City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council approve a substitute improvement for the Playa
Vista Drive Bridge pursuant to the Third Amendment to Agreement between the City
Of Culver City (City) and Playa Vista (Playa Capital Company, LLC).
A Budget Amendment Requires a 4/5ths Vote.
BACKGROUND:
Since 1985, the City has had in place agreements to ensure traffic and
transportation impacts on the City from the Playa Vista project are mitigated, as
opposed to seeking a fundamental challenge to the Project from land use, general
environmental and planning perspectives. The original agreement was signed on
October 15, 1993 and subsequently amended in 1995, 1996, 2002 and 2004, which
collectively are the “Culver City Agreement” (Agreement).
The last formal Council action related to the Playa Capital Company, LLC (PCC) and
the Agreement occurred in open session on May 17, 2004, at which time the Council
approved the Fourth Amendment to the Agreement approving a “Mitigation Program”
to address “traffic, traffic related and transportation impacts” of the “Phase 2” project,
the Village at Playa Vista.
A summary of the history of Culver City’s monitoring of the Playa Vista development
and agreements/amendments has been included in this report as Attachment No. 1.
Meeting Date: 12/11/06 Item Number: A-3
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of a Substitute Improvement for the Playa Vista Drive
Bridge pursuant to the Third Amendment to Agreement Between the City of Culver
City and Playa Vista (Playa Capital Company, LLC)
Contact Person/Dept.: John Rivera/Public
Works
Phone Number: (310) 253-5616
Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [] General Fund: Yes [X] No []
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [x] Attachments: [x]
Public Notification: Postcard notice mailed on 12/01/06 to any person who spoke and/or
submitted written comment about the Fourth Amendment at the 05/17/04 Council
meetings. City’s Master Notification List on 12/06/06.
Department Approval:
Charles D. Herbertson (12/01/2006)
City Manager Approval:
Jerry B. Fulwood (12/07/2006)
City Controller Approval:
Marlee Chang (12/07/2006)City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Third Amendment to the Agreement
Approved on May 20, 2002, the Third Amendment to the Agreement modified the
schedule, timing, work program, and in-lieu considerations for the required First
Phase traffic mitigation measures. The Playa Vista Project approval did not include
an official phasing plan for development of the First Phase. However, originally it
was anticipated that construction would commence at the eastern end of the site.
Due to market conditions, the construction activities have instead, started on the
western end of the project site and involved office space and residential
development. Based on staff’s review of the traffic analysis, City staff determined
that the new project phasing and the impacts anticipated would not occur until the
later stages of the development and amending the Agreement to allow
implementation of improvements at a later time would not be detrimental to the City.
The traffic analysis reviewed the project mitigations that were to be completed in
time for the Certificate of Occupancy for the office complex, the “Waters Edge”. This
office complex is located at the northeast corner of Lincoln and Jefferson
Boulevards. The main traffic mitigation element associated with the Water Edge's
Office Complex is the Playa Vista Drive Bridge over the Ballona Creek.
At the time of the Third Amendment, the traffic analysis primarily analyzed the
potential impacts if the Bridge were not constructed. In the absence of constructing
the Bridge, the traffic being modeled was re-apportioned throughout the adjoining
street network. The traffic model distributed the traffic based on recognized
distribution patterns using existing demographics and travel demand forecasts.
Based on this information, the model distributed traffic to the existing street system
and predicted potential impacts depending on whether or not project related
improvements were in place. The model identified where the impacts would likely
increase above the level of significance, and then comparable improvements would
be identified to provide the required mitigation. Another alternative to constructing
mitigation was to reduce the size of the project by a square foot amount equal to the
impact created at the worst location(s). This process was employed and identified
that 220,000 square feet of office space would have to be held out of the project until
such time as an acceptable alternative mitigation(s) was identified. If no mitigation
was identified, then the project would have to be reduced by 220,000 square feet of
office space.
In the process of identifying the impacts associated with the Bridge issue, staff asked
Kaku to verify the accuracy of the models prediction since the data at the time was
over seven years old. To accomplish that, data collected in 2001 was compared
with the related projects list from the previous Playa Vista development traffic
analysis without the Project for the Year 2001. The resultant analysis indicated the
2001 traffic volume data was lower than what the model predicted for this period. City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
This indicated that the modeling of traffic by Kaku and the pervious analysis over
estimated the potential impacts.
The Third Amendment to the Agreement includes provisions for the following
physical improvements:
1. Payment by PCC to the City of $1,270,000 as full payment for seven (7)
specific intersection improvements in the City, which were made or no longer
necessary as a result of previous City improvements. That payment has been
made.
2. PCC construction of five (5) specific intersection improvements in the City. All
have been completed.
3. PCC construction of three freeway ramp related improvements. All, except
one, have been completed. The construction of the remaining improvement
at the Slauson Avenue/State Route 90 intersection is currently being
completed and is anticipated to be finished by the end of January 2007.
4. PCC guaranteed the commencement and completion of the Culver Loop
Ramp from Lincoln Boulevard to Culver Boulevard in the City of Los Angeles.
The Culver Loop Ramp has been constructed.
5. The Playa Vista Drive Bridge was no longer anticipated to be permitted by the
State of California. PCC agreed that prior to requesting the issuance of a
building permit for the last 220,000 square feet of office development of the
First Phase of the Project, PCC would meet with Culver City. That meeting
would be for PCC to propose one or more traffic related improvements, which
could actually be constructed by PCC, each, or any combination, of which
would provide substantially the same mitigation as would have been provided
by the Playa Vista Drive Bridge. The measure or measures would still be
completed before PCC could request a building permit for that last 220,000
square feet of office development. Culver City, in the exercise of its sole
discretion, could approve one of more of the proposed substitutes or, in good
faith, propose another to be constructed by PCC. Receiving Council direction
regarding this issue is the purpose of this agenda item.
A copy of the Third Amendment is included as Attachment No. 2 to this report.
DISCUSSION:
Since the 1993 approval of the First Phase Project, the Playa Vista project has
substantially evolved. Historically, the Playa Vista Master Plan envisioned
development on both sides of Lincoln Boulevard and north and south of the Ballona
Channel. City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
PCC has constructed the Water’s Edge office development, which comprises
approximately 221,955 square feet of floor area in two buildings located at Lincoln and
Jefferson Boulevards. A third possible building at the Water’s Edge location will bring
the total at Water’s Edge to approximately 381,000 square feet. No construction date
for that building at Water’s Edge has been announced. In addition, earlier in the year,
Lincoln Properties purchased approximately 14 acres of land within the Campus at
Playa Vista, on which they will be developing approximately 821,450 square feet of
office space. Lincoln is currently pursuing building permits on their first 2 buildings,
totaling just less than 400,000 square feet. Total development, when built out at
Water’s Edge and the Lincoln Properties site, will be 1,202,450 square feet, far less
than the 1,857,000 square feet established as a threshold by the Third Amendment.
According to PCC, an additional development in the Campus at Playa Vista is
possible, but it is likely to be several years before any of the Lincoln Properties’
buildings are completed and several years further before the maximum 1,857,000
square feet threshold is triggered.
As stated above, the Third Amendment to the Agreement reflected various revisions
to the implementation of the transportation improvements required by the City for the
First Phase Project. The construction of a Playa Vista Drive Bridge (Bridge)
connecting Playa Vista Drive and Culver Boulevard over the Ballona Channel east of
Lincoln Boulevard was one. The Amendment provided for the elimination of the
Bridge as an improvement as a result of governmental action. In recognition of the
potential that the Bridge was infeasible, the Amendment provides that prior to the
issuance of a building permit for any floor area in excess of 1,857,000 square feet of
office development of the First Phase, PCC would be required to consult with the City
and propose one or more traffic related improvements which would provide
substantially the same mitigation as if the Bridge had been completed.
The Bridge would have provided two-way connections to the Marina Freeway from the
western portions of the Playa Vista First Phase Project site. This improvement was in
part envisioned as part of a larger master plan project (which will not be built) and in
conjunction with new interchanges at Lincoln/Culver and Culver/SR90, the widening of
Culver between Lincoln and SR90, and improvements at Jefferson/Westlawn and
Jefferson/I-405 NB ramps. The Bridge was intended to alleviate traffic impacts at the
Jefferson Boulevard and I-405 ramps caused by the fully entitled Playa Vista First
Phase Project. While the balance of these improvements have been constructed or
are under construction, the State of California requested that the Bridge not be
constructed when it acquired Playa Vista Areas A, B and C.
In December 2003, the State of California completed the acquisition of portions of the
former Playa Vista Master Plan area, which includes Areas A, B and C. In connection
with its plans for the preservation of Areas A, B and C as wetlands and open space,
California Senate Bill 666 (SB 666) was approved (included in Attachment No. 4). SB City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
666 provides (among other things) that construction of the Bridge is inconsistent with
the State's interest in the preservation of the Area C property. In connection with the
state transaction and SB 666, the State required that the rights and obligations to
construct this road improvement be relinquished. Accordingly, the Bridge and road
extension to Culver Boulevard is no longer proposed for construction.
As a result of those actions, development within Area A, Area B and Area C is no
longer proposed. The scale of the overall Playa Vista Master Plan has been greatly
reduced by limiting development to Area D. The number of residential units was
decreased by 55%; office space was decreased by 36%; retail space was decreased
by 70%; hotel uses were eliminated from the plan altogether.
Sepulveda Boulevard Widening Project
In 2002, the City submitted an application for the Sepulveda Boulevard widening
project under the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Call for Projects for
the SAFETEA_LU Act. In 2005, the City was advised its application had been
granted “federal earmark” status, which means the project had been approved for
funding but the actual amount of funding is still to be determined. It is anticipated
the final funding allocation and the release of funds will occur in October 2007.
When the project was originally envisioned and estimates were prepared for the
project, it was anticipated to cost approximately $1.1 million. Since that time,
material and construction costs have increased and the City now anticipates the cost
will be between $1.5 and $2 million. As a result of the escalating costs, the City staff
anticipates filing an application to the Metro 2007 Call for Projects in order to obtain
funding for the shortfall on this project. If awarded this grant, then those monies
would be programmed in August 2007but not allocated until July 2009. Construction
would then be scheduled to start in the second half of 2009.
Pursuant to the Third Amendment, PCC and City staff have worked in good faith
consultation to identify an alternative improvement, and have proposed that PCC
provide funding in support of the design and development of the Sepulveda Blvd.
widening project, as an alternative improvement to the Bridge. This project is
planned to widen and improve Sepulveda Boulevard to provide three southbound
lanes from north of Jefferson Boulevard/Playa Street intersection to Green Valley
Circle intersection. At the City’s request, PCC commissioned a study prepared by
Raju Associates to analyze the improvement. The analysis confirmed the widening
project would substantially improve the intersection operations along Sepulveda
Boulevard - an improvement of one to two levels of service at key intersections within
this improved stretch of roadway. Consequently, the roadway segment operations
along Sepulveda Boulevard in the vicinity of the I-405/Jefferson Boulevard Ramps,
would be significantly improved due to the proposed improvement. Culver City Bus City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
Line 6 and the future anticipated Metropolitan Transit Authority Metro Rapid
Sepulveda Line would also benefit from the proposed improvement.
As stated above, City staff has estimated the proposed project would cost between
$1.5 and $2 million in 2006 Dollars, based on a revised preliminary estimate. Design
costs are estimated at 10% to 15% of total project costs and, based on the cost
estimate, are currently projected to be between $200,000 and $300,000. PCC
proposes to provide funding in the amount of $300,000 to cover the design of this
project so that its implementation can be accelerated. That payment would be made
at a mutually agreed on time.
Although the trigger of 1,857,000 square feet is years away, PCC and staff believe this
is an opportunity to accelerate improvements in Culver City along Sepulveda
Boulevard that would benefit Culver City and resolve this last remaining improvement
for the First Phase Project.
Accelerating the design process before the federal funds are available would shorten
the period between funding and start and completion of the project. This could mean
the Sepulveda widening project could be complete one year earlier then if the City
were to wait for the federal funding to start the design process.
Other Option Considered
In order to identify other reasonable alternatives to the Bridge, PCC and City staff
met and discussed the potential for physical improvements that could be
constructed. It was determined the Sepulveda Boulevard Widening project would
provide the relief in the area of the I-405/ Jefferson Ramps. It was then that PCC
and City staff considered different formulas for calculating a reasonable participation.
For purposes of the Phase 2, Village at Playa Vista project, a Trip Mitigation Fee
mechanism was incorporated in the Fourth Amendment, which effectively serves as
a funding mechanism if unanticipated impacts were to occur at any Culver City
intersections. In order to provide assurance to the City that the projected number of
vehicular trips generated by the Village project were consistent with the DEIR and
the Final EIR, PCC agreed to undertake a Trip Verification Study in accordance with
specific Protocols. If the trips were determined to exceed the trip generation
estimates, then PCC agreed to analyze the impacts in Culver City and implement
any additional traffic measures that may be requested by the City to avoid significant
impacts.
If the City and PCC were unable to reasonably agree on additional traffic measures,
then PCC may elect to reduce development or pay to the City an amount equal to (a)
the number of Peak Hour trips (the higher of A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour trips) required City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
to be reduced in order to avoid the additional significant impacts on Culver City,
times (b) the Trip Mitigation Fee of $3,575 per trip in 2004 dollars or equal to the City
of Los Angeles Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan trip fee, currently
approximately $6,700, which ever is greater.
However, this mechanism was not considered reasonable to apply to the Bridge
issue, as no Culver City intersections will be directly impacted and the State of
California has required that the Playa Vista Drive Bridge not be built in order to
preserve open space in Area C of the former Playa Vista Master Plan area.
In addition to the significant acceleration in timing, there are several reasons why
this arrangement is beneficial to Culver City:
1. The Playa Vista Drive Bridge, as documented in the Raju Associate study
(Attachment No. 4), did not provide any traffic mitigation benefits within Culver
City. Its primary benefit was at locations within the City of Los Angeles, including
the Jefferson/I-405 intersections.
2. The elimination of the Playa Vista Drive Bridge (which will not be built in any
event) does not result in any significant impacts to any location within Culver City.
3. The proposed Sepulveda Boulevard project will substantially improve the traffic
conditions at several key intersections along a congested portion of the
Sepulveda corridor, as well as help alleviate impacts on the Jefferson/405
intersections.
4. The funding provided by PCC will accelerate the project, which has already
received a Federal earmark for funding.
5. The proposed Sepulveda Boulevard project will work together with other planned
improvements in the corridor, including the following:
a. Jefferson Blvd./Playa St./Sepulveda – The proposed Sepulveda Boulevard
project will extend improvements already approved and satisfied at this
intersection, and will provide a third continuous travel lane to Green Valley
Circle.
b. Transit System Improvements – Per the Fourth Amendment to the
Agreement, PCC is funding the purchase of 5 40-foot buses for Culver
CityBus, 4 of which will provide additional service along the Sepulveda
Boulevard corridor. The proposed Sepulveda Boulevard project will enable
these buses to travel more quickly through this congested corridor.
c. Signal System Improvements – Per the Fourth Amendment to the Agreement,
PCC is providing funding towards the development of an adaptive signal
synchronization system in Culver City. This cost includes funding for a control
system and support costs for 10 years.
d. Other non-Playa Vista related improvements – In conjunction with the
implementation of Rapid Bus on Sepulveda corridor, Metro will implement a
Transit Priority System which, along with the additional capacity associated City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
with the proposed project, will enable buses to travel more quickly through
this congested corridor.
6. PCC would specify that the $300,000 be allocated towards the design and
development of the proposed Sepulveda widening project, with no deadline
established for spending this funding.
City staff feels this provides substantial direct benefits to Culver City beyond that
which would have been provided by the Bridge.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
This revised mitigation measure will not increase any costs to the City. It will make
an additional $300,000 available for the City to design or development the widening
of Sepulveda Boulevard south of the Jefferson/Playa/Sepulveda intersection.
The adopted budget should be amended to reflect the revenue of $300,000 from
Playa Capital Company and appropriation of the same amount to the Capital Project
Account.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of the history of Culver City’s monitoring and the Agreements
regarding the Playa Vista development.
2. May 20, 2002 Third Amendment.
3. May 17, 2004 Fourth Amendment.
4. November 27, 2006, letter from J. Marc Huffman, Vice President,
Entitlements, Playa Vista, and accompanying study prepared by Raju
Associates.
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve the payment by Playa Capital Company, LLC of $300,000 for use by the
City of Culver City for the design and construction of the Sepulveda Boulevard
Widening Project as a substitute improvement for the Playa Vista Drive Bridge
pursuant to the Third Amendment to Agreement between the City Of Culver City
(City) and Playa Vista (Playa Capital Company, LLC); and,City of Culver City, California
City Council Agenda Item Report
2. Authorize a Budget Amendment to record the receipt of $300,000 and
appropriate the same amount for the Sepulveda Boulevard Widening Project
(Account numbers will be established by the Accounting Division upon approval
of this item).
A Budget Amendment Requires a 4/5ths Vote.
OR
3. Provide further direction to staff.
MEETING DATE: 12/11/06
AGENDA ITEM:
Consideration of Approval of a Substitute Improvement
for the Playa Vista Drive Bridge pursuant to the Third
Amendment to Agreement Between the City of Culver
City and Playa Vista (Playa Capital Company, LLC)
ATTACHMENTS
Pages|1010| Summary of the history of Culver City's monitoring and the
1-4
Agreements regarding the Playa Vista development.|101010|May 20, 2002 Third Amendment.
May 17, 2004 Fourth Amendment.
