining the form and quality of the El Segundo
environment. The circulation modes used, location of routes,
operational policies and the operating levels of service influence the
nature of urban development, the physical organization of the City,
and can enhance or limit the social and economic activity within the
City.
Purpose and Authority The purpose of the Circulation Element is to assist the City in
providing a safe, convenient, and efficient circulation system. The
Circulation Element identifies a system capable of responding to
growth occurring consistent with the policies and Land Use Plan
presented in the Land Use Element. The Circulation Element
identifies physical improvements that will be needed to attain the
Circulation goals and objectives, as well as alternative techniques to
improve the City's circulation system.
The Circulation Element is part of the City of El Segundo's General
Plan. State law requires that a circulation element be incorporated
into the general plan. The pertinent government code sections are as
follows:
• Government Code Section 65302(b): The general plan shall
include ... a circulation element consisting of the general
location and extent of existing and proposed major
thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other
local public utilities and facilities, all correlated with the land
use element of the plan.
• Government Code Section 65303: The general plan may ...
address any other subjects which, in the judgment of the
legislative body, relate to the physical development of the
County or City.
084
T
H
E
C
I T
Y
O
F
E
L
S
E
G
U N
D
O
•
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
44
4. Circulation Element
Draft 917104
Related Plans and Circulation issues and travel patterns extend far beyond the El
Programs Segundo city limits. Consequently, the circulation system within the
City is heavily impacted by land use and circulation plans and
developments of other jurisdictions. The impact to the City's
circulation system of projected land use changes and circulation
system improvements of other jurisdictions, as projected during the
development of the General Plan, were incorporated into the analysis
and preparation of the Circulation Element.
Summary of Existing Conditions
Existing Street System The City of El Segundo is served by the existing network of
roadways shown on Exhibit C -1. The existing street network is
essentially a grid system of north/south and east/west roadways. The
primary north/south roadways are Aviation Boulevard, Douglas
Street, Nash Street, Sepulveda Boulevard, Center Street, Main Street,
and Vista Del Mar. The primary east/west streets are Imperial
Highway, Imperial Avenue, Maple Avenue, Mariposa Avenue,
Grand Avenue, El Segundo Boulevard, and Rosecrans Avenue. Each
of these arterial roadways is described in the Existing Conditions
Report.
Daily Operating Conditions on Existing Street Network
Daily operating conditions were analyzed on each of the arterials
designated on the City's Master Plan of Roadways. This was done by
comparing the average daily traffic volume for each arterial to the
estimated daily capacity and developing a corresponding Level of
Service (LOS) estimate of operating conditions. The daily traffic
volume, and estimated roadway capacity, and resulting LOS for each
of the key roadways in the City are shown on Exhibit C -2. A
definition of Level of Service (LOS) for urban arterial roadway
segments is included in Exhibit C -3.
A review of Exhibit C -2 reveals that most roadways in the City of El
Segundo operate at LOS "C" or better. Several roadway links operate
at LOS "D," which is considered marginally acceptable. These are:
• Aviation Boulevard between Hawaii Street and Rosecrans
• Avenue
• Imperial Highway between Main Street and California Street
• Sepulveda Boulevard between El Segundo Boulevard and
Rosecrans Avenue
• Sepulveda Boulevard between Mariposa Avenue and Grand
Avenue
085
T
H
E
C I
T
Y
O
F
E
L
S
E
G
U N
D
O
•
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
4-2
e
N
z
a
as
W
W
C7
0
A
w
a
W
W
0
r
H
U
1�
U
O
N
Z
O
c
N
W
rn
c
N
�X
W
08
N
U
c
O
(0
L
Q
O
z
cu
a �
a 3
a -a
ca
ry
Q 'co
w c'
W Cl)
x
O W
U O
L,
N
E
E
08
Level of Service
(LOS) Operating Conditions
A Free flow, with no restrictions on maneuvering
or operating speeds. Minimal or no delay.
B Stable flow, with some restrictions on
maneuvering or operating speeds. Nominal
delays.
C Stable flow, with more restrictions on speed and
maneuverability. Some delays.
D Approaching unstable flow. Restricted speed
and maneuverability. Delays encountered at
intersections.
E Unstable flow, with some stoppages.
Constitutes maximum capacity by definition.
Extensive delays at some locations.
F Forced flow, with many stoppages. Low
operating speeds, extensive queuing and very
extensive delays.
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO • GENERAL PLAN
Level of Service Description 'Y
for Urban Arterials c -3
088
4. Circulation Element Draft 917104
The following roadway segments operate at LOS "E," which is
considered unacceptable:
• Sepulveda Boulevard between Imperial Avenue and
Mariposa Avenue
• Rosecrans Avenue between Douglas Street and Aviation
Boulevard
While no traffic volumes on any of the roadways in the City now
exceed LOS E traffic volume thresholds, portions of Rosecrans
Avenue and Sepulveda Boulevard carry traffic volumes very close to
the threshold.
Analysis of Peak Hourly Operating Conditions on Existing Street
Network
In addition to the analysis of roadway segments on the basis of daily
traffic volume and capacity, peak hourly traffic conditions at several
key intersections throughout the City were also evaluated. Analysis
of intersection operations was conducted using the Intersection
Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. An explanation of the ICU
methodology and Intersection LOS is included in Exhibits C -4 and
C -5 respectively.
The results of the intersection analysis are presented graphically on
Exhibit C -6. A review of Exhibit C -6 reveals that according to the
peak hour intersection analysis, several intersections within the City
currently operate at unacceptable Levels of Service (LOS). The
following intersections currently operate at LOS "E" or "F" during
the AM or PM peak hour:
• Sepulveda Boulevard at Imperial Highway (LOS E AM Peak
only)
• Sepulveda Boulevard at Mariposa Avenue (LOS E in AM
Peak only)
• Sepulveda Boulevard at Grand Avenue (LOS E in both AM
and PM Peak)
• Sepulveda Boulevard at El Segundo Boulevard (LOS E in
AM Peak, LOS F in PM Peak)
• Sepulveda Boulevard at Rosecrans Avenue (LOS F in PM
Peak only)
• Rosecrans Avenue at Aviation Boulevard (LOS E in AM
Peak, LOS F in PM Peak)
Aviation Boulevard at El Segundo Boulevard (LOS E in AM
and PM Peak)
During the AM and PM peak hours, at least one movement carries
higher volumes than the available capacity at the unsignalized
intersection of Douglas Street at Utah Avenue. 0 8 9
T
H
E
C I
T
Y
O
F
E
L
S
E
G
U N
D
O•
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
4-6
The ability of a roadway to carry traffic is referred to as capacity. The capacity is usually greater
between intersections and less at intersections because traffic flows continuously between
intersections, and only during the green phase at intersections. Capacity at intersections is best
defined in terms of vehicles per lane per hour of green; if the green phase is 50 percent of the
cycle and there are three lanes, then the capacity is 1,600 times 50 percent times 3 lanes, or 2,400
vehicles per hour.
The technique used to compare the volume and capacity of an intersection is known as
Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU). ICU, usually expressed as a percent, is the proportion of
an hour required to provide sufficient time to accommodate all vehicles on all approaches. If an
intersection is operating at 80 percent of capacity, then 20 percent of the signal cycle is not used.
The signal could show red on all indications 20 percent of the time and the signal would just
accommodate approaching traffic.
ICU analysis consists of (a) determining the proportion of signal time needed to serve each
conflicting movement of traffic, (b) summing the times for the movements, and (c) comparing the
total time required to the total time available. For example, if for north -south traffic, the
northbound traffic is 1,600 vehicles per hour, the southbound traffic is 1,200 vehicles per hour,
and the capacity of either direction is 3,200 vehicles per hour, the northbound traffic is critical
and requires 1,600/3,200 or 50 percent of the signal time. If for the east -west traffic, 30 percent
of the signal time is required, then the ICU is 50 plus 30, or 80 percent. When left -turn phases
exist, they are incorporated into the analysis. The critical movements are usually the heavy left -
turn movements and the opposing through movements. In the ICU computation, an inefficiency
or "lost time" factor is also included.
Level of Service is used to describe the quality of traffic flow. Levels of Service "A" to "C"
operate quite well. While Level of Service "C" is considered desirable, Level of Service "D" is
encountered commonly at busy urban intersections. Most jurisdictions consider "D" to be an
acceptable Level of Service. Level of Service "E" is the maximum volume a facility can
accommodate and will result in possible stoppages of momentary duration. Level of Service "F"
occurs when a facility is overloaded and is characterized by stop- and -go traffic with stoppages of
long duration. A description of the various levels of traffic services appears in Exhibit C -5, along
with the relationship between ICU and level of traffic service.
The ICU calculation assumes that an intersection is signalized and that the signal is ideally timed.
Although calculating ICU for an unsignalized intersection is invalid, the presumption is that a
signal can be installed and the calculation shows whether the geometrics are capable of
accommodating the expected volume.
It is possible to have a ICU well below 100 percent, yet have severe traffic congestion. This
would occur if one or more movements is not getting sufficient time to satisfy its demand, and
excess time exists on other movements. This is an operating problem which should be remedied.
The ICU technique is a tool to quantify existing as well as future intersection operation. The
impact of adding a lane can be quickly determined by examining the effect the lane has on the
intersection capacity utilization.
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO • GENERAL PLAN
fM116f
Explanation of Intersection C_4
Capacity Utilization
0 90
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LEVEL OF RANGE
SERVICE TRAFFIC QUALITY OF ICU (a)
A Low volume; high speeds; speed not restricted by other vehicles; all
signal cycles clear with no vehicles waiting through more than one
signal cycle.
B Operating speed beginning to be affected by other traffic; between
one and ten percent of the signal cycles have one or more vehicles
which wait through more than one signal cycle during peak hour
traffic periods.
C Operating speeds and maneuverability closely controlled by other
traffic, between 11 and 38 percent of the signal cycles have one or
more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle during
peak traffic periods; recommended ideal design standard.
D Tolerable operating speeds; 31 to 70 percent of the signal cycles have
one or more vehicles which wait through more than one signal cycle
during peak traffic periods; often used as design standard in urban
areas.
E Capacity, the maximum traffic volume an intersection can
accommodate; restricted speeds; 71 to 100 percent of the signal
cycles have one or more vehicles which wait through more than one
signal cycle during peak traffic periods.
1111.1
0.61 -0.70
0.71 -0.80
,1 1 ' 1
0.91 -1.00
F Long queues of traffic; unstable flow; stoppages of long duration; Over 1.00
traffic volume and traffic speed can drop to zero; traffic volume will
be less than the volume which occurs at Level of Service "E."
(a) ICU means Intersection Capacity Utilization. Refer to Exhibit C -4 for explanation.
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service Average Control Delay
(s /veh)
A 0 -10
B >10 -15
C >15 -25
D >25 -35
E >35 -50
F >50
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO • GENERAL PLAN
rxhbk
Level of Service Description c -5
for Intersections
091
z
a
a
a
w
w
L7
0
A
O
w
a
w
w
O
F
A
U
c
O
cu
L
CL
O
c
O
U
O
U)
L
c
i
O
O
2
Y
(Q
d
c
N
.X
W
4-
O
c6
E
E
092
4. Cimulation Element Draft 917104
Street Classification and Function
The magnitude of traffic volumes on a particular street represents but
one element of hierarchy in an overall circulation system. The
system provides a balanced linkage between high traffic corridors
and low volume streets. The presently adopted City circulation
system consists of local streets, collector streets, secondary arterials,
major arterials and freeways. There are a myriad of other categories
or names for the components of a circulation system. However, it
should be recognized that the classification is not as important as the
function to be fulfilled.
The functions of the above street categories are as follows:
• Local Streets principally provide vehicular, pedestrian, and
bicycle access to property abutting the public right -of -way
with movement of traffic acting only as a secondary function.
• Collector Streets are intended to serve as the intermediate
route to handle traffic between local streets and arterials. In
addition, collector streets provide access to abutting property.
• Major and Secondary Arterials function to connect traffic
from collectors to the major freeway system. They move
large volumes of automobiles, trucks and buses, and link the
principal elements within the City to other adjacent regions.
• Freeways are controlled access, high speed roadways with
grade separated interchanges intended to expedite movement
between distant areas in a metropolitan community or region.
The basic principles of network circulation, using these various
functional street types, is important because it establishes the
rationale by which the existing and recommended El Segundo
circulation system was evaluated, and by which new proposals
should be evaluated in the future. The variety of street types is
designed for a specific function to provide adequate service to the
community.
In addition to the desired function within the circulation system, the
differing roadway classifications should be designed to carry
differing amounts of traffic volumes. The capacity of a specific
roadway section will be affected by a number of factors, including
street width, number of travel lanes, number of crossing arterials and
collectors, the number and type of signals, amount of parking, and
the number of driveways. Although the capacity on a given roadway
link will vary, daily capacities for each of the City's roadway
classifications listed, in Exhibit C -7, were determined to be
representative of roadway operating conditions in the City of El
Segundo. Therefore, these capacity estimates are presented for
general planning purposes and for use in traffic analysis throughout
the City. 093
T H
E
C I
T Y
O F
E
L
S
E
G
U N
D O
• G
E N
E R
A L
P L A N
4-10
ESTIMATED DAILY ROADWAY CAPACITY
Master Plan Roadway Number of Roadway Estimated Daily Roadway
Classification Lanes (a) Capacity (b)
Major Arterial 8LD 70,000
Secondary Arterial (Six 6LD 53,000
Lane Divided)
Collector (4 -Lane Divided) 4LD 40,400
Collector 4 -Lane 4LU 31,000
Collector 2 -Lane 2LU 14,000
Local 2LU 10,000
(a) 8 LD = Eight (8) lanes divided
6 LD = Six (6) lanes divided
4 LD = Four (4) lanes divided
4 LU = Four (4) lanes undivided
2 LU = Two (2) lanes undivided
(b) Estimated Daily Roadway Capacity at Level of Service "E" is considered to be the
carrying capacity of the roadway. Numbers indicate vehicles per day for roadway
system planning. Volume to Capacity (v /c) ratios are computed on the basis of LOS
E capacity. If the v/c ratio exceeds 1.00, the roadway LOS would be F. A v/c ratio
between 0.81 and 0.90 indicates LOS D, and a v/c ratio between 0.91 and 1.00
indicates LOS E.
Note: It is the goal of the City of E1 Segundo to achieve and maintain LOS D or better on
the City's arterials. The City considers LOS C to be desirable and LOS D to be
marginally acceptable for roadway segments. LOS E and LOS F are not
acceptable.
I CITY OF EL SEGUNDO • GENERAL PLAN I
taHGt
Estimated Daily Roadway Capacity C -7
09
4. Circulation Element
Future Conditions
Draft WID4
Streets and Highways The Circulation Element goals and objectives presented later in this
Element, combined with the future traffic demand as indicated by the
Land Use Element, formed the basis for planning the future system
of streets in El Segundo.
Et Segundo Street Classifications and Standards
The recommended street classifications and standards are illustrated
in Exhibit C -8 and described in the following paragraphs. These are
consistent with regional standards and classifications. For example,
the Los Angeles County Plan of Highways indicates a 100 -foot
right -of -way for a major highway. This would be equivalent to a
secondary arterial in the El Segundo Circulation Element.
Any street segment which is constructed to geometrics that are
inconsistent with the geometrics shown on Exhibit C -8 for the
corresponding street classification is generally considered to be
substandard. When new roadways are constructed or existing
roadways are improved, the standards shown on Exhibit C -8 should
be used as a guide to ensure that adequate rights -of -way exist to
provide sufficient width of travel lanes, parking lanes, curbs,
sidewalks, and medians where appropriate. It should also be noted
that right -of -way may be needed beyond the standards shown in
Exhibit C -8 in special locations, such as approaches to major
intersections.
The right -of -way, lane and on- street parking widths shown in
Exhibit C -8 are intended to be minimum widths. Ranges are
provided in order to provide flexibility depending on the existing and
future anticipated development, roadway volumes, and right -of -way
widths, as well as conformance with the goals, policies and
objectives of the General Plan. The evaluation of future
development should consider all of these issues in order to determine
the appropriate right -of -way dedication.
Freeways
Freeways are controlled access, high speed roadways with grade -
separated interchanges intended to expedite movement between
distant areas in a metropolitan community or region. Planning,
design, and construction of freeways in California are undertaken by
Caltrans. As a result, they fall outside the jurisdiction of a city.
Nonetheless, the City played an important role in the selection of the
I -105 Freeway alignment, in determining the number of lanes
required to carry projected traffic loads, and in locating the major
interchanges along the freeway to serve the City street system. Since,
T H E C I T Y
O F E L S
E G U N
D O •
G
E N
E R
A
L
P L A N
4-12
J .�
w• -w
u'
w�_y
��x•
I lo•
IT. J
1
1
uT -la
MAJOR ARTERIAL (S LANES MINIMUM)
Iv v.l•_e , n• IP
I �ia• -�av
30"
Ip IP
gIT IV IT IT IP
u•
er I
SECONDARY ARTERIAL
COLLECTOR
(4 LANE DIVIDED)
e' )c r I Ia i Ip' l e• .I e.
16
ao•
30'
'° I H
iv'v.ta 1 1�ir.la.r�..
w-ea•
COLLECTOR LOCAL STREET LOCALSTREET
(2 or 4 LANE) (RESIDENTIAL) (COMMERCIAL)
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO • GENERAL PLAN
Street Classification and Standards
..eaott
m
0 To
4. Circulation Element
Dian snro4
the Century (I -105) Freeway carries significant traffic volumes and
plays an integral role in the City's roadway system, it is included in
the City's Master Plan of Streets.
Major Arterials
Major arterials function to connect traffic from collectors to the
major freeway system as well as to provide access to adjacent land
uses. They move large volumes of automobiles, trucks and buses,
and link the principal elements within the City to other adjacent
regions. These facilities handle inter -city and intra -city vehicular
trips in the magnitude of 40,000 to 75,000 vehicles per day (vpd).
They should be planned for eight lanes of through traffic. In the
majority of cases in El Segundo, curb parking will be prohibited
during peak periods. Bicycle traffic would travel with vehicular flow
or be separated by a path behind the curb. Raised medians can be
used to separate opposing flows of vehicular traffic as necessary.
Access points, (i.e., driveways and minor intersecting streets) should
be minimized.
Separate left -turn lanes at major signalized intersections would be
mandatory with double left -turn lanes the rule rather than the
exception. Separate right -turn lanes which also serve as bus loading
areas would be considered at locations indicating high turn volumes.
At some intersections up to three left turn and up to two right turn
lanes may be provided, if needed, and if acquisition of additional
right -of -way is practical.
Secondary Arterials
Secondary arterials are similar to major arterials in function. They
connect traffic from collectors to the major freeway system. They
move large volumes of automobiles, trucks and buses, and link the
principal elements within the City to other adjacent regions. These
streets handle intra -city trips in the magnitude of 25,000 to 55,000
vpd and are not as continuous in length as major arterials. At least
six through lanes should be provided to handle these needs along
with single or double left -turn lanes (the latter preferably) at major
signalized intersections. Curb parking would be prohibited during
peak periods. Bicycle traffic would have to use paths behind the
curb, separate bicycle lanes, or travel in the street with autos, trucks
and buses.
Collector Streets
The collector street is intended to serve as an intermediate route to
handle traffic between local streets and arterials. In addition,
collector streets provide access to abutting property. Collector
streets are anticipated to carry traffic volumes between 15,000 to
40,000 vpd and serve important internal functions within the
community. A collector street may have one through lane per
097
T H
E
C
1 T
Y
O
F
E L
S
E G
U N
D
O
• G
E
N
E
R A
L
P L A N
4-14
4. Circulation Element
Draft 917104
direction; but more realistically, it should have a minimum of two
through lanes (at least during peak periods). In some cases, a 4 -lane
collector may have a median divider. Curb parking can be
accommodated if abutting property owners have insufficient off -
street parking. The function of the collector, however, is to "collect"
vehicles from the local street system and transport them to the
arterial system as efficiently as possible.
