Agenda packet — Hermosa Beach City Council, October 14, 2024 (part 3 of 3)

Chapter Ten | Recommended Programs
312 | Alta Planning + Design
local recreational and business opportunities for the community and are increasingly popular citywide events. Ciclovias can combine with other popular community events to promote walking and bicycling as a form of viable transportation. Ideally, Ciclovias should provide access to civic, cultural, or commercial destinations.

The City of Los Angeles has hosted two ciclovias, called “CicLAvia,” since October 2010. At both CicLAvia events, routes went through downtown Los Angeles. The participating cities could work with the event organizers to create a route through the South Bay. This would be an opportunity to highlight some of the South Bay’s new bikeways once constructed.34

10.4.8 Bike Wrangler
A bike wrangler program gathers used and abandoned bicycles and distributes them to people who cannot afford bicycles. The bike wrangler can collect from many sources of used bicycles, including local police department auctions, universities, and individuals. The bike wrangler partners with bicycle shops or bicycle repair cooperatives to store and repair the bicycles.

The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health recently funded a Bike Wrangler program. The Los Angeles County Cycling Collaborative (CCC), which is a partnership of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and the County’s five bicycle repair cooperatives, will be administering the program from a space near downtown Los Angeles. The participating cities could work with this existing program by connecting their local institutions to the CCC Bike Wrangler. They can work with the Bike Wrangler to bring bicycle workshops and refurbished bicycles to the South Bay.

10.5 Monitoring and Evaluation
In order to track the progress of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, it is critical that the participating cities monitor and evaluate changes in bicycling.

10.5.1 Annual Bicycle Counts and Surveys
As a mechanism for tracking bicycling trends over time and for evaluating the impact of bicycle projects, policies, and programs from the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan, the participating cities

34 More information is available at
www.healthystreets.org/pages/sunday_parkways.htm and
http://www.ciclavia.org
The bike wrangler partners with bicycle shops or bicycle repair cooperatives to store and repair the bicycles.

Page 366 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 313
may consider partnering with local advocacy groups and volunteers to conduct annual bicycle counts. Count locations should at minimum include the locations that were part of the 2010 count effort. Ongoing count data will enable the cities to analyze changes in bicycling levels and to track the impact of new bicycle infrastructure. As a means of engaging the South Bay community in bicycle counts, the cities of El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, and Redondo Beach could partner to install an automated bicycle counter on the Strand that publicly displays the cumulative number of bicyclists counted.

Annual surveys should also be conducted to measure “attitudes” about bicycling. These surveys could be either online surveys or intercept surveys. Surveys should determine if bicyclists are reacting positively or negatively to bicycle facilities and programs implemented. Results of the counts and surveys can inform future bicycling planning efforts and be presented to the Bicycle Advisory Committee at regular meetings.

10.5.2 Mobility Coordinator Position
A number of cities around the country staff a part- or full-time Mobility Coordinator position. Cities with such a position usually experience relative success in bike plan implementation. To take full advantage of current bicycle planning and safety efforts and to assist with implementation of bicycling programs, the South Bay Cities Council of Governments (SBCCOG) should consider
creating and staffing an ongoing mobility coordinator position to assist the participating cities in multi-jurisdictional implementation and grant funding efforts. This position would be contingent on available funding. Should SBCCOG not obtain funding, each city should arrange for existing or new staff to dedicate time towards implementation of the bike plan and applying for relevant grants funds.

In addition to supporting existing programs, such as bicycling parking provision and educational activities, potential job duties for this staff position are listed below. See policy section 3.2 in Chapter 2 for details on tasks of the Mobility Coordinator.  Monitoring facility planning, design, and construction that may impact bicycling
 Staffing bicycle advisory committee meetings
 Coordinating the implementation of the recommended
projects and programs listed in this Plan
The participating cities should conduct annual bicycle
counts and surveys to track bicycling trends over time.

Page 367 of 507 ends

Chapter Ten | Recommended Programs
314 | Alta Planning + Design
 Identifying new projects and programs that would improve the city’s bicycling environment and improve safety for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists
 Coordinating evaluation of projects and programs, such as bicycle counts
 Pursuing funding sources for project and program
implementation

Page 368 of 507 ends

Alta Planning + Design | 315
Chapter 11
Wayfinding and Signage Plan

Page 369 of 507 ends

Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
316| Alta Planning + Design

Page 370 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 317
11 Wayfinding and Signage Plan
This chapter presents a regional bicycle wayfinding and signage plan for the South Bay participating cities that will support the proposed bikeway network, while simultaneously creating an identity for the South Bay participating cities’ bikeways. Such prominent and unique identification will be important to wayfinding for bicyclists using the first multi-jurisdictional interconnected bikeway system. The signage plan presented here is meant to assure bicyclists that they are using a network that is continuous and easily navigated. The regional bicycle wayfinding system will direct bicyclists to major destinations in the South Bay, such as downtown areas, commercial centers, and transit hubs.

Recommended signage presented in this plan should be placed on all existing and proposed routes. This chapter is organized by proposed signage design, signage location, kiosks, and collaborative efforts.

11.1 1BSignage Design
Bicycle wayfinding signage provides destination, direction, and distance information to bicyclists navigating through the South Bay bicycle network. The proposed design guidelines use standard signs from the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), as well as the California MUTCD. MUTCD signs used in this signage plan include:
 D11-1: Bicycle Route Guide Sign
 D1-1b: Destination Supplemental Sign
 M7-1 through M7-7: Directional Arrow Supplemental Sign Using signage standards outlined in the MUTCD allows for signage that is consistent throughout jurisdictions. However, the proposed signs include revised modifications to brand the South Bay bicycle network, as well as bicycle facilities in each participating city.

Table 11-2 further explains these modifications.

11.1.15BDesign Guidelines
The South Bay bicycle wayfinding signage system recommends the following three sign types:
 Standard signs: Confirm a bicyclist is riding on a
designated bikeway
 Turn signs: Specify where a bikeway turns to prepare
bicyclists in advance
D11-1: Bicycle Route Guide Sign

Page 371 of 507 ends

Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
318| Alta Planning + Design
 Hybrid Confirmation and Decision signs: Confirm a bicyclist is riding on a designated bikeway; include mileage to key destinations that can be accessed by the bikeways; and provide directional arrows to key destinations. In some instances, they also identify the junction of two or more bikeways
Table 11-1 displays design and placement standards for the three recommended sign types presented in this chapter. Figures 11-1, 11- 2, 11-3, 11-4 and 11-5 illustrate the signage design guidelines.

Example Hybrid Confirmation and Decision Sign.

Page 372 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 319
Table 11-1: Design Standards for Recommended Sign Types Type Sign Type Design Standards Placement
Standard Signs
 Bicycle Route Guide Sign
D11-1 size: 24” wide x18” tall
N/A  One sign per ¼ directional mile (midblock) and at the far side of key intersections
Turn Signs  Bicycle Route Guide Sign
D11-1 size: 24” wide x 18” tall
 Directional Arrow
Supplemental Signs M7-1 through M7-7 size: 12” wide x 9” tall N/A  Signs should be placed the at the
following distances before an intersection depending on the number of lanes a bicyclist must travel across in order to initiate a legal left turn:
 25 feet before a zero lane merge  100 feet before a one lane merge  200 feet before a two lane merge Hybrid Confirmation and Decision Signs
 Bicycle Route Guide Sign
D11-1 size: 24” wide x18” tall
 Destination
Supplemental Signs D1-1b size: 24” wide
 Maximum of one destination per plaque  A maximum of three destinations shall be listed  Destinations shall use upper case and lower case letters  For destination names that do not fit on one line abbreviations or twoline entry may be used  Destinations shall be listed by closest proximity to the sign placement  Signs shall include the bikeway’s endpoint along the length of the route  Where a bikeway ends at a location with no obvious destination, use the closest major destination on an intersecting bikeway or the intersecting street if there is no obvious destination  Common symbols are to be used to convey destination information in a space-efficient manner (see Figure 11-5 and Figure 11- 6)  Directional arrows shall be placed to the left of a destination  Straight arrows shall be centered over the left and right arrow  Two signs per directional mile  Signs should be placed at the following distances before an intersection depending on the number of lanes a bicyclist must travel across in order to initiate a legal left turn:
 25 feet before a zero lane merge  100 feet before a one lane merge
 200 feet before a two lane
merge

Page 373 of 507 ends

Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
320| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-1: Sign Types

Page 374 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 321
Figure 11-2: South Bay D11-1 Layout Details

Page 375 of 507 ends

Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
322| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-3: D1-1b Layout Details

Page 376 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 323
Figure 11-4: South Bay and Participating City Logos used on signs

Page 377 of 507 ends

Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
324| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-5: Los Angeles Metro and Bicycle Parking symbols used on signs

Page 378 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 325
As noted earlier in this chapter, recommended signs deviate slightly from MUTCD standard signs. Table 11-2 presents differences between the MUTCD and South Bay recommended sign standards.

Table 11-2: Modifications to MUTCD Design Sign Layout Specifications Modification Explanation
Developing a Hybrid sign from the standard
MUTCD confirmation and decision sign (D1-1b) ,
which incorporates direction, destination name
and distance
Provides bicyclists with maximum wayfinding information for improved usage and support of the overall network
Reduces horizontal perimeter from 1.5” to 0.75” Increases ability to accommodate lengthy destination names Incorporating symbols with destination names Increases ability to accommodate lengthy destination names in addition to improving communication for users
Maintains 24” wide supplemental sign (D1-1b)
Consistency across the network increases user familiarly as well as allows for the addition of destinations as the bikeway network is implemented
Uses FHWA 2000 (Highway Gothic) C series
condensed font series (rather than D series)
Increases ability to accommodate lengthy destination names; maintains 2” cap height; consistent with the cities of Chicago and Seattle
Inclusion of South Bay and City Logos on D11-1
sign, by reducing cap height of “BIKE ROUTE” to
2” (from 3”)
Providing the Logos allows for improved identification and branding of the South Bay bicycle network, as well as the participating cities

11.1.26BSSample Signage
Figure 11-6 through Figure 11-12 present sample signage for each of the participating South Bay cities. Signs will include the logo of the city it is located in, as well as the South Bay bikeway logo. Since color signs may result in high costs, the logos could also be printed in black and white.

Page 379 of 507 ends

Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
326| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-6: Sample Wayfinding sign for El Segundo

Page 380 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 327
Figure 11-7: Sample Wayfinding sign for Gardena

Page 381 of 507 ends

Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
328| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-8: Sample Wayfinding sign for Hermosa Beach

Page 382 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 329
Figure 11-9: Sample Wayfinding sign for Lawndale

Page 383 of 507 ends

Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
330| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-10: Sample Wayfinding sign for Manhattan Beach

Page 384 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 331
Figure 11-11: Sample Wayfinding sign for Redondo Beach

Page 385 of 507 ends

Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
332| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-12: Sample Wayfinding sign for Torrance

Page 386 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 333

11.1.3 Specifications
In order to have consistency in the wayfinding system, it is important to follow a set of specifications for sign placement and installation. Table 11-3 displays specifications for the recommended South Bay wayfinding signage. Some cities may already have sign placement and installation standards, in which case they could choose to continue using those for guidance.

Table 11-3: Specifications for Implementation of signage Specifications
 The standard pole for bikeway guide signs is a 2” square perforated unistrut pole  The pole should be placed 18” to 24” in the ground, depending upon the overall weight of the signs and the soil/pavement conditions.
 Heavy sign installations may require poles up to 36” into the ground.  Poles of 12’ in length are generally adequate to accommodate a D11-1 with a supplementary D1-1b sign. Longer poles are needed if additional signs will share the same pole.  The D11-1 should be installed at 10’ in height as measured from the top edge of the sign. This height will allow for the installation of supplementary signs while maintaining a minimum 7’ clearance to the bottom edge of the bottom sign.
 When a D11-1 is mounted on a pole with an existing parking restriction sign, the D11-1 and any supplementary sign should be located above the parking restriction sign.  Signs shall not be mounted to utility poles or traffic signal mast arms  Existing poles should be used wherever practical.

11.2 2BSignage Locations
Table 11-4 presents a list of suggested key destinations for each participating South Bay city. The cities may modify this list in the future as needed. Appendix L provides maps illustrating the approximate location of key destinations in each city, as well as proposed signage routes based upon estimated frequency of use and proximity to areas of interest.