November 27, 2006, letter from J. Marc Huffman, Vice
President, Entitlements, Playa Vista, and accompanying
study prepared by Raju Associates.
5-13
14-31
32-85SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF CULVER CITY'S
AGREEMENTS/AMENDMENTS
REGARDING THE PLAYA VISTA DEVELOPMENT.
The following is a summary of the history of Culver City's agreements/amendments
regarding the Playa Vista development.
In accordance with the Council's policy, a series of agreements and amendments were
entered into over the past twenty-one years with the various owners of the Playa Vista
Properties. The agreement currently in effect was originally entered into by Maguire
Thomas Partners/Playa Vista, PCC predecessor-in-interest in 1993, and subsequently
amended in 1995, 1996, 2002 and 2004. The existing agreement was created in order
to mitigate traffic, traffic related and transportation impacts in or on the City. The
following is a brief overview of the various agreements.
The 1985 Agreement. In the early 1980's, the Playa Vista area was proposed to be
annexed into the City of Los Angeles. That annexation was to be completed without
sufficient environmental review. Culver City was concerned about the potential
development of the area, which would likely cause significant impacts on Culver City.
Under threat of litigation from Culver City, the then developer/owner of the Playa Vista
property (Howard Hughes Properties) entered into an agreement with the City in
December 1985. That agreement provided that before any permits could be issued for
any development on the Playa Vista property (except for rehabilitation/ replacement of
existing structures), the developer would have to prepare an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) to analyze and mitigate the traffic and transportation impacts that the
potential development of the entire Playa Vista property could cause. That agreement
listed specific intersections to be analyzed and required the developer to consult with
Culver City regarding the analysis contained in that EIR.
The 1993 Agreement. In the early 1990's, a new owner of the Playa Vista property
(Maguire-Thomas Partners) proposed a mixed-use development of basically the east
and west ends of that property (the "First Phase"). An EIR for the First Phase
development was prepared. Using the 1985 Agreement as a foundation, the City
reviewed the project specific E1R and entered into another agreement (October 15,
1993) with the developer (the "1993 Agreement"). The 1993 Agreement superseded
and cancelled the 1985 Agreement. The 1993 Agreement included provisions for:
1. Traffic mitigation at specific intersections.
2. Specific vehicle trip-caps which limited the development to a certain amount of
office vehicle trips and hotel vehicle trips. If those caps were reached, no more
building permits or Certificates of Occupancy could be issued.
3. Specific types of and limits on development were established.
4. Method for reviewing the progress of the development every five years was
devised, as well as annual reporting requirements.Summary City's Agreements/Amendments - Playa Vista
11/30/2006
Page 2 of 4
5. A requirement and method for analyzing the environmental impacts of the
development of the remaining portions of the property (Second Phase) including
the prior review and comment on any administrative draft of the Second Phase
EIR Transportation Plan document.
6. The developer agreed to pay certain Culver City costs for the annual, five-year,
and Second Phase FIR analysis.
The First Amendment. On August 3, 1995 as part of Los Angeles' efforts to assist with
development of the Playa Vista property, a special form of financing was suggested for
funding some of the public improvements which would be required for the development
(the "Mello-Roos Funding"). Since some of the public improvements (street work) would
be performed in Culver City, in order for the developer to be able to use that Mello-Roos
Funding within Culver City, an amendment was made to the 1993 Agreement. That
1995 Amendment (the "First Amendment") did not change any of the provisions set forth
above, nor make any other changes to the 1993 Agreement. It merely permitted the
Mello-Roos Funding generated by special taxes assessed against only the Playa Vista
property to be used within Culver City.
The Second Amendment. On January 4, 1996, the City again agreed to amend the
1993 Agreement (the "Second Amendment"). This time it was in anticipation of
changes in permitted uses and vehicle trip-caps to permit DreamWorks Studios to
locate on the Playa Vista property, in an area designated as the Entertainment, Media
and Technology District (EMT District). With the Second Amendment, the maximum
square footages and types of uses permitted were changed. The modifications to the
1993 Agreement, which only relate to the First Phase, were:
1. Uses were changed and size restrictions were increased;
2. The vehicle trip cap was increased;
3. The Playa Vista developer agreed to coordinate installation of fiber optics
connections with Culver City's studio and Hayden Tract uses, to limit helicopter
flight patterns over Culver City, and to assist with joint marketing of the Playa
Vista and Culver City studio areas; and
4. The detailed method for analysis of all development after the First Phase was not
changed.
The Third Amendment. On May 20, 2002, the City Council approved the Third
Amendment, in order to modify the schedule, timing, work program, and in lieu
considerations for the required First Phase traffic mitigation measures. The amendment
includes provisions for:
1. FCC payment to Culver City in an amount equal to $1,270,000 as full payment
for Improvements Nos. 1 through 7 (Exhibit 1 of Amendment). Those
zSummary City's Agreements/Amendments - Playa Vista
11/30/2006
Page 3 of 4
improvements were no longer needed, because in the late 1990s the City, on
our own, installed traffic signal improvements, which increased the intersection
efficiencies beyond what the improvements would have done.
2. PCC financially guaranteed to construct intersection improvements nos. 8
through 15 (Exhibit 1 of Amendment) and the Culver Loop Ramp in accordance
with the schedule included in the amendment. All local street improvements and
the Culver Loop Ramp have been completed. However the freeway associated
improvements are still under by Caltrans.
3. PCC would reimburse the City's (and Redevelopment Agency's) reasonable
costs incurred in reviewing, negotiating and approving this Third Amendment and
future amendments to the Agreement and other matter initiated by PCC. PCC
has reimbursed the City.
4. Acknowledgement that if Area A and/or the portions of Area B of the Playa Vista
project area were acquired by a public agency or entity for wildlife habitat
restoration, watershed restoration, and public uses ("Park Uses"), the City would
agree to sign any documents required to remove the recorded documents from
Area A and/or such portion of Area B. On August 8, 2001, an Agreement was
entered into between PCC and the Trust for Public Land (TPL) for TPL to acquire
these parts of the Playa Vista development site for long-term open
space/recreation uses.
The Fourth Amendment. On May 17, 2004, the City Council approved the Fourth
Amendment, in order to accommodate the development of the 2 nd Phase of the
development, known as the Village at Playa Vista. The amendment includes provisions
for:
The DEIR included a number of traffic and transportation mitigation measures
within Culver City. Culver City had reviewed the Traffic Study and had requested
the City of Los Angeles make certain modifications to the DEIR Culver City
Mitigation Measures. PCC agreed to implement the Revised Culver City
Mitigation Measures.
2. The DEIR containd a subphasing plan and schedule for implementation of the
DEIR mitigation measures. PCC agreed to notify Culver City in advance of any
modifications or changes to the subphasing plan and schedule involving
measures not located in the City. Culver City has the right to challenge any such
change or modification to the subphasing plan and schedule approved by the
City of Los Angeles if they create an additional impact in the City. The
subphasing plan and schedule for the Revised Culver City Mitigation Measures
may not be amended without the prior written consent of Culver City.
3. In order to provide assurances to Culver City the projected number of vehicular
trips to be generated by the Village project is consistent with the DEIR and theSummary City's Agreements/Amendments - Playa Vista
11/30/2006
Page 4 of 4
Final EIR (FEIR) adopted by the City of Los Angeles, PCC agreed to undertake a
Trip Verification Study in accordance with certain Protocol.
4. Culver City agreed in the event the City approves a project with estimated traffic
and transportation impacts similar to the Village without imposing a Trip
Verification Study requirement substantially consistent with the Protocols. FCC
shall not be obligated to complete the Village Trip Verification Study.
5. If the City of Los Angeles does not approve the Village, the Fourth Amendment
would be void and of no further force or effect and all the terms of the Agreement
prior to this Fourth Amendment would be reinstated. In the event the City of Los
Angeles reduces the scope of the Village, which avoids some or all impacts in
Culver City, Culver City and FCC agree to modify the Revised Culver City
Mitigation Measures to the extent impacts from the reduced Village are avoided
in Culver City. Culver City agrees it will not, directly or indirectly, oppose the
approval by the City of Los Angeles of the Village. Culver City further agrees it
will not challenge, sue or contest, directly or indirectly, in any judicial or
administrative proceeding, the approval of the Village or the implementation of
the Village in accordance with the approvals for the Village; provided, however,
nothing in the Agreement shall limit the ability of Culver City to enforce the
provisions of this Agreement.Contract No 2002.
THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
THIS THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT (the "Third Amendment") is
entered into as of May 20, 2002 by and between Playa Capital Company, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company ("FCC"), and the City of Culver City, a municipal corporation
("Culver City").
WHEREAS, Culver City and PCC's predecessor-in-interest, Maguire Thomas
Partners-Playa Vista, a California limited partnership, entered into an Agreement dated October
15, 1993, as amended by that certain First Amendment To Agreement dated August 3, 1995 and
that certain Second Amendment To Agreement (the "Second Amendment") dated January 4,
1996 (collectively, the "Culver City Agreement"), regarding, among other things, the
implementation of certain transportation improvements associated with the First Phase of the
Playa Vista Project, as defined in the Second Amendment.
WELEREAS, Culver City and PCC desire to revise the Culver City Agreement to
reflect changes in the method and timing for the implementation of the improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual
covenants and agreements contained herein and in the Culver City Agreement, Culver City and
PCC do hereby agree to amend the Culver City Agreement as follows:
SECTION 1. Amendment to Article I, Paragraph A. Paragraph A of Article I of
the Culver City Agreement shall be amended in its entirely to read:
A. PCC shall implement, cause to be implemented, pay for or otherwise
secure the implementation of the improvements at fifteen (15)
intersections within or abutting Culver City described on Exhibit 1
attached hereto, as follows:
1. Concurrent with the execution of the Third Amendment, PCC shall pay to
Culver City an amount equal to One Million Two Hundred Seventy
Thousand Dollars ($1,270,000) as full payment and satisfaction for
improvements nos. 1 through 7 as set forth on Exhibit 1.
2. PCC shall construct or cause to be constructed improvements nos. 8
through 12 as set forth on Exhibit 1 ("Improvements 8-12"). PCC shall
commence and complete construction of Improvements 8-12 in
accordance with the schedule set forth on Exhibit 2. PCC shall guarantee
commencement and completion of Improvements 8-12 by delivering to
Culver City, within ten (10) days after execution of the Third Amendment
by Culver City, one or more Irrevocable Letters of Credit ("Improvements
8-12 Letter of Credit"), in form and substance reasonably required by
Culver City's Chief Administrative Officer, or his/her designee ("CAO"),
in an aggregate amount equal to Seven Hundred Sixty One Thousand
Dollars ($761,000), which is the total estimated construction costs (hard
and soft) for Improvements 8-12. If for any reason PCC does not
commence or complete any of Improvements 8-12 on or before arespective commencement or completion date, as set forth in Exhibit 2,
then the CAO may, at his/her sole discretion, draw down on the
Improvements 812 Letter of Credit in an amount equal to the estimated
construction costs (hard and soft) of each of Improvements 8-12 not
timely commenced or completed; provided, that if the installation of
Improvements 8-12 has been substantially and timely commenced, then
the maximum amount Culver City can withdraw, from Improvements 8-12
Letter of Credit shall be One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) per day for each
day (or portion thereof) the Improvements are not timely completed.
Culver City shall be entitled to use any amount so drawn down to fund any
traffic, traffic-related and/or transportation-related improvements
anywhere in or adjacent to Culver City, in Culver City's sole discretion.
3. PCC shall construct or cause to be constructed improvements nos. 13
through 15 as set forth on Exhibit 1 ("Improvements 13-15"). PCC shall
commence and complete construction of Improvements 13-15 in
accordance with the schedule set forth on Exhibit 2. PCC shall guarantee
the commencement and completion of Improvements 13-15 by delivering
to Culver City, within ten (10) days after execution of the Third
Amendment by Culver City, one or more Irrevocable Letters of Credit
("Improvements 13-15 Letter of Credit") in form and substance
reasonably required by Culver City's CAO in an aggregate amount equal
to One Million One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,100,000), which is the
total estimated construction costs (hard and soft) of Improvements 13-15.
If for any reason PCC does not commence or complete any of
Improvements 13-15 on or before a respective commencement or
completion date, then PCC agrees it will not request (by filing an
application for or in any other manner) issuance of a building permit(s) for
construction of any Floor Area of office development in excess of 950,000
square feet of Floor Area of office development in the First Phase of the
Playa Vista Project, unless and until one of the following conditions are
met:
a. Improvements 13-15, respectively, have been completed; provided,
that if the installation of Improvements 13-15 has been
substantially and timely commenced, then the maximum amount
Culver City can withdraw from Improvements 13-15 Letter of
Credit shall be One Thousand Dollars ($1,000) per day for each
day (or portion thereof) the Improvements are not timely
completed; or
b. PCC shall identify one or more alternatives to Improvements 13-
15, respectively, and such alternatives shall have been approved by
Culver City's CAO, completed by PCC and accepted by Culver
City's CAO; or
c. If PCC proposes such alternatives and Culver City and PCC are
unable to agree upon alternative improvements to Improvements13-15, then PCC may elect to pay to Culver City an amount equal
to two times the estimated construction costs (hard and soft) for
Improvements 13-15, respectively. Upon the payment by PCC of
two times the estimated cost (hard and soft) of Improvements 13-
15, respectively, Culver City shall be entitled to use such amount
to fund any traffic, traffic-related and/or transportation-related
improvements anywhere in or adjacent to Culver City, in Culver
City's sole discretion. Culver City shall return the Improvement
13-15 Letter of Credit to PCC upon the payment by PCC of two
times the estimated cost (hard and soft) to construct Improvements
13-15, respectively.
4. At such time as each of improvements no. 8 through 15, as set forth on
Exhibit 1, is satisfactorily completed, Culver City shall return to PCC the
applicable Improvements 8-12 or 13-15 Letter of Credit for such
improvement, except (i) to the extent that Improvements 8-12 Letter of
Credit or Improvements 13-15 Letter of Credit has been drawn down as
provided above and (ii) that Culver City shall be entitled to retain any
combination of the Improvements 8-12 Letter of Credit and Improvements
13-15 Letter of Credit in the amount necessary to continue to guarantee
any of Improvements 8-12 and Improvements 13-15 not yet completed
will be commenced and completed. Culver City shall be entitled to use
any of the payments received from FCC to fund any traffic, traffic-related
and/or transportation-related improvements anywhere in or adjacent to
Culver City, in Culver City's sole discretion.
5. PCC acknowledges that it is PCC's intent to complete construction of
Improvements 13-15 notwithstanding any exercise by PCC of Paragraph
A.3.c, above; provided, that construction is not prohibited or restricted by
any government agency having jurisdiction over such improvements, other
than the City of Los Angeles, or by any court having jurisdiction over such
improvements.
SECTION 2. Deletion of Article I, Paragraph B. Paragraph B of Article I of the
Culver City Agreement is hereby deleted.
SECTION 3. Deletion of Article I, Paragraph C. Paragraph C of Article I of the
Culver City Agreement is hereby deleted.
SECTION 4. Amendment to Article I, Paragraph D. Paragraph D of Article I of
the Culver City Agreement shall be amended in its entirety to read:
D. In addition to the improvements set forth on Exhibit 1 to the Third
Amendment, PCC shall construct the following two (2) improvements both of
which are located outside of Culver City and are within the jurisdiction of the City
of Los Angeles and the California Coastal Commission:
34
1. A reconstructed loop ramp connection from Lincoln Boulevard to Culver
Boulevard (the "Culver Loop Ramp"). PCC has obtained all required
permits for the reconstruction of the Culver Loop Ramp from the City of
Los Angeles and the Coastal Commission. The permit approved by the
Coastal Commission is being challenged in court (the "Court Challenge").
FCC shall guarantee the completion of the Culver Loop Ramp by
delivering to Culver City, within ten (10) days after execution of the Third
Amendment by Culver City, a Letter of Credit (the "Loop Letter of
Credit") in form and substance reasonably required by Culver. City in an
amount equal to Six Hundred Fifty Two Thousand dollars ($652,000),
which is the total estimated cost (hard and soft) of the Culver Loop Ramp.
If as a result of the Court Challenge PCC shall not have completed the
Culver Loop Ramp on or before October 15, 2003, then PCC agrees it will
not request (by filing an application for or in any other manner) issuance
of a building pennit(s) for construction of any Floor Area of office
development in excess of 950,000 square feet of Floor Area of office
development in the First Phase of the Playa Vista Project, unless and until
one of the following conditions are met:
a. The Culver Loop Ramp has been completed; or
b. PCC shall identify one or more alternatives to the Culver Loop
Ramp, and such alternatives have been approved by Culver City's
CAO, completed by PCC and accepted by Culver City's CAO; or
C. If PCC proposes such alternatives and Culver City and PCC are
unable to agree upon alternative improvements to the Culver Loop
Ramp, then FCC may pay to Culver City an amount equal to two
times the estimated construction costs (hard and soft) to complete
the Culver Loop Ramp, Upon the payment by PCC , Culver City
shall be entitled to use such amount to fund any traffic, traffic-
related and/or transportation-related improvements anywhere in or
adjacent to Culver City, in the Culver City's sole discretion.
