Legislation Details

File #: HIST-10142    Version: 1 Subject:
Type: Historical Status: Public Hearing
In control: City Council Meeting Agenda
On agenda: 12/15/2008 Final action: 12/15/2008
Title: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hearing for Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Site Plan Review, SPRP-2007183, and the CEQA Negative Declaration Finding; 2) City Council Approval of Height Exception, HTEX P-2008111, and Tentative Tract Map No. 69769,TTM P-2007184; and 3) Redevelopment Agency Consideration of Approval of a Design for Development (DFD) and Conformity with the Redevelopment Plan for Component Area Number 3.
Attachments: 1. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hear - JPH-1__08_12_15 Hayden Place 8665 CC Meeting Staff Report Draft - FINAL.doc, 2. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hear - Item - JPH-1 8665 Hayden Part 1.pdf, 3. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hear - Item - JPH-1 8665 Hayden Part 2.pdf, 4. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hear - Item - JPH-1 8665 Hayden Part 3.pdf, 5. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hear - Item - JPH-1 8665 Hayden Part 4.pdf, 6. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hear - Item - JPH-1 8665 Hayden Part 5.pdf, 7. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hear - Item - JPH-1 8665 Hayden Part 6.pdf, 8. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hear - Item - JPH-1 8665 Hayden Part 7.pdf, 9. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hear - Item - JPH-1 8665 Hayden Part 8.pdf, 10. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hear - Item - JPH-1 8665 Hayden Part 9.pdf, 11. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hear - Item - JPH-1 8665 Hayden Part 10.pdf
City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-1 RECOMMENDATION: For the City Council: Staff recommends the City Council consider the appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of Site Plan Review, SPR PL-2007183, and of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Negative Declaration and: A. Deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Site Plan Review and direct staff to return to the City Council with the appropriate resolution adopting the CEQA Negative Declaration and outlining the findings for approval of the Site Plan Review, Height Exception and Tentative Tract Map; OR B. Grant the Appeal in part but modify the Planning Commission’s approval of the Site Plan Review and direct staff to return to the City Council with the appropriate resolution adopting the CEQA Negative Declaration and outlining the findings for modifying the Site Plan Review and approval of the Height Exception and the Tentative Tract Map; OR Meeting Date: 12/15/08 Item Number: JPH-1 AGENDA ITEM: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hearing for Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of Site Plan Review, SPRP-2007183, and the CEQA Negative Declaration Finding; 2) City Council Approval of Height Exception, HTEX P-2008111, and Tentative Tract Map No. 69769,TTM P-2007184; and 3) Redevelopment Agency Consideration of Approval of a Design for Development (DFD) and Conformity with the Redevelopment Plan for Component Area Number 3. Contact Person/Dept.: Joseph Montoya/ CDD Planning John Fisanotti/CDD Redevelopment Phone Number: (310) 253-5736 (310) 253-5767 Fiscal Impact: Yes [X] No [ ] General Fund: Yes [X] No [ ] Public Hearing: [X] Action Item: [ ] Attachments: [X] Public Notification: Mailed notices (11/20/08) to various public agencies and Culver City residents and interested parties (11/20/08); Site posted (11/24/08); e-mailed to interested parties (11/20/08); Master E-Mail Notification List (11/20/08 and 12/10/08). Department Approval: Sol Blumenfeld, Director (12/XX/08) City Attorney Approval: Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (12/10/08) Chief Financial Officer Approval: Jeff Muir (by N. Kimball) City Manager Approval: Jerry B. Fulwood (12/10/08) City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-2 C. Grant the Appeal in its entirety and overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the Site Plan Review and direct staff to return to the City Council with the appropriate resolution outlining the findings for denying the Site Plan Review and take no action on the Height Exception or the Tentative Tract Map. For the Redevelopment Agency: If the City Council denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project (or takes action to approve a modified Project), then Staff recommends the Redevelopment Agency approve the Design for Development (DFD) for the Project and determine that the project is consistent with the Redevelopment Plan for Component Area No. 3. If the City Council upholds the appeal, then staff recommends the Agency take no action on this item. PROCEDURE: 1. Mayor requests a joint motion from both the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency to receive and file the affidavit of publication of notice and all correspondence received in response to the public hearing notices. 2. Mayor calls for a staff report. 3. Mayor seeks a motion to open the joint public hearing, providing the applicant the first opportunity to speak, followed by the appellants and then the general public. 4. Mayor seeks motion to close the joint public hearing after all testimony has been presented. 5. City Council discusses the matter and arrives at its decision. 6. Redevelopment Agency discusses the matter and arrives at its decision (if necessary). BACKGROUND: On October 22, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the development proposal filed by Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green LLC (the “Applicant”) requesting approval to construct a new terraced split-level 4 – 5 story condominium office building measuring 62,765 gross square feet (GSF) ranging in height between 30’-6” and 61’-9” and with 181 parking spaces [including 36 spaces City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-3 in tandem form] and with related setbacks and onsite/offsite improvements. To accomplish this request, a Site plan Review (SPR) is required to construct the project; a Height Exception (HTEX) is required to exceed the 43 foot building height limit in the IG Zone; an Administrative Use permit (AUP) is required for the tandem parking and a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) is required to subdivide the site for office condominium airspace units. Attachment Numbers 1-A through 1-R contain the October 22, 2008 Planning Commission staff report with all attachments, including the Negative Declaration and Initial Study (the “Planning Commission Report”). The Planning Commission Report describes the Project in detail including analysis on the site plan, architectural design, building height, setbacks, parking, traffic and circulation, landscaping, noise, construction and area compatibility. Also attached is the Applicant’s project summary (Attachment No. 1-K), Height Exception Criteria Summary (Attachment No. 1-I), as well as a petition filed by individuals in opposition to the project (Attachment No. 1-K) and the Applicant’s response to the petition statements (Attachment No. 1- P). Lastly, letters submitted both in support of and in opposition to the project as presented to the Planning Commission are attached (Attachment No. 1-R). The Planning Commission received input from the public in opposition (23 speakers) and in support (14 speakers) to the project at the October 22, 2008, public hearing. Letters in support and in opposition to the project as presented to the Planning Commission area also included as Attachment No. 1-R. Primary areas of discussion were related to Project compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, parking patterns within the adjoining residential neighborhood, the findings of the traffic study, green building design, prior neighborhood meetings, and increased tax revenues. At the conclusion of the public hearing, and after thorough discussion of the matter, the Planning Commission recognized the concerns listed by those in opposition to the Project, but felt the staff analysis, attachments and recommended conditions of approval and additional conditions related to traffic and parking imposed by the Planning Commission sufficiently addressed those concerns. Therefore, the Planning Commission [with one member excused and another member recused] voted 3-0 to adopt Resolution No. 2008-P012 (Attachment No. 1- A) which included the finding pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that the Project would not have an adverse effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration should be approved and the required findings to approve the Site Plan Review and the Administrative Use Permit, and approved and recommended to the City Council for approval the Height Exception and the Tentative Tract Map. Please refer to the minutes of the meeting as outlined in Attachment No. 2. City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-4 APPEAL: As outlined in Attachment No. 3, on November 4, 2008, Randal LeBlanc and Donna LeBlanc filed a letter appealing the Planning Commission’s October 22, 2008, approval of the subject proposed project, specifically the CEQA Negative Declaration and the Site Plan Review as more specifically outlined in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-P012. The issues raised in the appeal documentation can be placed in four categories and are responded to below (paraphrased from the Appellants letter): 1. Traffic: “… the Commission authorized credits to include Transit Oriented Development” No Transit Oriented District (TOD) credits were requested by the Applicant nor approved by the Planning Commission. The original project discussion did include discussion regarding the potential of TOD credits. However, the project as ultimately presented to the Planning Commission did not include TOD credits nor were TOD credits made part of the project as conditionally approved by the Planning Commission. “… the Commission authorized existing use credits for a warehouse …” Following the criteria adopted by the City, the traffic study analyzed the net traffic patterns of the proposed project taking into account the prior office/warehouse use of the existing onsite structure. “… significant traffic would be generated …” The staff analysis presented to the Planning Commission included a detailed analysis of the referenced traffic study prepared for the subject project and approved by the Planning Commission. The following summary is provided of traffic issues related to the proposed project: A. Under the current Culver City traffic study criteria, if a project increases traffic on a street by eight percent (8.0%) on a daily basis, then that traffic increase constitutes a significant traffic impact. B. At the October 22, 2008, Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant [Greg Reitz, ReThink] and his traffic engineer [Jasper Domingo, KOA Corporation] indicated different percent increases in traffic along Higuera City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-5 Street due to the proposed project. Different percent increases were stated because the increase in traffic along Higuera Street was calculated based on parameters: i. The amount of project traffic estimated during the AM peak period before the traffic counts were taken; and ii. The amount of traffic added during the day. The one percent (1.0%) increase during the AM peak period was based on the assumed traffic distribution before traffic counts were taken. The assumed traffic distribution before traffic counts were taken showed six (6) trips [one percent (1.0%)] would be added by the proposed project to Higuera Street in the AM peak period. Please note that all traffic counts were taken after the initial distribution listed in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was approved by the City. C. Traffic counts taken at the Higuera Street / Hayden Avenue – Hayden Place intersection [with the existing traffic diverter] showed that of all traffic entering the intersection, fifty three percent (53.0%) in the AM and fifty seven percent (57.0%) in the PM entered via southbound Higuera Street [towards Jefferson Boulevard]. However, staff observations at the intersection showed that a significant amount of southbound traffic on Higuera Street that turns right onto Hayden Place makes an immediate illegal “U”-turn on Hayden Place so as to return to southbound Higuera Street and bypass the noted traffic diverter. Of the right turners from southbound Higuera Street to westbound Hayden Place [towards the cul-de-sac], approximately twenty five percent (25.0%) of the AM traffic and fifty six percent (56.0%) of the PM traffic illegally bypassed the noted traffic diverter. D. The traffic counts indicate a higher percentage of right turns from southbound Higuera Street into Hayden Place than the City would expect to be generated by the proposed project. Accordingly, the City then examined a worst-case scenario based on the traffic counts, without deducting the illegal bypass traffic. Under the worst-case scenario, the proposed project would increase traffic on Higuera Street by 3.8% during the AM peak period. E. The City’s criteria for a project’s traffic impact on a residential street is based on the daily traffic added to the street. Therefore, staff examined the potential impact on a daily basis. The project will generate 575 trips per day, with 288 “in-bound” trips and 288 “out-bound” trips. Assuming 57.0% of the traffic is entering from southbound Higuera Street turns right into Hayden City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-6 Place, the project would add 164 trips per day to Higuera Street [i.e., 288 x 0.57 = 164 trips]. This is a conservative approach, since field observations by City staff further determined that at least 25.0% of the right turns onto Hayden Place proceeded to make an illegal “U”-turn on Hayden Place back onto southbound Higuera Street so as to bypass the traffic diverter at the Hayden Place – Hayden Avenue / Higuera Street intersection. F. A traffic count taken along Higuera Street by the City in 2004 showed that Higuera Street carried 4,400 vehicles per day. That resulted in a 3.7% increase in traffic on Higuera Street on a daily basis [i.e., 164 / 4,400 = 0.037 or 3.7% increase]. G. Taking into account that traffic on Higuera Street has increase from the levels measured in 2004, the project’s proposed percentage increase on Higuera Street would be less that 3.7%. “… the City has no standards to measure significant impact on non-signalized intersections …” As part of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) used to outline the preparation of the traffic study prior to commencing the work, the Engineering Division provided the applicant’s traffic consultant with the City criteria by which to analyze signalized and un-signalized intersections that could be potentially impacted by the proposed Project. “… cut-through traffic through the neighborhood – something not adequately considered by the Commission …” The traffic study determined the traffic generated by the proposed project would not impact any intersection or residential street. Therefore, no traffic mitigation measures were required. Said analysis took into account the traffic patterns within the surrounding neighborhood including, but not limited to, the existing traffic diverter at the Hayden Place, Hayden Avenue and Higuera Street intersection and the existing and proposed northbound / southbound traffic flow along Higuera Street. Based on all of the above and on the City’s criteria, the traffic generated by the Project would not have a significant impact on traffic. City staff, including the Engineering Division’s consulting traffic engineer, concurred with the traffic study findings and recommend its approval to the Planning Commission. Although the traffic study did not identify any needed mitigations, the Planning Commission and staff discussed the possibility of the developer making a fair share City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-7 contribution towards the cost of studying and implementing a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) along Higuera Street between Lucerne Avenue and Hayden Avenue. Although there was no direct nexus to require the applicant to provide such contribution, the applicant voluntarily agreed to contribute. As such, Condition No. 117 of the Planning Commission Resolution (Attachment No.1A) outlines this requirement. The fair share contribution was calculated by the City Engineer to be $50,000. 2. Parking: “… parking spaces do not protect the adjacent neighborhood streets …” After the required review of the Project, including consideration of the Site Plan Review, the Administrative Use Permit for tandem parking and the fact that all required parking is to be provided for on-site and that no project vehicle access is permitted to/from the immediate residential neighborhood along Higuera Street, the Planning Commission determined the project was compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as outlined in the resolution. In addition, the Planning Commission imposed a condition (Condition No. 116) on the project requiring the applicant to submit a Parking Management Plan which establishes the systems and procedures for the management of the on-site parking including but not limited to the proposed operations of the tandem parking, provisions for tenant and visitor parking, any sticker system implemented to identify users of the on- site parking, and any proposed paid parking program, if applicable. In addition, the condition requires three consecutive annual monitoring reports of the project’s parking operations and its compliance with the Parking Management Plan commencing one year after issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy to determine whether Project related parking is occurring off-site on adjacent residential streets, including but not limited to, Higuera Street, Lucerne Avenue, Wesley Street, Helms Avenue, and Schaefer Street, which the City shall contract with a consultant to produce at the applicant’s, or property owner expense. 3. Neighborhood Compatibility: “…the Commission inadequately considered the Project’s lack of compatibility…” “…the tallest part of the Project is more than 18 feet taller than the existing maximum zoned height…” “…terracing the lower floor is not sufficient…” “…a building height varying between 30’-6” and 61’-9” is in no way compatible with the surrounding neighborhood…” City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-8 “…the Commission improperly gave too much consideration to the terracing of the first floors and the “green” nature of the proposed building…” “…the architectural design of the structure, in particular its height, is incompatible…” “…the proposed Project is bordered by other commercial uses, none of which is more than 2 stories…” “…the modern nature of the building, though appealing is incompatible…” “…the proposed landscaping may be best described as minimal with ineffective screening…” After review of all materials presented and testimony given, the Planning Commission made the finding as outlined in the attached resolution that the proposed terraced/split-level building, with a building height varying between 30’-6” and 61’-9”, is deemed compatible with the surrounding neighborhood notwithstanding the fact it exceeds the 43’-0” maximum building height in the IG Zone due to its building setbacks, architectural design and building materials. The proposed terraced/split-level office building will be 61’-9” at the highest point and will have a terraced design so as to step the building away from the adjoining residential neighborhood to the north and west. By stepping the building back and by providing varying building setbacks along all of the building frontages, the project’s impacts to the residential neighborhood are lessened thereby making the project more compatible with the residential neighborhood. The building frontage along Higuera Street has a setback that allows for both onsite and offsite landscaping so as to further screen the project from the adjoining residential neighborhood. The proposed project is an architecturally modern building making use of a variety of building materials including wood, metal, concrete and glass. The design incorporates environmentally friendly and energy efficient building elements including roof top photovoltaic solar panels, green screening walls and green roof areas. All of these elements once combined provide an architectural relief and visual interest to the building elevations. Public artwork, in compliance with the City’s Art in Public Places program, is proposed to be incorporated along the building facades. The building materials noted above, along with the environmentally friendly design features, will provide for an architectural style and color scheme that will complement existing development in the area. The proposed landscaping meets all zoning code requirements providing visual relief and enhancing sustainability goals. More specifically, the onsite landscape features include ground cover, shrubs, trees and “green” building designs to provide a visual screen of the building to the surrounding residential uses. This City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-9 will be amplified by the additional landscaping within the Higuera Street public right of way as part of the landscape maintenance district which will further add to the visual enhancement of the project’s image to the surrounding residential uses. Overall, the onsite and offsite landscaping will complement the modern style of architecture, soften the massing of the proposed building and improve the visual image of the project from the adjoining residential neighborhood. 4. CEQA Review: “… Need an environmental impact report (EIR) …” Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the procedures adopted by the City to implement CEQA, an Initial Study [the preliminary analysis] was prepared. The Initial Study is comprised of a list of objective criteria the City must use in evaluating any potential environmental effects of a project. The Initial Study also provides detailed information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), Negative Declaration (ND) or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project. Based on this process, the Initial Study determined the proposed project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment since it is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code of the City, the proposed development consists of office use which is permitted by the referenced plan and zoning, the project is fully parked in accordance with the Zoning Code, the project does not impact the residential uses in the area, it does not eliminate or disturb any historic resources and it does not create impacts upon biological resources nor does it create cumulative impacts. Therefore a Negative Declaration finding was deemed to be appropriate. After the required review of the project, including the referenced Initial Study, the Planning Commission determined the Negative Declaration was appropriate as outlined in the resolution. HEIGHT EXCEPTION: Originally, the applicant submitted preliminary development plans that proposed a building with a uniform height measuring 43’-0” with a 5’-0” parapet for an effective building height of 48’-0” consistent with the 43’-0” height limit (plus 5’-0” parapet) in the IG Zone. However, after receiving comments from some of the neighboring residents pertaining to the height of the building and its proximity to adjacent residential uses during various applicant-sponsored community meetings, the applicant revised the building massing so as to terrace the building away from the neighboring residential uses to the north and west and then added a partial 5th floor at the furthest point City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-10 away from the residences so as to regain the footage lost as a result of the terracing and maintain a building measuring 62,765 GSF as originally proposed. Since the proposed project exceeds the maximum building height, the applicant has filed a Height Exception application. As outlined in the approved development plans, the applicant has submitted for approval a terraced/split-level office building measuring between 30’-6” and 61’-9” in height that provides a building massing which steps back from the surrounding residential uses and provides the desired building size – yet the proposed building exceeds the CCMC maximum building height of 43’-0” in the IG Zone by up to 18’-9”. CCMC Section 17.300.025.C.1. – Exceptions to Height Limits outlines the procedure for requesting the City Council to grant an exception to the height limits established in the CCMC. The City Council, after consideration of a recommendation from the Planning Commission, may by resolution establish a maximum building height for new construction in Redevelopment Component Area #1 through #3 subject to consistency with a Design For Development (DFD) as may be adopted by the Culver City Redevelopment Agency for the subject site. Since the subject project site is located within Redevelopment Component Area #3, the applicant has initiated discussions with the Redevelopment Division for Redevelopment Agency adoption of a DFD. The request to exceed the maximum building height, and any other restrictions related to rooftop parapets and mechanical equipment, are to be considered as part of this Height Exception and the DFD. As required as part of the submittal requirements for a Height Exception (Attachment 1-Q) the applicant has submitted a shade and shadow study, site line analysis, and visual simulations as outlined in the Development Plans (Attachment 1-D). In addition, the applicant has conducted community outreach events as describe in the applicant’s Height Exception Criteria Summary dated August 7, 2008 (Attachment No. 1-I). Since the proposed Height Exception does not result in additional floor area, the applicant was not required to submit a pro forma, market analysis or additional traffic study. In reviewing requests for a Height Exception, design and compatibility are the key criteria used by staff to assess the proposal and make a recommendation. This includes: privacy of adjacent uses; shade and shadow impacts; view blockage; location relative to surrounding uses; and design and physical appearance. Each issue is addressed further below. Privacy: The project design has taken into consideration privacy impacts to adjacent residential uses. The building is a minimum of 100 feet from homes on Higuera and the west side of Lucerne minimizing any views into these homes or yards. The western façade of the building is adjacent to three homes on the east side of City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-11 Lucerne. The windows on the west side of the building are few and set high so that views into the neighboring yards are constrained. Shade and Shadow: As outlined in the architectural plans, an analysis of the anticipated shade and shadow footprint of the proposed building throughout the year has been prepared. The analysis concludes that there will be no significant impact onto any of the adjoining buildings resulting from the additional height. View Blockage: The proposed building will not be in the view shed of any residential uses and therefore will not result in any view blockage from adjacent properties. Location: The majority of the proposed building is at or below the 43 foot height limit of the IG zone. The portion of the building that rises to a proposed 61’-9” is located away from the sensitive residential receptors and more appropriately towards the commercial/industrial uses on Hayden Place. The building measures a maximum height of 32 feet along the residential perimeter on the Higuera (north) side and 30.5 feet along the residential perimeter on the Lucerne (west) side. This height of the building in this location is consistent with the 30 foot height limit in the surrounding R-2 residential zone. In addition, the building is setback up to 24 feet directly abutting the residential uses on Lucerne. Design and Physical Appearance: The massing of the proposed building includes a terraced/split-level design with varying building setbacks pulling the height away from the adjoining residential uses and more appropriately towards the commercial/industrial uses. The proposed building materials, colors and finishes are intended to create a building appearance that is sensitive to the nature of the adjoining residential uses, including the extensive use of wood paneling on those portions of the building facing residential uses. Based on the criteria outlined above, staff believes there are various unique characteristics that apply to the subject site and the proposed design of the project which lend to it being appropriate for a Height Exception. The Height Exception does not seek to add square footage to the building, but rather is intended to address compatibility issues with adjacent residential uses. The lowering of the height adjacent to the residential use provides a building appearance that insures a compatibility with the surrounding residential uses. As noted herein, the Planning Commission has recommended that the City Council approve the Height Exception. SUBDIVISION: Because the project is intended as an office condominium development, an airspace subdivision is required. There will be a maximum of 30 office condominium units. City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-12 The State Subdivision Map Act and CCMC Chapter 15.10 regulate the subdivision of land. The tentative tract map review process allows the City the opportunity to review the proposed subdivision to insure all necessary onsite and offsite improvements are provided for. Accordingly, the Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed condominium subdivision via Tentative Tract Map No. 69769 (Attachment No. 1-M) and found it to be in compliance with all applicable State and CCMC regulations and the Planning Commission has recommended approval of the Tentative Tract Map. Pursuant to state law, the City Council has limited discretion in its review of a tentative tract map (TTM) as set forth in the Subdivision Map Act (SMA). The SMA sets forth the only grounds to deny the approval of a tentative map. These findings, as listed in Government Code Section 66474 and reiterated in Culver City Municipal Code Section 15.10.265, are as follows: 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans; 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development; 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development; 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems; 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. Regardless of the nature of the findings for denial of a TTM, the Council’s decision must be based upon substantial evidence in the record. The findings cannot be based upon conclusory statements, but must contain specific facts and evidence. The Planning Commission Resolution for this project, which recommends approval of the TTM, specifically addresses each of the above-listed findings in determining that approval is appropriate. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: BACKGROUND: City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-13 The subject site (the “Site”) is located in Component Area No. 3 of the Culver City Redevelopment Project (the “Redevelopment Project”). Pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project and the Culver City Municipal Code, a height exception may be granted in areas of the Redevelopment Project if a DFD allowing additional height is in effect for the redevelopment project area in question. The proposed adoption of a DFD for the subject site will, among other things, permit a height exception to be granted. The Draft DFD is provided as Attachment No. 5. On November 6, 2008, the Advisory Committee on Redevelopment (ACOR), after hearing a presentation on the project by the Applicant, and considering the language in the draft DFD, voted to recommend to the Agency that it approve the DFD and the project. The draft minutes of the ACOR meeting are enclosed in the agenda packet as Attachment Number 6. At that meeting, one member of the public complained that there hasn’t been adequate public participation with the developer. DISCUSSION: Design for Development (DFD) The applicant met with the neighboring residents to get input from the community regarding the proposed design for the Project. In response to community concerns over the height of the building nearest to the neighboring residential uses to the north and west of the site, the Project was redesigned, shifting the building massing from the north and west edges facing the residential use to the upper floors of the building farthest from the residential uses. The proposed solution maintains the financial viability of the Project without loss of leasable square footage and minimizes the building massing and height from the adjoining residential uses. This redesign of the building, fashioned in response to the community’s concerns, requires a height exception, and therefore, a DFD allowing such a height exception is a pre-requisite. Recent changes to the submittal requirements for processing a DFD related to a height exception, include new provisions for evaluating the financial and physical factors pertaining to an application. These requirements include: 1. Pro forma Analysis; (Exception for projects which do not result in increased floor area 2. 2. Market Analysis; (Exception for projects which do not result in increased floor area City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-14 3. Design Analysis; and 4. Public Participation Plan. The Draft DFD and attachments thereto contain the documentation and analysis used to conclude that a height exception in this instance can be supported to enable the Applicant to implement its design solution prepared in response to the neighbor’s concern regarding the apparent building massing and height as proposed for the Project. Staff Recommends that the Agency approve a Design For Development (DFD) for the property at 8665 Hayden Place. Tentative Tract Map Section 420 of the Redevelopment Plan for Component Area Number 3 requires the Agency to approve all subdivisions of land within the Component Area. The site of the proposed project measures 34,580 square feet (0.79 acre) in lot area. The proposed tract map would create up to thirty (30) condominium airspace lots. No land area is required to be dedicated or acquired. The size and shape of the site will not hinder development to occur pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan. Staff recommends approval of the Tentative Tract Map subject to the conditions of approval to be adopted by the City Council for the Tentative Tract Map. The Agency can rely on the environmental findings previously adopted by the Planning Commission for this Project. Conformance The Redevelopment Plan land use designation for this site is “Industrial.” The location of the site is within the Hayden Tract, an industrial part of the City developed with industrial, offices and studio related uses. Staff recommends that the Agency find that the proposed project conforms to the Redevelopment Plan. CEQA FINDING: The Initial Study conducted for the project dated September 16, 2008, (Attachment No. 1-O) determined there were no potential significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project and that no mitigation measures were required. The initial study utilized the following technical studies: 1. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, 1993 update; City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-15 2. City of Culver City General Plan Program EIR, November 1995; 3. Culver City Redevelopment Plan Amendment EIR, November 16, 1998; and 4. Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by KOA Corporation, July 23, 2008. Based on the above, staff prepared the referenced Initial Study and a Negative Declaration. If the Project were to be approved as recommended by the Planning Commission, staff recommends the City Council adopt the Negative Declaration. CONCLUSION: Based on the above changes to the project design and draft conditions of approval, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission’s decision. FISCAL ANALYSIS: This is a private venture project with no financial participation by the City or Agency. If the Project is approved, then the City would gain commercial taxes (i.e. business tax, sales tax, and utility users tax) and the Agency would receive additional tax increment once construction is completed, all condominium office units are sold, and all commercial/office space is leased. Additionally, there is measurable staff time associated with the initial processing of the various project entitlement applications, CEQA review and the subsequent appeal of the project. A portion of the cost of staff’s time is recovered through user fees and charges for entitlements (i.e. Administrative Use Permit, Height Exception, Site Plan Review, and Tentative Tract Map fees) and appeal fees, at a cost recovery level approved by City Council. Generally, an office development is a lower impact use relative to public safety and municipal services since operating hours are more limited than other land uses and the project costs less to service. However, it also generates less taxable revenue for the City then some other land uses, yet it will generate a positive long term financial benefit to both the City and Redevelopment Agency. The impact to the General Fund once the project is complete is anticipated to be minor since the increased revenues are estimated to offset the increased service costs. However, the impact to the Redevelopment Agency once the project is completed is a net increase in tax increment (after deducting statutory pass through payments and County administration fees). When Redevelopment Component Area No. 3 expires in 2018 and debt obligations from that Component Area are fully satisfied, the City’s General Fund will then realize an increase in property tax revenues in an amount equal to approximately 10% of the tax increment formerly received by the Agency. City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-16 Therefore, the long term net fiscal impact to the community, after accounting for an increase in revenues and public service costs and additional tax increment, is estimated to result in a positive financial benefit to the City and Agency. Adoption of the Design For Development carries no significant financial impact to the Agency. ATTACHMENTS: 1. October 22, 2008, Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments: A. Final Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-P012. B.* Project Summary. C.* Vicinity Map. D.* Aerial Photograph. E.* Preliminary Development Plans. F. Materials Board [to be on display at the meeting]. G.* Excerpt of the draft Design For Development. H.* Applicant’s Project Summary. I.* Applicant’s Height Exception Criteria Summary. J.* Public Notification Radius Map. K.* Petition in Opposition to the Project. L.* Traffic Study dated July 23, 2008. M.* Tentative Tract Map No. 69769. N.* CEQA Initial Study. O.* CEQA Proposed Negative Declaration. P.* Applicant’s Letter Responding to Petition Statements. Q.* Height Exception Submittal Requirements. R.* Written Public Comments [prior to Planning Commission meeting]. *Previously distributed to the City Council on December 1, 2008. 2. Draft Minutes Excerpt of October 22, 2008, Planning Commission meeting. 3. Appeal filed on November 4, 2008. 4. Written Public Comments [after Planning Commission meeting]. 5. Draft Design For Development. 6. Draft Minutes Excerpt of the November 6, 2008, Advisory Committee on Redevelopment meeting. MOTIONS: That the City Council: A. (Staff recommendation) Deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Site Plan Review and direct staff to return to the City Council with the appropriate resolution adopting the CEQA Negative City of Culver City, California Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda Item Report JPH1-17 Declaration and outlining the findings for approval of the Site Plan Review, Height Exception and Tentative Tract Map; or B. Grant the Appeal in part but modify the Planning Commission’s approval of the Site Plan Review and direct staff to return to the City Council with the appropriate resolution adopting the CEQA Negative Declaration and outlining the findings for modifying the Site Plan Review and approval of the Height Exception and the Tentative Tract Map; or C. Grant the Appeal and overturn the Planning Commission’s approval of the Site Plan Review and direct staff to return to the City Council with the appropriate resolution outlining the findings for denying the Site Plan Review and thereafter take no action on the Height Exception or the Tentative Tract Map. AND (only if necessary) That the Redevelopment Agency (only in the case Motion A or B is adopted by the City Council): A. Approve the Design For Development (DFD) for the Project; and, B Determine that the project is consistent with Redevelopment Plan for Component Area No. 3. MEETING DATE: 12/15108 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING - 1) City Council Public Hearing for Consideration of an Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Site Plan Review, SPRP-2007183, and the CEQA Negative Declaration Finding; and Approval of Height Exception, HTEX P- 2008111, and Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, TIM P-2007184; and 2) Redevelopment Agency Consideration of Approval of a Design for Development (DFD) and Conformity with the Redevelopment Plan for Component Area Number 3. AGENDA ITEM: ATTACHMENTS No. Item Pages 1. October 22, 2008, Planning Commission Report: 1 — A. Draft Revised Planning Commission Resolution No. 2008-P012. 17 46 B.* Project Summary. 47 — 50 C.* Vicinity Map, 51 D.* Aerial Photograph. 52 E.* Preliminary Development Plans. 53 — 80 F. Materials Board [to be on display at the meeting]. 81 G.* Excerpt of the draft Design For Development. 82 H.* Applicant's Project Summary. 83— 113 I.* Applicant's Height Exception Criteria Summary. 114 J.* Public Notification Radius Map. 115 K.* Petition in Opposition to the Project. 116 137 L.* Traffic Study dated July 23, 2008. 138 — 355 M.* Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, 356 N.* CEQA Initial Study. 357 — 377 O. CEQA Proposed Negative Declaration. 378 P.* Applicant's Letter Responding to Petition Statements. 379 Q.* Height Exception Submittal Requirements. 380 R.* Written Public Comments [prior to Planning Commission]. 381 — 408 2. Minutes Excerpt / October 22, 2008 / Planning Commission meeting. 409 417 3. Appeal filed on November 4, 2008. 418 — 419 4. Written Public Comments [after Planning Commission]. 420 — 422 5. Draft Design For Development. 423 — 437 6. Minutes Excerpt / November 6, 2008 / Advisory Committee meeting. 438 — 440 * = Previously distributed.Attachment No. 'I City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report Meeting Date: October 22, 2008 Item Number: PH-1 AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183, Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2008110, and a Negative Declaration, and a recommendation of Height Exception, HTEX P-2008111, and Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, TIM P-2007184, for the Construction of a terraced / split-level 4 — 5 story condominium office building measuring 62,765 Gross Square Feet (GSF) at 8665 Hayden Place. (Continued from October 8, 2008) Contact Person/Dept.: Phone Number: Joseph Montoya, Associate Planner (310) 253-5736 Public Hearing: [X] Action Item: [ I Attachments: [X] Public Notification: On September 16, 2008, notices were mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot plus radius of the site extended to the end of the block; to all individuals who previously spoke on this proposed project at prior City meetings and to all other interested individuals. The notice was also emailed to the Master Notification List. On September 16, 2008, two (2) Project Notification signs were posted on the site. On October 2, 2008, a revised public notice announcing the change in meeting date was mailed to all individuals listed above plus an e-mail to the Master Notification List. The project notification signs were modified on October 5, 2008, to announce the new public hearing date. Planning Review: Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager, October 13, 2008 RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt a Negative Declaration based on the Initial Study finding the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment (Attachment No. 15), 2. Approve Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183, and Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2007184, subject to the Conditions of Approval as outlined in Resolution No. 2008-P012 (Attachment No. 1); and 3. Recommend to the City Council conditional approval of Height Exception, HTEX P-2008111, and Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, TTM P-2007184, subject to the Conditions of Approval as outlined in Resolution No. 2008- P012 (Attachment No. 1). PROCEDURES: 1. Chair calls on staff for a brief staff report and Planning Commission poses questions to staff as desired; 2. Chair opens the public hearing, providing the applicant the first opportunity to speak, followed by the general public; Page 1 of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report Chair seeks a motion to close the public hearing after all testimony has been presented; and 4. Commission discusses the matter and arrives at its decision. BACKGROUND: Request As outlined in the preliminary development plans (Attachment No. 5), the project applicant / property owner, ReThink Tara Green LLC, is requesting approval to demolish the existing 18,000 gross square foot (GSF) industrial building along with all site improvements and then to construct a terraced split-level 4 — 5 story condominium office building measuring 62,765 GSF and between 30'-6" and 61'- 9" in height with 181 parking spaces [including 36 spaces A-) tandem form] with related setbacks and onsite / offsite improvements. To accomplish this request, a Site Plan Review (SPR) is required to construct the project; a Height Exception (HTEX) is required to exceed the 43 foot building height limit in the 1G Zone; an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) is required for the tandem parking and a Tentative Tract Map (TIM) is required to subdivide the site for office condominium airspace units. General Information Please refer to the Project Summary (Attachment No. 2). Existing Conditions The subject site, as outlined in the Vicinity Map (Attachment No. 3) and Aerial Photograph (Attachment No. 4), is a single lot parcel accessed from the westerly terminus of the Hayden Place cul-de-sac via an existing fire lane easement roadway that shall remain in place along the easterly portion of the site. It is currently developed with an 18,000 GSF industrial building formerly used as a warehouse / distribution center for a retail user measuring 25'-0" +/- to the roof and constructed circa 1977 with 30 surface parking spaces and landscaping consisting of ground cover, shrubs and trees. To the north, the site fronts onto Higuera Street and although it does not offer any private vehicle access, emergency public vehicles to/from the street via a barricaded emergency drive approach shall continue to maintain access. Along Higuera Street is a City-managed landscape maintenance district with ground cover, shrubs and trees to which,the applicant is a participant. To the east is an existing industrial building and parking lot. To the south, directly abutting the site is an industrial building and parking lot. And to the west, directly abutting the site is a single family residence. Page 2 of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report The site is designated in the General Plan Land Use Element as "Industrial" and on the Zoning Map as "General Industrial (IG)". To the north, across Higuera Street, the area has residential designations and is developed with single and multiple family residences. To the east and south, the area has industrial designations and is developed with office / research / industrial / commercial / filming uses. To the west, both abutting the site and across Lucerne Avenue, the area is designated residential and developed with single and multiple family residential uses. Project Description On August 2, 2007, the applicant initiated the filing process to begin this multi- component development review and approval process. As outlined in the attached preliminary development plans, the applicant is requesting approval to accomplish the following actions: 1 Construct a new terraced split-level 4 — 5 story condominium office building measuring 62,765 GSF with a surface parking lot and an attached subterranean parking structure. Each office floor is "split" with Section "A" constructed within the northerly portion of the site and Section "B" a floor higher within the southerly portion of the site [hence a partial 5th floor along the south side]. The building is provided with varied setbacks along all building frontages. These setbacks are to be provided with new trees and other landscaping so as to soften the visual image of the project from the surrounding residential neighborhood. A courtyard located within the central portion of the building is to be provided with passive landscaping and seating. Additional onsite and offsite improvements including, but not limited to, landscaping, water fountain, fencing and public art are proposed. The site slopes away from Higuera Street towards the Hayden Place cul- de-sac. Since the existing slope condition of the site will generally remain in place, the "new grade" elevation points for the proposed building shall be as follows: A. 89.67' at the northeast corner [at the top of the Higuera Street public sidewalk]; B. 82.26' at the southeast corner [abutting the top of the fire lane easement roadway to/from the Hayden Place cul-de-sac]; C. 87.10' at the southwest corner [the natural grade of the abutting residence]; and Page 3 of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report D. 90.18' at the northwest corner [at the top of the Higuera Street public sidewalk]. The split-level terraced building consist of two (2) portions with Portion "A" being nearest to the north property line along the Higuera Street frontage and with Portion "B" being furthest from the Higuera Street frontage along the southerly property line. Hence, the "new grade" of the 1st floor of the project along the Higuera Street frontage is between 2'-O" and 4'-10" below the Higuera Street top of public sidewalk elevation. The other portions of the site also result in a varying building height. The building is proposed to be "green" in design by use of alternative roof materials, skylights, centrally located ventilation shafts, photovoltaic solar panels along the southerly roof area of "Portion B" and other environmental and aesthetically sensitive elements such as a "green screen" facing the westerly edge of the central courtyard so as to provide additional screening to the residential uses to the west of the site. Additional screening is to be provided by the installation of vertical louvers along the south wall so as to obstruct direct line of sight from the upper floors of the project onto the residential uses to the west; and the windows along the west building elevations are to be non-vision glass to further protect the visual privacy of the residential uses to the west. Said terracing steps the building away from the residential uses in the area and towards the adjoining industrial uses. To be constructed, the project requires the approval of a Site Plan Review (S PR) application; 2. Construct the subject building with a varying height between 30'-6" and 61'-9" to the top of roof via a Height Exception (HTEX) application since portions of the proposed structure exceeds the 43'-0" maximum height permitted in the IG Zone; 3. Provide 181 parking spaces [12 spaces on the surface and 169 parking spaces within a three (3) level subterranean parking structure]. The parking plan proposes 36 parking spaces in tandem format via an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) application. The project also proposes to provide 29 bicycle parking spaces located throughout the surface and subterranean parking areas. The parking area within the subterranean garage is also intended to be provided with an after-hours security gate system; and 4. Subdivide the new project into a "for sale" condominium airspace office complex via a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) application. Page 4 of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report The applicant has provided a written narrative (Attachment No. 8) summarizing the proposed project and efforts to address neighborhood concerns Project Notification The public notification process began when, under the City's direction, the applicant mailed a letter to the surrounding neighborhood informing them of the initial project application filing with the City on December 13, 2007. As outlined in the Public Notification