Page 387 of 507 ends

Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
334| Alta Planning + Design
Table 11-4: Key Destinations by Participating City
Destination
El Segundo
Beach (end of Grand Ave)
Chevron refinery
El Segundo City Hall/Downtown
Josyln Community Center
El Segundo Public Library
The Urho Saari Swim Stadium
Imperial and Main Street
El Segundo and Nash Greenline Metro Station
Mattel Corporation
Mariposa and Nash Greenline Metro Station
Campus El Segundo Athletic Fields
Boeing Corporation
Los Angeles Air Force Base
Aviation/LAX Greenline Metro Station
Plaza El Segundo
Gardena
Crenshaw Greenline Metro Station
Dominguez Channel Bikeway at El Segundo Blvd and Crenshaw Blvd Dominguez Channel Bikeway at Rosecrans Ave and Crenshaw Blvd El Camino College
Gardena Civic Center/Nakaoka Community Center
Gardena Mayme Dear Library
Hermosa Beach
Hermosa Beach Pier Plaza
Hermosa Beach City Hall/Upper Pier
Hermosa Beach Library/Upper Pier
Valley Park
Lawndale
Lawndale Civic Center/Library
Jane Adams Park
Rogers-Anderson Park
Proposed Lawndale Metro Station at Rosecrans Ave and Manhattan Beach Blvd Manhattan Beach
Manhattan Beach Pier/Roundhouse Marine Studies Lab and Aquarium Live Oak Park and Josyln Community Center
Manhattan Beach City Hall and Library

Page 388 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 335
Manhattan Beach Library
North Manhattan Beach/El Porto
Manhattan Village Mall
Polliwog Park and the Creative Arts Center
AdventurePlex (Marine Ave Park and Marine Ave Sports Complex) Downtown Manhattan Beach
Metlox
Redondo Beach
Redondo Beach
Riviera Village
Esplanade
Dominguez Park / Dog Park
North Redondo Beach Bikeway at Marine Ave and Redondo Beach Ave North Redondo Beach Bikeway at Artesia Blvd and Inglewood Ave North Redondo Beach Bikeway at Lilienthal Ln and 190th street (Lilienthal Park) Torrance
Torrance Beach
Torrance Airport / Zamperini Field
Madrona Marsh Nature Center
Wilson Park
Downtown Torrance
El Prado Park and Torrance History Museum
Torrance City Hall and Library

Page 389 of 507 ends

Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
336| Alta Planning + Design

11.3 Kiosks
In addition to an effective signage system, the South Bay Signage plan also proposes the installation of informational kiosks to support the proposed bikeway network and signage. Proposed kiosk locations should be located at key destinations and include bicycle facility information for the participating cities and the South Bay region as a whole.

11.3.17BDesign Guidelines
Potential locations for kiosks include key destinations in each City are provided in Appendix L. Figure 11-13 and Figure 11-14 present sample kiosk prototypes as potential designs for the cities’ use.

These are simply conceptual in design and can be modified to conform with each cities’ existing signage plans. Figure 11-15 displays a potential placement of the sample kiosk.

The design guidelines for kiosks will vary per each city’s design preferences and existing standards. However, it is recommended that the participating cities use similar guidelines to create consistency across jurisdictions and brand the South Bay bicycle network. Kiosks should provide the following information:
 A map of key destinations in each city
 A map of the bicycle network in the city
 A map of the entire South Bay Bicycle Network
 The South Bay Bicycle Network Logo
Recommended supplemental resources for the kiosks include:
 Bicycle parking information
 Fold-up bicycle maps of the South Bay Bicycle Network  Information regarding bicycle related activities in the area  Bike safety information and other bicycle resources

Page 390 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 337
Figure 11-13: Sample Kiosk Prototype

Page 391 of 507 ends

Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
338| Alta Planning + Design
Figure 11-14: Sample Kiosk Prototype

Page 392 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 339
Figure 11-15: Potential Placement of Sample Kiosk
Photo Source: Dan Burden/WALC Institute for Vitality City

Page 393 of 507 ends

Chapter Eleven | Wayfinding and Signage Plan
340| Alta Planning + Design

11.4 Collaborative Efforts
The South Bay participating cities should consider working with other nearby agencies to provide consistent bicycle wayfinding signage throughout the South Bay and the
County of Los Angeles. This will allow bicyclists to easily navigate to and from bikeways in adjacent communities and create an overall seamless network. The South Bay
participating cities should coordinate efforts with the following adjacent jurisdictions:
 City of Hawthorne
 City of Inglewood
 City of Lomita
 City of Los Angeles
 City of Palos Verdes Estates
 City of Rolling Hills Estates
 County of Los Angeles
The participating cities should also consider partnering with the following agencies to install wayfinding signage that will help bicyclists navigate to the South Bay bikeways:
 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (Metro)
 Amtrak
 Metrolink
The participating cities should consider partnering with non-profit organizations, schools, and bicycle advocacy groups like the South Bay and Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalitions in a pursuit for funding opportunities and grants for wayfinding signage. Potential funds would help with capital and maintenance expenses associated with
wayfinding signage. Partnerships often strengthen grant applications making them more likely to be selected.

Page 394 of 507 ends

Alta Planning + Design | 341
Chapter 12
Funding

Page 395 of 507 ends

Chapter Twelve | Funding
342| Alta Planning + Design

Page 396 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 343
12 Funding All levels of government contain programs that can potentially fund bicycle projects, programs, and plans. This section covers federal, state, and regional sources of bicycle funding. Many funding sources are highly competitive. Therefore, it is not possible to determine exactly which projects will receive funding from specific funding sources. Table 12-1 serves as a general guide to funding sources. Staff should refer to current guidelines provided by the granting agency when pursuing any funding opportunity.

Table 12-1: Funding Sources
Funding Source Due Date*
Administering Agency
Annual Total
Matching Requirement
Eligible Applicants Planning
Construction Other Notes
Federally-Administered Funding Transportation, Community and System Preservation Program** Varies, generally January or February.

Federal Transit Administration
$204 million nationally in 2009
20% States, MPOs,
local governments and tribal agencies
X X X Implementation grants provide financial
resources to enact activities that address transportation efficiency, while meeting community preservation and environmental goals. Policy and program examples include spending policies that direct funds to highgrowth regions; urban growth boundaries to guide metropolitan expansion; and “green corridor” programs that provide access to highway corridors in areas targeted for efficient and compact development. Program officials are not currently accepting applications past 2011. In most years, Congress has identified projects to be selected for funding through the TCSP program. The South Bay cities should track the program over the long term and apply if the program is extended.

Page 397 of 507 ends

Chapter Twelve | Funding
344| Alta Planning + Design
Funding Source Due Date*
Administering Agency
Annual Total
Matching Requirement
Eligible Applicants Planning
Construction Other Notes
Federal Lands Highway Programs**
Not available
Federal Highway Administration
$1,019 million nationally in 2009
States X X Grant funds are allocated for highways,
roads, and parkways (which can include bicycle and pedestrian facilities) and transit facilities that provide access to or within public lands, national parks, and Indian reservations.

Rivers, Trails and Conservation Assistance Program
Aug 1 for the following fiscal year
National Parks Service
Program staff time is awarded.

Not applicable Public agencies X RTCA staff provides technical assistance to communities to conserve rivers, preserve open space, and develop trails and greenways. The program provides only for planning assistance – there are no implementation monies available.

Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks and Public Lands Program Varies, Generally October.

Federal Transit Administration
$27 million nationally in 2009
Not available Federal, State,
local and tribal agencies that manage federal lands
X X Grant funds transportation modes that
reduce congestion in parks and public lands.

Page 398 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 345
Funding Source Due Date*
Administering Agency
Annual Total
Matching Requirement
Eligible Applicants Planning
Construction Other Notes
Partnership for Sustainable Communities
Not applicable
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Varies Not applicable Varies by grant X X X Though not a formal agency, the Partnership for Sustainable Communities is a joint project of the EPA, the HUD, and the USDOT. One goal of the project is to expand transportation options that improve air quality and public health, which has already resulted in several new grant opportunities (including TIGER I and TIGER II grants). The participating cities should track Partnership communications and be prepared to respond proactively to announcements of new grant programs.

New Freedom Initiative**
Not available
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
Not available
Not applicable Public agencies X X Grant funds provide capital and operating costs to provide transportation services and facility improvements that exceed those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Pedestrian improvements include installing Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS), enhancing transit stops to improve accessibility, and establishing a mobility coordinator position.

Page 399 of 507 ends

Chapter Twelve | Funding
346| Alta Planning + Design
Funding Source Due Date*
Administering Agency
Annual Total
Matching Requirement
Eligible Applicants Planning
Construction Other Notes
Surface Transportation Program**
Not available
Federal Highway Administration
$6,577 million nationally in 2009
Not applicable States and local
governments
X X X Grants fund projects on any federal-aid
highway. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements include on-street facilities, off-street paths, sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle and pedestrian signals, parking, and other ancillary facilities. Non-construction projects, such as maps, bicycle/pedestrian coordinator positions, and encouragement programs are eligible. The modification of sidewalks to comply with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is also an eligible activity.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)**
Not available
Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration $1,777 million nationally in 2009
Not applicable States and
Metropolitan Planning Organizations in air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas X X X Funds are allocated for transportation
projects that aim to reduce transportation related emissions. Funds can be used for construction of bicycle transportation facilities and pedestrian walkways or for non-construction projects related to safe bicycling and walking (i.e. maps and brochures).

Page 400 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 347
Funding Source Due Date*
Administering Agency
Annual Total
Matching Requirement
Eligible Applicants Planning
Construction Other Notes
Transportation Enhancements**
Not available
Federal Highway Administration
10 percent of State Transportation Program funds
Not applicable States X X X Funds are a set-aside of Surface Transportation Program (STP) monies designated for Transportation Enhancement (TE) activities, which include the pedestrians and bicycles facilities, safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists, and the preservation of abandoned railway corridors (including the conversion and use thereof for pedestrian and bicycle trails).

Highway Safety Improvement Program**
October Federal Highway
Administration
$1,296 million nationally in 2009
Varies between 0% and 10%
City, county or federal land manager
X X X Funds projects on publicly-owned roadways
or bicycle/pedestrian pathways or trails that address a safety issue and may include education and enforcement programs. This program includes the Railroad-Highway Crossings and High Risk Rural Roads programs.

Community Development Block Grants
Varies between grants
U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
$42.8 m Varies between
grants
City, county X X X Funds local community development
activities such as affordable housing, antipoverty programs, and infrastructure development. Can be used to build sidewalks and recreational facilities.

Recreational Trails Program**
October CA Dept. of Parks
and Recreation
$1.3 m in 2010
12% Agencies and
organizations that manage public lands
X X X Provides funds to states for acquisition of
easements for trails from willing sellers, maintenance and restoration of existing trails, construction of new paved or unpaved trails, and operation of educational programs to promote safety and environmental protection related to trails.

Page 401 of 507 ends

Chapter Twelve | Funding
348| Alta Planning + Design
Funding Source Due Date*
Administering Agency
Annual Total
Matching Requirement
Eligible Applicants Planning
Construction Other Notes
Federal Safe Routes to School**
Mid-July Federal Highway
Administration
Max. funding cap for infrastructure project: $1 million. Max funding cap for noninfrastructure project: 500,000 none State, city,
county, MPOs, RTPAs and other organizations that partner with one of the above.

X X X Grant funds for infrastructure and noninfrastructure projects. Infrastructure projects are engineering projects or capital improvements that will substantially improve safety and the ability of students to walk and bicycle to school. Noninfrastructure projects are education/encouragement/enforcement activities that are intended to change community behavior, attitudes, and social norms to make it safer for children in grades K-8 to walk and bicycle to school.

Petroleum Violation Escrow Account
Not applicable
Department of Energy
Varies annually
None Local and
regional agencies
X X PVEA funds come from fines paid by oil
companies in the 70s for violating oil price caps set by the federal government. Funds are used for projects that save energy, such as public transportation, computerized bus routing and ride sharing, home weatherization, energy assistance and building energy audits, highway and bridge maintenance, and reducing airport user fees.

Page 402 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 349
Funding Source Due Date*
Administering Agency
Annual Total
Matching Requirement
Eligible Applicants Planning
Construction Other Notes
Community Transformation Grant
July Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention
$50,000-10,000,000 per applicant
Not applicable State and local
governmental agencies, tribes and territories, and national and communitybased organizations X X Funding is available to support evidence
and practice-based community and clinical prevention and wellness strategies that will lead to specific, measurable health outcomes to reduce chronic disease rates. Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are applicable as they encourage physical activity, which has been proven to reduce the risks of diseases associated with inactivity.

State-Administered Funding Bicycle Transportation Account March Caltrans $7.2 million Minimum 10%
local match on construction
Public agencies X X X Funds bicycle projects that improve safety and convenience of bicycle commuters. In addition to construction and planning, funds may be used for right of way acquisition.