Culver City shall return the Loop Letter of Credit at the time the
Culver Loop Ramp is satisfactorily completed or PCC pays to
Culver City two times the estimated cost of the Culver Loop
Ramp.
cL PCC acknowledges that it is PCC's intent to complete construction
of the Culver Loop Ramp notwithstanding any exercise by PCC of
Paragraph Die, above; provided, that construction is not
prohibited or restricted by any governmental agency having
jurisdiction over the Culver Loop Ramp, other than the City of Los
Angeles, or by any court having jurisdiction over the Culver Loop
Ramp
2. Playa Vista Drive Bridge and Road (formerly Bay Street). Prior to FCC
requesting (by filing an application for or any other manner) the issuanceof a building permit for any Floor Area in excess of 1,857,000 square feet
of office development of the First Phase of the Playa Vista Project PCC
shall, after good faith consultation with Culver City, propose, one or more
traffic related improvements (which can actually be implemented) to be
constructed by PCC, each, or any combination, of which shall provide
substantially the same mitigation as would have been provided if the Playa
Vista Drive Bridge had been completed. Culver City, in the exercise of
its sole discretion, shall approve a proposed substitute(s) or, in good faith,
propose another to be constructed by PCC. Upon completion of an agreed
on substitute, PCC shall be permitted to request and be issued building
permit(s) for Floor Area of office development of up to the maximum
square footage of office development of the First Phase of the Playa Vista
Project as described in Paragraph L of Article I.
SECTION 5. Amendment to Article III, Paragraph B. The following sentence
shall be added to the end of Paragraph B of Article III:
In the event that Area A and/or the portions of Area B proposed for development
with residential and neighborhood serving retail uses are acquired by a public agency or entity
subject to a restriction that limits the future use thereof by such public agency or entity and its
successors and assigns to wildlife habitat restoration, watershed restoration, and ancillary public
uses ("Public Uses"), Culver City shall, upon written request from PCC, execute, acknowledge
and deliver to PCC such documentation as may be reasonably required to remove the recorded
documents (i.e., any and all recorded documents evidencing the execution of the Agreement)
from Area A and/or such portions of Area B, as applicable; provided, that (i) new documents are
recorded against Areas A and B which require the then owner and all subsequent owners, to
consult in good faith with Culver City in order to design and implement traffic mitigation
measures and improvements outside of Areas A and B which will reduce, to a level of
insignificance, traffic impacts on Culver City which would result from the Public Uses or (ii)
some substitute method is reasonably approved by Culver City's CAO which provides Culver
City similar protection for reducing traffic impacts on Culver City which would result from the
Public Uses.
SECTION 6. Amendment to Article ifi. Paragraph I is added to Article III to
read:
I. In addition to any other reimbursement requirement established by the
Culver City Agreement, PCC shall reimburse Culver City (and the Culver City
Redevelopment Agency) actual costs incurred in reviewing, negotiating and
approving this Third Amendment, future amendments to the Culver City
Agreement and any other matter initiated by PCC or any successor-in-interest.
Costs may include staff costs based on such staffs applicable hourly rate,
including salary and benefits, and costs for outside technical and legal consultants
retained by Culver City (or the Culver City Redevelopment Agency) in
connection with reviewing such amendments. Reimbursable costs shall include
an administrative charge to cover support and accounting costs not to exceed
twenty-five percent (25%) of staff and consultant charges.
5SECTION 7. Amendment to Article Ill, Paragraph E. Paragraph E of Article III
shall be amended in its entirety to read:
Any and all notices or other communications required or permitted to be given
hereunder are required to be in writing by either party or its attorney, and shall be delivered
personally, or sent by telegram or the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested,
postage prepaid and addressed as follows:
To PCC:
Playa Capital Company
12555 W. Jefferson Boulevard, Suite 300
Los Angeles, California 90066
Attention: General Counsel- Patricia Sinclair, Esq.
and: Playa Capital Company
12555 W. Jefferson Blvd, Suite 300
Los Angeles, California 90066
Attention: Vice President-Infrastructure
To Culver City: Community Development Director
City of Culver City
P.O. Box 507
Culver City, California 90232-0507
and: City Attorney
City of Culver City
P.O. Box 507
Culver City, California 90232-0507
and:
Public Work's Director/City Engineer
City of Culver City
P.O. Box 507
Culver City, California 90232-0507
Either party may from time to time change the address to which and the identity or title of the
person to whom such notices, payments or other communications may be sent by giving the
other party written notice of such change. Notices and other communications shall be effective
on delivery.
SECTION 8. Effective Date. This Third Amendment shall become effective
upon the date first noted above.
SECTION 9. Effect of Amendment. Except as specifically modified by the
terms of this Third Amendment, the Culver City Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect.
SECTION 10. Counterparts. This Third Amendment may be executed in multiple
counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and each of which shall
be, and shall be deemed to be, an original.
1 0
6SECTION 1 I. Governing Law. This Third Amendment shall be interpreted and
construed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands as of the day
and year first above written.
THE CITY OF CULVER CITY,
a municipal corporation
Carol A. Gross, Mayor
evild-1
ATTESIDa
nta opik r Arm(e
Le:lit-1st
City Cle k
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1,,,„6-
Card A. Schwa
City Attorney
PLAYA CAPITAL COMPANY, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: Name:
Title: CPO / |1010| iiEXHIBIT I
To The Third Amendment
1. Sepulveda & Jefferson/Playa
2. Sawtelle & Culver
3. Sepulveda & Culver
4. Centinela & Washington Blvd.
5. Centinela & Washington Place
6. Sepulveda & Centinefa
7. Overland & Jefferson
8. Sepulveda & Jefferson/Sawtelle
9. Bristol & Slauson
10. Buckingham & Slauson
11. Bristol & Centinela
12. Overland & Culver
13. 1-405 southbound ramps at Jefferson
14. 1-405 northbound ramps at Jefferson
15. Marina Freeway & Slauson
[NOTE: A description of the required improvements to the above-listed
intersections is included on Exhibit I to the Second Amendment]EXHIBIT 2
To The Third Amendment
Improvement
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Culver Loop Ramp
Start Date
7/1/02
7/1/02
7/1/02
711/02
7/1/02
10/1/02
10/1/02
10A/02
Completion Date
12/31/02*
12/31/02* **
12/31/02*
12/31/02*
12/31/02*
6/31/03*
6/31/03*
6/31/03*
10/15/03*
* Completion date extended during any period in which Culver City restricts or limits
construction of public improvements
**Completion date extended resulting from delays due to City acquisition of required
right of way
LA_DOCS\8213493[W2000]
13Page 1
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT
THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT (the "Fourth Amendment") is
entered into this ri-day of May, 2004 by and between Playa Capital Company, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability Company ("PCC"), and the City of Culver City, a municipal corporation
("Culver City").
• WHEREAS, Culver City and PCC's predecessor-in-interest, Maguire Thomas Partners-
Playa-Vista, a California limited liability partnership, entered into an Agreement dated .October
15, 1993, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Agreement (the "First Amendment")
dated August 3, 1995, that certain Second Amendment to Agreement (the "Second
Amendment") dated January 4, 2004, and that certain Third Amendment to Agreement (the
"Third Amendment") dated May 20, 2002 (collectively, the Culver City Agreement").
WHEREAS, Culver City and PCC desire to revise Article II of the Culver City
Agreement, to accommodate the development of a new phase of development of the Playa Vista
Property, known as the Village at Playa Vista.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises and of the mutual
covenants and agreements contained herein and in the Culver City Agreement, Culver City and
PCC do hereby agree to amend the Culver City Agreement as follows:
SECTION 1. Amendment to Article II. Article II of the Culver City Agreement shall be
amended in its entirety to read:
A. PCC has proposed to develop a portion of Area D of the Playa Vista Property
more particularly described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
("Area D2"). PCC has proposed to develop Area D2 as a mixed use residential project with
retail uses as more particularly described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference (the "Village"). In connection with the.proposed development of the Village, the
City of Los Angeles has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Village at Playa
Vista (State Clearinghouse No. 20022111065, City of Los Angeles EIR No. 2002-6129-E1R)
("DEIR"). As part of the DEW process, a traffic study was prepared analyzing the traffic related
and transportation impacts resulting from the development of the Village (the "Traffic Study").
B. The DEIR includes, a number of traffic and transportation mitigation measures
within Culver City as set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference
(the "DEIR Culver City Mitigation Measures"). Culver City has reviewed the Traffic Study and
has requested the City of Los Angeles make certain modifications to the DEER Culver City
Mitigation Measures (as further refined in negotiations of this Fourth Amendment) as set forth
on Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Revised Culver City
Mitigation Measures"). FCC agrees to implement the Revised Culver City Mitigation Measures
and Culver City agrees to work with FCC to pen-nit PCC to implement the Revised Culver City
Mitigation Measures. Culver City agrees the Revised Culver City Mitigation Measures mitigate
all significant impacts of traffic generated by the Village in Culver City as described in Exhibit
B.C. The DEIR contains a subphasing plan and schedule for implementation of the
DEER mitigation measures including the DEIR Culver City Mitigation Measures as set forth on
Exhibit E-1 attached hereto and incorporated by reference. FCC agrees to notify Culver City in
advance of any Modifications or changes to the subphasing plan and schedule, as described in
Exhibit E-1, involving mitigation measures not located in Culver City. Consent of Culver City
shall not be required to modify or change mitigation measures not located in Culver City;
provided, however, that Culver City shall have the right to seek mandamus,:specific performance
and injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, a temporary restraining order or other
equitable relief, with respect to any such change or modification to the subphasing plan and
schedule approved by the City of Los Angeles if such change or modification may create a
significant, unmitigated impact in Culver City. Culver City shall have no right to damages in
any such proceeding, except that if Culver City prevails in it's action PCC shall reimburse
Culver City for all City Staff, consultant, and attorney's fees and Court cost associated with such
action.
D. PCC shall implement the Revised Culver City Mitigation Measures in accordance
with the subphasing plan and schedule set forth on Exhibit E-2 attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference. The subphasing plan and schedule for the Revised Culver City Mitigation
Measures may not be amended without the prior written consent of the Culver City Chief
Administrative Officer or his /her designee.
E. In order to provide assurances to Culver City the projected number of vehicular
trips to be generated by the proposed development of the Village is consistent with the DER and
contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Village at Playa Vista (State
Clearinghouse No. 20022111065, City of Los Angeles E1R No. ENV-2002-6129-EIR) ("FER"),
as certified by the City of Los Angeles, PCC agrees to undertake a Trip Verification Study in
accordance with the Protocol for Trip Verification Study set forth on Exhibit F attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
In the event the trips determined in accordance with the Protocol for Trip Verification
Study as set forth on Exhibit F exceeds the trip generation estimates in Item No_ 4 of Exhibit F,
FCC shall prepare a traffic analysis that evaluates whether the increased trip generation creates
any additional significant impacts in Culver City beyond the impacts previously identified in the
FEIR. PCC shall deliver to Culver City such additional analysis within sixty (60) days following
the completion of the traffic counts identified in Exhibit F. The traffic analysis shall identify any
additional measures that will avoid any such additional impacts in Culver City. FCC and Culver
City shall meet and confer with respect to the traffic analysis and additional traffic measures that
may be requested by Culver City to avoid such additional impacts identified by the analysis.
In the event Culver City and FCC are unable to reasonably agree on additional traffic
measures sufficient to avoid the additional significant impacts in Culver City, FCC may elect to
(i) reduce development in subphase 4 of the Village sufficient to avoid the additional significant
impacts in Culver City, (ii) reduce development in the First Phase of Playa Vista sufficient to
avoid the additional significant impacts on Culver City or (iii) reduce development, in some
combination, of the First Phase of Playa Vista and subphase 4 of the Village sufficient to avoid
the additional significant impacts on Culver City. If PCC does not make any such reductions and
Culver City and PCC are unable to agree on additional mitigation measures to reduce the
C.
Page 2additional si gnificant impacts on Culver City to a level of insignificanbe, then Culver City and
PCC may agree to have PCC pay to Culver City an amount equal to (a) the number of Peak Hour
trips (the higher of A.M. or P.M. Peak Hour trips) required to be reduced in order to avoid the
additional significant impacts on Culver City, times (b) the Trip Mitigation Fee, as hereinafter
defined. The Trip Mitigation Fee shall be $3,575 per trip in 2004 dollars or equal to the City of
Los Angeles Coastal Transportation Corridor Specific Plan trip fee which ever is greater. The
basic Trip Mitigation Fee shall be increased annually, commencing on May 1, 2005, by the
percentage increase in construction costs in the Los Angeles area based on the Means
Construction Cost Index for Transportation Project in Southern California or other similar index
agreed to by the parties. Through the compliance with this Paragraph E, Culver City
acknowledges and agrees all potential significant impacts of the Village are fully mitigated;
provided, that PCC develops the Village in accordance with Exhibit B, unless agreed to by
Culver City.
F. Culver City agrees in the event Culver City approves a project in Culver City with
estimated traffic and transportation impacts in Culver City similar to the Village without
imposing a Trip Verification Study requirement substantially similar to the requirements of
Paragraph E above, PCC shall not be obligated to complete the Trip Verification Study as
required by Paragraph E above.
G. In the event the City of Los Angeles does not approve the Village, this Fourth
Amendment shall be void and of no further force or effect and all the terms of the Culver City
Agreement prior to this Fourth Amendment shall be reinstated. In the event the City of Los
Angeles reduces the scope of the Village, which avoids some or all impacts in Culver City,
Culver City and PCC agree to modify the Revised Culver City Mitigation Measures to the extent
impacts from the reduced Village are avoided in Culver City.
H. Culver City covenants and agrees it will not, directly or indirectly, oppose the
approval by the City of Los Angeles of the Village. Culver City further agrees it will not
challenge, sue or contest, directly or indirectly, in any judicial or administrative proceeding, the
approval of the Village or the implementation of the Village in accordance with the approvals for
the Village; provided, however, nothing in the Culver City Agreement or this Fourth
Amendment, shall limit the ability of Culver City to enforce the provisions of the Culver City
Agreement, as amended by this Fourth Amendment.
I. In the event PCC or the City of Los Angeles modifies or changes the Village from
that described in Exhibit B, PCC agrees to notify Culver City in advance of any such
modifications or changes being approved. Consent of Culver City shall not be required for such
modifications or changes; provided, however, that Culver City may seek mandamus, specific
performance and injunctive relief, including, but not limited to, a temporary restraining order or
other equitable relief, with respect to any such change or modification to the Village from that
described in Exhibit B if such change or modification may create a significant, unmitigated
impact in Culver City.
SECTION 2. Amendment to Article III, Paragraph E. Paragraph E of Article III shall
be amended in its entirety to read:
Page 3Any and all notices or other communications required or permitted to be given hereunder
are required to be in writing by either party or its attorney, and shall be delivered personally, or
sent by telegram or the United States mail, certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid
and addressed as follows:
To FCC: Playa Capital Company
5510 Lincoln Boulevard
Suite 100
Playa Vista, CA 90094
Attention: General Counsel — Patricia Sinclair, Esq.
and: Playa Capital Company
5510 Lincoln Boulevard
Suite 100
Playa Vista, CA 90094
Attention: Vice President-Infrastructure
To Culver City: Chief Administrative Officer
City of Culver City
P.O. Box 507
Culver City, California 90232-0507
and: City Attorney
City of Culver City
P.O. Box 507
Culver City, California 90232-0507
and: Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Culver City
P.O. Box 507
Culver City, California 90232-0507
Either party may from time to time change the address to which and the identity or title of the
person to whom such notices, payments or other communications may be sent by giving the
other party written notice of such change. Notices and other communications shall be effective
on delivery.
SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Fourth Amendment shall become effective upon the
date first noted above.
Section 4. Effect on Successors and Recordation. This Fourth Amendment shall be
apply to each and every of FCC's successors, transferees and assignees. A memorandum of this
agreement shall be recorded against Area D2 as soon as possible after the effective date of this
Fourth Amendment and the City of Los Angeles' approval of the Village.
II
Page 4THE CITY OF CULVER CITY,
a municipal corpo
Steven J. Rose, Mayo
SECTION 5. Effect of this Fourth Amendment. Except as specifically modified by the
terms of this Fourth Amendment, the Culver City Agreement shall continue in full force and
effect.
SECTION 6. Counterparts. This Fourth Amendment may be executed in multiple
counterparts, all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and each of which shall
be, and shall be deemed to be, an original.
SECTION 7. Governing Law. This Fourth Amendment shall be interpreted and
construed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands as of the day and
year first above written.
AT EST-
Ii1.11-rs'to ler Ar -meCda.
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
uLe:o / • Ur' Yr
Carol A. Schwab
City Attorney
PLAYA CAPITAL COMPANY, LLC
a Delaware h. liability/company
Name: -
Title:
And:|1010|By: Name: Title: 73,1 ,`, /
!
18
Page 5JefFers. r, aivij
Urban Development
Component|1010|O.
:51
E XHIB IT A
Project Boundaries
Restoration Component
LEGEND
EJ
Urban Developmen1 Component
=1
Habitat Crealbn Resloration Component
Park5
f171 '
400 800 Feet
I".osi LI.,2071
031.0EvARD •
TRACT
49104
-04•
TRACT
49104
-02
TRACT
49104
.-06
?LI
;
70
k7::2
rrs'a/ 1
Y
I ,"
": Z. 2 .n 1,4
Ari/AH CO6r00222
49
04
i:FP
31
22 22
Rt,„
7at'•
10,00,
74 73
0.0
72
EXHIBIT A cont. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 60110EXHIBIT B
The Village at Playa Vista is located on an approximately 111.0-acre site in the Playa Vista area
of West Los Angeles. The Village at Playa Vista consists of the folloWing two components: (1)
a mixed-use community ("the Urban Development Component"); and (2) a Riparian Corridor
and restoration and maintenance of a portion of the Westchester Bluffs adjacent to the Riparian
Cotridor (the "Habitat Creation/Restoration Component"), as described in City of Los Angeles
E1R No. ENV-2002-6129-E1IR.