Radius Map (Attachment No. 10), the standard 300 foot radius for all mailed public notification to owners and occupants was initially extended to 500 feet and then extended again to the end of the block and to include portions of the Hayden Tract along Hayden Avenue and the surrounding streets. Individuals that spoke at prior Planning Commission and City Council meetings on the proposed project were also notified. All other CCMC requirements pertaining to posted notification signage were followed. Two separate public notice mailings were mailed, and the onsite project notification signs were installed, announcing the original October 8, 2008, Planning Commission meeting date and then subsequently remelted and revised to reflect the rescheduled meeting date of October 22, 2008. On September 29 and 30, 2008, the Planning Division received a petition (Attachment No. 11) [one (1) cover page and 21 pages with 294 signatures] in opposition to the referenced project. At this time, thirty two (32) of the signatures have been found to be invalid [i.e., due either because the signatures were in opposition to some other project or not a valid signature] thereby validating 262 signatures at this time. Thereafter, the applicant submitted a letter (Attachment No. 16) responding to the petition introductory statements. In addition to the public notification outlined above, the applicant conducted a minimum of twelve (12) "outreach" events with the surrounding residents informing them of the project and of the various revisions of the project design as it evolved to the version currently under review via this application process. These outreach events are describe in the applicant's Height Exception Criteria Summary dated August 7, 2008 (Attachment No. 9). ANALYSIS: Land Use and Zoning The General Plan Land Use Element designates the site as "Industrial". The General Plan states on Page LU-21 that "... Residential and industrial uses, or Page 5 of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report commercial [Le., offices] and industrial uses, can coexist when specific uses and design characteristics are analyzed for compatibility ..."; and that "... Maximum building intensity, specific types of land use, and development standards shall be controlled by zoning based on lot size and location ...". Additionally, the Zoning Map designates the subject site with an "Industrial (IG)" zoning designation which is consistent with and implements the General Plan designation listed above. Furthermore, as listed in CCMC Section 17.230 — Industrial Zoning Districts / Table 2-8 "Allowed Uses and Permit Restrictions" , the proposed "office" use of the subject site is listed as a "permitted" use in the IG Zone. Therefore, based on the above data and the analysis performed on the proposed developed plan, staff is of the opinion the proposed applications are consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the site. Architectural Design As outlined in the proposed preliminary development plans (Attachment No. 5) and the materials board (Attachment No. 6) [to be on display at the meeting], the proposed building configuration and materials result in a structure that conforms to all applicable provisions of the IG Zone and all other CCMC development standards. The proposed split-level height, with accompanying terracing / setbacks, provides separation from the abutting properties to the north [Higuera Street] and west [Lucerne Avenue] taking into account the sloped configuration of the site. The existing building proposed to be demolished is generally a non-descript concrete tilt-up structure approximately 25 feet in height located within the industrial / office business park established in the early 1970's. In contrast to the existing building's architectural design, the proposed project is an architecturally modern theme building making use of a variety of building materials and finishes and a building massing pattern intended to soften the visual image of the building when viewed from the surrounding residential areas. The proposed multi-faced building includes the use of wood cladding, aluminum panels, cast concrete, steel, perforated stainless steel rain screen, operable windows, shading elements, cantilevered walls and walking bridges. These elements, in concert with "green" building screens / walls and roof components, are all intended to further enhance the compatibility of the proposed structure with the neighborhood while providing an overall site design that is environmentally friendly and energy efficient. Other site improvements [i.e., exterior light fixtures, bicycle racks, water fountain, fencing, security gates] shall be of architectural materials, finishes and colors compatible with the project. Lastly, the proposed installation of public art panels in compliance with the City's Art in Public Places program along the building facades will further add to the visual character of the building. Page 6 of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report The project is required to meet the photovoltaic requirements of CCMC Ordinance No. 2008-004. To meet this new requirement, the applicant proposes to include a roof mounted photovoltaic system along the southerly roof of Portion "B" to reduce the demand of electricity. Additionally, the applicant proposes a building design that incorporates construction, architecture and operational measures consistent with the United States Green Building Council's (USGBC) design standards. The USGBC uses a Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) four (4) level rating system that begins with basic "certified" and then proceeds upward past "silver" and "gold" to "platinum", the highest most efficient rating of all. It is the goal of the applicant to design, construct and operate the proposed project so as to receive a "Gold" rating by including the elements noted above while also insulating the building and reducing the demand for mechanical services and using energy efficient windows and site lighting systems. On the basis of the proposed design and massing of the building, the project is anticipated to be compatible with the existing area. Regarding the building's compatibility with the residential uses to the north and west, the building is stepped back from the residential uses so as to minimize the proposed building visual impact and the proposed materials are intended to be non-reflective. To the east and south, the building massing and architecture is compatible with the adjoining industrial / office / commercial uses in the area. Height Exception Originally, the applicant submitted preliminary development plans that proposed a building with a uniform height measuring 43'-0" with a 5'-0" parapet for an effective building height of 48'-0" consistent with the 43'-0" height limit (plus 5-0" parapet) in the IG Zone. However, after receiving comments from some of the neighboring residents pertaining to the height of the building and its proximity to adjacent residential uses during various applicant-sponsored community meetings, the applicant revised the building massing so as to terrace the building away from the neighboring residential uses to the north and west and then added a partial 5th floor at the furthest point away from the residences so as to regain the footage lost as a result of the terracing and maintain a building measuring 62,765 GSF as originally proposed. Since the proposed project exceeds the maximum building height, the applicant has filed a Height Exception application. As outlined in the preliminary development plans, the applicant has submitted for approval a terraced / split- level office building measuring between 30'-6" and 61'-9" in height that provides a Page 7 of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report building massing which steps back from the surrounding residential uses and provides the desired building size — yet the proposed building exceeds the CCMC maximum building height of 43'-0" in the 1G Zone by up to 18'-9". CCMC Section 17.300.025.C.1. — Exceptions to Height Limits outlines the procedure for requesting the City Council to grant an exception to the height limits established in the CCMC. The City Council, after consideration of a recommendation from the Planning Commission, may by resolution establish a maximum building height for new construction in Redevelopment Component Area #1 through #3 subject to consistency with a Design For Development (DFD) as may be adopted by the Culver City Redevelopment Agency for the subject site. Since the subject project site is located within Redevelopment Component Area #3, the applicant has initiated discussions with the Redevelopment Division for Redevelopment Agency adoption of a DFD. The request to exceed the maximum building height, and any other restrictions related to rooftop parapets and mechanical equipment, are to be considered as part of this Height Exception and the DFD. At present, Redevelopment Division staff is in negotiations with the applicant as to the contents of the DFD and the required public review of the DFD by the Redevelopment Agency is not anticipated to be scheduled until after the Planning Commission has completed its review of the proposed project. An excerpt of the draft DFD pertaining to the proposed building height is provided for informational purposes (Attachment No. 7). Therefore, if the Planning Commission were to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed Height Exception and approve the Site Plan Review, the Site Plan Review would not become effective unless and until the Redevelopment Agency were to approve the DFD and unless and until the City Council were to approve the Height Exception. As required as part of the submittal requirements for a Height Exception (Attachment No, 17) the applicant has submitted a shade and shadow study, site line analysis, and visual simulations as outlined in the Preliminary Development Plans (Attachment No. 5). In addition, the applicant has conducted community outreach events as describe in the applicant's Height Exception Criteria Summary dated August 7, 2008 (Attachment No. 9). Since the proposed Height Exception does not result in additional floor area, the applicant was not required to submit a pro forma, market analysis or additional traffic study. In reviewing requests for a Height Exception, design and compatibility are the key criteria used by staff to assess the proposal and make a recommendation. This includes: privacy of adjacent uses; shade and shadow impacts; view blockage; location relative to surrounding uses; and design and physical appearance. Page 8 of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report Privacy: The project design has taken into consideration privacy impacts to adjacent residential uses. The building is a minimum of 100 feet from homes on Higuera and the west side of Lucerne minimizing any views into these homes or yards. The western façade of the building is adjacent to three homes on the east side of Lucerne. The windows on the west side of the building are few and set high so that views into the neighboring yards are constrained. Shade and Shadow: As outlined in the architectural plans, an analysis of the anticipated shade and shadow footprint of the proposed building throughout the year has been prepared. The analysis concludes that there will be no significant impact onto any of the adjoining buildings resulting from the additional height. View Blockage: The proposed building will not be in the view shed of any residential uses and therefore will not result in any view blockage from adjacent properties. Location: The majority of the proposed building is at or below the 43 foot height limit of the 1G zone. The portion of the building that rises to a proposed 61'-9" is located away from the sensitive residential receptors and more appropriately towards the commercial/industrial uses on Hayden Place. The building measures a maximum height of 32 feet along the residential perimeter on the Higuera (north) side and 30.5 feet along the residential perimeter on the Lucerne (west) side. This height of the building in this location is consistent with the 30 foot height limit in the surrounding R-2 residential zone. In addition, the building is setback up to 24 feet directly abutting the residential uses on Lucerne. Design and Physical Appearance: The massing of the proposed building includes a terraced / split-level design with varying building setbacks pulling the height away from the adjoining residential uses and more appropriately towards the commercial / industrial uses. The proposed building materials, colors and finishes are intended to create a building appearance that is sensitive to the nature of the adjoining residential uses, including the extensive use of wood paneling on those portions of the building facing residential uses. Based on the criteria outlined above, staff believes there are various unique characteristics that apply to the subject site and the proposed design of the project which lend to it being appropriate for a Height Exception. The Height Exception does not seek to add square footage to the building, but rather is intended to address compatibility issues with adjacent residential uses. The lowering of the height adjacent to the residential use provides a building appearance that insures a compatibility with the surrounding residential uses. Page 9 of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Rem Report Landscaping Based on the extent of the site disruption during the construction phase of the project so as to construct the new subterranean garage, all existing landscaping within the site [i.e., trees, shrubs and ground cover] is required to be removed. As outlined in the proposed site plan, new landscaped planters above natural did areas are proposed as well within the proposed setback areas above the subterranean garage. Other areas deemed appropriate for landscaping shall include portions of the "green" rooftop areas. In addition to the proposed onsite landscape plan, along the Higuera Street frontage within the existing landscaping maintenance district, additional landscaping [i.e., trees, shrubs and ground cover] as deemed appropriate by the Parks Manager / City Landscape Architect and City Engineer shall be added to further screen the building from the surrounding residential area. Parking The proposed parking plan of 181 parking spaces in a combination of surface and subterranean locations meets all applicable CCMC onsite parking requirements for the proposed office use including, but not limited to, the provision of the required number of parking spaces [i.e., 179 spaces are required and 2 spaces are extra] with the use of the AUP for tandem parking referenced herein as well as the type of parking spaces [i.e., standard, handicapped and loading], dimensions [i.e., width, length, aisleway and vertical clearance] and signage. As permitted in the CCMC, the loading parking space is to be shared with one of the standard spaces which can accommodate small trucks since larger trucks are not anticipated to be used for the project. In addition, 29 bicycle racks will be provided in both the surface parking area and the subterranean parking structure. The applicant is requesting approval of an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) in order to provide 36 parking spaces in tandem form within the subterranean garage. Accordingly, as outlined in CCMC Section 17.320.035.C.1.b., the use of tandem parking serving the proposed office use is an allowable feature provided said tandem parking meets the required AUP findings listed in CCMC Section 17.530.020 — Findings and Decisions. Based on the location [within the parking structure], format [2-deep] and dimensions [refer to plans] of the tandem parking spaces, staff has determined the request meets all of the minimum requirements of the CCMC. Page 10 of 16 10City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report Traffic and Circulation Based on the City's adopted traffic study criteria, a traffic study was deemed necessary by the Planning Division and Engineering Division. As outlined in the Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) approved by the City of Culver City and the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and the scope of the analysis listed therein, KOA Corporation, a state licensed traffic engineering firm, prepared the traffic study dated July 23, 2008, and entitled Traffic Impact Analysis For The Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Office, Culver City (Attachment No. 12). Said traffic study analyzed the existing and proposed traffic volumes to be generated by the proposed project as well as traffic patterns at nineteen (19) intersections within the surrounding area [i.e., City of Culver City and City of Los Angeles] regardless of jurisdiction during both the AM and PM peak hours. Based on the information gathered from the field investigations, the consultant proceeded with the required analysis including projected future traffic levels at the referenced intersections based on development projects currently under construction or anticipated to be constructed in the near future. In addition to the 19 study intersections, the traffic consultant also investigated the potential project related traffic impacts to the residential streets adjacent to or near the project site including, but not limited to, Higuera Street, Lucerne Avenue, Wesley Street, Helms Avenue and Schaefer Street. The traffic analysis also took into account not only the existing traffic diversion improvements within the area, but it also analyzed various on-going and/or completed public improvement projects in the area including, but not limited to, street repair work at the Higuera Street / Eastham Drive intersection, the Higuera Street — Rodeo Road / Jefferson Boulevard intersection, the Jefferson Boulevard / National Boulevard intersection, the Eastham Drive / Jefferson Boulevard intersection and the Hayden Avenue / National Boulevard intersection. Other components of the analysis included taking into account the sole vehicle access for the site is provided via the two-way fire lane roadway easement leading to/from the westerly terminus of the Hayden Place cul-de-sac and thereafter from the Hayden Place — Hayden Avenue / Higuera Street intersection. Private vehicle access of any type or duration from along Higuera Street abutting the site was noted to be prohibited and shall continued to be prohibited as part of this proposed project. Lastly, the analysis confirmed the onsite circulation shall be provided via 27'-0" wide aisle ways which allow vehicles to maneuver adequately in and out of parking spaces within the surface parking area and the subterranean garage. Vertical clearance within the subterranean garage shall be no less than 7'-O" as required in the CC MC. Page 11 of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report Taking into account the onsite and offsite circulation patterns referenced above, the traffic consultant analyzed the projected future traffic levels in the area and the trips generated by the proposed project. Based on that analysis, the traffic study concludes the increase in traffic at the studied intersections as a result of the project will be below the City's criteria for significant impacts. Traffic impacts at studied intersections [measured as volume to capacity ratios (V/C) or the ratio of the number of actual vehicles to the amount of vehicles the intersection can accommodate] must increase beyond a threshold given the Level of Service (LOS) measured for the intersections in order to be considered a significant impact. At the study intersections, the increase in the V/C ratios resulting from the project — given the LOS for those intersections — is calculated to be below what the City established as a significant impact. in other words, added traffic resulting from the project to the areas studied is expected to be small enough so as to not create a significant impact on traffic. Therefore, as outlined in the Executive Summary of the traffic study [Page 4], the traffic consultant has determined "... the traffic analysis shows that the project is expected to have no significant impacts, based on City of Culver City and [the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation] LADOT traffic study guidelines, at any of the study intersections ...". The Project Summary and Project Recommendations [Page 54] further states the proposed parking, access and circulation system for the proposed project will function in accordance with the City's standards based on various conclusions including, but not limited to, the following: 1. The project is anticipated to generate 575 net new daily vehicle trips, including 82 net new trips in the AM peak hour [i.e., 7:00 AM — 9:00 AM] and 77 net new trips during the PM peak hour [i.e., 4:00 PM — 6:00 PM]; and said trips do not exceed the thresholds for significant impact at any location; 2. The proposed project will not significantly impact any of the study intersections nor will it produce sufficient net new traffic to create significant impacts to any of the adjacent local streets [neither residential nor non-residential] or to the area's regional arterial roadways and freeways; and therefore no offsite traffic mitigation measures are warranted for the project; and 3. Although not specified or required as a mitigation measure in the traffic analysis, based on the proposed gross square footage of the project, the proposed project is required to meet the CCMC Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance. Page 12 of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report Therefore, no traffic related project mitigation measures are required. The City's Engineering Division and consulting traffic engineers have reviewed the traffic study and have determined the traffic consultant's findings to be acceptable. A condition of approval requiring compliance with the CCMC TDM Ordinance has been recommended. Noise Construction of the project shall be subject to the hours of construction as outlined in the CCMC [unless otherwise modified by the Planning Commission]. The project will be conditioned to require the use of construction equipment with state-of-the-art noise shielding and muffling devices. Both the applicant and City contact information shall be posted on the project site to direct individuals wishing to report noise and other construction activity complaints. Following occupancy of the site, the project is expected to generate no more than the noise level consistent with the current use on the site. Therefore, no other special noise related conditions of approval are recommended. Construction The proposed project includes the demolition of all existing onsite improvements and the construction of a subterranean garage, the above ground office building and related onsite and offsite improvements. Of special concern is the fact that the required excavation for the relocation of existing utilities and the construction of the subterranean garage will be in close proximity to the existing landscaped buffer to the north, the existing industrial building to the south and the existing single family residence to the west. A condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide adequate shoring at a minimum along the north, south and west property lines as deemed necessary by the Building Official so as to insure the stability of the adjacent improvements listed above has been recommended. SecuriN The project shall be secured with a 4'-0" high wrought iron fence along the north property line facing Higuera Street, with a 6'-0" high block wall along the west property line abutting the single family residence with the CCMC required wall step-down and with an after-hours overhead security gate at the entrance to the subterranean garage with said gate setback from the building entrance so as to insure proper vehicle alignment. The surface parking area shall remain unsecured. The previously noted emergency fire lane access driveway along the Higu era Street frontage currently secured by a post and chain barricade shall be upgraded to a swing gate and Fire Department lock system that shall continue to prohibited any private vehicle usage of the emergency driveway. Lastly, the Page 13,of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report Covenants, Codes and Restrictions [CC&R's] required as part of the subdivision process shall include the creation of an owners association that shall actively manage and provide security for the site. A condition of approval requiring all security elements to be architecturally compatible with the project's design and continuing the prohibition of private usage of the Higuera Street emergency driveway have been recommended. Area Compatibility The "Industrial" General Plan and Zoning designations for the subject property permit office use developments as proposed by the applicant. The proposed building height of between 30'-6" and 61-9", while greater in some instances than the surrounding industrial and residential buildings, is deemed to be compatible as a result of the proposed use of the terraced / split-level configuration and varying building setbacks as noted on the preliminary development plans and as outlined in the Height Exception analysis contained herein. The proposed building materials and both the onsite and offsite landscaping results in a project that is compatible with land uses permitted on neighboring properties which are zoned either "Industrial (IG)" or "Two Family Residential (R2)". The project will provide adequate parking onsite, the onsite and offsite landscaping is in excess of CCMC requirements and the traffic generated by the project has been deemed to not cause a significant impact to the existing or projected traffic levels in the area. In addition, the noise levels generated by the proposed use are anticipated to be compatible with the surrounding uses in the vicinity. To date, no written comments have been received other than the referenced petition. Subdivision Because the project is intended as an office condominium development, an airspace subdivision is required. There will be a maximum of 30 office condominium units. The State Subdivision Map Act and CCMC Chapter 15.10 regulate the subdivision of land. The tentative tract map review process allows the City the opportunity to review the proposed subdivision to insure all necessary onsite and offsite improvements are provided for. Accordingly, the Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed condominium subdivision via Tentative Tract Map No. 69769 (Attachment No. 13) and found it to be in compliance with all applicable State and CCMC regulations subject to the recommend conditions of approval. Paqe 14 of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda Item Report ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study (Attachment No. 14) was prepared which determined the project to have less than significant impacts on the community since it is consistent with CCMC regulations and the traffic study determined expected traffic from the project will be below any threshold of significance. Taking into account the applications for this project, the preliminary development plans, the materials board and the recommended conditions of approval, staff determined the project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration is recommended (Attachment No. 15). CONCLUSION: Staff has paid particular attention to the design of this project as it relates to the residential neighborhood to the north across Higuera Street and to the west abutting the site and across Lucerne Avenue and has worked closely with the applicant to meet all applicable CCMC requirements, address community concerns and develop a project that follows good planning practice. Staff has visited the site numerous times and spoken with various residents of the subject neighborhood to better understand and be able to address all applicable concerns and has proposed numerous conditions to address the issues particularly related to construction impacts and compatibility with both the residential and non-residential uses in the vicinity. Based on the analysis contained herein, staff believes all findings for the subject applications can be made as more specifically outlined in the draft resolution of approval (Attachment No. 1) and recommends approval of the project. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS: The following alternative options may be considered by the Planning Commission: 1. Approve the proposed project and applications with the recommended conditions of approval if the applications are deemed to meet the required findings. 2. Approve the proposed project and applications with additional and/or different conditions of approval if deemed necessary to meet the required findings and mitigate any new project impacts identified at the meeting. 3. Disapprove the proposed project if the applications do not meet the required findings. Page 15 of 16City of Culver City, California Planning Commission Agenda item Report ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution No. 2008-P012. 2. Project Summary. 3. Vicinity Map. 4. Aerial Photograph. 5. Preliminary Development Plans dated September 30, 2008. 6. Materials Board [to be on display at the meeting]. 7. Excerpt of the draft Design For Development. 8. Applicant's Project Summary. 9. Applicant's Height Exception Criteria Summary. 10. Public Notification Radius Map. 11. Petition in Opposition to the Project. 12. Traffic Study dated July 23, 2008. 13. Tentative Tract Map No. 69769. 14. CEQA Initial Study. 15. CEQA Proposed Negative Declaration. 16. Applicant's Letter Responding to Petition Statements. 17. Height Exception Submittal Requirements. Page 16 of 16DRAFT Attachment TA RESOLUTION NO. 2008-P012 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SITE PLAN REVIEW, SPR P-2007183, AND ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT, AUP P-2008110, AND RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF HEIGHT EXCEPTION, HTEX P-2008111, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 69769, TTM P-2007184, FOR A ONE (1) LOT SUBDIVISION CREATING 30 OFFICE AIRSPACE CONDOMINIUM UNITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN OFFICE BUILDING AT 8665 HAYDEN PLACE IN THE INDUSTRIAL GENERAL (IG) ZONE. (Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183) (Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2008110) (Height Exception, HTEX P-2008111) (Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, TTM P-2007184) WHEREAS, on November 15, 2007, Greg Reitz, on behalf of ReThink Tara Green LLC, property owner of 8665 Hayden Place, filed Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183, Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2008110, Height Exception, HTEX P-2008111, and Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, TTM P2007184, to construct a terraced / split-level 4 — 5 story 62,765 gross square foot (GSF) office building measuring between 30'-6" and 61'-9" in height with 181 parking spaces [12 surface and 169 subterranean] on the project site described more fully as Lot 1 of Parcel Map No. 7673, in the City of Culver City, County of Los Angeles, State of California; and WHEREAS, in order to implement said proposed project, approval of the following applications is required: 1. Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183, in order to develop the proposed project to ensure compliance with the required standards and city ordinances and establish all onsite October 22, 2008 rq- Page 1 2008-P012and offsite conditions of approval to reflect the site features and compatibility of the proposed project with the uses on adjoining properties; and 2. Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2008110, in order to provide 36 parking spaces in tandem format; and 3. Height Exception, HTEX P-2008111, in order to exceed the building height for portions of the building up to 6V-9", being 189" above the 43'-0" maximum height limit of the 1G Zone; and 4. Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, TTM P-2007184, in order to subdivide the site into a one (1) lot subdivision creating a maximum of thirty (30) office airspace condominium units; and WHEREAS, on October 22, 2008, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on these applications, fully considering the applications, preliminary development plans, materials board, staff report, traffic study, environmental information and all testimony presented; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has determined the project will not have significant impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration finding is appropriate; and WHEREAS, following conclusion of the public discussion and thorough deliberation of the subject matter, the Planning Commission determined by a vote of 3 to 0 that the project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts, that a Negative Declaration finding was appropriate and that the Site Plan Review and Administrative Use Permit should be conditionally approved; and that the Height Exception and Tentative Tract Map should be October 22, 2008 [3 Page 2 2008-P0122|10101010101010 10|10' 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 conditionally approved and recommended to the City Council for approval as set forth herein below. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the foregoing recitations and the provisions of the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC), the following findings are hereby made: Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183: As outlined in CCMC Title 17, Section 17.540.020, the following required findings for a Site Plan Review are hereby made: A. The general layout of the project, including orientation and location of buildings, open space, vehicular and pedestrian access and circulation, parking and loading facilities, building setbacks and heights, and other improvements on the site, is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter, the requirements of the zoning district in which the site is located, and with all applicable development standards and design guidelines. The general layout of the project is consistent with the Industrial General (IC) zoning district and the proposed project conforms to all applicable provisions of the IG Zone. The north and west portions of the building facing the surrounding residential neighborhood incorporates the code required setbacks from the property line and provides amenities such as landscaping and pedestrian walkways. These setback features are consistent with Zoning Code standards that are intended to protect residential neighborhoods from office development and to facilitate office projects within industrial areas with appropriate amenities. The project provides the 179 code required parking spaces plus 2 additional parking spaces onsite. The proposed terraced / split-level building, with a building height varying between 30'-6" and 61'-9", is deemed compatible with the surrounding neighborhood notwithstanding the fact it exceeds the 43'-0" maximum building height in the 1G Zone due to its building setbacks, architectural design and building materials. Vehicular access to the onsite parking is via a fire lane roadway from the westerly terminus of the Hayden Place cul- de-sac and then northerly along the roadway to the site. The proposed structure is well designed for vehicular and pedestrian access to the office use of the site, the surface parking area and the subterranean parking area with elevators and stairs. The loading area for the project is within the surface parking area as permitted by the CCMC. B. The architectural design of the structure and the materials and colors are compatible with the scale and character of surrounding development and other October 22, 2008 Page 3 2008-P012improvements on the site and are consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter, the requirements of the zoning district in which the site is located, and with all applicable development standards and design guidelines. The proposed terraced! split-level office building will be 61'-9" at the highest point and will have a terraced design so as to step the building away from the adjoining residential neighborhood to the north and west. By stepping the building back and by providing varying building setbacks along all of the building frontages, the project's impacts to the residential neighborhood are lessened thereby making the project more compatible with the residential neighborhood. The building frontage along Higuera Street has a setback that allows for both onsite and offsite landscaping so as to further screen the project from the adjoining residential neighborhood. The proposed project is an architecturally modern building making use of a variety of building materials including wood, metal, concrete and glass. The design incorporates environmentally friendly and energy efficient building elements including roof top photovoltaic solar panels, green screening walls and green roof areas. All of these elements once combined provide an architectural relief and visual interest to the building elevations. Public artwork, in compliance with the City's Art in Public Places program, is proposed to be incorporated along the building facades. The building materials noted above, along with the environmentally friendly design features, will provide for an architectural style and color scheme that will complement existing development in the area. C. The landscaping, including the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage of plant materials, provisions for irrigation, and protection of landscape elements has been designed to create visual relief, complement structures, and provide an attractive environment and is consistent with the purpose and intent of this Chapter, the requirements of the zoning district in which the site is located ,and with all applicable development standards and design guidelines. The proposed landscaping meets all zoning code requirements providing visual relief and enhancing sustainability goals. More specifically, the onsite landscape features include ground cover, shrubs, trees and "green" building designs to provide a visual screen of the building to the surrounding residential uses. This will be amplified by the additional landscaping within the Higuera Street public right of way as part of the landscape maintenance district which will further add to the visual enhancement of the project's image to the surrounding residential uses. Overall, the onsite and offsite landscaping will complement the modern style of architecture, soften the massing of the proposed building and improve the visual image of the project from the adjoining residential neighborhood. D. The design and layout of the proposed project will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, will not result in October 22, 2008 20 Page 4 2008-P012vehicular or pedestrian hazards, and will be in the best interest of the public health, safety, and general welfare. The proposed location of the office project will not result in conflicts with uses in the existing adjacent residential neighborhood and industrial area. Access to the surface parking lot and subterranean garage shall be through the fire lane easement roadway from the westerly terminus of the Hayden Place cul-de-sac and then northerly to the site. Access to the subterranean parking garage shall be via a two-way onsite driveway. No private vehicle access shall be permitted from the fire lane emergency drive approach along the Higuera Street frontage. Vehicles entering the site shall be provided with adequate maneuvering along the fire lane easement roadway and within the site itself. The project shall provide adequate parking on the site and the traffic generated by the project is not anticipated to cause any significant impact to the existing or projected traffic levels in the area. The vehicle and pedestrian access features, along with the more than adequate onsite parking, shall lessen the possibility of interference with the use and enjoyment of adjacent residential and industrial areas and future development and shall reduce the possibility of vehicular or pedestrian hazards. E. The existing or proposed public facilities necessary to accommodate the proposed project (e.g., fire protection devices, parkways, public utilities, sewers, sidewalks, storm drains, street lights, traffic control devices, and the width and pavement of adjoining streets and alleys) will be available to serve the subject site. The existing and proposed public service facilities necessary to accommodate the project such as the width and pavement of the adjoining streets, traffic control devices, sewers, storm drains, parkways, sidewalks, street lights, street trees, fire protection devices and other public utilities are provided for adequately as confirmed by the City agencies that reviewed the project during the interdepartmental review process. F. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element in that the project will provide for the revitalization of an industrial building through new development of a currently under utilized building, which is consistent with objectives of that Element. The project will also provide for new office condominium spaces and employment opportunities along a section of Hayden Place that is lacking in such prospects, furthering the intent of General Plan Land Use Policy 6.B that focuses on commercial / office development that encourages intensities and qualities of commercial / office uses that are sensitive to their locations. 2008-P012 October 22, 2008 Page 5The project as proposed will incorporate design features such as varying setbacks and terraced building heights from the adjacent residential properties to the north and west of the site. The residential uses north of the site are separated by a public street with right-of-way landscaping which provides a landscaped buffer between the site and the surrounding residential properties, thereby providing a transition from the residential properties to the office property. These design features are consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 16.0 that encourages compatible commercial / office uses adjacent to residential lots through conditional expansion. The project site will incorporate offsite improvements such as new curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees. Such office development and offsite improvements furthers the intent of General Plan Land Use Policy 6.1 that calls for the planning of streetscape improvements such as street trees and landscaping and facade improvements along commercial / office corridors. The proposed project design makes extensive use of green design elements such as a green screen and green roof components as well as general landscaping throughout the site. Planted roof areas are intended to provide ecological benefits such as cooling, cleaning and humidifying the surrounding air, retaining and reducing storm water run-off, and improving the thermal insulation of the roof itself, thereby mitigating the effects of "urban heat islands". These green design features are consistent with General Plan Open Space Element Objective 5 that calls for the extension of the City's park-like qualities into business districts through urban design improvements. Overall the project is compatible with the surrounding area in that the proposed office development is located along Hayden Place, an established office and industrial portion of the City. The General Plan designation for the subject property is Industrial, which permits the proposed office use to which patrons travel primarily by car. Office uses are located throughout the industrial park to the east and south of the site. Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2008110: As outlined in CCMC Title 17, Section 17.530.020, the following required findings for an Administrative Use Permit are hereby made: A. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of an Administrative Use Permit and complies with all applicable provision of this Title and CCMC. The existing Industrial General (1G) zoning designation of the site allows the proposed use of tandem parking subject to an Administrative Use Permit as outlined in CCMC Section 17.320.035.C.1.13, and the proposed tandem parking layout complies with all applicable provisions regarding parking design and layout guidelines. Each stall is nine feet (9'-0") in width and thirty six feet (36'-0") in depth for a maximum of two (2) tandem parking spaces. A proper aisle width is also provided. 2008-P012 October 22, 2008 Page 6B. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. The proposed use of tandem parking to facilitate in the development of an office use is consistent with the "Industrial" General Plan Land Use designation of the site which allows a range of industrial and office uses. Each pair of tandem parking spaces shall be leased to the same tenant and thereby will facilitate the full use of the office condominium project. C. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land use in the vicinity of the subject site. The proposed use, design, location, size and operating characteristics of the tandem parking spaces will not have an impact on adjacent uses and are therefore compatible with the existing and future office land uses in the vicinity of the subject site. Each pair of tandem parking spaces shall be assigned to the same tenant and thereby will facilitate the full use of the office condominium project without requiring a parking valet or attendant. Further, each pair of two (2) tandem parking spaces shall measure nine feet (9'-0") in width by thirty six feet (36' .-0") in depth, sufficient for two (2) vehicles to maneuver into and out of said spaces. D. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of use being proposed, including access, compatibility with adjoining land uses, shape, size, provision of utilities and the absence of physical constraints. The generally flat configuration of the parking areas, the vehicular access to the site from the fire lane easement roadway, the adequate design of the ramp to/from the subterranean parking where the tandem parking is to be located, and the proposed onsite parking configuration is physically suitable to accommodate tandem parking. The tandem parking is compatible with the proposed office use and shall not require a parking valet or attendant. The tandem parking will not impact any utilities and there are no physical constraints that would prevent the use of tandem parking. E. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or general welfare or injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. The establishment of tandem parking on the site subject to the conditions of approval will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety or general welfare or injurious to persons, property or improvements in the surrounding industrial zoning district or vicinity since said tandem parking will not generate any onsite or offsite impacts. October 22, 2008 Page 7 2008-P012|101010101010101010 10 10|11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29Height Exception, HTEX P-2008111: As outlined in CCMC Title 17, Section 17.300.025.0., the following findings for a Height Exception are hereby made: The proposed height of the office building is between 30'-6" and 61-9". Consequently, the applicant has requested an exception to the 43'-0" maximum height pursuant to CCMC Section 17.300.025.C., which permits the City Council to establish a maximum building height for new construction in Redevelopment Project Component Area #3, consistent with the DFD. The applicant has requested the CORA adopt a DFD for the proposed project site. 2. The project design has taken into consideration privacy impacts to adjacent residential uses. The building is a minimum of 100 feet from homes on Higuera and the west side of Lucerne minimizing any views into these homes or yards. The western facade of the building is adjacent to three homes on the east side of Lucerne. The windows on the west side of the building are few and set high so that views into the neighboring yards are constrained. 3. As outlined in the architectural plans, an analysis of the anticipated shade and shadow footprint of the proposed building throughout the year has been prepared. The analysis concludes that there will be no significant impact onto any of the adjoining buildings resulting from the additional height. 4. The proposed building will not be in the view shed of any residential uses and therefore will not result in any view blockage from adjacent properties. 5. The majority of the proposed building is at or below the 43 foot height limit of the IG zone. The portion of the building that rises to a proposed 61'-9" is located away from the sensitive residential receptors and more appropriately towards the commercial/industrial uses on Hayden Place. The building measures a maximum height of 32 feet along the residential perimeter on the Higuera (north) side and 30.5 feet along the residential perimeter on the Lucerne (west) side. This height of the building in this location is consistent with the 30 foot height limit in the surrounding R- 2 residential zone. In addition, the building is setback up to 24 feet directly abutting the residential uses on Lucerne. 6. The massing of the proposed building includes a terraced / split-level design with varying building setbacks pulling the height away from the adjoining residential uses and more appropriately towards the commercial / industrial uses. The proposed building materials, colors and finishes are intended to create a building appearance that is sensitive to the nature of the adjoining residential uses, including the extensive use of wood paneling on those portions of the building facing residential uses. I|10101010101010 10 10|11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 October 22, 2008 Page 8 2008-P012Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, TIM P-2007184: As outlined in CCMC Title 15, Section 15.10.265, the following required findings for a Tentative Tract Map are hereby made: A. The proposed map is consistent with the General Plan. The proposed tentative tract map is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element in that the proposed office subdivision will provide for the revitalization of an industrial site through new development, which is consistent with General Plan Land Use Objective 6 of that Element. This subdivision will also provide for new office condominium spaces and employment opportunities along a section of Hayden Place, furthering the intent of General Plan Land Use Policy 6.B that focuses on commercial / office development which encourages intensities and qualities of commercial / office uses that are sensitive to their locations. The proposed condominium subdivision will create several office condominiums on one lot of adequate size, dimensions and accessibility that is capable of sustaining such a development, thereby being consistent with the City's vision for office development that is balanced with the characteristics of adjacent businesses, residential neighborhoods and local and regional streets and arterials. B. The design of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. The design of the proposed office condominium subdivision is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element as indicated above and with the Zoning Code development standards for office developments. The project design incorporates features such as progressively increased setbacks from the adjacent residential properties to make it more compatible with them and is consistent with General Plan Land Use Policy 6.B that focuses on commercial / office development which encourages intensities and qualities of commercial / office uses that are sensitive to their locations. The office building frontage along Higuera Street will vary in setback to allow for pedestrian amenities such as landscaping and paved walkways. The project site will incorporate offsite improvements such as new curb, gutter, sidewalk, and street trees. Such office frontage setbacks and onsite and offsite improvements further the intent of General Plan Land Use Policy 6.1 that calls for the planning of streetscape improvements such as street trees and landscaping and facade improvements along established corridors. The proposed project design makes extensive use of green building elements on the sides of the building and is designed with a planted roof. This roof will support hardy plants to minimize maintenance and water requirements. Planted patio areas and a courtyard consisting of various vegetation and plant materials will be located onsite. Planted roof areas are intended to provide ecological benefits such as cooling and humidifying the surrounding air, retaining and reducing storm water run-off and improving the thermal insulation of the roof itself, thereby mitigating the effects of "urban heat islands". These green design features are consistent with General Plan Open Space Element Objective 5 that calls for the 2008-P012 October 22, 2008 zs Page 9extension of the City's park-like qualities into business districts through urban design improvements. C. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is physically suitable for the proposed office subdivision in that the project complies with all zoning standards and the proposed structure shall meet all applicable development standards. The project is terraced and split-level so as to provide for setbacks that make way for landscaping amenities as allowed in the CCMC. The site accommodates the 181 parking spaces which include the 179 required parking spaces and an additional 2 parking spaces that are "extra". The proposed office uses are allowed in the IG Zone. The site can accommodate the above described project features without the need for variances, but does require a Height Exception application approval. D. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suitable for the density / massing of the proposed project in that the site can accommodate the multi-story 62,765 GSF office condominium structure without creating significant impacts on neighboring properties. The site is able to locate all 181 parking spaces onsite in both a subterranean garage and surface parking area while meeting all the Zoning Code development standards that apply in the IG Zone. E. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The proposed office condominium tentative tract map subdivision, together with the onsite and offsite improvements, shall not cause any known environmental damage and shall not damage any fish and/or wildlife habitats because such habitats do not exist on or near the site. The site is currently developed with a vacant industrial building, thus not serving any known habitat for fish or other wildlife. The one lot subdivision for office condominium purposes will occur on an existing land parcel and will not result in any new land parcels or physical divisions of existing office and residential neighborhoods. With "green" and photovoltaic roof top features, the physical design of the subdivision will act to lessen any potential environmental impacts and the green screens, planted roof tops and onsite / offsite landscaping will provide new habitats for flora and small insects. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems. October 22, 2008 The proposed office condominium tentative tract map subdivision, together with the onsite and offsite improvements, shall not cause any known serious public health problems because all applicable subdivision and zoning code development standards shall be met, and the applicant is required to meet all of the conditions of approval Page 10 2008-P012that the reviewing agencies of the City, such as the Fire Prevention Division, Planning Division, Building Safety Division and the Engineering Division, have recommended for the project. The office use proposed for this subdivision is consistent with the land uses allowed in the'IG Zone, G. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The proposed office condominium tentative tract map subdivision and the onsite and offsite improvements shall not conflict with any existing and/or proposed easements. Some of the existing utility easements are to be relocated as part of this project and — once relocated — shall not affect public right-of-way access requirements or placement of utilities within the public right-of-way at either above surface, surface or below surface areas. SECTION 2. Pursuant to the foregoing recitations and findings, the Planning Commission of the City of Culver City, California, hereby approves Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183, and Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2008110; and hereby recommends to the City Council for approval Height Exception, HTEX P-2008111, and Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, TTM P-2007184, subject to the following conditions: GENERAL CONDITIONS Planning Division: The final working drawings shall conform to the development plans, colored renderings and materials board reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 22, 2008, except as may be noted below. The resolution approving Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183, Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2008110, Height Exception, HTEX P-2008111, and Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, TTM P-2007184, and the conditions of approval shall be referenced on the cover sheet and repeated in full on attached additional sheets of the final working drawings. The applicant or property owner shall provide the construction contractor(s) and each subcontractor related to the project a copy of the final project conditions of approval. These conditions shall be enforceable through all legal and equitable remedies, 2008-P012 October 22, 2008 Page 11including the imposition of fines against each and every person who conducts any activity on behalf of the applicant / property owner on or near the project site. The applicant / property owner, and general construction contractor are ultimately responsible for all actions or omissions of a subcontractor. 4. Conditions of approval herein shall apply to the applicant I property owner, the contractor / builder of the project, and any successor applicant / property owner that may legally assume benefit of Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183, Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2008110, Height Exception, HTEX P-2008111, and Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, TTM P-2007184, 5, The City reserves the right to periodically inspect the premises without prior notification to ensure ongoing compliance with all conditions of approval. 6. Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183, Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2008110, Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, TTM P-2007184, and Height Exception, HTEX P- 2008111, shall expire unless: A. Actual construction, in accordance with a valid City-issued building permit, is commenced on the site within one (1) year after the effective date of the entitlements; or B. Prior to the entitlements expiration date, or any previously granted extension to that expiration date, a written request for an extension, accompanied by any and all required fees, has been satisfactorily filed by or on behalf of the applicant / property owner and, thereafter, an extension is granted by the Community Development Director, or designee During the period any extension request has been satisfactorily and timely filed and any decision regarding that request has been made by the City, this Site Plan Review and Administrative Use Permit approval shall be suspended. 7. The applicant and the property owner shall jointly indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City and the City's elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, agents, contractors and consultants from and against any and all claims, demands, lawsuits, judgments, liability, injury or damage which may result from or arise in connection with third party challenges to the City's approval of the Project. Said indemnification shall be set forth in a written instrument acceptable to the City Attorney, which shall be signed by the applicant and the property owner prior to a building permit being issued. 8 The applicant and property owner shall use all reasonable efforts to reuse and recycle construction and demolition debris, to use environmentally friendly materials and to provide energy efficient buildings, equipment and systems. October 22, 2008 28 Page 12 2008-P0129. All planted areas shall be landscaped, irrigated and maintained pursuant to CCMC Title 17— Chapter 17.310, Landscaping. As part of the building permit filing process, a minimum of three (3) sets of detailed landscape and irrigation plans — separate from the final working drawings shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval. Said plans shall include, but not be limited to, the following: A. Wall climbing vines shall be planted along the base of all perimeter walls and fences in a spacing determined by the Planning Manager and Parks Manager; B. A plan to upgrade the landscape and irrigation of the existing landscape buffer along the parkway portion of the Higuera Street landscape maintenance district directly abutting the north property line right-of-way. At a minimum, the potential of planting a large specimen tree(s) within the parkway so as to further screen the proposed project from the residential uses to the north of the site as determined feasible by the Planning Manager and Parks Manager; C. A landscape and irrigation plan for all green building design landscape components including, but not limited to, green roofs and green screens; and Along the west property line, the landscape plans shall include the planting of "geijera parviflor" (Australian Willows) 24 inch box trees spaced eight feet (8'- 0") on center and with their canopies overlapping at installation so as to provided a primary landscape screen above the top of the block wall to be constructed along the subject property line. Additionally, the new trees to be planted within the abutting courtyard area shall be "eucalyptus citriadora" (Lemon Scented Gum) 24 inch box trees so as to provide a secondary landscape screen above the top of the canopies of the trees planted along the property line. 10. In addition to the screening requirements for onsite parking areas and Fire Department connections, the following items shall be screened from surrounding and nearby public and private properties in a manner consistent with City standards and suitable to the subject development as approved by the Planning Manager. In general, the height of any required screening device shall be no lower on any side than the height of the highest feature requiring screening and: A. All exteriors of the proposed building shall be free of all un-aesthetically treated, exposed elements (i.e., plumbing pipes, electrical conduits and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) elements) which shall be placed within the exterior walls. Where exposed wall-mounted features or equipment may be necessary (i.e., ventilators and utility meters), recessed wall mounted cabinets or other similar devices shall be constructed within the wall, whenever possible, to accommodate such features and equipment so' that they are flush with and do not project out from the main exterior wall plane. With or without recesses, the exposed portions of such features or equipment shall be of a color to blend, not contrast, with the October 22, 2008 a9 Page 13 2008-P012adjoining finished building color, subject to the approval of the Planning Manager; B. All roof-mounted mechanical equipment, duct vents and the like shall not project above the horizontal plane of the building's lowest primary opaque architectural feature(s) (i.e., parapet walls, penthouse structures or screening walls); and C. All ground-mounted equipment (i.e., transformers and air conditioners) shall be located within the building or in underground vaults if the equipment is located within a street facing setback, or it shall be screened with walls and/or landscaping if not located within a street facing setback. Ground-mounted equipment shall not be located in the landscaped areas fronting any public right-of-way. 11. The public notification signs installed in accordance with the CCMC public notification requirements for this review process shall be removed within ten (10) days of the end of the appeal period or the final decision of the City Council and/or Redevelopment Agency, whichever occurs last. 12. The refuse containers assigned to or otherwise used by the building shall be stored ortsite in the trash enclosure. 13. All hardscape areas along both the exterior of the building and/or within the interior of the project site shall include the use of decorative pavement (i.e., materials, finish and color) in select areas to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. 14. The project and its operations shall comply with all applicable local, special district or authority, county and federal statutes, codes, standards and regulations including, but not limited to, Building Safety Division, Fire Department, Planning Division and Public Works Department code requirements and it shall comply with all applicable comments and code requirements as determined during the City's building permit review process. 15. The driveway, garage ramps and all floor areas used for vehicle maneuvering shall be treated with a medium broom finish in order to create an anti-skid surface. 16. All security elements along the exterior,of the site shall be architecturally compatible with the project as determined by the Planning Manager. Building and Safety Division: 17. The Culver City Building and Safety Division requires separate permits for building, electrical, plumbing and mechanical work. 2008-P012 18. The building permit application shall require the submission of five (5) sets of architectural and two (2) sets each of the structural drawings and calculations, the October 22, 2008 Page 142|10101010101010 10 10|11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 geotechnical report, energy forms and the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing permit applications. 19. A separate shoring permit shall be required. Submit 2 sets shoring plans and structural calculations stamped by a State of California licensed engineer. Support of adjacent properties may be required to insure a safe workplace and to protect adjoining improvements during excavation and construction. Notification to adjacent properties may be required. The Building Safety Division and the Engineering Division will determine what if any upgrades are necessary, which upgrades may include special backfill conditions. 20. All portions of the parking structure shall be a minimum two (2) hour rated, reinforced concrete construction. 21. All stair shafts shall be two (2) hour rated on all sides continuous to a street or public way. A driveway or a drive aisle shall not be considered a means of egress. All shafts shall be a minimum of two (2) hour rated from the foundation to the underside of the roof deck or to the top of parapet walls as part of any shaft construction. 22. All elevator lobbies shall be two (2) hour enclosed. 23. All shafts shall be enclosed at all levels to other areas of the building. 24. The doors into the exit stairs at the garage level shall swing into the exit stairs. 25. All parking areas shall be minimum two (2) hour rated to all other areas of the building. The ceiling of the parking area / floor of the first floor shall be reinforced concrete construction. 26. All treads, risers, handrails and other design elements inside any common area stairway shall be one hundred percent (100%) non-combustible construction. 27. A continuous path of egress shall be provided from all exit stairways to a street or public way and be a minimum one (1) hour rated. 28. Any exit way less than ten feet (10'-0") wide shall be a minimum one (1) hour rated. 29. All trash rooms shall be a minimum two (2) hour rated to all other areas. 30. The electrical transformer room and any service room(s) shall each be a minimum two (2) hour rated. 31. Any exterior walls within three feet (3'-0") of any property line shall be three (3) hour rated of reinforced concrete block construction and shall include a parapet a minimum of two feet six inches (2'-6") above any adjacent roof or walking surface. October 22, 2008 Page 15 2008-P01232. Al! utilities shall be underground or enclosed in the building construction. No overhead utilities shall be permitted. 33. All exit signage and emergency egress lighting shall have individual battery back-up and or be self-powered in addition to any emergency generator power. 34. The project shall be reviewed under the 2007 California Building Code (CBC). 35. No opening shall be permitted without filing and prior approval of a Certificate of Occupancy (C of 0) or final inspection if no C of 0 is to be issued by the Building Official. 36. The overall construction permit application drawings shall: A. Indicate any proposed construction staging areas; and B. Include a schedule of the special inspections anticipated, the firm proposed for the special inspections and the resumes of any special inspectors for this project. The City reserves the right to reject any special inspector at any time. If a City inspector is inspecting a portion of the work for which a special inspection is required; the special inspection report shall be made available to the City inspector on their arrival to the jobsite. All jobsite supervisors, contractors, and subcontractors shall give their priority to the City inspector when they are onsite. 37. The applicant shall comply with all provisions of the City's solar photovoltaic power ordinance. 38. The applicant shall perform a complete asbestos and lead survey of the onsite structures and shall submit the written report(s) on the results of the surveys to the Building Official. 39. A geotechnical engineering design level report shall accompany the overall construction permit application. 40. Tempered or laminated glazing shall be specified at all hazardous locations. Fire Department: — 41. The project shall be designed to be in compliance with the requirements of California Title 24, the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the CCMC. 42. The building shall have fire sprinklers per NFPA 13 and CCMC Section 9.02. All fire department connections (FDC's) shall be located as approved by Fire Marshal. Each FDC shall be located within 30'-0" to 50'-0" of a fire hydrant. A new fire hydrant may be required to meet this requirement as determined by the Fire Marshal. The double October 22, 2008 2008-P012 Page 16detector check assembly (DDCA) shall be located as required by Golden State Water Company (GSWC) and the screening of this device shall be per the Planning Division's requirements. A separate permit from the Fire Department is required along with plan review and approval for fire sprinklers. Minimum density of the fire sprinkler system shall be Ordinary Hazard Group I, 0.15 over 1,500 square feet. 43. A fire flow requirement from adjacent fire hydrant(s) shall be provided as determined by the Fire Marshal and the California Fire Code (CFC). Any and all upgrades to surrounding water main(s) to meet the minimum required fire flow shall be at the sole cost of the applicant / property owner. 44. The applicant shall provide a fire sprinkler monitoring and fire alarm system per NFPA 72 and a fire monitoring system separate from the security system. Photo electric smoke detectors shall be required in all mechanical, electrical, telephone and similar rooms. Heat detectors shall be provided where the environment is inappropriate for smoke detection as determined by the Fire Marshal. Audible visual devices per NFPA 72 public mode shall be provided. Connection to all duct smoke detection per CCFD regulations and for connection to Class I hood extinguishing systems shall be provided. 45. Trash areas within five feet (5'-0") of the building shall be protected by fire sprinklers. 46. Provide and receive approval of a pre-fire plan prior to requesting a C of 0 or final inspection. 47. An emergency rapid entry system as approved by the Fire Marshal shall be required for access into all common rooms and common secured areas of the building and parking structure and a key switch shall be provided for all motorized or electrical operated / controlled gates. The proposed emergency vehicle access barricade (i.e., chain and post or swing gate(s)) along the Higuera Street frontage shall also be provided with the referenced emergency equipment. 48. Fire extinguishers shall be provided throughout the project of a size, location and type to be determined by the Fire Marshal upon review of final building plans. 49. A fire alarm / offsite reporting system shall be provided of a type and requirements to be determined by the Fire Marshal upon review of final building plans. 50. An address sign viewable and legible from the public right-of-way at all times shall be provided and said address sign shall be illuminated from dusk to dawn. 51. An emergency evacuation plan shall be submitted to the Fire Marshal for review and approval and implemented in accordance with Title 19 prior to occupancy of any portion of the building.|1010101010101010 10 10|11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 2008-P012 October 22, 2008 Page 172|101010101010 10 10|11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 52. A smoke evacuation system for the parking garage shall be provided per Chapter 9 of the CBC. 53. The building shall be provided with a Class III standpipe system including hose outlets in the parking structure and the building with two and a half inch (2-1/2") valves with one and a half inch (1-1/2") reducing caps. Location of valves shall be determined by the Fire Marshal upon review of final building plans. 54. The project shall be designed for a one hundred foot (100'-0") hose and a thirty foot (30'-0") stream system. Design shall be based on all obstructions. Hoses and cabinets shall not be required. 55. All exterior doors shall have locksets and handles. 56. All fascias and parapets shall be constructed of solid materials able to support the weight of fire fighters and suppression equipment and the use of foam or other soft materials shall be prohibited. 57. Trash compactors, if provided, shall have two and a half inch (2-1/2") swivels and caps for use by the Fire Department. 58. All parapets and exterior walls five feet (5'-0") or higher above the roof line shall have catwalks and/or ladders screened and approved by the Fire Marshal and Planning Manager. 59. A smoke detection system shall be provided for all interior exit corridors, electrical rooms, mechanical rooms and other common storage and special use rooms. 60. Audible and visual fire warning devices shall be provided as required by the NFPA 72 public mode throughout the entire building including, but not limited to, common areas, suites, conference rooms, lunch rooms and copy rooms as required by the Fire Marshal. Said alarms shall sound with the activation of the water flow switch per NFPA and CFC Article 10. 61. Interior signage shall be provided for all rooms including a room number and use. All stairs shall have signs indicating stair number, floor and either "Roof Access" or "No Roof Access". All rooms on the interior and exterior to the building shall be provided with numbers and description. Stairways shall be marked at access and on each landing stair number and if stairway provides roof access or no roof access. 62. Plans shall carry a "Fire Department Notes" section to include all life safety items. Notes shall include all Fire Department conditions of approval and any other code requirements pertaining to life safety. 63. The seventeen foot (17'-0") wide onsite portion of the thirty four foot (34'-0") wide vehicle access way abutting the easterly portion of the site between the Higuera October 22, 2008 7r4,4 Page 18 2008-P012Street property line and the southerly property line of the subject site shall be recorded on the final tract map as a 'fire lane'. Said fire lane shall be provided with "red" color painted curbing and shall be posted on a three inch (3") diameter post painted a color to match the project and provided with "Fire Lane — No Parking" "white" color stencil lettering as determined by the Fire Marshal. The surface of the fire lane shall support the minimum weight of all applicable fire apparatus as determined by the Fire Marshal [i.e., a minimum of 68,000 pounds]. Private vehicle access to/from Higuera Street shall continue to be permanently prohibited by the installation of an emergency vehicle access barricade) and signage as may be required by the Fire Marshal at the northerly property line abutting Higuera Street. 64. A double detector check assembly required for the project shall be located and screened from public view in a manner to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and Planning Manager. 65. Access for emergency fire and medical personnel between the street and main entrance for the building shall be provided via a concrete surface and paved to allow the rolling of a medical gurney. Similar access within the interior of the building between the main entrance and all elevator lobbies shall be provided via a smooth flooring surface. 66. Special submittals for review are required for green building construction along all floors, walls and roofs. One (1) hour construction with fire sprinkler system shall be provided if the roof structure has green elements restricting fire fighting operations as determined by the Fire Marshal. Smoke and heat vents may also be required pending review of final building plans. 67. Rooms used for electrical equipment shall be posted "No Storage By Order Of The Fire Marshal" and all areas in front of electrical equipment shall have floor markings indicating a clear space to be unobstructed as required by the National Electrical Code (NEC). 68. All emergency lights and exit lights shall have self contained battery backup power. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY DEMOLITION, GRADING, EXCAVATION, AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT: Planning Division: 69. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Manager and receive approval for the following: A. An exterior light fixture and illumination plan developed pursuant to CCMC Section 17.300, General Property Development and Use Standards. Said plan shall identify the location and type of all exterior light fixtures. All lighting shall be directed onsite and light sources shall be shielded so as not to be intrusive to surrounding properties; October 22, 2008 Page 19 2008-P012B. A vector / pest control abatement plan prepared by a pest control specialist licensed and/or certified by the State of California. Said plan shall outline all steps to be taken prior to the commencement of any demolition / construction activity so as to insure any and all pests [including, but not limited to, rodents, bees, ants and mosquitoes] that may populate the subject site do not relocate to or impact adjoining residences and/or businesses; and C. A construction workers and contractors parking and equipment staging plan addressing all phases of the construction project and directing all project related vehicles to park onsite or at designated offsite location(s) as may be approved by the City Engineer and Planning Manager following receipt of prior written approval from the offsite property owner(s). The plan shall include, but not be limited to, the staging, storage and parking of all construction related equipment, trailers, materials, trash dumpsters, storage containers and vehicles. Appropriate fencing, screening, signage, illumination and security elements shall also be listed. Said plan shall prohibit the parking of any construction related vehicle, equipment and/or materials within any portion of the public right of way serving the surrounding industrial or residential area. Use of non-residential private property may be permitted if deemed to be in compliance with the CCMC by the Planning Manager. Parking within the newly constructed subterranean parking structure may be permitted following written clearance by the Building Official. Fire Department: 70. The applicant shall submit to the Fire Marshal for approval a construction emergency access plan. Said plan shall address the continued access and use of the existing fire lane roadway easement during construction by emergency vehicles between the Higuera Street emergency access driveway and the Hayden Place cul-de-sac or other alternative access locations. Public Works Department / Engineering: 71. Two (2) sets of Site Improvement / Grading Plans prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review, approval and permitting. Among other things, the Site Improvement / Grading Plan shall include detailed drainage and grading of the site indicated by topographical lines and spot elevations, and indicate all proposed and existing utilities. 72. A final hydrology and hydraulics report for the site drainage shall be prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California and submitted to the City Engineer as part of the grading plan for review and approval. The 25-year storm frequency (i.e., urban flood) shall be used for the design of the onsite conveyance facilities, as the existing site is neither a natural watercourse nor a natural sump. October 22, 2008 Page 20 2008-P0122|10101010101010 10 10|11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 73. Submit a geotechnical report from a geotechnical engineer registered in the State of California reporting on the stability of the onsite soils to support the proposed construction and shall include a liquefaction analysis. The report shall also identify any special considerations necessary to satisfy CBC requirements. 74. Prior to the issuance of the Site Improvement / Grading permit, the proposed re- alignment of the existing 72" storm drain shall be approved and permitted by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District and a copy of the approved plans and county permit shall be submitted to the Culver City Engineering Division. That portion of the existing 72" storm drain to be abandoned shall be completely removed and inspected by the Engineering Division prior to any excavation / compaction related to the subterranean garage. 75. Any modifications to parking lot drainage devices, concrete curb, sidewalk and driveway shall be designed to the latest edition of the APWA Standard Plans. 76. If drainage sump pumps are required in the subterranean garage, a civil engineer registered in the State of California shall provide calculations determining the appropriate size and capacities of the proposed sump pumps. A secondary emergency sump pump system shall also be provided. 77. Prior to the commencement of any demolition or excavation, a temporary construction fence shall be installed around the site. The height and fence material shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer and Planning Manager. 78. Construction vehicles shall not be permitted to stage or queue along any portion of the surrounding residential streets including, but not limited to, Higuera Street and Lucerne Avenue, nor where they would interfere with vehicular and pedestrian traffic or block access to any residence or business. Any offsite staging location(s) as may be approved by the City shall be of sufficient length to accommodate large trucks without being unduly disruptive to traffic operations. 79, Due to the change of use and increased density, the project is subject to the City's Sewer Facility Charge which shall be paid prior to the issuance of any permit other than a demolition permit. 80. The trash enclosure shall have perimeter walls that are six feet (6'-0") in height, have minimum inside dimensions of twelve feet (12'-0") feet in width by ten feet (10'-0") in depth, have a six inch (6") by six inch (6") raised concrete curb along the inside wall perimeter and a double swing gate (or roll up door) that is eight feet (8'-0") in width and of a height equal to the height of the enclosure walls when in a closed position. The enclosure walls shall be of a material and color that matches the proposed architecture of the building. A fire suppression sprinkler(s) system shall be provided within any covered trash enclosure area as required by the Fire Marshal. October 22, 2008 Page 21 2008-P01281. In accordance with CCMC Section 5.01.010, Ordinance No. 2201-011. Solid Waste Management, the Sanitation Division has the exclusion franchise for all solid and recyclable waste material handling within the city limits. 82. A traffic control plan for the streets surrounding the work area with specific information regarding the project's construction and activities that are anticipated to disrupt normal traffic flow shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. 83. All utilities that require relocation or new service to the proposed project shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the applicant shall be responsible to obtaining the approval from the respective agencies and/or utility company. 84. Drainage devices, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk, drive approach and roadway pavement shall be designed to the latest edition of the APWA Standard Plans. All onsite runoff, to include roof drainage, shall adhere to the Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan requirements prior to being discharged into the street via curb drains and/or storm drain system. Local Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 85. Concurrently with the submittal of the Site Improvement I Grading Plan, a Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (LSWPPP) package prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. 86. The LSWPPP package shall be developed and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the current Los Angeles County Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit No. CAS614001 and CCMC Section 5.05.035. Prior to the issuance of any demolition, grading, excavation and/or building permit, the applicant shall have a LSWPPP package approved by the City Engineer, 87. The LSWPPP package shall include all of the individual items listed in the Engineering Division's most current version of the "Requirements for Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan" handout. 88. The scope of the information shown on the LSWPPP plans shall be limited to NPDES relevant information. Prior to the start of design of these plans and necessary reports, the applicant's civil engineer shall meet with the City's Stormwater Program Manager to obtain information on the City-specific LSWPPP requirements. 89. Plan check fees for the LSWPPP shall be paid at the time of the initial submittal per the most current fee schedule established by the City Council. 2008-P012 October 22, 2008 Page 2290. The applicant shall appropriately and effectively implement the Best Management Practices (BMP) identified in the LSWPPP and reduce to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) both the volume of storm water leaving the site as well as the amount of sediments and other pollutants in the storm water and the non-storm water discharges. Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan 91. Concurrently with the submittal of the Site Improvement / Grading Plan, a Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) or a site-specific mitigation package prepared by a civil engineer registered in the State of California shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. The SUSMP shall be developed and implemented in accordance with the requirements of the following: A. The current Los Angeles County Municipal Stormwater NPDES Permit No. CAS004001 (Order No. 01-182); B. The most recent SUSMP for Los Angeles County and Cities in Las Angeles County as approved by the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board; and C CCMC Section 5.05.040. 92. Prior to the start of design of these plans and necessary reports, the applicant shall retain a civil engineer registered in the State of California, who is experienced in designing SUSMP and preparing BMP reports. The civil engineer shall meet with the City's Stormwater Program Manager to obtain information on City Specific SUSMP requirements. 93. A covenant, to be effective in perpetuity unless terminated by the approval of the Public Works Director, shall be recorded in the Offices of the Los Angeles County Recorder. The recorded covenant shall include provisions requiring the current property owner and any and all successors-in-interest, transferees and assignees to maintain all onsite structural stormwater pollution removal devices, including, but not limited to, Detention/Sedimentation Systems, Filtration Systems, Infiltration Systems, Oil and Water Separators, Water Quality Inlets and Dry Wells, all in accordance with the Operation and Maintenance Plan approved by the Public Works Director or his/her designee. In addition, the specific structural BMPs to be utilized and maintained for the property shall be set forth in the covenant. The covenant shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. 94, The Site Improvement / Grading Plans shall note the contractor shall comply with the California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks. October 22, 2008 2008-P012 Page 2395. Plan check fee for the SUSMP shall be paid at the time of the initial submittal per the most current fee schedule established by the City Council. DURING CONSTRUCTION: Planning Division: 96. Information that includes contact names and telephone numbers of the applicant / property owner, construction contractor(s) and City shall be posted at the project site so as to be visible to the public and of a size and location as approved by the Planning Manager. These names and telephone numbers shall be made available to adjacent property owners and residents. 97. All graffiti shall be removed within forty eight (48) hours of its application and said removal standards shall continue once the development becomes operational. 98. The following noise standards shall be complied with at all times: A No construction equipment shall be operated without an exhaust muffler and all such equipment shall have mufflers and sound control devices (i.e., intake silencers and noise shrouds) that are no less effective than those provided on the original equipment; B. All construction equipment shall be properly maintained to minimize noise emissions; C. If any construction vehicles are serviced at a location onsite, the vehicle(s) shall be setback from any street and other property lines so as to maintain the greatest distance from the public right-of-way and from noise sensitive receptors; and D. Noise impacts from stationary sources (i.e., mechanical equipment, ventilators, and air conditioning units) shall be minimized by proper selection of equipment and the installation of acoustical shielding as approved by the Planning Manager and the Building Official in order that compliance with the CCMC Noise Regulations and Standards is achieved. 99. Stationary source equipment (i.e., compressors) shall be located so as to maintain the greatest distance from the public right-of-way and from noise sensitive receptors. Public Works Department / Engineering Division: 100. The construction contractor shall advise the Public Works inspector of the project schedule and shall meet with the inspector prior to commencement of work. -10 October 22, 2008 Page 24 2008-P012101. Hours of construction shall be limited from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday to Friday, and from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Saturday. Construction shall be prohibited on Sundays and national holidays. Dirt hauling and construction material deliveries or removal are prohibited during the morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM) peak traffic periods. 102. During construction, dust shall be controlled by regular watering and as directed by the Public Works inspector. 103. A copy of the Local SWPPP, inspection logs, and training records shall also be kept onsite and made available for inspection at all times during construction. 104. Reconstruct the full width of the existing fire lane easement roadway from Higuera Street to Hayden Place and include new concrete longitudinal gutter per American Public Works Association (APWA) Standard Plans. Said repair shall include a two inch (2") grind and replacement of the existing asphalt concrete pavement and reconstruction of the existing concrete ribbon gutter. 105. Reconstruct all damaged pipe sections on the existing eight inch (8") sewer main and any damage to the sewer manhole due to any tree root intrusion caused by trees located on private property shall be repaired. The existing sewer lateral shall be removed and all connections shall be permanently capped at the sewer main. 106. Reconstruct the emergency access driveway approach along Higuera Street per Culver City High Speed Approach Standards and the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance standards. 107. Reconstruct any damaged sidewalks, curb and gutters along the property frontage on Lucerne Avenue and Higuera Street per APWA Standard Plans. 108. New street tree(s) shall be planted and irrigated along the Higuera Street parkway, which is within a portion of the Higuera Street Landscaping And Lighting Maintenance District abutting the site, as approved by the Public Works Director, Street Tree Maintenance Supervisor, Parks Manager and Planning Manager. The new street tree(s) shall further enhance the public right of way landscaping and provide additional screening of the proposed building from the residential uses to the north of the site. The size and species of said street tree(s) shall be determined as part of the final landscape plan. 109. All water backflow devices shall be located on private property and screened from view as required by the CCMC. 110. Install a four inch (4") solid yellow stripe to delineate the egress/ingress of all driveways and intersections of the driveway aisles. 41 October 22, 2008 Page 25 2008-P012PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (C OF 0): Planning Division 111. All onsite and offsite landscaping and irrigation shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager and Parks Manager. 112. The applicant shall submit to the Planning Manager and Building Official a written record of all green building design, construction and operational elements of the project as defined by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) or other similar organization as may be determined by the Building Official. 113. All applicable conditions of approval and required onsite and offsite improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager. 114. The City's Art in Public Places requirement per CCMC Title 15, Section 15.06.100 shall be fulfilled. The public art shall be maintained on an ongoing basis and installed or created on a material that is durable and does not fade over time. 115. The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs), the office owners' association bylaws and, if applicable, the condominium plan (Condo Plan) shall be submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval. The CC&Rs shall include provisions requiring the owners association to actively manage and provide surveillance of the property. Additionally, the applicant shall record with the Los Angeles County Recorder, concurrently with the recordation of the final map, the City approved CC&Rs and, if applicable, the Condo Plan, 116. In order to insure that occupants of and visitors to the property do not park on residential streets, a Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director which establishes the systems and procedures for the management of the on-site parking including but not limited to the proposed operations of the tandem parking, provisions for tenant and visitor parking, any sticker system implemented to identify users of the on-site parking, and any proposed paid parking program if applicable. To determine whether project related parking is occurring off-site on adjacent residential streets, including but not limited to Higuera Street, Lucerne Avenue, Wesley Street, Helms Avenue, and Schaefer Street, the City shall contract with a consultant to produce at the applicant's, or property owner expense three consecutive annual monitoring reports of the projects parking operations and its compliance with the Parking Management Plan commencing one year after issuance of a Final Certificate of Occupancy. If it is determined that occupants of or visitors to the property are parking on residential street, the Director may take steps to prevent such parking, including requiring the property to provide free parking to occupants and visitors, and/or requiring attended parking without limiting the following. The Director may make a determination, under Section 17.320.35 (C) (1) (b) (ii) of the Zoning Code, that attendant parking is not required on 42- October 22, 2008 Page 26 2008-P012the property, only if each pair of tandem spaces has been assigned and designated to a single condominium airspace unit and only if the Director determines the provisions outlined in the Parking Management Plan are satisfactory to insure that the occupants of and visitors to the property are not parking on residential streets The Director may rescind such determination at any time if it is determined that occupants of or visitors to the property are parking on residential streets. If attended parking is required, the applicant or property owner shall submit an attended parking plan to the Director for review and approval. 117. The applicant shall make a fair share financial contribution, calculated by the City Engineer to be Fifty Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($50,000.00), towards the total cost of studying and implementing a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP) along Higuera Street between Lucerne Avenue and Hayden Avenue. Said funds shall be paid to the City Engineer prior to the applicant requesting any Certificate of Occupancy. Upon occupying eighty five percent (85.0%) of the total building gross square footage, the vehicle traffic at the project driveway shall be counted in a manner outlined and approved by the City Engineer. Said traffic counts and accompanying written report shall be prepared by a traffic engineer licensed in the State of California, and paid from the financial contribution described above. If said report shows an increase over the projected traffic as outlined in the Traffic Study dated July 23, 2008 prepared by KOA Corporation, the City Engineer may assign the remaining balance of funds towards any improvements in addition to any NTMP improvements that may be implemented. Any funds not allocated or used by the City by the end of a five (5) year period beginning from the date of issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, shall be returned to the applicant interest free. Public Works Department / Engineering Division: 118. The applicant or property owner shall at their expense repair or replace any damage to the public right-of-way caused by the construction of the proposed project. Such repair or replacement shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 119. Prior to issuance of the C of 0, the property owner shall construct all the stormwater pollution control BMPs and structural treatment control BMPs shown on the approved SUSMP or site-specific mitigation plan and submit a stormwater observation report based on forms obtained from the City's Stormwater Program Manager, which shall include a wet-signed and stamped certification statement by the engineer who prepared the SUSMP site plans, confirming that the SUSMP BMPs have been built as designed. 120. The applicant shall submit to the City's Stormwater Program Manager a notarized Master Covenant and Agreement (regarding onsite BMP maintenance) to be recorded by the Los Angeles County Recorder. Prior to getting the Agreement notarized, the applicant's civil engineer shall contact the City's Stormwater Program Manager for October 22, 2008 2008-P012 Page 27review of the agreement and for information on other requirements associated with the recording process. 121. After the construction of the SUSMP-related BMPs, the applicant shall submit to the City's Stormwater Program Manager a completed Stormwater Observation Report Form (stamped and signed by the civil engineer or architect responsible for the SUSMP design) to certify, based on their observations, that all SUSMP-related BMPs have been constructed per the specifications and drawings. 122. All Public Works conditions of approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, Transportation Division: 123. Pursuant to CCMC Section 7.05.015, Transportation Demand and Trip Reduction Measures, prior to issuance of a C of 0, the developer shall provide and continuously maintain the following which shall be met to the satisfaction of the Planning Manager and Transportation Director: A. A bulletin board, display case, or kiosk displaying transportation information in a prominent area accessible to the greatest number of employees shall be installed and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1) Current maps, routes and schedules for all public transit providers and routes serving the site; 2) Telephone numbers for referrals on transportation information including numbers for the regional ridesharing agency(ies), transportation management association(s) and local transit operators; 3) Ridesharing promotional material supplied by commuter-oriented organizations; 4) Bicycle route and facility information including regional / local bicycle maps and bicycle safety information; and 5) A listing of any other facilities and resources that may be available for carpoolers, vanpoolers, bicyclists, transit riders and pedestrians at the site. All information required by this Section shall be regularly stocked on a periodic basis. 2008-P012 October 22, 2008 Page 28Tentative Tract Map No. 65473, TTM P2008080: Public Works Department / Engineering Division: 124. The final map shall be prepared by a Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer licensed in the State of California, 125. The final map shall conform to the tentative tract map conditionally approved by the Planning Commission on October 22, 2008, 126. The project boundary shall be tied to at least one (1) global positioning satellite (GPS) monument established by and located within the City. 127. All required boundary monuments shall be installed prior to the recording of the final map. At a minimum, a spike and washer shall be set on the centerline of Higuera Street at the intersection of the prolongation of the project's westerly boundary and on the centerline of Lucerne Avenue with the intersection of the prolongation of the project's northerly boundary. Each monument shall be tied to at least three (3) points, with lead and tags, and centerline tie notes filed with the Engineering Division. 128. An improvement bond and agreement shall be filed with the City prior to the recording of the final map for those public improvements awaiting completion and approved by the City Engineer to be bonded. The bond and agreement shall conform to CCMC Section 66499 of the Subdivision Map Act and include, but not be limited to, labor and material and be based on estimated construction cost unit prices as provided by the City. 129. The final map shall be submitted to the Los Angles County Department of Public Works for review, approval and recordation. After approval of the technical aspect of the map by Los Angeles County, and prior to recordation, the final map shall be approved by the City Council. A copy of the first plan check package as submitted to Los Angeles County shall also be submitted concurrently to the Culver City Engineering Division for review. 130. The applicant shall submit a duplicate mylar of the final map to the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office to obtain a conformed copy of the recorded final map. The Conformed copy shall be filed with the Culver City Engineering Division. 131. The final map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any C of 0 for any office air space unit. 149|10101010101010 10 10|11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 October 22, 2008 Page 29 2008-P012132. The Tentative Tract Map shall expire within three (3) years after the date it becomes effective unless the applicant submits an extension request in writing to the Planning Manager and is granted said extension by the Planning Manager, Planning Commission or the City Council APPROVED and ADOPTED this 22nd day of October 2008. JOHN KUECHLE, VICE-CHAIR PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA Attested by: Yvonne Hunt Administrative Secretary October 22, 2008 2008-P012 Page 30Attachment LB PROJECT SUMMARY APPLICATION TITLE & CASE NO Approval of Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183 and Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2008110; and Recommendation to the City Council on Height Exception, HTEX P-2008111, and Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, TTM P-2007184, for the construction of an new office building at 8665 Hayden place. PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: APPLICANT .INFORMATION: 8665 Hayden Place Culver City, California 90232 The site is located north of the westerly cul-de-sac terminus of Hayden Place; with frontage along Higuera Street. The Los Angeles County, Assessors list the property in Book 4204, Page 005, Parcel 025. The site is listed on City Atlas Sheet No. 49. Property Owner: Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green LLC 4262 Lincoln Avenue Culver City, California 90232 Office: (310) 253-9131 Fax: (310) 943-15'19 E-mail: dred@rethinkdev.com E-mail: www.rethinkdev.com Architect: Cunningham Group Architecture 4056 Del Rey Avenue Marina Del Rey, California 90292 Office: (310) 306-9102 Fax: (310) 306-0090 E-mail: adoyEeQcunninoham.com E-mail: www.cunningham.com PERMIT/APPLICATION TYPE: I 1 Administrative Use Permit. Conditional Use Permit. Administrative Site Plan , ,Review. Site Plan Review. , Administrative Variance. I Variance. Master Sign Program. Certificate of Appropriateness. Certificate of Exemption. DOBI. 0 Tentative Parcel Map. L|1010|EFI I -1|1010|1- r 4 Tentative Tract Map. E Lot Line Adjustment. El Zoning Code Amendment - Text. 0 Zoning Code Amendment - Map. ri General Plan Amendment - Text. C General Plan Amendment - Map. Planned Unit Development. C Specific Plan. I4 Other: Height Exception. APPROVAL EmPY: Public - Hearing E Pailid . Meeting LI Administrative I IZI 151 Administrative. Planning Commission [SPR]. City . Council. El Redevelopment Agency. 