California Safe Routes to School
Varies Caltrans $24.5
million
10% Cities and
counties
X X SR2S is primarily a construction program to
enhance safety of pedestrian and bicycle facilities near schools.

State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
December Caltrans Varies None Cities X X X The STIP is a multi-year capital improvement program of transportation projects on and off the State Highway System, funded with revenues from the Transportation Investment Fund and other funding sources.

Page 403 of 507 ends

Chapter Twelve | Funding
350| Alta Planning + Design
Funding Source Due Date*
Administering Agency
Annual Total
Matching Requirement
Eligible Applicants Planning
Construction Other Notes
State Coastal Conservancy
Rolling State Coastal
Conservancy
Varies None Public
agencies, nonprofit organizations
X X X Projects must be in accordance with
Division 21 and meet the goals and objectives of the Conservancy’s strategic plan. More information can be found at http://scc.ca.gov/applying-for-grants-andassistance/forms.

California Conservation Corps
On-going California
Conservation Corps
CCC donates labor hours
None Federal and
state agencies, city, county, school district, NPO, private industry X X Funds projects that improve public access
to and along the coast, natural resource protection and restoration in the coastal zone or affecting coastal areas, restoration of coastal urban waterfronts, protection of coastal agricultural land, and resolution of land use conflicts. CCC provides labor assistance on construction projects and annual maintenance.

Community Based Transportation Planning
March Caltrans $3 million 20% MPO, RPTA,
city, county
X Eligible projects that exemplify livable
community concepts including enhancing bicycle and pedestrian access.

Page 404 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 351
Funding Source Due Date*
Administering Agency
Annual Total
Matching Requirement
Eligible Applicants Planning
Construction Other Notes
Land and Water Conservation Fund
March NPS, CA Dept. of
Parks and Recreation
$2.3 million in CA in 2009
50% + 2-6% administration surcharge
Cities, counties and districts authorized to operate, acquire, develop and maintain park and recreation facilities X X Fund provides matching grants to state and
local governments for the acquisition and development of land for outdoor recreation areas. Lands acquired through program must be retained in perpetuity for public recreational use. Individual project awards are not available. The Department of Parks and Recreation levies a surcharge for administering the funds. The LCWF could fund the development of river-adjacent bicycle facilities.

Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program
October California
Natural Resources Agency
$10 million None Federal, State,
local agencies and NPO
X X Support projects that offset environmental
impacts of modified or new public transportation facilities. These projects can include highway landscaping and urban forestry projects, roadside recreation projects, and projects to acquire or enhance resource lands. EEMP funds projects in California, at an annual project average of $250,000. Funds may be used for land acquisition.

State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP) Not Available
Caltrans $1.69
million statewide annually through FY 2013/14
Not Available Local and
regional agencies
X X Capital improvements and maintenance
projects that relate to maintenance, safety and rehabilitation of state highways and bridges.

Page 405 of 507 ends

Chapter Twelve | Funding
352| Alta Planning + Design
Funding Source Due Date*
Administering Agency
Annual Total
Matching Requirement
Eligible Applicants Planning
Construction Other Notes
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
January Caltrans Varies
annually - $82 million statewide in FY 2009/2010
None Government
agencies, state colleges, state universities, city, county, school district, fire department, public emergency service provider X Funds are used to establish new traffic
safety programs, expand ongoing programs, or address deficiencies in current programs. Bicycle safety is included in the list of traffic safety priority areas. Grant funding cannot replace existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation, or construction. Evaluation criteria to assess needs include potential traffic safety impact, collision statistics and rankings, seriousness of problems, and performance on previous OTS grants.

Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 (SB 821) Not applicable
State of California and Ventura County Transportation Commission Varies Not applicable Cities and
counties
X X Funds are a percentage of the state sales tax
given annually to local jurisdictions for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Funds may be used for engineering expenses leading to construction, right-of-way acquisition, construction and reconstruction, retrofitting existing facilities, route improvements, and bicycle support facilities.

Habitat Conservation Fund
October CA Department
of Parks and Recreation
$2 million Requires a
dollar-for-dollar match of grant funds
Cities, counties, and districts
X X Funds provide grants to protect fish,
wildlife, and native plant resources, to acquire or develop wildlife corridors and trails, and to provide for nature interpretation programs and other programs which bring urban residents into park and wildlife areas.

Page 406 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 353
Funding Source Due Date*
Administering Agency
Annual Total
Matching Requirement
Eligible Applicants Planning
Construction Other Notes
Tire-Derived Product Grant Program
Varies CA Department
of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle)
Varies Not applicable Public agencies
and qualifying tribes
X Promotes markets for recycled-content
products derived from waste tires generated
in California and decrease the adverse environmental impacts created by unlawful disposal and stockpiling of waste tires. Funds can be used to purchase materials for bicycle and pedestrian projects, including sidewalks/pathways, accessibility ramps, and traffic safety products.

Regional- and Local-Administered Funding Metro Call for Projects (CFP) January LA Metro Varies
annually
None Public agencies
that provide transportation facilities or services within Los Angeles County X X X Co-funds new regionally significant capital
projects that improve all modes of surface transportation. Relevant categories include Bikeway Improvements; Regional Surface Transportation Improvements; Transportation Enhancement Activities; Transportation Demand Management; and Pedestrian Improvements.

Proposition A N/A LA County Varies None Cities and
unincorporated communities in LA County
A half-cent sales tax dedicated to
transportation funding. One-fourth of the funds go to Local Return Programs. The monies help these entities develop and improve local public transit, paratransit, and related transportation infrastructure

Page 407 of 507 ends

Chapter Twelve | Funding
354| Alta Planning + Design
Funding Source Due Date*
Administering Agency
Annual Total
Matching Requirement
Eligible Applicants Planning
Construction Other Notes
Proposition C N/A LA County Varies None Cities and
unincorporated communities in LA County
Revenues are allocated into categories
including Rail & Bus Security; Commuter Rail, Transit Centers and Park and Ride Lots; Local Return; and, Transit Related Improvements to Streets and Highways. Supports projects and programs developed with Prop A funds.

Measure R N/A LA County Varies none Cities and
unincorporated communities in LA County
X X X A half-cent sales tax to finance new
transportation projects and programs, and accelerate many of those already in process.

Adopt-A-Trail Programs
Not applicable
Local trail commission or non-profit
Varies Not applicable Local
governments
X X These programs used to fund new
construction, renovation, trail brochures, informational kiosks and other amenities. These programs can also be extended to include sponsorship of trail segments for maintenance needs.

Design Arts Program
Varies by grant
National Endowment for the Arts
Varies A nonfederal
match of at least 1 to 1
Counties, local governments, public entities, or nonprofits X X Provides grants to states and local agencies,
individuals and nonprofit organizations for projects that incorporate urban design, historic preservation, planning, architecture, landscape architecture and other community improvement activities, including greenway development. Grants to organizations and agencies must be matched by a 50% local contribution. Agencies can receive up to $50,000.

Page 408 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 355
Funding Source Due Date*
Administering Agency
Annual Total
Matching Requirement
Eligible Applicants Planning
Construction Other Notes
Other Funding Sources Community Action for a Renewed Environment March US EPA Varies Not Available Applicant must
fall within the statutory terms of EPA’s research and demonstration grant authorities X X Grant program to help community organize
and take action to reduce toxic pollution in its local environment Bikes Belong Grant
Multiple dates throughout year.

Bikes Belong Not
Available
50% minimum Organizations
and agencies
X X Bikes Belong provides grants for up to
$10,000 with a 50% match that recipients may use towards paths, bridges and parks.

Volunteer and Public-Private Partnerships
Not Applicable
City, county, joint powers authority
Varies Not Applicable Public agency,
private industry, schools, community groups
X X Requires community-based initiative to
implement improvements.
* Due dates are subject to change due to pending authorization of a new federal transportation bill. ** Program is one of many programs authorized under SAFETEA-LU and current funding has only been extended through September 30, 2011.

Page 409 of 507 ends

Chapter Twelve | Funding
356| Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.

Page 410 of 507 ends

Alta Planning + Design | 357
Appendices

Page 411 of 507 ends

Appendices
358| Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.

Page 412 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 359
Appendix A: Large Scale Maps

Page 413 of 507 ends

Appendices
360| Alta Planning + Design

Page 414 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 361

Page 415 of 507 ends

Appendices
362| Alta Planning + Design

Page 416 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 363

Page 417 of 507 ends

Appendices
364| Alta Planning + Design

Page 418 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 365

Page 419 of 507 ends

Appendices
366| Alta Planning + Design

Page 420 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 367

Page 421 of 507 ends

Appendices
368| Alta Planning + Design

Page 422 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 369

Page 423 of 507 ends

Appendices
370| Alta Planning + Design

Page 424 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 371

Page 425 of 507 ends

Appendices
372| Alta Planning + Design

Page 426 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 373

Page 427 of 507 ends

Appendices
374| Alta Planning + Design

Page 428 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 375

Page 429 of 507 ends

Appendices
376| Alta Planning + Design

Page 430 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 377

Page 431 of 507 ends

Appendices
378| Alta Planning + Design

Page 432 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 379

Page 433 of 507 ends

Appendices
380| Alta Planning + DesignThis page intentionally left blank.

Page 434 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 381

Page 435 of 507 ends

Appendices
382| Alta Planning + Design

Page 436 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 383
Appendix B: New York City Bicycle Collision vs Ridership Data Source: City of New York Department of Transportation

Page 437 of 507 ends

Appendices
384| Alta Planning + Design
Appendix C: Bicycle Facility Standards
The following table presents the minimum bicycle facility standard widths recommended by the California Highway Design Manual (CA HDM), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the National Association of City Transportation Officials, as compared to the standards recommended as part of the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan.

Bicycle Facility Type
Organization Standards
CA HDM35 AASHTO36 NACTO37 South Bay
Class I Bike Path 2.4 meters (8 feet) 10 feet N/A 8-10 feet Class II Bike Lane 1.5 meters (5 feet) 5 feet 6 feet 6 feet (5 feet plus 1 foot buffer)
Class III Bicycle Routes are not included in this table as the minimum width is dependent on a variety of roadway conditions. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices provides guidance on the placement of shared lane markings on Class III Bike Routes in section 9C.07. The South Bay Bicycle Master Plan recommends that the South Bay participating cities follow MUTCD standards., which is at least 11 feet from the face of the curb.

The table below presents minimum standards for vehicular travel lanes and parallel parking lanes as compared to South Bay recommended minimum widths. The participating cities may use wider travel lanes where appropriate and feasible. In most cases, recommendations for facilities in this Plan will comply with AASHTO standards. In few constrained cases, facilities may require travel and parking lanes to drop slightly below AASHTO standards.

Lane Width Type AASHTO38 South Bay
Vehicular Travel Lane 10 feet 9.5 feet
Parking Lane 8 feet 7.5 feet

35 Source: CA HDM Section 1003
36 Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities 4.6.4 37 Source: NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide
38 Source: AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets

Page 438 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 385
3% 4%
11%
19%
34%
29%
Under 18
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
Over 55
Survey Respondent Age Distribution
70%
5%
1%
1%
16%
7%
Dr
Ca
Pu
Mo
Bik
Wa
Drive alone
Carpool/vanpool
Public transit
Motorcycle
Bike
Walk
Survey Respondent Primary Commute Mode
Appendix D: Online Survey Analysis
Respondent Demographics
Most of the survey respondents live in one of the seven participating South Bay cities. Respondents who do not live in one of the participating cities live in other cities and communities nearby. Almost two-thirds of survey
respondents also work in one of the participating South Bay cities.

Over half of the respondents are over 46 years old, about onefourth of which are over 55 years old. Relatively few young adults and youth responded to the survey (only three
percent and four percent respectively) and many
respondents stated in later questions that they are retired.

This suggests that the survey was either distributed
predominantly to older populations or the bicycling
populations in the South Bay participating cities are generally older.

Respondent Bicycle Mode Characteristics
Almost three-quarters of survey respondents commute predominantly by driving alone, which is below the national average and above the averages for the State of California and the County of Los Angeles39. 16 percent of respondents commute primarily by bicycle and seven percent commute predominantly by walking, which means that a total of 23 percent of respondents get to work using active, non-motorized modes. This is a disproportionately high percentage as compared to the national averages of walking and bicycling to work, which is probably because people who ride a bicycle regularly are naturally more interested in participating in a survey about bicycling.

As further evidence that survey respondents are
disproportionately bicyclists, nearly half of
respondents said they commute by bicycle some of
the time, just over one-third commute by bicycle at
least once a month, and just under one-third
commute by bicycle at least once a week. Also, 88
percent of respondents said they were comfortable
riding in some traffic situations.