The Urban Development Component allows the development of a master planned community -
composed of residential, commercial, recreational, and community-serving uses. This
development will occur on an approximately 99.3-acre site consisting of 87.5 acres of residential,
commercial, and community serving development, 11.4 acres of parks, and 0.4 acre of other
passive open space. The proposed development includes 2,600 dwelling units, 175,000 square
feet (sq.ft.) of office space, 150,000 sq.R. of retail space, 40,000 sq.ft. of community-serving
uses, and an equivalency program that allows an exchange of office uses for retail and/or assisted
living uses
The Habitat Creation/Restoration Component includes a total of approximately 11.7 acres, of
which the Riparian Corridor involves approximately 6.7 acres, with the restoration of the
adjoining portion of the Westchester Bluffs occurring over the remaining 5 acres. The
construction of the Riparian Corridor would complete a 25-acre riparian corridor that also
includes sections east and west of the Riparian Corridor, ultimately feeding into the Playa Vista
First Phase Freshwater Marsh.
The Village would include a number of discretionary actions, including, without limitation:
• Amendment of the Westchester/Playa del Rey Community Plan
• Amendments to the Playa Vista Area D Specific Plan
• Approval of Tract Maps, including without limitation, VTTM No. 60110
• Approval of a Development Agreement
• Other approvals, as necessary, to implement the Village projectEXHIBIT C
Summary of Culver City Mitigation Measures from Draft E IR
. Physical intersection improvements in Culver City
Washington Place/Centinela Avenue— Provide dual east bound & west bound
left turn lanes, and install signal phasing & equipment as required.
Green Valley Circle/C.entinela Avenue— Restn -pe the street in order to provide a
west bound right turn lane.
Sawtelle Boulevard/Culver Boulevard— Provide north bound and south bound
right turn lanes consistent with anticipated Caltrans' 1-405 improvements.
Overland Avenue/Culver Boulevard— Add a right-turn lane along the
westbound approach on Culver Boulevard, and provide a southbound right-
• turn–only lane on Overland Avenue.
2. Signal System Improvements:
Sepulveda Boulevard/Centinela Avenue. Contribute to the design and
implementation of ATCS. The intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and
Centinela Avenue is included within the City of Los Angeles' Adaptive Traffic
System Control (ATE) "Airport" system, which is scheduled for
implementation by Los Angeles Department of Transportation (NOTE: this
system is not a part of the proposed LAX Master Plan currently under review,
and is scheduled to be implemented separately and independently from that
proposed project).
3. Transit System Improvements:
PCC shall fund the purchase of six 40-foot buses (at a cost of $400,000 per bus)
similar to current Culver CityBus vehicles as follows: one bus each for Lines 2
and 4 and two buses each for Line 6 and New Limited Route along Sepulveda
(south).
PCC shall provide certain Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs for the new
buses purchased using the following parameters:
a. 100% funding for 3 years and 15% for the next 7 years
afterwards.
b. O&M cost shall be calculated using a rate $85/hour.
c. For five of the buses the O&M costs shall be calculated based on
peak period bus operations (Line 6 and the new Limited Bus) at
7.5 hours/day/bus for 250 days a year.
d. For one bus the O&M costs shall be calculated based on all-day
bus operations (Line 4) at 12.5 hours/day/bus for 250 days a
year.
e. Farebox revenue from each of the FCC funded buses will offset
O&M contribution
:01AEXHIBIT D
Revised Culver City Mitigation Measures
1. PCC shall design and construct at its sole cost and to the reasonable satisfaction of
Culver City the following physical intersection improvements in Culver City.
Washington Place/Centinela Avenue— Provide dual east bound ez west bound
left turn lanes, and install signal phasing & equipment as required.
Green Valley Circle/Centin . ela Avenue— Restripe the street in order to provide a
west bound right turn lane.
Sawtelle Boulevard/Culver Boulevard— Provide north bound and south bound
right turn lanes consistent with anticipated Caltrans' I-405 improvernents.
NO 1E— The intersection improvements previously proposed in the DEIR for Culver
Boulevard/Overland Avenue would now be addressed byproposed Signal System
improvements and the previouslyproposed physical improvement would be deleted from
the program.
2. Signal System Improvements (Traffic and Bus operation enhancements):
PCC shall provide an adaptive signal synchronization system reasonably
acceptable to Culver City at 17 intersections along Jefferson and Culver
Boulevards and at the intersection of Playa/Hannum, at a cost to PCC not to
exceed $255,000.
PCC shall provide a control system (at a cost to PCC not to exceed $500,000)
and support costs (at a cost to PCC not to exceed $50,000 annually for 10 years)
for adaptive signal synchronization system.
PCC shall retain a traffic consultant, reasonably acceptable to Culver City, to
conduct a Signal Optimization Analysis along Sepulveda Boulevard, Washington
Boulevard, Jefferson Boulevard, and Overland Avenue corridors within Culver
City. The scope of work for the Signal Optimization Analysis shall not exceed a
$50,000 cost to PCC.
NOTE— The in - tersection of Sepulveda Boulevard and Centinela Avenue is included within
the City of Los Angeles' Adaptive Traffic System Control (ATCS) "Airport" system, which
is scheduled for implementation by Los Angeles Department of Transportation (this system
is not a part of the proposed LAX Master Plan currently under review, and is scheduled to
be implemented separately and independently from that proposed project). The funding and
implementation of ATCS at this location is a component of the Village at Playa Vista
Transportation Improvement Program and is separate from the Culver City Signal System
Improvements chs . cussed in Section 2 above.
3. Transit System Improvements:
PCC shall fund the purchase of five 40-foot buses (at a cost of $400,000 per bus)
similar to current Culver CityBus vehicles as follows: one bus for Lin - e 4 and two
buses each for Lin " e 6 and New Limited Route along Sepulveda (south);
A3provided, that if in the reasonable discretion of the Culver City Transportation
Director, the proposed buses can be provided from alternative sources, then
PCC shall remit to Culver City Transportation Department payment in the total
amount of $2,000,000 on or before March 31, 2007 for transportation/transit
improvements to Culver CityBus operations; provided that the Village is not -
subject to delaydue to litigation or other unforeseen circumstances as reasonably
determined by Culver City and PCC, and further, that Culver City shall place
such buses in service within six (6) months of delivery, but not later than 24
months after payment of the $2,000,000. In the event said payment is received
after March 342007 and the purchase of the buses is not complete prior to
December 12, 2008, the expiration of the current purchase agreement with
Culver City's bus provider PCC shall provide sufficient funding to cover the full
cost equivalent -of acquiring the five buses.
PCC shall provide Transit Priority System (IPS) components (at a cost to PCC
not to exceed $200,000) for signalized locations along Washington Boulevard,
between the Costco westerly driveway and Berryman Avenue (up to 12
intersections). The 'IPS shall meet the specification of Culver City.
PCC shall provide for certain Operation and Maintenance (O&M) costs for the
buses purchased using the following parameters:
a. 100% funding for the first 3 years of operation and 15% for the
next 7 years afterwards.
b. O&M cost shall be calculated using a rate of $85/hour.
c. For four of the buses the O&M costs shall be calculated based on
actual total peak period hours operated (Line 6 and the new
Limited Bus) not to exceed 7.5 hours/day/bus for 250 days a
year.
d. For one bus the O&M costs shall be calculated based on actual
all-day bus operations (Line 4) not to exceed 12.5 hours/day/bus
for 250 days a year.
e. Farebox revenue from each of the PCC funded buses will offset
O&M contribution.
f. Culver City shall submit invoices for O&M costs on a quarterly
basis. PCC shall remit payment within 30 days of receipt.
PCC will provide for bus fare subsidies of up to 200 bus passes per month for
employees or residents at Playa Vista for a period of 10 years at a cost not to
exceed $50,000 per year.
NO1E— The new bus proposed in the DEIR for Line 2 is recommended to be deleted, in
order to provide funding for the Washington Boulevard Corridor TPS enhancement.
4. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP): If needed, after
implementation of the PCC Phase 1 funded N'IMP implementation, PCC shall
provide up to $25,000 to fund a supplemental NTMP for the Sunkist Park
neighborhood in Culver City and for subsequent implementation of traffic calming
measures identified in the plan.5. Construction vehicle travel through Culver City shAll be subject to the review and
reasonable approval of Culver City, and shall be conducted in accordance with the
standard rules and regulations established by Culver City These include allowable
operating times for construction activities, truck haul routes, clearance requirements,
etc.
4=25EXHIBIT E-I
VILLAGE AT PLAYA VISTA
DRAFT EIR MITIGATION SIII3PHASING PLAN a
P.M. Peak-Hou r
Trips per
Subpliase Subyhase Transportation System Improvements c'd'e'r J Li ri sd ic ti on
Village Subpliase 1
575 I. Provide funding for 1 bus for Culver City Bus Line 6 (CC 6) Culver City
?. Provide funding for 1 bus for Culver City Bus Line 2 (CC2) Culver City
3. Provide funding for Airport System ATCS City of Los Angeles
4. Provide funding for Transit Priority Systern (IFS) on Lincoln Corridor City of LA/Ca Inns
5. Signal improvement (phasing) at Lino:lin B1/83rd St City of LA/Ca Itrans
6. Provide funding for neighborhood traffic management City of Los Angeles
Village Subphase 2 575 1. Provide funding for 2 buses for CC4 (includes extension to Playa Del Rey) Culver City
(1,150 2. Physical and/or operational improvements at:
cumulative) 2a. Centinela Ay/Venice B1 City of LA/Caltrans
2b. Green Valley Circle/Centinela Avenue Culver City
2c. La Tijera Bl/Centinela Av City of Los Angeles
2d. Overland Av/Culver B1 Culver City
2e. Sawtelle BI/Culver B1 Culver City
3. Provide funding for signal improvement at Aviation BIfFlorence Av/Manchester Av City of Inglewood
4. Project component — Jefferson Boulevard corridor improvement (between. , City , o f Los Angeles
Beethoven Av to Centinela Av) 8
5. Project component — complete Bluff Creek Dr corridor improvement (Dawn Creek to City of Los Angeles
Westlawn) g
6. Campus Center Drive between Millennium and Bluff Creek Drive — Public Access City of Los Angeles
Village Subphase 3
575 1. Provide funding for Smart Corridor System ATCS City of Los Angeles
(1,725 2. Extension of internal shuttle to off-site locations LA/Culver City/LA County
cumulative) 3. Physical and/or operational improvements at:
3a. Centinela Av/Cuiver 131 City of Los Angeles
3b. Centinela Av/Washington PI Culver City
3c. La Brea Av/Centinela Av City of Inglewood
3d. Palawan Way/Admiralty Way Los Angeles CountyEXHIBIT E-1
VILLAGE AT PLAYA VISTA
DRAFT EIR MITIGATION SUBPHASING PLAN
(Continued)
P.NI. Peak-I-lour
Trips per
Subphase 1) Subphase 4 Transportation System Improvements ' d ' e' 1. itn'iscliction
Village Subphase 4 575 1. Provide funding for 2 buses for 006 Limited Culver City
(2,300 2. Operational improvement at 1-405 NB Ramps/Jefferson El Culver City/Caltrans
cumulative) 3. Centinela Avenue corridor improvement (Culver to SR-90) City of Los Angeles
fl
The subphasing plan may be revised, where appropriate and as determined by LADOT: (1) upon demonstration that measures for each subphase in the
revised subphasing plan are equivalent or superior to the original mitigation measures; and/or (2) upon demonstration that approval or implementation of
measures has been delayed, provided that the Applicant has demonstrated reasonable efforts and due diligence to the satisfaction of GADO'''.
b
P.M. peak-hour trip generation for each subphase would determine the specific traffic improvements shown. P.M. peak-hour trip generation to be estimated as
subphases develop using the following factors:
Dwelling Units — 0.54 trip per unit
Office — 1.74 trips per 1,000 sf
Retail — 3.83 trips per 1,000 sf (inchtdes pass-by reduction)
Community Serving Uses — 0.45 trip per 1,000 sf (includes internal capture reduction)
Prior to the issuance of any building permit for each subphase,. all on- and off-site mitigation measures for the subphase shall be complete or suitably
guaranteed satisfactoiy to LADOT.
Temporary Certificates of Occupancy may be granted in the event of any delay through no fault of the Applicant, provided that, in each case, the applicant has
demonstrated reasonable efforts and due diligence to the satisfaction of LADOT
Substitute mitigation measures may be provided subject to approval by the agency with jurisdiction over the location of the measure, upon demonstration that
the substitute measure is equivalent or superior to the original mitigation measure. • •
Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy in the _final subphase, all required improvements in the entire mitigation phasing plan shall be
fended, completed, or resolved to the satisfaction of LADOT.
The Jefferson Boulevard and Bluff Creek Drive corridors are components of the Proposed Project. Neither improvement serves to mitigate any Project
impact; they are included in this table to establish timing for completion,
NOTE: These mitigation measures are described in more detail in Section IV.K.(1), Traffic and Circulation of the Draft ElR for the Village at Plain Vista, and
Section 11.15, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR for the Village at Plc-tva Vista44.3
EXHIBIT E-2
VILLAGE AT PLAYA VISTA
REVISED CULVER CITY MITIGATION SUBPHASING PLAN
Sub base b
P.M. Peak-Hour
Trips per
Sub base b Transportation System Improvements
J urisd let ion
Village Subphase I 575 1. Provide funding for 5 buses for Culver City Bus
Culver City
2. Provide funding for Airport System ATCS
City of Los Angeles
3. Provide funding for Transit Priority System (TPS) on Lincoln Corridor City of LA/Caltrans
4. Signal improvement (phasing) at Lincoln B1/83rd St City of LA/CA-fans
Village Subphase 2 575 Physical and/or operational improvements at:
(1,150 la. Centinela Av/Venice El City of LA/Caltrans
cumulative) lb. Green Valley Circle/Centinela Avenue
lc. La Tijera BVCentinela Av
Culver City
City of Los Angeles
2. Provide funding for signal improvement at Aviation BI/Florence Av/Manchester Av City of Inglewood
3. Project component — Jefferson Boulevard corridor improvement (between City of Los Angeles
Beethoven Av to Centinela Av) 8
4. Project component — complete Bluff Creek Dr corridor improvement (Dawn Creek to City of Los Angeles
Westlawn)
5. Campus Center Drive between Millennium and Bluff Creek Drive — Public Access City of Los Angeles
Village Subphase 3 575 1. Provide funding for Smart Corridor System ATCS City of Los Angeles
(1,725 2. Extension of internal shuttle to off-site locations LA/Culver City/LA County
cumulative) 3. Physical and/or operational improvements at:
3a. Centinela Av/Culver BI City of Los Angeles
3b. La Brea Av/Centinela Av City of Inglewood
3c. Palawan Way/Admiralty Way Los Angeles County
4. Provide Culver City Adaptive Signal Synchronization System Culver City
.5. Provide Culver City Transit Priority System (TPS) along Washington 131 Culver City
Village Subphase 4 575 1. Operational improvement at 1-405 NB Ramps/Jefferson Bl Culver City/Caltrans
(2,300 2. Centinela Avenue corridor improvement (Culver to SR-90) City of Los Angeles
cumulative) 3. Physical and/or operational improvements at:
3a. Sawtelle Bl/Culver B1
Culver City
3b. Centinela Av/Washington P1 Culver CityEXHIBIT E-2
VILLAGE AT PLAYA VISTA
REVISED CULVER CITY MITIGATION SUBPHASING PLAN
(Continued)
P.M. Peak-Hour
Trips per
Sub])hase b
Subphase b
Transportation S, 'stem Improvements c'
d, el
Jurisdiction
4. Provide funding for neighborhood traffic management City of Los Angeles
The subphasing plan may be revised, where appropriate and as determined by LADOT: (1) upon demonstration that Measures for each subphase in the
revised subphasing plan are equivalent or superior to the original mitigation measures; and/or (2) upon demonstration that approval or implementation of
measures has been delayed, provided that the Applicant has demonstrated reasonable efforts and due diligence to the satisfaction of LA DOT
p,m. peak-hour trip generation for each subphase would determine the specific traffic improvements shown. PAl. pe.ak-hour trip generation to be estimated as
subphases develop using the following factors:
Dwelling Units — 0,54 trip per unit
Office — 1.74 trips per 1,000 sf
Retail — 3.83 trips per 1,000 sf (includes pass-by reduction)
Community Serving Uses — 0.45 trip per 1,000 sf (includes internal capture reduction)
• Prior to the issuance of any building permit for each subphase, all on- and off-site mitigation measures for the subphase shall be complete or suitably
guaranteed satisfactoiy to LADOT
Temporary Certificates of Occupancy may be granted in the event of any delay through no fault of the Applicant, provided that, in each case, the applicant has
demonstrated reasonable efforts and due diligence to the satisfaction of LADOT
• Substitute mitigation measures may be provided subject to approval by the agency with jurisdiction over the location of the measure, upon demonstration that
the substitute measure is equivalent or superior to the original mitigation measure.
Prior to the issuance of the final Cergficate of Occupancy in the final subphase, all required improvements in the entfre mitigation phasing plan shall be
funded, completed, or resolved to the satisfaction of LADOT
• The Jefferson Boulevard and Bitgrf Creek Drive corridors are components of the Proposed Project. Neither improvement serves to mitigate any , Project
impact: they are included in this table to establish timing for completion.