Signalization of collector /local street intersections should be timed to
permit the majority of the traffic flow on the collector while allowing
local street access. Restriction of free flow along collectors due to
unwarranted STOP controls should be discouraged.
Local Streets
Local streets principally provide vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle
access to property abutting the public right -of -way. Cross sections of
local streets vary, depending on the abutting land uses, parking
requirements, street trees, and other considerations. Where both sides
of the street are served equally in residential areas, the common
right -of -way width for a local street is 60 feet with a 36 -foot
pavement width.
In multi - family areas where there is continuous parking throughout
the day, a minimum of 40 feet of pavement may be required to
provide room for two moving lanes of traffic in addition to street
parking on both sides. In commercial and industrial areas, a
minimum pavement width of 40 feet is considered necessary. In
industrial areas, consideration of the predominant type of trucking,
and whether or not maneuvering of trailers must be provided, may
require a pavement width of more than 44 feet.
When pavement widths exceed 40 feet on local streets, rights -of -way
should be increased above 60 feet. Each parkway width should be 12
feet, including landscaped area and sidewalk. Sidewalk width should
be 4 feet in residential areas and 5 feet in commercial or industrial
areas.
The overall system design of local streets can greatly affect traffic.
Unduly long streets build up traffic volumes and act as collectors.
Cross streets and intersections with acute angles are likely to
contribute to accidents. Good practice precludes carrying local
streets into arterials since such intersections create unnecessary
friction points and cause related congestion on the arterials. A far
better approach is to bring local streets into collectors which then
feed into arterials.
098
T H
E
C I
T Y O
P
E L
S
E
G
U N
D O •
G
E
N
E R
A L
P L
A N
4-15
4. Circulation Element
Dreg 9!/104
Planned or Funded Roadway Improvements
A series of roadway improvements are either planned, funded or
currently under construction. The traffic model forecasts have
included these roadway improvements since they will be completed
prior to buildout of the Land Use Element. These roadway
improvements are illustrated in Exhibit C -9 and listed below.
Widening of Aviation Boulevard - Rosecrans Avenue to Imperial
Highway. The scope of work involves adding one lane in each
direction. The following intersections will benefit from this project.
• Aviation Boulevard/Imperial Highway - Add one through
lane in each direction for northbound and southbound
movements, resulting in dual lefts, 3 through and one right
turn only lane for both movements.
• Aviation Boulevard/120th Street - Add one through lane in
each direction for northbound and southbound movements,
resulting in one left and 3 through lanes for both movements.
• Aviation Boulevard/El Segundo Boulevard - Add one
through lane in each direction for northbound and
southbound movements, resulting in one left, 3 through and
one right turn only lane for the southbound movement; one
left and 3 through lanes for the northbound movement.
• Aviation Boulevard/Utah -135th Street - Add one through
lane in each direction for northbound and southbound
movements, resulting in one left and 3 through lanes for both
movements.
• Aviation Boulevard/Rosecrans Avenue Improvements - The
intersection improvements are being implemented by the City
of Hawthorne. The proposed lane additions are:
Add second left -turn lane on northbound,
southbound and eastbound approaches.
➢ Add a fourth through lane and one exclusive right
lane on the southbound movement.
➢ Add a third through lane on the westbound
approach.
➢ Add an exclusive right -turn lane on the
northbound and eastbound approaches.
Construct left -turn pocket for northbound Continental Boulevard
at Grand Avenue - This improvement will result in one left and
three through lanes for the northbound movement. U 9 =y
T H E C I T Y O F E L S E G U N D O • G E N E R A L P L A N
4-16
IR
TWO �
U
J n
a �
cn
a �cc
C
W �
z �
o
o Q-
�a E
'0
N
a �
w c
o
� d
H
v
100
4. Circulation Element Draft 917194
Douglas Street Extension from Park Place to Alaska Avenue —
This improvement will connect the discontinuous street between
Park Place and Alaska Avenue.
Construct left -turn pocket for southbound Sepulveda Boulevard at
Grand Avenue.
Convert one through lane to a shared through/left -turn lane on
eastbound El Segundo Boulevard at Sepulveda Boulevard.
Convert Nash and Douglas Streets to two -way operation between
Imperial Avenue and El Segundo Boulevard. Make all necessary
intersection improvements to accommodate two -way operation.
Other Additional Intersection Improvements identified in the
Traffic Analysis Report and EIR for the Circulation Element to
further improve intersection levels of service which may require
additional rieht -of -way bevond the street classifications in Exhibit
Future Travel In order to plan for the future travel conditions in El Segundo, traffic
Forecasts forecasts were developed for buildout of the City's Land Use Plan as
presented in the Land Use Element. The traffic forecasts
incorporated the type and density of future land uses within the City,
the location and potential interaction of various land use types, as
well as the characteristics and capacity of each of the City's
roadways. The following types of development activity in the City
have been considered:
• Approved and Active Projects - Those projects which have
already received discretionary approval or are being
reviewed. Approved or active projects are summarized in
Table III -3 of the Traffic Analysis Report for the Circulation
Element.
• Vacant Parcels - Potential development of all vacant parcels
has been assessed, assuming appropriate zoning categories
and floor -area- ratios. The results are presented in Table III -4
of the Traffic Analysis Report for the Circulation Element.
• Recyclable Parcels - Parcels which currently have buildings
but which are likely to be recycled within the time frame of
the Circulation Element have been assessed. Potential
development on vacant parcels and recyclable parcels is
summarized in Appendix C of the Traffic Analysis Report for
the Circulation Element.
101
T H
E
C I
T Y
O
F
E L
S
E
G
U N
D
O
• G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
4-18
4. Circulation Element Draft 917104
Due to the fact that El Segundo is located in an urbanized area with
many jurisdictions and a variety of planners and decision makers,
planning for the City's future must incorporate projected activities in
the jurisdictions neighboring the City and in the region as a whole.
Therefore, projected traffic using the City's streets that would be
generated by land use changes outside the city was incorporated into
the analysis of buildout traffic conditions. In addition, regional
initiatives and activities, due to air quality and congestion concerns,
are projected to have an impact on future travel patterns and traffic
conditions in the region. The effect of regional air quality and
congestion reduction activities was also considered and incorporated
into the analysis of future traffic conditions.
Master Plan of Street
The Master Plan of Streets is presented in Exhibit C -10. The Master
Plan of Streets has been revised since the existing Master Plan was
adopted in 1992 and has been developed taking into consideration
existing street alignments, constraints in the City, the potential for new
routes, and future traffic volumes, all predicated on the types of
existing and future land uses and their spatial relationships.
The Master Plan of Streets designates a preferred number of traffic
lanes to support buildout of the General Plan Land Use Element.
Accordingly, the Master Plan of Streets would be developed with the
full cross section of lanes for each street designation, as shown in
Exhibit C -8. Thus, all streets designated as 6 -lane roadways would
have three through lanes in each direction (six through lanes total) in
the future, all streets designated as 8 -lane roadways would have four
through lanes in each direction.
The Master Plan of Streets differs from the Master Plan of Streets
adopted in 1992 in the following aspects:
The previously planned extension of Grand Avenue from
Douglas Street to Aviation Boulevard is no longer included in
the Master Plan of Streets.
The previously planned extension of Mariposa Avenue from
Douglas Street to Aviation Boulevard is no longer included in
the Master Plan of Streets.
The previously planned direct connection of Nash Street north
of Rosecrans Boulevard is no longer included in the Master
Plan of Streets.
The previously planned direct connection of Hughes Way to
Utah Avenue is no longer included in the Master Plan of
Streets.
102
T
H
E
C I
T
Y
O
F
E
L
S
E
G
U N
D
O •
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
4-19
Hall I
' U
z
cn
m
w C/)
z
w ti-
O
o C
Q �
� a
ai
LTA cn
V.
m
r �
H
U
103
4. Circulation Element Draft 917104
Nash and Douglas Streets are designated as two -way streets
between Imperial Avenue and El Segundo Boulevard,
representing a change from the existing one -way operation on
those streets
The designation of a future transportation corridor in the
southeastern part of the city to include extensions of Park Place
and Allied Way.
The designation of Park Place between Nash Street and Douglas
Street as a collector, rather than a local street.
A discussion of these changes and the reasons for change are presented
in the following paragraphs.
Unconstructed Master Plan Street Extensions
The Master Plan of Streets, adopted in 1992, included some
unconstructed street system extensions. None of these street extensions
would be expected to serve through traffic since none would provide
continuous travel routes for regional through trips. Therefore, the main
purpose of each street extension is to serve local parcels of land as they
are developed and provide access to each parcel. In general, given the
grid -like circulation system, the parcels can be efficiently served by a
series of well designed access points, driveways and internal roadways
as opposed to new through streets.
One of the serious concerns associated with the previously planned
east/west through streets is the potential to also increase traffic flow on
streets west of Sepulveda Boulevard. This concern is especially critical
for Mariposa Avenue and Grand Avenue. Extension of either street
through to Aviation Boulevard would likely result in increased traffic
volume on those streets to the west of Sepulveda Boulevard as a result
of the creation of new convenient routes.
Grand Avenue
The Master Plan of Streets, adopted in 1992, included the extension of
Grand Avenue from Duley Road east to Aviation Boulevard. Based on
significant traffic growth in the vicinity of Grand Avenue between
Continental Boulevard and Douglas Street, Grand Avenue is
maintained in the Master Plan as far as Douglas Street. This will help
to relieve congestion at the intersections of Nash Street/El Segundo
Boulevard and Douglas Street/El Segundo Boulevard. The segment of
Grand Avenue from Douglas Street to Aviation Boulevard is no longer
included in the Master Plan of Streets. This will protect the segment of
Grand Avenue west of Sepulveda Boulevard from becoming a through
route for commuter traffic.
404
T H
E
C I
T
Y
O
F
E L
S
E
G
U N
D
O
• G
E
N
E
R
A L
P
L
A
N
4-21
4. Circulation Element Draft 917104
Mariposa Avenue
The Master Plan of Streets, adopted in 1992, included the connection of
Mariposa Avenue from Douglas Street to Aviation Boulevard. The
construction of this street extension would primarily serve the land uses
in that vicinity as they are developed. This would likely increase traffic
volumes on Mariposa Avenue in the residential neighborhoods west of
Sepulveda Boulevard. For this reason, the street extension has been
deleted from the Master Plan.
Lairport Street
The Master Plan of Streets, adopted in 1992, included the connection of
Lairport Street from Maple Avenue to Selby Street. This connection
would serve though traffic volumes from the area south of Maple
Avenue, however, little growth is forecast in the area between Maple
Avenue and Imperial Highway. This link would connect Lairport
Street to Imperial Highway relatively close to the intersection with
Sepulveda Boulevard. This street extension is maintained in the Master
Plan.
Douglas Street
The Master Plan of Streets, adopted in 1992, included connection of
Douglas Street from its current terminus through to existing Douglas
Street near Park Place (for connection through to Rosecrans Avenue).
Given the significant forecast congestion on both Sepulveda Boulevard
and Aviation Boulevard, as well as the forecast increase in trips along
Douglas Street north of Rosecrans Avenue, this connection is
warranted and remains in the Master Plan. The future traffic model
forecasts included the Douglas Street extension improvements as an
assumed baseline condition since it is anticipated to be completed prior
to buildout of the Land Use Element.
Nash Street
The Master Plan of Streets, adopted in 1992, included the direct
connection of Nash Street from El Segundo Boulevard to the existing
terminus north of Rosecrans Avenue. Due to current and anticipated
future land use patterns, this connection is not likely to be feasible
within the time frame of the Circulation Element. It is therefore not
included in the Master Plan.
Hughes Way
The Master Plan of Streets, adopted in 1992, included the connection of
existing Hughes Way to Utah Avenue to the east. Due to current and
anticipated future land use patterns, this connection is not likely to be
feasible within the time frame of the Circulation Element. It is
therefore not included in the Master Plan.
105
T
H E
C I
T Y O F
E L
S
E G
U N
D
O
• G
E
N E
R A L
P
L A N
4-22
4. Circulation Element
Draft 917,D4
Future Transportation Corridor
At this time, there are emerging plans for redevelopment of a
significant portion of the southeast portion of the City (north of
Rosecrans Avenue and east of Sepulveda Boulevard). If
redevelopment activity occurs in the future, there may be a need for
additional roadway capacity to support the increased trips that would
occur as a result of the development activity. Although the Nash Street
and Hughes Way extensions are not warranted at this time, and neither
is included in the Master Plan of Streets, the City expects to establish a
future transportation corridor in that quadrant of the City. The Corridor
will allow the City to reserve potential right -of -way, to be determined
as development is proposed, to complete the necessary transportation
networks which will serve the new development. At this time, it is not
possible to designate the precise alignment of roadway connections;
however, it must be recognized that additional east/west and
north/south circulation capacity will be required. This may include an
extension of Park Place from Nash Street to Sepulveda Boulevard and
an extension of Allied Way south to connect to Park Place. The City
should evaluate the need for additional east/west and north/south
capacity based upon development proposals as they arise. The
alignment of the transportation facilities will be determined based upon
further studies and should include capacity to serve the new
development as well as anticipated through traffic that may use the new
roadways. With the potential extension of Park Place, it is appropriate
to redesignate the portion of Park Place between Nash Street and
Douglas Street from a local street to a collector street to be consistent
with the designation of the Park Place extension.
Nash /Douglas One Way Couplet Versus Two -Way Traffic Flow
Nash and Douglas Streets currently operate as one -way streets from El
Segundo Boulevard to Imperial Highway. In 1996, the change to one-
way operation was completed in response to the opening of the I -105
Freeway and concerns associated with freeway access and related
congestion. Since the conversion to one -way operation there have been
concerns related to the circuitous travel paths created for some
businesses. Conversion to two -way flow, with appropriate mitigation
measures would provide more desirable traffic operating conditions.
Based on the technical findings and the City's strong desire to return to
two -way flow, these two streets are included as two -way streets in the
Master Plan of Streets.
Future Redevelopment of the Chevron Refinery 10 6
The current land uses and activities on the Chevron Refinery site are
expected to remain throughout the life of this General Plan and
Circulation Element. However, potential redevelopment of this site
T H
E
C I
T
Y
O
F
E L
S
E
G
U N
D
O
• G E
N
E
R
A L
P L
A
N
4-23
4. Circulation Element Draft 917104
will have a significant impact on all aspects of the City, including
circulation. Redevelopment of the Chevron site will require
reevaluation and possibly an update of the General Plan and require
reevaluation of the Circulation Element. The potential redevelopment
of this site may require significant roadway system improvements
beyond those identified in the Master Plan of Streets. All future
roadways within the Chevron site would be planned and constructed
consistently with the City's Master Plan of Streets to ensure system
continuity and use of appropriate standards.
Projected Traffic Volumes on El Segundo Arterial Roadways
The projected future traffic volumes are shown on Exhibit C -11 for
each of the City's arterial roadways.
Transportation System and Transportation Demand Management
It is recognized that there are physical limitations to the amount of
street width that can be provided. The buildout traffic projections in
many instances cannot be accommodated solely by conventional
roadway widening techniques. The use of Transportation System
Management (TSM) and Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
techniques (discussed later in the Circulation Element) to handle the
projected "person trips" in the area must also be considered.
Such TSM and TDM techniques should be considered both:
• As a general augmentation to implementation of the Master
Plan of Streets and Highways generally; and
• As an alternative to site specific Master Plan implementation if
it can be reasonably demonstrated that the TSM alternative will
have at least as great a mitigating impact, and the property
owner is willing to enter into a legally binding agreement with
the City to implement such TSM alternatives.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)
Nearly every jurisdiction in southern California has experienced
roadway congestion problems that cannot be solved simply by adding
roadway capacity. This is for several reasons including the lack of
right -of -way to accomplish various widening projects as well as the
environmental impacts associated with major roadway enhancements.
As an alternative and supplemental improvement, many local agencies
are implementing Intelligent Transportation Systems projects using
advanced computer and communication technologies. The ITS projects
that are being implemented provide improved traveler information,
manage the flow of traffic, and utilize existing transportation systems
more efficiently. 107
T H
E
C 1
T Y
O F
E L
S
E
G
U N
D O
• G
E
N
E
R
A L
P L
A
N
4-24
o
C)
G
a)
w
E CD
a �
a
0-0
a > (0
VJ
N
o �a
'M
a
o�
w a�
o U N
J
CD
O 0
a�
0
a
..
108
4. Circulation Element Draft W104
The goals of ITS are to reduce travel times, provide more reliable travel
times, improve safety, reduce delay and reduce congestion. The high
concentration of employment in the northeast quadrant of El Segundo
makes it an area that is well- suited for application of advanced
technology to accomplish the goals of ITS. This is because of the
high density of employment, the large number of peak hour trips, the
potentially high growth rate and the constraints on physical
improvements. Examples of ITS system components include a
centralized computer transportation management center, advanced
transportation monitoring systems such as closed circuit TV (CCTV),
transit traveler information, dynamic information displays at activity
centers, bus priority treatment, real -time traffic management,
coordination of local circulators, corporate Intranet information and
other elements. In other jurisdictions, these types of improvements
have resulted in significant savings in vehicle and motorist delay,
significant travel time reductions and significant environmental
benefits all without major roadway widening or reconstruction projects.
Recent deployment of ITS technologies has occurred throughout Los
Angeles (ATSAC and other systems), Orange County (SMART
STREETS), the South Bay, Santa Monica and many other agencies.
Due to its many benefits and cost effectiveness, ITS could be
considered as an integral part of the future transportation system of El
Segundo. Similar to the City of Los Angeles methodology, a ten
percent enhancement in capacity has been incorporated into the traffic
modeling for the projected traffic volumes at buildout to represent the
savings in vehicle stops and delays that would occur as a result of an
ITS system in the City.
Truck Routes The residents and businesses of El Segundo rely heavily on trucks for
the efficient movement of goods in an economical and safe manner.
For this reason, the truck route system within and through the City is
an important aspect of the Circulation Element.
Current City Truck Routes
The El Segundo Municipal Code officially authorizes the City
Council, by resolution, to designate truck routes on streets where
vehicles in excess of three tons may travel. Existing truck routes are
provided with appropriate sign posting to guide truck traffic through
the City. These existing routes are shown in Exhibit C -12.
Truck Route Considerations
Selection of a truck routing system necessitates the determination of
the impact of truck traffic on abutting land uses. There are land use
categories that benefit from heavy truck access. Among these are
industrial and commercial uses that require streets and alleys
accessible to their development. Industry has to be served by trucks
109
T H
E
C I
T Y
O
F
E
L
S
E
G
U N
D
O
• G
E
N
E R
A L
P
L A N
4-26
of ii! i
` U
z
U)
a �
0
Y
U
o �
(yy� —
W �
a=+
W Vi
w X
o W
F
U
110
4. Cimulation Element Draft 917104
for deliveries of raw materials, the transfer of inventory, and the out-
flow of finished goods. Commercial land uses also require access to
trucks primarily for the transfer of inventory.
Conversely, there is a need to protect those land uses that are
adversely affected by heavy truck traffic. In E1 Segundo, these include
the single - family, two - family, and multi - family residential uses in the
northwestern portion of the City. Heavy truck traffic within
residential neighborhoods produce annoying and often excessive
levels of noise, fumes, vibrations, and unsightliness. Areas in which
schools, hospitals, churches, convalescent homes, and mortuaries are
located must also be considered.