39 See individual City chapters for detailed commute to work data.

Page 439 of 507 ends

Appendices
386| Alta Planning + Design
5%
12%
12%
9%
11%
51%
5+ days per week
3-4 days per week
1-2 days per week
1-2 days per month
Less than 1-2 days per month
I never commute by bicycle
Survey Respondent Days per Week Commuting by Bicycle
25%
13%
13%
21%
12%
16%
Under 2 miles
3-5 miles
6-10 miles
11-20 miles
Over 20 miles
I do not work or go to school
Survey Respondent Commute Distance
13%
31%
30%
12%
11%
3%
5+ days per week
3-4 days per week
1-2 days per week
1-2 days per month
Less than 1-2 days per month
I never ride a bicycle
Survey Respondent Days per Week Riding a Bicycle
(other than for commuting)
38 percent of respondents live less than
five miles from work. It is likely that
the short commute distance
contributes to the disproportionate
number of bike and walk commuters
seen in the survey. Similarly, a
relatively large proportion of
respondents do not work or go to
school (16 percent), which matches the
relatively large proportion of
respondents who are over 55, some of
whom explicitly stated that they were
retired.

The survey asked respondents to
estimate bicycle trips that were not
commute trips, such as bicycle rides for
exercise or to run errands. The
frequency of bicycle trips was
significantly higher for trips made by
bicycle that were not to work or
school. While over half of respondents
said that they never ride to work, only
three percent replied that they never
ride for any purpose. Similarly, while
almost thirty percent of respondents
commute by bike at least once a week,
almost three-quarters ride their
bicycles at least once a week for trips
other than for commuting.

Of the optional responses, the top
reason survey respondents selected as
why they bicycle was for exercise.

Almost all of the survey respondents
selected this as a reason. After exercise,
the next most common response was bicycling to shop, run errands, or eat out, which 38 percent of respondents listed as a reason that they bicycle. The percentage of respondents bicycling for these utilitarian trips exceeds the percentage who reported that they bike to get to work or school (31%). This suggests that interventions that aim to increase bicycling, whether they are programs, infrastructure, or education, should target many destinations, not just job centers and schools, as well at many travel times, not just the peak commuting hours.

Page 440 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 387
7%
20%
17%
22%
34% Under 2 miles
2-5 miles
6-10 miles
11-20 miles
Over 20 miles
Survey Respondent Average Bicycle Trip Length
About one-third of survey respondents said that the average length of their bicycle trips is over 20 miles, while only seven percent responded that their bicycle trips average less than two miles. It is possible that since so many respondents ride for exercise, many of their bicycle rides are long.

Barriers to Bicycling
The survey asked respondents to note what
prevents them from bicycling to work and from
bicycling in general. It also asked respondents to
rate the degree to which a number of conditions
influence their decisions to bicycle.

A number of common themes emerged from the
responses. Survey respondents highly value
bicycle lanes. They cited lack of bicycle lanes as
the biggest barrier that prevents them from
biking to work. On a scale from 1 to 5, with 1
being the most important, respondents gave the
presence of bicycle lanes a weighted average
score of 1.7. Similarly, respondents commonly
cited lack of bicycle paths and routes as barriers to riding and rated these as very important factors in their decision to ride, as well.

A second common theme is the behavior of motorists, which scored highly on respondents’ ranking of conditions that influenced their decision to bicycle. Motorist behavior was specifically one of the most common reasons that participants chose not to bike. Similarly, respondents also considered vehicle volumes and speeds important factors in determining their decisions to ride.

Some of the conditions that respondents considered less important influences in their decisions to bicycle relative to the other options were integration with transit (only 36% think it is important) and behavior of other bicyclists (only 36% think it is important).

Table D-1, Table D 2, and Table D-3 display the full responses regarding barriers to riding.

Page 441 of 507 ends

Appendices
388| Alta Planning + Design
Table D-1: Barriers to Commuting by Bicycle
If you ride for exercise/recreation, what prevents you from commuting by bike? Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Lack of off-street bike paths 31.7% 57
Lack of on-street bike lanes 46.1% 83
Lack of bike routes 35.6% 64
Lack of bike parking or storage 22.2% 40
My work/school does not have showers 22.2% 40
I do not have enough time 25.6% 46
I live too far away 22.8% 41
I have too much stuff to carry 33.3% 60
I have to transport children 10.0% 18
Other (please specify) 78
answered question 180
skipped question 97
Table D-2: Barriers to Riding in the South Bay
What keeps you from riding more often in the South Bay? Check all that apply.

Answer Options Response
Percent
Response
Count
Lack of bike paths 41.2% 107
Lack of bike lanes 52.7% 137
Lack of bike routes 40.8% 106
Insufficient bike parking or storage 25.4% 66
Insufficient lighting 11.2% 29
Vehicle volumes/speeds 41.2% 107
Behavior of motorists 46.5% 121
Behavior of other cyclists 7.3% 19
I do not feel safe 18.8% 49
I travel with small children 11.2% 29
I don't have enough time 24.6% 64
My destinations are too far away 15.0% 39
Health issues/concerns 1.9% 5
Weather 16.2% 42
answered question 260
skipped question 17

Page 442 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 389
Table D-3: Factors that Influence Decisions to Ride a Bicycle Please rank to what degree the following conditions affect your decision to ride a bicycle:

Answer Options (1) Very
Important
(2)
Somewhat
important
(3)
Neutral
(4)
Somewhat
unimportant
(5) Not
Important
Weighted
Score
Presence of off-street bike
paths 95 84 41 19 19 2.2
Presence of on-street bike
lanes 143 80 16 7 12 1.7
Presence of bike routes 96 89 48 9 16 2.1
Condition of
bikeway/roadway (i.e.
pavement quality)
119 88 36 3 12 1.8
Traffic volumes/speeds 128 95 23 5 7 1.7
Behavior of motorists 140 77 30 3 8 1.7
Behavior of other cyclists 36 58 94 28 42 2.9
Amount of street lighting 33 76 80 40 29 2.8
Access to bike parking and
storage 43 91 66 34 24 2.6
Ability to combine bicycle
trips with transit trips 30 64 79 35 50 3.0
Travel time 55 92 68 17 26 2.5
Available
information/knowledge of
bike routes
41 91 77 22 27 2.6
Weather 73 86 55 25 19 2.3
answered question 258
skipped question 19
Bicycle Infrastructure and Programs
The survey invited participants to indicate where they would like to see new bicycle facilities and asked them to rank their interest in a number of bicycle programs. 186 of the 279 respondents gave specific feedback on where they would like to see bicycle facilities. The most popular programs were public awareness campaigns, maps and guides, and bicycle information websites. Table D-4 displays the full responses on bicycle programs.

Page 443 of 507 ends

Appendices
390| Alta Planning + Design
Table D-4: Bicycle Program Interest
Please rate your interest in the following bicycle programs:

Answer Options (1) Not
interested
(2)
Somewhat
interested
(3) Very
interested
Weighted
Score
Riding skills and safety
courses for adults 123 89 46 1.7
Riding skills and safety
courses for children 102 69 87 1.9
Safe Routes to School
programs for children 75 68 115 2.2
Public awareness
campaigns 34 81 143 2.4
Special events 61 130 67 2.0
Maps and guides 42 102 114 2.3
Bicycle information
websites 29 114 115 2.3
Commuter incentive
programs
61 82 115 2.2
Information and maps
delivered to my home 97 107 54 1.8
Booths at public events 81 138 39 1.8
answered question 258
skipped question 19

Page 444 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 391
Appendix E: BTA Compliance Tables
Table E-1: El Segundo BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
49-54

b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
41-42
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 46-47, 58-61

d) A map and description of existing and proposed end-oftrip bicycle parking facilities. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking at schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major employment centers.
47-48,
63-65

e) A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transport and parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes. These shall include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for transporting bicyclists and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
47-48,
63-65

f) A map and description of existing and proposed facilities for changing and storing clothes and equipment. These
shall include, but not be limited to, locker, restroom, and shower facilities near bicycle parking facilities.
47-48,
63-65

g) A description of bicycle safety and education programs conducted in the area included within the plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary traffic law
enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce
provisions of the Vehicle Code pertaining to bicycle
operation, and the resulting effect on accidents involving bicyclists.
48-49,
56-58,
303-314

h) A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
49, 14-16,
449-450

Page 445 of 507 ends

Appendices
392| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38,
44-45
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation.
66-67

k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
49, 66

Page 446 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 393
Table E-2: Gardena BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
83-89

b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
77-79
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 80-82, 92-95

h) A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
14-16, 83,
449-450

Page 447 of 507 ends

Appendices
394| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38, 80
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation.
100-103

k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
83,
99-100

Page 448 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 395
Table E-3: Hermosa Beach BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
121-127

b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
113-115
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 118-119, 10-134

h) A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
14-16,
121,
449-450

Page 449 of 507 ends

Appendices
396| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38,
116-117
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation.
138-140

k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
120,
137-138

Page 450 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 397
Table E-4: Lawndale BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
155-161

b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
149-151
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 153-154, 164-167

h) A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
14-16,
155,
449-450

Page 451 of 507 ends

Appendices
398| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38,
152
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation.
171-173

k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
155,
170-171

Page 452 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 399
Table E-5: Manhattan Beach BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
189-195

b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
181-183
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 185-186, 198-201

h) A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
14-16,
188-189,
449-450

Page 453 of 507 ends

Appendices
400| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38,
184-185
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation.
206-209

k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
188,
205-206

Page 454 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 401
Table E-6: Redondo Beach BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
229-235

b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
219-220
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 224-226, 238-243

h) A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
14-16,
229,
449-450

Page 455 of 507 ends

Appendices
402| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38,
221-223
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation.
248-251

k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
228, 245-
248

Page 456 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 403
Table E-7: Torrance BTA Requirement Check List
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

a) The estimated number of existing bicycle commuters in the plan area and the estimated increase in the number of bicycle commuters resulting from implementation of the
plan.
270-275

b) A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns which shall include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods, schools, shopping centers, public buildings, and major
employment centers.
261-263
c) A map and description of existing and proposed bikeways. 264-268, 279-283

h) A description of the extent of citizen and community involvement in development of the plan, including, but
not limited to, letters of support.
14-16,
270,
449-450

Page 457 of 507 ends

Appendices
404| Alta Planning + Design
Approved Requirement Page(s) Notes/Comments

i) A description of how the bicycle transportation plan has been coordinated and is consistent with other local or
regional transportation, air quality, or energy conservation plans, including, but not limited to, programs that provide incentives for bicycle commuting.
32-38,
264
j) A description of the projects proposed in the plan and a listing of their priorities for implementation.
290-293

k) A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and future financial needs for projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters in the plan area.
270,
289-290

Page 458 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 405
Appendix F: Participating City Existing Bicycle Plan Maps

Page 459 of 507 ends

Appendices
406| Alta Planning + Design

Page 460 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 407

Page 461 of 507 ends

Appendices
408| Alta Planning + Design

Page 462 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 409

Page 463 of 507 ends

Appendices
410| Alta Planning + Design

Page 464 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 411

Page 465 of 507 ends

Appendices
412| Alta Planning + Design

Page 466 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 413
Appendix G: City Municipal Code Bicycle Parking Related Sections City Municipal Code Section
El Segundo 15.15.5 (I) No bicycle spaces are required at single-family and two-family dwellings. Multi-family residential establishments shall provide bicycle spaces that total to 10 percent of the required vehicle parking spaces for projects with six or more units.

15.15.6 (B) Nonresidential uses are required to provide a minimum of four spaces for buildings up to 15,000 square feet plus a minimum of five percent of the required vehicle spaces for the portion above 15,000 square feet and a maximum of 25 spaces.

15.16.3 (A) Nonresidential development of 25,000 square feet or more and all projects within the Urban Mixed-Use Zone must provide bicycle route and facility information including regional/local bicycle maps and bicycle safety information.

15.16.3 (B) Nonresidential development of 50,000 square feet or more must comply with subsection A (provide bicycle route and facility information) and must provide bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking spaces. A bicycle parking facility may also be a fully enclosed space or locker accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle, which protects the bike from inclement weather. Specific facilities and location must be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building Safety. If nonresidential development of 50,000 square feet or more provide shower and locker facilities for bicycle riders, the number of preferential parking spaces required may be reduced by up to three percent and the total number of required spaces may be reduced up to one percent.

Page 467 of 507 ends

Appendices
414| Alta Planning + Design
City Municipal Code Section
Hermosa Beach 17.44. 210 Parking Plans – parking for development may be reduced based on a Parking Plan approved by the planning commission based on various factors including bicycle and foot traffic.