NOTE: These mitigation measures are described in more detail in Section 1V.K.(1), Traffic and Circulation of the Draft DR for the Village at Playa Vista, and
Section 11.15, Corrections and Additions, of the Final EIR for the Village at Playa VistaEXHIBIT F
Village at Playa Vista
Protocol for Trip Verification Study
1. Ninety (90) days after occupancy of 75% of the total entitled
development for the Village, but prior to any occupancy of Subphase 4 of the
Village as defined in the FEIR, pcc shall provide to Culver City a detailed site
plan of the constructed portion of the Village. The site plan will detail i.) the
location of all internal and external public and private streets adjacent to and
within the Village site; ii.) the Village development lots; iii.) completed
buildings; and iv.) driveways connecting the deVeloped lots to the streets. The
site plan shall be keyed to identify each completed structure and the
corresponding square footage and use for non-residential space and the number
and type (bedrooms) of residential units. The site plan shall also identify the
cun-ent occupancy rate for the non-residential space and the residential units, by
type for each building.
2. Culver City shall use the site plan to identify the driveway
locations to be counted in the Trip Verification Study. The Trip Verification
Study shall collect driveway counts at the driveways serving individual
residential-only buildings that are substantially occupied and that cumulatively
provide between a -25% and a 35% sample of the then constructed residential units
of the Village.
3. The automatic-machine counts shall be conducted over three
weekday periods at each location, as identified in "2" above, in order to collect
traffic data during morning (6-9 AM) and afternOon (4-7 PM) peak time periods.
The counts will be taken on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays only,
provided that each sample driveway location is to be counted 3 times, once for
each day and only one day per week. The 3 counts will be taken during weeks
when normal traffic patterns would be expected to occur, and specifically not
when there are holidays or school vacations scheduled at Los Angeles Unified
School District, Culver City Unified School District, University of California at
Los Angeles, University of Southern California, Loyola Marymount University,
Santa Monica College and West Los Angeles College, unless otherwise
reasonably approved by the parties. In order to ensure that the 3 counts are taken
during periods that most likely will yield a true sampling of normal traffic
patterns, the counts will not be required to be taken on consecutive weeks.
Page 1 of 24. The data from the counts shall be averaged to determine the actual
trip rates for AM and PM Peak Hours and shall be compared to the Peak Hour
rates published in the DEIR. The peak hour rates published in the DEM are based
on Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation," 6 th Edition, 1997, are
as follows for residential uses, pursuant to DEIR Table 120, Trip Generation
Estimates, Page 860:
AM Peak Hour Trips/Units 0.44
1,144 total AM Peak Hour Trips (2,600 Units)
PM Peak Hour Trips/Units 0.54
1,404 total PM Peak Hour Trips (2,600 Units)
Page 2 of 2PLAYA + VISTA
"ritE INT msxsinn-
November 27, 2006
Mt Charles Herbertson
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Culver City
9770 Culver Blvd.
Culver City, CA 90232-0507
Dear Mr. Herbertson:
As you are aware in October, 1993, Playa Capital Company, LLC (PCC) and the City of Culver City
(Culver City) entered into a Settlement Agreement (Agreement) with respect to the First Phase of
the Playa Vista Project. The Agreement provided for the commitment by Playa Vista to construct
certain traffic improvements requested by Culver City for the First Phase of the Playa Vista Project
Over the years PCC and Culver City have amended the Agreement in several respects.
In particular, in May 2002, PCC and Culver City entered into Amendment No. 3 to the
Agreement which reflects various revisions to the implementation of the transportation
improvements required by Culver City for the First Phase Project. One of the improvements
provided for in the Agreement was construction of a bridge connecting Playa Vista Drive and
Culver Boulevard over the Ballona Channel (the Playa Vista Drive Bridge). Following the
original approval of the Agreement, the Playa Vista Drive Bridge became infeasible due to the
transfer of certain lands by PCC for permanent open space to the State of California. The
Amendment provided for the elimination of the Playa Vista Drive Bridge as a transportation
improvement which was required by the Agreement In recognition of the fact that the Playa
Vista Drive Bridge was infeasible, the Amendment provides that prior to the issuance of a
building permit for any floor area in excess of 1,857,000 square feet of office development of the
First Phase, PCC is required to consult with Culver City and propose one or more traffic related
improvements which would provide substantially the same mitigation as if the Playa Vista Drive
Bridge had been completed.
PCC has worked with Culver City in good faith to reach agreement for an alternative improvement
for the Playa Vista Drive Bridge. That alternative improvement, which is discussed in more detail
below, will provide for a major improvement to Sepulveda Boulevard between north of Jefferson
Boulevard/Playa Street intersection to Green Valley Cirde. Although the trigger of 1,857,000
square feet is years away, PCC and staff believe that this is an opportunity to accelerate
improvements in Culver City along Sepulveda Boulevard that would benefit Culver City and
resolve this last remaining improvement for the First Phase Project All other improvements
required for the Agreement and Amendments for the First Phase Project have been completed or
are being completed.
5510 Lincoln Blvd.
Suite 100
Playa Vista, CA 90094
Tei: 310-822-0074
Fax; 310-827-1073
www.playavista.comWith respect to the timing of the 1,857,000 threshold, the existing office development at Playa
Vista consists of the Water's Edge development, which comprises approximately 221,955 square
feet of floor area in two buildings located at Lincoln and Jefferson Boulevards. A third possible
building at the Water's Edge location will bring the total at Water's Edge to approximately 381,000
square feet. No construction date for that building at Water's Edge has been announced. In
addition, earlier in the year, Lincoln Properties purchased approximately 14 acres of land within the
Campus at Playa Vista, on which they will be developing approximately 821,450 square feet of
office space. Lincoln is currently pursuing building permits on their first 2 buildings, totaling just
under 400,000 square feet. Total development, when built out at Water's Edge and the Lincoln
Properties site, will be far less than the 1,857,000 established by the Amendment No. 3. Additional
development in the Campus at Playa Vista is possible but is likely to be several years before any
buildings are completed and several years further before the 1,857,000 is triggered.
Pursuant to Amendment No. 3, since it is cleat that the Playa Vista Drive Bridge will not be
constructed, PCC and Culver City staff have worked in good faith consultation to identify an
alternative improvement, and have proposed that PCC provide funding in support of the design
and development of the Sepulveda Blvd. widening project, as an alternative improvement to the
Playa Vista Drive Bridge. This project is planned to widen and improve Sepulveda Boulevard to
provide three southbound lanes from north ofiefferson Boulevard/Playa Street intersection to
.Green Valley Circle intersection. The accompanying study prepared by Raju Associates
demonstrates that this improvement would substantially improve the intersection operations - an
improvement of one to two levels of service at key intersections within this improved stretch of
roadway. Consequently, the roadway segment operations along Sepulveda Boulevard would be
significantly improved due to the proposed itnprovernent Culver City Bus Line 6 and the future
Metro Rapid Sepulveda Line would also benefit from the proposed improvement
At our August 25, 2006 meeting, Culver City staff stated that a 2001 cost estimate prepared for
this project was approximately $1 million. Culver City staff indicates that the proposed project
would cost between $1.5 and $2 million at this time, based on a revised preliminary estimate.
Design costs are estimated at 10% to 15% of total project costs; based on the updated cost
estimate, are currently projected to be between $200,000 and $300,000. PCC proposes to provide
funding in the amount of $300,000 in funding to cover the design of this project so that its
implementation ran be accelerated.
In addition to the significant acceleration in timing, there are several reasons why this
arrangement is beneficial to Culver City:
1) The Playa Vista Drive Bridge, as documented in the attached report, did not provide
any traffic mitigation benefits within Culver City. Its primary benefit was at locations
within, the City of Los Angeles.
2) The elimination of the Playa Vista Drive Bridge (which will not be built in any event)
does not result in any significant impacts to any location within Culver City.
3) The proposed Sepulveda Boulevard project will substantially improve the traffic
conditions at several key intersections along a congested portion of the Sepulveda
corridor.
354) The funding provided by FCC will accelerate the project, which has already received a
Federal earmark for funding.
5) The proposed Sepulveda Boulevard project will work together with other planned
improvements in the corridor, including the following:
• Jefferson Blvd./Playa St./Sepulveda — The proposed Sepulveda Boulevard project
will extend improvements already approved and satisfied at this intersection, and
will provide a third continuous travel lane to Green Valley Circle.
• Transit System Improvements — PCC is funding the purchase of 5 40-foot buses
for Culver City-Bus, 4 of which will provide additional service along the Sepulveda
Boulevard corridor. The proposed Sepulveda Boulevard project will enable these
buses to travel more quickly through this congested corridor.
• Signal System Improvements — PCC is providing funding towards the
development of an adaptive signal synchronization system in Culver City. This
cost includes funding for a control system and support costs for 10 years.
• Other non-Playa Vista related improvements — In conjunction with the
implementation of Rapid Bus on Sepulveda corridor, Metro will implement a
Transit Priority System which, along with the additional capacity associated with
the proposed project, will enable buses to travel more quickly through this
congested corridor.
This proposal has been developed working in good faith with Culver City staff as provided in
Amendment No. 3. For purposes of the Phase 2, Village at Playa Vista project, a Trip Mitigation
Fee mechanism was incorporated in Amendment No. 4 which effectively serves as a funding
mechanism if unanticipated impacts were to occur at any Culver City intersections. However,
that mechanism would not apply to the Playa Vista Drive bridge isSue, as no Culver City
intersections will be directly impacted and therefore the City staff and PCC have identified the
above described alternative for the Playa Vista Drive bridge issue. Further, the State of California.
has required that the Playa Vista Drive bridge not be built in order to preserve open space in
Area C of the former Maya Vista Master Plan area.
In conclusion, PCC sand Culver City staff are in agreement that PCC should provide funding in
the amount of $300,000 to be specifically allocated towards the design and development of the
proposed Sepulveda widening project. Given the uncertainty in the actual timing of construction,
there would be no deadline established for spending this funding. We feel this provides
substantial benefits to Culver City beyond that which would have been provided by the Playa
Vista Drive Bridge, as enumerated above. We request that Culver City find that the parties have
reached agreement on identifying an alternative to the Playa Vista Drive Bridge.
J. Marc Huffman
Vice President, Entitlements
34RAJU Associates, Inc.
524 S. Rosemead Blvd.,
2nd Floor,
Pasadena, CA 91107
Voice(626) 792-2700
Fax: (626 792-2772
MEMORANDUM
TO: Marc Huffman, PCC
FROM: Srinath Raju, RE.
SUBJECT: Sepulveda Boulevard Corridor Improvement Effectiveness Analysis
in the City of Culver City, CA
DATE: November 27, 2006 REF': RA 225
The City of Culver City (Culver City) and Playa Capital Company (PCC) are proposing that PCC
provide funding to support a Sepulveda Boulevard widening project between Jefferson
Boulevard/Playa Street and Green Valley Circle. Raju Associates Inc. was retained to conduct an
analysis of the effectiveness of the proposed Sepulveda Boulevard roadway corridor
improvements within Culver City, CA. Specifically, the following questions are addressed in this
study:
(1)
Does the elimination of the Playa Vista Drive Bridge impact Culver City?
(2) Does implementation of the Sepulveda Boulevard roadway improvements
described below improve traffic within Culver City?; and
(3)
Does implementation of the Sepulveda Boulevard improvements provide
substantially the same or better mitigation for Culver City as would have been
provided if the Playa Vista Drive Bridge had been completed?
This memorandum briefly describes the background, intent and objectives of this study and
provides an assessment of the effectiveness of the proposed corridor improvement along
Sepulveda Boulevard.|1010|36w'BACKGROUND
In 1993, Culver City and Maguire Thomas Partners-Playa Vista, the predecessor to Playa Capital
Company ("Playa Capital"), entered into an agreement concerning the development of Playa Vista
in the City of Los Angeles (as amended, the "Culver City Agreement"). This agreement has been
amended a total of four times, the latest of which occurred in 2004 in conjunction with the Village
at Playa Vista project. The Culver City Agreement covers, among other things, construction of
certain traffic mitigation measures designed to address the concerns of Culver City with respect to
the development of the First Phase of the Playa Vista Project (the "First Phase Project" or the
"First Phase") and the Village at Playa Vista (the "Village") on Culver City.
As part of the traffic mitigation program for the First Phase Project, the City of Los Angeles
required the construction of the Playa Vista Drive Bridge improvement over the BalIona Channel,
which would have provided two-way connections to the Marina Freeway from the western portions
of the Playa Vista First Phase Project site. This improvement was in part envisioned as part of a
larger master plan project (which will not be built) and in conjunction with new interchanges at
Lincoln/Culver and Culver/SR90, the widening of Culver between Lincoln and SR90, and
improvements at Jefferson/Westlawn and Jefferson/I-405 NB ramps. The bridge was intended to
alleviate traffic impacts at the Jefferson Boulevard and 1-405 ramps caused by the fully entitled
Playa Vista First Phase Project. While the balance of these improvements have been constructed
or are under construction, the State of California requested that the Playa Vista Drive Bridge not
be constructed when it acquired Playa Vista Areas A, B and C and thus the bridge is no longer
proposed to be constructed, as discussed further below.
Since the 1993 approval of the First Phase Project, the Playa Vista project has substantially
evolved. Historically, the Playa Vista Master Plan envisioned development on both sides of
Lincoln Boulevard and north and south of the Ballona Channel, as shown in Figure 1. As
indicated, the areas were denoted by the letter designations A, B, C and D.
In December 2003, the State of California completed the acquisition of portions of the former
Playa Vista Master Plan area, which includes Areas A, B and C. In connection with its plans for
the preservation of Areas A, B and C, California Senate Bill 666 (SB 666) was approved. In
2BOUNDARY OF FORMER
PLAYA VISTA MASTER PLAN AREA
AREA
A
JEFFERSON BLVD
AREA
Loyola
Meryrnount
University 77TH
BOTH
Figure 1
Former Playa Vista Master Plan Areaessence, SB 666 provides (among other things) that construction of the Playa Vista Drive Bridge is
inconsistent with the State's interest in the preservation of the Area C property. En connection with
the state transaction and SB 666, the State required that the rights and obligations to construct
this road improvement be relinquished. Accordingly, the Playa Vista Drive Bridge and road
extension to Culver Boulevard is no longer proposed for construction. A copy of SB 666 is
provided as Appendix A.
As a result of these actions, development within Area A, Area B and Area C is no longer
proposed. The scale of the overall Playa Vista Master Plan has been greatly reduced by limiting
development to Area D. The number of residential units was decreased by 55%; office space
was decreased by 36%; retail space was decreased by 70%; hotel uses were eliminated from
the plan altogether. While approved and required as part of the First Phase Project approvals, the
Playa Vista Drive Bridge was conceived as part of the former Master Plan, linking with
development formerly planned for Area C.
In May 2002, Culver City and PCC entered into an amendment to the Culver City Agreement
between Culver City and PCC (Amendment No. 3) which addressed various issues. The
possible elimination of the Playa Vista Drive Bridge was anticipated at the time of the
amendment. Therefore, relative to the Playa Vista Drive Bridge, the amendment provides that
prior to the issuance of a building permit for any floor area in excess of 1,857,000 square feet of
office development of the First Phase, PCC shall consult with Culver City and propose one or
more traffic related improvements which would provide substantially the same mitigation as if the
Playa Vista Drive Bridge had been completed.Pursuant to Amendment No. 3, PCC has worked in good faith consultation with Culver City staff
to identify an alternative improvement, and have proposed that PCC provide funding in support
of the design and development of the Sepulveda Boulevard widening project between Jefferson
Boulevard/Playa Street and Green Valley Circle. PCC's funding will accelerate the design and
development process and offset the City's financial contribution. This project involves
improvement of Sepulveda Boulevard from north of Jefferson Boulevard / Playa Street intersection
to Green Valley Circle by adding a third southbound through lane. This third southbound through
lane would match the proposed revised three-lane section north of Jefferson Boulevard / Playa
Street intersection and south of Green Valley Circle to Culver City limit at Centinela Avenue. This
gap closure provides for better management of traffic through this heavily traveled section of
Sepulveda Boulevard, parallel to the San Diego Freeway and adjacent to Fox Hills Mall Transit
Center.
At the time Culver City and PCC entered into Amendment No. 3, a traffic impact assessment was
prepared by Kaku Associates for Culver City. Relative to the Playa Vista Drive Bridge, the traffic
assessment reaches the following conclusions:
1.
From a Culver City perspective, the provision of the Playa Vista Drive Bridge and
connection to Culver Boulevard would have neither a positive nor a negative effect on
transportation conditions at the study intersections within Culver City.
2.
No significant impacts on Culver City intersections would result from the proposed
changes in the Third Amendment relative to the provision of Playa Vista Drive Bridge and
connection of Playa Vista Drive to Culver Boulevard.
These conclusions are based on the fact that the Playa Vista Drive Bridge and connection to
Culver Boulevard was intended to provide an additional route for traffic to access the 1-405
freeway via Culver Boulevard and the Marina Freeway (SR 90). Traffic that would have selected
this route will now seek an alternative route to the 1-405, with three main routes available. Traffic
originating from the west-end of Playa Vista, as well as traffic traveling northbound along Lincoln
Boulevard, can access the 1-405 freeway via a new on-ramp from northbound Lincoln Boulevard to
Culver Boulevard and a roadway widening of Culver Boulevard to provide an additional eastbound
through lane to the SR 90 freeway, which were completed several years ago by PCC. In the near
future, this route will be further enhanced by another component of the overall enhancement, the|1010|31grade-separation and construction of the full interchange of Culver Boulevard at the Marina
Freeway, which is currently under construction and near completion. Traffic originating from the
central and eastern portions of Playa Vista can access the 1-405 freeway via the SR 90 ramps at
Centinela; improvements along this route implemented by FCC include an additional lane in both
the northbound and southbound direction, as well as improvements to the on and off-ramps
themselves. Finally, traffic originating from Playa Vista, as well as other eastbound traffic along
Jefferson Boulevard, can access the 1-405 freeway via the on-ramps at Jefferson Boulevard; both
the northbound and southbound ramps have been improved by PCC. None of these routes would
involve travel through Culver City intersections; as such, no Culver City intersections would be
impacted.