0 Other: Cultural Affairs Commission. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION AND NOTICING: CEQA Determination: 09/16/2008 ri Categorical Exemption. El Negative Declaration. — Mitigated Negative Declaration. Environmental Impact Report, CEQA Noticing: 09/17/2008 I Notice of Exemption (within 5 days of decision). 15:q Notice of Intent to Adopt (21 days prior to decision). El Notice of Determination (within 5 days of decision) ISI Fish & Game Certificate of Fee Exemption (within 5 days of decision). I I Notice of Preparation [1 Noticeof Availability 1 I Notice of Completeness Updated 10/15/2008 Page 1 of 4 49-.ART IN PUBLIC PLACES: The project shall comply with the City's Art in Public Places ordinance as outlined in the CCMC. PUBLIC . NOTIFICATION: Mailing: 09/16/2008 and 10/02/2008 Z Property Owners. E Within 500' foot radius. Z Within 500' foot plus extended radius. Z Other: Always list. Occupants. CI Adjacent Property Owners & Occupants. Posting: 09/16/2008 and 10/06/2008 Z Onsite 12 Locations]. E. Offsite. ri Other: NA. Publication: NA ijj Culver City News. r Other: NA. Courtesy Mailing: 09/16/2008 and 10/02/2008 Ej City Council. Z Planning Commission. Z Master Mail List and E-Mail List. n Culver City Website. [1 Cable Crawler. —1 Press Release. 4 HOA / Neighborhood Groups [Culver City Homeowners Association, East Culver City Neighborhood Alliance, Gateway Neighborhood Association, and the Rancho Higuera Neighborhood Association]. Fq Culver City Organizations [Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business Association, Culver City Observer, Culver City News and other indivirtv,Is], E Other ESTIMATED FEES:. New Development Impact: $40,615. F In Lieu Parkland: NA. 1 E School District: $TBD. Plan Check: $TBD. PA Public Art: $TBD. Sewer: $TBD. INTERDEPARTMENTAL REVIEW: Preliminary piens were originally filed on 08/02/2007. Plans and related documents were distributed to Public Works [i.e., Engineering, Sanitation and Traffic], Transportation, Parks, Police, Fire, Community Development i.e., Planning, Building Safety and Redevelopment], the City of Los Angeles and all applicable public utilities. Plans underwent a Preliminary Project Review (PPR) analysis on 08/23/2007. Thereafter, revised plans and the required draft traffic study underwent a Project Review Committee (PRC) analysis on 12/13/2007 and 08/14/2008. All comments received have been incorporated into the preliminary development plans and/or recommended conditions of approval. GENERAL INFORMATION: General Plan: Industrial. Zoning: General Industrial (IG). Redevelopment Plan: industrial in Component Area #3. Overlay Zone/District: NA, Legal Description: Lot 1 of Parcel Map No. 7673. Existing Land Use: One (1) story / 18,000 GSF industrial building with surface parking spaces. Project Description The project consists of the following actions: 1. Demolish the 18,000 GSF industrial building and site improvements via a demolition permit; 2. Construct a new terraced split-level four (4) - five (5) story 62,765 GSF condominium office building with an attached parking structure. Each office floor is split with Section "A" constructed within the northerly portion of the site and Section "B" a floor higher within the southerly portion of the site [hence a partial 5th floor along the south side]. The building is Updated 10115/2008 Page 2 of 4 Project Summary - Attachment 1provided with varied setbacks along all building frontages. All required onsite and offsite improvements will be constructed via a Site Plan Review (SPR) application; 3. Construct the subject terraced / four (4) — five (5) story building with a varying height between 30'-6" and 61'-9" to the top of roof via a Height Exception (F-ITEX) application since portions of the proposed structure exceeds the 43'-0" maximum height permitted in the 1G Zone; 4. Provide 181 parking spaces [both on the surface and within a three (3) level subterranean parking structure] including 36 in tandem format [i.e., 18 blocked and 18 aisleway] via an Administrative Use Permit application; and 5. Subdivide the new project into a condominium office complex via a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) application. Adjacent Zoning and Land Uses Location North [Higuera Street]: East [Hayden Place]: South [Hayden Place]: West [Lucerne Avenue]: Project Data Zoning Two Family Residential (R2) General Industrial (IG) General Industrial (IG) Two Family Residential (R2) Land Use Single and multiple family residential. Industrial. Industrial. Single and multiple family residential. Proposed Required Land Area: Building Footprint [Office and Garage] Hardscape / Pavement: Landscape / Softscape: Total [No dedication required]: Building Floor Area [Portion "A" is nearest and Portion "B" is furthest from Higuera Street]: Partial 1st floor [within Portion "A"]: 9,695 GSF 2nd floor [within Portions "A" and "B"]: 18,580 GSF 3rd floor [within Portions "A" and "B"]: 17,613 GSF 4th floor [within Portions "A" and "B"]: 11,713 GSF Partial 5th floor [within Portion "B"1: 5,164 GSF Total: 62,765 GSF Building Height (A): To roof (B): 30'-6" to 61'-9" 43'-0" Maximum To the building parapet (C): 3'-6" to 5'-0" 5'-0" Maximum To the rooftop elevator parapet (0): 5'-0" 13'-6" Maximum (A) The height of the building varies due to the site topography which slopes away from Higuera Street resulting in the following "new grade" elevation points: 1. 89.67' at the northeast corner [at the top of the Higuera Street public sidewalk]; 2. 82.26' at the southeast corner [abutting the top of fire lane easement roadway to/from the Hayden Place cul-de-sac]; 3. 87.10' at the southwest corner [the natural grade of the abutting residence]; and 4. 90.18' at the northwest corner [at the top of the Higuera Street public sidewalk]. The split-level terraced building consist of two (2) portions with Portion "A" being nearest to the Higuera Street frontage and with Portion "B" being furthest from the Higuera Street frontage. Hence, the "new grade" of the 1st floor of the project along the Higuera Street frontage is between 2'-0" and 4'-10" below the Higuera Street top of public sidewalk elevation. The other portions of the site also result in a varying building height. (B) Building height in excess of IG Zone 43'-0" maximum may be permitted via a Height Exception as outlined in CCMC 17.300.025.C. (C) 5'-O" or as may be required by the State of California building code, whichever is greater. (ID) 13'-6" maximum above building height with setback as outlined in CCMC Section 17.300.025. 63.3% 21,897 SF 26.8% 9,251 SF 9.9% 3,432 SF 100.0% 34,580 SF NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Page 3 of 4 41 Project Summary — Attachment 1 Updated 10115/2008Prolect Data Proposed Required Building Setbacks: Street facing / [north / Higuera Street]: 10'-0" to 90'-0" 5'-O" Street facing / [east / fire lane easement roadway]: 28'-5" to 69'-0" None Side facing / [south / industrial]: 0'-3" to 8'-6" None Side facing / [west / residential]: 24'-7" to 110'-0" 20'-0" plus Parking Spaces: Surface Lot Parking Structure Handicapped — Standard: 3 2 5 5 Minimum Handicapped — Van: 1 NA 1 1 Minimum Standard: 7 131 138 NA Standard Loading: 1 NA 1 1 Minimum Standard / Tandem / Aisle: NA 18 18 NA Standard / Tandem / Blocked: NA 18 18 NA Total: 12 169 181 179 Bicycle Racks: 5 24 29 NA Public Utilities 1. Cable: Time Warner; 2. Electricity: Southern California Edison; 3. Natural Gas: Southern California Gas Company; 4. Sewer: City of Culver City [Engineering Division]; 5. Telephone: AT&T; 6. Trash: City of Culver City [Sanitation Division]; 7. Water: Golden State Water Company; and 8. Zip Code: Culver City 90232. JIVI/abn Page 4 of 4 Project Summary — Attachment 1 Updated 10/15/2008 |109| 125 250 ft. Scale: 1:27500 Site Plan Review, SPR N-2007183 Legend Selected Properties City of Culver City Planning Division Map Created: Sep 30, 2008 Meeting Date 8 October 2008 Vicinity Map8665 Hayden Place Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183 Legend Selected Properties City of Culver City Planning Division Map Created: Sep 30, 2008 Meeting Date: 8 October 2008NEN 4 WALL you or PATTING DRAGE RISES TO BASF OF 4402 101.46717 CATES 4110 11.11>01. FENCE 1R.D: • •.• • • • LAA99.4994.4-4.-- ISCUSRASTREEI DOFF) UDR . -PiANIER - , ,-- "1- - L-,--,' _ , -;Fw1,_. 7'72.TER----1-A.P.; ,-- ____,12,;---------- sTR:c0 02110 TYR, • _ ,-„,.-...- 0E11.I1 10 BE REISCATED PA A DOPPED RAO' AS 01< 0141 EV CITY = JE.V2;. 173, POST TO OF INVOYDI OFFICE S 145.5' swpowsw ; PROPOSED 4 STORY 080100 4913191490 L VecOD SNED POSTING 0051915 TO OE 2090031411 NASNLO :.-Lre359140, • .; • TIAPEP • E;,..."9 MAIL BOX L 11• DEFT. CON0LN.N.11 . SCR RANDIC9PPTS I PARKING SELO ON CARA 03 SEC-, 1004 112111 -003. .900100E5 iNTPAECE 74 1.5410411 DES4w SINVEPITE RESIELINTIM. ESIODITIN. 111:2'9121919.1. FADING STEM TOFFS 011.1 >31 11 PARK SPACES .1= 95 551 , > 505 '3111 55110 > 1 .011' 0 -21,Qcs. C--LOW PREWNIDI 2' o ' vEsar OL001-MC 03194-004 'OW EE RECONSTRUCTED WAREHOUSE SUILDWO 40' T05.019114L 195141:11009 I ; • 495NT8988 gfli ‘ 041 ,14 1 Site Pia' SCALE 1:40 0050495191 1,0115(190 PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP /023 DJ 9E1. SITE UPI/CP/MERTZ - DEPAUE 00D901917 - DEW IANDSFAFE NORM MI IIIWCRAY STE OF 10 >11 0210 8970 MAP PROJECT ADDRESS ARCHITECT 341-5 >005001 PLACE CUNINGRAM GROUP ARCHITECTURE, P.A. 030117 110 CA 01.333 4056 DEL HEY AVE. PARCEL NO 70714 149945 7597 MARINA DEL REY. CA 90291 OWNER (310)31100I10 01,191 149< TARS 0091004 11.0. 9232 LINCOLN AVENUE ADDRESS 11971.4030 0119': CA 05222 cm 0) 703 Sall GROSS FLOOR AREA FLOOR OFFICE A OFFICE CIRC./SUPPORT|109| 8,412 GSF NA 1,283 GSF 2 fl 10,162 GSF 7,151 GSF 1,267 GSF|109| 10,382 GSF 6.0270511 1204 , GSF|109| 5,591 GSF 4,918 GSF 1,204(1549 5 NA 4,352 GSF 512 GSF TOTAL 34,547 GSF 22,448 GSF 5,770 GSF BUILDING GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OFFICE , 56,995 GSF CRC/SUPPORT= 5,770 GSF TOTAL = 62,765 GSF PARKING REQUIRED = 181 SPACES PARK NG CALC = 1 SPACE 350 GSF 62,765 GSF 350 GSF 180 + 1 LOADING 181 SPACES -SIX OF DIE -Et S pACEs 9E56E65 TU 59009003551510 35A1E3 ONE. OE W.ICH 3E5I50451E2000 ACCESSIBLE - ONE 00E9DoNAL SPACE' NEQu'IRE 5 F0f1 L003I OXI -14 91U1c).6. 0194901401K 9,5 SPACES PROVIDED PARKING PROVIDED » 181 SPACES TYPE Li P1 P2 P3 TOTAL STANDARD 22 44 47 25 138 TANDEM AISLE 0 9 8 0 18 TANDEM BLOCKED 0 9 9 0 18 LOAD4NG 1 0 1 I-r STANDARD 3 1 1 5 HO VAN 1 0 0 a TOTAL 27 63 66 25 181 * "R051' 1> 0>' '11119449 TRANSIT STATION • DET9NLED ON A15 _ COLTIRED pLAN ...9• HAYDEN PLACE ••• 1.'1. • •••••• 9 ;9 • •:'• • •-• :.•-•••••••••':••••• • '9 : 17.141.ilR CITY CALifORNIA INDEX 0E10*01 !IVO • -117 0111I5i*L.I1, 010 O7.6617, Err RAN KEssormEN E1E441139 EAN EmsoNE TREES 011e1 1 10L.L. AARISCA.PMG FRAN ALTA Fripm.,,, LAN • E.s660 l'ASEN4N9 FL AN PARKING I, EVE, ` I. Of- A Pi.AN PAR, •11., 1- FL 001, PARKIN,: Y-10. MAN GIX.0,1D run, o-Laa ssEaNs Lutp,, IDON P,A*1 AMA pLAN •B1,11. ,0 SECT. 1114,4991, ,,EGTION 2 NORTH Al, 5191091, WES, ELEVA,IONS 9901,9 5541*0951,9.5511, pEIZSPEL11 . Ii01,11-reuEST 1 - -,C74R1 1:11WE INEST01101,1:VILIVE E.51.0.4 PI-ICATO-4 1.1415 669.6m9sEDYs99999. 5 1 . 131103 9011,y StI/AWR BRACCO, SILICA, 41/r•ER LEGAL DESCRIPTION ( EXISTING ) PARCEL A' PARCEL t AS 5>100404 ON PARCEL MAP 7673, IN THE CITY OF CLE.VER CITY. COUN TY 0E1.00 ANGLES, STATE or CALIFORNIA. AS 108 MAP 17100 04 BOOK 75 PAGE 51,01 PAFICEL Mrs III '325 01,1.01,01. T1IE cou N-Ey IREDDFIDER OF SAM COUNTY PARCEL EP AN EASEMENT TOR MUTUAL ACCESS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES OMER T910 EASTERLY 17.00 FEET OF PARCEL 2 OF SA(D ! PARCEL SAP 7673. SAE) EASEMENT IS TO EXTEND FROM THE NORTHERLY 3>90 59' SAID 1311051 2 9 'S TO THE WESTERLY 355941905 01. RODEN PLACE. PARCEL 0, AN EASEMENT FOR MUTUAL 400598 0900 INCIDENTAL PIJRPOSES. 0405 093 1.0110109 01, LOT 11 OF TRACT NO_ 32560, 95 1.959 MAP RECORDED IN 9000 9915, 1.005(5) 11 TO 14, (NCLUEIVE OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY. INCLUDED WITHIN A 513111 7 Of LAND 17 120 FEET WIDE. THE WESTERLY LINE OF WHICH BEING TEE WESTEFINY LINE OF SAES LOT 11_ SAO EASEMENTS TO EXTEND FROM HIGUERA STREET ED klAYPE 9 PLACE. NOTE AREA' 39_580 SQ FT )0 79 ACR(S) BENCH MARK. LOS ANGELES 000500 001013 DEPT CANS 00 03>15 (CULVER-WAD, 1986 ADJUSTMENT) LEAD & 1194199 00141 00993 4097 19(14 2201 WIG APPROX INT. OF JEFFERSON 81,009 190171.E8 RON SE CORFIER CIF 139 ELEVATION "100030(05009020) ( 95169 1029) GENERAL PROJECT NOTES: CUNSS 111510000190505 132141 SHALL BE PROVIDED% ALL 5763R WELLS, PARKiNG GARAGE AND TOME ROOF, 2.) A KNOX BOX AND KEY SYSTEM SHALL BE PROM -MAT THE FRONT AND TNE BACK OF T15 BUILDING AS APPROVED EY THE CULVER CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT_ 3 ) A BULLETIN 1900110, DISPLAY CASE, DR KIOSK DISINJWING TRANSPORTATION DATA IN A MAIN LOBBY AREA 000E5101E TO THE -GREATEST NUMBER Of EMPLOYEES SHALL BE 1E519E1E19 0009 REQUIRED /NFORMATION SHALL INCLUDE , FUT IS NOT LIMPED 70. TEE FOLLOWING: ..KENT Now, Rau, ANO,CATE.1 FOR NEL -(HANSI Wx.r .rmsormIG ENE', • 1C1.0,-onlE !Km FOR lifFERRAI_Av 1,KAA4sAna.,1,141,1.0,A,QN Fon. -.E.Oloriu ,14AN,-0.1,,AriaN N.M./Am, an-emr.in, Ann CAA, • 'MANS, OPEWITORS: - PAG.10,InkAt hIA.770.1 ,,,E.17 cco1111.../...0EL/ CH.IANI:AINDNA: •DV,. PotirK Fnc-,1, x4F014/AANIN. INcalLING 9999s m9999999.E INf.t.r.suAlCackse . A 11,5•Ne., OF ANY 01,E I, FADILII ,Es Arm REStAINLF•511.7 Amy E ., vANANII£FIS 13.1cyr... -15, Russo. funFlis rEnESSA., , 'NE 9,V • ALL INFORMATION REOUPRED BY THIS SECTION SLIM L RE RE GULARLY STOCKED Ohl 10410510 89515 9 I ALL EXISTING AND P901105943 0014410950 UTILITIES SHALL EE PLACED UNDERGROUND 5.14001 PROPOSED 7905 KVA TRANSF9)R MER WILL NE LOCAITIO 014 T9E PARKING "NEVE_ 1 FLCOR PLAN ANC THE FOOTF/RIET OF THE T1RANSEG8ME R (INCOM ING HIGH VOLTAGE SWITCH '11L1 911 5717. • s,cnNDARY 1:0"-C.P.90.. Wu_ L Ot -.1.1,1.1 AN F I Roc • 13,3-1,1, pox Pl• u•P THE etAirliwl VAT I Let,. NsA,ILIAT Fi Fr:- •-• n -9-499 tElt ToS au . L lovE A sti. AR ., PAN, 'Lk 9901-I1.501 EX.S CURING HAM 1480 93 P TOTAL 9,695 GSF 18,580 GSF 17,613 GSF 11,713 GSF 6,164(355 62,765 GSF cpPROPOSED MASS TRANSIT CENTER GLJERA , VICINITY MAP WESTERLY ROUTE (2,970' +1-) EASTERLY ROUTE (2,750' +1 NOTES: DISTANCE AND ROUTES TO MASS TRANSIT CENTER THERE ARE TWO [2) WALKING PATHWAYS THAT MAY BE USED BY EMPLOY. GEE OF THE SUBJECT SITE WHO MAY CHOOSE TO USE THE FUTURE MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM ONCE IT BECOMES AVAILABLE THE WESTERLY PATHWAY BEING ALONG HIGUERA STREET AND WASHINGTON BOULEVARD [WHICH IS PROVIDED WITH THE REQUIRED ADA PATHWAY AND RAMPS) AND THE EASTERLY PATHWAY SEMG ALONG WESLEY STREET, NATIONAL BOULEVARD AND WASHINGTON BOULEVARD [WHICH IS PROVIDED WITH THE REQUIRED ADA RAMPS YET HAS CERTAIN PORTIONS ALONG NATIONAL BOULEVARD THAT DO NOT APPEAR TO BE ADA COMPLIANT] P.A.01.i.S2.: 2 OF PLEASE NOTE THAT NIGHTTIME DATA ILE PUBLIC ILLUMINATION( ALONG EITHER OF THE TWO WALKWAYS HAS BEEN GATHERED AT THIS TIME, TWO 12) MEASURING POINTS WERE ESTABLISHED FOR THIS PROJECT RELATED TO THE TRANSIT CENTER CREDIT: ONE BEING AT THE "EXISTING SITE [I.E THE INTERSECTION OF THE WESLEY STREET CENTERLINE AND THE PROPERTY'S STREET FACING PROPERTY LINE ALONG HIGUERA STREET] AND THE OTHER BEING AT THE "PROPOSED TRANSIT CENTER SITE (I.E THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE FORMER RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE NORTHERLY WASHINGTON BOULEVARD PROPERTYLINE, USING THE ENGI- NEERING DIVISION'S MYLAR BASE MAPS, THE LINEAR DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SITE AND THE TRANSIT CENTER ALONG THE WESTERLY ROUTE IS 2,970 FEET AND ALONG THE EASTERLY ROUTE IT IS 2750+;- FEET. NMI ii•OMMie Site Plan (AM SCALE 1:40 1,_} FIAYDEN PLACE._ CULVER CU? CALIFORNIA. C UN IN GHA M AS C IIh`. 01;' It-00 l'' )* )0 Fi.40 1" ML P8 9,P IRE TC wto voi CAF, SILLEMI Pf'II III Lv: T E rLI FLU- 6°' STEED 1ST ruLL uyx STAN) 1 c R' C, CAVIL 7"P P5- Mk-L ' -,„L BOX WA 'Fr'F?METER 't/AtER VALVE' hoz F.`.,'1,O-1 ,Y,; TO KEEP - TRa REVOVAL • GROUND COVER A0107,1,1£ OFFICE PLAN OF EXISTING TREES SCALE 1:20 HAYDEN ITY cAl- nEN 1-F°4NIA PLACE •uLVER Np N erG H uA MPCDO4' 555 CL FN CS F,1 (3V COD RH SCEs. SLER 5555: CM . FFNCE DONN SEC IF Ei.E. FER._ F : CARD CONCR,-.7E 501L'i riETS. BLOCK. WALL MA.: (TVI: I WE I `1.4.7.7sANG ' CEF5 Rfix STREET LICH:I STREET L:Sf.-C PUL L RD SIAND Pir.5 7DP.mEr4 OF COPE 'NAL, w:NAL PUL L fi.0% 5 t,11 51 . MC! WATER VAL VF L LGLND HAYDEN PLACE CULVER CTrY CALIFORNIA PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN SCALE 1:20 _ - CUNINGHAM TGRO 1 ',OP:MC aaprrA •.n. u%Pbt$V5 apprum , lwa1c.+4 -,12.n|109| . 1 "Y'''"s7VRSTI OFFICE"r;g E 111) 70101 150 0. E A r ra76 PA.RCEI. 1 OF PARCEL MAO, 7573 PREPARED BY BECKER AND mnmnic, NC. 110ENSED LAND suRvuoRs P21,CEI, BENCH MARK: LOS ANGELES COUNT'S' ROAD DEPT. BM NO CE 9330 (CULVER QUAD, 1900 A:DJUSTMENT) LAD SPK IN CONE CURB 4011 N 2211 w/0 APPROX FAT or JEFFERSON BLVD & HET/LEN RD IN SE CORNER OF CB ELD/ATION=77.256 (NERD 1929) Aw5E. W274,7%1Ar.d.; -i=1° PARCEL P, raocrpfl '0 3 rOIFLV.1. :233, WIAREPaISP • —r I IZrlflAOPl i X' •1•.; 1 1••); • 0-. c.. I ._ j._ II 080.4501.051 r, i 1 TIC fEr'r 0, LOD MEE . r:. • 1 1331VE4.5; a .,-.— — -L - " i .1 : . i L._ - --- li'' ' ''' M' ' - ' • . :'''' !-ii , ... , wv. L. n. -u. 'd 146 :,., _ b ,Srn. f.rE 1,10', L-, PRI 1,5 l 1 I 510.0144(5 4011 ISCRI-Sq 17 .0(05 I 01C-C 5"...02 ERAErm Jr.:7.E$ II., ? MO NO 77,35S5,,, , ...PAD., 14 04:4 74.44. , filtEE r ALTA Surv!y_c?., SCALE 1" = 32' - ii— 2_ PARCEL 2 , I_ 17' I. ,,EiEr, Fr, WE.A. rr,,,,,,,, • Ar-11) 1.00,4. ruo.00scs cow. Nou-- EAEENGI., FAIRER '5• 15• 10" E 153.59' rwrrts 1,r ps rp.NEV:o 21-1EY ES,E.EAICE ,„, PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 7673 CONCRETE 004I10101 SS71 ,-O,VCCN PLACE NOTE: AREA - 34,580 SQ FT (0.79 ACRES) PARCEL .4 WARD -OUSE 6112' ToT # .5 .565 31AYDF.A: PLACE —.lc o tV1550" w)- /. NO 7/ 12 - r• -.r.r". 76,3. IN THE • 0I4 4-• 1 . 1.1 • .r.u.E • Lo 4004 0F04 r4 En lOS 00 Or.C.IPE 01120201 -000 ...FR 0020 T0 A ,• 1:01 r r ' WOO 05400415,EFC . 30 'NC 1011E 3 r0.2E r Or• 5,0 1,400 47 1, DEFT 11,710 4. 450, MU. 392 • 0.00. PAGE SEE, o pricAL 0E00300 P414(1. O 12 FOR 04414.0 ACCESS 42n :127,140320Er. PURPOSES. orr.E.;, THE PAPEEPLP 17.00 FES' OF 1411[0. 0 OF 540 01000 MAP 71E4 0.00 EASEMENT IS 10 EATEPP, EOcal 414 404:111E3, AWE 00 54.0 PARCEL 2 TO THE 87000100 74042:204 01 004070 P ASCO_ C: 514004441D1104501441" 12710,-A-rm. 71117705E4, 172010 7-14r °4111 - 40 07 44500 '10 344014 44.5 PP 0403 4F.:05E ,ro 04 Soul,: 815, F.r.G(s.) 11 10 14. ' M .O... 5 .7 174400. 0E003105 or END 40,41 • 5, e STRIP OF LARD 1 .0.00 PEE, 0I00, r-r. UNA DE 1011014 00045 7,7 WEEEC,L, 41225 /7 :00 LDT II. 5049 IS 70 0.'4re, 74.7,4 hO /RA 014001 TO ,I41710 1-n 7E. ASP1 1ALTC CONCPCIE P.CIACRETE 110514 WALL CONCP HE WALL Pd. FEsscr. 50,4021 COON SPOUT EARM ETA, TOOL NC LOU? .440120E2 BAT 2-1EFER NEW 02005430 m4-21-1QcE 7004 1 17 0400 1,040 014 2 251: ,2140 57P-EU LICHT 44.4055 wEvE 2,2:o 2 cQ22.1/01. FLEE. PBX 57FEET LIGHT SThiET LicEri POLL OAR STAND PIPE TRANSFORMER 7DF DF CURB TOP- Dr WALL TRApFIC SIGNIAL POLL BOX vEATER METER 'OBER V4E0E tf) 7.1:1 1-1-1 117 LEGEND AC CPW CCW OLIN COL PH FL SA Cu CRC FIB CH VOL PP SOP SLOB CL 5LPS VP TV T04 TS1P ' HAYDEN PLACE HAYDEN PLACE £04101404 4420/1 • CUNINGIqAM •H. L".1.,;.V gly. • CALTFORNIA 6720.0p0- - ----T Parking_Level Three Plan SCALE 1:2 SCALE: r = 20' HAYDEN PLACE CULVER CITY CALIFORNIA 5., ZI,BER 6) 6 CUNINGI-IAM ICI 0 UPsC I ® 20 WIDE STORM DRAW EASEMENT I TO THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES I I PER 9312/185, 0.0. 43) 4' WOE FORGO LLTUTES EA s NT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 52510. COM PANY PER INST. NO. 3186, 9/2/76, 0.6. 17' WIDE EASEMENT FOR INGRESS & EGRESS & VEHICULAR TRAFFIC AND LH11_111ES PER 1NET. NO 2360 4c INST. NO. 77-385652, 0.9. 8' WOE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT TO THE CITY OF CULVER CITY PER INST. NO. 77-123696 0.0, ID 10 WIDE WATER MAIN .A.LaENT OF GOLDEN STATE CO. PER iNS.T. NO. 77-309837 O.R. H|109| 20 40 SCALE: 1 = 40' 80 Existing Easement Plan SCALE 1: 4D 1,7F-.T.,1 -7,1n. 30, hin! . CLJN1N OH AM GI; J P dirmaluilli•n• • I Proposed Easement Plan SCALE 1%6- . 1—,CALE: ---- 40' 4.0' 80' MOS OF GARAGE BELOW GRADE °TUNE OF HUM ABOVE HAYDEN PLACE CULVER CITY CALIFORNIA0 SION TO EIE WAITS ON VAL a a, DthIN a +BS 98 P.14 .1319 HT7.1-01 IL 0P" SWAT- Parking Level Two Plan SCALE t 20|109| 10 20 40' INW111"6n51 SCALE: 1" = 20' 0--- LL ..... ----t •._. . -7F . NITN A TOOT: -7) 4 4 CUNINGHAM GROUP HAYDEN PLACE CULVER `" ITV CAUFORNIA_ •_ _ J 14VE0VHE WA EH .1 6,701, 0 ST SE 8711L8 PAutomobile Radius Diagram, Typ, SCALE 1:10 _ Parking Level One Plan SCALE 1:20|109| 10' 20' SCALE: 1" = 20' 0-|109| 11 . PI J. 1: = • HAYDEN PLACE LAP VER LIT'i CALIFORNIA CUNINGNAM GROUPCP, 1 FON , -ROE 1111000• 1:X5,K VA.N5DEK, -jot FD. FOOl To r. _ 17,7s• ...310 e!,XfILIV /PRINER TER .---- , _ F i|109| 1 ,10,,HC RAENC 1•0 M 9 C-DiNi5, C. PAEn• 1-Y|101010|SH,,,R.011,- I – 3411.1rt OFFICE'S Mil F DErNGL:4. SECTION AA Scale. 1.20 BE , 51,1_:5 TOT Ground Floor Plan SCALE 1:20 sp-s1.001 20' SCALE: 1" = 20'|109| 10 ' 161 HAYDEN PLACE CULVER CITY CALIFORNIA 1 1\11 „ L;E . F. - 1T a 0 ,70.1 ,21a 1f11 . ” ff.1111,!1; 11 . . 11 , \ 1 R.T.Rhsi.c 2 ,, I ----|10109| 1.1 ,,91 / I I 11 0)(1,1,17-, ,, V111, 17,,, , ,0 4 _ ;11 CO 20, .• " • CUNINGHAM Glo \ I ! 11- ) \ 1 ) -I ( 4,- 6) CA) Cc-); _ 0-- 4I'L' 1.14.' OFFICE A in.is2 SSE tr. 1 .,,,,, r , . . . . 4 97 .3. 1 .7 .5 ' rcia._ 1._ #_.,. - ANS. 41 . / 11 I a., ,.,- . I, CV. I n n . -- -Li I i -L-...,,, I ENSPACE ,B1 Second Floor Plan SCALE 1: 20 10' 20 . 40' 0 SCALE: 1" - 20' HAYDEN PLACE CUNINGHAM WUP CULVER . CrTY CALIFORNIA • . 17 ?IT!' 0 r.207:18|109| 6 4 4LQI 'EA.! 1,, 1 _ , ----- L \\, I \' n Third Floor Plan SCALE 1: 20 -|109| 10 20' OFFICE 6,021 OW +105.32" 40' LiL SCALE: 1" = 20' I (7)— Li I I . . • HAYDEN PLACE • ••: • : • • ••••:::••• • ••••• . • CULVER crry CALIFORNIA C!INING14AM G i 2 13 U P LO. 0 4r40 -0 0-1- CP. WKNIfkr .121.1 —447...171kWez OIL fr4MANC Fourth Floor Plan SCALE 1:20 OFFICE S 4,910 GOP SCALE: = 20' HAYDEN puacE , CULVER CrrY CALIFORNIA . •• • . •• • • act: *a C UtitN G HAM ZROUP|109| 20' 40' ememm6immiFifth Floor Plan SCALE 1:20 10' 20 40' SCALE: 1" = 20' HAYDEN PLACE cry CAL/FORNIA Cr- L H DLL L,]1ILLIFITIEtILLEDZIab 0- COMZYCREP 7.5.5.7 E,ORVICE OFFICE B 4,352 G5F 0-- — 5EI,TEMBER 30 • 4 (I) C UNIN GH AM 0 u P 3 1 740' 1 0' 20' LEGEND:|1010| ROOF HEIGHT ABOVE EXISTING GRADE ROOF HEIGHT ABOVE SIDEWALK NO; NATURAL GRADE TR TOP OF ROOF oof Roof Plan SCALE 1; 20 elem6ummii SCALE: 1" 20' HAYDEN PLACE CULVER CITY CALI FORMA v KRass SO,ERSE1,40 sAKst,'EKR. VEL KRESS DURAKE Lii 117DEDEE Li[1:717ELJLJL IL_ iFFIEF I . • MOW,. Slyaki EB B EN E imEow Er B.-Low . 0 .0nEri l mriEEE0E.]6 0- r717{ InDLIDE.„,,|1010|L 1 rnErnHLL1 71 ilLIED if iFELT Di fl R it mJ,CiO,Wz 1E100 C UNINGHAM F1 0 U p •u",nra' IBELOE +- WEEMS BRIM BELOW 4547156.25' NOTE; 7 MINIMUM HEIGHT CLEARANCE TO BE —7"-- MAINTAINED IN ALL SPACES OF PARKING. ELEVATIONS AT MOST RESTRICTIVE POINTS ALONG THE TOP OF ROOF PARAPET AND V IDENTIFY CONTROL POINTS OF NATURAL ...Jill GRADE. c ID' ';D" BUILDING SECTION 1 SCALE 1:20 SCALE: r = 20" 41, !U 'A' row ,N1R1 OFFICE OFFICE S OFFICES pommrn••=iimim OFFICE a|109| Ilk vssu.vp—. , STING GRAPE 5 EIVN-DE4G SECTION manumumis IMINEMIII GARAGE Li -- 1 DA: GARAGE Al E6 25' GARAGE P2 76.25, HAYDEN . PLACE cotvER Cm CALIFORNIA CUNINGHAM GROUP fele jtIM 1F'.-2• El.allon +. 1634. Rao! ElevalIon .1.100,11.1. Roof Eirvx.on SCALE ! : 20 • Betiding Section 1 _ NOTE: T MINIMUM HEIGHT CLEARANCE TO SE MAINTAINED IN ALL SPACES OF PARKING. ELEVATIONS AT MOST RESTRICTIVE POINTS ALONG THE TOP OF ROOF PARAPET AND IDENTIFY CONTROL POINTS OF NATURAL GRADE. 20 40 Building Section 2 SCALE 1; 20 SCALE: r = +135,-2" Roof Elevation +116'-1" Roof Elevation : 7, 1 ;.779,i7:7 .3. & SATE 17,7, s K2dArr., COURTYARD .q. ' - , _ _ L . OFFICE n n ,7)5 86.3B'! EE.25. 56.6: OFFICE OFFICE OFHCE OFFICE OFFICE 1 OFFICE NNW OFFICE EXISTING GRADE AT RUILDING SECTION GARAGE Lt N 75,5 N54.7" "‘. P1 GARAGE Fl GARAGE P2 GARAGE P1 " GARAGE P3 GARAGE P2 +145,-0" Roof Elevation +108 %10" Roof Elevation RESIDENTIAL itGLIERA STREET 8665 HAYDEN PLACE COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL HAYDEN PLACE • SEPILMUUt 31106: CUNINGHAM CROUP Ct.L.VER CITY CALIFORNIA' T. OF F 0J P7517 FLOOR WALIAT PROPERTY LINE WILL BE SPLITFACE CMU COLORED TO MATCH THE PROJECT, AND WILL REMAIN r 6' ABOVE NATURAL GRADE ALONG PROPERTY LINE T 0 SF 5 F575714 FLOOR Ill _OF- _TOFF5 THIRD FLO TO F F5 5E775110 FLOOR ROIl EA MENT ROADWAY TO F 150001}NPIFLOOR South Elevation 34 0'. ROO F - oo LIGH51-k NT, -11tRON 3.5 WALL IN FRONT OF PARKNG F 5 FOURI -i, FLOOR THRRFLOOR i Materials Key V.0 ROOF 7- 45 North Elevation- Facing Higuera Street Notes SECURITY FENCE AND SATES A RESIN-BONDED WOOD CLADDING SEE BUILDING SECTION FOR ACTUAL ROOF HEIGHTS AT B GALVANIZED ALUMINUM PANELS CONTROL POINTS AND FOR MECHANICAL PROJECTIONS. C ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM WITH OPERABLE WINDOWS INCLUDING CLEAR, INSULATED GLASS WITH A LOW-E COATING El STRUCTURALLY GLAZED WINDOW SYSTEM E OPERABLE SHADING ELEMENTS TO MATCH BUILDING CLADDING F SITE CAST CONCRETE G PERFORATED STAINLESS STEEL RAIN-SCREEN TO SCREEN WALKWAY WILL BE HAVE A SOLID BACK II PERFORATED METAL OVER GLAZING WHEN SCREENING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. r IMAGERY APPLIED TO EXTERIOR J GREEN SCREEN Elevations , 20 • SCALE 1120 IRYDEN PLACE SEPTUKICR 3D. SOOD CUNINGHAM GR OUP7.77. 9,1A.R. -ILL- “ 7 TE LL 44V T 0 ROOF 000 :37 5 0011511: F1L201011.4„,0 7 O. F r a 700PTIL FLOOR 617 S. 'AS1OTW FE) FLOOR S' 1111051:1.00 Sr, ECOND FLOOR !OPERA STRL,'E IX . F F r100-1,1 HIGUERA STREET 77 L ORFLIND FLU IA T. 0 RprrrrErf_ T 0. F FOURTH F.:;70.: 27.,„ 9, !3 TORS FI,.,,050.75 , HIGUERA STREET F F 5 FOURTH FLOUR IR TOE E 550 HUL'ALFRA O SECOND FL,0301..., 0 ; GROLi West Elevation - Facing Residence along Lucerne Avenue GFOLLNLI mcca -15.171- Materials Key Notes NOTE: SEE SUPPING SECTION ;OR ACTUAL NOCE HEIGHTS AT CONTROL POINTS AND FOR MECHANICAL PROJECTIONS WALL AT PROPERTY LINE WILL BE SPLITFACE CMU COLORED TO MATCH THE PROJECT, AND WILL REMAN 6" ABOVE NATURAL GRADE ALONG PROPERTY UNE Elevations SCALE 1 .20 10 SCREEN WALKWAY GIST BE 'LAVE. 550110 PACE WHEN SOFTENING MET . ANIC AL EC'.:IPTJEW A RES1N . BONCED WOOD CLADDING aarvANIzsD ALUMINUM PANELS C ATUMPAJM STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM WITH OPERAPLE WINDOWS INCLUDING CLEAR 1NSULATEP GLASS WITH A LOSP-F COATING O STRUCTURALLY GLAZED TrANOCAN SYSTEM E OPERA-110E SHAMIG ELEMENTS TO MATCH PULPING CLADDING F ROE CAST CONCRETE G PERFORATED STAPP_ ESS STEEL RAIN-SCREEN H PERFORATES METAL OVER GLAZING I IMAGERY APPLIED TO EXTERIOR J GREEN SCREEN H GREEN Ron; HAYDEN : . PLACE . - RENATTPNS CUNINGHAM caouPHIGUERA STREET Southeast Perspective HAW:, N PLAce VE,,g :77 7:7 Pers_ pectives KAYDEN • • . . . . . CUNINGHAM 6ROUP -. n;I:Opsi3Otre:i4, OIlNortheast Perspective Perspectives A:ff- NAYDN PLACE ,rtm51Fi CUIVNGHAIVI GR 0UPNorthwest Perspective HIGLIERA STREET Perspectives .P.), ZOOS|1010|We t Perspective ...i-HAY.bEN:.PLACE - CUNINGHAM GR 0UP: : : • : • • •••- N'OCJAVI-1 %IL3PM . . . -HAYDEN. PLACE gg7oBwri:vir:SUMMER CUNINGHAM GROUP9AM - ' I PM 3PM •••.: • • , . - • • .• : • •...: • • • .:•. •••••:• ••• ; ' HAYDEN PLACE • •• • • •• • • • -• •:'••••• • •:••• •Attachment I F CITY OF CULVER CITY Subject: 8665 Hayden Place Attachment 1.F. — Materials Board Please note this attachment will be on display at the December 15, 2008, City Council / Redevelopment Agency joint public hearingAttachment 1G Excerpt of September 18, 2008, Draft Design For Development [DFD] 8665 Hayden Place Located in Component Area No. 3 Of The Culver City Redevelopment Project IV. Development Standards Development of the Site shall meet the standards for the 1G Zone except as outlined herein. B. Building Height The maximum building height nearest the residential boundary along the westerly rear property line shall be limited to conform to the allowable building envelope for the surrounding R2 zone. The building height limit in the R2 zone is 30 feet plus a 5 foot parapet. This is significantly less than the allowable 43 feet plus 5 foot parapet in the 1G Zone. In exchange for presenting a lower height towards the adjacent residential property, the maximum building height shall be increased to 65 feet to the top of the roof plus a five foot parapet on the side facing the adjacent industrial property. The new height condition is summarized below. • The existing 43 foot height limit shall not apply to the Site based upon findings and studies related to the height exception. • The building height shall not exceed 35 feet above existing natural grade for any portion of the building within 20 feet of the north (facing Higuera Street) property line. • The building height shall not exceed 35 feet above existing natural grade for any portion of the building within 20 feet of the west (facing Lucerne Avenue) rear property line. • The building height shall not project above a 45 degree line starting at 35 feet above natural grade and 20 feet from the north and west property lines. The maximum height allowed on the Site shall be 65 feet to the top of the roof plus a five foot parapet.Attachment 1H THINK Development Narrative and Proposed Findings for Site Plan Review P-2007183 and Tract Map P-2007184 for the Development of 8665 Hayden Place Summary The following Narrative and Findings will provide an overview of the proposed project and the process REthink Development has used to develop the project at 8665 Hayden Place. The project has been designed to be an environmentally and contextually sensitive project. It is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by achieving 50% reduced energy use with a LEED Gold certification and through reduced vehicle miles traveled and traffic due to proximity to the Expo Line, retail and residential uses. It will be marketed as a for-sale office condo building for small and medium businesses that want to make Culver City their permanent place of business without concern for rising rents. Through public art, the project will honor the significant history of the site where "Tara Ranch" from Gone with the Wind and sets from Hogan's Heroes and the Andy Griffith Show were built and filmed. The following Narrative will also illuminate the effort REthink has made to meet with neighborhood residents and respond to their concerns. Finally and most importantly, the building is well below the allowable density under current zoning code and is compatible with the general plan and redevelopment agency goals. The only proposed deviation from the allowed zoning is the height exception that has been proposed to allow the building a lower height along the residential boundary while increasing the height on the boundary facing the industrial tract. The adjustment to the building height was undertaken to address concerns voiced by residential neighbors. The result is a building that is effectively 2 34 stories on the property lines facing the residential neighborhood. Narrative The subject property is a 34,580 square foot, single lot infill site located at 8665 Hayden Place in the historic "40 acres" backlot light industrial area, with approximately 200 feet of frontage on Higuera. Access is via Hayden Place. There is an existing 25 foot high, 18,300 square foot industrial warehouse on the site. The surrounding area includes industrial, commercial and R2 low density multifamily residential development. The site is underutilized and a great candidate for redevelopment considering its prime central and accessible Culver City location near the future Expo Line, and the real estate needs of the West Los Angeles area. The 62,765 gross square foot office building proposed for the site (divided into office condominium units) is compatible with the 1G zone. The building's height will be 32 feet above the sidewalk along the residential boundary, lower than the residential height envelope allowed (30 feet + 5 foot parapet). The building will step back from the residential boundary to a maximum height of 61 feet along the 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 <> P. 310.253.9131 <> F.310.943.1519THINK Development boundary with the industrial tract furthest from the residential neighborhood. Some parking will be at grade, and there will be two levels of subterranean parking. The building is comprised of two 4 story structures connected by a common core (lobby and elevator) and a beautifully landscaped courtyard. The proposed development fits within the current zoning requirements (besides height), is compatible with surrounding development, and is a better neighborhood fit aesthetically and functionally than the existing industrial warehouse use. It is near the Hayden Tract industrial and warehouse district, more specifically in the former studio backlot known as the "40 Acres" and is a good transition to the more industrial and heavier commercial uses in the rest of the area. The development will revitalize Higuera's current dull industrial feel with an attractive building and superior landscaping, As the only "Green" LEED Gold office building in the region, it will also set a higher standard, provide a bold example and add a unique element to the commercial makeup of the surrounding area. Except for one City Staff supported administrative modification, (10% tandem parking spaces), and the height exception the project's design complies with all zone requirements and all relevant sections of the Culver City Zoning Code, including parking, open space, and density. The project will be parked to code, which is not common for the (existing) buildings in the area and it will adopt a parking program that will discourage occupants from parking on neighboring streets. The project has complied with the City's traffic guidelines and the owner plans to implement extensive voluntary traffic demand management measures to further reduce the building's traffic generation. The proposed change of use is consistent with the General Plan and the Redevelopment Agency's vision for the area. The change of use also makes it more consistent with trends mentioned in the General Plan and the City's encouragement of creative/entertainment office development in the Hayden Tract and in other industrial areas of Culver City. According to a 1992 State of the City report referenced in the General Plan only 37% of the businesses in the Hayden Tract area were industrial in nature with 57% commercial businesses. The trend toward commercial businesses has significantly increased over the past 15 years, while the appropriate building stock for that shift in use has hardly increased at all. Converting warehouse spaces is not the best solution due primarily to lack of sufficient daylighting, natural ventilation, and parking. A newly constructed LEED Gold creative office building will help accommodate this trend and the continued increase in popularity and recognition of this area as a creative office hub. The proposed change of use and makeup of the project also meets the needs of the local and regional economy, community, and environment. There is a dearth of quality office space ownership options for small to medium creative businesses, with green (LEED certified), healthy, and productive office ownership options completely non-existent. In the current office marketplace, those businesses are either at the mercy of escalating rent increases or need to buy and retrofit overpriced, poorly located 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 <> P. 310,253.9131 <> F.310.943.1519RE THINK Development tit 0015 retail and warehouse buildings. The project's location in an already thriving creative community meets the needs of creative business owners and employees who will be energized and stimulated by their neighbors. The societal and environmental impact of being minutes bike or walk from downtown Culver City for unique lunch and entertainment options and a little more than a quarter mile from the planned Expo Line station will be very positive. A Leading Green Building The owner/developer and its prestigious, experienced green building design team are committed to making this development something different and special. It will be the first of its kind in the area to be certified under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED ® ) Green Building Rating System TM (Gold). It will be the first green, high performance office building specifically designed for smaller creative business owners and companies in Southern California. The design will incorporate high performance building technologies, green building practices and innovative design to create a healthy, productive, environmentally friendly and ultimately more sustainable development. Architects and designers, advertising agencies, public relations and marketing firms, production companies, digital film companies, computer game developers, Internet companies, and media tech companies are among the businesses seeking green, "cool", advanced creative office space on the Westside that will see this Culver City landmark as their perfect home. The proposed project will feature a drought tolerant, ecologically landscaped courtyard, which will bring light into 95% of the office space, offer views, and allow for natural ventilation. Dual glazed, high performance Low-e floor to ceiling windows with light shelves will bounce light farther into the spaces and act as overhangs to shade the interior space from heat gain. It will employ efficient LED lighting systems, coordinated by natural daylight sensors to maintain even lighting levels. Advanced thermal control systems will provide individual zone control of a radiant heating and cooling system. The building will have a green living roof to reduce heat gain, reduce storm water runoff, and clean the air. A significant percentage of the building's electricity, heating, cooling and hot water will be produced from roof top solar panels. The building will be a local model for green building techniques and will demonstrate Culver City's leadership role as a sustainable city. The orientation and design of the building, including strategically placed sun shades and double façade elements, will help keep the building cool in the summer and warm in the winter, and provide day lighting for all occupants, while allowing prevailing breezes to pass through the floors for natural ventilation. Many of the materials used will have high insulating capabilities to further keep the building temperature moderate, reducing heating and cooling loads, and lowering energy costs. Many of the products and finishes will contain no or very low VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds) and will include recycled or renewable components wherever feasible. The integration of all these elements will allow 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 <> P. 310.253.9131 <> F.310.943,1519 e!STHINK Deveopment us to deliver a building that is better designed, constructed to a higher quality, longer lasting, more energy efficient, less expensive to operate, more durable, healthier, unique, and overall, more environmentally sound; all of which will make the spaces more valuable and more desirable. Combating Climate Change with Smart Growth The proposed development with its change of use will also be a leading example of smart growth development and result in a demonstration of how good planning can reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions for Culver City, the region, and the State. If California is going to meet the goals set by its Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32), developments similar to ours are urgently needed to help encourage additional movement in this direction. (See Attachment A that includes a list of greenhouse gas reduction measures recommended by State Attorney General Gerry Brown.) Smart growth or compact development where work, living, shopping, eating, entertainment, and transportation options are in close proximity is a significant tool to help combat global warming. Vehicles contribute 33% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States so reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a critical step to reducing GHG emissions (Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change) . Increasing vehicle efficiency and moving towards cleaner burning fuels will help to reduce greenhouse gasses but an equal or greater reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is needed. This need is even more acute considering the forecasted population growth of 120 million people in the US over the next 40 years. Because of suburban sprawl, VMT has increased dramatically over the past 3 decades and is now at a point where those miles traveled will completely overwhelm any future gains in fuel efficiencies. The world, America, the states, cities, and local communities need to address this problem head on, immediately. America's land use patterns and policies need to change to reduce VMT by building more compact developments where people make less vehicle trips and drive fewer miles overall. Compact development can have a significant positive impact as it has been proven to reduce VMT by 20 to 40%. These figures and a great collection of studies on the topic are concisely and convincingly documented in a book just published by the Urban Land Institute called "Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change." The proposed project is in an optimal location and at a moderate density to help address these concerns. It will be walking distance from the Expo Line Station, a fixed rail commuter line 3/8 of a mile away. It is walking, a short bike, or neighborhood electric car distance from Downtown Culver City, which offers shopping, eating, entertainment, and public services. It is walking distance from other current and proposed eating options and likeminded businesses in the Hayden Tract. It is next to a substantial stock of existing multifamily zoned property and future multi-use and multifamily property surrounding the Expo Line. It is a perfect candidate for reducing VMT through more compact and smart growth approach to development. Reduced VMT of 20% to 40% combined with our project's 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 <> P. 310.253.9131 <> F.310.943.1519THINK Development sustainable design which is designed to be 50% more energy efficient than similarly new constructed buildings is a significant and positive step towards reducing greenhouse gases. Plus, well designed compact development is good for communities. There is a common misperception that compact development detracts from existing communities and is not wanted by community members. On the contrary, above and beyond the positive effect on the environment, compact development typically adds to the fabric of the community and enhances it. A 2005 Urban Land Institute publication published in partnership with Sierra Club, the American Institute of Architects, and the National Multi Housing Council, "Higher-density Development: Myth and Fact" dispels some of these myths about development. Their study, based on ample evidence, found that well-designed higher density development can become a significant community asset, adding to the quality of life and property values for existing residents, while addressing the need of a growing and changing population. Some examples: • Myth: Higher density development overburdens public services and infrastructure. Fact: It actually helps to enhance and focus these services and infrastructure. It increases city revenue without having to extend services or build new infrastructure which is extremely costly. a Myth: Higher density development lowers property values in surrounding areas. Fact: No discernable difference exists in the appreciation rate of properties located near higher density development and those that are not. Some research even shows that higher density development can increase property values. • Myth: Higher-density development creates more regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low density development. Fact: Higher-density development generates less traffic than low density development per unit and it makes walking and public transit more feasible. a Myth: Higher density development is unattractive, does not fit in a low density community, and is not wanted. Fact: Attractive, well designed, and well maintained higher density development attracts good residents and tenants and fits into existing communities. According to a study done by the University of North Carolina, a majority of people prefer higher density development when properly understanding the reality of the options. a Myth: No one in suburban areas wants higher density developments. Fact: Many households now prefer higher-density development, even in suburban locations. A growing number of Americans are seeking a more convenient and vibrant lifestyle, whether in cities or the suburbs. They cite proximity to work and being able to walk or bike to destinations as leading factors in desirable communities. Addressing Concerns 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 <> P. 310.253.9131 <> F.310.943.1519 8-grTHINK Developmenl While we are fundamentally committed to green building and smart growth, we do know that new projects can be worrisome for those who fear change in their neighborhood or who don't completely understand the proposed development and its benefits. We make a concerted effort to listen to the concerns of our neighbors and we try to help them to understand the project's qualities. From the beginning of this proposed project, we tried to design a building that would fit well with the neighborhood and meet the real needs of its neighbors and the local community. In addition to all of the building's green qualities, we intentionally designed a smaller building than allowed to reduce its bulk and maximize daylighting and air circulation. Many people in the neighborhood and the local community are impressed by what we are trying to do and they have been very supportive. Those who don't seem to want this change are very vocal in their opposition. Change in this community is inevitable and desirable. It is part of Culver City's maturation into an important commercial and creative center. The City's smart growth will help support public transit options, increase walking neighborhoods, foster a feeling of community, increase restaurant, entertainment, cultural and shopping options, and continue to make Culver City a desirable and more sustainable place to live and work. We have consulted and we have listened and we have tried our best to respond to reasonable concerns and requests with substantive and logical changes. We don't feel it is appropriate to sacrifice our vision, a vision that we feel will produce a great building and make a valuable contribution to the entire community, to please the few outspoken champions of the status quo, but the feedback we have received from the community has led us to make changes and design a building that is compatible with and responsive to their needs while still honoring our vision for the project. Neighbor Input or Community Engagement REthink takes great pride in engaging neighbors in our development process well prior to completing plans. The normal public discourse about a project is often too restricted for developers to respond to neighbor's concerns and we strive to understand and respond to impacts in the most responsible manner possible. For this project, REthink conducted seven meetings with neighbors, the first of which was over a year ago, to understand their concerns prior to submitting our plans. The process included two initial open forum meetings to get feedback, the first on 9/17/07 at the home of Loni Anderson and the second on 11/14/07 at the building site. Two follow up meetings were held with some of the more outspoken individual neighbors on 12/5/07 and 12/10/07. Another meeting with a group of four neighbors was held on 2/13/08. The final open forum held on 7/22/08 was publicized by mailing over 400 postcards to neighbors and e-mailing past meeting attendees. At this meeting, we showed the results of the work we had done in response to feedback from earlier meetings. As a follow up to this meeting a small group of residents that expressed an interest in having input on the landscape design was scheduled for September 30th. 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 <> P. 310.253.9131 <> F.310.943.1519it. RI p THINK 1 1 II %Aunt Development \birsaio, An unfortunate result of our early conversations with the neighbors was that we only provided preliminary plans that lacked key details for a complete understanding of the project. The missing details would have addressed many of the concerns that have since been raised. The project has setbacks that exceed the zoning requirements significantly (10 feet on the north, and 23.5 feet on the west) and has upper level setbacks that are not required at all in this zone. Although there are no FAR restrictions in the 16 zone, an FAR of 3.5 is theoretically possible for a total of 119,000 square feet. This project has an FAR of 1.8 and just under 63,000 square feet. Open public input on land use in Culver City was incorporated in 1996 for the Culver City General Plan update. 60% of today's residents on the blocks of Lucerne and Higuera adjacent to the project owned their homes in the neighborhood in 1995 or earlier. The IG Zoning District is currently consistent with the Industrial land use designation of the 1996 General Plan. Project Changes in Response to Concerns At each of the meetings we took notes on the concerns voiced by the neighbors. The following are the concerns and our plan to address them. 1) Concern: increased Height Compared to Existing Condition REthink originally proposed a building that was below the height envelope allowed in the IG zone (48' = 43' height limit + 5' parapet). Despite the ample setbacks of the building from the surrounding residential neighborhood, the residents still had great concerns that the building would appear too large compared to what they were used to seeing. In response to this concern, we completely redesigned the building to remove a full floor from the residential boundary and to sink the first floor partially below ground level. Thus, the building was reduced from 48 feet to 32 feet along the residential perimeter. To offset most of the lost square footage caused by the removal of the top floor along this boundary, a floor was added to the building along the industrial boundary bringing the building height to 61 feet in that location. The change results in added expense of an additional stop on two elevators, more expensive structural support, additional expense to build circulation and common space, and a loss of 800 square feet of usable space. As a result the project will be less profitable. The building is fully 100 feet (at a minimum) from the homes across the street on both Higuera and Lucerne and is set back from the street significantly farther than in other commercial or industrial zones. Additionally, because of the efficient radiant heating and cooling system we plan to employ there will be less HVAC equipment. The HVAC equipment that is installed on the roof will be installed such that it will be invisible from across the street. Lastly, we plan on softening the roof edge with greenery as a part of our green roof. 