Establishment of a truck route system must basically follow the
arterial street system. These routes must be located along those
arterials designed to accommodate large vehicle traffic, and must, at
the same time, seek to avoid fully developed residential areas where
there are close and reasonable alternatives. They should also
concentrate in areas of need such as the primary commercial and
industrial areas in the southwest and easternmost portions of the City.
The gross maximum weight restriction (6,000 pounds) in El Segundo
is consistent with the weight limit imposed by most cities for non-
truck route streets. The streets selected for the truck route system
must be designed to support loads in excess of this limitation.
Provisions must also be made for vehicles transporting hazardous
materials into and through the City along the truck route system.
Current Municipal Code sections in El Segundo adequately account
for such provisions.
Master Plan Truck Route System
The Recommended Master Plan Truck Route System is shown in
Exhibit C -13. It incorporates the following roadways as recommended
additions to the existing truck route system in El Segundo:
Grand Avenue between Sepulveda Boulevard and Aviation
Boulevard
Douglas Street between Imperial Avenue and Rosecrans
Avenue
Nash Street between Imperial Avenue and El Segundo
Boulevard
The recommended truck routes differ from those recommended in
1992 as follows:
111
T
H E
C I
T
Y
O F
E
L
S
E
G
U N
D
O
• G
E
N
E R
A
L
P L
A
N
4-28
N
N
a o
a �
Y
W U
z =3
W L
Q
C7 C
W �
.a
W
O
� O
H V
v ry
112
4. Circulation Element Draft WIN
Nash Street from El Segundo Boulevard to Park Place is
removed since that street extension is deleted.
Grand Avenue from Douglas Street to Aviation Boulevard is
deleted since that street extension is deleted.
Grand Avenue from Main Street to Sepulveda Boulevard is
added.
Grand Avenue from Main Street to Sepulveda Boulevard is
retained since it has been implemented and is no longer
recommended for deletion.
Truck Loading Zones
There are presently narrow streets and alleys within some of the
industrial areas of the City that serve as impediments to truck
operation on the present street system. Current land uses and future
development require truck access in many of these areas. The City
needs to work toward widening the streets and alleys, eliminating the
impediments for truck operation from the City's street system. In
addition, the City should work toward implementing the appropriate
policies listed later in the Circulation Element in order to minimize
the truck access impediments wherever street widening is not feasible.
Alternative Modes of Travel
Public Transportation The automobile has traditionally been the primary method of
transportation in the Southern California region. However, changing
lifestyles, economic pressures and greater social and environmental
concerns have increased the need for alternatives to automobile
travel. Public transportation is one of the alternative modes of travel
that can possibly reduce the region's and the City's dependence on the
present auto - oriented transportation system.
In order for a transit system to attract users away from the
automobile, it must be as convenient and affordable as possible.
Compared to the convenience, flexibility, and privacy of travel by
car, transit travel is perceived to be less appealing, especially for
recreational purposes. Thus, for transit service to provide a viable
alternative to the automobile in the City of El Segundo, the City must
take an active role in planning and supporting the provision of various
transit opportunities.
Existing Public Transit
The current transit service in El Segundo is provided by the Metro
Green Line light rail system and fixed bus routes operated by the Los
Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and a Dial -a-
Ride service by the City of El Segundo. The Green Line route and
stations in El Segundo and the current fixed MTA bus routes
operating within the City are shown on Exhibit C -14.
T H E C I T Y O F E L S E G U N D O • G E N E R A L P L A N
4-30
C
a
a
a
CD
O
A
w
w
w
O
v
v
• U
N
O
ry
m
N
X
C
CO
N
C
J
C
N
N
L
O
N
N
U
N
C
(0
LL
r
�X
W
i '!
4. Circulation Element Dreg 917104
The Municipal Area Express, or MAX Transit Service, is funded
cooperatively by eight cities and Los Angeles County. It is a
directional bus service primarily provided for the workers in the El
Segundo area. Buses run on two routes from residential areas in the
South Bay to El Segundo in the AM, and from El Segundo back to
the South Bay residential areas in the PM.
Demand Responsive Transit Service (Dial -a -Ride)
In El Segundo, the City provides one twelve- passenger van that
operates on a "Dial -a- Ride" basis in response to specific demand.
This service has been in operation since 1975. Residents phone for
appointments, with a door -to -door response time of approximately 10
minutes.
The service is currently funded by Proposition A funds. Dial -a -Ride
service is free to El Segundo residents and only operates within the
City limits. The van operates from 9:00 AM to 3:00 PM Monday
through Friday, and from 10:00 AM to 3:00 PM on Saturday.
Ridership levels have stabilized over the years to approximately 38
passengers per day (approximately 12,000 passengers per year).The
predominant users of this service are senior citizens, accounting for
approximately 80 percent of the trips.
The City also
operates
a fixed
-route beach shuttle from mid -June to
Labor Day.
The service
operates from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM
everyday and
carries approximately
200 riders daily.
Downtown Lunchtime Shuttle
The City of El Segundo operates a lunchtime downtown shuttle
service, with four 12- passenger vans. Two routes are operated, one
along Grand Avenue and one along Imperial Avenue, both between
Sepulveda Boulevard and the downtown area. Hours of operation are
between 11:30 AM and 2:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Shuttles
are operated with a frequency of about one van every 10 minutes.
Considering Public Transit Alternatives
Presently, the City has a variety of transit alternatives, including the
Metro Green Line, the MTA bus services, the MAX Transit System,
the City of El Segundo Dial -A -Ride, and Route 8 of the Torrance
Transit System.
Public investment regionally in transit services can be a viable means
of mitigating the effects of automobile usage while providing
increased mobility to all groups of citizens and employees. It must be
11:;
T H E C I T Y O F E L S E G U N D O • G E N E R A L P L A N
4-32
4. Circulation Element Draft 917104
emphasized that transit bus or rail service cannot substitute for all
automobile travel in the City, nor should it be intended to do so. The
private automobile is an attractive means of travel for many people,
offering an unmatched advantage for certain types of trips. Transit
alternatives are only one component in the total transportation system
serving the City, yet certainly the most environmentally respectful in
the urban context.
Certain areas are more suitable for transit services than others. The
following conditions exist and overlap in the City and adjacent urban
areas and suggest that transit service would be appropriate within the
City:
• High population concentration of housing and/or employment
• Excess auto demand on present highway system
• Fragile residential environment
Rail Rapid Transit
As illustrated in Exhibit C -14, the 2.9 mile Metro Green Line
Extension running from the Century Freeway south through El
Segundo provides access to the regional rail rapid transit system via
rail stations at various locations in El Segundo. The following
stations provide access to the Metro Green Line:
• Douglas/Rosecrans Station
• El Segundo/Nash Station
• Mariposa/Nash Station
• Aviation/I -105 Freeway Station (adjacent to the eastern
boundary of El Segundo)
The Metro Green Line provides light rail service along the I -105
Freeway from Norwalk to Los Angeles Airport (LAX). Through
transfer to the Metro Blue Line, Metro Red Line and Metro Gold
Line, it provides El Segundo with rail service to downtown Los
Angeles, Long Beach, Hollywood and Pasadena.
The Metro Green Line is elevated through all of the City, along the
alignment shown in Exhibit C -14. Service is provided seven days a
week from 5:30 AM to 1:30 AM with 6- minute headways during the
peak and 20- minute headways during the off -peak. Parking is
provided at the Nash/El Segundo station. Connecting bus or shuttle
service is also available at all stations.
Implementation of the Metro Green Line provides the eastern portion
of the City with direct rail service. The service attracts some
commuters and visitors away from the automobile and thus,
positively impacts the roadway system within the City. Projected
impacts and usage of the Metro Green Line service and increased
T
H E
C I
T
Y
O
F
E
L
5
E
G
U N
D O
• G
E
N
E
R
A L
P L A N
4-33
116
4. Circulation Element Draft sn104
emphasis on transit regionally were incorporated into the analysis and
development of the Circulation Element.
To ensure that the Metro Green Line is integrated into the City's
circulation system, and City activities in general, consideration of the
rail line should be incorporated into all aspects of City planning
activities and the development review process. This is particularly
important in the vicinity of the rail line stations. In addition, the
pedestrian and bicycle circulation system must be designed to allow
convenient access to each of the stations. Further, the City should
monitor the MTA and incorporate all Metro Rail planning and
development into the City's planning process.
Park - and -Ride
"Park- and -ride" facilities provide an interface between the private
automobile and public transit/mass transit. Park- and -ride facilities
enable the public to access the transit system by driving to a park -
and -ride facility, parking the car, then riding the transit system to
complete the trip. When the location of a park- and -ride facility is
coupled with highly efficient fixed transit service and an adequate
collection and distribution service at the commercial end of the trip,
this concept is an integral part of public transportation.
Metro Green Line
Within the City, a park- and -ride facility is provided at the El
Segundo/Nash Metro Green Line station in addition to the Aviation/I-
105 Metro Green Line station just east of the city limits. Additionally
a multi -modal transit center with a park -and -ride facility is planned to
be constructed on City property adjacent to the Douglas Street Metro
Green Line Station as part of the Douglas Street extension project.
Bicycle Facilities The bicycle is increasing in popularity as a mode of transportation for
commuter travel as well as for recreation. This is due to the growing
cost of motor vehicle operation, the significantly shorter portal -to-
portal time when bikes are used on short trips, the increasing
awareness and desire of travelers to utilize clean-air travel methods,
and the acceptance of the bicycle for personal health, exercise, and
increased mobility. There is a need to meet the growing demand for
safe places to ride bicycles, both for recreation and commuter
activities.
For many years, roadway facilities have been built exclusively to
meet the needs of the motorized vehicle, resulting in street
geometries, lane widths, and intersections that have not been designed
for bicyclist concerns. Bicycle safety is jeopardized due to bike /auto
and bike /pedestrian confrontation on the street, and the lack of space
given to bicycle movement. Conflicts between bicycles and
pedestrians at intersections and on sidewalks results in the need to 1 17
T H
E
C I T Y
O
F
E L
S
E
G
U N
D O •
G
E
N E R A L
P
L A N
4-34
4. Circulation Element Draft 811104
separate these three modes, wherever possible, to provide a safer and
more efficient operational environment for each.
Definitions
To clarify any discussion on bicycles, a distinction must be made
between the type of bicycle facilities in use. The following definitions
(recognized Statewide) are identified below, and used throughout the
Circulation Element:
Bicycle Path - Class I
This facility is a special path for exclusive use of bicycles which
is separated from the motor vehicle traffic by space or a physical
barrier.
Bicycle Lane - Class II
A bicycle facility where a portion of the paved area is marked
especially as a lane for use of bicycles. It is identified by
BIKELANE signing, pavement marking and lane line markings.
Usually, special ordinances are necessary to legally define the
area's exclusive use of bicycle traffic and to exclude mopeds and
infringement by motor vehicles.
Bicycle Route - Class III
A bicycle way designated within a public right -of -way. The
purpose of the bike route is primarily that of transportation,
allowing the bicyclist to travel from one point in the City to
another. A "shared bicycle route" is a street identified as a bicycle
facility by BIKE ROUTE signing only. No special markings on
the pavement are provided.
Existing Bicycle Route System
The existing system of bicycle facilities in the vicinity of El Segundo
currently is limited to bicycle paths (Class I) along Imperial Highway,
along the beach (Los Angeles County implementation), and portions
of Grand Avenue approaching the beach. Exhibit C -15 illustrates
existing and planned bicycle routes in the City. All routes shown on
the exhibit are future planned routes unless specifically indicated as
existing on the map.
Bicycle Route Guidelines and Standards
Implementation of any bicycle route facility, as designated on the
Bicycle Master Plan, would be subject to applicable design standards
and guidelines. The State of California has prepared and approved
"Standards and Guidelines for the Implementation and Design of
Bicycle Facilities." The evolution of design concepts for this mode of
transportation continues today, but the basic conclusions and basis for
design remain with the State Guidelines. The principle bicycle design
areas that should be adhered to include: 118
T H E
C I
T Y
O F
E L
S
E
G
U N
D
O •
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
4-35
4. Circulation Element
Draft 917104
• Minimum widths (8 -foot minimum for two -way path; 5 -foot
minimum for one -way)
• Signing and striping of routes, lanes, and paths
• Design speed
• Horizontal alignment; i.e., curvature and super - elevation of
paths
• Stopping sight distance
• Grades, length of crest vertical curves
• Adequate structural section
• Treatment of bicyclist at intersections
• Treatment when passing over at -grade railroad crossings,
drainage grates, manhole covers, and driveway access points
Master Plan of Bicycle Routes
The need to link the City with a system of bicycle facilities led to the
development of a Master Plan of Bicycle Routes, adopted in 1992. It
includes existing routes, and routes that are, or could be, developed
into major bicycle - carrying corridors. The Master Plan of Bicycle
Routes, shown on Exhibit C -15, is an integral part of the city's
Circulation Element. No changes are proposed to the adopted Master
Plan of Bicycle Routes.
Pedestrian Circulation The pedestrian is an integral part of the circulation system and
requires appropriate attention in the Circulation Element. The
sidewalk is an area of refuge that represents a convenient and safe
route for pedestrian transport. The relatively high percentage of
elderly residential population in El Segundo, plus school children
coupled with mid -day walkers for shopping trips and jogging,
necessitate the establishment of a pedestrian circulation system that
will support and encourage walking as a mode of transportation.
The El Segundo Municipal Code Section on "Street and Sidewalks"
does not address the issue of sidewalk design nor the policies for
sidewalk implementation. The City Department of Public Works,
however, has prepared Standard Plans and Specifications for the
installation of sidewalks. The primary criteria is minimum width of
sidewalk on new installation which is standard at 4 feet for residential
streets. Sidewalks in commercial areas should be a minimum of 8 feet
wide. The only exception for commercial streets is the case where the
distance from face of curb to property line is 5 feet. The sidewalk
minimum requirement then becomes 4 feet, 6 inches.
Installation of sidewalks is mandatory with all new improvements in
the City. Existing locations that do not have sidewalks can only
require implementation on an assessment district basis; i.e., petition
119
T H E C I T Y O F E L S E G U N D O • G E N E R A L P L A N
4.36
LO
z
I ! '
z
a
a c
cu
d
W L
co
cu
yyQ
w U
a
w U_
O m
U
120
4. Circulation Element Draft WIN
from the homeowners with City installation and cost of the sidewalk
distributed to each homeowner on the basis of their street frontage.
The City has pursued sidewalk installation on the basis of the 1911
Act. This Act allows installation of a sidewalk by an agency in all
blocks where over 50 percent of the block has existing sidewalk.
Protest from the citizens can be made to nullify installation under this
Act with the final decision resting with the City Council. The City of
El Segundo in the past has used this Act to install sidewalks to "close
the gaps" in many of the residential areas.
It is necessary to keep the sidewalk area free of obstructions to allow
for the free flow of pedestrians. When there is a need to place certain
obstructions, i.e., traffic signal poles, they should be designed to
present the least interference to pedestrians.
In the areas of new planned development, the separation of
pedestrians from autos must be considered. Utilizing pedestrian
overpasses between buildings is one method of accomplishing this.
The removal of the pedestrian from at -grade crossings significantly
improves signal timing conditions, thus improving traffic flows.
Transportation System Transportation System Management (TSM) and Transportation
and Demand Demand Management (TDM) techniques are cost - effective methods
Management of improving traffic conditions. Roadway system expansion alone
will not be enough to serve all projected circulation needs within the
City of El Segundo. TSM and TDM techniques will have to be
incorporated as an integral part of the City's package of transportation
services provided in the future. The City currently has regulations in
place, Municipal Code Chapters 15 -16 and 15 -17, which serve this
function.
Transportation System Management (TSM)
Transportation System Management (TSM) techniques are generally
low cost methods relative to capital improvements. They involve
changes to the existing system that permit improvements in operation.
Caltrans defines TSM projects as "those projects designed to increase
the number of person trips which can be carried on the system
without significantly increasing the design capacity or the number of
through lanes."
The City should evaluate a variety of TSM techniques and implement
those that are deemed appropriate. Suggested TSM programs for
consideration should include but are not limited to:
• Auxiliary lanes, such as acceleration and deceleration lanes
• Intersection improvements including addition of turn lanes,
channelization, and implementation of signal coordination
system 121
T H E
C I
T Y
O F
E L
S
E G
U N
D
O
• G
E
N E
R
A
L
P
L
A N
4-38
4. Circulation Element Draft 917104
Restriction of peak hour parking
• Commuter Information Systems, such as changeable message
signs, highway advisory radio, computer bulletin boards,
telephone call- in systems, and related links with other city or
state traffic operations centers
Improvements designed to assist traffic flow related to transit
vehicles, such as bus turnouts and signal preemption systems
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs are geared
toward reducing the number of vehicle trips wishing to use the
circulation system. TDM techniques can be an effective tool in
reducing air pollution, as well as traffic congestion. In fact, the
Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),
through Regulation 2202, has required TDM plans and programs
throughout the region for companies of 250 or more employees. This
includes many of the businesses and a significant portion of the
workers located within El Segundo. The City should encourage and
assist all the businesses in El Segundo to plan and maintain TDM
programs. This should be done directly or through cooperation with
and support of the El Segundo Employers Association (ESEA).
Potential TDM programs and techniques should include but are not
limited to:
• Flexible work schedules to reduce demand during the peak
commuting periods
• Carpooling and vanpooling
• Employer subsidized transit passes
• Provision of bike storage areas and showers
• Telecommuting, such as working at home through telephone,
internet and FAX machine use
• Provision of bike access and storage facilities at future Metro
Green Line stations to encourage internodal bike /rail use,
reducing auto use and the need for parking at the stations
Several companies also operate employee shuttle services between
their facilities contributing to an overall reduction of vehicle miles
traveled.
Transportation The City of El Segundo is located in one of the fastest developing
Systems Interface urban centers in the nation. The proximity to Los Angeles
International Airport (LAX), active railroad lines (Union Pacific,
BNSF), and a major street and freeway network, dictates the need for
close interface between transportation modes and systems other than
the automobile.
Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)
122
T H E
C
1 T Y
O
F
E L
S
E
G
U N
D
O •
G
E
N
E R A L
P L
A
N
4-39
4. Circulation Element
Draft 917104
The Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) is adjacent to the City
on the north. This includes the West Imperial Terminal and Imperial
Cargo Complex which are located on Imperial Highway.
The Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) encompasses a total of
almost 3,500 acres. Approximately 1,257 acres of the property are
utilized for landing, takeoff, and ground maneuvering. The remaining
acreage is used for the terminal complex, automobile parking
facilities, airline maintenance facilities, fuel storage systems,
industrial purposes, air cargo complex, and related facilities. Some
land has not yet been devoted to specific airport uses, including those
acquired because of noise impact.
Circulation within and around LAX is by automobile, bus, and
parking lot trams. For the general public, surface traffic circulation
between major facilities is on public streets.
A Central Terminal Area (CTA) serves scheduled airline operations,
while the West Imperial Terminal, located along the southern
boundary of the airport, services charter flights and other non-
scheduled operations. The Central Terminal Area is situated at the
hub of the runways with passenger boarding facilities located in
satellite buildings around its periphery. Inward from the satellites, and
linked by underground passageways, are their respective ticketing
buildings. These front on World Way, the main inner loop street
serving all terminals. Within the loop itself is central parking, the
airport administration and control tower building, the airport theme
building with an elevated restaurant, and other facilities.
Air freight operations are presently concentrated east of the Central
Terminal Area (CTA) serving over two million tons of freight in
1997, forecasted to increase to over three million tons by 2005. This
area is served by both Century and Aviation Boulevards.