17.38.550(I)(5) Specific Plan Area No. 11 zone - (encompasses parcels fronting Pier Avenue between Valley Drive and Hermosa Avenue excluding parcels fronting Hermosa Avenue). Secure bicycle parking facilities shall be supplied at the rate of one space per seven employees or 3,000 square feet of floor area. Bicycle facilities installed onsite shall not be placed within required pedestrian ways.

Where facilities cannot be accommodated onsite as determined by the community development director or planning commission, the developer shall pay a commensurate fee adopted by the city for the provision and installation of bicycle parking facilities along Pier Avenue in a manner determined by the public works director. 'Secure' facilities means firmly attached devices in well-lit locations, protected from rain if feasible.

17.48.030 Transportation demand and trip reduction measures B(1) Nonresidential development of 25,000 square feet or more shall provide bicycle route and facility information, including regional/local bicycle maps, bicycle safety information, and a listing of facilities available for bicyclists at the site.

B(2) Nonresidential development of 50,000 square feet or more shall comply with subsection B(1) of this section and shall provide bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking to accommodate four bicycles per the first 50,000 square feet of nonresidential development and one bicycle per each additional 50,000 square feet of nonresidential development. Calculations which result in a fraction of 0.5 or higher shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. A bicycle parking facility may also be a fully enclosed space or locker accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle, which protects the bike from inclement weather. Specific facilities and location (e.g., provision of racks, lockers, or locked room) shall be to the satisfaction of the city.

B(3) Nonresidential development of 100,000 square feet or more shall comply with subsections B(1) and (2) of this section, and shall provide safe and convenient access from the external circulation system to bicycle parking facilities onsite.

Page 468 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 415
City Municipal Code Section
Lawndale 17.56.120 C-3 unlimited commercial zone – Video arcades B(4) Bicycle racks shall be provided within 25 feet of any game arcade and must provide a total of at least two bicycle stalls for every four games located within the arcade. Bicycle racks shall not be located in any required landscape areas, entrances, exits, walkways to buildings, driveways, within any legally required parking space, public way, or in such a fashion as to obstruct any entrance or exit to any premises.

17.92.030 Transportation demand and trip reduction measures B(1) Nonresidential development of 25,000 square feet or more shall provide bicycle route and facility information, including regional/local bicycle maps and bicycle safety information, and a list of existing of facilities available bicyclists at the site.

C(3) Nonresidential development of 50,000 square feet or more shall comply with subsection (B) of this section and shall provide bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking to accommodate four bicycles per the first 50,000 square feet of nonresidential development and one bicycle per each additional 50,000 square feet of nonresidential development. A bicycle parking facility may also be a fully enclosed space or locker accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle, which protects the bike from inclement weather. Specific facilities and location (e.g., provision of racks, lockers, or locked room) shall be to the satisfaction of the City.

D Nonresidential development of 100,000 square feet or more shall comply with subsections (B) and (C) of this section, and shall provide safe and convenient access from the external circulation system to bicycle parking facilities onsite.

Manhattan
Beach

10.64.080 Bicycle Parking
A. Where Required - Bicycle parking spaces shall be provided as required by this section; the provisions of Section 10.64.020 shall apply.

B. Number Required.

1. Public and Semipublic Use Classifications: as specified by use permit.

2. Commercial Use Classifications: Five percent of the requirement for automobile parking spaces, except for the following classifications, which are exempt:
a. Ambulance Services;
b. Animal Boarding;
c .Animal Grooming;
d. Catering Services;
e. Commercial Filming;
f. Horticulture, Limited;
g. Funeral and Interment Services;
h. Vehicle/Equipment Sales and Services (all classifications).

3. Industrial Use Classification. None.

C. Design Requirements. For each bicycle parking space required, a stationary object shall be provided to which a user can secure both wheels and the frame of a bicycle with a user-provided six-foot (6′) cable and lock. The stationary object may be either a freestanding bicycle rack or a wall-mounted bracket.

Page 469 of 507 ends

Appendices
416| Alta Planning + Design
City Municipal Code Section
Redondo Beach 10-2.2406 Development standards
(a) Nonresidential development of 25,000 square feet or more shall provide bicycle route and facility information, including regional/local bicycle maps and bicycle safety information, and a list of existing of facilities available bicyclists at the site. (b) Nonresidential development of 50,000 square feet or more shall comply with subsection (a) of this section and shall provide bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking to accommodate four bicycles per the first 50,000 square feet of nonresidential development and one bicycle per each additional 50,000 square feet of nonresidential development. A bicycle parking facility may also be a fully enclosed space or locker accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle, which protects the bike from inclement weather. Specific facilities and location (e.g., provision of racks, lockers, or locked room) shall be to the satisfaction of the City. (c) Nonresidential development of 100,000 square feet or more shall comply with subsections (a) and (b) of this section, and shall provide safe and convenient access from the external circulation system to bicycle parking facilities onsite.

Torrance 910.3.2 Development Standards
a) Nonresidential development twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet or more shall provide the following:
1)D) A bulletin board, display case or kiosk displaying transportation information located where the greatest number of employees are likely to see it. Information on the board, case or kiosk shall include, but is not limited to bicycle route and facility information, including regional/local bicycle maps and bicycle safety information. 1)E) A listing of facilities available for carpoolers, vanpoolers, bicyclists, transit riders and pedestrians at the site.
b) 3) Nonresidential development of fifty thousand (50,000) square feet or more shall comply with subsection a) above and shall provide bicycle racks or other secure bicycle parking to accommodate four (4) bicycles for the first fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of nonresidential development and one (1) bicycle rack for each additional fifty thousand (50,000) square feet of nonresidential development. Calculations which result in a fraction of 0.5 or higher shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. A bicycle parking facility may also be a fully enclosed space or locker accessible only to the owner or operator of the bicycle, which protects the bike from inclement weather.
c)4) Nonresidential development of one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet or more shall comply with subsections a) and b) above, and shall provide safe and convenient access from the external circulation system to onsite bicycle parking facilities.

Page 470 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 417
Appendix H: Bicycle Count Data
Table H-1: South Bay Bicycle Counts Thursday, November 4, 2010 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Count Location
Number of Bicyclists
Males Females Child
Under 13
On
Sidewalk
With
Helmet
Wrong
Way Total
El Segundo
Center St / Mariposa Ave 17 0 2 9 10 3 19
Douglas St / Green Line Station
(near Park Place)
49 7 1 32 20 2 57
El Segundo Blvd/ Nash St (Green
Line Station)
34 2 2 23 9 4 38
El Segundo Blvd /
Sepulveda Blvd
32 1 1 25 26 0 34
Main St / Grand Ave 37 7 2 34 17 0 46
Main St / Imperial Highway 25 1 1 13 3 2 27
Mariposa Ave / Nash St (Green
Line Station)
54 1 0 38 24 2 55
Rosecrans Ave / Aviation 48 2 0 37 42 0 50
Rosecrans Ave / Sepulveda Blvd 20 1 0 21 14 0 21
Gardena
Crenshaw Blvd / Manhattan
Beach Blvd
90 14 2 97 85 1 106
Normandie Ave / Gardena Blvd 49 2 0 49 46 0 51
Redondo Beach Blvd / Crenshaw
Blvd
53 12 1 62 51 25 66
Normandie Ave / 182nd St 26 1 0 22 20 0 27
Hermosa Beach
Valley Dr / 8th St 31 7 2 24 8 2 40
Hermosa Ave / 8th St 122 30 0 93 8 0 152
Hermosa Ave / 24th St 103 14 2 43 7 4 119
Monterey Ave / Pier Ave 97 21 6 109 33 22 124
Pacific Coast Highway / Pier Ave 28 4 0 29 28 4 32*
Valley Dr / 21st St 8 2 15 6 16 16 25
Lawndale
Grevillea Ave / 163rd St 13 1 1 5 0 0 15
Manhattan Beach
Blvd/Inglewood Ave
72 8 0 74 70 1 80
Marine Ave/Hawthorne Blvd 119 4 11 127 110 0 134
Marine Ave / Inglewood Ave 89 8 7 96 95 0 104
Rosecrans Ave / Prairie Ave 93 7 0 96 83 0 100

Page 471 of 507 ends

Appendices
418| Alta Planning + Design
Count Location
Number of Bicyclists
Males Females Child
Under 13
On
Sidewalk
With
Helmet
Wrong
Way Total
Manhattan Beach
Artesia Blvd / Peck Ave 10 3 0 8 1 0 13
Highland Ave / Rosecrans Ave 18 2 0 12 5 0 20
Manhattan Beach Blvd / Redondo
Ave
34 3 18 18 30 0 55
Manhattan Beach Blvd /
Manhattan Ave
58 15 2 50 3 4 75
Marine Ave / Redondo Ave 28 2 0 18 11 1 30
Valley Dr / Pacific Ave 22 4 3 15 1 1 29
Redondo Beach
Harbor Dr / Beryl St 380 114 5 343 28 4 499
Prospect Ave / Torrance Blvd 67 8 11 44 41 1 86
Redondo Beach Ave / Manhattan
Beach Blvd
47 4 4 27 12 2 55
Torrance
190th St / Anza 54 6 0 37 33 0 60
Torrance Blvd / Madrona Ave 43 3 6 27 30 0 52
Pacific Coast Highway / Calle
Mayor
43 1 0 16 25 1 44
*The counts at this location were from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Page 472 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 419
Table H-2: South Bay Bicycle Counts Saturday, November 6, 2010 10:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.

Count Locations
Number of Bicyclists
Males Females Child
Under 13
On
Sidewalk
With
Helmet
Wrong
Way Total
El Segundo
Center St / Mariposa Ave 3 0 1 3 3 0 4
El Segundo Blvd/ Nash St
(Green Line Station)
12 2 0 10 9 10 14
El Segundo Blvd /
Sepulveda Blvd
7 0 2 8 7 0 9
Main St / Grand Ave 51 10 4 40 21 2 65
Main St / Imperial Highway 30 1 0 7 0 1 31
Mariposa Ave / Nash St (Green
Line Station)
17 0 0 10 8 3 17
Rosecrans Ave / Aviation 30 2 0 24 20 8 32
Rosecrans Ave / Sepulveda Blvd 19 9 0 7 1 1 28
Douglas St / Green Line Station
(near Park Place)
20 1 0 12 2 0 21
Gardena
Normandie Ave / Gardena Blvd 33 6 5 40 36 1 44
Redondo Beach Blvd / Arcturus
Ave
38 3 2 39 11 5 43
Redondo Beach Blvd /
Crenshaw Blvd
53 3 0 49 38 2 56
Hermosa Beach
Hermosa Ave / 8th St 294 87 4 130 13 1 385
Hermosa Ave / 24th St 584 280 58 619 0 0 922
Monterey Ave / Pier Ave 40 15 4 40 12 1 59
Pacific Coast Highway / Pier Ave 57 12 8 50 57 0 77
Valley Dr / 8th St 59 20 4 41 10 1 83
Valley Dr / 21st St 5 1 1 2 0 0 7
Prospect Ave / 18th St 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
Lawndale
Manhattan Beach
Blvd/Inglewood Ave
39 8 0 37 30 0 47
Marine Ave/Hawthorne Blvd 70 4 12 84 65 31 86
Manhattan Beach
Artesia Blvd / Peck Ave 11 6 0 10 4 0 17
Highland Ave / Rosecrans Ave 111 26 0 21 6 0 137
Manhattan Beach Blvd /
Redondo Ave
31 5 0 19 11 0 36

Page 473 of 507 ends

Appendices
420| Alta Planning + Design
Count Locations
Number of Bicyclists
Males Females Child
Under 13
On
Sidewalk
With
Helmet
Wrong
Way Total
Manhattan Beach Blvd /
Manhattan Ave
149 45 29 107 54 8 223
Manhattan Beach Blvd / The
Strand
433 124 32 335 10 38 589
Valley Dr / Pacific Ave 19 5 3 15 2 0 27
Marine Ave / Redondo Ave 18 3 2 13 6 0 23
Redondo Beach
Esplanade / Avenue C 249 76 0 67 12 8 325
Herondo Street / The Strand 461 236 35 528 0 0 732
Marvin Braude Bikeway (The
Strand) / Ave. F
310 126 24 277 0 0 460
Prospect / Torrance 92 16 6 47 32 14 114
Redondo Beach Ave /
Manhattan Beach Blvd
30 7 1 27 18 1 38
Torrance
190th St / Anza 32 7 14 33 26 14 53
Palos Verdes Blvd / Catalina Ave 58 14 10 31 14 6 82
Sepulveda Blvd / Crenshaw
Blvd
35 6 4 29 40 0 45

Page 474 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 421
Appendix I: Opportunities and Constraints
There are several opportunities and constraints in implementing bicycle facilities in the South Bay Region.