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 <> P. 310.253.9131 <> F.310.943.1519RE THINK Uzi Development 2) Concern: Significant Increased Traffic The project team has gone to great lengths to address the neighbor's concern about increased traffic in the neighborhood. The traffic study prepared in accordance with the City of Culver City and City of Los Angeles guidelines showed no significant impact in the residential zone (6 new trips during morning peak hours at Higuera & Lucerne). Nonetheless, the project was planned as a Transit Oriented Development from the beginning with the goal of reducing vehicle trips, vehicle miles traveled and other traffic impacts. Based on our study of the effect of various traffic mitigation measures implemented coupled with the Expo line, we expect the project will generate a minimum of 15% less traffic than a building of similar size. The building will include the following features to encourage the use of alternative means of transportation and carpooling: a. Extensive bike racks in covered secure area b. Showers and changing rooms on every floor c. Shared car service: enabling tenants to take mass transportation or carpool then have access to a car or cars if needed for meetings or errands d. Transit info/ Ridesharing agency contact info e. Reserved carpool parking/ Vanpool parking: 10% f. Preferred parking for Alt Fuel/ Hybrid vehicles g. Agreed to leave the driveway that connects the project site to Higuera closed and only accessible to the fire department, pedestrians, and bicycles 3) Concern: Courtyard Noise The building has been designed to improve its exposure to the sun and wind for maximum energy use reduction through passive strategies. One strategy to achieve this is by including a central courtyard. The central courtyard opens towards Lucerne and a concern was raised that it might reflect noise towards the neighborhood. We have gone to tremendous lengths to address this concern in several ways. a. Staircase moved. A previously internal stairway was moved to the exterior to create a closure on the Lucerne side of the courtyard. b. Heavy foliage/ green screen The stairway and the entire Lucerne side of the courtyard will be enclosed by a green screen allowing living vines to isolate the space audibly and visually. There will also be significant 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 <> P. 310.253.9121 <> F.310.943.1519THINK Development dense foliage growing as a buffer between the property and the neighborhood on the Lucerne side that will reach at least 8 feet above the courtyard level. c. No mechanical ventilation The building is 100% naturally ventilated with radiant heating and cooling so there will be no noise from mechanical fans on the roof. 4) Concern: Privacy A couple neighbors expressed their concern that the project might threaten their privacy. We considered this a very reasonable concern and spent a great deal of time ensuring the project would not have such an impact. a. Distance from neighbors The building is a minimum of 100 feet from the front of the homes on Higuera and the west side of Lucerne. There will be effectively no views into these homes or their backyards. b. West —limited windows with limited views The western façade of the building is adjacent to one home on the east side of Higuera. The windows on the west side of the building are few and set high so those limited windows will constrain views in such a way that it will be impossible to look down into the neighboring yards. c. Blocking line of site In addition to the above measures, the site lines from the southern windows have been studied. Any views lines into neighboring yards will be blocked with shading devices. 5) Concern: Street Parking A concern about building users parking in the residential neighborhood was raised. a. Stickers Rather than have the neighborhood bear the burden of parking permits, we have agreed to issue parking stickers for the cars using our parking facilities if parking in the adjacent neighborhood becomes a problem. In this way, building users that park in the neighborhood will be easily identified and discouraged from doing so in the future. b. Support for permit parking 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 <> P. 310.253.9131 <> F.310.943.1519THINK Development Should the above strategy not meet the goals of reducing use of the residential neighborhood for parking for our project, the project is willing to set aside funds to assist in the establishment of permit parking only during work hours. 6) Concern: Construction Impact We have selected a very professional general contractor. Standard procedures will ensure that the neighbor's concerns about construction will be addressed. The measures taken will ensure no noise from radios, limit street parking to Hayden Place and non-residential streets, reduce dust by wetting down the site during excavation, and require installation of sandbags and other measures to eliminate erosion. 7) Concern: Use Area to Walk Dogs The neighbors stated that Hayden Place is where they like to walk their dogs on weekends and evenings. While our project will not impact their ability to walk dogs in the area, we have offered to install a doggie drinking fountain, a bench, and grasscrete planted with grass in the emergency lane on the Higuera side of the project as a way to create a park-like environment and enhance their dog walking experience. 8) Concern: Building Appearance and Maintenance Concerns were raised by some neighbors about the maintenance of the wood paneling being used on the building. The wood was chosen for compatibility with the residential neighborhood but the material being used is a zero maintenance material that will not warp, crack, or fade and will not require refinishing. In addition, the landscape will be used as a shroud to soften the building appearance. We will be retaining all of the existing street trees and as many of the trees on the site as possible. New landscaping will be added as additional buffer to the residential neighborhood. 9) Concern: Images on Facade Our original design called for photographic images of the Hollywood history that happened on our site to be integrated in the North facade of the building. At the request of the neighbors, these images were removed. 10) Concern: Shadow Although there were concerns raised about the project casting shadows on the adjacent neighborhood, the building has an ideal orientation with respect to the sun to the effect that the shadows cast by it have no greater impact than those cast under current conditions. 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 <> P. 310.253.9131 <> F.310,943.1519THINK Development ATTACHMENT A 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 <> P. 310.253.9131 .<> F.310.943.1519EDMUND G. BROWN JR. State of California Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE The California Environmental Quality Act Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the f 2ocA.,6 vel Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), local agencies have a very important role to play in California's fight against global warming — one of the most serious environmental effects facing the State today. Where local agencies undertake projects directly, they can and should design sustainable projects from the start, incorporating global warming related considerations into their projects at the earliest feasible time. Further, local agencies can encourage well-designed, sustainable private projects by analyzing and disclosing to the public the environmental benefits of such projects in any required environmental documents. And where projects as proposed will have significant global warming related effects, local agencies can require feasible changes or alternatives, and impose enforceable, verifiable, feasible mitigation measures to substantially lessen those effects. By the sum of their decisions, local agencies will help to move the State away from "business as usual" and toward a low-carbon future. This document provides information that may be helpful to local agencies in carrying out their duties under CEQA as they relate to global warming. Included in this document are various measures that may reduce the global warming related impacts of a project. As appropriate, the measures can be included as design features of a project, required as changes to the project, or imposed as mitigation (whether undertaken directly by the project proponent or funded by mitigation fees). The measures set forth in this package are examples; the list is not intended to be exhaustive. Moreover, the measures cited may not be appropriate for every project. The decision of whether to approve a project — as proposed or with required changes or mitigation — is for the local agency, exercising its informed judgment in compliance with the law and balancing a variety of public objectives. The first section of this document lists examples of measures that could be applied to a diverse range of projects where the lead agency determines that the project under consideration will have significant global warming related effects. In general, a given measure should not be considered in isolation, but as part of a larger set of measures that, working together, will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of global warming. The second section of this document lists examples of potential greenhouse gas reduction measures in the general plan context. This section is included both to suggest how the measures set forth in the first section could be incorporated into a general plan, as well as to identify measures that are general plan specific. The measures in the second section may also be appropriate for inclusion in larger scale plans, including regional plans (e. g. , blueprint plans) and in specific plans. Including these types of measures at the larger planning level, as appropriate, will help to ensure more sustainable project-specific development. The third section provides links to sources of information on global warming impacts and emission reduction measures. The list is not complete, but may be a helpful start for local agencies seeking more information to carry out their CEQA obligations as they relate to global warming. The endnotes set forth just some of the many examples of exemplary emission reduction measures already being implemented by local governments and agencies, utilities, private industry, and others. As these examples evidence, California at every level of government is taking up the challenge, devising new and innovative solutions, and leading the charge in the fight against global warming.(1) Generally Applicable Measures Energy Efficiency' Design buildings to be energy efficient. Site buildings to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping and sun screens to reduce energy use.' Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings. Install light colored "cool" roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees.' Provide information on energy management services for large energy users.' Install energy efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems,' Install light emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffic, street and other outdoor lighting.' Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. Use solar heating, automatic covers, and efficient pumps and motors for pools and spas.' Provide education on energy efficiency.' Renewable Energy Install solar and wind power systems, solar and tankless hot water heaters, and energy- efficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. Educate consumers about existing incentives.' Install solar panels on carports and over parking areas.' Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications.' Water Conservation and Efficiency' Create water-efficient landscapes. 13 Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls. Use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation in new developments and on public property. Install the infrastructure to deliver and use reclaimed water. Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances. Use graywater. (Graywater is untreated household waste water from bathtubs, showers, bathroom wash basins, and water from clothes washing machines.) For example, install dual plumbing in all new development allowing graywater to be used for landscape irrigation.' • Restrict watering methods (e.g., prohibit systems that apply water to non-vegetated surfaces) and control runoff. • Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles. • Implement low-impact development practices that maintain the existing hydrologic character of the site to manage storm water and protect the environment. (Retaining storm water runoff on- Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 2 of 20 Issite can drastically reduce the need for energy-intensive imported water at the site.)'s • Devise a comprehensive water conservation strategy appropriate for the project and location. The strategy may include many of the specific items listed above, plus other innovative measures that are appropriate to the specific project. • Provide education about water conservation and available programs and incentives.' Solid Waste Measures ? Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard). • Provide interior and exterior storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas. • Recover by-product methane to generate electricity.' • Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services.' Land Use Measures • Include mixed-use, infill, and higher density in development projects to support the reduction of vehicle trips, promote alternatives to individual vehicle travel, and promote efficient delivery of services and goods. 19 Educate the public about the benefits of well-designed, higher density development." Incorporate public transit into project design. Preserve and create open space and parks. Preserve existing trees, and plant replacement trees at a set ratio. Develop "brownfields" and other underused or defunct properties near existing public transportation and jobs. Include pedestrian and bicycle-only streets and plazas within developments. Create travel routes that ensure that destinations may be reached conveniently by public transportation, bicycling or walking,21 Transportation and Motor Vehicles Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles. Use low or zero-emission vehicles, including construction vehicles. Promote ride sharing programs e.g., by designating a certain percentage of parking spaces for ride sharing vehicles, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride sharing vehicles, and providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides. Create ear sharing programs. Accommodations for such programs include providing parking spaces for the car share vehicles at convenient locations accessible by public transportation.' • Create local "light vehicle" networks, such as neighborhood electric vehicle (NEV) systems.' Provide the necessary facilities and infrastructure to encourage the use of low or zero-emission vehicles (e.g., electric vehicle charging facilities and conveniently located alternative fueling Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 3 of 20 ccpstations). • Increase the cost of driving and parking private vehicles by, e.g., imposing tolls and parking fees. • Build or fund a transportation center where various public transportation modes intersect. • Provide shuttle service to public transit. • Provide public transit incentives such as free or low-cost monthly transit passes. Incorporate bicycle lanes and routes into street systems, new subdivisions, and large developments. • Incorporate bicycle-friendly intersections into street design. For commercial projects, provide adequate bicycle parking near building entrances to promote cyclist safety, security, and convenience. For large employers, provide facilities that encourage bicycle commuting, including, e.g., locked bicycle storage or covered or indoor bicycle parking. Create bicycle lanes and walking paths directed to the location of schools, parks and other destination points." • Work with the school district to restore or expand school bus services. • Institute a telecotrunute work program. Provide information, training, and incentives to encourage participation. Provide incentives for equipment purchases to allow high-quality teleconferences. • Provide information on all options for individuals and businesses to reduce transportation-related emissions. Provide education and information about public transportation. Carbon Offsets If, after analyzing and requiring all reasonable and feasible on-site mitigation measures for avoiding or reducing greenhouse gas-related impacts, the lead agency determines that additional mitigation is required, the agency may consider additional off-site mitigation. The project proponent could, for example, fund off-site mitigation projects (e.g., alternative energy projects, or energy or water audits for existing projects) that will reduce carbon emissions, conduct an audit of its other existing operations and agree to retrofit, or purchase carbon "credits" from another entity that will undertake mitigation. The topic of offsets can be complicated, and a full discussion is outside the scope of this summary document. Issues that the lead agency should consider include: The location of the off-site mitigation. (If the off-site mitigation is far from the project, any additional, non-climate related benefits of the mitigation will be lost to the local community.) Whether the emissions reductions from off-site mitigation can be quantified and verified. Whether the mitigation ratio should be greater than 1:1 to reflect any uncertainty about the effectiveness of the offset. Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 4 of 20(2) General Plan Measures" Global warming measures may be reflected in a general plan as goals, policies, or programs; in land use designations; or as additional mitigation measures identified during the CEQA review process. Many of the measures listed above may be appropriate for inclusion in a general plan. In addition, a non-exhaustive list of measures specific to the general plan context follows. The examples are listed under required general plan elements. A given example may, however, be appropriate for inclusion in more than one element, or in a different element than listed. Global warming measures may, alternatively, be included in an optional Climate Change or Energy element. Conservation Element' Climate Action Plan or Policy: Include a comprehensive climate change action plan that requires a baseline inventory of greenhouse gas emissions from all sources by a date certain; greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and deadlines; and enforceable greenhouse gas emissions reduction measures." (Note: If the Climate Action Plan complies with the requirements of Section 15064(11)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, it may allow for the streamlining of individual projects that comply with the plan's requirements.) Climate Action Plan Implementation Program: include mechanisms to ensure regular review of progress toward the emission reduction targets established by the Climate Action Plan, report progress to the public and responsible officials, and revise the plan as appropriate, using principles of adaptive management. Allocate funding to implement the plan. Fund staff to oversee implementation of the plan. Strengthen local building codes for new construction and renovation to require a higher level of energy efficiency." a Require that all new government buildings, and all major renovations and additions, meet identified green building standards." Adopt a "Green Building Program" to require or encourage green building practices and materials: 30 The program could be implemented through, e.g., a set of green building ordinances. Require orientation of buildings to maximize passive solar heating during cool seasons, avoid solar heat gain during hot periods, enhance natural ventilation, and promote effective use of daylight. Orientation should optimize opportunities for on-site solar generation. Provide permitting-related and other incentives for energy efficient building projects, e.g,, by giving green projects priority in plan review, processing and field inspection services?' a Conduct energy efficiency audits of existing buildings by checking, repairing, and readjusting heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, water heating equipment, insulation and weatherization.n Offer financial incentives for adoption of identified efficiency measures." Partner with community services agencies to fund energy efficiency projects, including heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting, water heating equipment, insulation and weatherization, for low income residents. Target local funds, including redevelopment and Community Development Block Grant resources, to assist affordable housing developers in incorporating energy efficient designs and features. Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 5 of 20 <1BProvide innovative, low-interest financing for energy efficiency and alternative energy projects. For example, allow property owners to pay for energy efficiency improvements and solar system installation through long-term assessments on individual property tax bills.' Fund incentives to encourage the use of energy efficient vehicles, equipment and lighting." Provide financial incentives for adoption of identified efficiency measures. Require environmentally responsible government purchasing.' Require or give preference to products that reduce or eliminate indirect greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., by giving preference to recycled products over those made from virgin materials." Require that government contractors take action to minimize greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., by using low or zero-emission vehicles and equipment. Adopt a "heat island" mitigation plan that requires cool roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees.' (Darker colored roofs, pavement, and lack of trees may cause temperatures in urban environments to increase by as much as 6-8 degrees Fahrenheit as compared to surrounding areas.") Adopt a program of building permit enforcement for re-roofing to ensure compliance with existing state building requirements for cool roofs on non-residential buildings. Adopt a comprehensive water conservation strategy. The strategy may include, but not be limited to, imposing restrictions on the time of watering, requiring water-efficient irrigation equipment, and requiring new construction to offset demand so that there is no net increase in water use.' • Adopt water conservation pricing, e.g., tiered rate structures, to encourage efficient water use' • Adopt water-efficient landscape ordinances." • Strengthen local building codes for new construction and implement a program to renovate existing buildings to require a higher level of water efficiency. • Adopt energy and water efficiency retrofit ordinances that require upgrades as a condition of issuing permits for renovations or additions, and on the sale of residences and buildings.' • Provide individualized water audits to identify conservation opportunities. ° Provide financial incentives for adopting identified efficiency measures. • Provide water audits for large landscape accounts. Provide financial incentives for efficient irrigation controls and other efficiency measures. • Require water efficiency training and certification for irrigation designers and installers, and property managers." • Implement or expand city or county-wide recycling and composting programs for residents and businesses. Require commercial and industrial recycling. • Extend the types of recycling services offered (e.g., to include food and green waste recycling). Establish methane recovery in local landfills and wastewater treatment plants to generate electricity.' Implement Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) for renewable electricity generation. (CCA allows cities and counties, or groups of them, to aggregate the electric loads of customers within Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 6 of 20their jurisdictions for purposes of procuring electrical services. CCA allows the community to choose what resources will serve their loads and can significantly increase renewable energy.)" • Preserve existing conservation areas (e.g., forested areas, agricultural lands, wildlife habitat and corridors, wetlands, watersheds, and groundwater recharge areas) that provide carbon sequestration benefits. • Establish a mitigation program for development of conservation areas. Impose mitigation fees on development of such lands and use funds generated to protect existing, or create replacement, conservation areas. Provide public education and information about options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions through responsible purchasing, conservation, and recycling. Land Use Element" Adopt land use designations to carry out policies designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, e.g., policies to minimize or reduce vehicle miles traveled, encourage development near existing public transportation corridors, encourage alternative modes of transportation, and promote infill, mixed use, and higher density development. Identify and facilitate the development of land uses not already present in local districts — such as supermarkets, parks and recreation fields, and schools in neighborhoods; or residential uses in business districts — to reduce vehicle miles traveled and allow bicycling and walking to these destinations. • Create neighborhood commercial districts. • Require bike lanes and bicycle/pedestrian paths. • Prohibit projects that impede bicycle and walking access, e.g., large parking areas that cannot be crossed by non-motorized vehicles, and new residential communities that block through access on existing or potential bicycle and pedestrian routes. • Site schools to increase the potential for students to walk and bike to school. • Enact policies to limit or discourage low density development that segregates employment, services, and residential areas." • Where there are growth boundaries, adopt policies providing certainty for infill development." • Require best management practices in agriculture and animal operations to reduce emissions, conserve energy and water, and utilize alternative energy sources, including biogas, wind and solar. Circulation Element' In conjunction with measures that encourage public transit, ride sharing, bicycling and walking, implement circulation improvements that reduce vehicle idling. For example, coordinate controlled intersections so that traffic passes more efficiently through congested areas.' Create an interconnected transportation system that allows a shift in travel from private passenger vehicles to alternative modes, including public transit, ride sharing, car sharing, bicycling and walking. Before funding transportation improvements that increase vehicle miles Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 7 of 20 100traveled, consider alternatives such as increasing public transit or improving bicycle or pedestrian travel routes. Give funding preference to investment in public transit over investment in infrastructure for private automobile traffic." Include safe and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access in all transportation improvement projects. Ensure that non-motorized transportation systems are connected and not interrupted by impassable barriers, such as freeways" and include amenities such as secure bicycle parking. Provide adequate and affordable public transportation choices including expanded bus routes and service and other transit choices such as shuttles, light rail, and rail where feasible. Assess transportation impact fees on new development in order to maintain and increase public transit service." • Provide public transit incentives, including free and reduced fare areas." • Adopt a comprehensive parking policy that discourages private vehicle use and encourages the use of alternative transportation." For example, reduce parking for private vehicles while increasing options for alternative transportation; eliminate minimum parking requirements for new buildings; "unbundle" parking (require that parking is paid for separately and is not included in rent for residential or commercial space); and set appropriate pricing for parking. • Develop school transit plans to substantially reduce automobile trips to, and congestion surrounding, schools. (According to some estimates, parents driving their children to school account for 20-25% of the morning commute.) Plans may address, e.g., necessary infrastructure improvements and potential funding sources; replacing older diesel buses with low or zero- emission vehicles; mitigation fees to expand school bus service; and Safe Routes to School programs's and other formal efforts to increase walking and biking by students. • Create financing programs for the purchase or lease of vehicles used in employer ride sharing programs. • Enter into partnerships to create and expand polluting vehicle buy-back programs to include vehicles with high greenhouse gas emissions. • Provide public education and information about options for reducing motor vehicle-related greenhouse gas emissions. Include information on trip reduction; trip linking; public transit; biking and walking; vehicle performance and efficiency (e.g., keeping tires inflated); low or zero-emission vehicles; and car and ride sharing. Housing Elements' • Improve the jobs-housing balance and promote a range of affordable housing choices near jobs, services and transit. • Concentrate mixed use, and medium to higher density residential development in areas near jobs, transit routes, schools, shopping areas and recreation. Increase density in single family residential areas located near transit routes or commercial areas. For example, promote duplexes in residential areas and increased height limits of multi-unit buildings on main arterial streets, under specified conditions. Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11108 Page 8 of 20 [01• Encourage transit-oriented developments.' • Impose minimum residential densities in areas designated for transit-oriented, mixed use development to ensure higher density in these areas. • Designate mixed use areas where housing is one of the required uses. • In areas designated for mixed use, adopt incentives for the concurrent development of different land uses (e.g., retail with residential). Promote infill, mixed use, and higher density development by, for example, reducing developer fees;°' providing fast-track permit processing; reducing processing fees; funding infrastructure loans; and giving preference for infrastructure improvements in these areas. Open Space Element" • Preserve forested areas, agricultural lands, wildlife habitat and corridors, wetlands, watersheds, groundwater recharge areas and other open space that provide carbon sequestration benefits. Establish a mitigation program for development of those types of open space that provide carbon sequestration benefits. Require like-kind replacement for, or impose mitigation fees on development of such lands. Use funds generated to protect existing, or create replacement, open space. Allow alternative energy projects in areas zoned for open space where consistent with other uses and values. Protect existing trees and encourage the planting of new trees. Adopt a tree protection and replacement ordinance, e.g., requiring that trees larger than a specified diameter that are removed to accommodate development must be replaced at a set ratio. Connect parks and publicly accessible open space through shared pedestrian/bike paths and trails to encourage walking and bicycling. Safety Elements Address expected effects of climate change that may impact public safety, including increased risk of wildfires, flooding and sea level rise, salt water intrusion; and health effects of increased heat and ozone, through appropriate policies and programs. Adopt programs for the purchase, transfer or extinguishment of development rights in high risk areas. • Monitor the impacts of climate change. Use adaptive management to develop new strategies, and modify existing strategics, to respond to the impacts of climate change. Energy Element Many of the goals, policies, or programs set forth above may be contained in an optional energy element. The resources set forth below may be useful to local agencies in developing an energy element or an energy conservation plan. • The Local Government Commission produced a detailed report in 2002 entitled General Plan Policy Options for Energy Efficiency in New and Existing Development. The document sets forth energy saving policies suitable for inclusion in general plans. Policies range from Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3111108 • Page 9 of 20exceeding State minimum building efficiency standards, to retrofitting buildings to reduce energy consumption, to implementing energy conservation strategies for roofs, pavement and landscaping. The report also contains suggested general plan language. The report is available here: littp://www.redwoodenergy.org/uploads/Energy Element Report.pdf. • The California Energy Commission summarizes the energy-related efforts of Humboldt County, City of Pleasanton, City of Pasadena, City and County of San Francisco, the Los Angeles area, City of Chula Vista, the San Diego region, City of San Diego, City and County of San Luis Obispo, and City of Santa Monica, in the 2006 Integrated Energy Policy Report at pp. 82-87, available here: http://wwlAr.en ergy.ca.gov/2006publ ications/CEC-100-2006-001/CEC-100-2006-001-CMF.PDP. In 2006, the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments published a regional energy plan, available here: littp://www.ambag.org/EnergyWatch/regional_plan.htrnl . Part 1 describes the plan's goals and course of action. Part 2 describes actions that local agencies already have taken and identifies the most cost-effective measures in each sector. The appendices list existing energy programs that may provide support and funding for energy efficiency projects, suggest language for energy-related provisions to be included in general plans, and list and give brief explanations of more than one hundred energy-saving measures. The California Local Energy Efficiency Program (CALeep) has available on its website, http://w1A ,w.ealeep.com/default.htm, various resources and documents, including an energy "Workbook." The Workbook lays out a process for instituting local energy efficiency programs based in part on information developed in six California pilot projects (Inland Empire Utilities Agency, City of Oakland, San Joaquin Valley, Sonoma County, South Bay Cities Council of Governments, and Ventura County Regional Energy Alliance). The Workbook is designed to be used by local officials to initiate, plan, organize, implement, and assess energy efficiency activities at the local and regional level. Resources About Global Warrnin and Local Action The following web sites and organizations provide general information about mitigating global warming impacts at the local level. These sites represent only a small fraction of the available resources. Local agencies are encouraged to conduct their own research in order to obtain the most current and relevant materials. The U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement contains valuable information for the many local agencies that are joining the fight against global warming. The Agreement is available here: http://www.coolcities.us/resources/bestPracticeGuides/USM_ClimateAction.FIB.pdf . Over one hundred and twenty California cities have joined the "Cool Cities" campaign, which means they have signed the U.S. Mayor's Climate Protection Agreement and are taking concrete steps toward addressing global warming. These steps include preparing a city-wide greenhouse gas emissions inventory and creating and implementing a local Climate Action Plan. Additional resources, including various cities' Climate Action Plans, are located at the Cool Cities website: http://www.coolcities.us/resourees.php. In July 2007, Alameda County became one of twelve charter members of the "Cool Counties" initiative. Participating counties sign a Climate Stabilization Declaration, which is available at the website for King County (Washington State): http://www.metroke.gov/exec/news/2007/0716dec.aspx . Participating counties agree to work with local, state, and federal governments and other leaders to reduce county geographical greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below current levels by 2050 by developing a greenhouse gas emissions inventory and regional reduction plan. Current member counties Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 (3) Page 10 of 20 rtz,are recruiting new members and are committed to sharing information. Cool Counties contact information is available at: http://www.kingeountv.gov/execicoolcounties/Joinus.asz. Local Governments for Sustainability, a program of International Cities for Local Environmental initiatives (ICLET), has initiated a campaign called Cities for Climate Protection (CCP). The membership program is designed to empower local governments worldwide to take action on climate change. Many California cities have joined ICLEI. More information is available at the organization's website: http://www.iclei.orgl . The Institute for Local Government (ILG), an affiliate of the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities, has instituted a program called the California Climate Action Network (CalifomiaCAN!). The program provides information about the latest climate action resources and case studies. More information is available at the CaliforniaCAN! website: http://www.caciti es. orglindex. sp?displavtype=§ion-----c limate&zon I sg. ILG's detailed list of climate change "best practices" for local agencies is available at http://www.cacities.org/index.jsp?displaytype ,--§ion-----climate&zone--ilsg&sub _sec=climateiocal. ILG maintains a list of local agencies that have Climate Action Plans. The list is available here: http://www.cacities.orgiinclex.jsp ?zone=ilsg&previewStory=27035. According to ILG, the list includes Mann County and the cities of Arcata, Berkeley, Los Angeles, Palo Alto, San Diego, and San Francisco. Many additional local governments are in the process of conducting greenhouse gas inventories. The non-profit group Natural Capitalism Solutions (NCS) has developed an on-line Climate Protection Manual for Cities. NCS states that its mission is "to educate senior decision-makers in business, government and civil society about the principles of sustainability." The manual is available at http://-www.climatemanual.orgiCities/index.htm. The Local Government Commission provides many planning-related resources for local agencies at its website: http://www.lge.orgi . In cooperation with U.S. EPA, LGC has produced a booklet discussing the benefits of density and providing case studies of well-designed, higher density projects throughout the nation. Creating Great Neighborhoods: Density in Your Community (2003) is available here: http://www.lgc.org/freepub/PDF/Land_Use/reports/density_manual.pdf. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change was established in 1998 as a non-profit, non-partisan and independent organization. The Center's mission is to provide credible information, straight answers, and innovative solutions in the effort to address global climate change. See http://www.pewclimate.org . The Pew Center has published a series of reports called Climate Change 101. These reports provide a reliable and understandable introduction to climate change. They cover climate science and impacts, technological solutions, business solutions, international action, recent action in the U.S. states, and action taken by local governments. The Climate Change 101 reports are available at hap ://www. pewc i mate. °real obal-warm ing,-bas cs/c I im ate _change 101 . The Climate Group, www.theclimategroup.or g, is a non-profit organization founded by a group of companies, governments and activists to "accelerate international action on global warming with a new, strong focus on practical solutions." Its website contains a searchable database of about fifty case studies of actions that private companies, local and state governments, and the United Kingdom, have taken to reduce GI-IG emissions. Case studies include examples from California. The database, which can be searched by topic, is available at Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 11 of 20http://theclirnateuoup.org/index .php/red oci ng_emissions/case_studies. U.S. EPA maintains a list of examples of codes that support "smart growth" development, available here: http://www.coa.gov/piedpage/codeexamples.htm . Examples include transit 7oriented development in Pleasant Hill and Palo Alto, rowhouse design guidelines from Mountain View, and street design standards from San Diego. The Urban Land Institute (ULI) is a nonprofit research and education organization providing leadership in responsible land use and sustainability. In 2007, ULI produced a report entitled, "Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change," which review s existing research on the relationship between urban development, travel, and greenhouse gases emitted by motor vehicles. It further discusses the emissions reductions that can be expected from compact development and how to make compact development happen. "Growing Cooler" is available at http://www. ul .ora/growin gcoo ler. The California Department of Housing and Community Development, http://www.hcd.ea.2ovi , has many useful resources on its website related to housing policy and housing elements and specific recommendations for creating higher density and affordable communities. See http://www.hcd.ca.gov/hpd/lirc/plan/he/. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) recently made recommendations for changes to regional transportation guidelines to address climate change issues. Among other things, the CTC recommends various policies, strategies and performance standards that a regional transportation agency should consider including in a greenhouse reduction plan. These or analogous measures could be included in other types of planning documents or local climate action plans. The recommendation document, and Attachment A, entitled Smart Growth/Land Use Regional Transportation Plan Guidelines Amendments, are located at http://www.donca.e.ov/hq/transprog/ctcbooks/2008/0108/12_4.4.pdf. The California Energy Commission's Public Interest Energy Research (PIER) Program supports energy research, development and demonstration projects designed to bring environmentally safe, affordable and reliable energy services and products to the marketplace. On its website, http://www.energy.ca.aov/pier/, PIER makes available a number of reports and papers related to energy efficiency, alternative energy, and climate change. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) provides valuable resources for lead agencies related to CEQA and global warming at http://opr.ca.gov/index.php?a=ceqa/index.html . Among the materials available are a list of environmental documents addressing climate change and greenhouse gas emissions and a list of local plans and policies addressing climate change. In addition, OPRs' The California Planners' Book of Lists 2008, which includes the results of surveys of local agencies on matters related to global warming, is available at http://www.opr.ca . lov/index.ph p?a-----planll in a/p ubl ications.html#pubs-C. The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association has prepared a white paper entitled "CEQA and Climate Change" (January 2008). The document includes a list of mitigation measures and information about their relative efficacy and cost. The document is available at http://www.capeoa.org/cecia/klocID=cega. • The Attorney General's global warming website includes a section on CEQA. See http://aLnea.gov/Qlobalwarming/cega.php . The site includes all of the Attorney General's public comment letters that address CEQA and global warming. Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 12 of 20(4) Endnotes I. Energy efficiency leads the mitigation list because it promises significant greenhouse gas reductions through measures that are cost-effective for the individual residential and commercial energy consumer. 2. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) administers a Green Building Ratings program that provides benchmarks for the design, construction, and operation of high-performance green buildings. More information about the LEED ratings system is available at http://www.usgbe.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategorvID-1 9. Build it Green is a non-profit, membership organization that promotes green building practices in California. The organization offers a point-based, green building rating system for various types of projects. See http://www ,builditgreen,org/guidelines-rating-systems. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories' Building Technologies Department is working to develop coherent and innovative building construction and design techniques. Information and publications on energy efficient buildings are available at the Department's website at http://btech.lbl. gov. The California Department of Housing and Community Development has created an extensive Green Building & Sustainability Resources handbook with links to green building resources, available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/b d/ 3. For more information, see Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories, Heat Island Group at http://cetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland/. 4. See California Energy Commission, "How to Hire an Energy Services Company" (2000) at http://www.energy. ca.gov/reports/efficiencv books/400-00-00 I D.PDF. 5. Energy Star is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy that certifies energy efficient products and provides guidelines for energy efficient practices for homes and businesses. More information about Energy Star-certified products is available at Fittp://www.energystar.gov/ . The Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) is a system that ranks computer products based on their conformance to a set of environmental criteria, including energy efficiency. More information about EPEAT is available at lattp://wwwsp . cat.net/AboutEPEAT.asp 6. LED lighting is substantially more energy efficient than conventional lighting and can save money. See http//w-ww.energv.ca.gov/efficiency/partnershiptcase_studies/TechAsstCitv.pdf (noting that installing LED traffic si gnals saved the City of Westlake about $34,000 per year). A.s . of 2005, only about a quarter of California's cities and counties were using 100% LEDs in traffic signals. See California Energy Commission (CEC), Light Emitting Diode Traffic Signal Survey (2005) at p. 15, available at hrtp://www.ertergv.ea.gov/2005publications/CEC-400-2005-003/CEC-400-2005-003.PDF . The CEC's Energy Partnership Program can help local governments take advantage of energy saving technology, including, but not limited to, LED traffic signals. See http://www.eneruy.ca.ov/efficiencv/partnersliip/.|109| See Palm Desert Energy Partnership at http://www.see.com/rebatesandsav in Ys/ alm.desert. The City, in partnership with Southern California Edison, provides incentives and rebates for efficient equipment. See Southern California Edison, Pool Pump and Motor Replacement Rebate Program at littp://www.sce.corn/RebatesandSavings/ResideritialLPool/PoolPumpandMotont. Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 13 of 208. Many cities and counties provide energy efficiency education. See, for example, the City of Stockton's Energy Efficiency website at htt ://www.stockton ov.com/ener avsavin /index.cfm . See also "Green County San Bernardino," http://www.greencountysb.com/ at pp. 4-6. Private projects may also provide education. For example, a homeowners' association could provide information and energy audits to its members on a regular basis. 9. See hap://www.aesolarcalifornia.ca.aov/doeuments/CEC-300-2007-008-CMF.PDF . At the direction of Governor Schwarzenegger, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) approved the California Solar Initiative on January 12, 2006. The initiative creates a $3.3 billion, ten-year program to install solar panels on one million roofs in the State. See http://www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.aovtrishp/ind.ex.html. 10. For example, Alameda County has installed two solar tracking carports, each generating 250 kilowatts. By 2005, the County had installed eight photovoltaic systems totaling over 2.3 megawatts. The County is able to meet 6 percent of its electricity needs through solar power. See httn://www.acgov .org/sa/Alam ede/020County%20-%20Solar%20Case%20S Ludy .pdf. 11. Many commercial, industrial, and campus-type facilities (such as hospitals, universities and prisons) use fuel to produce steam and heat for their own operations and processes. Unless captured, much of this heat is wasted. Combined heat and power (CH?) captures waste heat and re-uses it, e.g., for residential or commercial space heating or to generate electricity. See U.S. EPA, Catalog of CUP Technologies at http://www.epagov/chp!docwnents/catalogof%20chptechentire.pdf The average efficiency of fossil-fueled power plants in the United States is 33 percent. By using waste heat recovery technology, CHP systems typically achieve total system efficiencies of 60 to 80 percent. CH? can also substantially reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. http://www.epa.aoviebp/basic/efficieney.html . Currently, CLIP in California has a capacity of over 9 million kilowatts. See list of California CLIP facilities at http://wwvv.e ea-in c.co m/ehpdata/S tates/C A .htm I . 12. The California Energy Commission has found that the State's water-related energy use — which includes the conveyance, storage, treatment, distribution, wastewater collection, treatment, and discharge — consumes about 19 percent of the State's electricity, 30 percent of its natural gas, and 88 billion gallons of diesel fuel every year. See htto://www.enerP,v.ea.aov/2007publications/CEC-999-2007-008/CEC-999-2007-008.PDF. Accordingly, reducing water use and improving water efficiency can help reduce energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions. 13. The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881) requires the Department of Water Resources (DWR), not later than January 1, 2009, to update the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The draft of the entire updated Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance will be made available to the public. See littp://www.owue.water.ca.gov/landseapelord/updatedOrd.cfm. 14. See Graywater Guide, Department of Water Resources, Office of Water Use Efficiency and Transfers at http://www.owue.water.ca.e , ov/does/gravwater guide_book.pdf. See also The Ahwahnee Water Principles, Principle 6, at http://www.la-c.or e-/aliwahnee/h2o principles.htm I. The Ahwahnee Water Principles have been adopted by City of Willits, Town of Windsor, Menlo Park, Morgan Hill, Palo Alto, Petaluma, Port Hueneme, Richmond, Rohnert Park, Rolling Hills Estates, San Luis Obispo, Santa Paula, Santa Rosa, City of Sunnyvale, City of Ukiah, Ventura, Marin County, Mann Municipal Water District, and Ventura County. Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 14 of 20 10—÷15. See Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment and the California Water and Land Use Partnership, Low Impact Development, at littp://www.coastal.ca.gov/nps/lid-factsheet.pdf. 16. See, for example, the City of Santa Cruz, Water Conservation Office at http://www.ci.santa-cruz.ca.us/wt/wtcon/index.html; Santa Clara Valley Water District, Water Conservation at http://www.valleywater.org/conservation/ind.ex.shtm; and Metropolitan Water District and the Family of Southern California Water Agencies, Be Water Wise at http://www.bewaterwise.eorn. Private projects may provide or fund similar education. 17. See Public Interest Energy Research Program, Dairy Power Production Program, Dairy Methane Digester System, 90-Day Evaluation Report, Eden Vale Dairy (Dec. 2006) at hap ://www.energy.ca.gov/2006p u bl ications/CEC-500-2006-083/CEC-500-2006-083 .PD F. See also discussion in the general plan section, below, relating to wastewater treatment plants and landfills. 18. Many cities and counties provide information on waste reduction and recycling. See, for example, the Butte County Guide to Recycling at http://vAm.recyclebutte.net . The California Integrated Waste Management Board's website contains numerous publications on recycling and waste reduction that may be helpful in devising an education project. See littp://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Publications/defaultasp?cat-13 . Private projects may also provide education directly, or fund education. 19. See U.S. EPA, Our Built and Natural Environments, A Technical Review of the Interactions between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality (Jan. 2001) at pp. 46-48 http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdfibui it. pdf. 20. See California Department of Housing and Community Development, Myths and Facts About Affordable and High Density Housing (2002), available at http://www.hcd.casov/hpd/mythsnfacts.pdf. 21. Palo Alto's Green Ribbon Task Force Report on Climate Protection recommends pedestrian and bicycle-only streets under its proposed actions. See http://www.city.palo-alto.ca.us/civica/fitebank/blobdloacl.asp7BloblD-7478. 22. There are a number of car sharing programs operating in California, including City CarShare http://www.citycarshare.orgi, Zip Car http://www.zipcar.com/ and Flexcar http://w-ww.flexcar.com/. 23. The City of Lincoln has a NEV program. See http://www.lincolnev.com/index.html. 24. See, for example, Mann County's Safe Routes to Schools program at lattp://www.saferoutestosch.00ls.org/. 25. For information on the general plan process, see Governor's Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines (1998), available at http://ceres.ca.szov/planning/gennlan/ug.pdf. 26. The Conservation Element addresses the conservation, development, and use of natural resources including water, forests, soils, rivers, and mineral deposits. Measures proposed for the Conservation Element may alternatively be appropriate for other elements. In practice, there may be substantial overlap in the global warming mitigation measures appropriate for the Conservation and Open Space Elements. Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 15 of 20 10e)27. See the Attorney General's , settlement agreement with the County of San Bernardino, available at http://ag.ea.gov/cms_pdfs/press/2007-08-21 San Bernardino settlement a areement di'. See also Mann County Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (Oct. 2006) at littp://www.ca.