Extensive parking facilities are provided for the public, employees,
and car rental firms. About half of the passenger parking spaces are
located within the loop formed by World Way. The balance is located
on the perimeter of the airport. The outlying spaces are lower priced
and served by free buses to the CTA. Total parking spaces number
approximately 24,000.
Ground access to LAX is predominantly by means of motor vehicles
using the street and highway system. The I -405 Freeway is aligned in
a north/south direction easterly of the airport. The I -105 freeway
provides east/west access to LAX. The major access route from the
freeway to LAX is Century Boulevard, a major east/west
thoroughfare. Alternative access routes are Imperial Highway and
Lincoln Boulevard. In a north/south direction, Sepulveda Boulevard
12 ;i
T H E
C I
T Y
O
F
E L
S
E G
U N
D
O •
G
E
N
E
R
A L
P L
A
N
4-40
4. Circulation Element
Draft 917104
leads directly to LAX via an interchange at Century Boulevard.
Aviation Boulevard leads to the existing cargo facilities and the
Imperial Cargo Complex located just north of Imperial Highway.
The west end of the airport is served via City of Los Angeles streets,
Vista Del Mar, and Pershing Drive. Pershing Drive terminates at
Imperial Highway on the south and allows east/west flow into and out
of the area. Vista Del Mar continues northerly into the Marina Del
Rey /Westchester area. To the south, it serves the Manhattan and
Hermosa Beach communities.
Annual passenger demand at LAX has risen steadily from 22 million
in 1972 to 26 million in 1976, 32.7 million in 1981, 49.8 million in
1990 and 67.3 million in 2000. The Proposed LAX Master Plan will
include an additional projected passenger growth to approximately 78
million passengers versus the 67.3 million passengers recorded in
2000.
LAX is undergoing a master planning process that may result in
extensive modifications including extension of the Metro Greenline
from the I -105 to the CTA, relocation of cargo facilities and rental car
facilities, and potential construction of a new passenger terminal east
of the CTA. These changes could significantly alter the current
transportation patterns to and from LAX and impact traffic patterns in
El Segundo.
The City must monitor future plans and development at the airport,
Because of the interrelationship of the City's economy and circulation
system to the activity at LAX, The City must also ensure that airport
plans and development are incorporated into all aspects of the City's
planning process.
Railroad Freight Considerations
The City has several railroad lines that are actively used for freight
transport and are shown on Exhibit C -16. Most prominently located
in the southeast portion of the City are the Burlington Northern Santa
Fe Railroad (BNSF) and the Union Pacific Railroad. These rail lines
do not provide public transportation service.
There are twenty -one at -grade crossings of railroad lines with arterial
roadways within the City of El Segundo. The crossing of freight
trains disrupts vehicular traffic on the City's streets considerably,
contributing to delay and congestion.
Two major grade separations of the BNSF railroad span El Segundo
Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue. The former crossing occurs
immediately west of Aviation Boulevard while the latter separation
diagonally crosses the intersection of Aviation/Rosecrans. 124
T H
E
C I
T Y
O
F
E L
S
E
G
U N
D O •
G
E
N
E R
A L
P
L
A N
4AI
4. Circulation Element Draft W7104
The El Segundo /Aviation railroad crossing has a middle support due
to the long span across the west leg of the intersection. While the
grade separation eliminated railroad/auto conflicts, its position over
the road and its supports preclude roadway widening unless a large
cost is incurred.
Likewise, the diagonal orientation of the separation across Rosecrans
Avenue at Aviation Boulevard precludes widening of either street.
125
T H E
C I
T
Y
O
F
E
L
S
E
G
U N
D
O •
G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A N
4-42
0
0
E '
U
N
z �
a J
a. -p
O
c6
o+�
a C
w L
LL
.a
w 0)
o c
F N
W
12 6
4. Circulation Element Draft 917104
The proximity of the railroad approach embankment necessitates
railroad relocation or an extremely long span if major widening were
to occur.
The grade separation of the highway and rail facilities allows both to
operate more safely and efficiently. Grade separation at additional rail
crossings within the City should be analyzed and encouraged.
However, the necessary structures should be configured to allow
future alterations or expansions of both the highway and rail link
without necessitating reconstruction.
Port Considerations
The City does not have a deep water port nor any small craft harbors
along its jurisdictional boundary. Chevron does have a marine
terminal to moor offshore for the loading and unloading of its large
oil tankers.
The marine terminal is located in the Santa Monica Bay, and consists
of three (3) berths that are comprised of mooring buoys permanently
anchored to the ocean floor. Each of the three berths has a transfer
pipeline to the refinery shore facilities for discharge and loading of
crude oil and refined products.
Chevron currently has no plans for expansion of the operations, nor to
increase capacity through the use of supertankers.
Small Craft Harbors
While the Countywide demand for small craft harbors continues to
grow, there are no plans for harbor facilities within the El Segundo
jurisdiction. Marina Del Rey, the world's largest man-made harbor,
lies to the north of El Segundo, while Kings Harbor in Redondo
Beach provides berthing and mooring capacity to the south.
127
T H E C I T Y O F E L S E G U N D O • G E N E R A L P L A N
4-43
4. Circulation Element
Goals, Objectives, and Policies
Draft 911104
Circulation goals, objectives, and policies are presented as part of the
Circulation Element for the City of El Segundo to guide policy
makers and City staff in the planning and provision of the City's
circulation system. The goals, objectives, and policies were
developed through consideration of existing circulation issues,
projected circulation needs associated with the Land Use Element,
growth outside of the City, and the interests of the residents and
businesses of El Segundo. Each of the goals identifies the general
direction for the City's circulation system. The objectives outline
more specific circulation guidelines for the City's decision makers
and staff to work toward. The implementation policies are actions or
policies that will assist the City in achieving the identified goals and
objectives.
Goal C1: Provision for a Safe, Convenient, and Cost Effective
Circulation System
Provide a safe, convenient, and cost- effective circulation system to
serve the present and future circulation needs of the El Segundo
community.
Objective CIA Provide a roadway system that accommodates the City's existing and
projected land use and circulation needs.
Policy C1 -1.1
Maintain and update the citywide traffic model as needed for
purposes of evaluating project - related and external traffic impacts on
the City circulation system.
Policy C1 -1.2
Pursue implementation of all Circulation Element policies such that
all Master Plan roadways are upgraded and maintained at acceptable
levels of service.
Policy C1.1.3
Provide adequate roadway capacity on all Master Plan roadways.
Policy C1 -1.4
Construct missing roadway links to complete the roadway system
designated in the Circulation Element when needed to improve traffic
operating conditions and to serve development.
128
T H
E
C 1
T Y
O
F
E L
S
E
G
U N
D
O
• G
E
N E
R
A
L
P
L
A N
4-44
4. Circulation Ekment
Draft 917104
Policy C1 -1.5
Implement roadway and intersection upgrades to full Circulation
Element standards when needed to improve traffic operating
conditions and to serve development.
Policy C7 -1.6
Ensure that planned intersection improvements are constructed as
designated in Exhibit C -9 to achieve efficient operation of the
circulation system at a Level of Service "D" or better where feasible.
Policy C1 -1.7
Provide adequate intersection capacity to the extent feasible on
Major, Secondary, and Collector Arterials to maintain LOS D and to
prevent diversion of through traffic into local residential streets.
Policy C1 -1.8
Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient
and safe access to the major regional transportation facilities.
Policy C1 -1.9
Provide all residential, commercial, and industrial areas with efficient
and safe access for emergency vehicles.
Policy C1 -1.10
Ensure that new roadway links are constructed as designated in the
Master Plan and link with existing roadways within the City such that
efficient operation of the circulation system is maintained at an
operating Level of Service of "D" or better.
Policy C1 -1.11
Ensure that the transition from any Master Plan roadway to another
Master Plan roadway at a higher classification operates safely and
efficiently, incorporating the appropriate intersection configuration
and any turn lanes that are necessary.
Policy C1 -1.12
Convert Nash Street and Douglas Street from a one -way couplet to a
two -way roadway operation between El Segundo Boulevard and
Imperial Highway, incorporating appropriate signage, traffic controls,
and other modifications to ensure motorist and pedestrian safety and
efficient traffic operations.
Policy C1 -1.13
Establish and maintain a citywide traffic count program, to ensure the
availability of data needed to identify circulation problems and to
evaluate potential improvements.
Policy C14.14
129
T H
E
C 1
T Y
O
F
E
L
S
E
G
U N
D
O 0
G
E
N
E
R
A L
P L A N
4-45
4. Cimulation Element Draft 917104
Require a full evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with
proposed new developments prior to project approval. Further,
require the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures prior
to, or in conjunction with, project development. Mitigation measures
may include new roadway links on segments that would connect the
new development to the existing roadway system, intersection
improvements, and other measures. Mitigation measures shall be
provided by or paid for by the project developer.
Policy C1 -1.15
Pursue and protect adequate right -of -way to accommodate future
circulation system improvements.
Policy C1 -1.16
Encourage the widening of substandard streets and alleys to meet City
standards wherever feasible.
Policy C1 -1.17
Encourage cooperation with other governmental agencies to provide
adequate vehicular traffic movements on streets and through
intersections by means of synchronized signalization.
Policy C1 -1.18
Review future developments to ensure uniformity of street naming
and avoidance of name duplication or name inconsistencies on a
continuous link.
Policy C1 -1.19
Continue to monitor the impacts of the I -105 Freeway on local El
Segundo streets. If it is determined that freeway traffic is using local
streets like California Street as a short cut through the City, evaluate
potential mitigations.
Objective C1 -2 Provide a circulation system consistent with current and future
engineering standards to ensure the safety of the residents, workers,
and visitors of El Segundo.
Policy C1 -2.1
Develop and maintain a circulation system which shall include a
functional hierarchy and classification system of arterial highways
that will correlate capacity and service function to specific road
design and land use requirements.
Objective C1 -3 Ensure that the City's Master Plan Truck Route System efficiently
serves the shipping needs of the commercial and industrial land uses
in El Segundo while balancing potential conflicts with residential and
recreational land uses throughout the City. 130
T H
E
C[
T Y
O F
E
L
S
E
G
U N
D
O •
G
E
N
E R
A L
P L A
N
446
4. Circulation Element Draft 917N4
Policy C1 -3.1
Ensure that the City's designated truck routes provide efficient access
to and from the I -105 Freeway.
Policy C1 -3.2
Ensure that the development review process incorporates
consideration of off - street commercial loading requirements for all
new projects.
Policy C1 -3.3
Require that all new construction on streets or corridors that are
designated truck routes have a Traffic Index calculation as stated by
the State Department of Transportation in order to provide a roadway
structural section that will accommodate the projected truck volumes
and weights.
Policy C1 -3.4
Prohibit parking within the public right -of -way on either side two -
way alleys. Parking on one side of a one -way alley could be allowed
if the alley width is a minimum of 19 feet.
Policy C1 -3.5
Ensure that the trucks from the cargo facility north of Imperial
Highway at Main Street stay on the City truck route system and do
not travel along Main Street.
Goal C2: Provisions for Alternative Modes of Transportation
Provide a circulation system that incorporates alternatives to the
single - occupant vehicle, to create a balance among travel modes
based on travel needs, costs, social values, user acceptance, and
air quality considerations.
Objective C2 -1 Provide a pedestrian circulation system to support and encourage
walking as a safe and convenient travel mode within the City's
circulation system.
Policy C2 -1.1
Encourage the development of pedestrian linkages to and from the
Metro Green Line stations to encourage and attract internodal transit/
walking trips.
Policy C2 -1.2
Develop a citywide system of pedestrian walkways, alleviating the
conflict between pedestrians, autos, and bicyclists throughout .t1w
City. 13 1
T H E C 1 T Y O F E L S E G U N D O • G E N E R A L P L A N
4-47
4. Circulation Element Draft 917,D4
Policy C2 -1.3
Encourage new developments in the City to participate in the
development of the citywide system of pedestrian walkways and
require participation funded by the project developer where
appropriate.
Policy C2 -1.4
Ensure the installation of sidewalks on all future arterial widening or
new construction projects, to establish a continuous and convenient
link for pedestrians.
Policy C2 -1.5
Encourage the continued use of the 1911 Act to provide missing
sidewalk sections where applicable in residential and commercial
areas.
Policy C2 -1.6
Encourage shopping areas to design their facilities for ease of
pedestrian access.
Policy C2 -1.7
Closely monitor design practices to ensure a clear pedestrian walking
area by minimizing obstructions, especially in the vicinity of
intersections.
Objective C2 -2 Provide a bikeway system throughout the City to support and
encourage the use of the bicycle as a safe and convenient travel mode
within the City's circulation system.
Policy C2 -2.1
Implement the recommendations on the Bicycle Master Plan
contained in the Circulation Element, as the availability arises; i.e.,
through development, private grants, signing of shared routes.
Policy C2 -2.2
Encourage new development to provide facilities for bicyclists to
park and store their bicycles and provide shower and clothes changing
facilities at or close to the bicyclist's work destination.
Policy C2 -2.3
Develop off - street bicycle paths in corridors where appropriate
throughout the City.
Policy C2 -2.4
Encourage the use of bicycles for trips to and from elementary,
middle, and high schools in the area as well as parks, libraries, and
other public facilities. 132
T H
E
C I
T Y
O F
E
L
S
E
G
U N
D
O
• G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A N
4-48
4. Circulation Element
Draft 917104
Policy C2 -2.5
Continue coordination of bicycle route planning and implementation
with adjacent jurisdictions and regional agencies.
Policy C2 -2.6
Encourage design of new streets with the potential for Class I or Class
II bicycle routes that separate the automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian
to the maximum extent feasible.
Policy C2 -2.7
Although Hillcrest Street is closed between Imperial Avenue and
Imperial Highway to allow emergency vehicular access only, ensure
that the link in the Master Plan of Bicycle Routes is maintained, via
the Hillcrest Street right -of -way or any appropriate alternative route.
Policy C2 -2.8
Evaluate bikeway system links with the Metro Green Line rail
stations and improve access wherever feasible.
Objective C2 -3 Ensure the provision of a safe and efficient transit system that will
offer the residents, workers, and visitors of El Segundo a viable
alternative to the automobile.
Policy C2 -3.1
Work closely with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (MTA), Torrance Municipal Bus Lines, the
El Segundo Employers Association (ESEA), and private businesses to
expand and improve the public transit service within and adjacent to
the City.
Policy C2 -3.2
Ensure that transit planning is considered and integrated into all
related elements of City planning.
Policy C2 -3.3
Evaluate and implement feeder bus service through the City where
appropriate. Feeder bus service could potentially take commuters
from the fixed transit services (rail and bus) in the eastern portion of
the City to the industrial and commercial areas to the west. In
addition, midday shuttling of workers east of Sepulveda Boulevard to
the Downtown retail area should also be maintained.
Policy C2 -3.4
Pursue potential Proposition A and Proposition C funds for bus transit
shelters, signing, advertising, and bus turnouts to encourage bus
ridership.
133
T H
E
C 1
T
Y
O F
E
L
S
E
G
U N
D
O
• G
E N
E R
A
L
P L A N
4-49
4. Circulation Element Dreg W104
Policy C2 -3.5
Continue the Dial -a -Ride operation and City subsidy to serve all
residents of El Segundo, especially the elderly and handicapped.
Policy C2 -3.6
Continue to support the Downtown Lunchtime shuttle operation.
Policy C2 -3.7
Explore the feasibility of using excess government right -of -way,
purchased property, or land use arrangements for multiple use of
existing facilities, in order to establish or construct park- and -ride
services of benefit to El Segundo residents and employees.
Policy C2 -3.8
Encourage the implementation of park -and -ride facilities proximate to
the I -405 and I -105 Freeways for shuttle service into El Segundo.
Policy C2 -3.9
Investigate all MTA programs which may be beneficial to the City.
Policy C2 -3.10
Encourage the MTA to provide bike storage facilities at the Metro
Green Line rail stations.
Objective C2 -4 Ensure the use of Transportation System Management (TSM)
measures throughout the City, to ensure that the City's circulation
system is as efficient and cost effective as possible.
Policy C24.1
Establish and maintain a citywide traffic count program to ensure the
availability of data needed to identify necessary operational
improvements to the roadway system.
Policy C24.2
Continue to increase operational efficiencies of the transportation
system by implementing all appropriate Transportation System
Management (TSM) measures, including but not limited to improving
design standards, upgrading and coordination of traffic control
devices, controlling on- street parking, and using sophisticated
electronic control methods to supervise the flow of traffic.
Objective C2 -5 Ensure the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
measures throughout the City, where appropriate, to discourage the
single- occupant vehicle, particularly during the peak hours. In
addition, ensure that any developments that are approved based on
TDM plans incorporate monitoring and enforcement of TDM targets
as part of those plans. 134
T H E
C I
T Y O F
E
L
5
E
G
U N
D
O
• G
E
N
E
R A L
P
L
A N
4-50
4. Circulation Element Draft 917N4
Policy C2 -5.1
Ensure that Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures
are considered during the evaluation of new developments within the
City, including but not limited to ridesharing, carpooling and
vanpooling, flexible work schedules, telecommuting and car /vanpool
preferential parking.
Policy C2 -5.2
Coordinate activities with neighboring jurisdictions and the El
Segundo Employers Association (ESEA) to optimize the
effectiveness of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
activities.
Policy C2 -5.3
Encourage the provision of preferential parking for high occupancy
vehicles wherever possible.
Goal C3: Development of Circulation Policies that are
Consistent with other City Policies
Develop a balanced General Plan, coordinating the Circulation
Element with all other Elements, ensuring that the City's decision
malting and planning activities are consistent among all City
departments.
Objective C3 -1 Ensure that potential circulation system impacts are considered when
the City's decision makers and staff are evaluating land use changes.
Policy C3 -1.1
Require all new development to mitigate project - related impacts on
the existing and future circulation system such that all Master Plan
roadways and intersections are upgraded and maintained at acceptable
levels of service through implementation of all applicable Circulation
Element policies. Mitigation measures shall be provided by or paid
for by the project developer.
Policy C3 -1.2
The minimum acceptable level of service (LOS) at an intersection is
LOS D. Intersections operating at LOS E or F shall be considered
deficient. If traffic caused by a development project is forecast to
result in an intersection level of service change from LOS D or better
to LOS E or F, then the development impact shall be considered
significant. If a development project is forecast to result in the
increase of intersection volume /capacity ratio (V /C) of 0.02 or greater
at any intersection that is forecast to operate at LOS E or F, the
impact shall be considered significant. 135
T H
E
C I
T Y
O
F
E L
S
E
G
U N
D
O
• G
E
N
E
R
A L
P
L A N
4-51
4. Circulation Element Draft 96104
Policy C3 -1.3
Limit intersection improvements to feasible improvements that do not
affect buildings, freeway supports, or railroad rights -of -way. Such
improvements should not include more than three left -turn lanes, four
through lanes, and two right -turn lanes on any approach to an
intersection
Policy C3 -1.4
Encourage development projects that effectively integrate major
transportation facilities with land use planning and the surrounding
environment. These joint uses will obtain economic and aesthetic
benefits of coordinated design, achieve land conservation in space -
short urban areas of El Segundo, and maintain neighborhood
continuity in built -up areas affected by future major transportation
routes.
Policy C3 -1.5
Ensure that transit planning is considered and integrated into all
related elements of City planning.
Policy C3 -1.6
Apply planning principles and Circulation Element goals, objectives,
and policies should apply consistently to all land uses in the City.
Policy C3 -1.7
Require submittal and implementation of a Transportation
Management Plan (TMP) for all projects within the Urban Mixed -Use
area, and encourage a TMP for all projects within the northeast
quadrant.
Policy C3 -1.8
Require the provision of adequate pedestrian and bicycle access for
new development projects through the development review process.
Policy C3 -1.9
Ensure that the driveway stacking distance for multi- family housing
is evaluated during the development review process.