Opportunities and constraints for new bicycle facilities are discussed below. They are also shown on the map following the table below.

ID Number Opportunities and Constraints
Opportunities
1 Proposed Class I on Harbor Drive: See Vitality City’s Livability Plan for further detail. 2 Proposed Class II on Catalina: See Vitality City’s Livability Plan for further detail. 3 Proposed Bike Friendly Street on Prospect Avenue in Hermosa Beach: See Vitality City’s Livability Plan for further detail.
4 Proposed Class II on Aviation Blvd in Hermosa Beach: Hermosa Beach’s section of Aviation Blvd is particularly rich with retail and commercial uses. Bike facilities could greatly improve the area’s visibility and access. See Vitality City’s Livability Plan for further detail. 5 Proposed Class II on Aviation Blvd in Redondo Beach and Manhattan Beach: This major thoroughfare provides significant connectivity between residences and major employment centers and thus will encourage increased bike commuting to these destinations. See Vitality City’s Livability Plan for further detail.
6 Proposed Class III on Valley/Ardmore in Hermosa Beach: While this plan recommends a Class III route, the Vitality City Livability Plan recommends additional options. See the Vitality City Livability Plan for further detail and opportunities.
7 Proposed Class III on Valley/Ardmore in Manhattan Beach: While this plan recommends a Class III route, the Vitality City Livability Plan recommends additional options. See the Vitality City Livability Plan for further detail and opportunities.
8 Crenshaw Boulevard in Torrance: While it is not feasible to propose bicycle lanes on Crenshaw Boulevard at the time of this Plan, there may be opportunity in the future if the street undergoes reconstruction or other changes that would provide adequate space. There may also be opportunity to proposed parallel facilities as Crenshaw Boulevard is an important regional connection. 9 Hawthorne Boulevard in Torrance: While it is not feasible to propose bicycle lanes on Hawthorne Boulevard at the time of this Plan, there may be opportunity in the future if the street undergoes reconstruction or other changes that would provide adequate space. There may also be opportunity to propose parallel facilities as Hawthorne Boulevard is an important regional connection.

Constraints
1 “The Wall” on the Strand at Hermosa Beach / Redondo Beach: This wall severs the Marvin Braude Bikeway at the Hermosa Beach-Redondo Beach border. South-bound bicyclists are forced to make a sharp 90-degree and are led out to the bike lanes on Harbor Drive. This plan recommends the removal of the wall and that parking lot 13 in Redondo Beach be partially utilized to accommodate a short extension of the Class I facility that will lead to Harbor Drive in a safer and more navigable way.
2 The stairs on the Strand between Hermosa Beach and Manhattan Beach: This constraint is also

Page 475 of 507 ends

Appendices
422| Alta Planning + Design
noted as being outside this plan’s jurisdiction because those stairs (along with the rest of the Strand with the exception of Hermosa Beach) are operated by the State and maintained by the County of Los Angeles. However, this plan urges the cities to remedy the disruption caused by the stairs. This remedy could come in several forms ranging from a bike-friendly ramp that connects the two sections of the Strand to signage that warns cyclists of the disruption and safely guides them to facilities along Hermosa Ave.
3 Proposed Class I in El Segundo east of the waste processing plant: This facility would require the City to gain approval from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) as this land is LADWP right-of-way. The facility would run underneath the right of way of high-tension power lines. An example of such a facility can be seen in Redondo Beach along the North Redondo Beach Bikeway. 4 Proposed Class I in El Segundo between Walnut and Holly: This facility would require the City to gain approval from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) as this land is LADWP right-of-way. The facility would run underneath the right of way of high-tension power lines. An example of such a facility can be seen in Redondo Beach along the North Redondo Beach Bikeway. 5 Proposed Class II along Hawthorne Blvd in Lawndale: This facility poses some unique constraints in terms of space availability. This is a busy thoroughfare that is dense with commercial and retail uses. This Plan recommends the consideration of a Class II facility along Hawthorne Blvd to the extent feasible. One option to consider would be to utilize the necessary space along the center parking landscaped median rather than removing on street parking or travel lanes. 6 Proposed Class II on Artesia Blvd in Redondo Beach: Artesia Blvd between Aviation Blvd and the city’s eastern boundary has undergone an extensive streetscape improvement in recent history.

These improvements included an extensively landscaped center median and bulb-outs. As such, this facility is one that can be considered in any future streetscape improvements that might be implemented along Artesia in the years to come.
7 Proposed Class II along Redondo Beach Boulevard from Hawthorne Boulevard to Artesia Boulevard in Lawndale/Redondo Beach: This segment experiences high vehicular traffic volumes due to the South Bay Galleria, which creates a challenging environment for bicyclists. Upon plan implementation, Lawndale and Redondo Beach should work together to design a facility that provides safety for bicyclists.

Page 476 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 423

Page 477 of 507 ends

Appendices
424| Alta Planning + Design
Appendix J: Recommended Bicycle Parking Standards
Short-term Bicycle Parking
Short –term bicycle parking comes in the form of bicycle racks that are meant for storing bicycles up to two hours. Bicycle rack designs should include racks that provide two points of contact with the bicycle so that it can be locked from both the front wheel/frame and the rear wheel. This will provide a high degree of security and support for the bicycle. Recommended bicycle rack types include the inverted U rack (commonly known as the U rack), flat top rack, post and ring rack, and custom racks that provide the security mentioned above.

Inverted U Flat Top Circular (Horseshoe) Custom
Long-term Bicycle Parking
Commuters and other bicyclists that plan to stay at their destinations more than two hours require more secure bicycle parking. Long-term bicycle parking should be in the form of:
 Covered, lockable enclosures with permanently anchored racks for bicycles;  Lockable bicycle rooms with permanently anchored racks; or  Lockable, permanently anchored bicycle lockers.

Bicycle lockers can hold up to two bicycles and come in a variety of materials, such as metal and polyethylene.

Metal Metal Triangular Polyethylene
High Volume Bicycle Parking
Where bicycle parking demand is high, more formal structures and larger facilities should be provided.

Several options for high-volume bicycle parking are outlined below.

Page 478 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 425
Bike station in Long Beach, California
On-Street Bike Parking Corral
A relatively inexpensive solution to providing high-volume bicycle parking is to convert one or two on-street motor vehicle parking spaces into on-street bicycle parking. Bike racks are installed in the street and protected from motor vehicles with removable curbs and bollards. These facilities move bicycles off the sidewalks, and leave space for sidewalk café tables or pedestrians. Bicycle parking does not block sightlines like motor vehicles do, so it may be possible to locate bicycle parking in no-parking zones near intersections and crosswalks.

Bike Oasis
Bike Oases are installed on curb extensions and consist of attractive covered bike parking and an information panel. Portland’s Bike Oases, for example, provide parking space for ten bikes. Bike and walking maps are installed on the information panel.

Bike Station
Bike Stations serve as one-stop bicycle service centers for bicycle commuters. They include 24-hour secure bicycle parking and may provide additional amenities such as a store to purchase items (helmets, raingear, tubes, patch kits, bike lights, and locks), bicycle repair facilities, showers and changing facilities, bicycle rentals, and information about biking. Some Bike Stations provide free bike parking, while others charge a fee or require membership.

Bike Stations have been installed in several cities in California, including Long Beach, San Francisco, Los Angeles and Berkeley, as well as in Chicago, and Seattle.

The following amenities should be considered for the Bike Station:
 Attended bicycle parking
 Bicycle rental establishment
 Accessory shop
 Bicycle repair shop
 Changing rooms
 Shower and locker facilities
Bicycle Parking Styles Not Recommended
Bicycle rack styles are not recommended if they do not provide two points of contact with the bicycle so that it can be locked from both the front wheel/frame and the rear wheel. Examples of rack styles not Bike parkingcCorral in Portland, Oregon
Bike oasis parking area in Portland,
Oregon

Page 479 of 507 ends

Appendices
426| Alta Planning + Design
recommended include wheel bender and wave racks. Because both types of racks do not provided two points of contact, parked bicycles are not supported and can fall, which can potentially cause damage to the bicycle.

Without two points of contact there are fewer places to lock the bicycle, which reduces the amount of security the racks provide. Wave racks in particular are also not recommended because the lack of two points of contact cause bicycles to tip over and reduce the capacity of the racks.

Wheel Bender Racks Wave Racks

Page 480 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 427
Appendix K: Prioritization Methodology
Each criterion contains information about a facility and its ability to address an existing or future need in the participating South Bay city. The resulting project ranking determines each project’s relative importance in funding and scheduled construction.

Prioritization Criteria
The following criteria are used to evaluate each proposed bicycle facility, its ability to address demand and deficiencies in the existing bicycle network., and its ease of implementation The criteria is organized into “utility” and “implementation” prioritization factors.

Utility Prioritization Factors
Utility criteria include conditions of bicycle facilities that enhance the bicycle network. Each criterion is discussed below.

Gap Closure
Gaps in the bicycle network come in a variety of forms, ranging from a “missing link” on a roadway to larger geographic areas without bicycle facilities. Gaps in the bikeway network discourage bicycle use because they limit access to key destinations and land uses. Facilities that fill a gap in the existing and proposed bicycle network are of high priority.

Connectivity to Existing Facilities
Proposed bikeways that connect to existing bicycle facilities in the participating South Bay city and to the greater South Bay network increase the convenience of bicycle commuting. Proposed facilities that fit this criterion are of high importance to the participating South Bay city.

Connectivity to Regional Proposed Facilities
Proposed bikeways in Los Angeles County will eventually become existing bicycle facilities and thus facilities that link to them will enhance future connectivity. This will continue to enhance bicycle travel in the participating South Bay city.

Connectivity to Activity Centers
Activity centers include major commuter destinations, such as commercial and employment centers and downtowns. These locations generate many trips which could be made by bicycle if the proper facilities were available. Bicycle facilities on roadways that connect to activity centers are of priority to the participating South Bay city.

Connectivity to Multi-Modal Transportation Centers
Bicycle facilities that link to modes of public transportation increase the geographical distance that bicyclists are able to travel. Proposed bicycle facilities that connect to transit stops and centers, and park-and-ride lots improve bicyclist mobility and are therefore key pieces of the bicycle network.

Page 481 of 507 ends

Appendices
428| Alta Planning + Design
Safety
Bicycle facilities have the potential to increase safety by reducing the potential conflicts between bicyclists and motorists, which often result in collisions. Proposed facilities that are located on roadways with past bicycle-automobile collisions are important to the City.

Public Input
The participating South Bay city solicited public input through community workshops and an online survey.

Facilities that community members identified as desirable for future bicycle facilities are of priority to the network because they address the needs of the public.

Underserved Communities
Low-income households often cannot afford to own a vehicle. Providing bicycle facilities to areas that may be dependent on the bicycle as a form of transportation is important to the participating South Bay city.

Implementation Prioritization Factors
Implementation criteria address the ease of implementing each proposed project. Each criterion is discussed below.

Project Cost
Projects that are less expensive do not require as much funding as other projects and are therefore easier to implement. Projects that cost less are of higher priority to the participating South Bay city.

Parking Displacement
In order to fit bicycle facilities in the existing right-of-way, on-street parking must be removed on some streets. Because this is not desirable, those projects that do not require parking displacement are of importance to the City.

Project Ranking
Table K-1 shows how the criteria described in the previous section translate into weights for project prioritization and ranking. Weights are based on direct, secondary, or no service at all. Direct service means that a facility intersects with a facility/destination, whereas secondary access occurs when the primary facility runs in close proximity to an existing facility/destination.