The Kaku Associates' traffic impact analysis demonstrated that the provision or removal of the
Playa Vista Drive Bridge and connection to Culver Boulevard would not alter or change the future
traffic volumes at any of the analyzed Culver City intersections even with the full build-out of the
Playa Vista First Phase Project. Therefore, none of the Culver City intersections would be
adversely affected by the removal of the Playa Vista Drive Bridge and connection to Culver
Boulevard.
Therefore, question number one can be answered as follows: the elimination of the Playa Vista
Drive Bridge does not impact any intersections in Culver City.
PROPOSED SEPULVEDA CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The Proposed Sepulveda Boulevard corridor improvement consists of adding a third southbound
through lane along Sepulveda Boulevard between north of the Jefferson Boulevard/Playa Street
intersection to Green Valley Circle within Culver City. The widening will be accomplished through
the reduction of existing median, removal of some landscaping, and undergrounding of utilities.
The following intersections will be improved as part of this Project:
1. Sepulveda Boulevard / Jefferson Boulevard / Playa Street.
2. Sepulveda Boulevard / Slauson Avenue
3. Sepulveda Boulevard / SR 90 EB on-ramp (uncontrolled)
64. Sepulveda Boulevard / Fox Hills Mall Entrance-Exit Driveway
5. Sepulveda Boulevard / Green Valley Circle
Sepulveda Boulevard is a Primary Arterial in the Culver City General Plan and is designated as a
truck route. Additionally, it functions as a major mobility corridor on the west-side of Los Angeles
with bus services provided by Culver CityBus and Metro. This improvement project will enhance
mobility for both autos and buses along one of the more congested sections of this corridor
throughout the day.
The purpose of this project is the following:
• Close the existing southbound capacity gap and match or exceed the roadway capacity in
relation to the anticipated traffic demand or growth and to alleviate existing operational
problems
• Alleviate traffic congestion along Overland Avenue / Playa Street / Sawtelle Boulevard and
certain streets in the residential neighborhood of Sunkist Park
• Improve traffic flow by reducing delay through added capacity on Sepulveda Boulevard
• Increase the mobility of Culver CityBus and other regional bus operators (Metro) routes
The location, scope and extent of this improvement project are presented in Figure 2.
4LEGEND:
r. ,7221 - Corridor Improvement
Map Source: Microsoft Streets and Trips 2005
RAJ U Associates, Inc, FIGURE 2
PROJECT LOCATIONTRAFFIC CONDITIONS ANALYSES
The improvements along Sepulveda Boulevard would have a direct impact on traffic operating
conditions at the following four intersections:
1. Sepulveda Boulevard / Jefferson Boulevard — Playa Street
2. Sepulveda Boulevard / Slauson Avenue
3. Sepulveda Boulevard / Fox Hills Mall Entrance-Exit Driveway
4. Sepulveda Boulevard / Green Valley Circle
The intersection of Sepulveda Boulevard / SR 90 EB on-ramp will not be affected by this
improvement because this intersection's operations do not involve southbound traffic at all. A
raised median separates the northbound and southbound traffic and as such no conflicting traffic
movements exist at this location. Only northbound right turns are allowed to access the SR 90
eastbound freeway and the improvement consisting of an additional southbound through lane
does not affect the northbound through and northbound right-turning movements at this
intersection.
The traffic conditions at the above four intersections have been assembled, analyzed and
presented in this report for each of the three scenarios listed below:
• Scenario 1: Existing Year 2006 Conditions
• Scenario 2: Future Conditions without Sepulveda improvements
• Scenario 3: Future Conditions with Sepulveda improvements
Existing Year 2006 Conditions
Existing traffic counts were conducted at the analysis locations in September 2006. Figure 3
presents the traffic volumes during A.M. and P.M. peak hours (7 to 9 A.M. and 4 to 6 P.M.),
respectively and for the purposes of this study represent current 2006 traffic conditions. The
roadway intersection geometric assumptions are included in Appendix B. Table 1 presents the
9t- 258(133)
A— 371(284)
160(252)
PLAYA ST
462(608)-±
183(362) —n
14(15)-
JL
18(62) .-±
140(272)-4.
66(113)
SR 90 E8 ON-RAMP|10 10|RAVAssociates, Inc.—
JL
t_ 212(154)
4- 350(250
113(191)
n r
F GURE 3
SLAUSON AV
LEGEND:
XXX(XXX) - AM(PM) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
t428(112)
,r 345(424)
GREEN VALLEY CIR
FOX HILLS MALL DRIVEWAY
44
EXISTING (2006) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMESTABLE
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
No. Intersection
Peak
Hour
Existing (2006)
Conditions
Future Conditions
w/o Improvement
Future Conditions
w/Improvement Change
in V/C V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS
1. Sepulveda Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard/Playa Street AM 0.909 E 1.120 F 0.898 D -0.222
PM 0.806 D 1.179 F 0.953 E -0.226
2. Sepulveda Boulevard & Slauson Avenue AM 0.689 B
,
1.073 F 0.841 D -0.232
PM 0.683 B 1.042 F 0.857 D -0.185
3. Sepulveda Boulevard & Fox Hills Mall Driveway AM 0.552 A 0.684 B 0.618 B -0.066
PM 0.519 A 0.745 C 0.635 B -0.110
4. Sepulveda Boulevard & Green Valley Circle AM 0.690 B 0.679 B 0.670 B -0.009
PM 0.603 B 0.741 C 0.658 B -0.083existing (2006) volume-to-capacity ratios and corresponding levels of service at the various
analyzed intersections. An examination of the current traffic conditions reveals that in the vicinity
of the Project, the southbound direction of travel is the peak flow direction along Sepulveda
Boulevard during the P.M. peak hours.
The capacity calculation worksheets are included in Appendix C.
Future Conditions without Sepulveda Improvements
In order to evaluate the benefits of the proposed improvement, future conditions were compared
both with and without the Sepulveda Boulevard improvements. For the purposes of this analysis,
Raju Associates utilized the approved Village at Playa Vista Project traffic forecasts for conditions
with full build out of the overall Playa Vista project, as well as anticipated growth associated with
numerous projects in the region. This anticipated background growth included all the cumulative
related projects described in the Village at Playa Vista Project Final Environmental Impact Report
and the ambient growth projected in the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan (RIP) model.
•Figure 4 presents the traffic forecasts utilized in the analysis of future conditions without and with
the Sepulveda Boulevard Improvement Project. The traffic forecasts at the Fox Hills Mall driveway
and Sepulveda Boulevard intersection were developed utilizing all the information noted above.
It can be observed from Figures 3 and 4 that the Sepulveda Boulevard travel corridor would
experience a growth in traffic of up to approximately 1000 vehicles during the peak hours at these
intersections. This growth can be attributed to the increased employment and activity projected in
the Airport, Century Boulevard office corridor and the South Bay cities in the regional model.
The projected increases represent a growth of approximately one-lane worth of traffic along
Sepulveda Boulevard in the southbound direction within this stretch compared to existing year
(2006) traffic counts. An arterial roadway has a capacity or throughput of 800 to 900 vehicles per
lane per hour. The projected growth in traffic along Sepulveda Boulevard in the southbound
direction during the peak hours is equivalent to the throughput of one lane of traffic along
Sepulveda Boulevard.
12
4'0'.3
N
ED .— 1'1
LD ":4-. N
3-.7 C'' .7 —;
r ci le)
N - in|109| 1
+I 4 4.
A
_245(244)
4-- 376(446)
ç268(341)
PLAYA ST
465(638)-±
370(549),.
12(32)-
o
cr.--
-to
••—•.__.
to r 0
...r ,- to|1010|+I .1, ,--0.
41 t r.
,_ ... ,,.
r.-) g: ,c. ...1
to ',V!)
- c•I n
co _
.,
t_170(271)
.1-- 325(373)
,r 287(221)
SLAUSON AV
17(102)—t
391 (489)
69(221)-1
•
S.
--
,-
I< to
co .17,
0_40
,N , c ,,,i
4. 1-1.
4-1 T 1---
C:4 4 oi 0
in
17 Z---c'
...t ;-" ,/
c"
...
SR 90 EB ON-RAMP
t_ 27(106)
,,r 213000
FOX HILLS MALL DRIVEWAY
LEGEND:
..,
CO
CD
CO •—•
OCI "i",5
N. tr3
.— CV
1 1_4,|10 10|_.
=
a_
ku
CO
r+
r1120
CO •cl"
01 .—
O.1 rO
;50
10
in
ci
L429(267)
C 173(351)
GREEN VALLEY OIR
I i'
n
‘r to
1— 0.1
c4,0
0.1 CV
NJ
C4
Not to
_411_
scale
XXX{XXX) - AM(13 hi) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 4
RAJUAssociates Inc.
FUTURE CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMESNext, using the existing roadway intersection geometry, operating conditions at these intersections
were determined. Table 1 summarizes the results of this analysis. From Table 1, it can be
observed that the following intersections w/o improvements would be operating at failing levels of
service ('F') for both AM and PM peak periods:
• Sepulveda Boulevard / Jefferson Boulevard-Playa Street
• Sepulveda Boulevard / Slauson Avenue
The other two intersections would decline in operations by one to two levels of service (B/C during
both peak periods). The capacity calculation worksheets are included in Appendix D of this
memorandum.
Future Conditions with Proposed Sepulveda Improvements
Using the traffic volumes forecast for 2010 conditions noted above and the improved roadway
intersection geometry shown in Appendix B, operating conditions were determined at the analysis
locations. The results of this analysis are again presented in Table 1. The capacity calculation
worksheets are attached in Appendix E.
From Table 1, it can be noted that this corridor will operate at a much improved level of service.
The following key observations relative to intersections along this improved corridor can be made:
• The intersection of Jefferson Boulevard / Playa Street at Sepulveda Boulevard would
improve in operation from LOS 'F' in future conditions without improvement project during
both peak hours to LOS D' and `E' during A.M. and P.M. peak hours, respectively, with the
proposed Sepulveda Boulevard corridor improvements.
• The intersection of Slauson Avenue at Sepulveda Boulevard would improve in operation
from LOS 'F' in future conditions without improvement project during both A.M. and P.M.
peak hours to LOS '0" during both peak hours with the proposed Sepulveda Boulevard
improvement project
• The intersections of Sepulveda Boulevard at Fox Hills Mall Driveway and at Green Valley
Circle would improve in operating levels of service from LOS 'C' to LOS 'B' during the P.M.
14peak hour. During the A.M. peak hour, the intersection operations at these locations are
also much improved and they would continue to operate at LOS '13' with the proposed
Sepulveda Boulevard improvement project.
• In summary, all analyzed intersection locations along Sepulveda Boulevard will improve in
operations due to the proposed Sepulveda Boulevard corridor improvements by one to two
levels of service.
In addition to improving the levels of service at these key intersections within Culver City for
automobiles, numerous bus lines that utilize this improved travel corridor would be benefited as
well, including Culver City Bus Line 6 that runs between UCLA and the LAX Transit Center. In
addition, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (METRO) is planning on
implementing the Metro Rapid line along Sepulveda Boulevard between the Green Line Station at
Aviation Boulevard and UCLA Transit Center. Improved conditions at these intersections would
improve the performance of this Metro Rapid line particularly during the peak periods.
Therefore, question two above — "Does implementing the Sepulveda Boulevard roadway
improvements improve traffic within Culver City?" can be answered affirmatively. This
improvement would substantially improve the intersection operations - an improvement of one to
two levels of service at key intersections within this improved stretch of roadway.
Next, the data was reviewed to answer question three — "Does implementation of the Sepulveda
Boulevard improvements provide substantially the same or better mitigation for Culver City as
would have been provided if the Playa Vista Drive Bridge had been completed?"
As discussed previously, the traffic impact assessment prepared by Kaku Associates for Culver
City at the time Culver City and PCC entered into Amendment No. 3 demonstrated that the Playa
Vista Drive Bridge does not affect any intersection within Culver City even with the full build-out of
the Playa Vista First Phase Project. Therefore, based on this Kaku Assessment and the current
analysis, the proposed Sepulveda Boulevard improvements would benefit traffic conditions in
Culver City, and implementation of the improvements would provide better mitigation for Culver
City than if the Playa Vista Drive Bridge had been completed.
15
41CONCLUSIONS
Pursuant to Amendment No. 3, PCC and Culver City staff have proposed that PCC provide
funding in support of the design and development of the Sepulveda Blvd. widening project, as
an alternative improvement to the Playa Vista Drive Bridge. This project is planned to widen
and improve Sepulveda Boulevard to provide three southbound lanes from north of Jefferson
Boulevard/Playa Street intersection to Green Valley Circle intersection. This improvement would
substantially improve the intersection operations - an improvement of one to two levels of service
at key intersections within this improved stretch of roadway is estimated by this analysis.
Consequently, the roadway segment operations along Sepulveda Boulevard would be
dramatically improved due to the proposed improvement. Culver City Bus Line 6 and the future
Metro Rapid Sepulveda Line would also be greatly benefited by the proposed improvement. The
proposed project would be effective in meeting all of its goals as described in the purpose
statement.
In summary, this memorandum reaches the following conclusions:
1. Elimination of the Playa Vista Drive Bridge would have neither a positive nor a negative
effect on transportation conditions at the study intersections within Culver City;
2. Implementing the Sepulveda Boulevard roadway improvements described above would
improve traffic conditions within Culver City; and
3. Implementation of the Sepulveda Boulevard improvements would in fact provide better
mitigation for Culver City than that provided if the Playa Vista Drive Bridge had been completed.
16
APPENDIX A
S 1Senate Bill No, 666
CHAPTER 739
An act to add Section 66412.8 to the Government Code, and to add
Section 21080.29 to the Public Resources Code, relating to the
environment.
[Approved by Governor October 8, 2003. Filed with
Secretary of State October 9, 2003.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 666, Bowen. Environment.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CBQA) requires a lead
agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the
completion of, an environmental impact report (EIR) on a project that
it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on
the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the
project will not have that effect.
This bill would provide that a project located in Los Angeles County
that is approved by a public agency before the effective date of the bill
is not in violation of any requirement of CEQA or the Subdivision Map
Act if certain transportation improvements are not constructed due to the
project owner's or developer's relinquishment of easement rights within
the coastal zone. The bill would require the relinquishment of easement
rights to be in connection with the state acquiring .a wetlands project that
is a minimum of 400 acres in size and located within the coastal zone.
The bill would also provide that an ordinance or regulation adopted
by a charter city or a general law city would not apply to that easement
right if the ordinance or regulation requires construction of certain
transportation improvements or would otherwise require reprocessing or
resubmittal of a permit or approval.
The bill would require the Controller of the State of California to direct
the trustee of a specified trust to convey title of the trust estate to the state
under certain conditions. The bill would provide that this conveyance
supersedes any duty or obligation imposed upon the Controller with
respect to the disposition or application of the net proceeds of the trust
estate.
The bill would declare that it does not violate the requirements of
Section 16 of Article 1V of the California Constitution, in that, due to
the unique requirements of the property acquired by the state pursuant
to the bill, a law of .a general nature cannot be made applicable.
95
6 1Ch. 739 — 2 —
The bill would provide that it would not become operative unless
Assembly Bill 859 is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1,
2004.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 66412.8 is added to the Government Code, to
read:
66412.8. (a) A project located in Los Angeles County that is
approved by a public agency before the effective date of the act adding
this section is not in violation of any requirement of this division by
reason of the failure to construct a roadway across the property
transferred to the state pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 21080.29
of the Public Resources Code and to construct a bridge over the adjacent
Ballona Channel in Los Angeles County, otherwise required as a
condition of approval of a vesting tentative map or a tentative map, if all
of the following conditions apply:
(1) The improvements specified in subdivision (a) are not
constructed, due in whole or in part, to the project owner's or developer's
relinquishment of easement rights to construct the improvements.
(2) The easement rights specified in paragraph (1) are relinquished in
connection with the acquisition by the State of California, acting by and
through the Wildlife Conservation Board of the Department of Fish and
Game, of a wetlands project that is a minimum of 400 acres in size and
located in the coastal zone.
(b) Where the easement rights have been relinquished, any municipal
ordinance or regulation adopted by a charter city or a general law city
shall be inapplicable to the extent that the ordinance or regulation
requires construction of the transportation improvements specified in
subdivision (a), or would otherwise require reprocessing or resubmittal
of a permit or approval, including, but not limited to, a final recorded
map, a vesting tentative map, or a tentative map, as a result of the
transportation improvements specified in subdivision (a) not being
constructed.
SEC. 2. Section 21080.29 is added to the Public Resources Code,
to read:
21080.29. (a) A project located in Los Angeles County that is
approved by a public agency before the effective date of the act adding
this section is not in violation of any requirement of this division by
reason of the failure to construct a roadway across the property
transferred to the state pursuant to subdivision (c) and to construct a
bridge over the adjacent Ballona Channel in Los Angeles County,
95—3— Ch. 739
otherwise required as a mitigation measure pursuant to this division, if
all of the following conditions apply:
(1) The improvements specified in this subdivision are not
constructed, due in whole or in part, to the project owner's or developer's
relinquishment of easement rights to construct those improvements.