Objective C3 -2 Ensure the consideration of the impacts of land use decisions on the
City's parking situation.
Policy C3 -2.1
Ensure the provision of sufficient on -site parking in all new
development.
136
Policy C3 -2.2
Ensure that the City's parking codes and zoning ordinances are kept
T H
E
C I
T
Y
O F
E
L
S
E G
U N
D O
• G
E
N
E R A
L
P L A
N
4-52
4. Qrculafion Element
up -to -date.
Draft WIN
Goal C4: Compliance with all Federal, State, and Regional
Regulations
Ensure that the City remains in compliance with all Federal,
State, and Regional regulations, remains consistent with the
plans of neighboring jurisdictions and thus remains eligible for
all potential transportation improvement programs.
Objective C4 -1 Cooperate to the fullest extent possible with State, County, and
regional planning agencies responsible for maintaining and
implementing the Circulation Element to ensure an orderly and
consistent development of the entire South Bay region.
Policy C4 -1.1
Actively participate in various committees and other planning
forums associated with County, Regional, and State Congestion
Management Programs.
Policy C4 -1.2
Ensure that the City remains in compliance with the County,
Regional, and State Congestion Management Programs (CMP)
through the development of appropriate City programs and traffic
impact analyses of new projects impacting the CMP routes of
Sepulveda Boulevard, the I -105 Freeway, and the I -405 Freeway.
Policy C4 -1.3
Investigate and evaluate the feasibility and merits of adding more
routes, that are impacted by external traffic sources, to the County
CMP highway system.
Objective C4 -2 Ensure that the City's circulation system is consistent with those of
neighboring jurisdictions.
Policy C4 -2.1
Ensure that new roadway links are constructed as designated in the
Circulation Element, and link with existing roadways in
neighboring jurisdictions to allow efficient access into and out of
the City.
Policy C4 -2.2
Carefully assess adjacent local agencies' plans to ensure
compatibility across political boundaries. This does not imply that
such compatibility is a requirement for adoption of the Circulatiog 3
Element. 1
T H E
C 1
T Y
O
F
E L
S
E G
U N
D O
• G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P
L
A
N
4-53
4. Circulation Element Draft WIN
Policy C4 -2.3
Continuously monitor and evaluate Los Angeles International
Airport (LAX) master planning and evaluate the impacts of LAX on
the City's Circulation Element.
Policy C4 -2.4
Encourage cooperation with other governmental agencies to provide
adequate vehicular traffic movements on streets and through
intersections by means of synchronized signalization.
Objective C4 -3 Establish the City's short-term (5 -year) Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) consistent with the Circulation Element and the
entire General Plan, and ensure that the CIP incorporates adequate
funding for the City's circulation needs.
Policy C4 -3.1
Identify and evaluate potential revenue sources for financing
circulation system development and improvement projects.
Policy C4 -3.2
Update the City's 1996 Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Program,
to reflect changes in planned improvements requiring funding
changing needs and changes in the construction cost index.
PAPlanning & Building Safety\PROJECTS \576- 599\EA- 579 \Circulation Element Text Documents \Draft Circulation Element 6-23 -
04.doc
138
T H E
C I
T
Y
O F
E
L
S
E
G
U N
D
O
• G
E
N
E
R
A
L
P
L A N
4-54
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
Exhibit B to Staff Reporr
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
REQUEST:
PROPERTY INVOLVED:
Introduction
August 12, 2004
Environmental Assessment No. 579 and
General Plan Amendment No. 02 -1
City of El Segundo
Various
Update of the Circulation Element of the
General Plan
Citywide
The proposed project is an update to the Circulation Element of the El Segundo
General Plan (proposed Circulation Element Update). The City last revised and
adopted its Circulation Element as part of its comprehensive General Plan
update in 1992. The current revision was initiated in 2002. The City has
developed a series of policies and actions that constitute the proposed
Circulation Element Update. The proposed project addresses deletions of
planned roadways (to conform to existing physical constraints); changes in
Circulation Element policies to convert Nash and Douglas Streets from one -way
to two -way operation; and changes in Circulation Element policies to define
feasibility of physical intersection improvements. The revised Circulation Element
also addresses constructing physical improvements to modify and improve the
City's planned roadway system.
11. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this item until August
26, 2004 due to scheduled absences for two Planning Commissioners from the
August 12, 2004 hearing. The Planning Commission should open the public
hearing, receive public testimony from anyone who may not be available at the
next hearing, and continue the public hearing until the meeting on August 26,
2004.
139
Prepared by: Paul Garry, Senior Planner
Kimberly Chri ensen, AICP, Planning Manager
Community, conomic and Development Services
r..
Ja�] s M, Hansen, Director
Coriimuhity, Economic and Development Services
PAPlanning & Building Safety\Projects \576- 599 \Ea - 579 \EA- 579.sr.8- 12- 04.doc
2 140
Exhibit B to Staff Report
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PUBLIC HEARING: August 26, 2004
SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment No. 579 and General
Plan Amendment No. 02 -1
PROPERTY OWNERS: Various
APPLICANT: City of El Segundo
REQUEST: Update of the Circulation Element of the General
Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report for
the Circulation Element Update
PROPERTY INVOLVED: Citywide
I. Introduction
On February 7, 2002, the City Council authorized Planning staff to begin the
process of updating the Circulation Element of the General Plan. A series of
Council workshops followed to define the scope of the project and review
progress reports on the project. On October 8, 2003, the Council directed staff to
begin preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to study the
environmental impacts of the revised Circulation Element. The Draft EIR has
been completed and was circulated for a 45 -day public review period on June
25, 2004. The public review period ended on August 9, 2004. The Draft EIR and
revised Circulation Element are ready for review and action by the Planning
Commission. The City Council will take final action on the Planning
Commission's recommendation.
On August 12, 2004, staff distributed the staff report for the August 26, 2004
Planning Commission public hearing for the update of the Circulation Element.
This staff report supplements the previous analysis with a summary of the
comment letters received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
II. Recommendation
Planning staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the revised
Circulation Element and Draft Environmental Impact Report; and, adopt
141
Resolution No. 2572, recommending approval of Environmental Assessment No.
579 and General Plan Amendment No. 02 -1 (Exhibit A).
III. Draft Circulation Element
California Statute (Gov't. Code §§ 65300- 65457) requires cities to prepare a
General Plan consisting of seven mandatory Elements, one of which is the
Circulation Element. The General Plan is considered the constitution for all future
developments and its goals and policies may be used as a basis for dedication
and fee requirements.
The purpose of the Circulation Element is to establish a set of goals, objectives
and policies of the City related to the general location and extent of existing and
proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, and other public utilities, all
correlated with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The Circulation
Element is intended to provide an assessment of the levels at which the existing
circulation infrastructure operates, and forecast future infrastructure needs based
upon anticipated future land use projects.
The current Circulation Element was adopted along with the comprehensive
General Plan update that was completed in December 1992. There is no
statutory requirement to update the Circulation Element at any given time.
The Draft Circulation Element summarizes the key findings of the traffic analysis
completed for the project. By nature, a Circulation Element is more general than
the traffic report. Its purpose is not to provide detailed solutions to every specific
planning.
The Draft Circulation Element includes a summary of existing conditions,
forecasted future conditions, a discussion of the Master Plan of Streets, street
classifications, intersection improvements, alternative modes of transportation,
and revised Goals, Objectives, and Policies.
Staff requests that the Planning Commission review the Draft Circulation
Element and provide comments and any recommended changes to the
document. Such revisions will be incorporated into the Draft Circulation Element
and submitted to the City Council for their review and approval.
IV. Background
Project History
The City Council first initiated an update to the Circulation Element in 1998 and
ended the process in 2001 when consensus could not be reached on the key
issue of including any changes to land use densities as part of the project.
The City Council reinitiated the Circulation Element update process in May 2002
2 142
by directing staff to conduct scoping meetings with community stakeholders. The
purpose of these meetings was to illicit input on the issues that should be studied
in the Circulation Element update. Scoping meetings with the public were held on
June 5, 2002 and June 25, 2002. Approximately 40 people attended the two
meetings.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) was distributed on September 18, 2002 for
consultant services after receiving direction from the City Council on the scope of
work to include in the RFP. On November 19, 2002, the City Council selected
Kimley -Horn and Associates to prepare the Circulation Element update and
Christopher A. Joseph and Associates to prepare the Environmental Impact
Report for the project.
Context
It is important to note the City of El Segundo is located in Los Angeles County,
home to over 9,500,000 people. Like so many communities in this region,
thousands of people on their way to and from work drive through this city.
Sepulveda and Aviation Boulevards are especially impacted by this phenomenon
that creates traffic congestion above and beyond levels generated by our
businesses and residents. Because this is beyond the direct control of the City, it
adds to the challenge of both planning and funding transportation improvements.
Methodology and Assumptions
Staff and the consultants began work on the Circulation Element by preparing
methodology and a set of data assumptions that would be used in preparing the
traffic model to study the traffic that would be forecast for the year 2025. This
review included determining the list of intersections to study, identifying major
projects to incorporate into the background growth (i.e., LAX expansion, Playa
Vista, Campus El Segundo, LAAFB expansion, etc.), reviewing the use of data
from the Southern California Association of Governments' (SCAG) regional
transportation model for regional through traffic inputs, reviewing inventories of
vacant and recyclable land in the City to assess future buildout, and reviewing
previous assumptions regarding planned roadway extensions and the conversion
of the Nash - Douglas one -way couplet to two -way operations. The City Council
reviewed the methodology and assumptions at its February 4, 2003 meeting and
approved a working set of assumptions for the traffic modeling to begin. The
attached City, Council staff report, dated February 4 2003 (Exhibit B), includes a
detailed discussion of the methodology and assumptions that were developed
and approved for the update of the Circulation Element.
Traffic Model
The next step in the update process was for Kimley -Horn and Associates to
prepare the traffic model and present the results of the validation process to the
City Council. The validation process is intended to make sure the traffic model
will accurately predict future traffic growth by comparing the results of the model
Lt
3 .i
inputs versus the current traffic levels which were measured by new counts of all
signalized intersections in the City. The model was also run against the projected
buildout in the existing General Plan. This analysis provided a point of
comparison for the projected future traffic that would be expected from the new
Circulation Element assumptions. The validation results showed that the model
was accurately depicting the current conditions so it could be relied upon to
provide accurate forecasts as well. On August 5, 2003, the Council reviewed the
results of the validation effort and directed staff to begin the traffic modeling for
three land use scenarios that it wanted studied as part of the update process.
The attached City Council staff report (Exhibit C) includes a detailed discussion
of the validation process.
Development Density Scenarios
In an effort to address the density concerns of many stakeholders that were
raised in the aborted Circulation Element update process initiated in 1998, the
Council directed staff to study three different land use buildout scenarios in the
Mixed -Use North (MU -N) and Corporate Office (CO) Zones. The three Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) scenarios (0.8, 1.0, and 1.3) would help the decision makers
understand if lowering or raising the density limitations in these two zones would
significantly affect the future traffic volumes in the City. Floor area ratio is the
ratio between building size and lot size. The larger the permitted FAR the larger
the development may be on a given size property.
Staff returned to the City Council with the results of the traffic modeling on
October 8, 2003. At that time staff presented a comparison of the three land use
alternative scenarios, which also included a comparison with a "No Land Use
Change" scenario. The results from the traffic model concluded that traffic would
increase approximately 20 -50 percent (depending on the intersection) between
now and 2025. The difference in traffic volume between the three land use
scenarios was approximately 2 -11 % depending on the location within the City.
as the proposed project that would be studied in the Environmental Impact
Report. The Council concluded that the there were not sufficiently significant
traffic improvements that would be derived from reducing the density in the MU-
N and CO Zone versus leaving the current land use densities in place. The
October 8, 2003 City Council staff report attached as Exhibit D includes a
detailed discussion of the floor area ratio comparison.
At this time the City Council directed staff to begin preparation of the EIR and the
draft Circulation Element document, incorporating the "No Land Use Change"
scenario and other assumptions related to planned roadway extensions, truck
routes, and intersection improvements.
Staff and the consultants have prepared a Draft Circulation Element, which was
distributed separately to the Commission on June 25, 2004. The Draft Circulation
Element updates the existing Circulation Element in the General Plan adopted in
4 14
1992. Appendix C of the EIR contains the Traffic Report, prepared by Kimley-
Horn and Associates, which provides additional details about the process
employed to update the Circulation Element. The draft Circulation Element itself
is also included in Appendix C of the EIR and is also attached to draft Resolution
No. 2572 in Exhibit A to this report.
V. Analysis
As briefly mentioned above, the purpose of the Circulation Element is to spell out
the means by which the City will identify a system capable of responding to the
growth that is occurring and that will occur during the life of the plan (2025)
consistent with the Land Use Plan presented in the Land Use Element of the
General Plan. The Circulation Element identifies the location and extent of
existing and proposed thoroughfares, transportation routes, and other circulation
programs.
Level of Service (LOS)
The draft Circulation Element summarizes the existing traffic conditions in the
City using Level of Service (LOS) criteria; defines the type of street network that
would be appropriate to serve the community though the proposed Master Plan
of Streets; and analyzes how the proposed network will perform in handling the
traffic that could be generated though the buildout of the City as permitted in the
Land Use Element of the General Plan. Level of Service (LOS) measures the
volume of traffic compared to the capacity of the roadway. Roadways with LOS
A, B, C, and D are generally considered to be acceptable levels with little or no
delays. Roadways with LOS E are considered deficient and LOS F means the
volume exceeds the design capacity of the roadway. This criterion should always
be referenced with some level of qualification. For instance, on Problematic
turning movement at an otherwise well functioning intersection can lower the
LOS. Exhibit C -3, C-4, and C -5 in the draft Circulation Element (attached to
Draft Resolution No. 2572) provide a more detailed discussion of LOS criteria.
In 2002, the City Council developed a series of policies and actions that
constitute the proposed Circulation Element Update. The proposed project
addresses deletions of planned roadways (to conform to existing physical
constraints), changes in Circulation Element policies to convert Nash and
Douglas Streets from one -way to two -way operation, changes in Circulation
Element policies to define feasibility of physical intersection improvements and
constructing physical improvements to modify and improve the City's planned
roadway system as it would be set forth in the updated Circulation Element.
Changes in Roadway Designations
• Deleting the previously planned portion of Mariposa Street between
Douglas Street and Aviation Boulevard.
• Deleting the previously planned portion of Grand Avenue between
Douglas Street and Aviation Boulevard.
5 145
• Deleting the east -west Secondary Arterial Street between Hughes Way
and Douglas Street.
• Deleting Nash Street as a Secondary Arterial between El Segundo
Boulevard and Park Place. This action would also result in deleting the
truck route along this segment.
• Converting Nash Street from a one -way southbound street to a two -way
Secondary Arterial between Imperial Highway and El Segundo Boulevard.
• Converting Douglas Street from a one -way northbound street to a two -way
Secondary Arterial between Imperial Highway and El Segundo Boulevard.
• Retention of the Grand Avenue truck route between Main Street and
Sepulveda Boulevard in the Recommended Truck Route Plan.
• Re- designation of Park Place between Nash Street and Douglas Street
from a street classification as a local commercial street to a collector
street.
Physical Changes in Roadway Configurations
• Developing a street system within the site located on the northeast corner
of the intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue (the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans site) consistent with the development concept of
that site. It is expected that there will be a north - south, two -lane, albeit
circuitous, roadway connection between El Segundo Boulevard and Park
Place in lieu of the Nash Street Secondary Arterial (to be deleted). This
connection may not be a linear route and may entail several turns. A two -
lane, east -west connection between Sepulveda Boulevard and Nash
Street along a new alignment would be provided through the
Sepulveda /Rosecrans site.
• Converting Nash Street from a one -way southbound street to a two -way
secondary arterial between Imperial Highway and El Segundo Boulevard.
• Converting Douglas Street from a one -way northbound street to a two -way
Secondary Arterial between Imperial Highway and El Segundo Boulevard.
• Intersection modifications along Nash and Douglas Streets associated
with the change from one -way to two -way operation.
• Incorporation of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) improvements
onto the roadway network.
Intersection Improvements and Revisions to Circulation Element Policies
• The proposed Circulation Element Update includes planned intersection
improvements designed to achieve LOS D or better. The proposed
project includes modifications to Circulation Element policies that would
limit potential intersection improvements to those that can be feasibly
implemented, by limiting lane additions beyond the existing right -of -way to
those that would not affect buildings, freeway supports or railroad rights -
of -way.
• Creation of a significance threshold policy for development project review.
s
146
There is a discussion of each of these topics in the draft Circulation Element.
Additionally, staff has reviewed the goals, objectives and policies in the
Circulation Element and has proposed a number of changes to consolidate and
clarify several policies. Most importantly, staff is proposing Policy C3 -1.2 which
would formally establish the significance threshold for use in evaluating the
impacts of development on the roadway network. The proposed threshold would
consider a project to create a significance impact if it causes a Level of Service
traffic would be considered a significant impact.
Another policy change of note would be in C4 -3.2. If adopted, this policy would
direct the City to update its Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Program. Since the
proposed Circulation Element contains an updated list of intersection
improvement projects, which will require funding, an update of the fee program
study could create a mechanism to raise funds from developers to pay for a
portion of these improvements.
VI. Environmental Review
The update of the Circulation Element is considered a "project' under the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As such, an
analysis of the potential environmental impact of the programs and policies in the
revised Circulation Element is required. Based on an Initial Study of
Environmental Impacts that was prepared for the project, staff determined that a
Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for the
Circulation Element update. The City contracted with Christopher A. Joseph and
Associates to prepare the EIR. A Notice of Preparation was prepared and
distributed for public review from December 30, 2003 to January 29, 2004. A
revised Notice of Preparation was also prepared and distributed from May 7,
2004 to June 7 2004. The Draft EIR was completed based upon the project
description approved by the City Council on October 8, 2003; and, made
available for public review on June 25, 2004. The required 45 -day public review
period for the Draft EIR ended on August 9, 2004. The Draft EIR was distributed
separately to the Planning Commission for review on June 25, 2004.
The Draft EIR discusses the environmental impacts associated with each of the
proposed project elements (i.e., conversion of Nash - Douglas one -way couplet to
two -way operations, street extensions and deletions, and intersection
improvements) and recommends mitigation measures where appropriate if a
significant impact is likely to be caused by the project. As required by CEQA, the
Draft EIR also examines alternatives to the proposed project. There are four
alternatives, including a "no project' alternative, and buildout of the General Plan
using the 0.8, 1.0 and 1.3 FAR scenarios.
The Draft EIR concluded that there would be significant and unavoidable traffic
and circulation impacts at six of the 55 studied intersections in the City. No
feasible mitigation measures could be identified which would reduce the traffic
14i
7
impacts at these intersections to a level of insignificance (see discussion on
page IV.B -17 of the DEIR). However, feasible traffic improvements for five of the
six intersections are proposed to help improve traffic conditions from what they
would otherwise be without the proposed Circulation Element. The sixth
intersection (Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue) was recently
improved as part of the Sepulveda Boulevard widening project. Additional
improvements would require significant interagency coordination (i.e., Caltrans
and Manhattan Beach) and dedications of land from properties abutting the
intersection.
The Draft EIR also identified potentially significant and unavoidable air quality
impacts for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) due to the construction activities associated
with the recommended intersections improvements. Since it cannot be known
with certainty how future intersection improvements projects will be structured,
staff assumed that a prototypical project would involve improvements at three
intersections. The construction emissions for such a project would exceed the
emissions thresholds established by the Air Quality Management District. There
is no feasible mitigation to reduce this impact to a less than significant impact
(see discussion on pages IV.D -17 to IV.D -18 of the Draft EIR).