Page 482 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 429
Table K-1: Proposed Facility Weight and Scoring
Criteria
Score
Multiplier
Total
Description
Utility Prioritization Factors
Gap Closure
2 3 6 Fills a network gap between two existing facilities 1 3 3 Fills a network gap between an existing facility and a proposed facility 0 3 0 Does not directly or indirectly fill a network gap Connectivity:

Existing
2 3 6 Provides direct access to an existing bicycle facility 1 3 3 Provides secondary connectivity to an existing bicycle facility 0 3 0 Does not directly or indirectly access an existing bicycle facility Connectivity:

Regional
Proposed
2 1 2 Provides direct access to a regional proposed bicycle facility 1 1 1 Provides secondary connectivity to a regional proposed bicycle facility 0 1 0 Does not directly or indirectly access a regional proposed bicycle facility Connectivity:

Activity
Centers
2 2 4 Provides direct access to a major trip-generating destination 1 2 2 Provides secondary connectivity to a major trip-generating destination 0 2 0 Does not directly or indirectly access an Activity Center Connectivity:

Multi-Modal
2 2 4 Provides direct access to a multi-modal transportation center 1 2 2 Provides secondary connectivity to a multi-modal transportation center 0 2 0 Does not directly or indirectly access a multi-modal transportation center Safety
2 1 2 Provides a bicycle facility on a roadway that experienced 3 or more bicycle collisions between 2007-2009
1 1 1 Provides a bicycle facility on a roadway that experienced 1-2 bicycle collisions between 2007-2009
0 1 0 Provides a bicycle facility on a roadway that did not experience any bicycle collisions between 2007-2009
Public Input
2 1 2 Roadway was identified by the public as a desirable for a future facility multiple times 1 1 1 Roadway was identified by the public as desirable for a future facility once 0 1 0 Roadway was not identified by the public as desirable for a future facility Underserved
Communities
2 1 2
Serves census tract areas in which over 10.1 percent of households do not own a vehicle
1 1 1
Serves census tract areas in which 3.1 to 10 percent of households do not own a vehicle
0 1 0 Serves census tract areas in which 3 percent or less of households do not own a vehicle
Implementation Prioritization Factors
Project Cost 2 1 2 Will cost less than $25,000 to implement

Page 483 of 507 ends

Appendices
430| Alta Planning + Design
Criteria
Score
Multiplier
Total
Description
1 1 1 Will cost between $25,001 and $75,000 to implement 0 1 0 Will cost over $75,000 to implement
Parking
Displacement
2 1 2 Does not require any parking removal
1 1 1 Requires removal of some on-street parking stalls 0 1 0 Requires removal of all on-street parking stalls

Page 484 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 431
Appendix L: Proposed Kiosk and Signage Routes

Page 485 of 507 ends

Appendices
432 | Alta Planning + Design

Page 486 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 433

Page 487 of 507 ends

Appendices
434 | Alta Planning + Design

Page 488 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 435

Page 489 of 507 ends

Appendices
436 | Alta Planning + Design

Page 490 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 437

Page 491 of 507 ends

Appendices
438 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank.

Page 492 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 439

Page 493 of 507 ends

Appendices
440 | Alta Planning + Design
This page intentionally left blank

Page 494 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 441
Appendix M: Glossary of Terms
Word Definition
Assembly Bill 1358
California Assembly Bill 1358, also known as the Complete Streets Act of 2008, amended the California Government Code §65302 to require that all major revisions to a city or county’s Circulation Element include provisions for the accommodation of all roadway users including bicyclists and pedestrians. Accommodations include bikeways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb extensions.. See section 2.2.2.1 of this plan for more information.

Mobility Coordinator
A part- or full-time employee dedicated to the implementation of alternative transportation, which can include bicycle program administration. As related to bicycles, a mobility coordinator tracks, coordinates and oversees implementation of bike facilities, programs, grant applications and data collection.

Bicycle Facility A street or off-road path designed for bicycle travel Bike Path A completely separated, paved right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians
Bike Lane A restricted right-of-way striped on a street and designated for the exclusive use of bicycles, with crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted Bike Route An on-street right-of-way designated by signs or pavement markings to be shared between bicyclists and motorists
Bicycle
Transportation
Account (BTA)
An annual program of the State of California providing state funds for city and county projects that improve safety and convenience for bicycle commuters. To establish eligibility for these funds, local agencies must have a Bicycle Transportation Plan that complies with CalTrans requirements in CA Streets and Highways Code Section 891.2. This plan complies with BTA requirements.

Class I, II, and III
Bikeways
State of California definitions for Bicycle Paths, Bicycle Lanes, and Bicycle Routes, respectively, in the California Streets and Highways Code Section 890.4. For additional detail see Section 1.3 of this plan.

Complete Streets
Complete streets refers to the principle that all transportation improvements should address the safety, access, and mobility of all travelers, including motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, transit riders, and the disabled. CalTrans Deputy Directive 64 formally states that Caltrans views all transportation improvements as opportunities to improve conditions for all users, and adopts such a policy for all planning, programming, design, construction, operations, and maintenance activities and products on the State Highway System.

Bike Friendly Street Local roads that have been enhanced with treatments that prioritize bicycle travel. These treatments include wayfinding signage, pavement markings and traffic calming Bike Station
Modeled after the secure indoor bicycle parking facilities provided by the private firm BikeStation, these are locations that provide bicycle storage and other amenities such as showers and bicycle repair stations. They are often located near transit stations.

Bike Valet The provision of monitored bicycle parking, typically at a large event

Page 495 of 507 ends

Appendices
442 | Alta Planning + Design
Word Definition
Sharrows
Pavement markings denoting the safe and legal riding position for bicyclists. The name “sharrows” derives from “shared-use arrows.” Among other things, sharrows clarify bicyclists’ right to occupy the center of a travel lane, and encourage bicyclists to ride away from parked cars, so that they are not in danger of being struck by opening doors.

Page 496 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 443
Appendix N: Complete Streets Policy Language
Assembly Bill 1358
California Assembly Bill (AB) 1358, also known as the Complete Streets Act of 2008, amended the California Government Code §65302 to require that all major revisions to a city or county’s Circulation Element include provisions for the accommodation of all roadway users including bicyclists and pedestrians. Accommodations include bikeways, sidewalks, crosswalks, and curb extensions.. See section 2.2.2.1 of this plan for more information. Below is the language from the bill as a reference for the participating South Bay cities when implementing related policies presented in this Plan.

AB 1358, Leno. Planning: circulation element: transportation. (1) Existing law requires the legislative body of each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city with specified elements, including a circulation element consisting 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 land use element of the plan. This bill would require, commencing January 1, 2011, that the legislative body of a city or county, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element of the general plan, modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, defined to include motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transportation, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. By requiring new duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) Existing law establishes in the Office of the Governor the Office of Planning and Research with duties that include developing and adopting guidelines for the preparation of and content of mandatory elements required in city and county general plans. This bill would require the office, commencing January 1, 2009, and no later than January 1, 2014, upon the next revision of these guidelines, to prepare or amend guidelines for a legislative body to accommodate the safe and convenient travel of users of streets, roads, and highways in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan, and in doing so to consider how appropriate accommodation varies depending on its transportation and land use context. It would authorize the office, in developing these guidelines, to consult with leading transportation experts, including, but not limited to, bicycle transportation planners, pedestrian planners, public transportation planners, local air quality management districts, and disability and senior mobility planners. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the California Complete Streets Act of 2008.

SEC. 2. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following: (a) The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, enacted as Chapter 488 of the Statutes of 2006, sets targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in California to slow the onset of human-induced climate change. (b) The State Energy Resources

Page 497 of 507 ends

Appendices
444 | Alta Planning + Design
Conservation and Development Commission has determined that transportation represents 41 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions in California. (c) According to the United States Department of Transportation's 2001 National Household Travel Survey, 41 percent of trips in urban areas nationwide are two miles or less in length, and 66 percent of urban trips that are one mile or less are made by automobile. (d) Shifting the transportation mode share from single passenger cars to public transit, bicycling, and walking must be a significant part of short- and long-term planning goals if the state is to achieve the reduction in the number of vehicle miles traveled and in greenhouse gas emissions required by current law. (e) Walking and bicycling provide the additional benefits of improving public health and reducing treatment costs for conditions associated with reduced physical activity including obesity, heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes. Medical costs associated with physical inactivity were estimated by the State Department of Health Care Services to be $28 billion in 2005. (f) The California Blueprint for Bicycling and Walking, prepared pursuant to the Supplemental Report of the Budget Act of 2001, sets the goal of a 50 percent increase in bicycling and walking trips in California by 2010, and states that to achieve this goal, bicycling and walking must be considered in land use and community planning, and in all phases of transportation planning and project design. (g) In order to fulfill the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, make the most efficient use of urban land and transportation infrastructure, and improve public health by encouraging physical activity, transportation planners must find innovative ways to reduce vehicle miles traveled and to shift from short trips in the automobile to biking, walking, and use of public transit. (h) It is the intent of the Legislature to require in the development of the circulation element of a local government's general plan that the circulation of users of streets, roads, and highways be accommodated in a manner suitable for the respective setting in rural, suburban, and urban contexts, and that users of streets, roads, and highways include bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, public transportation, and seniors.

SEC. 3. Section 65040.2 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65040.2. (a) In connection with its responsibilities under subdivision (l) of Section 65040, the office shall develop and adopt guidelines for the preparation of and the content of the mandatory elements required in city and county general plans by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3. For purposes of this section, the guidelines prepared pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health and Safety Code shall be the guidelines for the housing element required by Section 65302. In the event that additional elements are hereafter required in city and county general plans by Article 5 (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3, the office shall adopt guidelines for those elements within six months of the effective date of the legislation requiring those additional elements. (b) The office may request from each state department and agency, as it deems appropriate, and the department or agency shall provide, technical assistance in readopting, amending, or repealing the guidelines. (c) The guidelines shall be advisory to each city and county in order to provide assistance in preparing and maintaining their respective general plans. (d) The guidelines shall contain the guidelines for addressing environmental justice matters developed pursuant to Section 65040.12. (e) The guidelines shall contain advice including recommendations for best practices to allow for collaborative land use planning of adjacent civilian and military lands and facilities. The guidelines shall encourage enhanced land use compatibility between civilian lands and any adjacent or nearby military facilities through the examination of potential impacts upon one another. (f) The guidelines shall contain advice for addressing the effects of civilian development on military readiness activities carried out on all of the following: (1) Military installations. (2) Military operating areas. (3) Military training areas. (4) Military training routes. (5) Military airspace. (6) Other territory

Page 498 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 445
adjacent to those installations and areas. (g) By March 1, 2005, the guidelines shall contain advice, developed in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission, for consulting with California Native American tribes for all of the following: (1) The preservation of, or the mitigation of impacts to, places, features, and objects described in Sections 5097.9 and 5097.993 of the Public Resources Code. (2) Procedures for identifying through the Native American Heritage Commission the appropriate California Native American tribes. (3) Procedures for continuing to protect the confidentiality of information concerning the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects. (4) Procedures to facilitate voluntary landowner participation to preserve and protect the specific identity, location, character, and use of those places, features, and objects. (h) Commencing January 1, 2009, but no later than January 1, 2014, upon the next revision of the guidelines pursuant to subdivision (i), the office shall prepare or amend guidelines for a legislative body to accommodate the safe and convenient travel of users of streets, roads, and highways in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 65302. (1) In developing guidelines, the office shall consider how appropriate accommodation varies depending on its transportation and land use context, including urban, suburban, or rural environments. (2) The office may consult with leading transportation experts including, but not limited to, bicycle transportation planners, pedestrian planners, public transportation planners, local air quality management districts, and disability and senior mobility planners. (i) The office shall provide for regular review and revision of the guidelines established pursuant to this section.

SEC. 4. Section 65302 of the Government Code is amended to read: 65302. The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals. The plan shall include the following elements: (a) A land use element that designates the proposed general distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty, education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land. The location and designation of the extent of the uses of the land for public and private uses shall consider the identification of land and natural resources pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (d). The land use element shall include a statement of the standards of population density and building intensity recommended for the various districts and other territory covered by the plan. The land use element shall identify and annually review those areas covered by the plan that are subject to flooding identified by flood plain mapping prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the Department of Water Resources. The land use element shall also do both of the following: (1) Designate in a land use category that provides for timber production those parcels of real property zoned for timberland production pursuant to the California Timberland Productivity Act of 1982 (Chapter 6.7 (commencing with Section 51100) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5). (2) Consider the impact of new growth on military readiness activities carried out on military bases, installations, and operating and training areas, when proposing zoning ordinances or designating land uses covered by the general plan for land, or other territory adjacent to military facilities, or underlying designated military aviation routes and airspace. (A) In determining the impact of new growth on military readiness activities, information provided by military facilities shall be considered. Cities and counties shall address military impacts based on information from the military and other sources. (B) The following definitions govern this paragraph: (i) "Military readiness activities" mean all of the following: (I) Training, support, and operations that prepare the men and women of the military for combat. (II) Operation, maintenance, and security of any military installation. (III) Testing of