(2) The easement rights in paragraph (1) are relinquished in
connection with the State of California, acting by and through the
Wildlife Conservation Board of the Department of Fish and Game,
acquiring a wetlands project that is a minimum of 400 acres in size and
located within the coastal zone.
(b) Where those easement rights have been relinquished, any
municipal ordinance or regulation adopted by a charter city or a general
law city shall be inapplicable to the extent that the ordinance or
regulation requires construction of the transportation improvements
specified in subdivision (a), or would otherwise require reprocessing or
resubmittal of a permit or approval, including, but not limited to, a final
recorded map, a vesting tentative map, or a tentative map, as a result of
the transportation improvements specified in subdivision (a) not being
constructed.
(e) (1) If the Wildlife Conservation Board of the Department of Fish
and Game acquires property within the coastal zone that is a minimum
of 400 acres in size pursuant to a purchase and sale agreement with Playa
Capital Company, LLC, the Controller shall direct the trustee under the
Amendment to Declaration of Trust entered into on or about December
11, 1984, by First Nationwide Saving's, as trustee, Summa Corporation,
as trustor, and the Controller, as beneficiary, known as the HRH
Inheritance Tax Security Trust, to convey tide to the trust estate of the
trust, including real property commonly known as Playa Vista Area C,
to the State of California acting by and through the Wildlife
Conservation Board of the Department of Fish and Game for
conservation, restoration, or recreation purposes only, with the right to
transfer the property for those uses to any other agency of the State of
California.
(2) This subdivision shall constitute the enabling legislation required
by the Amendment to Declaration of Trust to empower the Controller to
direct the trustee to convey title to the trust estate wider the HRH
Inheritance Tax Security Trust to the State of California or an agency
thereof.
(3) The conveyance of the trust estate to the Wildlife Conservation
Board pursmnt to this subdivision shall supersede any duty or obligation
imposed upon the Controller under the Probate Code or the Revenue and
Taxation Code with respect to the disposition or application of the net
proceeds of the trust estate.
95
c4.Ch. 739
— 4 —
SEC. 3. This bill does not violate the requirements of Section 16 of
Article 4 of the California Constitution, in that, due to the unique
requirements of the property acquired by the state pursuant to this act,
a law of a general nature cannot be made applicable. The Legislature
acknowledges that easement rights for the construction of certain
transportation improvements required as a mitigation measure and
condition of approval for an adjacent development project currently
burden the property to which the state will get title, and construction of
those improvements is inconsistent with the state's interest in the
preservation of the property.
SEC. 4. This act shall not become operative unless Assembly Bill
859 is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2004.|10 10|95
sAssembly Bill No. 859
CHAPTER 761
An act relating to wetlands, and making an appropriation therefor.
[Approved by Governor October 10, 2003. Filed
with Secretary of State October 11, 2003.1
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 859, Nakano. Ballona Wetlands.
The Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal
Protection (VilLaraigosa-Keeley Act) Bond Fund allocates
$220,400,000 to the State Coastal Conservancy, including $25,000,000
to acquire, protect, and restore specified wetlands projects.
This bill would reappropriate $25,000,000, appropriated in the
Budget Act of 2000 from that fund to the State Coastal Conservancy for
the 13allona Wetlands, to the State Coastal Conservancy to acquire,
protect, and restore the Ballona Wetlands, as specified.
The bill would provide that it would not become operative unless an
SB 666 is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2004.
Appropriation; yes.
The people of the State of
California
do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The sum of twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000),
appropriated in Item 3760-302-0005 (subparagraph (B) of Schedule 2)
of Section 2_00 of the Budget Act of 2000 (Chapter 52, Statutes of 2000)
from the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal
Protection (Villaraigosa-Keeley Act) Bond Fund (Chapter 1.692
(commencing with Section 5096300) of Division 5 of the Public
Resources Code) to the State Coastal Conservancy for the Ballona
Wetlands, is hereby reappropriated to the State Coastal Conservancy to
acquire, protect, and restore the Balk= Wetlands in accordance with
subdivision (t) of Section 5096.352 of the Public Resources Code.
SEC. 2. This act shall not become operative unless Senate Bill 666
is enacted and takes effect on or before January 1, 2004.|10 10|92APPENDIX B1 N/S: SEPULVEDA BL
EAN: JEFFERSON BL/PLAYA ST
))HL|109| N/S: SEPULVEDA BL
EAN: FOX HILL MALL DVVY|109| N/S: SEPULVEDA BL
EM: GREEN VALLEY CIRCLE
ATTACHMENT B
RAJU ASSOCIATES, f/VC.
INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS
INT STREET
EXISTING 2006
FUTURE 2010 FUTUTRE 2010 UV/IMPROVEMENT
— A ATSAC .d.S— _A ATSAC 4.1.- —...( ATSAC +1.—
—e. +.-- —A —A •o-
-1. 4— — •O • ,•••n••.i. 4-
-± Ar- -V- A-
d-|109| N/S: SEPULVEDA BL
EAN: SLAUSON AV ai icc 41"' 411cc
ATSAC ATSAC
.4 ••••
h.••n•
'mm.%1
ATSAC
ATSAC ATSAC ATSAC
11" 111cc
ATSAC ATSAC
III( )III(APPENDIX C
G1W/E:
PLAYA ST/JEFFERSON BLVD
1/S No:
99252
Comments: 'EXISTING (2006) CONDITIONS
STUDY DATE:
GROWTH FACTOR:
N/S:
AM/PM:
COUNT DATE:
SEPULVEDA BLVD
2164 53 228 37 939 1 631
Phasing RTOR RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
KinP •ri-mni nun c Sr)! rrH7 klUD
Phasing
Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto SIGNAL
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
53 2164 228 37
258 371 258
LT TH RT
462 183 14
462 183 14
ri>0'|109| 0 1
Lo
1 0 0
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT 1
TOTAL
939 1 631 258 371 I 258
rvv
4it 1 p Pb
0 1 2 I 0 I 1 1 0 FIT LANE W 012 01110 0
110
0 I 0 1 2 I 0 2 2
2006AM
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:44:22 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound V/C RATIO LOS
A: 470
37
EastBound WestBound
A: 99 A: 258
0.00 - 0.60 A
B: 254 142
0.61 - 0.70
NorthBound
0.71 - 0.80
A: 797
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume 53
0.81 - 0.90
* = ATSAC Benefit
0.91 - 1.00
Results
= 0.909
North/South Critical Movements =
West/East Critical Movements =
797 +
V/C -
A(NIB) B(SIB)
A(W/B) B(E/B)
37 + 258 + 254
"1375
LOS = E
62
DevelopedbyaluriWorig.1 21g4Comments:
EXISTING (2006) CONDITIONS
W/E:
SLAUSON AVE
1/S No:
99268 N/S:
AM/PM: !a
COUNT DATE:
SEPULVEDA BLVD
STUDY DATE: GROWTH FACTOR:
TH LT
903 143
TH LT TH LT RT
34
RT
113 350 H 212
RT
• LI fel In WFSTRni min MEMff±;.-rulas11019/11.
18
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
1; n;1 ;11
LT TH RT
278 I 2247 67
TOTAL
278 2247 143 903 1 34 113 350 212 18 140 66 67
rvv , g, ,% roATI) e
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
NnRTHRCIIIND 4 0... -rtramoteMI L, FARTRMIND
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TOTAL
LANE
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH
0 2621 6 15 1015 1 3 0 2
2621 6 15 1015 1 3 2
GV) Ai rr> 41 vhr) e
0 I 0101010 0
Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing
SIGNAL Perm Auto Prot-Fix Split Auto
RT
01 0
2006AM
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:44:22 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound
A: 508
V/C RATIO
— EastBound WestBound
A: A:
0.00 - 0.60
B: B: 3
0.61 -0.70
NorthBound
0.71 -0.80
A: 876
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume
0.81 -0.90
B: 0
*= ATSAC Benefit
0.91 - 1.00
Results
LOS
A
North/South Critical Movements = A(NIB) + B(SIB)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) + A(E/B)
V/C
876 + 8 + 3 + 0
= 0.552
LOS= A
*1425
( 40 veloped by Chun Wang, 12/94N/S:
AM/PM: gm
COUNT DATE:
Comments: EXISTING (2006) CONDITIONS
GROWTH FACTOR:
STUDY DATE:
SEPULVEDA BLVD
W/E:
GREEN VALLEY CIRCLE
US No:
99228
354 0 428 0 0 0
1 0 0
RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
[ ;1i I I
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TOTAL
LANE
SIGNAL
LT TH RT IT TH RT
0 2225 154 146 919 I 0
0 2225 154 146 919 I 0
41+ 4-r)>
2 0 2000 0
Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR
Perm Auto Prot-Fix
LT TH RI LT TH RT
354 0 1 428 0
„P' 0> ri)
LZIU [ 01III
[0]|10 10|Split Auto
2006AM
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:44:22 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound
V/C RATIO LOS
A: 460
B: 80
EastBound WestBound
A: A: 221
0.00 - 0.60 A
B: 0 B: 261
0.61 - 0.70
North Bound
0.71 - 0.80
A: 742
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume
0.81 - 0.90
B: 0
= ATSAC Benefit
0.91 -1.00
Results
North/South Critical Movements = A(N/B) + B(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) + A(EIB)
742 + 80 + 261 + 0
Vie =
*1425
0.690 LOS = B
Developed by Chun Wong. 12/94
(05SEPULVEDA BLVD
N/S:
AM/PM: la
COUNT DATE: GROWTH FACTOR:
STUDY DATE:
PLAYA ST/JEFFERSON BLVD
I/5 No:
99252
Comments: ,EXISTING (2006) CONDITIONS
608 362 15
RTOR Phasing RTOR RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing Phasing
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
Prot-Var Auto P rot-Va r Auto Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto SIGNAL
LT TH RT
1=
LT TH RT
WFRTFOIlinn|1010|LT T11 RT
72 1626 218 106 1319 I 443 262 U 284 I 133
72 1626 218 106 1319 I 443 262 284 133
LANE|1010
10|EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TOTAL
1--;;; 11
LT TH RT
v?, ,gi ri>40
11011 it,v it z?, ,gi• (4P fl
1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1
1 1010
608
WestBound
A:
B:
139
144
106
[
EastBound
A: B
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume
*= ATSAC Benefit
189
334
SouthBound
A: 660
NorthBound
A: 615
72 B:
2006PM
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:44:56 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Critical Movements Diagram
WC RATIO LOS
0.00 -0.60 A
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 - 1.00
Results North/South Critical Movements = B(NIB) + A(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = A(W/B) + B(E/B)
72 + 660 + 139 + 334
V/C =
*1375
0.806
LOS= D
6 :0 De pad by Chun Wong, 12/94W/E:
SLAUSON AVE
1/3 No:
99268
Comments: EXISTING (2006) CONDITIONS
N/S:
AM/PM: Lia
COUNT DATE:
SEPULVEDA BLVD
STUDY DATE:
GROWTH FACTOR:
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
MIL tstrannumbi SCHITHRCIFINn WFSTRIIIINn FA STFICI1
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TOTAL
LANE
Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR
Prot-Fix Auto Prot-Fix Auto Prot-Fix Auto Prot-Fix Auto
SIGNAL
RTOR Phasing
RT LT TH TH LT RT TH RT
1370 [
LT TH LT RT
113 272 269 97 1639 185 15 191 280 164 62
15 191 280 164 62
fro e g rk
2 210 110
1370 1
113 272
185 269 97 1639
rH-r
op:Ai o 2
102 + 693 + 105 + 136
= 0.683
LOS = B
V/C =
*1375
2006PM
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:44:56 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound
A: 693
B: 148
V/C RATIO LOS EastBound WestBound
A: 136 A: 140
0.00 - 0.60 A
B: 62 B: 105
0.61 - 0.70
—NorthBound
0.71 - 0.80
A: 579
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume
0.81 - 0.90
B: I 102
*= ATSAC Benefit
0.91 - 1.00
Results
North/South Critical Movements = B(N/B) + A(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) + A(E/B)
L?Hg, rl>
Developed by Chun Wang, 12/94
(950 70 81 0
0 0 76 70 0 73 1833|10 10 10|1833 1 73
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TOTAL
0 I 76 15381 0
15381 0
2006P1VI
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:44:56 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
N/S:
SEPULVEDA BLVD
W/E:
FOX HILLS MALL DWY
1/S No:
AM/PM: Go Comments: [EXISTING (2006) CONDITIONS
COUNT DATE:
STUDY DATE:
GROWTH FACTOR:
"-= Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
MIL ralagglasiihnolilli 1111111kTelke I ail la 1D INFSTROHND Lk
FASTRNINn
LT
TH
RT
IT
TH
RT
LT
TH
RI
LT
TH
RT
rt' ro rt' rov ri> 4T+
LANE 1 1 ) 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0
210
1 0 Trti- 1 0 1 0 1 0
Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR
SIGNAL Perm Auto Prot-Fix Split Auto
Critical Movements Diagram
A = Adjusted Through/Right
B = Adjusted Left Volume
* = ATSAC Benefit
—SouthBound
—WestBound
V/C RATIO LOS
A: 769
45
EastBound
A: A: 54
0.00 -0.60
0.61 -0.70
0.71 - 0,80
0.81-0.90
0.91-1.00
A
0 B: 70
Volume
NorthBound
A: 635
B: 0|1010|Results
North/South Critical Movements = B(NIB) + A(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) + A(E/B)|10 9| 769 + 70 + 0
V/C -
*1425
- 0.519 LOS= A
Developed by Chun Wong. 12194W/E:
GREEN VALLEY CIRCLE
US No:
99228
Comments:
EXISTING (2006) CONDITIONS
STUDY DATE:
GROWTH FACTOR:
N/S:
AM/PM: La
COUNT DATE:
SEPULVEDA BLVD
TH LT
424
RT
1 112
RT LT TH RT
TOTAL
0 1779 230 133 1451i 0 424 0 112 0 0 0
0 0
p ii)4F1) pi, gi 41 ei, gI 11)i-ro c, GT
oft 3 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
RTOR Phasing RTOR RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing Phasing
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
Perm Auto Prot-Fix Split
SIGNAL
Auto
AUIRTHRCH min 1/4 1111111111L-m1nnizre1Ii,
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
LT TH
0 { 1779 1451 0
LT TN RT
0 133 230
LANE|10 9| + 726 + 233 + 0
= 0.603 LOS = B
Vie -
2006PM
CalcaDB
September 26, 2006 ,Monday 05:44:56 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound A: 726
73
V/C RATIO LOS
EastBound — WestBound
A: A: 75
0.00 - 0.60 A
0 233
0.61 - 0.70
—NorthBound
0.71 - 0.80
A: 593
A Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume
0.81 - 0.90
*= ATSAC Benefit
0.91 - 1.00
Results
North/South Critical Movements = B(NIB) + A(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) + A(E/B)
*1425
Developed by Chun Wong. 12/94
(01APPENDIX D
(0 sDeveloped by Chun Wong, 12/94
20AMPROJ
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:46:15 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
N/S:
SEPULVEDA BL
WIE:
PLAYA ST/JEFFERSON BL
I/S No:
99252
AM/PM: El Comments:
FUTURE 2010 CONDITIONS
COUNT DATE:
STUDY DATE:
GROWTH FACTOR:
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
MMIN,Irczilg:i:reop io111111
LT
TH
RT
MMisl elgs111 n 11
TH
RI
lAmsTRnimin
LT
TH
RT LT
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
138 1624 352 63 1994 1 773 268 1 376 1 245 465 370 I 12
TOTAL 53
1994 1 773 138 1624 352 268 376 245 465 370 12
4)egi ro(-0 viri> (hez,I,L1-0
LANE 1 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0|1010|1 0 210 oil
0 2 0 2 012 0 2 0
SIGNAL
RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR RTOR
Auto
Phasing
Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto
Phasing
Prot-Var
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound
A: .997::
B:
53
V/C RATIO
EastBound WestBound
A: 191 A: 245
0.00 - 0.60
B: 256 B: 147
0.61 - 0.70
NorthBound
A: 659
0.71-0.80
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume B:
0.81 - 0.90
138
*= ATSAC Benefit
0.91 - 1.00
Results
North/South Critical Movements = B(N/13) + A(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = A(W/B) + B(E/B)
LOS
A
V/C =
138 + 997 + 245 + 256 - 1.120
LOS = F
*1375W/E:
SLAUSON AV
US No:
99268
Comments:
FUTURE 2010 CONDITIONS
STUDY DATE:
GROWTH FACTOR:
SEPULVEDA BL
AM/PM: mi
COUNT DATE:
LANE 2 010
RTOR Phasing RTOR RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing Phasing
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
o ri (rv Split Auto
RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR
SIGNAL
20AMPROJ
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:46:15 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
N/S:
SEPULVEDA BLVD
W/E:
FOX HILLS MALL DWY
US No:
COUNT DATE:
STUDY DATE:
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound V/C RATIO LOS
A: 1046 I
47
EastBound —WestBound
A: 0 A: 4
0.00 - 0.60 A
B: 0 B: 28
0.61 -0.70
NorthBound
0.71 -
A: 875
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume 0
0.81 - 0.90
*= ATSAC Benefit
0.91 -1.00
Results
North/South Critical Movements = B(NIB) + A(SIB)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) + A(E/B)|10 9| + 1046 + 28 +
V/C –
*1425
– 0.684 LOS = B
Developed by Clun Wong, 12194N/S:
SEPULVEDA BL
W/E:
GREEN VALLEY CIR
US No:
99228
AM AM/PM: Comments: FUTURE 2010 CONDITIONS
GROWTH FACTOR:
STUDY DATE:
COUNT DATE:
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
1;;;;;
MEL-To111 II 1;16111 MIME WFSTRCM min FASTROI min
LT TH RT LT TH RI LT TH RT
1788 1 0 255
Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR
Split Auto Prot-Fix
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TOTAL
LANE
IT TH RT
0 2222 205
2222 205
fl> 4rt )
Phasing RTOR
SIGNAL Perm Auto
'11 I Ai rport' e z? g ,4 (11V pg24,|1010|1 0 1010
173 429
1788 1 0 173 I 0 I 429 0 255
1 1 1 1 o
Dli ii
Phasing RTOR
Quo
Critical Movements Diagram
A = Adjusted Through/Right
B = Adjusted Left Volume
*= ATSAC Benefit
—SouthBound
V/C RATIO LOS
A: 894
140
—EastBound WestBound
A: A: 166
0.00 -0.60
0.61 - 070
0.71 - 0,80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 - 1.00
A
B: 173
Volume
NorthBound
A: 741
B:
Results
North/South Critical Movements = B(N/B) A(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) A(E/B)
894 + 173 + 0
V/C -
- 0.679
LOS= B
*1425
20AMPROJ
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:46:15 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Devel oped by Chun Wong 12/94September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:46:35 PM.