Significant and unavoidable temporary construction noise impacts were identified
at five intersections as a result of construction activities associated with
intersection improvements. The Draft EIR includes several mitigation measures
(K -1, K -2, K -3, and K-4) which would reduce these impacts to a level of
insignificance. However, the impacts would remain significant and unavoidable
(see discussion on pages IV.K -5 to IV.K -6 of the Draft EIR).
An EIR may not be certified by the City with significant and unavoidable impacts.
Consequently, in order for the City to certify the EIR, a Statement of Overriding
Considerations (SOC) would have to be approved by the City Council for the
unavoidable significant traffic impacts at six intersections, construction related
NOx impacts, and construction related noise impacts at five intersections. An
SOC acknowledges that a project has significant impacts, but finds that other
aspects of the project, such as economic benefits, outweigh the unavoidable
environmental impacts of the project.
The proposed Circulation Element identifies traffic improvements that will help
alleviate traffic impacts caused by growth within the City and caused by regional
pass through traffic. These improvements, along with the other modifications to
the Circulation Element, will improve the overall traffic conditions in the City
compared to the current programs in the adopted Circulation Element.
While there will be unavoidable temporary construction related air quality and
noise impacts due to the improvements incorporated into the proposed
Circulation Element, the long term traffic benefits outweigh the temporary
impacts. Improved traffic flow will help reduce air quality impacts over time.
Additionally, none of the construction related noise impacts would be adjacent to
residential uses in El Segundo.
8 14 8
Comments on the EIR
As of August 12, 2004, staff has received ten comment letters regarding the
Draft EIR. They are included as Exhibit E. Now that the public review period has
ended (August 9, 2004), staff is preparing a response to comments received on
the DEIR. Staff will submit a Final EIR, including responses to all comments
received, to the City Council for certification along with adoption of the revised
Circulation Element. Letters were received from the State Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC), the El Segundo Fire Department, the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG), the El Segundo Chamber of
Commerce, the El Segundo Employers Association (ESEA), the State
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the City of Manhattan Beach, Kilroy
Realty Corporation, and two letters from El Segundo resident Brian Crowley. The
following is a summary of the most important issues raised in each of the
correspondence:
State Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC)
The comments of DTSC related to determining if the construction sites as part of
the Circulation Element would involve hazardous wastes or contain
contaminated soil. All future construction projects that would implement the
Circulation Element and the Program EIR would be required to undergo
subsequent site specific analysis to address soil conditions before such projects
could be constructed.
El Segundo Fire Department
The issues raised by the El Segundo Fire Department related to the Douglas
Street extension were addressed in Environmental Assessment No. 597, which
was approved by the City council in 2003. Additionally, all underground
contamination associated with road construction on the Honeywell site will be
evaluated as part of the EIR currently being prepared for the development
project on that site.
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
SCAG acknowledged that the Circulation Element project is not a regionally
significant project.
El Segundo Chamber of Commerce
The Chamber of Commerce stated all their concerns had been addressed in the
Draft EIR.
9 1 4q
El Segundo Employers Association (ESEA)
ESEA stated they were in agreement with the policy direction of the draft
Circulation Element.
State Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Caltrans commented that because traffic growth on Sepulveda Boulevard cannot
be fully mitigated, the City should consider taking control of the street from
Caltrans through its relinquishment process. This is a policy decision that would
require City Council direction. If control were relinquished, the City would not
have to consult with Caltrans on modifications to Sepulveda Boulevard.
However, the City would also be responsible for maintenance of the street if it
were relinquished.
Caltrans commented that deletion of the planned roadway extensions should be
studied. The City Council in establishing the project description determined that
extending Grand and Mariposa Avenues to Aviation Boulevard would be
infeasible given the existing land uses that would be impacted. Therefore, the
deletions are part of the baseline analysis and were not studied separately.
City of Manhattan Beach
The City of Manhattan Beach commented that the proposed Manhattan Village
Shopping Center Expansion project was not included as a related project in the
Draft EIR. With a few notable exceptions (i.e. LAX expansion and Playa Vista),
no specific development projects outside the City boundaries are included in the
traffic projections. The traffic projections use the traffic growth predicted from the
regional SCAG traffic model to account for future traffic that will originate from
outside of El Segundo. Additionally, Manhattan Beach did not mention the
project in their comments on the Notice of Preparation.
The City of Manhattan Beach expressed concern with the operational
parameters which the Circulation Element proposes to use to determine the
extent of possible intersection widenings. While very large intersections can
become problematic, the City chose the maximum design parameters with
operational characteristics (i.e., impact on pedestrian and turning movements) in
mind. The City Council determined as part of formulating the project description
that the largest operationally acceptable intersection could include three left
turns, four through lanes, and two right turn lanes. Such large intersections have
been constructed, particularly in Orange County.
The City of Manhattan Beach also suggested that the City's traffic mitigation fee
program be used to pay for subregional roadway improvements, not just
improvements within El Segundo. Staff thinks a subregional approach to
mitigation may be worthwhile if the South Bay Cities Council of Governments
were to take the lead. However, staff's opinion is that one City should not
unilaterally agree to require developers to fund improvements outside its
10 iJU
boundaries unless all the cities in the South Bay agree to do the same. Currently,
the City of Manhattan Beach does not even have a traffic mitigation fee for
development within its own boundaries.
Kilroy Realty Corporation
Kilroy Realty Corporation commented that "related" projects were not discussed
as part of the cumulative analysis that is a required part of an EIR. The growth
assumptions built into the Circulation Element traffic forecasts include a specific
list of projects as well as projected development on vacant land and projected
development by recycling existing buildings. A list of "related" projects was
included in Appendix C to the EIR as part of the project Traffic Report. This list
includes expansion of Los Angeles International Airport, Playa Vista, the
Campus El Segundo project, the modernization of Los Angeles Air Force Base,
and the development of the Honeywell property. Since all of these projects have
been incorporated into the project, they are not considered as cumulative
projects.
Kilroy Realty Corporation also commented on various aspects of the conversion
of the Nash - Douglas one -way couplet. Their comments questioned projected
levels of service on Atwood Way and the impacts of truck movements on service
levels. The projected Level of Service (LOS) A for Atwood Way is an accurate
assessment of the future road conditions taking into account all types of
vehicles, all the development anticipated to occur until 2025, and the completion
of the Douglas Street Gap Closure Project. Since there are no potential traffic
impacts on Atwood Way, it would not be appropriate to require any dedication of
land to widen Atwood Way.
All potential access issues with respect to the Campus El Segundo project were
evaluated as part of the environmental review for that project, including
requirements related to the conversion the Nash - Douglas one -way couplet.
Brian Crowley
Brian Crowley, an El Segundo resident, submitted a number of comments, which
are too extensive to be individually addressed in this report. The comments
generally relate to the following topics: bicycles; the relationship between the
original process to update the Circulation Element and the current process;
reductions in rail traffic; incorporation of the Campus El Segundo project and
other "related" projects into the Circulation Element analysis; the effectiveness of
the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), the conversion of the Nash -
Douglas Street one -way couplet; the number of impacted intersections; feasible
mitigation measures, sensitive receptors for air quality analysis, the lunchtime
shuttle, and bus routes.
Incorporation of the Campus El Segundo project and other 'related" projects into
the Circulation Element analysis have been addressed as stated in the City of
Manhattan Beach and Kilroy Realty Corporation sections. The conversion of the
11 151
Nash - Douglas Street one -way couplet is discussed in the Kilroy Realty
Corporation section. There is no discussion in the project description section of
the EIR about a prior update to the Circulation Element because that project was
not approved or adopted and has no bearing on the current update process; it is
not a "related" project; and, it has no impact on the physical environment. This
topic is addressed earlier in this staff report.
Staff will prepare complete responses to all of Mr. Crowley's comments along
with all of the other comments received during the public review period for the
EIR that will be incorporated into the Final EIR.
VII. Conclusion
Staff recommends that the Commission adopt Draft Resolution No. 2572
recommending approval of Environmental Assessment No. 579 and General
Plan Amendment No. 02 -1 and adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
VIII. Exhibits
A. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2572
B. City Council Staff Report, February 4, 2003
C. City Council Staff Report, August 5, 2003
D. City Council Staff Report, October 8, 2003
E. Comment letters on Draft EIR
F. Draft EIR, Traffic Analysis and Draft Circulation Element (previously
distributed)
Prepared by: Paul Garry, Senior Planner
Kimberly Chrtonomicand nsen, AICP, Planning Manager
Community, Development Services
� V J
Ja es Hansen, Director
C nity, Economic and Development Services
PAPlanning & Building Safety\Projects%576- 599TEa- 579 \EA- 579.PC SR 8- 26- 04.combined.doc
152
12
Exhibit C to Staff Report
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 12, 2004
Vice - Chairman Miller Sheehan called the meeting of the El Segundo CALL TO ORDER
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of
the City of El Segundo City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo,
California.
Commissioner Schiltz led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag;;" PLEDGE TO FLAG
PRESENT: CARLSON, MILLER SHEEHAN, SCHI
ABSENT: FUNK, KRETZMER
None.
Vice - Chairman Miller Sheehan presented the
None.
ROLL CALL
TIONS
CONSENT
CALENDAR
CALL ITEMS
FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
Commissioner Schilt ved, 9 onded by C' mmissioner Carlson, to MOTION
approve the July 22; ,Minutp as submifti% ^passed 3 -0.
None. � „� � >r4 . wk� ,`
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS
Vice Chai'r� Miller presented Agenda Item No. H -2, Environmental
Assessments 579, Gengtal Plan Amendment No. 02 -1. Project:
kw..
Circulation Ele rlt Update,, %Applicant: City of El Segundo. Address:
Citywide.
Planning Manager Christensen commented on the importance of having
a full Commission present to discuss this matter and noted the Planning
Commission's previous discussion to continue this matter to the August
26th meeting, wherein a full Commission is expected. She noted that
staff will provide a full presentation at the next meeting.
Vice- Chairman Miller opened the public hearing.
No public input was given.
NEW BUSINESS,
EA NO. 579, GPA NO.
02 -1
The proposed project is an update
to the Circulation Element of the El
Segundo General Plan (proposed
Circulation Element Update). The
City last revised and adopted its
Circulation Element as part of its
comprehensive General Plan
update in 1992. The current
revision was initiated in 2002.
Several different density scenarios
for the Urban Mixed -Use North
(MU -N) and the Corporate Office
(CO) areas of the City were
analyzed as part of the project, but
no changes in land use
designations, as presently set forth
in the General Plan Land Use
Element or zoning classifications,
are proposed as part of the
project.
El Segundo Planning Commission 1 J
Minutes, August 12, 2004
Commissioner Carlson moved, seconded by Commissioner Schiltz, to MOTION
continue EA No. 579 and General Plan Amendment No. 02 -1 to the
August 26th Planning Commission meeting. Passed 3 -0.
None.
CONTINUED
BUSINESS
Planning Manager Christensen noted that at the end of the meeting, she REPORT FROM
would distribute an initial staff report and attachments to the,C,kculation DIRECTOR
Element Update to the Planning Commissioners for the 6Igust 26th
meeting, including related written communications re; "` cr by the
Planning Division, noting that this will allow the Plan ission
additional time to review the materials. Due to ,the, ort tur` ound
time between the end of the public comment period and this eve's
meeting, she explained that staff was not ak�4 4o include a com ae
review of those letters with responses to cor" mi in t.40 initial s''
report, but that the letters have been included in t ttb'rials and tht�''
August 26 agenda packet will include an expanded' Staff report. She
advised that the public may obtain copPtas, of these iYlaterials at the
Planning Division.
Planning Manager (
include an item for a
Commission had pr(
redesigned.
Te 7M
There
P.M. b
PASSED AND
2004.
further(
lar meeti
added Mat the no*,,agend&�'Wll also
minium pt9iect at 3` boo rd; that the
%wed, n96 that the project has been
meeting was adjourned at 7:12
.2004. Passed 3 -0.
ON THIS 9" DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS'
COMMENTS
ADJOURNMENT
James Hansen, Secretary of Janet Miller Sheehan, Vice - Chairman of the
the Planning Commission Planning Commission
and Director of Community, City of El Segundo, California
Economic and Development
City of El Segundo, California
15:{
2 E( Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 12, 2004
Exhibit C to Staff Report
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF EL SEGUNDO, CALIFORNIA
AUGUST 26, 2004
Chair Funk called the meeting of the El Segundo Planning Commission CALL TO ORDER
to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the City of El Segundo
City Hall, 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California.
Chair Funk led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
PRESENT:
SCHILTZ
ABSENT:
None.
None
None
None
Chair Funk OF... gnte
No. 644, Subs fol
02. Applicant and F
322 Concord Street.
Planning Technician
KRETZMER,
No. H -1, Environmental Assessment
M No. 60772) and Variance No. 04-
320 Concord, LLC. Address: 320-
presented the staff report (of record).
Chair Funk opened the hearing for public input.
Cheryl Vargo, representing the applicant
Ms. Vargo commented on the history of this proposed project, its former
design, and the previous concerns from the Fire Department with regard
to how the units would be accessed. Ms. Vargo explained that the
project has been redesigned and that it is now a far superior project than
what had previously been proposed. She noted that the living area is
PLEDGE TO FLAG
ROLL CALL
PUBLIC
COMMUNICATIONS
CONSENT
CALENDAR
CALL ITEMS
FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
WRITTEN
COMMUNICATIONS
NEW BUSINESS,
EA NO. 644, SUBD.
NO. 04 -06 (VTM NO.
60772), and VAR
NO. 04 -02
An application for a
Subdivision and Variance
to construct a three -unit
condominium
development on an
existing parcel.
El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
15 54
located on the second and third levels and that the new design has
achieved better site circulation and parking plans. Ms. Vargo explained
that in trying to meet the intent of the building modulation code, it
becomes more difficult when a parcel is under 50 feet in width; and noted
that it can negatively affect rooms within that living space. She stated
that when the code was adopted requiring the building modulation, it was
to add interest to a building when there were many flat walls; and that it
was more focused on homes that were situated on a corner lot or
building masses fronting the street, visible from the public right -of -way,
rather than the interior side yards where one has two
that are abutting each other. She expressed her be,
has achieved the intent of the modulation codq"
accomplished this with increments that add up t&
She added that the Commission has been provided .
rendering of the north side of the property that achie
code — pointing out that this is the reason for the v
the variance, she noted that the project, as di
standards of the development code; and stated
concurs with the conditions of approval.
Commissioner Carlson in commenting
asking for with the variance questioned
unit or any project that is 40 feet in wid
Carlson's inquiry, Ms. Vargo expressed
of step with ,what
on this tvoe ©f lot.
agprojects
architect
o'"'•;.that he
E f tfi# ap#jnt is
N#,icab zany
In q,_O,ommiiii br er
at;it could be.
IPeries this code is out
a building of this size
Ms. Vargo cpress6 belief, #bat it would be prudent for the City to
reconsider tl%, wwy the' ""d e is vded; stated that the applicable code
section is vE Y ief a d bat it' oes not allow what the applicant is
achieving here, which i .q. r product than what the code would
dictate.
Concurring with Comirioner Carlson's concern, Chair Funk requested
v%5
that staff take a look at fftat specific language in the zoning code and how
it relates to properties that are less than 50 feet in width.
Planning Manager Christensen stated that staff could research the issue
and provide the Commission with an analysis.
Chair Funk noted her appreciation of the applicant for taking the steps to
satisfy the concerns of the Planning Commission that were expressed at
the February 2004 Commission meeting.
El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
1 15 ra
There being no further input, Chair Funk closed the public hearing.
Vice -Chair Miller Sheehan questioned if there are other projects similar to
this one wherein the same problems have been experienced.
Responding to Vice -Chair Miller Sheehan's inquiry, Planning Manager
Christensen stated that staff has not researched the number of properties
that have been affected by this code requirement and that she is not
aware of any similar projects that have come before the planning
department in the past year.
Commissioner Kretzmer stated that he is please& 'th th
project and the quality of the staff report; and d s
change the specific code language with regard to #h a
w k .,
width and smaller. He stated that the variance �' W",
without knowing exactly what the uniformity of the Idt&tTe
City ought to be careful in crafting new language to"'`
making provisions for lots that are less than 50 feet in
that unless the City is going to have a large n,,, ": ber ofd
projects, it might be better to address these on a
basis.
Director Hansen stated that staff
sized projects and present the Col
that the CommissiJ06.1 -mj9ht W
hd$Jtatibn to
relql8et in
worke s' ell
and t
d the
x, "g k
He ste
ty of
`ase
ry of 'sirar
giving some
which present
Assistant (, Attot l Karl �e}ger irform6d the Commission that they
would need' to discus`s this r est of staff under Item M, "Other
Business ", s hce tkiis WNkt is no on the agenda.
Chair Funk reopened thering�or public input.
Ms. Vargo stated that t4r�knowledge, there have been a couple other
similar cases on the s treet — noting that in these cases, the parking
is a difficult feat and th` design have been inferior to this project; she
commented on the applicant's burden of filing for a variance; and
expressed her belief that this problem would be more manageable if the
City changes the standards to apply to these properties that are under 50
feet in width.
Chair Funk closed the hearing on public input.
Commissioner Kretzmer moved, seconded by Commissioner Carlson, to MOTION
concur with the staff recommendation, thus adopting Resolution No.
3 El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
157
2571. Passed 5 -0.
Jim Fasola, oroiect architect
Mr. Fasola briefly commented on the staggered setback for this project
and he distributed to the Commission samples of projects that meet the
letter of the code and others that don't.
Chair Funk presented Agenda Item No. H -2, Environmental Assessment NEW BUSINESS,
No. 579 and General Plan Amendment No. 02 -1. Applicant:,,, City of El EA NO. 579 and
Segundo. Project: Circulation Element Update. Address: Cj(vide.
GPA N0.02 -1
k*,k
The proposed project is an update
to the Circulation Element of the
Director Hansen commended Senior Planner * rrr and Yining
El Segundo General Plan
�.k y'"
Manager Christensen for their efforts that have gon ga o this pFQ and
(proposed Circulation Element
Update) The City last revised
noted that Senior Planner Garry has been involved a i on
and adapted is Circulation
Element as part of its
Element process since 1998. .'" X,
"
comprehensive General Plan
~,;
�' update in 1992. The current
~ti~' revision was initiated in 2002.
k .k.
Assistant City Attorney Berger reminded the Commission t thiss'
Several different density scenarios
for the Urban Mixed North
-Use
continued public hearing from the last Planning CQTTx1 mission. � etm ;'�
(MU -N) and the Corporate Office
yK't+
(CO) areas of the City were
analyzed as part of the project,
Senior Planner Garry provided background on th of
but no changes in land use
designations, as presently set
> - `�•`
this project and the environmental review. r the CiiY ulatton Efik ent
forth in the General Plan Land
use Element
Update; and stated that Traffic Consultant fnan �.., ctyan {�,
or zoning
classifications, are proposed as
o
Part of the project.
giving a presentation on some of the f chrnoaf ti ec e Circul tttn
Element Update kk ;:. 1��. -!.r..
Senior Planner Garry noY� 'PC ft dbW*t Circulation Element was
adopted, the � {
reh+opst xeneral Plan Update, in
December J;b92, a8hied that ts�o statutory requirement to update
the Circula Ele '' any gfit time; and noted that the City initially
started this ss in,,..' He sued that the draft Circulation Element
summarizes th ey fih'O' of th traffic analysis that was prepared for
the project and noted t; it Is ;tin amendment to an existing plan —
pointing out that many of ifatures of the plan have not been changed,
such as bike routes, p rfan facilities, and transit facilities in the City.