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/pdf/final_ <2112 ._ red plan .pcif; Mann Countywide Plan (Nov. 6, 2007) at http://www.co.marin.caus/depts/CD/rnain/fin/ewpdocs/CWP_CD2.pdf; Draft Conservation Element, General Plan, City of San Diego at http://www.sandiego.2ov/p1annina/genplanipdf/generalplan/ce070918.pdf. 28. Public Resources Code Section 25402.1(h)2 and Section 10-106 of the Building Energy Efficiency Standards establish a process that allows local adoption of energy standards that are more stringent than the statewide Standards. More information is available at the California Energy Commission's website. See http://www.enez ards/orc________g______ Iinances_exceeclin 2005 building_standards.html. 29. See, e.g., LEED athtt vz_ w\v.us c iaplzPage.aspx?Catei. T orvID=.19; see also Build it Green at http://wwwbnilditareen.org/guidelines-rating-systerna. 30. The City of Santa Monica, for example, has instituted a Green Building Program. See http://www.greenbuildings.santa-monica.org/. The City of Pasadena also has a green building ordinance that applies to public and private buildings. See http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/penniteenter/greencitv/buildinOgbprogram.asp and http://ordlink.comkodes/pasadena/index.htm?Search_Code---- -Begin+Searching+Municipal+Code at Title 14. The City of San Francisco is considering adopting green building performance requirements that would apply to public and private buildings. See http://www.sfenvironrnent.org/downloads/library/gbtfareleasev1.3.pdf. 31. See, e.g., "Green County San Bernardino," http://www.greencountysb.com/ . As part of its program, the systems. See littp://www.greeneountysh.corni, at p. 3. For a representative list of incentives for green County is waiving permit fees for alternative energy systems and efficient heating and air conditioning building offered in California and throughout the nation, see U.S. Green Building Council, Summary of Government LEED Incentives (updated quarterly) at https://www.usQbc.or0ShowFile.as x'?DocumentID=2021. 32. For example, Riverside Public Utilities offers free comprehensive energy audits to its business customers. See htt .//www.riversideca. ov/utilities/busi-techniealassistance.as 33. Under Southern California Gas Company's Energy Efficiency Program for Commercial/Industrial Large Business Customers, participants are eligible to receive an incentive based on 50% of the equipment cost, or $0.50 per therm saved, whichever is lower, up to a maximum amount of $1,000,000 per customer, per year. Eligible projects require an energy savings of at least 200,000 therms per year. See http://www.socaleas.com/bu.siness/efficiencv/grants/. 34. The City of Berkeley is in the process of instituting a "Sustainable Energy Financing District." According to the City, "The financing mechanism is loosely based on existing 'underground utility districts' where the City serves as the financing agent for a neighborhood when they move utility poles and wires underground. In this case, individual property owners would contract directly with qualified private solar installers and contractors for energy efficiency and solar projects on their building. The Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 16 of 20City provides the funding for the project from a bond or loan fund that it repays through assessments on participating property owners' tax bills for 20 years." See http://www.cit\iolberkelev.info/Ma /or/PR/ ressrelease2007-1023.htm. The California Energy Commission's Public Interest Energy Research Program estimates that the technical potential for rooftop applications of photovoltaic systems in the State is about 40 gigawatts in 2006, rising to 68 gigawatts in 2016. See Public Interest Energy Research Program, California Rooftop Photovoltaic (PV) Resource Assessment and Growth Potential by County (2007), available at http ://www.ener ub I icati ons/d splav OneR eport.plip?pubN tim-CEC-500-2007-048. 35. As described in its Climate Action Plan, the City of San Francisco uses a combination of incentives and technical assistance to reduce lighting energy use in small businesses such as grocery stores, small retail outlets, and restaurants. The program offers free energy audits and coordinated lighting retrofit installation. In addition, the City offers residents the opportunity to turn in their incandescent lamps for coupons to buy fluorescent units. See San Francisco's Climate Action Plan, available at http://www.s fenv ronment.org/downloads/l ibrary/c lirnateactionpl an .pclf. 36. Among other strategies for reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, Yolo County has adopted purchasing policies for computers and electrical equipment. http://www.volocountv.org/docs/press/GreenhouseGas.btm. 37. See, for example, Los Angeles County Green Purchasing Policy, June 2007 at 1 t Wwww.responsiblepurchasin.org/UserFilesiFile/General/Los%20Angeles%20Countv.%20Green% 20Purchasing%20Policv,%20June%202007.pdf. The policy requires County agencies to purchase products that minimize environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions. 38. Some local agencies have implemented a cool surfaces programs in conjunction with measures to address storm water runoff and water quality. See, for example, The City of Irvine's Sustainable Travelways/Green Streets program at http://www.citvofirvine.oraldepts/recieveloprnent/sustainable travelways.a.sp; The City of Los Angeles's Green Streets LA program at http://water.igc.org/water-workshops/la-workshop/Green Streets_Daniels.pdftview; see also The Chicago Green Alley H.andbook at http://ea-ov.cit rtal./COC_EDITO.RIAL/GreenAllevHandbook pdf. 39. See the website for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory's Urban Heat Island Group at http://eetd.lbl.gov/Heatisland/LEARN/ and U.S. EPA's Heat Island website at www.epa.gov/heatisland/. To learn about the effectiveness of various heat island mitigation strategies, see the Mitigation Impact Screening Tool, available at http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/resources/tools.html. 40. For example, the City of Lompoc has a policy to "require new development to offset new water demand with savings from existing water users, as long as savings are available." See http://www.ci . I o mpoc, ca. us/depa rtments/comdev/pdf07/RESRCMG MT. pdf. 41. The Irvine Ranch Water District in Southern California, for example, uses a five-tiered rate structure that rewards conservation. The water district has a baseline charge for necessary ,water use. Water use Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 17 of 20 Uothat exceeds the baseline amount costs incrementally more money. While "low volume" water use costs $.082 per hundred cubic feet (ccf), "wasteful" water use costs $7.84 per ccf. See lutp://www.irwd.comlAboutIRWD/rates_residentialphp. Mann County has included tiered billing rates as part of its general plan program to conserve water. See Mann County Countywide Plan, page 3-204, PFS-2.q, available at http://www.co.marin.ea.us/depts/CD/main/fin/ewpdocs/CWP CD2. mdf. 42. See the City of Fresno's Watering Regulations and Ordinances at tt ://www.fresno. ov/Government/De artmentDirectorv/Publ ditil it i es/ Wate e lent/Conservati on/Water-Re ulation/WateringR egulationsand.Restrictions.htm. 43. See, e.g. the City of San Diego's plumbing retrofit ordinance at littp://www.saridiego.eov/waterkonservation/selling.shtml. 44. The City of Roseville offers free water conservation audits through house calls and on-line surveys. See http://www.roseville.ca.us/eu/water utility/water_conservati _______p r mums n rebates.as 45. See Landscape Performance Certification Program, Municipal Water District of Orange County at http://waterpromms.com/wb/30_Landscapers/LC_01.htm. 46. For example, San Diego's Metropolitan Wastewater Department (SDMWD) installed eight digesters at one of its wastewater treatment plants. Digesters use heat and bacteria to break down the organic solids removed from the wastewater to create methane, which can be captured and used for energy. The methane generated by SDMWD's digesters runs two engines that supply enough energy for all of the plant's needs, and the plant sells the extra energy to the local grid. See http://www.sandiev ,o.gov/rawwd/facilities/ptlama.shurd . In addition, the California Air Resources Board approved the Landfill Methane Capture Strategy as an early action measure. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ccea/landfills/landfills.htm . Numerous landfills in California, such as the Puenta Hills Landfill in Los Angeles County (http://www.lacsd.orgiabout/solid:waste_facilities/puente_hills/cleanjuels_program.asp), the Scholl Canyon Landfill in the City of Glendale (htt :I/www. o iendalewaterandsower.corn/Renewable%2OEnera %20Develo mentas -)), and theYolo Landfill in Yolo County, are using captured methane to generate power and reduce the need for other more carbon-intensive energy sources. 47. On April 30, 2007, the Public Utilities Commission authorized a CCA application by the Kings River Conservation District on behalf of San Joaquin Valley Power Authority (SIVPA). SJVPA's Implementation Plan and general CCA program information are available at • www.commimitychoice.info. See also http://www.co.rnarin.ca.usidepts/CD/m.ain/comdev/advance/Sustainati rgy/cca/CCA.cfm. (County of Mann); and http://sfwater.oremto_main.cfm/MC_ID/12/MSC JD/1.38/WITO_ID/237 (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission). See also Public Interest Energy Research, Community Choice Aggregation (fact sheet) (2007), available at h ttp://www.e n e r gy .ca .gov/puhl icationsidisp I avOneReport.p hp?pubNum---CEC-500-2006-082. 48. The Land Use Element designates the type, intensity, and general distribution of uses of land for housing, business, industry, open-space, education, public buildings and grounds, waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses. Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 18 of 20 11 149. Samples of local legislation to reduce sprawl are set forth in the U.S. Conference of Mayors' Climate Action Handbook See http://www.iclei.orOdocuments/USAIdoctu ents/CCP/ClimateAction Handbook-0906.pdf. 50. For a list and maps related to urban growth boundaries in California, see Urban Growth Boundaries and Urban Line Limits, Association of Bay Area Governments (2006) at http://www ,abas r.ca. ovfj o tpolic v/Ur ban%20Growth%20Boundaries%20and%20-Urban%20Limit%20 Lines.pdf. 51. The Circulation Element works with the Land Use element and identifies the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities. 52. See Orange County Transportation Authority, Signal Synchronization at http://www.octa.net/simlals.aspx . Measures such as signal synchronization that improve traffic flow must be paired with other measures that encourage public transit, bicycling and walking so that improved flow does not merely encourage additional use of private vehicles. 53. San Francisco's "Transit First" Policy is listed in its Climate Action Plan, available at http://www.sfenvironment.org/downloads/librarviclimateactionplan.pdf. The City's policy gives priority to public transit investments and provides public transit street capacity and discourages increases in automobile traffic. This policy has resulted in increased transit service to meet the needs generated by new development. 54. The City of La Mesa has a Sidewalk Master Plan and an associated map that the City uses to prioritize funding. As the City states, "The most important concept for sidewalks is connectivity. For people to want to use a sidewalk, it must conveniently connect them to their intended destination." See http://www. ci.la-m es a.c a. us/ind ex.asp?NiD=699. 55. San Francisco assesses a Downtown Transportation Impact Fee on new office construction and commercial office space renovation within a designated district. The fee is discussed in the City's Climate Action plan, available at httn://www.sfenvironment.or oldownioads/library/clii ateactionplan.pdf. 56. For example, Seattle, Washington maintains a public transportation "ride free" zone in its downtown from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily. See http://transit.metroke ...zov/tops/accessible/paccessible_map.htmiffare. 57. See, e.g., Reforming Parking Policies to Support Smart Growth, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (June 2007) at http://www.mte.ca.gov/ lannina/smar arkim,Y_ seminar/Toolbox-llandbook.pdf; see also the City of Ventura's Downtown Parking and Mobility Plan, available at http://www.citvofventura.net/depts/comm_dev/resources/mobilit-v parking_plan.pdf, and its Downtown Parking Management Program, available at httn://www.eityofveritura.netidepts/cornm_dev/downtown r ro rams_ i mplementati on .pd Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/0g Page 19 of 20 112_58. See Safe Routes to School Toolit, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2002) at www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ eo 31e/in'ury/pedhimoUbike/Safe-Routes-2002; see also www.saferoutestoschook.OM (Mann County). 59. The Housing Element assesses current and projected housing needs. In addition, it sets policies for providing adequate housing and includes action programs for that purpose. 60. The U.S. Conference of Mayors cites Sacramento's Transit Village Redevelopment as a model of transit-oriented development. More information about this project is available at hup://www.cityofsacramento.org/planning/projects/65th-street-village/ . The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has developed policies and funding programs to foster transit- oriented development. More information is available at MTC's website: http://www.mtc.ea.L. rov/planning/smart_growthffitod . The California Department of Transportation maintains a searchable database of 21 transit-oriented developments at http://transitorienteddevelopment.dotea.govimiscellaneousiNewHome.jsp . 61 The City of Berkeley has endorsed the strategy of reducing developer fees or granting property tax credits for mixed-use developments in its Resource Conservation and Global Warming Abatement Plan. City of Berkeley's Resource Conservation and Global Warming Abatement Plan p. 25 at http://www.baaqind.gov/piniGlobalWarming/BerkeleyClimateActionPlan.pdf 62. The Open Space Element details plans and measures for preserving open space for natural resources, the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, public health and safety, and the identification of agricultural land. As discussed previously in these Endnotes, there may be substantial overlap in the measures appropriate for the Conservation and Open Space Elements. 63. The Safety Element establishes policies and programs to protect the community from risks associated with seismic, geologic, flood, and wildfire hazards. Office of the California Attorney General Global Warming Measures Updated: 3/11/08 Page 20 of 20 I k" • St 10 44V N.IY ca t\se THINK Development Attachment 11 Height Exception Criteria Summary There are five criteria for consideration of a Height Exception. In the case of a height exception not resulting in additional floor area, only two of the criteria apply. For the project proposed at 8665 Hayden Place, the height exception results in a shift of building mass away from the residential property line while increasing the height along the industrial property line but results in a loss of square footage. 1) Pro -forma. Not required. (However, delivered to Culver City consultant Keyser Martin on 7/18/08 as a courtesy) 2) Market Analysis. Not required. 3) Public Participation Plan. a. 9/17/07 Initial plan presentation to invited residents at the home of local resident b. 11/14/07 Neighborhood Presentation at the building site (height exception concept proposed by a neighborhood organizer) c. 12/5/07 Discussed concerns with neighborhood organizers d. 12/10/07 Discussed concerns with neighborhood organizer e. 2/13/08 Discussed possible changes with neighborhood organizers f. 2/20/08 Follow up meeting (canceled by neighborhood organizers) g. 5/21/08 Draft Plans with Height Exception Completed h. 6/14/08 E-mail invitation to residents view new plans/ voice concerns i. 6/20/08 Neighborhood representative viewed plans and agreed to set up neighborhood presentation j. 6/30/08 Neighborhood Presentation (canceled by neighborhood representative) k. 7/12/08 Mailed over four hundred postcard invitations to neighbors to view new plans I. 7/22/08 Neighborhood Presentation at the building site organized by REthink Dev. i. Approximately 30 attendees. 4) Traffic Study. Not Required. (Standard traffic study submitted to City Engineering with complete application 7/30/08) 5) Design Studies. Sight lines from surrounding neighborhood and shadow studies included with complete application 7/30/08. 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 <> P. 310.2519131 <> F.310.943,1519 111-8665 Hayden Place Legend Selected Properties City of Culver City Planning Division Map Created: Sep 30, 2008 Meeting Date: 8 October 2008 Public Notification Radius Mapn•n•••••n Petition: To Stop/Modify Rethink Tara Green LL.C. Proposed Office Building in the Hayden Place Tract. Target: Culver City Planning Commission Description/History: On September 20, 2007, Greg Reitz, a developer from Rethink Tara Green LLC, first presented their plans for the commercial building at 8665 Hayden Place to a small group of area neighbors. It is the first commercial building on the west side of Higuera Street, south of Lucerne Street that sits below street level. The developer plans to demolish the current building and erect a 5 story structure that will include 2.5 levels of subterranean parking for 180 cars as well as approximately 20 ground level parking spaces. Demolition is expected to take 4-6 months and construction 12 to 14 months. The design plan initially had 4+stories but changed to 5 stories with set backs as an attempt at a compromise with our Rancho Higuera Citizens Group. Neither plan is acceptable. This will serious impact on the quality of life of the Rancho Higuera homeowners by constructing a building that will be nearly twice the size of the current building as well as all other buildings in that commercial development. Not only is the proposed building over sized for the area but, if approved; may open inroads for further redevelopment of Hayden tract with equally oversized buildings compounding our current concern. The proposed building is not congruent with this largely residential neighborhood consistently of one or two stories homes. In addition, the amount of traffic on our residential streets generated by the addition of approximately 180 plus parking spaces will seriously impact on the safety of our families. This will produce unsafe road conditions and will bring increased noise and pollution to Rancho Higuera and adversely affect our quality of life in what is now an ever eroding quiet neighborhood. Although the developer says that the traffic to the building will likely come down Hayden Street from National Boulevard, there is no way to control traffic flow. Higuera Street and our surrounding streets that connect Higuera Street to Iltttgnal Boulevard will get the bulk of traffic. *611 (10 e;Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place We, the undersigned residents of Rancho Higuera, are opposed to the proposed commercial buildir at 8665 Hayden Place. The building would be of a scale and height incongruent with all other buildings, residential or commercial, in the surrounding neighborhood. Rancho Higuera would be negatively impacted by increased traffic, noise, and pollution. The project would result in the destruction of a long-standing "green belt", comprised of more than 70 trees, primarily old-growth eucalyptus. In addition, the proposed project would limit access by emergency vehicles to the Rano Higuera neighborhood and to the Hayden Tract. We request that the Planning Commission, the Traffic Committee, and the City Council limit the height of the proposed building to that of the existing building on the site: two (2) stories, in addition we are requesting that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required and that a TAN ic Study conducted and that both be made public. ftottW t PRINT NAME ADDRESS AND PHONE € SI. IiJ - I, 5‘cfc't 00. /)zetty E-7/6 . ,,/ /vi./e,,er 1 9/91 1-- 1/ 6-ael4 E7-- 3' ,r3y.- 4245 CASA FcL1 P kr)(A) 5 ki 4174 HiqoaRA 5T. (31) 1 0 Lt- t S “ r - , / 11/4Pitf c- /e/Neatjs/ A / u j //LP/ fi „0' 6--i' "6 J"' 16— A/ 8" - CA' p4:, ;,4 aieiteE - ,34r , L 11, (-ipt. .31a ,,5 -17r i!, -|109| C. ciphir IP 9 t5' L,,,e,,,, 54., . ..., /ye, C.°1 310/ z _ ,,,. - - //V - , .f> 1• i• I '`i kf cpc q Z 3 2 _ ,|10109| . i i At --A-VJR1'AVO cio64 k-ki6biazA "51- T. (Oki/ 0, 41.609-. •--tic;)- i . iw lir 6 /1/4e././ .--,9?0,4 A-7/9/0t/Ex,il . 7 Z_v-e,e-2/,-/-4.' 23 err 7 -VA--:/a ig.------- /,.../.,...--, -... 120Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place We, the undersigned residents of Rancho Higuera, are opposed to the proposed commercial building at 8665 Hayden Place. The building would be of a scale and height- incongruent with all other buildings, residential or commercial, in the surrounding neighborhood. Rancho Higuera would be negatively impacted by increased traffic, noise, and pollution. The project would result in the destruction of a long-standing "green belt", comprised of more than 70 trees, primarily old-growth eucalyptus. In addition, the proposed project would limit access by emergency vehicles to the Ranch Higuera neighborhood and to the Hayden Tract. We request that the Planning Commission, the Traffic Committee, and the City Council limit the height of the proposed building to that of the existing building on the site: two (2) stories. In addition, we are requesting that an Environmental impact Report (DR) be required and that a Traffic Study Ix conducted and that both be made public. PRINT NAME ADDRESS AND PHONE SIGNATURE '-liAp- ,-- Ug_ft4,5-1-Erti 2--1)-2-( HI C-ILA -e - -A ST: CC_ , CA 9 o2-3 z 310 - Ts27- sq 9 5.,:_ -_4,,,, L 1 i 71 ,b 0 .0• • KW/ 62Z,-7/ 91,2/ a: 4 „i We / 6/ rigi4 LE- I/ ifilc 1)),, _e;( t zbe_kiV a_ trpvt.,e-t, ci )3efr, SLkeilli,-„.|1010|' ! ) .-240 •• • ,' I|1010|ii ...... % \--6 _..|109| c) UtiATC:XL RI' I iffiiii e_C) ' C.z) Ec4)-1, 1 co() kr»fgr, e9 t n li - ( a, _ cr..L.) i Atn,7-6 av, Po-heiko I 11 / 4/144 (4 bqf U6' Re --- 1-' el cov Q_i-i- 1,0-- —I L /1 , 7 6 .....01r - (---c_o . LN 1 kii - - - - - C c - AA 1 - 7 -- 6 , Apownimur m 1 -Z- 4 cro -3- ifiz,e0t4--6 r-. q r.,,_ 32_ CA i--v 7-- 2.5' /N4r4.5';6/Am.,=, L., c • // fiW \c' v),‘ < Y—Q5 z/ 54- 9‹-SL co,u- cA-, .'17tci-l"t , 124PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE AND PHONE i I 1 7- (3/6) 9- 20 i 1. - --Tu i re or/ 04 Vri d 4 i ?W$ ( a 66 4 --tut( Afi404,4, giu) le evitf\ k- 1-1)QiiviJ Zs-9 i - /c- 1(164 ,c4. imor -ii Ato' 1--i ' i I - fr (e-C, Nor '(-4( re- gi---)70 — JO .sviA g dae:AliAd Al 3/ 6 - 4 / 6 _e.„5-7,,Z, V/ 7s7k- 09 ,/,, A <---, \ , 1_, k\ (, \ \k()\,,z,c_sk_ i N\rt 0,q(6 4- (1 ,\--\--(qpc,_ Ac le-P Stai4 t 02_ Czvt :\ )4,4-0, Mii- zA ja-70),(- wk ? - r 1-/ 037 7e iza SIT. I ' 1/0- ( 3-67.77 - 0 /1 °111)ip t-- -- 4dQ\( 1033 ) / -6/efa Y a V. -,- ) to c-cdS, E Aw iet:-oi cib vto,z7 V , ti trxn & 7- Xi-d-ZcA., Vaa-4-e1,---cL, 402.3 . 6-1)e,iz ,1574 / A ITRE:vo ,D _71>1, 1 u )vf a- C / 7/j , C'' qoz3z- , ''''' '307- 55ct- cr 30 i itt _. 01 1, c e-14- cc4(U /, 'h Lovi \--k, Arc47„ Cn _ 1 • o,$=_. i ,.......„. _ I--1 0° / .7,, 14 / e , - 0_, s.j -; 41 )1 os---r) 4, 1 )/ ‘ 10 , ,M2,.- 67 4 { --\R cr 122— sc)) sO 82) 83) s4) ss) 3‘) Eq 9.1) 12) r3) Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place We, the undersigned residents of Rancho Higuera, are opposed to the proposed commercial buildi at 8665 Hayden Place. The building would be of a scale and height- incongruent with all other buildings, residential or commercial, in the surrounding neighborhood. Rancho Higuera would be negatively impacted by increased traffic, noise, and pollution. The project would result in the destruction of a long-standing "green belt", comprised of more than 70 trees, primarily old-growth eucalyptus. in addition, the proposed project would limit access by emergency vehicles to the Ran( Higuera neighborhood and to the Hayden Tract. We request that the Planning Commission, the Traffic Committee, and the City Council limit the height of the proposed building to that of the existing building on the site: two (2) stories. In add itior we are requesting that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required and that a Traffic Study I conducted and that both be made public.Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place PRINT NAME ADDRESS SIGNATURE AND PHONE Le t 4 i . q a i a i -?Vi l ' Lief e, -Yib -6f3 'F .- -9-0 . fir 410, CL/3' ) Cs-Cc,ccc)(-4. , 3539 tdeg i. • &=-1-. (2/ 6 ' (03 — eISS -1- 1.).-e6 0 ,C L, . — 4 fr /14 ( L i -1'Sb I 1" &-e-2— .... :AA* ' i Kb,: \\IC : uo- OVIN- 1 3 5Ro \NeA , (A (-A0,v-A 1,J 0.-) rk A, ,tarrs 0 1,.) "' ST -7.-- t))1 7 -> /—e\ if Y1-- ---410 CI I LI-143 . R-p(fy . 6,-A-ii, vier Afe GNEI; L,L-1-iti 42‘-56 INE - i-6;Y FI . . 1 \ '. 0 - ^ 1 , ..„..."if 4, Alf - Pr( 1\c,c-i4 -1\ ,. v- 366v • z . s ---)_. S -7-- . Olt 6-4' t- \e'\f". C 1" .' CA- CI 0.),3'17-- _.1ff - , ----(2-- ..---, )' \ Vils ' Q44 '-c/(Ar- 0 k/Q0 1\-' t_l ,_\i- ‹,----c CLivW LY CA . Vt1 ; Ch 0 -;5 1 . ' \ot t,k_g_. .,-, „---- .- • ) G r.Y\E._ b / i 0 a---J ---- ---, t (-- c-, - c: ,_-_, .f(.-. .- -: :_,\ ,______ '''c, 01 v-i .7 , C(1. } a3), , 1 11- Dvida 1-ILl y-Lvto Z3b21 -i/ ( ,i.2 . 0,-cz.,L)--cA (-7-1-7 (7, 7(2,32-- „----; / c - t-itt 0-0 i 1- --- rl_j_t_t_--„ (.„.:.:T7 i 14- 4- 5 - , - 1 3: - --'-i? l - --121<-C : I - . ...4 1-1 :: c- ft/ /k4.- 4) 4 C— - , . 1 -- -- • - ---- ,.'--- (7) LI 1 -Cf., -- 7-'-'' 2) _VI-Li-NA it 31 A../{ 7-i( 1 Z-. „kJ , .-:::•,, ,-/(3->: , ( ; 1/ . 7 - . ciy - , , --- „.„.----|109| , (,-/-. D ._ 4; /--VL-:,- 1 (. r,,\.,/,1 r ,. up ( - - 7 (»/ _ _, _ .____) , ./ .--- tvii( 41.04- 7' a, )./2,„,q-c-x! (./.,_,, ,„,.:.,,, -;,.,., .1- 6 Ti _ .$)|109| ---"---- i H i A :)1 '4 ' ' 'l / \. r\v,1) _n LA- 1- '-x' "\< ,. ------ ID|1010|12.3PRINT NAME 7q2916114-1 ADDRESS AND PHONE SIGNATURE|109| 3 A 1- 's 6 vi -fiCiAli 7/3_ bis--6)1 1( 003 11-144-e-ii, -1- 12,-----, 0\' - 0-ke)( -3 xos'-5- tc,t i a 59:T.- \kAe e,,tARJ----L Oc cfi-thp 3,5--,(4-3 ,,,,kelL H 'IL_ -1°'' c#f 2-e - c '1„.,,_ )er--i. p ey-fr504 3173 j-1 ee, ,-,* , _ _ *-)Q' 3(0 1 0 I-Vera sl- -syq-1\4‘ a_ 5-T, _ 75,N ;--- i - e(0-6.z,e3 F610 i°' iil,-1 'E = Y- -- • G i CO (20 1/ ( (-- tc7 4 °°('' 0 tsk.hern . s)t-- , jeA t vvv C Coo c0-x--a 5 11 31 / :. - 6 , )6 le y cr 0-00 ,1i6 Sy(01440,0 t/141.114-1--- -. --- '6`,/iik EiL/aer1) 401 3 Hi ,kei-k ot . 6 - q - 43 s? 2 31 3 Ar ial id 1 :04 h" r/ q,U-L( 1,.; -(e7 -(alve-r re--,( (, A r, fj- '(. ),/v EAV) c----v6ko\oso|1010|-ka i itco 6-t-- tg•) N) e.r) 122) 1 z3) IA) izy-) Vw) 3c) 13) Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place We, the undersigned residents of Rancho Higuera, are opposed to the proposed commercial buildin at 8665 Hayden Place. The building would be of a scale and height- incongruent with ail other buildings, residential or commercial, in the surrounding neighborhood. Rancho Higuera would be negatively impacted by increased traffic, noise, and pollution. The project would result in the destruction of a long-standing "green belt", comprised of more than 70 trees, primarily old-growth eucalyptus. In addition, the proposed project would limit access by emergency vehicles to the Rand' Higuera neighborhood and to the Hayden Tract. We request that the Planning Commission, the Traffic Committee, and the City Council lirnit the, height of the proposed building to that of the existing building on the site two (2) stories. In addition, we are requesting that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required and that a Traffic Study bE conducted and that both be made public.Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place We, the undersigned residents of Rancho Higuera, are opposed to the proposed commercial buildin at 8665 Hayden Place. The building would be of a scale and height- incongruent with all other buildings, residential or commercial, in the surrounding neighborhood. Rancho Higuera would be negatively impacted by increased traffic, noise, and pollution. The project would result in the destruction of a long-standing "green belt", comprised of more than 70 trees, primarily old-growth eucalyptus. In addition, the proposed project would limit access by emergency vehicles to the Rand Higuera neighborhood and to the Hayden Tract. We request that the Planning Commission, the Traffic Committee, and the City Council limit the 'height of the proposed building to that of the existing building on the site: two (2) stories. In addition we are requesting that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required and that a Traffic Study b conducted and that both be made public. 134) r?s) 13‘) 134 1-3E) 1.313) 14. ) 14 a) [43) (AA) 44/51) PRINT NAME ADDRESS AND PHONE SIGNATURE e1Pc v A' ) 6 Lt l|1010|g4 /6M 5T, .,,t,(1_, iteR. e,r-i- C .siD ,• AJ1 c •i( K &If a-'2. Li/14 14/6u44A f, ei/1-1 31 e) Z-4 At . , C* 0 W A/6W- 4/P .406 41111,74,00r _iiiia / „,d1116. 110-WIALd oNe 574 4j /#a4 Ci 1 O F /61/E f V XI' -"-- / ,,c A i77 _ e9g---7y4__ f-.7/7` ,lizc.)Z-- - 4 ,S7- ,,,J) •100.`" , \ r \ ,r 5k flA,. P- °\7\ 1) Li C)S i Or131A ," ‘-, . e4- Ct, , A ci '? _-- 3 '2- , 1 ,------ ria a & A I& 7--e, gOIV' i`r e ro 5 /'- glcr - o..., v e I ir e,_ 0 z 3 7—( 0, -77 -_, Y- - cv- __ 2 1* 6 <5 - / c- 6 1 0 14-1-c.stn 4e-,A vr-|109| z (1. 1 a 6 4z_ 4, e,--- , 5 _ -|109| l q-5 ,W .17 _____,/, "°,r /:otz: Al _-e . ,e1_,,„ l/c/ /-7/,.:5 1(8,/ ,z,,, , L All, L--i a SAMIIMIIII Mr= i lig le Ce -3 -ft-L-0' t us' - ( 4 .. _.41.06.-re . e,„ _,-, c, l a i _...i i 12.SPRINT NAME 4.0 -go \agcl- C q6/g e-ni-eic.f i '4=1,(seDE - cs1Z-Va; tz) Lri-) P-(ck lettv6( A. 1,-- )Y8 w) 1 aazi- 4f-ti'l 12-Co ADDRESS AND PHONE SIGNATURE 90-1,9 e p- (10)- -301 Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden PlacePetition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place PRINT NAME ADDRESS AND PHONE SIGNATURE 0 1 ( N \ 0_ ---0C-Q- 17 (Si,-_?(- `---c,--rlf . Cu., .,\,/i21.7C'i i'li r' .,>k,J.) .1 /7 \AI 6', rt• i---, ;-- ' -- -= _,-,-f- / ct,J,i \L, V_A___ ,....--- ) ,...-- i - .--- r 1--e' „r--e_1-1 7 '5 .-2.> . f. G(.1 ,25 // y I ( 1 -1, - -1 (-7-v ),_ / .--- z.-----E- A , ._ 2+IMMUNITY PETITION OBJECTING TO 4043 IRVING DEMI_ PMENT We; the undersigned, urge the Culver City Council to overturn approval for the project at 4043 Irving for a 4-story building with 2 condominiums, 3 offices and 68 underground parking spaces. We are asking the Council to scale back the project to protect the safety of our children and preserve the integrity of our residential neighborhood and quality of life. Noso-iros, los que firmamos, pedimos al Consejo de Culver City qua retire la aprobation para el proyecto en 4043 Irving Place, para un edificio de 4 pisos con 26 condominios, 3 oficinas y 68 estacionarnientos subterraneos. La pedirnos al Consejo que re.euzta el tarnano del proyecto para la seguridad de nuestros niños y la preservation de la integridacf y caklad de vida de nuestro barrio residential. NAME STREET A DRESS SIGNATURE .iti At); vio3 c_t_iat)A1 se , '\,(1-- 9 0 C I -e-k-n0 ace , )RikT) R00---- -- 8c-r- , 4u.534rIzo ,.5.sn /k Y 4,' / .44 .Al 16- 1 - (,.- IOC -e .:11 4,k-'''-- ., rNift,i,k V 6 4, 6, --e, can' ifb)24,4 a- "I_ , C|1010|Nra\if,t- H-- .74-1,7 fl-i-ifi-p,./ 5 ,.- _s--- cc-r-p__50,,v 5-7-: 4-2:-% . -7,---,- --,---? / t 0-A Ho si-koff & i .J,A 4:, C:,,,. 128PRINT NAME ADDRESS AND PHONE SIGNATURE (6c1, Co 0 Cetc-so)'v Sir cLx),..A- \I i =XI k .-,) 1 ' k' )-- a ar _, wr Atir LA - WIMP- eL ( 61. 4 .• - / 6,4r9- -A \Ie .3s,c--i eLkto-a,( 61,id Sr °. 0- 7 Cr % 3A V %I vt alb a\ - gt (-)t # le‘- 0---Z,e/z,50,) 6 // 1 ,AMA ? -4 - Z A L-cLdL/40-L‘ Aide i|109| '30`' iv,9 ,, ,v7z 5 f 'S 7 AA a c 1 Sd C cs c--- -" FL - A A A IA& II z 50,4 5, Ur ‘ - -,-,- A C) f PIN) ' 1" 1. 1-1-PM P TA 1 fr111 (A-2_, s 0A) ST I 72) J?3) )31) 11-6t40 ig()) 132-) 173) g 4) Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LL.C's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place We, the undersigned residents of Rancho Higuera, are opposed to the proposed commercial buildin at 8665 Hayden Place. The building would be of a scale and height- incongruent with all other buildings, residential or commercial, in the surrounding neighborhood. Rancho Higuera would be negatively impacted by increased traffic, noise, and pollution. The project would result in the destruction of a long-standing "green belt", comprised of more than 70 trees, primarily old-growth eucalyptus. In addition, the proposed project would limit access by emergency vehicles to the Rand- Higuera neighborhood and to the Hayden Tract. We request that the Planning Commission, the Traffic Committee, Redevelopment Agency and the City Council limit the height of the proposed building to that of the existing building on the site: two (` .,' stories. In addition, we are requesting that an Environmental impact Report (EIR) be required and that a Traffic Study be conducted and that both be made public, 129iSIGNATURE ADDRESS AND PHONE Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place• ,/ e 4 _ • ,3 y' , 7 i , -- 7 COMMUNITY PETNTOON OWECTING TO 4043 gRVNAIG DEVELOPMENT We, the undersigned, urge the Culver City Council to overturn approval for the project at 4043 Irving for a 4-story building with 26 condominiums, 3 offices and 68 underground parldng spaces. We are asking the Council to scale back the project to protect the safety of our children and preserve the integrity of our residential neighborhood and quality of life. Nosctros, lot que firmarnos, pecilmos al Consejo de Culver City que retire la aprobacian pare el proyecto en 4043 Irving Flare,. para edificio de 4 pisos con 26 condominios, 3 oficinas y 68 estacionamientos subterrineos. Le pedimos al Consejo que reduzca at tan-lar-io del proyecto para ia seguridad de nuestros ninos y la preservacian de la integridad y calidad de vicla de nuestro barrio residential. SOGNATURE — (- -- -',- Lv 7s- /*-2.V , 4--- (.,,: _. (4- -,, .9 1 2: --" Z i f C4/2-5,2 , ''- (Z1 ::i', ,. — ,:_, / 21 i "r. ,7 7 s )• el- - ) - x- ,:1---. _ . z--- r e - - ) _72.-. i 4: 72"6-1/C-0 0,1--e2x./(2 e-11 , 10 1 r 77 9 #i c v ec 702- _3 Z z?.i_ • .,(f .2ez / cz:i. _-_--, - -: :.e., ,4--.0›,_-•• az--Ls ) ce, A ?,-( P .5 A t._,--6z T .s---wq (-•,-, i.___tc_k-( s-T_ 6 r r) ,- v )r - — 4—-•"" — , zie/ y jf. e ei L 0-•('-7 c_ T- n La a4' , _n ') -,-,1|1010|cc / qc c2 jE € , rYc f 74 C26, Lfl cif 47:"7:7-A c 2 / A/J ' • (21 „Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place We, the undersigned residents of Rancho Higuera, are opposed to the proposed commercial buildir at 8665 Hayden Place. The building would be of a scale and height- incongruent with all other buildings, residential or commercial, in the surrounding neighborhood. Rancho Higuera would be negatively impacted by increased traffic, noise, and pollution. The project would result in the destruction of a long-standing "green belt", comprised of more than 70 trees, primarily old-growth eucalyptus. In addition, the proposed project would limit access by emergency vehicles to the Ranci Higuera neighborhood and to the Hayden Tract. We request that the Planning Commission, the Traffic Committee, and the City Council limit the height of the proposed building to that of the existing building on the site: two (2) stories. In addition we are requesting that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required and that a Traffic Study b conducted and that both be made public. PRINT NAME ADDRESS AND PHONE SIGNATURE l/ Lt 73/V77Dio -3 TO trnç909---s-pel ektce,g‘_ p -LeArfa -31v W-2--41-1 D 0 POCA gin-all WIla, b 14 Re( ms tt LAT 10" '----4,-..- A 4-sikivi sc.-6,4/2/yd 3 it ii/7. -1-le kiw -? .A-vt, 6/z -1-5 6 ,i ti|109| / ArAi \-- 3u-39_ , 56Me-P,m,),&k,4„"'‘1" (3.4.7-55-r iiv-s .41-_. A f a. W i, , 114.4.10 1 'I kt r s ,\J„te. e [ i iiita tfivon 7 z-I -/A „ ' .4. /1/77,// 7 4 7,?1 ,a l , - P `" AIRIPT . Ai Arai CAU. -.61ricrL 301.0 -c.e.: . nri. RI-L3Q__ .....,:‘,a., (Hi, -61-in Za Stax.)1 1/1 e ) i've N-9 ) 441„digustr \(\( °1A41) 6-A4,---- imoL4 -11- Ifro n al' 0 I cLi i\ orivti ,-e-i 7 (,.-t, 5- H Q- ( iiq - - 3 --15- -F "--j\ ---0-19--v-viAA f -- /- -- R. .7- e_ (4, I) CCD. Ae G-7- r (--1--Q-(Ats id-- 1- ay,lt.„6 te-tit,A.-e- 1 6 .ctki kterg--z,„#;- /6--/c- 3 0) W . ,d I(Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place We, the undersigned friends of Rancho Higuera, are opposed to the proposed commercial building 8665 Hayden Place. The building would be of a scale and height- incongruent with all other building residential or commercial, in the surrounding neighborhood. Rancho Higuera would be negatively impacted by increased traffic, noise, and pollution. The project would result in the destruction of a long-standing "green belt", comprised of more than 70 trees, primarily old-growth eucalyptus. In addition, the proposed project would limit access by emergency vehicles to the Rancho Higuera neighborhood and to the Hayden Tract. We request that the Planning Commission, the Traffic Committee, Redevelopment Agency and the City Council limit the height of the proposed building to that of the existing building on the site: two (; stories. In addition, we are requesting that an Environmental Impact Report (E1R) be required and that a Traffic Study be conducted and that both be made public. 233 PRINT NAME ADDRESS AND PHONE SIGNATURE , urvA, u,hect k-- - 5('- -) --4--C -+ '6\---- - 61,-D /-40 -P /2--' ,Vc AIWA|1010|6.---' L A uti i r L6 -(0.06 148-1,1476 14, ,, Ci4 t ver Gi'-'gi :po-ts5pot - b,|1010|1/141/kSji (auf r eciac z._ re) 4(( --(ii-/"Ft43|109| '1 idte 4/41 I ' j i"i; °u /j|1010|Iii 11 i _IA f , i .1f r aa 14 . 6'Z -11-eivw Q, -- -0 w IF -PRINT NAME ADDRESS AND PHONE SIGNATURE --7 hew , ' 1/ „,, i isa di 6- 4 sci:6-4.- ey/s-t 44241 . ; .-e-/t4-7-,- . e e'7-6'/' :SLP a I Le‘,2_. zcl,,,j2,frik t. _„.../ di4 t 0 ,, Pr ee3_,_,_ 3 Of .s ,--- 7 s4 (-N 3 -‘141. I 16 / / A ,-.4 ot4. 4 -_ •:. ' ----) Ppt rJ ev„, ir-. 9L -L/ i,-----|109| f.r. 1(.94,42,,: ., _ ,_J- , • -P1 .-nt9 'r- (-,-OPA K (0 a '1 /7) -1- t1oey.-77-- ---A5-,-.16- ,W-(-/----- ; ---ze- c--- . , / I - .----, c----- •-'1L-c_._ , c--1--- c_,____)------- 31) ?3?) '39) ?A 2.40 m2-) ?.43 yi6) ?43) Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place We, the undersigned residents of Rancho Higuera, are opposed to the proposed commercial buildir, at 8665 Hayden Place. The building would be of a scale and height- incongruent with all other buildings, residential or commercial, in the surrounding neighborhood. Rancho Higuera would be negatively impacted by increased traffic, noise, and pollution. The project would result in the destruction of a long-standing "green belt", comprised of more than 70 trees, primarily old-growth eucalyptus. In addition, the proposed project would limit access by emergency vehicles to the Rand Higuera neighborhood and to the Hayden Tract. We request that the Planning Commission, the Traffic Committee, Redevelopment Agency and the City Council limit the height of the proposed building to that of the existing building on the site: two (: stories. In addition, we are requesting that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required and that a Traffic Study be conducted and that both be made public.PRINT NAME ADDRESS AND PHONE SIGNATURE|1010|1) 4 rbi IL f .P 77.1 ?032„ L L-tU ) - IN g /WE c-u-Lvef: exi - y 9 023-1._ , cA 4 W d o.,\J ‘ cl evb.,h, D, el ,o L(itze t:o ,-0., 03 ( au „ ,,,,_. 116432 1\ r (\rf-, 01 0 .? ? (,-, Luze,c-ne av-s-C_,--- (--DA ;,,ferr CAAn CA. \ , 7 .ktf a 4-1/./ 60f i 9 ‘ 76e ,-_ ,,'-a-c, - "2 q(%' , f.'a...~ ii,geg -2 1 A- . /|10 9| 3 Z l.-'-'7.‘ CbCe._ ,--0 — / . n ';A" Jr 2 di (. ' , c i- 8 // /6} EL _ -- -4-) --, . . - , 4 , ,,• -r, ! Al 9(2 - 7/ //2" r- / ' ^-/<(-.|1010|------,,, /,---6.,L 7pt-4.476 cl i 4- - "vi-\ erk_ (74 r ' '9--) X A Allrldik >. Ahr-mummaik. „ - •-- 11111,A, ID Pdr : Lc,c-; Cc E04 C, i i, - n,,:,, Ato. , 1_,-30. • A „E -, Ciave,i C IQ23,:)-- -. ), , ,g VA.0 1-01--,f, ctc.)as- Lt,i & rm., (loft: AAvtr CA17.\A ( .!A_ 90 :Tx" -, ir2-1-3 6 , c,6-11'.4.--- v-e—) ci 0 0 Camr.d . cii 'W ; 3 2- vAl /-4 9/ , . e.-----, ) i-O c t i i o vrA --Or=loi 2 s acei zsi) 240 Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place We, the undersigned residents of Rancho Higuera, are opposed to the proposed commercial building at 8665 Hayden Place. The building would be of a scale and height- incongruent with all other buildings, residential or commercial, in the surrounding neighborhood. Rancho Higuera would be negatively impacted by increased traffic, noise, and pollution. The project would result in the destruction of a long-standing "green belt", comprised of more than 70 trees, primarily old-growth eucalyptus. in addition, the proposed project would limit access by emergency vehicles to the Ranchc Higuera neighborhood and to the Hayden Tract. We request that the Planning Commission, the Traffic Committee, and the City Council limit the height of the proposed building to that of the existing building on the site: two (2) stories. In addition, we are requesting that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required and that a Traffic Study be conducted and that both be made public. 13Petition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place We, the undersigned residents of Rancho Higuera, are opposed to the proposed commercial buildir I at 8665 Hayden Place. The building would be of a scale and height- incongruent with all other buildings, residential or commercial, in the surrounding neighborhood. Rancho Higuera would be negatively impacted by increased traffic, noise, and pollution. The project would result in the destruction of a long-standing "green belt", comprised of more than 70 trees, primarily old-growth eucalyptus. In addition, the proposed project would limit access by emergency vehicles to the Rano Higuera neighborhood and to the Hayden Tract. We request that the Planning Commission, the Traffic Committee, Redevelopment Agency and the City Council limit the height of the proposed building to that of the existing building on the site: two stories. In addition, we are requesting that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required and that a Traffic Study be conducted and that both be made public. PRINT NAME ADDRESS AND PHONE SIGNATURE di r le, cei ,•2;) - La( .04e AUtt cu4.5- c' ,.Jy, (-A . 'ic,DP ( . 6 CO"--0 c:2 ',----- 4 ,14L., ce,c, 9,0;z' e i ,i_iccepAc fiti-e_, 6iver 61 C4 ,9.22... - 5 -- 0 , 1 -± '-‘.Th e(VC e2 7:j'f-1: 1 4.4- 0277 --/C ra,V Ci ,fil:2--) 2- 0 kg C / 1111111111111111 F4 5)0 35 ----- .11r1 '6 2-3. 2111W- 1:„ V. ylki 6 kf t' il 2 1 . V( A, Li,/ V 2#60) Loa 1 qgjv I:pct .*, Air- cp _de " r A,vtd-6 0-/ . AL rforo i_,,,_,L1 r.„1 4-1,-c„ WIT ' 1/47.7.017. 24 c.,-)esti-ICE i v ,:t- i.A , d diewiliL., 4' Ar 1°7 )-7, D-- .11|1010|'A 0,- ill 61 0 V I) ( - - - b(C .Ci9- iegi"'Z. _ _ , Allir '411111111-11P111" - Air I f.: . A, , -..- fr ,.- ( ,,,tf 4, l i , --- 116 i II V a A ltle r riliMilail .A.A.dipat j AgePetition: To Stop Rethink Tara Green LLC's Proposed Commercial Building at 8665 Hayden Place SIGNATURE PRINT NAME Z41.) N Z4—C) 2-1) 231) 2 .7q) no) 2'31) 224 213) 2S4) alT) (-2 kruas c2 i\I) AP\ Tb VO n dekkk C6,1 0 0/ ii ea (;)Yle4-- Schaepo- criL i et? C. l3'L 3f--;-41'1/ sc_k 6_0 i e-PT c_4 u .7f- GA" 3L21 c 6,1/14 ,f- da e' CI • C1-11 cf,25 5- G Fc- 0, ) CfA 3‘. I CAA; \\ 0 F )(3, cf----; c Ar 01° ) .0011 0 * 41 f ilr cp I.,/ i 1,|109| _ ADDRESS AND PHONE ,10tnit, 2,y?) (AVAN1 146 'fk61402-- za) -e-KAA_ --c-10.1 — 15.0 C Average traffic delays. >15.1 — 25.0 D Long traffic delays. >25.1 — 35.0 E Very long traffic delays. >35.1 — 50.0 Extreme delays potentially affecting other traffic movements in the intersection. >50 Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Study Scenarios Weekday peak-hour traffic operations were evaluated at the study intersections for each of the following traffic scenarios: • Existing (Year 2008) Conditions • Future (Year 2010) with Ambient Growth and Related Projects • Future (Year 2010) with Ambient Growth and Related Projects and the Proposed Project The TRAFF1X software and CALCADB software (developed by LADOT) packages were used by KOA to perform the analysis of Level of Service at the study intersections. Existing Period Conditions In order to define existing traffic conditions at the study intersections, peak hour turning movement counts were collected at the study intersections on a weekday during the hours of 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, 4:00 PM to 6:00 PM. The traffic counts were collected on Wednesday, May 14, 2008, and Thursday, May 15, 2008. All traffic count data is included in Appendix B of this report. Fieldwork within the Project study area was undertaken to identify the condition of major roadways, to identify traffic control and approach lane configuration at each study intersection, and to identify the locations of on-street parking and transit stops. Existing Level of Service at each of the study intersections is discussed in Section 2 of this report. Future Period Conditions In order to define regional traffic growth that would affect operations at the study intersections during the Project year (Year 2010), an ambient/background traffic growth rate was defined. This annual growth rate was defined based on the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program document, and verified with City Staff. The chosen annual rate of 1% was utilized to increase existing (Year 2008) traffic volumes to future (Year 2010) base traffic volumes. Future Area Development Projects In addition to future ambient growth, traffic from area related projects (approved and pending) was considered before examining significant traffic impacts from the proposed Project. KOA researched information from City of Culver City and Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic impact Analysis — 866S Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 11 151Introduction pertaining to area projects that would add measurable volumes to the study area intersections. Daily and peak hour trips that would be generated from each of the related projects were computed based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers book Trip Generation, 7th Edition, published in 2003. Level of Service for future conditions at the study intersections with traffic from related projects is discussed in Section 3 of this report. Project Trip Generation and Distribution Forecast Project trip generation was mainly derived from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition. In order to calculate trip generation totals, trip rates per unit established within the Trip Generation book were applied. The methodology utilized for Project trip distribution calculations is discussed in Section 4 of this report. Level-of-Service Analysis and Impacts KOA quantitatively assessed weekday morning and afternoon peak hour traffic impacts at 19 study intersections. As defined by City Staff, significant impacts of a proposed project at study intersections must be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The Level of - Service for future conditions with related project traffic and Project traffic at the study intersections is discussed in Section 5 of this report Level-of-Service Methodology The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of intersection analysis, per the City of Culver City, was used to determine the intersection volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) and corresponding Level of Service (LOS) based on the turning movements and intersection characteristics at the signalized intersections. The ICU method is a procedure that incorporates the effects of geometry and traffic signal operation and develops a v/c ratio for each separate movement, identifies those that are critical, and then adds them. The analytical base for this method is the understanding that each signalized intersection has a combination of conflicting movements which must be accommodated. The output from this method is a volume/capacity (v/c) ratio and a Level of Service for the intersection as a whole. The V/C for the intersection corresponds to a LOS value, which describes the intersection operations. The Levels of Service vary from A through F, with A representing the best possible conditions, free flow, and F representing forced flow or failing/jammed conditions. Generally, LOS D or better is considered acceptable in urban areas. All other signalized intersections within the City of Los Angeles were analyzed using Circular 212 Planning or Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) method per City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) guidelines. The CMA analysis method for evaluating signalized intersections involves the computation of volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios for each critical movement. Capacity, or saturation flow rate, is defined as the maximum rate of flow that can pass through a given intersection approach under prevailing traffic and roadway conditions. The sum of all critical movements on a critical lane basis is used to determine the total intersection volume to capacity ratio (V/C) and corresponding Level of Service. This volume/capacity ratio value is based upon volumes by lane, signal phases, and approach lane configuration. Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 12 152-Introduction Under existing conditions, all of the signalized study intersections within the City of Los Angeles are controlled by the City of Los Angeles' Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) system and are part of the Smart Corridor ATSAC system. In accordance with LADOT procedures, a capacity increase of 7% (0.070 vie adjustment) was applied to reflect the benefits of ATSAC control at these intersections. Under future conditions, these intersections would be equipped with Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS). ATCS is the latest enhancement to ATSAC and uses a personal computer-based traffic signal control software program which provides fully traffic adaptive signal control based on real-time traffic conditions. The ATCS system will automatically adjust traffic signal timing in response to current traffic demands by allowing ATCS to simultaneously control all three critical components of traffic signal timing, namely cycle length, phase split and offset. In accordance with LADOT procedures, a capacity increase of 3% (0.030 vie adjustment) will be applied to reflect the benefits of ATCS control at these intersections. It should be noted that the City of Culver City has not officially adopted guidelines in determining significant impact criterion for stop-controlled intersections. For this study, significant impacts for stop- controlled intersections were determined by analyzing these intersections as signalized locations and obtaining a vie ratio for both with and without project conditions. The difference in the vie ratio is the increase due to the project. Using this project vie increase and Level of Service based on the Highway Capacity Manual definitions for stop-controlled intersections, significant impacts for the stop-controlled intersections were identified. Thus, all stop-controlled intersections were analyzed as signalized intersections for the purpose of determine potential project significant impact. Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Trcffic Impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 1 32. Existing Conditions (Year 2008) This section documents the existing conditions in the study area. The discussion presented here is limited to specific roadways in the project's vicinity. Figure 4 depicts the lane configurations and traffic control at the study intersections. A. Existing Roadway System Significant freeways and roadways within the study area are described below. The discussion on roadways discussed here are roadways that form the study intersections. 1-10 (Santa Monica Freeway) is an east-west freeway that provides regional access within the study area. It is about three quarters of a mile from the site. The freeway can be accessed via several interchanges at Robertson Boulevard, National Boulevard, La Cienega Boulevard, and Fairfax Avenue. Robertson Boulevard is classified as a Primary Arterial that runs in a north-south direction within the northern end of the Project study area. The roadway primarily provides four travel lanes. Ramps leading to and from the 1-10 Freeway are linked to Robertson Boulevard in the northern center of the study area. On-street parking is generally prohibited along the roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour (mph). Higuera. Street is a Neighborhood Feeder street that runs in an east-west direction. Traffic calming measures have been implemented along this roadway to discourage cut through traffic between Jefferson Boulevard and the Santa Monica Freeway and Venice Boulevard and Washington Boulevard corridors. Limited on-street parking is provided along some segments of the roadway. From Hayden Avenue to Jefferson Boulevard, Higuera Street is classified as a Secondary Arterial roadway; the roadway cross-section widens to provide four travel lanes, a striped two-way left turn median, and on-street parking on the north side of the street. The land uses along this segment are primarily industrial. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Hayden Avenue is a local north-south Secondary Arterial that leads directly to the project site which provides one travel lane per direction. On-street parking is provided on both sides of the street. On- street parking spaces are provided in both parallel and angled configurations between National Boulevard and Higuera Street. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Hayden Place is a local street that is approximately 1,200 feet long which begins at the southern end of Hayden Avenue at Higuera Street and ends at the cul-de-sac. The roadway provides one lane in each direction. It is a direct access to the project site which is located at the end of the cul-de-sac. On- street parking is provided on both sides of the street. Eastham Drive is a local north-south roadway east of the proposed site. The roadway provides two travel lanes with no medians. On-street parking is provided throughout the stretch of the roadway from National Boulevard to Higuera Street. Jefferson Boulevard is a Primary Arterial that runs in a north-south direction south of National Boulevard, and in an east-west direction from the intersection of Jefferson Boulevard and National Boulevard. The land uses along the street are primarily offices and light industrial uses, excluding Baldwin Hills Regional Park near Higuera Street/Rodeo Road. The roadway provides four travel lanes and has a striped two-way left-turn median. On-street parking is generally permitted on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit ranges from 35 mph to 40 mph. Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA My 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 1 4Existing Conditions (Year 2008) La Cienega Boulevard is a Primary Arterial that runs in a north-south direction across the eastern edge of the study area. The roadway provides six travel lanes and has a striped two-way left-turn median. On-street parking is generally prohibited on both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Fairfax Avenue is a Primary Arterial that runs in a north-south direction across the eastern portion of the study area. The southern end of Fairfax Avenue terminates at La Cienega Boulevard north of Jefferson Boulevard. The roadway provides four travel lanes and has a striped two-way left-turn median. On-street parking is generally available on both sides of the roadway. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Venice Boulevard is a six-lane divided Primary Arterial that runs in an east-west direction across the northern portion of the study area. On-street parking and bicycle lanes are provided on both sides of the street along the segments within the study area. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Washington Boulevard is a four-lane Primary Arterial that runs in an east-west direction across the northern portion of the study area. The roadway has a striped two-way left-turn median on the western portion of the study area and a raised landscaped median on the eastern portion of the study area. On-street parking is generally provided along most segments within the study area. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. National Boulevard is a four-lane Secondary Arterial that runs in an east-west direction north of the project site. The roadway has a striped two-way left-turn median on certain segments. On-street parking is provided along most segments within the Project site. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Warner Drive is a local street within the Hayden Tract area that runs in an east-west direction along the north side of the Project site. The roadway provides one travel lane in each direction. On-street parking (both parallel and angled) is provided along the street. Rodeo Road is a six-lane Primary Arterial that runs in an east-west direction within the study area. The roadway begins where Higuera Street ends at Jefferson Boulevard. The roadway provides a two- way left-turn median. On-street parking is prohibited along most segments within the study area. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Lucerne Avenue is a two-lane Neighborhood Feeder that runs in a north-south direction south of the project site. On-street parking is generally permitted within the study area. The fronting land uses are primarily residential. The posted speed limit is 25 mph. Duquesne Avenue is a two-lane Secondary Arterial that runs in a northwest-southeast direction and is located to the south of Higuera Street. On-street parking is provided within the study area. The land uses along the street are primarily residential, excluding the City civic center uses near Braddock Drive and industrial uses at the eastern end of the roadway near Jefferson Boulevard. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Hayden Place a two-lane roadway that serves as the southern approach to the Higuera Street/Hayden Avenue/Hayden Place intersection. On-street parallel parking is provided curbside in marked parking spaces. Hayden Place terminates in a cul-de-sac approximately 1,200 feet south of Higuera Street. Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic tmpact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 15 1S58665 Hayden Place - Traffic Study Figure 4 KOA CORPORATION FP H.A4L IN .H-40 & r.NG i r,iff.F. .-!C; intersection Geometry .z Steger Dr. CITY CW' LOS ANGELES LEGEND ? Project Site • Study Intersection O Signalized Intersection +1211:1? Stop Sign Controlled Intersection 01 Stop Sign Intersection Lane Geometry CITY OF CUL VETR C/TY C/TY CULVER CRY • 11 CiTY OF OS ANGELes OF CULVER Rodeo Rd.Existing Conditions (Year 2008) 8. Existing Transit Service The Project study area is served by bus transit lines operated by Culver City Bus Lines and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTN. Figure 5 illustrates the routes of the following transit services that serve the Project study area. Culver CtvBus Lines Culver CityBus Line I is a local east-west bus route that mainly travels along Washington Boulevard through the study area. This line provides service between the West Los Angeles Transit Center and Venice Beach. The line runs Monday through Friday at a peak frequency of 12 to 15 minutes. This line also operates on weekends at a frequency of 15 to 40 minutes. Culver CityBus Line 4 is a local east-west bus route that mainly travels through the study area. This line mainly travels along Fairfax Avenue, La Cienega Boulevard, and Jefferson Boulevard. This line runs Monday through Friday at a peak frequency of 60 minutes. This line does not operate on weekends or holidays. The northern terminus is the West Los Angeles Transit Center. The southern terminus is Fox Hills Mall and travels through the West Los Angeles College campus. Culver City8us Line 5 is a local east-west bus route that mainly travels along Higuera Street through the project site vicinity. This line primarily serves Venice High School, Culver City High and Middle School, Civic Center, and Hayden Tract area. The line runs once in morning in the westbound direction and twice in the afternoon in the eastbound direction when Culver City Schools are in session. This line does not operate on weekends or holidays. The eastern terminus is Blair Hills. The western terminus is Venice High School. Culver CityBus Line 7 is a local east-west bus route that mainly travels along Higuera Street. This line provides service between Venice and Culver Boulevard and Marina Del Rey. The line runs Monday through Saturday at a peak frequency of 40 minutes. This line also operates on Saturday. MTA Bus Lines MTA Line 331333 is a local east-west bus route that provides service between downtown Los Angeles and Santa MonicaNenice area. The line travels along Venice Boulevard within the study area. The service on Venice Boulevard provides an approximate frequency of 10 to 12 minutes in the weekday and weekend peak periods. The eastern terminus includes a turnaround at Union Station. The western terminus is nearby the Santa Monica Pier. MTA Line 105/105 is a local east-west bus route provides service between the City of Vernon and West Hollywood. This line travels primarily along Rodeo Road and La Cienega Boulevard within the study area. The line runs every day, including holidays, and provides a frequency of 15 to 20 minutes during peak periods. The eastern terminus is the Vernon Metro Blue Line Station. The western terminus is the West Hollywood Civic Center. MTA Line 220 is a local north-south bus route that provides service between the City of West Hollywood and City of Culver City via City of Beverly Hills. This line travels primarily along Robertson Boulevard, National Boulevard and Washington Boulevard within the study area. The line runs Monday through Saturday; the service doesn't operate on Sundays and holidays. The service provides a frequency of 40 minutes during peak periods. The northern terminus is the Pacific Design Center. The southern terminus is the Venice Boulevard and Culver Boulevard. Prepared for REthink Development Corp, Traffic Impact Analysis — 8663 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 17t, c, •s"f'r° L-n- - r et+st'' - tep, ere Nir Pr KOA CORPORATION p LANN:NC: L Ei',K'tINETRING 8665 Hayden Place - Traffic Study Figure 5 Area Transit Lines LEGEND Project Site — City Boundary Culver City Line 1•11 NM ME 11911 INS Culver City Line 4 MIMI IMMO Culver City Line 5 OREM I IN OREM Culver City Line 5 ED Culver City Line 7 111111=111111•1•1111111E1161111181 MIA 33/333 MTA 320 NITA 105/705 MTA439 MI•INNIIIINI • Z•MINI NM=U II 1111111111111U • 111. 1111 MA 4/23/08 58Existing Conditions (Year 2008) MTA Line 439 is a north-south bus route provides service between Metro Green Line Station (Aviation / 1- 105 Station) and West Los Angeles Transit Center. This line travels primarily along La Cienega Boulevard within the study area. The fine runs every day, including holidays, and provides a frequency of 40 minutes during weekday peak periods and 60 minutes during weekends and holidays. C. Existing intersection Levels of Service From the traffic counts at the study area intersections, a volume-to-capacity ratio and corresponding level of service (LOS) was determined for the weekday peak periods. Table I provides the volume/capacity ratios or delay (seconds) and LOS values for each study intersection for existing (Year 2008) conditions during the weekday morning and afternoon peak periods. Table I — Summary of Intersection Performance Existing (Year 2008) Conditions Intersection Weekday Morning Peak Weekday Afternoon Peak V/C or Delay I LOS V/C or Delay LOS City of Culver City I. Robertson Boulevard & Washington Boulevard 0.586 A 0.545 A 2. National Boulevard & Washington Boulevard 0.631 B 0.671 B 3. La Cienega Boulevard & Washington Boulevard 0.894 D 0.811 D 4. Hayden Avenue & National Boulevard 0.533 A 0.598 A 5. Eastham Drive & National Boulevard [a] 10.0 A 12.5 B 6. Hayden Avenue & Warner Drive [a] 36.1 E 14.0 B 7. Eastham Drive & Higuera Street [a] 9.6 A 9.9 A 8. Lucerne Avenue & Higuera Street [a] 13.9 B 9.7 A 9. Hayden Avenue & Higuera Street [a] 17.6 C 10.5 B 10. Eastham Drive & Warner Drive 0.433 A 0.384 11. Lucerne Avenue & Duquesne Avenue [a] 30.9 D 23.0 C 12. Jefferson Boulevard & Duquesne Avenue 0.882 0 0.798 C City of Los Angeles 13. Robertson Boulevard & Venice Boulevard 0.906 E 0.829 14. National Boulevard & Venice Boulevard 0.917 E 0.998 E 15. La Cienega Boulevard & Fairfax Avenue 0.981 E 0.926 E 16. Jefferson Boulevard & National Boulevard 0.491 A 0.635 B 17. La Cienega Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard 0.997 E 0.915 E 18. Jefferson Boulevard & Higuera Street/Rodeo Rd 0.717 C 0.630 B I 9. La Cienega Boulevard & Rodeo Road 1.089 F 1.054 F Note: [a] Unsignalized intersection controlled by stop signs. Indicates average vehicle delay in seconds rather than V/C ratio. Table I indicates that thirteen of the nineteen study intersections operate at LOS D or better under existing (Year 2008) conditions during the morning peak hour. During the afternoon peak hour, fifteen of the nineteen study intersections operate at LOS D or better. Those intersections that operated at LOS E or worse during either the AM or PM peak hour are identified below: Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 19Existing Conditions (Year 2008) 6. Hayden Avenue and Warner Drive (AM Peak Hour) (City of Culver City) 13. Robertson Boulevard and Venice Boulevard (AM Peak Hour) (City of Los Angeles) 14. National Boulevard and Venice Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) (City of Los Angeles) IS. La Cienega Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hours) (City of Los Angeles) 17, La Cienega Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) (City of Los Angeles) 19, La Cienega Boulevard and Rodeo Road (AM and PM Peak Hours) (City of Los Angeles) The traffic analysis worksheets for existing conditions are provided in Appendix C of this report. The existing (Year 2008) morning and afternoon peak-hour turn movement volumes at the study intersections are provided in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 20 I GONational Blvd. 369 15 Jefferson Blvd. 18 Rodeo Rd. 979 201 j 12,9 oJ L 4 — 6 — o F 150 .01 r Fin 578 1571 F13 F9 23 39 212i 89 _J|10 10|69 —1 22 CITY OF OS ANGELES CrTY OF CM LER crry CITY OF CULVER CITY 343 16 — 965 142 707 r5.55 X Intersection Reference Number 405 14 F- 1306 194 115 12 8 .61 r F5'05 3131 r xx Intersection Turn Volume eyds 200 4011 950 LEGEND • Study Intersection .....7ascrIdGIAVI.narree. 5/2/06 SCALE 679 62i L144 11 L 99 90 18 655 1987 482. 1 /2:1 354 L 194 KOA CORPORATION Lmo 8665 Hayden Place - Traffic Study Figure 6 Existing (Year 2008) Morning Peak-Flour Turn Volumes 406 121 5 — 26|1010|ii — 166 8 ---- 230 102 1— 218 9.5] L201 93 231 397 11 ^ 553 17 — 1035 —1 312 € rrg 2240 Traffic Count • Graphic Convernion (Vercion 701: Copyriatt 10a011 Media Pmductio-ns, 2010CITY OF OS ANGELES --I|109| Ea ° ---. 15 — 5 I|109| Cl T1' or- css 6 7 I— 1057 ' o a> LOS ANGELES c 222|109| 139i|1010|--1 LLO CITY OF CULVER CITY 896 — 16 -- 346 356 —1 495 371 F1019 501 2441 57i 1 L2,42 117_1 1 L335 229 1 L_ 195 955 ---. 19 • 520 459 ---1 F.- 190 2271 t 11-33 LEGEND • Study Intersection X Intersection Reference Number ;Tr Intersection Turn Volume Oyds 200 400 600 44 1— 47 402 18 — 256 97 445 511F96 864 SCALE 318 Jefferson Blvd.|109| Rodeo Rd. Traffm Count raphic Convereion (Version 20): Coppigh!: Digital Media Pcoductiora. 2DOS KOA CORPORATION 8665 Hayden P ace - Traffic Study Figure 15 Future (Year 2010) With Ambient Growth and Related Projects - Afternoon Peak-Hour Turn Volumes 4. Project Traffic This section defines the traffic that would be generated by the proposed Project in a three-step process including trip generation, trip distribution, and trip assignment. A. Project Trip Generation As indicated in Section 1, the project consists of constructing a 63,615 gross square-foot office building. This Project would replace the existing 18,000 gross square feet of light industrial use. Project access would be provided at the southern end of the cul-de-sac terminus of Hayden Place. Table 4 summarizes the project trip generation rates that were utilized and the trip generation calculated from these rates. Trip generation for the proposed project land use was calculated by utilizing rates published in 1TE's Trip Generation, 7th Edition. While this project is likely eligible for a transit-oriented trip reduction based on the project's close proximity (approximately two street blocks) to the proposed main station of the Expo Light Rail system, in order to provide a conservative analysis, no transit-oriented development (TOD) trip reduction was taken in developing the project trip generation forecast for this analysis. Still, for purposes of discussion, Figure 16 and the text below is provided to describe the two most direct routes between the project site and the nearest future Exposition Line Station. Route No. I, which utilizes Wesley Street and National Boulevard, is approximately 2,400 feet (0.45 miles) in length. Sidewalks exist on both sides of Wesley Avenue and on the south side of National Boulevard. The sidewalks on Wesley Drive are relatively narrow but are offset from the curb in most cases by a planted parkway. Pedestrian crosswalks are provided at the signalized National Boulevard/Washington Boulevard intersection. Route No. 2, which utilizes Higuera Street and Washington Boulevard, is approximately 3,170 feet (0.60 miles) in length. Both Higuera Street and Washington Boulevard have sidewalks on each side of the roadway. The Washington Boulevard/Higuera Street intersection is signalized and crosswalks are provided on all intersection approaches. Assuming a walking speed of 4 feet per second and without accounting for signal delay, the walking time along Route No. 1 is 10 minutes and along Route No. 2 is 13 minutes. Table 4 indicates the total trip generation of the proposed Project land uses and the trip generation credits taken for existing land uses. Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic Impact Anatysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 37CITY OF OS ANGELES Ct FY OF CULVER CITY LEGEND Project Site Pedestrian Route #1 ( 2,400 ft - 0,44 mile) Pedestrian Route #2 (3j70 ft - 0.60 mile) X X X 4/23/08 8665 Hayden Place - Traffic Study Figure 16 PM KOA CORPORATION ' ,... 4 PLANNiNG a, EN-C3•aE.Pjl`G Transit Access Pedestrian RouteProject Traffic Table 4 — Project Trip Generation Estimates Land Use Intensity Units Daily AM Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour Total n Out Total In Out Trip Rates [1] Office TE Code 710) - KSF 1 LOP 1.55 1.36 0.19 1.49 0,25 1.24 Light Jndustrinl (1TE Code I 0 • KS 6.97 0.92 0.81 0.98 0.12 0.86 Trips Existing Uses Credit Light Industrial (ITE Code 10) 18.000 KSF (125) (17) 15 2) (IS) (2) (16 Project Office (1TE Code 710) 63.615 KSF 700 99 87 12 95 16 79 TOTAL 575 82 72 10 77 14 63 [II Trip generation rates were from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition unless otherwise noted. Based on the rates found in Trip Generation, the proposed project is forecast to generate 575 daily trips of which 82 and 77 trips would occur during morning and afternoon peak hour trips, respectively. B. Project Trip Distribution Trip distribution is the process of assigning the direction of travel to and from a project site. Trip distribution is dependent upon the land use characteristics of the project and the general locations of land uses to which project trips would originate or terminate. Project trip distribution was based on the geographic distribution of population from which the employees of the proposed development would originate or terminate as well as knowledge of development trends in the area, local and sub-regional traffic routes, and regional traffic flows. Figure 17 illustrates the intersection trip distribution percentages that were utilized to assign project traffic volumes. C. Project Trip Assignment The final product of the trip assignment process is a full accounting of project trips, by direction and turning movement, at the study intersections. The project trips were assigned based on distribution inputs to the TRAFFIX program. Figures 18 and 19 illustrate the project trip assignment to the study intersections for the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 39 1195% 20%1 f 0% 31% 1 0% 3% 17 — 3% 1— 0% 01;1 I 0% 5% 200 Dycis 400 600 1.7.07n79.60,701.5,60.1,< SCALE 'II i L0% 0% L. 0% 26% ---• 5 --- 23% 0% — 6 — 0% 0% ---1 0%-1,, 1— 0% 0% 1 1 ri); 66% 70% 0%1 0% --t 0%|10 10|8% 1-11 22% 66% 10% 09:d L0% 011 1 10% 2% —1 L. 3% 0% --t I_ 0% " —• 1 1 '--- 0% 0% —1 12 — 0% 0% --1 WI TII% 3171 u ] f ,F0'14, 0% 12% National Blvd. CITY OF O ANGEL E 11% 0% 5 I 7% 0% —1 1 5% 3% 13 — 3% 0% cv„ o1 1[s CITY OF CtiLVER clry clIJ I 12,% s'J'i 1 [2:|1010|0% —I I-- 0% 5% 1 1— D% 10% ---• 18 — 10% 2% ---. 19 — 2% 15% 1-1 r 0% 5% —1. .1-- 0% 121i1 % 5.% 0% 4/23100 Jefferson Blvd. 12 18 Rodeo Rd. LEGEND • Study Intersection X Intersection Reference Number m x)C-* Intersection Turn Volume KOA CORPORATION 8665 Hayden Place - Traffic Study Figure 17 Project Trip Distribution Tref. Count • Graphic Conversion (Vereion 2.06 Copy Capital SZerla Produclions, 71%a 7 4— a 7/3/08 SCALE 4,4 GOY OF ;r 4 NGELES National National Bivd. cvi'y CIA|1010|18 Rodeo Rd. LEGEND Study Intersection X Intersection Reference Number Intersection Turn Volume Oyds 200 400 600|1010|14 KOA CORPORATION 866 Hayden Place - Traffic Study Figure 18 Morning Peak Trip Assignment - Project Traffic j Traffic Count GrapNc Conversion (Ve 2.0), Cepyriginc Othi lannia Proclucannn. 23288665 Hayden Place - Traffic Study Figure 19 Afternoon Peak Trip Assignment - Project Traffic KOA CORPORATION y|1010|or\ \ \:,. ) 13, --- 2 -- a 0i . - ‘.--- 0 .. _,' 60 43' Warner Dr. c- i 15 \ \ 2 J •-...<2f \.> -(‘ e et• ca' X 1--1/ uera Sr. 18 Rodeo Rd. o —1 2 ---" i ----- 9 0 ----1, c \--- 0 ° ,3 \ 2•|1010| -----""r- 110 v , / C.) 1'0 '7 '9)otz 1),z, n94„ C5 -0 (6 Warn C, e|1010| Oa ? 10 c . I|10109| 6- :L'ALL°N::::: .....1 c.)|109| c,4 CULVEN CITY ,, •& ,r LEGEND * Study Intersection National Blvd|1010|4:,.„ , N et CITY OF LOS A NOE:71.ES _Ay& n1°V . ‘°‘ V fvr. CRY 3i 1 O _f O 13 — 2 O n a all FJ.|1010|X Intersection Reference Number 3 - c' Intersection Turn Volume 300 400 600 7/3/08 Pa 7,7 FT; 22 16 -- 3 0 •-•-•-, a t t a 0 • •|109| 7 — o F- a For Jefferson Blvd. SCALE TrA - stAphic CMY.Sinn {Ve- nrt 2 C): Cyrh2 . )4e dm Prsductin,.5. Future (Year 2010) with Ambient Growth and Related Projects and Project Conditions This section documents future traffic conditions at the study intersections with the addition of Project- generated traffic. Traffic volumes for these conditions were derived by adding Project trips to the future volumes (with ambient growth and related projects volumes). Table 5 summarizes the resulting LOS values at the study intersections. Table 5 — Intersection Performance - Ambient Growth and Related Projects and Project Conditions (Year 2010) Intersection Weekday Morning Peak Weekday Afternoon Peak V/C or Delay[a] LOS V/C or Delay LOS City of Culver City I. Robertson Boulevard & Washington Boulevard 0.770 C 0.741 C 2. National Boulevard & Washington Boulevard 0.828 D 0.903 E 3. La Cienega Boulevard & Washington Boulevard 1.114 F 0.964 E 4, Hayden Avenue & National Boulevard 0.733 C 0.799 C 5. Eastharn Drive & National Boulevard [a] 0.796 c 0.490 A 6. Hayden Avenue & Warner Drive [a] 68.7 F 18.4 - 7. Eastham Drive & Higuera Street [a] 9.8 A 10.2 B 8. Lucerne Avenue & Higuera Street [a] 13.9 C 10.4 B 9. Hayden Avenue & Higuera Street [a] 23.4 C 12.3 B 10. Eastham Drive & Warner Drive 0.448 A 0.408 A II. Lucerne Avenue & Duquesne Avenue [a] 68.9 F 53.7 F 12, Jefferson Boulevard & Duquesne Avenue 1.086 F 0.901 E City of Los Angeles 13. Robertson Boulevard & Venice Boulevard 1.002 F 0.912 E 14. National Boulevard & Venice Boulevard 0.893 D 0.964 E 15. La Cienega Boulevard & Fairfax Avenue 1.090 F 1.010 F 16. Jefferson Boulevard & National Boulevard 0566 A 0.615 B 17. La Cienega Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard 1.065 F 0.982 E 18. Jefferson Boulevard & Higuera Street/Rodeo Rd 0.800 C 0.697 B 19. La Cienega Boulevard & Rodeo Road 1.130 F 1.037 Note: [a] Unsignalized intersection controlled by stop signs. Indicates average vehicle delay in seconds rather than WC ratio. Figures 20 and 21 illustrate the morning and afternoon peak hours turn movement volumes, respectively, at the study intersections under future with project conditions. Prepared for REttilrik Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 43284 Si L.16 1 37 ° —1" 6 ° -i F 155 t 105 2 2.i i 14 1 1 0 ii L0 0 — 7 — 0 181 —• 8 — 258 91 --11 T ° 104 —I F-- 224 1351 t [-; 16'i1 IT20 695 5 ---- 1154 123 CITY OF CULVER crrY 1446 291 9 -1 6 — 15 — 25 r 1245 2;1 15.46 1927 crrY OF UtVeR CITY 423 16 -- loss 275 —11 600 5- 41 T5'11 LEGEND • Study Intersection X Intersection Reference Number 3;1 I F.T4 1C:T/ I r9.3 Intersection Turn Volume Oyds 200 400 500 SCALE Figure 20 Future (Year 2010) With Ambient Growth and Related Projects and Project Morning Peak-Hour Turn Volumes KOA CORPOR AT ON 8665 Hayden Place - Traffic Study -10 I 1 234 10 — 600 12L` I-52 CITY OF S ANGELES National Blvd. 18 Rodeo Rd. 7/3/08 Traffic Counl - Graphic C000urun pim ps 2.0) . Copyright: Dnii Medic Productions 200315 (1 749 1 45 168 J 94 2549 14 — 1596 257 T|1010| 52 1 7 0-1 t 1443 6.33 IL2.97 71-3. 111 1369 3 626 266 1 .0 \ " 1279 1 ro- 41 -1 1 F- 1.02 864 290 400 0yds 500 107 166 2 I LI" 1 2. LI 1 H. 0 _I- L 81 17 _1 0 2 --I 1----- 0 ° 6 — 7 '-8 221 8 142 0 —1 F.-- 64 146 0 125 57 477 41 49 14.2j 155|10 10|82 24 1 F87 181 311R /552 S 1151 51721112,' crry'OF 302 40.J4 492 --I 119 2610 — 19541 123 —1|109| 61 F— /53 i |109| 51 315 as a) ce 0 31585 _ I ---- 16 — 349 F— 495 I 01 2441 2414 .1 0. CU( CI Or6—T 111 F.171-1 F1'019 57 j 1. 1242 ".!-1 i I_325 all] 1 125 44 1---- 47 232 J 1— 195 1— 71 --i ;al 1 r;., j--- 44 461 —I 29 1 22r1 I 1133 r /90 7 8i51 —7:1 1; i.1 1. 7 5.5-- 107 7 4 44 3 408 18 — 258 956 —.- 19 — 521 251 Ii \. 133 178 1435 1 — 758 52 1 71 48 41 210 LEGEND Study Intersection x Intersection Reference Number Intersection Turn Volume SCALE 2116 723/08 597 /773 12 TraKr Caunl Graphic Ccmuersiort (Verdor, 2 7, Cpyright! nigiS Medla PraducV.nns, 'ZDOB KOA CORPORATION 8665 Hayden Place - Traffic Study Figure 21 Future (Year 2010) With Ambient Growth and !Related Projects and Project Afternoon Peak-Hour Turn Volumes Future (Year 2010) with Ambient Growth end Related Projects and Project Conditions Under future with ambient growth and related project and project conditions, the following is the list of intersections operating at poor levels of service (LOS E or worse) during either the AM or PM peak hours: 2. National Boulevard and Washington Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) (City of Culver City) 3. La Cienega Boulevard and Washington Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) (City of Culver City) 6. Hayden Drive and Warner Drive (AM Peak Hour) (City of Culver City) 1 I. Lucerne Avenue and Duquesne Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hours) (City of Culver City) 12.Jefferson Boulevard and Duquesne Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hours) (City of Culver City) 13. Robertson Boulevard and Venice Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) (City of Los Angeles) 14. National Boulevard and Venice Boulevard (PM Peak Hour) (City of Los Angeles) 15. La Cienega Boulevard and Fairfax Avenue (AM and PM Peak Hours) (City of Los Angeles) 17. La Cienega Boulevard and Jefferson Boulevard (AM and PM Peak Hours) (City of Los Angeles) 19. La Cienega Boulevard and Rodeo Road (AM and PM Peak Hours) (City of Los Angeles) Nine of the study intersections would continue to operate at LOS D or better during both the morning and afternoon peak hours. The traffic analysis worksheets for this scenario are included in Appendix E of this report. Determination of significant traffic impacts created by Project traffic — per City of Culver City and LADOT guidelines - is discussed in the next report section. Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 466. Project Traffic Impacts and Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Requirements A. Determination of Traffic Impacts Traffic impacts are identified as significant if the proposed development traffic will result in a change in traffic conditions at a study intersection that will cause volume/capacity ratios to increase beyond a threshold limit specified by the overseeing agency. The City of Culver City has established guidelines to determine if a project will have significant impact at a specific location in terms of project related increases in volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio. The threshold criteria are as follows: Level of Service Final V/C* Project Related V/C increase D 0.801 — 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.040 E and F 0.901 or more Equal to or greater than 0.020 *Final VIC is the VIC ratio at an intersection, considering traffic from the project, ambient and related project growth, and without proposed traffic impact mitigations. As previously noted, the City of Culver City has not officially adopted guidelines in determining significant impact criteria for stop-controlled intersections. For this study, significant impacts for stop- controlled intersections were determined by analyzing these intersections as signalized locations and obtaining a vic ratio for both with and without project conditions. The difference in the v/c ratio is the increase due to the project. Using this project v/c increase and level of service (based on Highway Capacity Manual methodology), significant impacts for the stop-controlled intersections were evaluated. For study locations located within the City of Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) has also established specific thresholds for project related increases in the V/C ratio of study intersections. The following increases in peak hour V/C ratios are considered "significant" impacts: Level of Service Final V/C* Project Related WC increase C 0.701 — 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.040 D 0.801 — 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.020 E and F 0.901 or more Equal to or greater than 0.010 *Final VIC is the VIC ratio at an intersection, considering traffic from the project, ambient and related project growth, and Wthout proposed traffic impact mitigations. Project Traffic Impacts Tables 6 and 7 provide a comparison of morning and afternoon peak hour study scenarios, respectively, within the existing and future timeframe. In determining significant changes as discussed above, traffic impacts created by the project are calculated by comparing future ambient growth with related projects conditions to future ambient growth with related projects and Project conditions. The overall traffic impacts created by the proposed project, and determinations of significant impact, are provided in the right two columns of the tables. Prepared far REthink Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 WA Corporation 47Project Traffic Impacts and Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Requirements Table 6 - Determination of Project Impacts - Morning AM Peak Hour Intersection Existing Conditions (Year 2007) Future Growth + Related Projects (Year 2010) Future Growth + Related Proj -i. Project (Year 2010) Difference Significant? VIC or Delay [a] LOS VIC or Delay [a] LOS V/C or Delay [a] LOS Per Culver City of Culver City City I. Robertson Boulevard & Washington Boulevard 0.586 A 0.765 C 0.770 C 0,005 No 2. National Boulevard & Washington Boulevard 0.631 13 0.824 D 0.878 0 0,004 No 3. La Cienega Boulevard & Washington Boulevard 0.894 D 1.111 F 1.114 F 0.003 No 4. Hayden Avenue & National Boulevard 0.603 B 0.710 C 0.733 C 0.023 No 5. Eastham Drive & National Boulevard [a] 10.0 A 0.784 C 0.796 C 0.012 No 6. Hayden Avenue & Warner Drive [a] 36.1 8 56.8 0.726 F 68,7 0.730 0.004 No 7, Eastham Drive & Warner Drive [a] 9.6 A 9.8 0.322 A 9.8 0.322 A 0.000 No 8. Lucerne Avenue & Higuera Street [a] 13.9 B 15.8 0.593 C 15.9 0.596 C 0,003 No 9. Hayden Avenue & Higuera Street [a] 1 7.6 C 20.4 0.732 c 23.4 0.763 c 0.031 No 10. Eastharn Drive & Higuera Street 0.433 A 0.442 A 0.448 A 0.006 No 11. Lucerne Avenue & Duquesne Avenue [a] 30.9 D 68.9 0.686 F 68.9 0.686 F 0,000 No 12. Jefferson Boulevard & Duquesne Avenue 0.882 D 1.084 F 1.086 F 0.002 No Significant? Per City of Los Angeles LADOT 13, Robertson Boulevard & Venice Boulevard 0.906 E 0.997 E 1.002 F 0.004 No 14. National Boulevard li Venice Boulevard 0.917 E 0.892 D 0.893 D 0.001 No 15. La Cienega Boulevard & Fairfax Avenue 0.981 E 1.084 F 1.090 F 0.006 No 16. Jefferson Boulevard & National Boulevard 0.491 A 0.561 A 0.566 A 0.005 No 17. La Cienega Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard 0.997 E 1.063 P 1.065 P 0.002 No 18. Jefferson Boulevard & Higuera Street/Rodeo Rd 0.717 C 0.789 c 0.800 C 0.0 i 1 No 19. La Cienega Boulevard & Rodeo Road 1.089 F 1.128 F 1.130 P 0.002 No ate: [a] Unsignalized intersection controlled by stop signs. Indicates average vehicle delay in seconds on top row and estimated V/C ratio on lower row. Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis - 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 48Project Traffic Impacts and Traffic Demand Management (TDM) Requirements Table 7 - Determination of Project impacts - Afternoon PM Peak Hour Intersection Existing Conditions (Year 2007) Future Growth + Related Projects (Year 2010) - Future Growth + Related Proj + Project (Year 2010) Difference Significant? V/C or Delay [a] LOS V/C or Delay [a] LOS V/C or Delay [a] LOS Per Culver City of Culver City City I. Robertson Boulevard & Washington Boulevard 0.545 A 0.740 C 0.741 C 0.001 No 2. National Boulevard & Washington Boulevard 0.671 8 0.898 D 0.903 E 0.005 No 3. La Cienega Boulevard & Washington Boulevard 0.8 I 1 D 0.962 E 0.964 E 0.002 No 4. Hayden Avenue & National Boulevard 0.668 B 0.782 C 0.799 c 0.017 No 5. Eastham Drive & National Boulevard [a] 12.5 B 0.980 A 0,490 A 0.010 No 6. Hayden Avenue & Warner Drive [a] 14.0 B 17.2 0.599 C 18.4 0.625 C 0.026 No 7. Eastham Drive & Warner Drive [a] 9.9 A 10.2 0.345 B 10.2 0.345 B 0.000 No 8. Lucerne Avenue & Hipera Street [a] 9.7 A 10.1 0.498 B I 0.4 0,499 B 0.001 No 9. Hayden Avenue & Higuera Street [a] 10,5 8 11.2 0.541 13 I 2.3 0.580 B 0.039 No 10. Eastharn Drive & Higuera Street 0.384 A 0.404 A 0.908 A 0.004 No II. Lucerne Avenue & Duquesne Avenue [a] 3.0 C 53.7 0.627 F 53.7 0,627 F 0.000 No 12. Jefferson Boulevard & Duquesne Avenue 0.798 C 0.896 D 0.901 E 0.005 No ignificantr Per City of Los Angeles LADOT 13. Robertson Boulevard & Venice Boulevard 0.829 D 0.912 E 0.912 E 0.001 No 14. National Boulevard & Venice Boulevard 0.998 E 0.959 E 0.964 E 0,005 No 15, La Cienega Boulevard & Fairfax Avenue 0.926 E 1.009 F 1.010 F 0.006 No 16. Jefferson Boulevard & National Boulevard 0.635 B 0.607 B 0.615 B 0.008 No 17. La Cienega Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard 0.915 E 0.981 8 0.982 E 0.001 No 18. Jefferson Boulevard & Higuera Street/Rodeo Rd 0.630 B 0.694 B 0.697 B 0.004 No 19. La Cienega Boulevard g, Rodeo Road 1.054 F 1.037 F 1.037 F 0.000 No cite: [a] Unsignalized intersection controlled by stop signs. Indicates average vehicle delay in seconds on top row and estimated V/C ratio on lower row. The traffic analysis results summarized in Tables 6 and 7 show that the project is expected to have no significant impacts, based on City of Culver City and LADOT traffic study guidelines, at any of the study intersections. B. Required Traffic Demand Management (TOM) Plan (City of Culver City) The City of Culver City has the following Traffic Demand Management Plan requirements for all commercial projects over 50,000 square feet in size: Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis - 8665 Hayden Noce, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 49 ;349Project Traffic impacts and Traffic Demand Management (TOM) Requirements The owner shall provide a bulletin board, display case, or kiosk (displaying transportation information) where the greatest number of employees is likely to see it. The transportation information displayed should include, but is not limited to, the following: (1) Current routes and schedules for public transit serving the site; (2) Telephone numbers for referrals on transportation information including numbers for the regional ridesharing agency and local transit operations; (3) Ridesharing promotion material supplied by commuter-oriented organizations; (4) Regional/local bicycle route and facility information; (5) A listing of on-site services or facilities which are available for carpoolers, vanpoolers, bicyclists, and transit riders. In addition, the owner shall comply with Paragraph (a) above and in addition shall provide: (1) A designated parking area for employee carpools and vanpools as close as practical to the main pedestrian entrance(s) of the building(s). This area shall include at least ten percent of the parking spaces required for the site. The spaces shall be signed and striped sufficient to meet the employee demand for such spaces. The carpool/vanpool parking area shall be identified on the driveway and circulation plan upon application for a building permit; (2) One permanent, clearly identified (signed and striped) carpoolivanpool parking space for the first 50,000 to 100,000 square feet of gross floor area and one additional permanent, clearly identified (signed and striped) carpool/vanpool parking space for any development over 100,000 square feet of gross floor area; (3) Parking spaces clearly identified (signed and striped) shall be provided in the designated carpool/vanpool parking area at any time during the building's occupancy sufficient to meet employee demand for such spaces. Absent such demand, parking spaces within the designated carpool/vanpool parking area may be used by other vehicles; (4) No signed and striped parking spaces for carpoolivanpool parking shall displace any handicapped parking; (5) A statement that preferential carpool/vanpool spaces are available on-site and a description of the method for obtaining permission to use such spaces shall be included on the required transportation information board; (6) A minimum vertical clearance of 7 feet 2 inches shall be provided for all parking spaces and access ways used by vanpool vehicles when located within a parking structure; (7) Bicycle parking shall be provided in conformance with Section 12.2IA16 of this Code. Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA Ply 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 50 1107. Congestion Management Plan Conformance The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was created statewide because of Proposition 111 and has been implemented locally by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). The CMP for Los Angeles County requires analysis of the traffic impact of individual development projects of potentially regional significance. A specific system of arterial roadways plus all freeways comprise the CMP system. Per CMP Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines, a traffic impact analysis is required when: 0 At CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including freeway on-ramps or off-ramps, where the proposed project will add 50 or more vehicle trips during either the morning or afternoon weekday peak hours. 9 At CMP mainline freeway-monitoring locations, where the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the morning or afternoon weekday peak hours. The nearest CMP arterial monitoring intersections to the project site are the intersections of La Cienega Boulevard/Jefferson Boulevard (City of Los Angeles) and Venice Boulevard/Overland Avenue (City of Los Angeles). Based on the incremental project trip generation estimates presented in Section 5, the proposed project is not expected to add 50 or more new trips per hour to these locations during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Therefore, no further analysis of these CMP monitoring intersections is required. The nearest mainline freeway monitoring locations to the project site are on the Santa Monica Freeway (1-10) east of Overland Avenue and east of La Brea Avenue. Based on the incremental project trip generation estimates, the proposed project will not add 150 or more new trips per hour to these locations in either direction during the morning and afternoon peak hours. Therefore, no further analysis of CMP freeway monitoring stations is required. Prepared for REthink Deve/opment Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 5 1 1118. Construction Impacts It is likely that there will be short-term adverse traffic and parking impacts in the area during construction of the proposed project. It is City policy and procedure that developers submit a formal construction staging and traffic plan to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of any construction permits. The applicant will be required to submit a plan, which includes information on staging and local haul routes, number of truck trips such as material evacuation, steel delivery, concrete pour and other deliveries, street/lane closures (if any), pedestrian circulation and traffic control, duration of construction activity and hours of operation. In addition, a construction parking plan will also be required that clearly delineates where construction workers will park. The plan shall clearly denote on- street parking in the project vicinity for construction workers shall be prohibited. The Applicant and the construction contractor shall be required to submit a parking plan to the Culver City Planning Division for approval prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Prepared for REthink Deyaiopment Corp. Traffic impact Analysis — 866S Hayden Place, Cuiyer City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 529. Parking Analysis This section provides analysis of the parking requirements based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation, 3 rd Edition compared to the City of Culver City guidelines. A. Parking Supply As proposed, a three-level subterranean parking garage and a surface parking area shall provide the on- site with 180 parking spaces and 1 loading space. B. Parking Demand Based an ITE In utilizing the 1TE Parking Generation manual, average peak period parking demand was applied to the size of the proposed office to determine the number of parking spaces that project needs based on multiple sites surveyed. The following is the average peak parking demands for the proposed project: • Office (Land Use 701) — 2.84 spaces per 1,000 gross square feet The following peak parking demand of the project based on office use is estimated at: • Office — 181 parking spaces based on a maximum of 63,615 gross square feet Based on the parking supply of 181 parking spaces, the project has sufficient spaces to provide for peak parking demand based on ITE parking generation rates. C. Parking Code Requirements The City of Culver City parking requirement guidelines are provided below: • Office use — I space per 350 gross square feet Based on the maximum size of the proposed office and applying the appropriate parking code rate, the proposed Project would be required to provide a total of 182 parking spaces. Based on the parking supply of 18 I parking spaces, the proposed on-site parking would be deficient by one parking space based on the City's Code requirements, Prepared for REthink Development Corp, Traffic Impact Analysis 8665 Hayden Piace, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 5310. Summary and Project Recommendations The following are the conclusions made from the analysis within this report. O During the existing (Year 2008) conditions scenario, eleven of the nineteen study intersections operate at LOS D or better during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. • Under future (Year 2010) with ambient growth and related project conditions, seven of the nineteen study intersections operate at LOS D or better during both the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. Twelve of the nineteen intersections would operate at LOS E or worse during one or both the peak periods. • The project consists of the construction of a 63,615 gross square-foot office building. The proposed project is anticipated to be in operation by the Year 2010. ? It is estimated that the project would generate 575 daily trips, of which 82 and 77 trips would be during the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. • Under future (Year 2010) with ambient growth and related project and conditions, ten of the nineteen study intersections operate at LOS D or better during the morning peak hour. Ten of the nineteen study intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the afternoon peak hour. • The proposed Project would create no significant traffic impacts, based on the City of Culver City and LADOT traffic study guidelines, at any of the study intersections. O The proposed project, which is greater than 50,000 square-feet in size, will be required to meet the City of Culver City traffic demand management (TDM) guidelines. • The proposed project parking supply of 181 spaces is sufficient to meet the requirements based on the City parking Code. Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 194.APPENDIX A Project Memorandum of Understanding Prepored for REthink Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation 195Appendix A Page 1 SCOPING FOR TRAFFIC STUDY This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) acknowledges City of Culver City requirements of traffic impact analysis for the following project: Project Name: Project Address: Project Description: Project Build-out Year: Directional Distribution: 8665 Hayden Place Office Project 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA 90232 Office Building at 62,899 square feet 2010 Ambient Growth Rate: 1% per year N 25% S 20% E 30% W 25% (Attachment A) Trip Generation Rate(s): ITE Latest Edition / Other: 7th Edition Office: Daily = 11,01, AM Peak = 1.55, PM Peak = 1.49 Land Use: Office (ITE Code: 710) In Out Out Total In Out AM Trips 86 11 86 11 PM Trips 16 78 16 78 Intensity Daily AM Peak Hour Afternoon Peak Hour Total In Out Total Out Trip Rates [11 Office (lTE Code 710) KSF 1101 1.36 0.19 0.2 Light industrial (1TE Code 110) K P 6.97 0.92 0.81 0.11 0.98 0.12 0.86 irrit's Existing Uses Credit Light Industrial (ITE Code 110) 18.888 KSF REINIMENEEMINEIM MEI Project Office (ITE Code 710) 62.899 111231111112=11•7411111101111111111111111 94 16 MIEM Proposed TOD Credit Inn 5% TOO Credit [2] 1111111111=111111=1111111•11111111111n111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111n1 Total Trips After Existing and TOD Credit Ell= IIIEIIMIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIEIMI 67 MEI 13 Es 11111111111111111111111111111111111•11111111n1=111111111•1 Proposed TOM Credit as a Mitigation Measure 11111111111111111111 11.11111111111.1111111 10% TDM Trip Reduction (Requested Mitigation Measure) IIII TOTAL "NET" TRIPS Ennim I 1 50 [1] Trip generation rates were based or average rates from the ITE Trip Generation Manual 7th Edition [2] Proposed TOO is based on City of Los Angeles guidelines in applying trip credits near a major transit station such as the proposed Expo Line. Project Build out Year: 2010 Ambient or CMP Growth Rate: 1 % Per Year Related Projects: List Obtained from City of Culver City and City of Los Angeles (Attachment B)Appendix A Page 2 Study Intersections (Subject to revision after CMP requirement, related projects, trip generation and distribution are determined) 1. Robertson Boulevard & Washington Boulevard (City of Culver City) 2, National Boulevard & Washington Boulevard (City of Culver City) 3. La Cienega Boulevard & Washington Boulevard (City of Culver City) 4. Hayden Avenue & National Boulevard (City of Culver City) 5. Eastham Drive & National Boulevard (City of Culver City) 6. Hayden Avenue & Warner Drive (City of Culver City) 7. Eastham Drive & Warner Drive (City of Culver City) 8. Lucerne Avenue & Higuera Street (City of Culver City) 9. Hayden Avenue & Higuera Street (City of Culver City) 10. Eastham Drive & Higuera Street (City of Culver City) 11. Lucerne Avenue & Duquesne Avenue (City of Culver City) 12. Jefferson Boulevard & Duquesne Avenue (City of Culver City) 13. Robertson Boulevard & Venice Boulevard (City of Los Angeles) 14. National Boulevard & Venice Boulevard (City of Los Angeles) 15. La Cienega Boulevard & Fairfax Avenue/Blackwelder Street (City of Los Angeles) 16. Jefferson Boulevard & National Boulevard (City of Los Angeles) 17. La Clenega Boulevard & Jefferson Boulevard (City of Los Angeles) 18. Jefferson Boulevard & Higuera Street/Rodeo Road (City of Los Angeles) 19. La Cienega Boulevard & Rodeo Road (City of Los Angeles) Trip Credits: (Exact amount of credit subject to approval by CITY) Yes No Transportation Demand Management (TDM) o El Existing Active Land Use 0 21 Previous Land Use El 0 Internal 0 2 Pass-by Trips 0 El Transit Oriented District (TOD) 0 0 This analysis must follow latest Culver City Traffic Study guidelines. Consultants Developer Name KOA Corporation Rethink Tara Green, LLC Address 1055 Corporate Center Dr, Suite 300 4262 Lincoln Avenue Monterey Park, CA 90706 Culver City, Ca 90232 Phone 323-260-4703 310-253-9131 Approved By: Consultant's Representative Date CITY Representative DateAppendix A Page 3 From: Kurtz, Barry [mailto:barry.kurtz@culyercity.org] Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 10:41 AM To: Jasper Domingo Cc: Greg Reitz; Montoya, Joseph Subject: RE: 8665 Hayden Place MOU Jasper, In the trip chart, change 10% TOO Credit to 10%TDM Credit, In the list of study intersections, show the jurisdictions of each intersection. With these changes the MOU is acceptable. Barry.APPENDIX B Traffic Count Data Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA July 14, 2008 KOA CorporationAppendix B Page 1 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Robertson Blvd DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Washington Blvd DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-001 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL EASTBOUND ET ER WL WESTBOUND WI WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 2 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 1 50 11 14 28 20 8 41 2 12 176 52 415 7:15 AM 9 50 15 11 33 9 8 58 0 9 182 86 470 7:30 AM 9 58 17 25 25 14 29 101 7 20 225 63 593 7:45 AM 7 61 33 36 37 11 8 133 12 24 214 90 666 8:00 AM 7 67 24 23 65 6 8 107 13 30 188 66 604 8:15 AM 7 64 32 30 48 12 8 116 9 33 179 80 618 8:30 AM 5 67 33 28 67 15 18 124 10 19 186 76 648 8:45 AM 12 56 26 14 63 29 20 91 7 19 236 58 631 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 57 473 191 181 366 116 107 771 60 166 1586 571 4645 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 26 259 122 117 217 44 42 480 44 106 767 312 2536 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.969 0.859 0.925 0.903 0.952 CONTROL: Signalized 00111 Appendix B Page 2 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Robertson Blvd DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Washington Blvd DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-001 LANES: NORTHBOUND ML NT NR|109| 2 0 SL|1010|SOUTHBOUND ST SR|109| 1 EL|1010|EASTBOUND ET ER|109| 0 WL|1010|WESTBOUND WT WR|109| 1 TOTAL 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 7 43 8 46 40 7 26 178 5. 