CalcaDB
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
,
_
PLAYA ST/JEFFERSON BL SEPULVEDA BL 99252 N/S: AM/PM:
COUNT DATE:
W/E:
l/S No:
Comments:
FUTURE 2010 CONDITIONS
GROWTH FACTOR:
STUDY DATE:
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
1 =2=i;;:a
1111111. -fmnr.1:4111 111111. 11111zrs1zarmat1w1billill
LT TH RT LT
EXISTING 133
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TH LT TH RT
446 1 244
LT TH RT
1978 1 664
RT
324 549 I 32 638 1742 123 341
1978 1 664
TOTAL
133 649 32 1742 324 123 341 446 244 638
r1 ) ti, gi rvv, pz?. ,g z4, ri)
1 1 1 1 0
210
0
210
o 1 1 1 o 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 LANE 2
Phasing RTOR RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing
I Auto I Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var SIGNAL Auto
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound
A: 989
123
EastBound
A:
WestBound
A:
B:
V/C RATIO LOS
0.00 - 0.60 A
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
291 244
351 B: 188
NorthBound
A: 689
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume
* = ATSAC Benefit
133
Results
North/South Critical Movements = B(N/B) + A(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = A(W/B) + B(E/B)
133 + 989 + 244 + 351
= 1.179 LOS= F
V/C
*1375
Developed by Chun Wong, 12194W/E:
SLAUSON AV
US No:
99268
Comments:
FUTURE 2010 CONDITIONS
N/S:
AM/PM: Ea
COUNT DATE:
SEPULVEDA BL
GROWTH FACTOR:
STUDY DATE:
LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TI-I RT
1 67 221
N
373 1 271 102 489 I 221
102 489 221
RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
SIIIITHF101 INTI Lk WFRTROI imn 1,‘
FSTRflh INfl
Phasing
Prot-Var Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto
SIGNAL Auto
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TOTAL
322 1899 56 463 1903
322 1899 66 463 1903 1 67 221 271 373
GI rvv 4itz?Hv% GO)1i
0 20 01
LANE
rju
2 1 0 1 110 0
2OPMPROJ
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:46:35 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound A: 985 I
255
V/C RATIO LOS
— EastBound WestBound
A: 245 A: 187
0.00 - 0.60 A
102 B: 122
0.61 -0.70
NorthBound
0.71 -0.80
A: 652
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume B: 177
0.81 -0.90
*= ATSAC Benefit
0.91 -1.00
Results
North/South Critical Movements = B(NIB) A(SIB)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) A(E/B)
177 + 985 + 122 + 245
V/C =
= 1.042
LOS= F
*1375|1010|De eloped by Chun vvong, 12/94W/E:
FOX HILLS MALL DWY
Comments:
FUTURE 2010 CONDITIONS
N/S:
AM/PM: Lia
COUNT DATE:
SEPULVEDA BLVD
STUDY DATE:
GROWTH FACTOR:
US No:
TH RT
01 0
LT
2263 148
LT TH RT LT TH RI LT TN RT
181 21101 0 100 0 106
TOTAL
0 2263 148 181 2110 100 106
2 010 0
Giv?, gi0. 40 4-1° 4146,giro(v
öo ThiroloT
RTOR Phasing RTOR RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing Phasing
= Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
naa--ii:remi, IA=
Perm Auto Prot-Fix Split r SIGNAL
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
LANE
1055
100
—SouthBound
A:
B:
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume
*= ATSAC Benefit
EastBound
A:
0 100
WestBound
A: 106
20PMPROJ
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:46:35 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Critical Movements Diagram
Results
V/C RATIO LOS
0.00 - 0.60 A
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 - 1.00
North/South Critical Movements = B(NIB) + A(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = A(W/B) + A(E/B)
V/C
0 1055 + 106 + = 0.745
LOS= C
*1425
DevekTed y ChL.41 Wong, 12/94Comments:
FUTURE 2010 CONDITIONS
W/E:
GREEN VALLEY CIR
l/S No:
99228 N/S:
AM/PM: icia
COUNT DATE:
SEPULVEDA BL
STUDY DATE: GROWTH FACTOR:
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TOTAL
WFSTROI min
LT TH RT LT
351 0 T 267 0
351 0 267 0 0 0
LT TH RT IT TH RT
snlITHRCH INF)
2144 253 211 1898 1 0
2144 253 211 1898 1 0 0
= Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
(1 p g r=" 1-ro p g ri> 41 p g rv e rP fr').
Phasing
Perm Auto Prot-Fix Split Auto
RTOR Phasing RTOR
Phasing RTOR
Phasing RTOR
SIGNAL
LANE 01013101011
lojolo
lo l l
1 0 0 0 0 010 010
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound V/C RATIO LOS
A: 949
116
EastBound WestBound
A: A: 148
0.00 - 0.60 A
B: 0 B: 206
0.61 -0.70
NorthBound
A: 715
0.71 - 0.80
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume B: 0
0.81 - 0.90
*= ATSAC Benefit
0.91 -1.00
Results
North/South Critical Movements = B(N/B) + A(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) A(E/B)|10 9| 949 + 206 + 0
V/C
- 0.741
LOS = C
*1425
20PMPROJ
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:46:35 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Developed by Chun Wang. 12/-94APPENDIX E
17138 1624 352
LT TH RT LT TH RT
53 1994 1 773 465
LT TH RT
370 12
138 1624 352 53 1994 773 268 376 245 465 370 12
0 0
g r"r'°|1010|10
1
01
20AMIMP
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:47:07 PM
Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR
Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto
SIGNAL
Critical Movements Diagram
1: NflPTHIO1JNfl|1010|WFSTFIn I IND
LANE
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TOTAL
TH RT
376 245
11
rf) Gr < 1 v?, rl-rt' egz4,
011
21011 1 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0|10 10|UM=
LT
268
—SouthBound
A: 692
B: 53
B: 256
EastBound
A:
A(S/B)
B(E/B)
138 + 692 + 246 + 266
V/C RATIO LOS
WestBound
A: 245
0.00 - 0.60 A
B: 147 j
0.61 -0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00 0
A: 659
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume B: 138
*= ATSAC Benefit
Results
North/South Critical Movements = B(NIB) +
West/East Critical Movements = A(W/B) +
191
- 0.898 LOS = D
V/CSEPULVEDA BL
W/E:
SLAUSON AV
US No:
99268
STUDY DATE:
LT
471
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TOTAL
471
2 0
pgi it) 4rv rvv ri> tri) ri>
2
11=11113
2 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 0
110
_itL )
Phasing RTOR RTOR Phasing RTOR
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
LANE
Prot-Var Auto
Phasing
Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto
Phasing RTOR
SIGNAL
TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT
FASTRCHINII
LT TH RT
1921 99 310 1873 44 287 325 I 170 17 391 69
1921 99 310 1873 I 44 287 325 170 17 391 69
259 + 639 + 158 + 196
=. 0.841 LOS = D
V/C
20AMIMP
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:47:07 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
N/S:
AM/PM: Lui
COUNT DATE:
Comments: FUTURE 2010 W/IMPROVEMENT
GROWTH FACTOR:
— Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound A: 639
171
V/C RATIO LOS
— EastBound r—WestBound
A: 196 A: 163
0.00 - 0.60 A
B: 17 .B: 158
0.61 - 0.70
NorthBound
0.71 - 0.80 C
A: 673
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume
0.81 - 0.90
B: 259
*= ATSAC Benefit
0.91 - 1.00
Results
North/South Critical Movements = B(NIB) + A(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) + A(E/B)
*1375
Developed by Chun Wong, 12/94W/E:
FOX HILLS MALL DWY
Comments:
FUTURE 2010 W/IMPROVEMENT
N/S:
AM/PM: ra
COUNT DATE:
SEPULVEDA BLVD
STUDY DATE:
GROWTH FACTOR:
I/S No:
0 0 0|10 10|= Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
ov pi, ,g, z4 (ft ft rv,hv
Phasing
RTOR Phasing
RTOR Phasing RTOR
Phasing
RTOR
Perm Auto Prot-Fix Split Auto SIGNAL
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TOTAL
MIN 1•11:411. raellIVI ANN
LT
TH
RT|10 10| 2659 56
WFSTIRrIl
85
20921
RT LT TH RT
0 28 0 27
0 28 0 27 0
2669
56
85 2092 1
1 00 013001010
1
010101011 |10 9| [000000 2 LANE 0
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound A: 697
47
V/C RATIO LOS
EastBound WestBound
A: A: 4
0.00 -0.60 A
28
0.61 - 0.70 B
NorthBound
0.71 - 0.80
A: 905
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume B: 0
0.81 -0.90
*= ATSAC Benefit
0_91 -1.00
Results
North/South Critical Movements = A(N/B) B(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) NEB)
905 ÷ 47 + 28 A- 0
V/C -
*1425
- 0.618 LOS = B
20AMIMP
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:47:07 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Developed by Chun Wong, 12194
SEXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TH RT
17881 0
LT
TH
RT
173 0 429
LT TH
RT |10 10| v 0
LT
TH
RT
LT
2222 205
255
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:47:07 PM
20AMIMP
CalcaDB
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
N/S:
SEPULVEDA BL
W/E:
GREEN VALLEY CR
I/S No:
99228
AM/PM: LILI Comments:
FUTURE 2010 W/IMPROVEMENT
COUNT DATE:
STUDY DATE:
GROWTH FACTOR:
— Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
NflPTHRC)IJN fl n 1:rel wFsrPipt
4
FA TRCII IMD
TOTAL
2222 205 255 17881 0 173 429
ANE
rt"P fi, girt"1-rP ri'40) f1P—I'girtATi)
2 0
3100
0 1 0 1 000
OUI
0 ROJO 0
0 1 0 1 3
IT) 11— )
Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR
SIGNAL Perm Auto Prot-Fix Split Auto
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound
A:
140
596
—NorthBound
A:|10 10|741
EastBound
A:|10 10|A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume
*= ATSAC Benefit
WestBound
A: 166
B: 173
V/C RATIO LOS
0.00 - 0.60 A
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 - 1.00
Results
North/South Critical Movements = A(N/B) + B(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) + A(E/B)
741 -+ 140 + 173 + 0
= 0.670 LOS B
*1425
V/C -
Developed by Chun Wong. 12/94Comments: FUTURE 2010 W/IMPROVEMENT
1/3 No:
99252
SEPULVEDA BL
N/S:
AM/PM: Lui
COUNT DATE: GROWTH FACTOR:
STUDY DATE:
PLAYA ST/JEFFERSON BL
LT TH RT
341 446
RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR RTOR Phasing Phasing
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
LANE
(0g.i VIT
DcI it' (11
2 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1
6 WFSTRCN
244 638 649 32
244 638 549 32
ri) 1-0
010
o
Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto
SIGNAL
IIMO1V1:4121:1611101•111111111 NlITHRn1 INn
LT TH FIT LT TH RT
133 1742 324 123 1978 I 664
133 1742 324 123 1978 I 664
341 1 446 1
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TOTAL
661
—SouthBound
A:
B: 123
B: 351
Critical Movements Diagram
FAB::
WestBound
244
188
A: 689
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume B: 133
* = ATSAC Benefit
Results
North/South Critical Movements = A(NIB) + B(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = A(W/B) + B(E/B)
V/C RATIO LOS
0.00 - 0.60 A
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 - 0.80
0.81 -0.90
0.91 -1.00
0.953 V/C -
689 + 123 + 244 + 351
*1375
LOS = E
EastBound
A: 291
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
20PMIMP
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:47:31 PM
Developed by Chun Wong, 12/94373 221 322 1899
56
463 1903 1 67
I-
FASTRflIIM fl
rin ;-1111
HT LT TH RT
271 102 489 221
271 102 489 221
TOTAL
E;;;I k
LT TH RT
322 1899 56
/1111:1•111121a6111).10111=
TH RT
1903 1 67 j
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
LT
463
LT TH
221 373 1
1E1
0 LANE 0 2
—SouthBound
A: 657
B:
102
EastBound
A: 245
20PIVIIMP
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:47:31 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
N/S:
SEPULVEDA BL
W/E:
SLAUSON AV
WS No:
99268
AM/PM: cia Comments:
FUTURE 2010 WIIMPROVEMENT
COUNT DATE:
STUDY DATE:
GROWTH FACTOR:
— Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
41, gir1)40)fh girP. v fi, giro q 41(gir)v
Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing
RTOR Phasing RTOR
SIGNAL Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto Prot-Var Auto
Critical Movements Diagram
B:
255
—NorthBound
A: 652
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume
*= ATSAC Benefit
Results
V/C RATIO LOS
0.00 - 0.60 A
0.61 - 0.70
0.71 -0.80
0.81 - 0.90
0.91 -1.00
B:
177
WestBound
A: 187
B: 122
North/South Critical Movements = A(NIB) + B(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) + A(E/B)
652 + 255 ÷ 122 + 245
V/C
*1375
= 0.857 LOS = D
83
Developed by Chun Wong, 12/94N/S:
AM/PM: la
COUNT DATE:
Comments: FUTURE 2010 W/IMPROVEMENT
GROWTH FACTOR:
STUDY DATE:
SEPULVEDA BLVD
W/E:
FOX HILLS MALL DWY
US No:
TOTAL 0 2263 148 181 2110 0 100 0 106
srmviRotinin L WFSTRCII
RT TH LT LT TH RT IT
100 2110 148 2263 0 181
TH RT
0 1 106 EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
Giv?Hgi 40> t ri"ko <14.1,Hairt+r0
LANE 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 01 0 2
oUo |10 9| 1101010101110
LT TH RT
0 0
0 0|10 10|010 00 0 0 0
Phasing
Perm Auto Prot-Fix Split Auto
RTOR Phasing
RTOR Phasing RTOR
Phasing RTOR
SIGNAL
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound
V/C RATIO LOS
A: 703
100
EastBound WestBound
A: A: 56
0,00 - 0.60 A
0 B: 100 •
0.61 -0.70
NorthBound
0.71 0.80
A: 804
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume
0.81 - 0.90
B: 0
* = ATSAC Benefit
0.91 - 1.00
Results
North/South Critical Movements = A(NIB) B(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) + A(E/B)
804 + 100 + 100 + 0
V/C -
*1425
= 0.635 LOS = B
20PMIIVIP
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:47:31 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Developed by Chun Wong, 12/94
94W/E:
GREEN VALLEY CIR
I/S No:
99228
Comments: FUTURE 2010 W/IIVIPROVEMENT
STUDY DATE:
GROWTH FACTOR:
N/S:
AM/PM:
COUNT DATE:
SEPULVEDA BL
TH LT RI|10 10|Volume/Lane/Signal Configurations
wFsTrini FASTROHNn
41*1, ,g frt' 41 pi‘gi 41P pl, gi i* V ft 4 6,, i, g 4k 0> V
LANE
2 0131010 0 0
0 0 010 0 0
Phasing RTOR Phasing RTOR Phasing
RTOR Phasing
RTOR
Perm Auto Prot-Fix Split Auto SIGNAL
EXISTING
AMBIENT
RELATED
PROJECT
TOTAL
LT TH RT LT TH RT |10 9| 2144 253 211 1898 I 0
TH RT
0 I 267
LT
351|1010 10| 2144 253
211 18981 0
351
0
267
0
0
0
20PMIMP
CalcaDB
September 25, 2006 ,Monday 05:47:31 PM
INTERSECTION DATA SUMMARY SHEET
Critical Movements Diagram
—SouthBound
A: 633
B: 116:
V/C RATIO LOS
EastBound —WestBound
A: A: 148
0.00 - 0.60 A
0 206
0.61 -0.70
NorthBound
0.71 - 0.80
A: 715
A = Adjusted Through/Right Volume
B = Adjusted Left Volume
0.81 - 0.90
B: 0
* = ATSAC Benefit
0.91 - 1.00
Results
North/South Critical Movements = A(N/B) + B(S/B)
West/East Critical Movements = B(W/B) + A(E/B)
V/C -
715 + 116 + 206 + 0
= 0.658
LOS = B
*1425
Developed by Chun Wong, 12194
85