He explained that the plan is limited in its scope to a number of things,
such as planned roadway extensions, the Nash and Douglas Streets
conversion from a one -way street to a two -way street, and proposed new
roadways in the area of Sepulveda Boulevard and Rosecrans Avenue.
Senior Planner Garry stated that City Council directed staff to re- initiate
the Circulation Element Update process in May 2002; that staff was
directed to conduct a number of scoping meetings with community
stakeholders to identify the issues that should be addressed in the
Circulation Element Update; advised that several scoping meetings were
held in June 2002; that the City obtained the consulting services of 158
El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., in November 2002, to prepare the
Circulation Element Update; and obtained the services of Christopher A.
Joseph & Associates to prepare the Environmental Impact Report that
would go along with this project. He advised that the City and the
consultants conducted a series of workshops with City Council to define
the scope of the project, methodologies, assumptions, data to be used
and the types of improvements that would be defined for the project; and
that in October 2003, Council had directed staff to begin preparation of
the EIR based on the scope of the project that had developed over the
preceding year. Senior Planner Garry stated that .,,the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was completed . and w; . irculated
for public review on June 25, 2004; and advised k e review
period ended on August 9, 2004.
Senior Planner Garry stated that the DEIR concluded after its study that
there would be significant and unavoidable traffic imps t 6 of
intersections that were analyzed; noted that five of the 2 intersecttctt
were identified with some feasible traffic improvement ' t coule be
imposed at those intersections, but that they stiEFiwould rt cbpnpi`tely
mitigate those intersections — pointing out that;pn4 Rf those tIbns,
9 P 9
Sepulveda /Rosecrans, was recently impYoved k end th h , rther
improvements would require significant coortfination is with other
jurisdictions and Caltrans. He advise at tTetpEIR a ' tided pot Y
significant and unavoidable air ualit 7m ac
g q y p �'relatetl to "nitrogen oxide
due to constru�U avtties that Auld e a ociated with the
recommended in #er`sac{>�tk :gip a e[s3 that in order to
study the aiquality; staftrmed a t#iical construction project
would involve three ttersecti • "t ote time r one of these roadways;
and that tl const ' on imfs associate with that type of project
would exceed the thE." "", est hed by the Air Quality Management
District (A ) Hded fat there are no feasible mitigation
measures that * -uld rettu thos* temporary construction impacts to a
less- than - significant
Senior Planner Garry y Rf"that the final significant and unavoidable
.•.
impact relates to temptizary construction noise impacts that would also
be associated with this`'prototypical construction project involving three
intersections; and advised that there are several mitigation measures
proposed as part of the DEIR, but even with these measures, the impact
would still remain significant and unavoidable. He advised that the
project itself cannot be approved unless the EIR is certified with a
Statement of Overriding Considerations, which would have to
acknowledge that the project has significant impacts; and advised that
there are other aspects of the project, such as the traffic improvements
that will be accrued, economic benefits, social benefits, etc., that
outweigh the environmental impacts of the project.
5 El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
155 )
Senior Planner Garry advised that as part of the public review, staff
received ten comment letters from public agencies and members of the
public, which are included in the agenda packet; stated that staff has also
prepared a summary of the issues that were raised in those letters; and
stated that a full response to comments will be prepared by staff and
incorporated into the Final EIR, which will be presented to City Council
for consideration on September 7, 2004.
Senior Planner Garry stated that one of the issues raised in,,,several of
the letters referred to related projects and the cumulative sis; and
explained that the related projects are not treatecV ,a s >: item
because they are incorporated into the growth assd'trtptiotas that Gsed
to build the traffic model, and as such, they are part die rota. not
separate entities or projects. He mentioned that a reAjdi;resolUt O`:dad
been distributed to the Planning Commission this eveEtt with a
change on Page 4; and that the Commission had bd ` ovlded
page errata sheet which reflects additional improvements , ,ersee#�ons
that are proposed. He stated that this same infotmation ! to
the public.
With the aid of a power point present*n Howl Basrin
consultant traffic engineer, provided ove" of ess Ilea
ed
to the Circulation Element changes;; advi k that :ofie," of the major
changes being proa the collye k of ?a#kgfuglas Streets from
the current one way`opaf4�ft 'Jo 8 Y opt . a change that will
necessitate terse on ti route to accommodate
two -way tra is H tated an0 the1 e being proposed is the
deletion froi the CrYeatl tion Ent of the' i111ariposa Avenue extension
between Di9las nd Avt on Boulevard and the deletion of the
Grand Avenue ;ext'6J i"'n be en Douglas Street and Aviation
Boulevard. F � bted .. "Onoth change is the area near Sepulveda
Boulevard and Rose crAve, where there's an active planning
s
process fora potential,;;,, :tfopment; and advised that the actual
Circulation Element ch In this area will depend on the outcome of
that planning process.
Mr. Basmaciyan explained that the analysis and methodology is based
on the SCAG regional transportation document; and noted that the
reason for using the SCAG model is to ensure that the planning process
is in keeping with regional transportation decisions and regional growth.
He advised that the model has inherently included the planned /known
development throughout the region; and for the land uses within the City,
the plan has also included the major approved /known projects and
potential development of vacant parcels. He added that level -of- service
ratings and ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) technologies have 160
6 El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
been built into the plan, such as synchronization and traffic control,
advance information for travelers, incident management and other
techniques that can benefit traffic flow. He explained that even with
improvements, there are still six intersections where the Circulation
Element changes would have an impact and could not achieve any
higher than a "D" level -of- service rating even with the feasible
improvements, as identified in the environmental documentation.
Vice -Chair Miller Sheehan commended all involved for their work
throughout this process. Vice -Chair Miller Sheehan questioned) how staff
came up with a calculation of three intersection projects at on8, 'tine.
Senior Planner Garry explained that staff believedstttis' um ' Wbe a
realistic estimate of how many intersections might �constru V %l one
time as part of a project, especially along one of the majo'i " is
k
corridors. ,
Commissioner Carlson commended all involved
this process.
Planning Manager Christensen pointed o
also extensively studied as part of this F
those intersections with the criteria of.wha
overall circulation within the City, 14 Jti~ter:
improvements within:th t scope tol# i
in the City, reg tstci;
regarding
for their *0 througboilf
3f 55{.inter2cti ''were
t, a h In lout at
be dry �o improv8 the
Its wi1� Fiatie a varle } f
XXI
circulation system
Put in place.
Department's comments
Addressing'is Carlsi 's question, Senior Planner Garry
stated that one , . the Veparf, fient comments particularly related to
the Douglas Street extenstii pact; advised that that project is currently
in its design phase; and thk My,Gd its own environmental review that was
- '
approved by the City Gg�iYlast year. He added that the relocation of
pipelines will be takettre of through that project. He stated that
another comment relate "ti to the project that staff is currently processing
on the Honeywell property. An Environmental Impact Report will address
the soil conditions where the roads will be placed; and he indicated that
those issues would be evaluated in detail as part of that project. He
added that some of the future projects that will follow on from the
Circulation Element will have additional studies that will look at more
specific, possible impacts of those construction projects.
Commissioner Carlson questioned if anyone had raised an objection to
making Nash or Douglas two -way streets.
7 El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
161
Senior Planner Garry advised that Brian Crowley had submitted a letter
questioning who was proposing that idea; and he noted his
understanding that the business community along those areas are in
support of the two -way proposal.
Commissioner Kretzmer mentioned that Brian Crowley's letter also raised
significant safety concerns with ingress /egress if these roadways become
two -way streets.
Senior Planner Garry reiterated that staff is currently pX" wring full
responses to all comments in Mr. Crowley's I wh,ul be
presented to City Council.'
Commissioner Kretzmer commended everyone tnv67ti o for thbffw s
with this process. He noted that he was stunned ding the e,
current forecast indicates a difference of 48,000 les, bs thane'
previous forecast that was prepared. He strongly urge k ,.,City t1 be
proactive in coordinating with other jurisdictions /re�lons forfft ..qo #rol.
He noted the importance of stronger coordina re tion
elements and questioned the effectiveness ti a e t fc s not
sufficient coordination with other jurisdictions v ;.
Planning Manager Christensen
and cooperation, 1 ' `5,4ewnal
planning
programs;
on enviroi
jurisdiction
that staff re
there are n
working on
come
is the
Commissioner Kretzmer
with Assemblymen and,
coordination.
mtecf off„ the \' i V19 participation
�s an ous communities in
is v tion management
icipates and comments
tprtSeE projects from adjacent
he C'ify's Planning office; stated
COG meetings, etc., noting that
participates outside of the City in
�onger efforts on the part of working
in addressing more effective regional
Director Hansen explained that early on with the introduction of this
document, staff recognized the impact and reality of pass- through traffic;
and expressed his sense of optimism in El Segundo's ability to effectively
work in the region based upon the track record of the City Council over
the past few years on regional transportation issues, such as LAX, where
the City has not just developed a presence, but has been able to
coordinate and garner support from communities throughout the region
towards a common cause. He noted his belief that El Segundo has a
reputation for being solution- driven and that he believes this community
8 El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
162
will continue to make a difference.
Chair Funk opened up the hearing for public input.
Brian Crowley. resident
Mr. Crowley highlighted the letter that had been provided to the Planning
Commission; stated that the DER from 2000 had a lot more information
in it than the current DEIR; and questioned if the report includes the new
450 -unit housing project that's proposed for Del Aire or t4 housing
project that is being proposed on the L.A. Air Force. Base p, orty. He
stated that it would be helpful to see a table that I .ve that
was included in the study; and stated that the stu wSh'otrI ai 3 elude
statistics on the various shuttle buses in this tow'yxhic" hetp', tceep
cars off the roadways. He requested that the stuy ;also Incl' the
possibility of changeable center lanes on Aviation Bogjrd and
the City to be creatively futuristic in its ideas for traffiitttigation.
asked that the City consider asking for land to wig " ". Corner 8aa
intersections when a large project is proposed. Mr. Cro "' c his
concern with the safety and effective ness, :,oU•: .q ing las
Streets two ways, stating that he does not see a � ea s n ving
the streets back to a two -way operation, arid, he d wwwi ,the
money will come from to do the project' not i, oncefri �Rith
pedestrian safety on crossing Sepulvetl Boud
Ms. Garnh z co ?ti ente&%• ,I than ed s Crowley for his analysis on
k.:
y*. k
this item.
There being nQ;furtEt .. public 40ut, Chair Funk closed the public
testimony porfil f the` Wng.
Commissioner Schiltz inq, O bout the cost of the Nash /Douglas Street
couplet. Planning Matte' hristensen responded that staff does not
have a precise figure at an estimating would not be prepared until
actual work was going proceed since it can change over time and that
is not within the scope of the Circulation Element Update.
In response to Chair Funk's inquiry regarding the location of the roadway
for the Honeywell project, Planning Manager Christensen explained that
the precise alignment of that proposed thoroughfare does not develop
until specific plans are developed for the improvements of the roadway;
and that the reference to it in the report is only meant as an approximate
location as a connector east/west street that would connect from
Sepulveda Boulevard to the currently existing Park Place.
9 El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
163
Chair Funk questioned if the current studies include the major projects
that were referenced by some of the individuals that submitted
correspondence.
Planning Manager Christensen stated that Table 3 -3 includes a list of
approved and pending projects and that Page 23 in Appendix C has a list
of projects that were folded in on top of the SCAG regional model. She
added that the baseline was the SCAG regional model which takes into
account General Plan documents of surrounding jurisdictions in the
region, land uses, and the land use densities that are appCVed under
those General Plans for regional growth. Addltlonillyl, she that
staff factored in known, existing, approved and p6ringr matcif }�jects
within El Segundo as well as the Playa Vista arid. ision
projects. > >.
Chair Funk questioned if the ITS system is currently in
Senior Planner Garry advised that the City
ITS in place; explained that there are two
developed: one exclusively for the City o
funded and is currently being designed, w
Department as the lead agency — add
appropriated by Congress a number f ye<
stated that the oft 41f te a t
COG for a south a� � in
Segundo on, an expnde r9isfbF
factored
cu
the � ty,>Publ Works
,that funds Were
ego for EI'Segundo ,i e
�I' by the South Bay
ll atauld connect to El
fe signal coordination and
ese programs have been
Chair Funk a lie; c`:0 i x:*n the actual number of intersections
that will remajrtth a rad' for level of service and questioned if
there are any strategies ,►;�theazik that might mitigate the problems at
those intersections.
Senior Planner Garry d that the EIR indicates that six intersections
will remain at a low level of service even with improvements; and he
stated that the final EIR will have responses that address the actual
number. Senior Planner Garry stated that there could be other
strategies, such as grade separations or reversible lanes, but that the
report does not call those out specifically.
Assistant City Attorney Berger stated that this is an update to the General
Plan; advised that every project that comes before the City has to
conform with the General Plan; and explained that if a Circulation
Element Update were made by the City Council after it fully considered
10 El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
16-4
the environmental impacts of that update, that Circulation Element would
then become part of the General Plan and each new project that came in
would then be subject to environmental, General Plan and zoning review.
He noted that staff could make a determination on what type of impact a
project would have on that particular street and then make a
determination of whether that particular project would have to dedicate
property, pay an impact fee, or take some other type of measure in order
to meet the Circulation Element. He added that this is a conceptual type
of element the Planning Commission is considering this evening; that the
environmental impact analysis contemplates reasonably foreseeable
elements that are possible in order to generate the,.analys;.; " "'' pointing
out that it can't anticipate every specific, single pregk that „g to
come through, which is one of the reasons for a Gt3iiera't Planefefore,
he added that the City can outline these general cortcepts' nd sure
that as each project comes through, they are subCec NX. -Ious a�es
to get them into conformance with the overall plan for . e entire City ff
stated that as a project comes through, that protect m" requir
dedicate property for a specific expansion of a road N it's keen
determined that that project will have an impact a'n a parts uC T fq1 ay,
even with the existence of a Statement of Overt Core is of
this document.
Planning Manager Christensen pointed out #hat th' 'inters t1s
which cannot be mitigated below the tftreshoCd Iel are s 11 proposed for
some improveme e ti dlcated an tra 8ney6is; and explained
\k4 %.'.
that even with tfios74 i14 t�tf5� p en rty ski a aid "ot fully mitigate the
level of servtee at he In rte "eld",,'WiM"�threshold of significance
over the life an o � -`e Circd Elemerr p?
Chair Funk Ahanke comrho ded everyone involved for the hard
work that wer? rsato th ppess a expressed her comfort level with the
work and tho6bhiful anaCsr f that nt into this document.
Commissioner Kretzmer,%, ed if there is a benefit to the City taking
control of Sepulveda j7ard through the Caltrans relinquishment
process, as referenced o, age 10 of the staff report.
In response to Commissioner Kretzmer's inquiry, Director Hansen
explained that staff has not been directed by Council to consider that
possibility at this point in time; and advised that there are considerable
maintenance costs involved with that and noted his doubt that the City's
existing budget would be able to absorb those costs if the City made that
decision. He added that at a considerable cost, the City currently
maintains all the landscaping along Sepulveda Boulevard, from Imperial
Highway all the way down to Rosecrans Avenue. He noted that some
cities have undertaken this process and have been pleased with the
El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
165
11
results, but stated that staff would have to analyze this to determine if
there are any benefits for El Segundo.
Commissioner Kretzmer questioned if the City is required to do an
analysis within the residential areas, and questioned if safety factors are
included. He highlighted the increasing number of vehicles parked on
residential streets, including recreational vehicles, making it more difficult
to safely maneuver; and he noted his concern with encouraging the use
of bicycles, golf cart type vehicles, and pedestrian travel in residential
areas if nothing is being done to make maneuvering on this these streets
less hazardous.
Director Hansen explained for Commissioner Kretzf r that thy.,, f7asis
of this document has been on areas that City Co ftl a rect ``" to
examine for change, improvement or deletion of road"'';' nd t re
was no direction given on making changes in reside't, teas
that there is minimal discussion of that in the documen Pointed.,,
that it does not mean there aren't safety concerns and thej {3e Clty<Sn
addressing them; and advised that many of these resf ip ffic
concerns are being addressed on an on gongbast's„throthfaffic
Committee as issues arise.
Planning Manager Christensen mentioned t when r�hducti
intersection analysis, none of the resitientlal ections were im
in terms of level A
Commission,o Kr mer` test-, th±�:: of Virginia Street that
borders theilayinld at t dleschgr being one major area of
concern for pedest safety. %�
Director
H '' . sta " `;at it vutuld be more effective to deal with
specific
r is I tr
problt is by directly contacting
the City
Manager
or himself so
th *`particular concern can be
specifically
targeted
through the sy
*'il addressed at the Traffic
Committee
level; and he encoura
h residents to contact staff with
any traffic
concerns.
Commissioner Kretzmer noted his concern with the number of four -way
stops in residential areas and the emissions that result from those
vehicles having to frequently stop and go in these areas. He stated that
it would be helpful to see statistical analysis that monitors traffic
conditions with the use of the various mini -buses and shuttles. He
highlighted Mr. Crowley's comments that there is a lot of statistical
information in the 2000 EIR that would be helpful that is not being
addressed in the most recent EIR, with an emphasis on encouraging
alternative types of transportation. He suggested that the document
12 El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
188
expand on the use of alternative modes of transportation, such as
bicycle, walking, shuttle buses, and golf cart type vehicles.
Commissioner Kretzmer reiterated his desire that traffic
circulation /mitigation be approached on a regional basis, sharing the
costs and the responsibility, and he urged the City to double its efforts for
this coordination.
Commissioner Miller Sheehan urged staff to be creative and futuristic in
its plans for traffic control and to encourage the use of mass transit.
Commissioner Carlson questioned what type of re btjld be on
the gap closure project for Douglas Street if the Clecided nQ tp fake
Douglas a two street and questioned if it Is`�xntempla , the
document that Douglas will be a two -way street.
Addressing Commissioner Carlson's inquiries,
stated that if this element is not adopted, the
allow the one -way portion of the Nash /Douglas
noted that the City is going forward with tht $
impacts of those two projects as they relate . ► e�
the Douglas gap project has been separatelfi,
Senior Planner Garry expressed his;;;belie,
two -way streets were studied. k
Commissioner, M'lli r ;, 1
Schiltz, to cgAcur v+�tth
No. 2572. 96tion ied 4-
None.
ner
that
*� by Commissioner
is adopting Resolution
Kretzmer voting no.
MOTION
CONTINUED
BUSINESS
Planning Manager Christ en. §tated that the next Planning Commission REPORT FROM
agenda on September =` X004, will include an administrative DIRECTOR
determination regard ingrv2' occupancy for second -unit dwellings.
None. PUBLIC
COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Schiltz stated that as a resident of a house on a 25 -foot PLANNING
wide lot, he knows firsthand how limited /restrictive the modulation code is COMMISSIONERS'
and he urged the City to study the possibility of amending the language COMMENTS
in this code for small lots.
Commissioner Miller Sheehan announced that this is her last meeting
because she has made her first home purchase in Ventura County and
13 El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
1R"
that she will soon be leaving El Segundo. She thanked and commended
staff; stated that she has enjoyed working with Chair Funk and the new
Commissioners; and encouraged the residents to apply for a rewarding
and challenging position on the Planning Commission.
Chair Funk stated that Commissioner Miller Sheehan will be missed;
wished her the best in her new town; and thanked her for her outstanding
job on the Commission and for her service to the City.
Staff was directed to bring back a staff report that examines the current OTHER BUSINESS
status of properties that may be affected, alternatives in te(, of code
text amendments and /or administrative remedies.
There being no further discussion, the meeting
p.m. to the regular meeting of September 9, 2004.