Page 499 of 507 ends

Appendices
446 | Alta Planning + Design
military equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation or suitability for combat use. (ii) "Military installation" means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, homeport facility for any ship, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the United States Department of Defense as defined in paragraph (1) of subsection (e) of Section 2687 of Title 10 of the United States Code. (b) (1) A circulation element consisting 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 land use element of the plan. (2) (A) Commencing January 1, 2011, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element, the legislative body shall modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. (B) For purposes of this paragraph, "users of streets, roads, and highways" means bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors. (c) A housing element as provided in Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580). (d) (1) A conservation element for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries, wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. The conservation element shall consider the effect of development within the jurisdiction, as described in the land use element, on natural resources located on public lands, including military installations. That portion of the conservation element including waters shall be developed in coordination with any countywide water agency and with all district and city agencies, including flood management, water conservation, or groundwater agencies that have developed, served, controlled, managed, or conserved water of any type for any purpose in the county or city for which the plan is prepared. Coordination shall include the discussion and evaluation of any water supply and demand information described in Section 65352.5, if that information has been submitted by the water agency to the city or county. (2) The conservation element may also cover all of the following: (A) The reclamation of land and waters. (B) Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other waters. (C) Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other areas required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan. (D) Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils, beaches, and shores. (E) Protection of watersheds. (F) The location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand and gravel resources. (3) Upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, the conservation element shall identify rivers, creeks, streams, flood corridors, riparian habitats, and land that may accommodate floodwater for purposes of groundwater recharge and stormwater management. (e) An open-space element as provided in Article 10.5 (commencing with Section 65560). (f) (1) A noise element that shall identify and appraise noise problems in the community. The noise element shall recognize the guidelines established by the Office of Noise Control and shall analyze and quantify, to the extent practicable, as determined by the legislative body, current and projected noise levels for all of the following sources: (A) Highways and freeways. (B) Primary arterials and major local streets. (C) Passenger and freight on-line railroad operations and ground rapid transit systems. (D) Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport operation. (E) Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad classification yards. (F) Other ground stationary noise sources, including, but not limited to, military installations, identified by local agencies as contributing to the community noise environment. (2) Noise contours shall be shown for all of these sources and stated in terms of community noise equivalent level (CNEL) or day-night average level (Ldn). The noise contours shall be prepared on the basis of noise monitoring or following generally accepted noise modeling techniques for the various sources

Page 500 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 447
identified in paragraphs (1) to (6), inclusive. (3) The noise contours shall be used as a guide for establishing a pattern of land uses in the land use element that minimizes the exposure of community residents to excessive noise. (4) The noise element shall include implementation measures and possible solutions that address existing and foreseeable noise problems, if any. The adopted noise element shall serve as a guideline for compliance with the state's noise insulation standards. (g) (1) A safety element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tsunami, seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence, liquefaction, and other seismic hazards identified pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with Section 2690) of Division 2 of the Public Resources Code, and other geologic hazards known to the legislative body; flooding; and wildland and urban fires. The safety element shall include mapping of known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, military installations, peakload water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards. (2) The safety element, upon the next revision of the housing element on or after January 1, 2009, shall also do the following: (A) Identify information regarding flood hazards, including, but not limited to, the following: (i) Flood hazard zones. As used in this subdivision, "flood hazard zone" means an area subject to flooding that is delineated as either a special hazard area or an area of moderate or minimal hazard on an official flood insurance rate map issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The identification of a flood hazard zone does not imply that areas outside the flood hazard zones or uses permitted within flood hazard zones will be free from flooding or flood damage. (ii) National Flood Insurance Program maps published by FEMA. (iii) Information about flood hazards that is available from the United States Army Corps of Engineers. (iv) Designated floodway maps that are available from the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. (v) Dam failure inundation maps prepared pursuant to Section 8589.5 that are available from the Office of Emergency Services. (vi) Awareness Floodplain Mapping Program maps and 200-year flood plain maps that are or may be available from, or accepted by, the Department of Water Resources. (vii) Maps of levee protection zones. (viii) Areas subject to inundation in the event of the failure of project or nonproject levees or floodwalls. (ix) Historical data on flooding, including locally prepared maps of areas that are subject to flooding, areas that are vulnerable to flooding after wildfires, and sites that have been repeatedly damaged by flooding. (x) Existing and planned development in flood hazard zones, including structures, roads, utilities, and essential public facilities. (xi) Local, state, and federal agencies with responsibility for flood protection, including special districts and local offices of emergency services. (B) Establish a set of comprehensive goals, policies, and objectives based on the information identified pursuant to subparagraph (A), for the protection of the community from the unreasonable risks of flooding, including, but not limited to: (i) Avoiding or minimizing the risks of flooding to new development. (ii) Evaluating whether new development should be located in flood hazard zones, and identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if new development is located in flood hazard zones. (iii) Maintaining the structural and operational integrity of essential public facilities during flooding. (iv) Locating, when feasible, new essential public facilities outside of flood hazard zones, including hospitals and health care facilities, emergency shelters, fire stations, emergency command centers, and emergency communications facilities or identifying construction methods or other methods to minimize damage if these facilities are located in flood hazard zones. (v) Establishing cooperative working relationships among public agencies with responsibility for flood protection. (C) Establish a set of feasible implementation measures designed to carry out the goals, policies, and objectives established pursuant to subparagraph (B). (3) After the initial revision of the safety element pursuant to paragraph (2), upon each revision of the housing

Page 501 of 507 ends

Appendices
448 | Alta Planning + Design
element, the planning agency shall review and, if necessary, revise the safety element to identify new information that was not available during the previous revision of the safety element. (4) Cities and counties that have flood plain management ordinances that have been approved by FEMA that substantially comply with this section, or have substantially equivalent provisions to this subdivision in their general plans, may use that information in the safety element to comply with this subdivision, and shall summarize and incorporate by reference into the safety element the other general plan provisions or the flood plain ordinance, specifically showing how each requirement of this subdivision has been met. (5) Prior to the periodic review of its general plan and prior to preparing or revising its safety element, each city and county shall consult the California Geological Survey of the Department of Conservation, the Central Valley Flood Protection Board, if the city or county is located within the boundaries of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District, as set forth in Section 8501 of the Water Code, and the Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of including information known by and available to the department, the office, and the board required by this subdivision. (6) To the extent that a county's safety element is sufficiently detailed and contains appropriate policies and programs for adoption by a city, a city may adopt that portion of the county's safety element that pertains to the city's planning area in satisfaction of the requirement imposed by this subdivision.

SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

Complete Streets Policy Elements
According to the National Coalition for Complete Streets (http://www.completestreets.org/changingpolicy/policy-elements/), an ideal complete streets policy:
 Includes a vision for how and why the community wants to complete its streets  Specifies that ‘all users’ includes pedestrians, bicyclists and transit passengers of all ages and abilities, as well as trucks, buses and automobiles.
 Applies to both new and retrofit projects, including design, planning, maintenance, and operations, for the entire right of way.
 Makes any exceptions specific and sets a clear procedure that requires high-level approval of exceptions.
 Encourages street connectivity and aims to create a comprehensive, integrated, connected network for all modes.
 Is adoptable by all agencies to cover all roads.
 Directs the use of the latest and best design criteria and guidelines while recognizing the need for flexibility in balancing user needs.
 Directs that complete streets solutions will complement the context of the community.  Establishes performance standards with measurable outcomes.  Includes specific next steps for implementation of the policy

Page 502 of 507 ends

Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition and South Bay Bicycle Coalition South Bay Bicycle Master Plan
Alta Planning + Design | 449
Appendix O: Summary of Public Comments Received
During the South Bay Bicycle Master Plan’s public review period from June 13-July 13, 2011, the South Bay Bicycle Coalition received 105 comments from the public. 25 of the commenters were in full support of the Plan. Four were generally against the Plan for various reasons, including bicyclists’ disobedience of traffic laws, the high cost of Plan implementation in a recession, and the Plan not being representative of the general public.

The majority of the remaining comments were critiques of specific proposals within the Plan rather than statements of general support or opposition. Alta Planning + Design, the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition, and the South Bay Bicycle Coalition addressed critiques to the Plan through revisions to the proposed bicycle network and policies as appropriate and feasible. Below is a summary of the comments received from the public. A complete list of comments can be found at www.SouthBayBicycleCoalition.org.

General Comments
Many of the public comments received were general in nature and included requests for additional bicycle resources, improved bicycle safety, increased or decreased signage, changes to City municipal codes, and additional information regarding laws pertaining to sidewalk riding. There was also desire for stronger policy language and increased policies in order drive accountability of plan implementation for participating South Bay cities. Other comments about implementation included the suggestion that the cities focus first on high priority projects, that bikeway installation be coordinated with City resurfacing schedules, and that participating cities should work together after Plan adoption, as well as with the cities of Hawthorne and Los Angeles.

Specific Comments
Many of the comments received from the public were either in support of or opposition to specific facilities; such as support for the proposed bike friendly street on Ocean Drive and bike lanes on Douglas Street, and opposition to the proposed bike routes on Valley Drive/Ardmore Avenue and Highland Avenue. Other specific comments were requests for additional facilities and treatments, including the desire for bicycle facilities on Pacific Coast Highway and Sepulveda Boulevard; traffic calming on Prospect Avenue, Harkness Avenue, and Aviation Boulevard; improved safety as Redondo Beach Boulevard transitions to Grant Avenue at the Torrance/Lawndale/Redondo border; and bikeways to provide connectivity to Walking School Bus maps.

Comments on specific facilities also came from the Metro Green Line extension team, who requested the extents of the recommended bike path along the proposed Green Line alignment be changed to accurately reflect the facilities they are planning. Additionally, many supporters of special interest group Friends of the South Bay Bicycle Paths expressed criticisms via email and a signed petition of the proposed cycle track (bike path) on Harbor Drive in Redondo Beach, citing safety concerns. Conversely, several supportive comments of that same Harbor Drive facility were also received from various lease holders in the Harbor Area.

Some specific comments received focused on changes to existing bicycle facilities, including removal of the wall at the south end of the Hermosa Beach strand, finding a more convenient way to access Harbor Drive from Hermosa Beach, and concerns about the bi-directional bicycle lanes along Hermosa Avenue. This level of

Page 503 of 507 ends

Appendices
450 | Alta Planning + Design
specificity is looked at more closely during the design and engineering of each facility and is generally beyond the purview of the master planning effort.

In addition to facility-specific comments, there were a number of comments that posed questions regarding terminology and methodology used in various parts of the plan, as well as the structure of the public workshops.

Participating City Comments
Along with public comment, City staff from each of the seven participating cities also provided comments, the majority of which pertained to the verbiage used in the policies found in Chapter Two. The most common request from City staff was for the language to be softened to include such verbiage as “consider” or “to the extent feasible.” City staff also requested the removal of a number of proposed facilities including the bike lanes on Hawthorne Blvd. and Crenshaw Blvd. in Torrance, the class I bike path behind the Scattergood treatment facility in El Segundo, and the removal of proposed bike lanes along Van Ness Ave., Normandie Ave., Rosecrans Ave., Manhattan Beach Blvd. and sections of Western Ave., Artesia Ave. and Redondo Beach Blvd. in Gardena. The majority of these comments were addressed through revisions to policy language and the proposed network, or proposals of alternative policies or facilities.

Page 504 of 507 ends

132 | CHAPTER 3: MOBILITY
Figure 3.9 Intended Bicycle and Multi-Use Facilities

Page 505 of 507 ends

Current State of PLAN Hermosa’s Intended Bicycle and Multi-Use Facilities Implemented
bike lane along
Hermosa Ave
from 26th St to
25th St. Partially
in place because
bike lane
temporarily drops
Implemented sharrows as plan proposed along
Longfellow Ave from Hermosa Ave to Valley Dr.

Partially in Place - not a true bike blvd as there are no traffic calming elements
Existing Class IV
bike lane along
Hermosa Ave
from 35th St to
27th St
Implemented
bike lane along
Hermosa Ave
from 25th St to
24th St
Segment not
included in original
plan; enhanced with
sharrows along
Ardmore Dr from Pier
Ave to Boundary Pl
Implemented sharrows on Hermosa Ave
from 24th St to 14th St
Implemented
sharrows; plan
calls for buffered
bike lane or multiuse path along
Prospect Ave from
Herondo Ave to
Artesia Blvd
Implemented
sharrows as plan
proposed along
Monterey Blvd
from Herondo Ave
to Manhattan Ave.

Partially in place -
not a true bike
blvd as there are
no traffic calming
elements
Shared Roadway,
No designation
Upgraded from
sharrows to bike
lanes along
Hermosa Ave
from 14th St to
8th St and Pier
Ave from
Hermosa Ave to
Valley Dr
Implemented
sharrows instead
of bike lane along
Hermosa Ave
from Herondo
Ave to 8th St
Existing Class I bike
lane along The Strand
from Herondo Ave to
35th St
Implemented sharrows on 22nd St from Manhattan
Ave to The Strand. Partially in Place - not a true bike blvd as there are no traffic calming elements

Page 506 of 507 ends

PLAN HERMOSA | 131
Figure 3.8 Intended Pedestrian Facilities

Page 507 of 507 ends

Hermosa Beach City CouncilOctober 14, 2024

Hermosa Beach City Council
October 14, 2024