PASSED AND APPROVED ON THIS 9th DAY
James Hansen, Secretary of
the Planning Co .; ,..
and Director"
City of
SE
10 ADJOURNMENT
if"W, Chair of1Yttie
Commission
Segundo, California
14 El Segundo Planning Commission
Minutes, August 26, 2004
168
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 7, 2004
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Special Orders of Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action (Public Hearing) regarding the FY 2004 -2005 Preliminary
Budget and Five -Year Capital Improvements Plan including discussion and possible direction
regarding all City revenues and expenditures.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Open Public Hearing;
2) Discussion;
3) Close or Continue the Public Hearing to September 21, 2004;
4) Schedule the budget adoption for the September 21, 2004 meeting;
5) Alternatively discuss and take other action related to this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
The FY 2004 -2005 budget process began on May 5, 2004 with the budget kickoff for staff.
Departments were given budget instructions and specific guidelines as directed by the City
Manager.
On July 16th, 2003, the City Council held a Strategic Planning Session with the City Manager
and all department heads. During this planning session, the City Council reviewed
departmental projects and recommended program reductions, established priorities and set
the general direction for the next fiscal year. Programs, reductions or changes were made to
the preliminary budget based on the recommendations of the City Council.
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
None
FISCAL IMPACT: Discussion to Adopt FY 2004 -2005 Preliminary Operating
and Five -Year Capital Improvement Budget
Operating Budget:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required: —Yes _ No
ORIGINATED BY: DATE:
,4n- X �_ 9 - -oy
Bret M. Plumlee, Director Administrative Services
REVIEWED B DATE:
Mary Styerhn, City Manager
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
The budget impacts of new projects are included in the FY 2004 -2005 Preliminary Budget.
The Preliminary FY 2004 -2005 Operating and Five -Year Capital Improvement Budget were
distributed to the City Council on August 3, 2004. On August 17, 2004 a budget workshop was
held to discuss the budget in detail.
The final steps in the process are a public hearing on September 7, 2004 and final budget
adoption on September 21, 2004. As part of the final adoption of the budget staff will prepare
a reconciliation of changes from the preliminary to the final adopted budget.
170
EL SEGUNDO CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 7, 2004
AGENDA ITEM STATEMENT AGENDA HEADING: Unfinished Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action regarding a report to Council on requested additional
information: costs, impacts, and workload for alternative "run short" scenarios (to "run short"
means that on a given day and temporary basis, not filling a vacant position with overtime
personnel). These scenarios were developed as a result of the Fire Department's budget
reduction proposal (running short in fire suppression staffing up to one person per
rank/assignment as vacancies occur).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
1) Receive and review information; 2) Alternatively, discuss and take other action related to
this item.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION:
Since emergencies are random in their nature, frequency, and severity - fire departments
routinely cover emergency response by balancing their staffing with the use of Mutual Aid. No
community can afford to depend solely on their own staffing levels, nor can they use Mutual or
Automatic Aid to cover 100% of their potential emergencies. Also, on a daily basis a
department may have to modify its staffing and available apparatus for short periods of time in
order to transport a patient or to deal with other unique operational circumstances. Any
disruption of the balance between a community's staffing and Automatic or Mutual Aid, can
only be short-term in order to avoid loss of such aid.
Continued next page
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
1. Historical Average workload statistics (Attachment A)
2. Historical pattern of vacancies (Attachment B)
3. Examples of possible staffing configurations under scenarios (Attachment C)
4. Matrix of scenario's, estimated savings, operational impacts and assumptions
(Attachment D)
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Operating Budget:
Amount Requested:
Account Number:
Project Phase:
Appropriation Required: _Yes X No
ORIGINATED BY: DATE: 08/26/04
Norm Angelo, Fir Chief
REVIEWED BY: DATE:
Al
Mary St n, City Manager ° f'
Let
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION, continued:
Recognizing that fiscal concerns were projected over the next two years, the Fire Department
analyzed all department services, previous methods used to address relatively short-term
budget reductions, and the overall impact on the department's ability to deliver balanced
services. Based on this analysis, the Fire Department proposes that the remainder ($545,000)
of the department's assigned target reduction number be met by running short up to one
suppression person in each of four (4) ranks /assignment as vacancies occurred.
This strategy is a short-term strategy for the projected two years of fiscal concern. At the
strategic session, the department was asked to determine the savings and impacts of only
running short up to two (2) members as vacancies occurred on a daily basis. Multiple
scenarios were analyzed under the "Run Short 2" concept. The scenario that brought us
closest ($535,000) to the target required having to draw from any of the ranks /assignment to
meet the target number. The background and impacts of that scenario were presented to
CD
v
d
3 C3
C a
CTS N
N �
m
d
0
0
� O
CD
d
N
O
N
CA)
8
n
fN
B
C
to
O
fU
v
X
3
ro
m
W
O
A
0
c
Ol
[U
CD
n
c
CD
F
v
CD
CL
_a
N
CL
0
C
CD
d
N
O
.7
O
m
d
CD
m
D_
i
K
--i
-n
—
o
N
01
a
v KGCn
D_
m
m
3
N
D
7
N
T N? CD
C
CD
n
-0
n
7
CD
d
CD
W
A
CVO
m
0
V"
CD
3
!1
(D
(0
N
N
Q
N
n CD
CD O
(D
N
0
(�
f_n
N
j N
O
(D
n
CD
N
N
CD
N
CO V
N
Ln
m
N
N
V
m
Cn
V
00
V
N
(D
CO
N
co
D
N
73
C//
CD
N
O
00
A
A
W
N
Ln co A (DD w CJ7 N -+ W
W m m m W m W V m �
i
w
m
W
O
N
01
N
m
7
D_
CD
T
7
=
CD
V
00
n
-0
n
CD
cn
d
O
m
W
A
CVO
m
0
V"
C:
Ul
D
E
N
CD
(D
0
N
m
O
(D
n
�
CD
co
CO V
Ln
m
N
N
V
m
Cn
V
00
V
N
(D
CO
N
co
D
:3
73
C//
N
N
O
00
A
A
W
O
O
cn
co
O
J
�
�
O
A
N
O
O
00
V
m
N
M
N
co
00
W
A
N
W
W
W
N
W
W
_
_
ul
.mA
m
W
N
co
A
—•
O
O
0
0
O
N
V
m
CT
N
co
O
V
A
-4
C7l
N
V
m
�
Ln co A (DD w CJ7 N -+ W
W m m m W m W V m �
0
G
y
ID
4
m
m
a
3
A
O
G
CD
W
Of
i
m
W
O
A
01
N
m
7
D_
CD
T
7
=
CD
CD
n
-0
n
CD
cn
d
CD
m
0
C:
c
D
E
N
CD
(D
0
(D
n
�
CD
n
C
1
CZ
N
Cn
n
N
O1
(D
D
:3
73
C//
N
N
O
O
O
D
O
N
N
N
N
M
0
G
y
ID
4
m
m
a
3
A
O
G
CD
W
Of
i
D_
i
CD
CD
m
m
7
w
D
7
=
CD
CD
N
3
m
1
T
N
fD
'O
d
M o.
T »
V
_ 'O
N N
d p�
A 0
00
moo?
a f m
m m T!
�do
;o�m
d
�. 3
O y N
P.
j � N
m o. o
o m
m c
CD y
m �
No
0.-8
d
0 0
CD '
N
n
CD M.
N 2
N
CD 3
N
.i
y 3
W 5D
o i
m m
3 n
w m
y N
O
O N
CL
m o
�i CD
CD
a
F o
N
F
o �
c
n C
CD
x �
fD N
CD O
N �.
C
(D
A
CA w co A
D
CD
v
CD
O
L
N
N
CD
CD
N �
174
n
S
3
m
A
w
m
O
m
nai
chi
a
DI
N
N
N
N
N
a
a
0
o
o
0
0
0
>
>
a
C
0
0
0
0
Ni
i
i
i
i
V
Of
(11
A
co
.D
CD
7
61
N
O
R
O
0
c
J
i
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
o
f/1
CA w co A
D
CD
v
CD
O
L
N
N
CD
CD
N �
174
n
S
3
m
A
w
O o0
7
Q 0
c x
� W
a
CD
5'
CL
sv
CD
(n
D G)
O (D
CD
CD CD :3
�
O
r- -I
0 0-
mi, CCD
7
N Q
_ N
�CD
Qm
�CD
C
(�
N co
C) O
CCDD
O
O�
7
C�
CD
CD
m
m
C�
on
.-F
CD
TI
n
rZ
n
M.
W
sv
as
o'
m
n
c�
CD
h
MIL
TI CD
n z
3
CD
C2
C7'
I
N
C
Z
Cn
2
O
Cn
C)
m
z
D
Cv
C)
3
CD
7
9
1175
N
s
CD
w
r
O
3
3
CL
m
Ml
00
sv
sv
0
m
n
0)
.a
m
7
cc
m m
m
M
m
mn
MO
m
m
a0i a0i
m m
cc Q
mn mn
m
mn
m
mn
n
a0i
m
c�
X
r�
c
CD
t
Q
c
ET
n
c
Q
CD
O�
w
CD�
h
X
m
m
X
m
N
0
t/1
(Q
(C
C)
_.
+
_.
_.
CD
CD
N
W
W
W
W
W
IV
N
W
j
MA
0)
.a
m
7
cc
m m
m
M
m
mn
MO
m
m
a0i a0i
m m
cc Q
mn mn
m
mn
m
mn
n
a0i
m
c�
X
r�
c
CD
t
Q
c
ET
n
c
Q
CD
O�
w
CD�
h
. . . . . . . .
cn
0
-1
Mon
N
0
3
CD
lw
W
O
0
a1
to
X
m
m
X
m
v,
Q
co
U)
+ c�
+
�
(D
(D
C
W W
N N
mn
n
mn
rt
7
(Q
W W W
n
sv
10
m m
X
mn
mn
m ma
M
i)
m
co
V ,
0
M-
1
'1
\T
V
O
-R
N
0)
OD
O
O
O
17f
_ .
0
0
W
N
D
s
9
CD
w
W
r
rt
0
n
0
n
m
c�
m m
m
T-q
M
U)
c
c�
w
N
mn
m
m
ca.
CD
CA)
N
7
(Q
T
rn
c�.
CD
w
w
n
2)
00
rt
cQ
m
mn
m m
m
ma
ic
CD
c
CD
w
mn
mn
m
3
m
c�.
w
co' 3
m < CD
v Q.
0
m
co
O
FML,
I
D
cn
3
CD
N
cn
VC Jw,
O
O
1YS
2
0)
0
CD
CD
w
cn
0
CL
CD
Ml
W
.�f
o'
0
n
h
0
0
a)
0 m
mn
X
m
mn
mn
n
FOOL
m
cc
m T1
z
to
w
c�
m T
X
CD
m
X
m
cQ
N
n
+
+
�.
C
c
w
C.
N
w
w
N
N
0
a)
0 m
mn
X
m
mn
mn
n
FOOL
m
cc
m T1
z
to
w
c�
m T
X
CD
m
cQ
n
+
�.
C
w
w
T
n
A)
cQ
a
O
N
T1
X
c
CL
O
1
W
N
O
O
O
I'7 )
m
3
CD
A
Ch
O
Q
cD
W
03
rt
rt
0•
n
7'
CD
N
C�
W
N
n
S11
rr
7
T
TI
N
mn
TI
n
W W W
N W �
0
m
CQ
TI
'TI
0
m
7
CG
n
mn
mn
mn
Ma
n
2)
V
=' O
CD <
CD
Q
C
O
N
O
ml
N
I
D
cn
3
CD
r--f
1
'-69
V '
C)
C)
C)
180
(1)
�Q
(t2
0
+ (Q
+
CD
CD
CD
CD
(D
N
mn
TI
n
W W W
N W �
0
m
CQ
TI
'TI
0
m
7
CG
n
mn
mn
mn
Ma
n
2)
V
=' O
CD <
CD
Q
C
O
N
O
ml
N
I
D
cn
3
CD
r--f
1
'-69
V '
C)
C)
C)
180
D
obi
n
s
CD
CD
f
0
3
CL
m
WN
w
as
0
0
3
F
h
A
n
w
N
n
m
0
co
T�
• • . . • • •
N
mn
mn
w w
n� w MWL
n
m
c�
mn
mn
0
m
c�
m
fm I
m
-v
3
7
ca.
w
v
0 m
1
0 0
0
1
C �
CL
X
v
O
r
W
I
D
cn
cn
cam'
3
(D
D
'I
V '
44h.
V '
V
O
O
O
181
m
m
can
ca
ca
cn
+ o
r
CD
a
N
mn
mn
w w
n� w MWL
n
m
c�
mn
mn
0
m
c�
m
fm I
m
-v
3
7
ca.
w
v
0 m
1
0 0
0
1
C �
CL
X
v
O
r
W
I
D
cn
cn
cam'
3
(D
D
'I
V '
44h.
V '
V
O
O
O
181
D
v
s
3
CD
M
•
cn
n
0
3
3
C.
m
.ter
O
7
�D
-�h
n
w
N
fu
r-r
iQ
m mn
--4
X
• • • • • • •
X
m
m
X
CD
Cl)
c�
(.0 +
W
0
+
_
CD
CD
cD
m
.p
m
an
0
rr
(Q
on
w w
N W �
0
cu
00
rr
0
mn
n
mn
mn
mn
c�
v
0
N
cn
O
P_
-p
i
v
cn
v
cn
U)
3
CD
r!-
cn
V �
V
O
O
O
182
T
N
'p0
d
3 m
tD C
w d
�Tl N
O1 a
w m
A O
J
O �
N
1
0
3
m
1
0
A
W
N
N
r
Q
N
6
N
u
C
w
C
y
C
w
C
w C
H C
<
J
<
J
<
J
<
J
< J
< J
2
Cl)
2
Cl)
Cl)
E cn
2
0
2
0
2
0
2
0
2 0
2 0
Q
qqq
�
N
ppp
a•
N
ef7l
m
CD
C
C
CD
3
3
3
'
3
3
3
o m T
T
a-
01
(') m
T T
Q
01
n m
T T
0,
O
T T
Q
(D
n Z
O-
T 0
a-
T N
➢ Z ,TD
T
DT Z
v T
v Z
TT T
T� T
9
9
O
EA
O
O
N
N
N N
(/1
W 0)
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00
r
r
d
a
T1
T
T
T
El
Er
m
C
Er
EF
J
N
N
N
lI(
m
w
C
e
a
N'
3 w
K
K
K
K
0
u
0
CD
CD
u
D)
3
Ol
D)
D)
d
N
v °o
O
(D
(D
ill
01
m'
•
•
Cl)
0)
• •
S
•
y
0)
•
c
•
m -u
•
a-)
•
to
d
0)
• • • •
mmm
J J J
• •
m
• •
0
• •
Dm
3
S
(D
3
O m
N
S
4.
a
< D)
N y
J<
Jt' 0)
3
a
S f0 t0
(0
0. < 0)
CD D) 0
J<
0) (D
<
D) (D
N
J
(D
C
0)
0- J
p
- O
d
(D
N
J
N (D a-
0)
0)(D
N O
N
Df
0)
-
m m
(JD
0)
'a0 m
f0
0
C
3
0)
(D (Oi)
o-
i �'
�D
<
N
(D A o
m `G J
d n
•<
a
CD
'� W W
N w
W
W
d 0 O
(D `G J
n n (D
`G J
n t0,
`< 7
D) W
d W
CD
S
J
Q
S
y
CD
C
n
N C
C<
N
y y y
y D)
0
N
0
9
0 N (�
C 0)
(D
.Js lI)' (//
N
S N'
(D
y
(D
�.
<
D)
J
_
J lD
_
J
y
J
J
_
� J 0
_ m
J
_
J d
y
C
N
N
(p 0-
N
0-
a)
=
`�
CD
O-
c
r
c
O
3
N
V O
(JD
N
a
6
p'
m m
J
y m
a
y
N T,
N
m'<
m m d
a
m C
N
y
J
(p 0
J
y
Z 0)
Z
O- =
a
(D Z N
Z J
Z m
p-
�'a
J �,o
-
OL)CL00
'a
sy
o-(D
v
3 L�QTG�pOa
o v
o
>'
N
n ni
J
N
7 0N
>
(D n n.
s
o
-O yp J
>
(D
J
N DC
JD
D
a
n Dp-
_.
D
o
D
o
a
C
w
i
( aj
0--
0 -n
a
0
a_o -�
-
-1-
'a-n
T
O
�m
i a
n
3 ID
j
t0
0
0 F3
0
f a
y O
^ O
O 0
y
O
m S (D
T
_ y C
y
y
0
J T
W O
J
J
to
N
a
J
d a
3
J im
�(D
0
O
g
m
Sr
y
N
(D (D
v
S
y a
,
'
y
o
(D m
N N
-
O
Ddl o
(_S D
Q
3
-0
3
y
O
J
0
N (D y
0- O
(D O
0-
y
O'
N =
01
a
-.
y N
D
N
0
CD
Fy
of
� 3
0"(°
of
my
0.
=
0 CD
N
CD
"O
lw
c ..,
d
c �,
d 0
.J..
CD
CD
ZY
1
CL <
'O
Q
N J
J
. (D
J
Q
O=
0
C
(D
N
fpi(
y
y. N
n
0
a m 0
m y
n�
d Q
y. (D
y(D
3'
(D
(D
.c..
D'
fj
y .O.
(D
(a
O
a
ql
D)
O N
-p
N
y0
y
`2
N
�! O
O. 0
-
y Q
=i O
N J
3
J
CD
01
O
J_ J
T <
J=
0 y
CD
CD
o
•00
3
_
0 H
m y
n
3°
J
•0<
p
m
3
C
m
o
r
m
CD
CD
a CD
CD
p
<
m
CD
N
CD
1
0
3
m
1
0
T
N
O
N
d
3 co
?D ?7
N -D
_ m
m d
�_
N o
0m -n-nA
�����
Awrv�y
DZmTIm
(7 II
7 00
_0 n O C
7 7 7
.�
0
3
M° 6
0 0 0 0
c(
0m ?176
� -a�a0
03=r
D) f0 �' (O
'O j' =r N
r
A W N
(D ± m 0 7
n O N
<
m
7 N ,�
7 S M
m m m m 3
< O< o
0
DI D) N O) N
5-1 7 3
m CC
(p O
7 7 7 7
D) D) 0) m
D)
O O O O
D N >•
(D
(D (D CD (D
Oa 0- 7
S S S S
y 7 0 0
�'
0
�' 7' 7'
7 7
7 7 7 7
S
CL d m
(O f0 (O (O
0 N
p 7 '6
EP r
O O O O<
N
DI D) d N
D) m O
3333
N «D)7
m d v m
3 CD (D
x. x. x. x
m
3 3 3 3
5 m° m
3 3 3 3
-o 0?
< m
0 0 0 0
m m
A W N +
O
to
al
N 0 m
O
0
7
O O o y
"O "O ,0
U) T N
F m m 7
= N cc
>>>>
7
ms3
N 01 D) p)
N 7
(n Co Cc m
m '.
Z m m
0 T
7 7 7 7
L CD
aaaa
�co
D) D) D) D)
t<
C S
v
f
m
S S S S
O O O O
O O
m D) D) W
i3
mm'm0
3
7
j (D
7 7 7 <
O_ a
v
0 0 0
Da) m
N w d
Nom.
0 0 0 7
7 7 7
A m
7
CD
CL
CL a c-c
v
C C c y
7
V
ar M. {U
W 0) DI
7
2. c
N
O
C c C z
01
Z o
a
O O O "
O
O
N
O O O N
_
d D) D) N
p'
7 7 7 7
N
N (A 0 y.
3. 0
x w, x
DDDD
to
to
c
C C C c
c c
-0 3
' o o' o
7 7 7 7
D) D) O N
0v-0 -0
-o 'o 'o v
1
a
n
m
m
0
8
n
a
v
m