9 113 23 505 4:15 PM 4 23 15 57 48 16 46 196 9 8 132 34 588 4:30 PM 7 39 8 50 67 18- 19 207 9 19 117 28 588 4:45 PM 9 34 6 37 48 13 30 197 7 14 102 21 518 5:00 PM 4 50 9 30 51 8 17 192 9 14 119 45 548 5:15 PM 9 45 9 40 72 15 41 275 8 11 124 38 687 5:30 PM 12 43 17 39 62 20 26 236 11 17 149 35 667 5:45 PM 3 59 5 23 56 18 44 223 15 28 133 42 649 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL VOLUMES = ML 55 NT 336 NR 77 SL 322 ST 444 SR 115 EL 249 ET 1704 ER 73 WL 120 WT 989 WR 266 TOTAL 4750 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 28 197 40 132 241 61 128 926 43 70 525 160 2551 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.920 0.854 0.846 0.930 0.928 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 3 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: National Blvd DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Washington Blvd DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL EASTBOUND ET ER WL WESTBOUND WT WR TOTAL LANES: 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 86 215 8 10 80 6 2 80 11 9 202 42 751 7:15 AM 94 250 5 10 100 8 6 84 20 10 199 35 821 7:30 AM 69 238 6 21 108 6 4 103 25 18 252 37 887 7:45 AM 105 229 23 29 176 15 3 149 34 35 226 48 1072 8:00 AM 81 212 25 29 212 6 1 127 29 30 196 30 978 8:15 AM 50 133 8 30 195 12 4 142 36 31 182 25 848 8:30 AM 60 177 27 28 125 8 6 145 30 24 214 64 908 8:45 AM 57 182 24 16 128 8 7 132 27 25 252 49 907 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WI WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 602 1636 126 173 1124 69 33 962 212 182 1723 330 7172 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 296 751 83 116 708 41 14 563 129 120 818 167 3806 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.791 0.876 0.949 0.894 0.888 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 3 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: National Blvd DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Washington Blvd DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-002 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL EASTBOUND ET ER WL WESTBOUND WT WR TOTAL LANES: 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 86 215 8 10 80 6 2 80 11 9 202 42 751 7:15 AM 94 250 5 10 100 8 6 84 20 10 199 35 821 7:30 AM 69 238 6 21 108 6 4 103 25 18 252 37 887 7:45 AM 105 229 23 29 176 15 3 149 34 35 226 48 1072 8:00 AM 81 212 25 29 212 6 1 127 29 30 196 30 978 8:15 AM 50 133 8 30 195 12 4 142 36 31 182 25 848 8:30 AM 60 177 27 28 125 8 6 145 30 24 214 64 908 8:45 AM 57 182 24 16 128 8 7 132 27 25 252 49 907 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NR SL ST SR EL Er ER WL WT WR TOTA VOLUMES = 602 1636 126 173 1124 69 33 962 212 182 1723 330 7172 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 296 751 83 116 708 41 14 563 129 120 818 167 3806 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.791 I 0.876 I 0.949 I 0.894 0.888 CONTROL: Signalized1 WL WT WR 148 1072 236 TOTAL 7107 Appendix B Page 4 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: National Blvd DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Washington Blvd DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-002 LANES: NORTHBOUND NL NT NR|109| 2 0 SOUTHBOUND SL ST SR|109| 2 0 EL|1010|EASTBOUND ET ER|109| 1 WL|1010|WESTBOUND WT WR|109| 1 TOTAL 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 200 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 38 125 20 42 199 13 11 173 53 17 109 23 823 4:15 PM 30 120 10 53 211 10 6 206 48 19 131 17 861 4:30 PM 34 114 14 44 211 11 12 185 33 15 132 30 835 4:45 PM 29 120 17 45 204 4 8 188 47 23 141 28 854 5:00 PM 42 133 14 32 187 8 12 197 68 14 117 31 855 5:15 PM 41 133 18 67 227 6 9 209 55 24 146 26 961 5:30 PM 40 124 16 47 204 9 15 220 62 19 139 34 929 5:45 PM 47 135 22 38 221 12 11 214 68 17 157 47 989 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER VOLUMES = 301 1004 131 368 1664 73 84 1592 434 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 170 525 70 184 839 35 47 840 253 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.938 0.882 0.960 CONTROL: Signalized 74 559 138 3734 0.872 0.944Appendix B Page 5 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by National Data /3t Surveying Services N-S STREET: La Cienega Blvd DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Washington Blvd DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-003 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL EASTBOUND ET ER WL WESTBOUND WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 52 326 3 16 208 5 2 74 18 5 266 70 1045 7:15 AM 73 405 4 16 260 8 12 101 20 10 297 71 1277 7:30 AM 77 404 5 24 287 15 11 122 17 12 342 85 1401 7:45 AM 67 365 3 32 298 9 10 154 24 17 340 72 1391 8:00 AM 64 391 4 27 333 5 12 132 24 12 300 75 1379 8:15 AM 50 371 8 32 348 8 18 149 31 18 296 71 1400 8:30 AM 69 329 4 28 269 7 13 158 31 9 321 90 1328 8:45 AM 53 309 3 24 244 7 14 136 18 4 275 79 1166 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES 505 2900 34 199 2247 64 92 1026 183 87 2437 613 10387 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 258 1531 20 115 1266 37 51 557 96 59 1278 303 5571 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.931 0.914 0.889 0.934 0.994 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 6 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services NS STREET: La Cienega Blvd DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Washington Blvd DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-003 LANES: NL|1010|NORTHBOUND NT NR|109| 0 SL|1010|SOUTHBOUND ST SR|109| 0 EL|1010|EASTBOUND ET ER|109| 1 WL|1010|WESTBOUND WT WR|109| 1 TOTAL 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 21 272 2 73 335 5 15 221 38 7 104 23 1116 4:15 PM 31 233 15 67 344 1 12 235 41 15 125 30 1149 4:30 PM 24 236 13 82 371 16 10 236 56 11 107 27 1189 4:45 PM 32 282 14 79 356 7 7 242 31 10 100 29 1189 5:00 PIA 30 292 18 66 330 9 16 250 49 20 127 26 1233 5:15 PM 39 301 8 61 356 6 10 254 43 14 134 30 1256 5:30 PM 26 329 13 77 343 6 7 228 31 16 144 22 1242 5:45 PM 21 303 11 15 357 3 4 191 27 17 116 14 1079 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL VOLUMES = NL 224 NT 2248 NR 94 SL 520 ST 2792 SR 53 EL 81 ET 1857 ER 316 WL 110 WT 957 WR 201 TOTAL 9453 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 127 1204 53 283 1385 28 40 974 154 60 505 107 4920 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.940 0.959 0.927 0.923 0.979 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 7 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Hayden Ave DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W SI REET: National Blvd DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-004 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL El ER WL V1/F WR TOTAL LANES: 1.5 0 .5 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 85 3 91 19 29 195 422 7:15 AM 110 6 108 28 17 220 489 7:30 AM 126 158 43 29 212 576 7:45 AM 141 4 180 30 20 207 582 8:00 AM 119 11 170 28 29 179 536 8:15 AM 119 21 155 61 40 177 573 8:30 AM 102 9 117 49 28 141 446 8:45 AM 113 6 135 87 56 140 537 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NT NR SL SR EL ER WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 915 0 68 0 1114 345 248 1471 0 4161 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 505 0 44 0 663 162 118 775 0 2267 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.947 0.000 0.955 0.926 0.974 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 8 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Hayden Ave DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: National Blvd DAY: WEDNESDAY PRCOECT# 08-2232-004 LANES: NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL 1.5 0 .5 0 0 0 0 EASTBOUND ET ER|109| 0 WESTBOUND WL lArT WR|109| 2 0 TOTAL 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 102 28 234 56 7 74 501 4:15 PM 98 20 230 35 11 50 444 4:30 PM 129 29 250 43 6 58 515 4:45 PM 130 19 250 41 6 58 504 5:00 PM 127 31 248 44 6 55 511 5:15 PM 130 19 251 44 6 63 513 5:30 PM 118 27 241 49 7 76 518 5:45 PM 129 34 204 38 8 74 487 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL VOLUMES = NL 963 NT|1010|NR 207 SL|1010|ST|1010|SR|1010|EL|1010|ET 1908 ER 350 WL 57 WT 508 WR|1010|TOTAL 3993 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 505 0 96 0 0 0 0 990 178 25 252 0 2046 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.951 0.000 0.990 0,834 0.987 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 9 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data St Surveying Services N-S STREET: Eastharn Dr DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: National Blvd DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-005 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 3 82 15 262 362 7:15 AM 11 90 16 276 393 7:30 AM 4 133 26 249 412 7:45 AM 132 52 233 422 8:00 AM 6 131 27 221 385 8:15 AM 118 32 219 374 8:30 AM 6 97 29 183 315 8:45 AM 6 94 26 180 306 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL Er ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = I 0 0 46 0 877 223 0 1823 0 2969 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 715 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 26 0 486 121 0 979 0 1612 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.591 0.000 0.825 0.887 0.955 CONTROL: 1-Way Stop (NB)68 0 0 0.739 PEAK VOLUMES = PEAK HR. FACTOR: NORTHBOUND ML NT NR LANES: 0 0 1 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 29 4:15 PM 23 4:30 PM 19 4:45 PM 16 5:00 PM 10 5:15 PM 9 5:30 PM 7 5:45 PM 9 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL ML NT MR VOLUMES = 0 0 122 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 415 PM SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 235 8 71 343 241 31 72 367 247 13 78 357 255 7 53 331 270 8 63 351 256 11 55 331 245 19 63 334 212 5 56 282 ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL 0 0 0 1961 102 0 511 0 2696|1010|0 0 1013 59 0 266 0 1406 0.000 0.964 0.853 0.958 SL|1010|1 SL|1010|Appendix 13 Page 10 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Eastham Dr DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: National Blvd DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-005 CONTROL: 1-Way Stop (NB) 061NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND IIVESiBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 92 3 6 11 16 2 7:15 AM 136 9 14 19 35 5 7:30 AM 108 15 5 14 39 7 7:45 AM 129 32 29 37 24 3 8:00 AM 136 36 24 47 33 4 8:15 AM 143 31 19 56 44 6 8:30 AM 150 19 15 53 40 10 8:45 AM 149 24 11 45 33 4 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR VOLUMES = 0 1043 169 123 282 0 0 0 264 0 41 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 800 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 578 110 69 201 0 0 150 0 24 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.989 0.900 0.000 0.870 CONTROL: 1-Way Stop (WB) TOTAL 130 218 188 254 280 299 287 266 1132 0.946 TOTAL I 1922 Appendix B Page 11 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by National Data 8/. Surveying Services N-S STREET: Hayden Ave DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Warner Dr DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-006 211Appendix B Page 12 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Hayden Ave DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Warner Dr DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-006 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 98 20 17 34 23 8 200 4:15 PM 80 24 15 23 17 12 171 4:30 PM 97 18 11 18 11 11 166 4:45 PM 96 22 14 31 14 5 182 5:00 PM 96 17 11 17 11 10 162 5:15 PM 89 20 13 30 9 5 166 5:30 PM 117 30 22 25 12 13 219 5:45 PM 81 16 10 19 15 8 149 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ER WL WI WR TOTAL|1010|VOLUMES = 0 754 167 113 197 0 0 0 11 2 0 72 1415 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 445 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 398 89 60 103 0 o 46 0 33 729 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.828 0.867 0.000 0.790 0.832 CONTROL: 1-Way Stop (WB) 212-WESTBOUND WL WT WR TOTAL|109| 1 0 40 69 81 112 105 97 98 92 1 WL WT WR TOTAL|109| 0 0 694|109| 0 412 0.000 0.920 Appendix B Page 13 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Eastham Dr DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Warner Dr DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-007 NORTHBOUND NL NT NR SL LANES: 0 1 0 0 SOUTHBOUND ST SR EL|109| 0 0 EASTBOUND ET ER|109| 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 20 11 3 3 0 3 7:15 AM 43 11 8 1 0 6 7:30 AM 39 10 17 1 3 11 7:45 AM 27 22 27 2 5 29 8:00 AM 38 23 23 1 1 19 8:15 AM 38 14 23 4 2 16 8:30 AM 23 18 31 2 3 21 8:45 AM 26 18 24 5 3 16 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER VOLUMES 254 127 0 0 156 19 17 0 121 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM PEAK VOLUMES ---- 126 77 0 0 104 9 11 0 85 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.832 0.856 0.706 CONTROL: 1-Way Stop (ES)Appendix 13 Page 14 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Eastham Dr DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Warner Dr DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-007 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND ML NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 8 10 29 4 4 27 82 4:15 PM 11 7 36 2 4 30 90 4:30 PM 12 5 29 3 2 23 74 4:45 PM 10 7 14 1 0 22 54 5:00 PM 7 8 34 3 3 26 81 5:15 PTY1 16 8 45 0 1 29 99 5:30 PTA 6 14 50 2 3 44 119 5:45 PM 12 7 34 1 1 30 85 6:00 PM 6:15 PTA 6:30 PIA 6:45 PM TOTAL ML NT MR SL ST SR EL ER WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 82 66|1010|0 271 16 18 0 231 0 684 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 41 37 0 163 6 8 0 129 0 0 384 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.813 0.813 0.729 0.000 0.807 CONTROL: 1-Way Stop (E13) 214Appendbc 13 Page 15 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Lucerne Ave DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Higuera St DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-008 NORTHBOUND NL NT NR SL SOUTHBOUND ST SR EL EASTBOUND ET ER WL WESTBOUND WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 16 6 0 0 0 0 20 5 13 27 87 7:15 AM 31 12 0 0 1 0 23 11 21 52 151 7:30 AM 26 17 1 0 0 0 20 19 41 67 191 7:45 AM 33 22 0 0 2 0 46 24 68 60 255 8:00 AM 37 27 0 1 2 1 44 23 56 51 242 8:15 AM 52 27 1 1 0 0 32 40 60 54 267 8:30 AM 37 37 0 0 1 0 44 15 32 65 231 8:45 AM 27 27 0 0 1 0 48 14 31 46 194 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NR SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 259 0 175 2 2 7 1 277 151 322 422 0 1618 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 159 0 113 2 5 1 166 102 216 230 0 995 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.861 0.667 0.934 0.871 0.932 CONTROL: 3-Way Stop (NB/EB/WB)Appendix B Page 16 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Lucerne Ave DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Higuera St DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-008 LANES: NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR|109| 1 0 0 0 0 EL|1010|EASTBOUND ET ER|109| 0 WESTBOUND WL WT WR|109| 1 TOTAL 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 21 0 17 0 0 1 38 18 23 33 151 4:15 PM 18 0 22 0 0 0 38 13 24 25 140 4:30 PM 26 0 13 0 0 0 48 30 21 28 166 4:45 PM 31 0 19 0 0 1 30 25 12 32 150 5:00 PM 24 0 22 1 1 0 37 36 28 25 174 5:15 PM 36 0 23 1 0 0 44 23 20 36 183 5:30 PM 29 0 22 0 0 0 43 23 18 28 163 5:45 PM 23 1 30 0 0 2 37 41 16 37 187 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL VOLUMES = NL 208 NT|1010|NR 168 SL|1010|ST|1010|SR|1010|EL|1010|ET 315 ER 209 WL 162 WT 244 WR|1010|TOTAL I 1314 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 112 1 97 0 2 1 2 161 123 82 126 0 707 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.890 0.375 0.894 0.929 0.945 CONTROL: 3-Way Stop (NB/EB/WB) '2. 1@Appendix B Page 17 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Hayden Ave DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W S I REET: Higuera St DAY: WEDNESDAY PRO3ECT# 08-2232-009 NORTHBOUND NL NT NR SL SOUTHBOUND ST SR EL EASTBOUND ET ER WL WESTBOUND WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 .5 .5 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 1 1 4 15 21 10 0 7 10 2 95 166 7:15 AM 0 0 4 11 37 18 0 9 9 2 108 198 7:30 AM 1 10 6 5 61 11 0 13 2 5 128 242 7:45 AM 0 10 2 17 58 31 1 18 0 4 141 282 8:00 AM 0 1 7 12 49 28 0 16 13 4 181 311 8:15 AM 0 2 4 5 47 19 0 22 7 3 148 257 8:30 AM 0 9 13 11 38 26 1 18 9 1 100 226 8:45 AM 0 7 14 8 30 31 0 18 22 2 109 241 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 2 40 54 0 84 341 174 2 121 72 23 1010 1923 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 1 23 19 0 39 215 89 1 69 22 16 598 1092 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.632 0.847 0.795 0.803 0.878 CONTROL: 4-Way StopAppendix B Page 18 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Hayden Ave DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Higuera St DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-009 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR LANES: 0 .5 .5 0 1 0 EASTBOUND EL ET ER|109| 0 1 WESTBOUND WL WT WR|109| 0 1 TOTAL 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 35 31 19 46 28 0 16 8 0 64 247 4:15 PM 36 31 11 32 27 0 17 6 1 43 204 4:30 PM 17 25 7 32 19 0 27 9 1 62 199 4:45 PM 20 27 14 26 21 0 17 8 0 64 197 5:00 PM 36 42 10 27 28 0 17 7 0 57 224 5:15 PM 33 30 12 27 22 0 24 6 0 56 210 5:30 PM 45 48 11 31 37 1 19 4 0 72 268 5:45 PM 22 43 5 38 24 0 19 4 1 54 210 6;00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL VOLUMES = NL|1010|NT 244 NR 277 SL|1010|ST 89 SR 259 EL 206 El|1010|ER 156 WL 52 WT|1010|WR 472 TOTAL 1759 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 136 163 0 38 123 111 79 21 1 239 912 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.804 0.936 0.838 0.859 0.851 CONTROL: 4-Way Stop 218)Appendix B Page 19 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data 13E Surveying Services N-S STREET: Eastham Dr DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Higuera St DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-010 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 4 1 1 6 101 30 143 7:15 AM 10 4 0 6 144 54 218 7:30 AM 11 16 0 16 138 57 238 7:45 AM 12 49 2 17 151 57 288 8:00 AM 16 24 2 18 150 69 279 8:15 AM IS 33 S 16 142 40 251 8:30 AM 13 19 1 18 130 35 216 8:45 AM 18 14 1 15 125 28 201 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NT NR ST SR EL El" ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUM 99 0 160 12 112 0 0 1081 370 1834 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 54 0 122 9 67 0 0 581 223 1056 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.000 0.721 0.905 0.918 0.917 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 20 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Eastham Dr DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Higuera St DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-010 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND ML NT NR SL ST SR EL LANES: 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 EASTBOUND ET ER WL|109| 0 0 WESTBOUND WT WR TOTAL|109| 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 46 4 0 57 78 21 206 4:15 PM 68 11 0 44 84 20 227 4:30 PM 60 3 1 41 78 16 199 4:45 PM 33 3 1 58 83 17 195 5:00 PM 56 3 2 71 67 12 211 5:15 PM 69 5 5 51 62 23 215 5:30 PM 85 5 2 58 77 14 241 5:45 PM 67 4 1 61 68 12 213 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 0 0 484 0 38 12 441 0 0 597 135 1707 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 0 0 277 0 17 10 241 0 0 274 61 880 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.000 0.817 0.860 0.920 0.913 CONTROL: SignalizedTOTAL 236 296 368 413 359 399 399 394 TOTAL 1 2864 1570 0.950 Appendix B Page 21 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by National Data &Surveying Services N-S STREET: Lucerne Ave DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Duquesne Ave DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-011 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR LANES: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 16 11 7 48 132 22 7:15 AM 20 16 9 55 148 48 7:30 AM 48 27 32 82 118 61 7:45 AM 46 25 29 88 130 95 8:00 AM 39 34 16 81 141 48 8:15 AM 58 18 24 114 141 44 8:30 AM 58 18 24 114 141 44 6:45 AM 39 19 12 105 146 73 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR VOLUMES 0 0 0 324 0 168 153 687 0 0 1097 435 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 0 0 201 0 95 93 397 0 0 553 231 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.000 0.974 0.888 0.871 CONTROL: 3-Way Stop (SB/EB/WB)Appendix B Page 22 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Lucerne Ave DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Duquesne Ave DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-011 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL LANES: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 EASTBOUND ET ER WL|109| 0 0 WESTBOUND WT WR TOTAL|109| 1 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 36 18 19 119 64 32 288 4:15 PM 40 24 12 133 74 49 332 4:30 PM 57 22 17 131 101 32 360 4:45 PM 61 17 21 118 92 49 358 5:00 PM 21 19 9 95 81 19 244 5:15 PM 46 15 7 81 78 20 247 5:30 PM 42 14 10 149 87 39 341 5:45 PM 75 19 16 123 78 51 362 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 0 0 0 378 0 148 111 949 0 0 655 291 2532 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 400 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 0 194 0 81 69 501 0 0 331 162 1338 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.000 0.870 0.963 0.874 0.929 CONTROL: 3-Way Stop (SB/EB/WB)TOTAL 539 699 773 851 841 935 928 879 TOTAL 1 6445 3583 0.958 Appendix Page 23 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data St Surveying Services N-S STREET: Jefferson Blvd DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Duquesne Ave DAY: WEDNESDAY PROJECTS 08-2232-012 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL EASTBOUND ET ER WL WESTBOUND WT WR LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 43 147 0 1 195 88 27 2 35 0 1 0 7:15 AM 76 174 0 5 251 115 37 1 38 0 2 0 7:30 AM 89 178 3 2 267 110 58 3 56 0 5 2 7:45 AM 103 177 2 2 299 83 99 3 78 0 5 0 8:00 AM 106 210 9 3 286 83 59 3 73 0 8 1 8:15 AM 118 237 11 3 291 106 52 10 90 2 12 3 8:30 AM 91 272 4 1 284 98 58 10 101 2 4 3 8:45 AM 102 225 7 5 267 108 66 11 72 2 12 2 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR VOLUMES = 728|1010|1620 36 22 2140 791 456 43 543 6 49 11 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 800 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 417 944 31 12 1128 395 235 34 336 6 36 9 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.948 0.959 0.895 0.750 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 24 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Jefferson Blvd DATE: 5/14/2008 LOCATION: City of Culver City E-W STREET: Duquesne Ave DAY: WEDNESDAY. PROJECT# 08-2232-012 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 EASTBOUND ET ER WL|109| 0 1 WESTBOUND WT WR TOTAL|109| 1 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 63 264 5 4 159 31 83 11 55 3 4 2 684 4:15 PM 63 276 4 7 146 38 90 14 56 4 4 7 709 4:30 PM 71 263 4 8 140 47 103 20 73 3 6 8 746 4:45 PM 79 320 4 10 188 57 102 13 78 4 6 6 867 5:00 PM 87 366 5 3 180 49 110 6 72 3 6 4 891 5:15 PM 74 330 4 3 221 55 101 14 84 8 11 5 910 5:30 PM 71 252 1 3 169 45 74 8 84 8 6 6 727 5:45 PM 75 213 5 4 148 18 59 5 42 4 9 6 588 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL ML NT NR SL ST SR ER WR TOTAL VOLUMES 583 2284 32 42 1351 340 722 91 544 37 52 44 6122 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 430 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 311 1279 17 24 729 208 416 53 307 18 29 23 3414 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.877 0.861 0.975 0.729 0.938 CONTROL: SignalizedNORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL EASTBOUND ET ER LANES: 1 2 1 1 1.5 1 2 3 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 31 85 9 19 30 32 51 244 12 7:15 AM 44 78 5 32 39 65 74 381 13 7:30 AM 58 86 4 47 20 71 98 481 21 7:45 AM 67 107 2 82 47 93 126 478 23 8:00 AM 37 85 5 69 71 73 139 588 21 8:15 AM 32 79 4 63 68 83 99 518 27 8:30 AM 43 98 8 75 54 72 113 565 26 8:45 AM 27 89 6 62 67 59 73 538 16 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER VOLUMES = 339 707 43 449 396 548 773 3793 159 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 745 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 179 369 19 289 240 321 477 2149 97 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.805 0.957 0.910 CON I ROL: Signalized WESTBOUND WL WT WR TOTAL|109| 3 1 TOTAL 1341 6338 354 51 931 450 75 1267 430 103 1428 481 101 1620 477 62 1640 431 102 1514 429 69 1564 388 36 1377 13 11|10 10|13 13|1010|12 16 1 WL WT WR 95 3440 599 46 1818 334 0.924 0.966 Appendix B Page 25 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Robertson Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W STREET: Venice Blvd DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT 08-2232-013Appendix B Page 26 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Robertson Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W STREET: Venice Blvd DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-013 LANES: NORTHBOUND NL NT NR|109| 2 1 SOUTHBOUND SL ST SR|109| 1.5 1 EL|1010|EASTBOUND ET ER|109| 1 WL|1010|WESTBOUND WT WR|109| 1 TOTAL 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 23 55 15 59 49 70 107 563 32 21 390 30 1414 4:15 PM 34 61 15 55 72 84 128 621 28 19 395 21 1533 4:30 PM 31 62 9 49 54 104 101 614 38 11 449 20 1542 4:45 PM 39 58 14 71 62 109 139 606 37 16 378 14 1543 5:00 PM 27 58 15 58 63 81 127 556 23 21 346 23 1398 5:15 PM 46 83 10 50 53 74 115 651 20 4 438 28 1572 5:30 PM 20 76 15 50 87 99 113 554 12 23 404 22 1475 5:45 PM 38 62 16 54 70 60 92 607 29 28 420 17 1493 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 258 515 109 446 510 681 922 4772 219 143 3220 175 11970 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 430 PM PEAK VOLUMES -= 143 261 48 228 232 368 482 2427 118 52 1611 85 6055 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.813 0.855 0.963 0.910 0.963 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 27 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: National Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W STREET: Venice Blvd DAY: THURSDAY PROEM/ 08-2232--014 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL EASTBOUND ET ER WL WESTBOUND WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 3 1 1 3 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 45 172 3 .10 35 9 29 231 30 13 376 27 980 7:15 AM 64 212 4 7 56 12 33 321 38 10 457 22 1236 7:30 AM 51 239 1 18 77 16 37 421 53 13 451 22 1399 7:45 AM 48 199 1 23 104 22 38 451 74 18 479 26 1483 8:00 AM 31 196 8 25 134 25 35 530 90 21 535 22 1652 8:15 AM 48 200 8 27 121 21 41 430 95 20 454 29 1494 8:30 AM 31 165 6 31 82 18 46 540 77 15 519 26 1556 8:45 AM 33 208 8 23 82 25 40 493 75 18 445 36 1486 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 351 1591 39 164 691 148 299 3417 532 128 3716 210 11286 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 800 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 143 769 30 106 419 89 162 1993 337 74 1953 113 6188 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.920 0.834 0.940 0.926 0.936 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 28 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: National Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W STREET: Venice Blvd DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-014 LANES: NORTHBOUND NL NT NR|109| 2 0 SL|1010|SOUTHBOUND ST SR|109| 0 EL|1010|EASTBOUND ET ER|109| 1 WL|1010|WESTBOUND WT WR|109| 1 TOTAL 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 30 107 7 38 159 18 44 507 76 14 341 16 1357 4:15 PM 39 146 21 42 171 20 46 539 77 13 380 14 1508 4:30 PM 34 148 12 31 191 27 28 526 60 12 361 18 1448 4:45 PM 32 124 9 43 179 17 41 505 80 19 332 15 1396 5:00 PM 39 123 10 41 174 28 36 542 59 8 383 24 1467 5:15 PM 39 130 18 37 187 32 33 588 66 13 410 26 1579 5:30 PM 34 128 16 35 175 27 38 595 58 15 398 22 1541 5:45 PM 31 124 14 31 186 26 44 607 66 12 404 14 1559 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUM 278 1030 107 298 1422 195 310 4409 542 106 3009 149 11855 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 143 505 58 144 722 113 151 2332 249 48 1595 86 6146 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.944 0.956 0.953 0.963 0.973 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 29 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: La Cienega Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W STREET: Fairfax Ave/Blackwelder St DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-015 NORTHBOUND NL NT NR SL LANES: 1 2 2 0 SOUTHBOUND ST SR EL|109| 0 0 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL|109| 0 2 .5 .5 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 2 409 230 255 3 4 1 242 3 2 1151 7:15 AM 3 426 247 287 0 3 0 280 4 2 1252 7:30 AM 1 395 243 293 3 6 1 274 2 1 1219 7:45 AM 5 396 233 295 3 5 5 304 7 2 1255 8:00 AM 6 425 255 361 9 3 3 254 6 1 1323 8:15 AM 8 444 234 360 7 3 2 259 10 3 1330 8:30 AM 4 437 235 313 10 3 2 256 8 1 1269 8:45 AM 7 440 252 306 2 0 4 268 4 1 1284 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:t30 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 36 3372 1929 0 2470 37 27 0 18 12137 44 13 10083 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 800 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 25 1746 976 0 1340 28 9 0 11 1037 28 6 5206 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.982 0.924 0.833 0.981 0.979 CONTROL: Signalized 4221Appendix B Page 30 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: La Cienega Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W STREET: Fairfax Ave/Blackwelder St DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-015 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL LANES: 1 2 2 0 3 0 0 EASTBOUND WESTBOUND ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL|109| 0 2 .5 .5 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 3 301 340 386 1 12 4 234 2 2 1285 4:15 PM 2 313 340 393 2 6 0 221 1 3 1281 4:30 PM 1 302 382 395 4 9 1 236 1 1 1332 4:45 PM 4 291 339 433 1 6 1 240 1 2 1318 5:00 PM 1 259 325 366 2 28 13 193 0 0 1187 5:15 PM 3 300 365 398 2 9 2 189 0 1 1269 5:30 PM 1 324 388 416 3 6 6 198 0 0 1342 5:45 PM 4 377 329 443 1 5 7 228 1 1 1396 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 19 2467 2808 0 3230 16 81 0 34 1739 6 10 10410 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 400 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 10 1207 1401 0 1607 8 33 0 6 931 5 8 5216 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.955 0.930 0.609 0.971 0.979 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix 8, Page 31 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by; National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Jefferson Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W STREET: National Blvd DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-016 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND ML NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1.5 1.5 0 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 134 62 17 137 283 633 7:15 AM 150 79 13 178 281 701 7:30 AM 158 61 39 158 243 659 7:45 AM 101 94 41 196 209 641 8:00 AM 146 109 49 175 232 711 8:15 AM 134 107 35 159 187 622 8:30 AM 144 87 42 151 174 598 8:45 AM 127 71 47 139 161 545 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL ML NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES 0 0 1094 0 0 0 670 283 1293 1770 0 5110 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 715 AM PEAK VOLUMES 0 0 555 0 0 0 0 343 142 707 965 0 2712 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.878 0.000 0.767 0.911 0.954 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 32 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Jefferson Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W STREET: National Blvd DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-016 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND WESTBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1.5 1.5 0 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 151 196 63 89 71 570 4:15 PM 184 180 75 83 66 588 4:30 PM 184 190 60 93 74 601 4:45 PM 193 190 64 114 62 623 5:00 PM 216 216 67 95 55 649 5:15 PM 213 192 56 95 56 612 5:30 PM 201 189 71 86 66 613 5:45 PM 260 179 60 105 67 671 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES 0 0 1602 0 0 0 0 1532 516 760 517 0 4927 I PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 0 0 890 0 0 0 0 776 254 381 244 0 2545 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.856 0.000 0.910 0.908 0.948 CONTROL: Signalized 2Z2-.Appendix B Page 33 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: La Cienega Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W STREET: Jefferson Blvd DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT* 08-2232-017 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL LANES: 1 3 0 1 3 1 2 EASTBOUND ET ER WL|109| 0 2 WES SOUND WT WR TOTAL|109| 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 27 502 16 10 372 108 71 56 12 52 230 23 1479 7:15 AM 19 570 18 6 499 123 92 88 21 80 268 24 1808 7:30 AM 26 578 14 6 447 118 88 78 23 77 214 22 1691 7:45 AM 15 559 24 8 525 127 89 109 35 85 278 33 1887 8:00 AM 16 533 33 11 516 114 85 130 36 70 275 25 1814 8:15 AM 15 489 29 12 455 81 101 110 27 85 267 31 1702 8:30 AM 19 510 26 8 425 74 77 129 37 72 257 33 1667 8:45 AM 16 570 20 13 467 136 117 91 31 70 221 34 1786 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR Er ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 153 4311 180 74 3706 881 720 791 I EL 222 591 2010 225 13864 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 715 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 76 2240 89 31 1987 482 354 405 115 312 1035 104 7230 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.973 0.947 0.871 0.916 0.958 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 34 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: La Cienega Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W STREET: Jefferson Blvd DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-017 LANES: NORTHBOUND NL NT NR|109| 3 0 SOUTHBOUND SL ST SR|109| 3 1 EL|1010|EASTBOUND ET ER|109| 0 WL|1010|WESTBOUND WT WR|109| 1 TOTAL 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 13 515 58 13 561 43 124 165 66 59 106 19 1742 4:15 PM 14 502 67 10 518 40 116 181 44 44 93 17 1646 4:30 PM 8 505 52 10 566 51 154 167 60 58 102 18 1751 4:45 PM 15 492 73 11 560 55 139 189 68 53 83 16 1754 5:00 PM 12 481 82 10 522 42 158 186 54 40 87 23 1697 5:15 PM 9 464 49 8 548 49 144 203 62 26 81 10 1653 5:30 PM 12 525 54 11 577 56 155 218 54 51 110 20 1843 5:45 PM 8 541 58 13 586 52 130 184 77 49 112 19 1829 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 91 4025 493 86 4438 388 1120 1493 485 380 774 142 13915 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES 41 2011 243 42 2233 199 587 791 247 166 390 72 7022 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.945 0.950 0.951 0.867 0.953 CONTROL: SignalizedAppenthx B Page 35 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Jefferson Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W SIRED": Higuera St/Rodeo Rd DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-018 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL EASTBOUND WESTBOUND ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL LANES: 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 21 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 12 103 72 15 128 4 3 8 1 186 145 23 700 7:15 AM 20 127 89 22 150 12 0 8 0 194 150 21 793 7:30 AM 20 112 126 26 154 8 1 22 1 204 186 23 883 7:45 AM 15 101 126 35 187 26 3 26 6 239 152 24 940 8:00 AM 28 136 128 48 186 17 3 14 3 166 162 25 916 8:15 AM 23 112 125 35 143 18 4 28 4 197 155 27 871 8:30 AM 29 139 131 26 179 14 2 19 7 136 114 25 821 8:45 AM 32 104 128 13 150 27 3 15 9 186 94 31 792 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 179 934 925 220 1277 126 19 140 31 1508|1010|1158 199 6716 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 86 461 505 144 670 69 11 90 14 806 655 99 3610 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.901 0.879 0.799 0.940 0.960 CONTROL: SignalizedPEAK VOLUMES = 45 674 910 219 ST SR EL El ER WL WT WR 883 88 63 716 122 743 530 69 470 56 43 389 86 398 246 42 TOTAL ML NT NR VOLUMES = 110 1320 1760 1 •SL 416 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM TOTAL 1 6820 3578 Appendix B Page 35 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: Jefferson Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W STREET: Higuera St/Rodeo Rd DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-018 LANES: NL|1010|NORTHBOUND NT NR|109| 1 SL|1010|SOUTHBOUND ST SR|109| 1 EL|1010|EASTBOUND ET ER|109| 1 WESTBOUND WL WI WR|109| 1 1 TOTAL 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 13 156 224 46 89 9 6 74 13 95 66 9 800 4:15 PM 13 159 202 50 89 8 4 92 2 85 82 5 791 4:30 PM 22 147 203 47 107 2 3 85 11 83 69 6 785 4:45 PM 17 184 221 54 128 13 7 76 10 82 67 7 866 5:00 PM 8 159 242 54 130 14 10 93 25 103 67 12 917 5:15 PM 14 172 232 48 104 12 12 89 29 104 58 6 880 5:30 PM 14 173 232 57 115 14 13 109 20 95 59 12 913 5:45 PM 9 170 204 60 121 16 8 98 12 96 62 12 868 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.972 0.941 0.912 0.942 0.975 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 37 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data fk. Surveying Services N-S STREET: La Cienega Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W STREET: Rodeo Rd DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-019 NORTHBOUND SOUTHBOUND NL NT NR SL ST SR EL LANES: 2 3 0 2 3 1 1 EASTBOUND ET ER WL|109| 1 1 WESTBOUND WT WR TOTAL|109| 1 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 82 542 9 28 428 43 35 57 25 48 270 34 1601 7:15 AM 71 487 10 21 463 38 30 65 29 42 281 42 1579 7:30 AM 76 510 17 29 482 42 26 84 32 34 293 65 1690 7:45 AM 94 514 6 35 477 46 29 91 39 50 290 64 1735 8:00 AM 87 444 11 25 542 36 31 112 52 62 253 79 1734 8:15 AM 56 487 9 27 562 46 43 102 42 48 261 76 1759 8:30 AM 68 439 9 19 495 41 26 113 33 36 203 49 1531 8:45 AM 36 424 6 37 459 43 28 92 31 45 257 76 1534 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9:45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM 'TOTAL NL NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 570 3847 77 221 3908 335 248 716 283 365 2108 485 13163 AM Peak Hr Begins at: 730 AM PEAK VOLUMES = 313 1955 43 116 2063 170 129 389 165 194 1097 284 6918 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.941 0.925 0.876 0.975 0.983 CONTROL: SignalizedAppendix B Page 38 Intersection Turning Movement Prepared by: National Data & Surveying Services N-S STREET: La Cienega Blvd DATE: 5/15/2008 LOCATION: City of Los Angeles E-W STREET: Rodeo Rd DAY: THURSDAY PROJECT# 08-2232-019 LANES: NL|1010|NORTHBOUND NT MR|109| 0 SOUTHBOUND SL ST SR|109| 3 1 EL|1010|EASTBOUND El ER|109| 1 WL|1010|WESTBOUND WT WR|109| 1 TOTAL 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 54 451 31 62 529 25 36 199 110 43 105 33 1678 4:15 PM 58 465 36 67 567 29 41 207 105 47 113 39 1774 4:30 PM 51 503 30 74 535 26 40 208 121 47 100 36 1771 4:45 PM 44 474 26 106 597 26 46 201 115 42 84 39 1800 5:00 PM 63 370 24 74 543 32 SS 255 86 53 116 31 1702 5:15 PM 60 441 35 75 527 16 42 193 94 49 113 55 1700 5:30 PM 45 620 35 79 600 15 46 257 102 54 156 56 2065 5:45 PM 42 472 36 94 604 25 39 208 153 30 111 39 1853 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM -TOTAL ML NT NR SL ST SR EL ET ER WL WT WR TOTAL VOLUMES = 417 3796 253 631 4502 194 345 1728 886 365 898 328 14343 PM Peak Hr Begins at: 500 PM PEAK VOLUMES = 210 1903 130 322 2274 88 182 913 435 186 496 181 7320 PEAK HR. FACTOR: 0.801 0.928 0.944 0.811 0.886 CONTROL: SignalizedAPPENDIX C Intersection Level-of-Service Worksheets Existing Conditions (Year 2008) Prepared far R&M,* Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis — 8663 Hayden Place July 14, 2008 KOA Corporation42 480 1.00 1,00 42 480|101010|42 480 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 42 480|1010|42 480 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 42 480 44 106 767 312 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 44 106 767 312 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 106 767 312 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 44 106 767 312 0 0 0 0 44 106 767 312 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 44 106 767 312 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.83 0.17 1.00 1.42 0.58 1600 2931 269 1600 2275 925 Appendix C Page 1 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:06 Page 4-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length 96) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Robertson Si & Washington B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.656 Loss Time (sec): 10 (YA-R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 45 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Robertson Dl Washington B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T R L - T R L T - R L - 7 - R II II Protected Protected Include Include|109| 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: Permitted Permitted Include Include o o 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 I I I I I Volume Module: Base Vol: 26 259 122 117 217 44 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 26 259 122 117 217 44 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 26 259 122 117 217 44 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 26 259 122 117 217 44 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 26 259 122 117 217 44 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 26 259 122 117 217 44 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.36 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 2175 1025 1600 1600 1600 I II II II i Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.34 0.34 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix C Page2 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:06 Page 5-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 National B1 & Washington B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (SeC): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.701 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R---4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): XXXXXX Optimal Cycle: 50 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: National B1 Washington B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T -P. I II II 11 I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1|109| II IJ II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 296 751 83 116 708 41 14 563 129 120 818 167 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 296 751 83 116 708 41 14 563 129 120 818 167 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 296 751 83 116 708 41 14 563 129 120 818 167 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PH? Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PH? Volume: 296 751 82 116 708 41 14 563 129 120 818 167 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 296 751 83 116 708 41 14 563 129 120 818 167 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MI.& Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 296 751 83 116 708 41 14 563 129 120 818 167 I I I II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.80 0.20 2.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2880 2882 318 2880 3025 175 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I II I I II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.04 0.23 0.23 0.01 0.18 0.08 0.08 0.26 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendfxC Page3 Existing AM Wed May 29, 2002 13:41:06 Page 6-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 La Cienega B1 & Washington El ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.964 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+12-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 147 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega B1 Washington El Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - IR. L - T - R L - T - R I II II II Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 258 1531 20 115 1266 37 51 557 96 59 1278 303 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 258 1531 20 115 1266 37 51 557 96 59 1278 303 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 258 1531 20 115 1266 37 51 557 96 59 1278 303 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P1-IF Volume: 258 1531 20 115 1266 37 51 557 96 59 1278 303 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 258 1531 20 115 1266 37 51 557 96 59 1278 303 POE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 258 1531 20 115 1266 37 51 557 96 59 1278 203 I II I I II I Saturation Plow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1,00 2.96 0.04 1.00 2.91 0.09 1.00 2.00 1,00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4738 62 1600 4664 136 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I I I II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.32 0.32 0.07 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.17 0.06 0.04 0.40 0.19 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traf fix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix C Pace 4 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:07 Page 7-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Hayden Au & National El ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.00: 0.603 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 40 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av National El Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 I H H II I Volume Module: Ease Vol: 505 0 44 0 0 0 0 663 162 118 775 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 505 0 44 0 0 0 0 663 162 118 775 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserEyVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 505 0 44 0 0 0 0 663 162 118 775 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 505 0 44 0 0 0 0 663 162 118 775 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 505 0 44 0 0 0 0 663 162 118 775 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 505 0 44 0 0 0 0 663 162 118 775 0 1 I Ji 1 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.84 0.00 0_16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0_00 1.61 0.39 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 2944 0 256 0 0 0 0 2572 628 1600 3200 0 I II II Il I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.17 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 0.07 0.24 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PRAppendix C Page 5 Page 4-1 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 14:22:48 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Eastham Dr & National El ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: R( 10.0] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Eastham Dr National El Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 486 121 0 979 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 426 121 0 979 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 486 121 0 979 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHE Adj: 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 26 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 26 0 I I|109| 0 0 486 121 0 979 0|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0|109| 0 0 486 121 0 979 0 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 6.2 7.1 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.3 3.5 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 11 11 304 1222 1586 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 741 158 109 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 741 152 109 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.04 0.00 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx I I II 1 I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.1 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 10.0 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * B * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - FT LT - LTR - FT LT - LTR - FT LT - LTR - FT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * A * * * * * ApproachDel: 10.0 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: B * * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traf fix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix C Page 6 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:07 Page 9-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Hayden Av & Warner Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.1 Worst Case Level Of Service: E[ 36.1] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av Warner Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L - T R L - T R L T R|109| 11 II II I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 1! 0 0|109| I! 11 H 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 578 110 69 201 0 0 0 0 150 0 24 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Pse: 0 578 110 69 201 0 0 0 0 150 0 24 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial But: 0 578 110 69 201 0 0 0 0 150 0 24 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Volume: 0 578 110 69 201 0 0 0 0 150 0 24 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 578 110 69 201 0 0 0 0 150 0 24 II II 11 I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - ET LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 283 xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 3.8 xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 36.1 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * A * * * * * * E * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 36.1 ApproachLOS: * * * E ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 11 11 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 688 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 972 972 633 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 916 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 282 254 483 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 916 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 266 235 483 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.56 0.00 0.05 11 1 Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 6,2 7.1 6.5 6.2 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 Appendix C Page 7 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:07 Page 10-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HON Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 47 Eastham Drive & Warner Drive **************************************************************************k***** Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: Af 9.6] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Eastham Drive Warner Drive Approach: North Bound South Hound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L T R L - T R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 00 l0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 126 77 0 0 104 9 11 0 85 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 126 77 0 0 104 9 11 0 85 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Slit; 126 77 0 0 104 9 11 0 85 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 126 77 0 0 104 9 11 0 85 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 126 77 0 0 104 9 11 0 85 0 0 0 I II II II I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 I II II Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 113 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 438 438 109 480 442 77 Potent Cap.: 1489 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 580 516 951 499 513 990 Move Cap.: 1489 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 540 469 951 423 466 990 Volume/Cap: 0.08 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 Stop Sign Include 0 0 11 0 0 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx Control Del: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - ET LT - LTR - RT LT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx SharedQueue: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * *************************************************** XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx - LTR RT LT - LTR - RT 874 xxxxx xxxx 0 xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.6 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx A 9.6 xxxxxx A ***************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 2,44)Appendix C Page8 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:07 Page 11-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 48 Lucerne Av & Higuera St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.651 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: 13 ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Lucerne Av Higuera St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 00 U0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 I II 11 H 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 159 0 113 1 2 5 1 166 102 216 230 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 159 0 113 1 2 5 1 166 102 216 230 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 159 0 113 1 2 5 1 166 102 216 230 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 159 0 113 1 2 5 1 166 102 216 230 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 159 0 113 1 2 5 1 166 102 216 230 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 159 0 113 1 2 5 1 166 102 216 230 0 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.58 0.00 0.42 0.12 0.25 0.63 0.01 0.61 0.38 0.48 0.52 0.00 Final Sat.: 359 0 255 64 129 322 3 420 258 332 354 0 1 II II 11 I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.44 xxxx 0.44 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.65 0.65 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 12.3 0.0 12.3 8.9 8.9 8.9 11.1 11.1 11.1 16.6 16.6 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 12.3 0.0 12.3 8.9 8.9 8.9 11.1 11.1 11.1 16.6 16.6 0.0 LOS by Move: B * B A A A B B 8 C C * ApproachDel: 12.3 8.9 11.1 16.6 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 12.3 8.9 11.1 16.6 LOS by Appr: B A B C AllWayAvgQ: 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 241°Appendix G Page9 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:07 Page 12-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 49 Hayden Av Higuera St ***************************k**************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.808 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 17.6 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av Higuera St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II I I I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 00 l!0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 I II I I I I I Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 23 19 0 39 215 89 1 69 22 16 598 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 1 23 19 0 39 215 89 1 69 22 16 598 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 1 23 19 0 39 215 89 1 69 22 16 598 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEE' Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 1 23 19 0 39 215 89 1 69 22 16 598 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 23 19 0 39 215 89 1 69 22 16 598 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1 23 19 0 39 215 89 1 69 22 16 598 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.02 0.54 0.44 0.00 0.15 0.85 1.00 0.13 0.87 0.07 0.93 1.00 Final Sat.: 13 291 241 0 97 534 528 83 547 44 596 740 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.08 xxxx 0.40 0.40 0.17 0.01 0.13 0.50 0.03 0.81 Grit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 9.4 9.4 9.4 0,011.4 11.4 10.4 8.7 6.7 8.6 8.6 23.6 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 9.4 9.4 9.4 0.0 11.4 11.4 10.4 8.7 8.7 8.6 8.6 23.6 LOS by Move: A A A * Ei B B A A A A C ApproachDel: 9.4 11.4 9.6 22.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 9.4 11.4 9.6 22.7 LOS by Appr: A B A C AllWayAvgQ: 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 3.3 3.3 ********************************************************************************|109| 1 1 1 Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix C Page 10 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:07 Page 13-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10 Eastham Drive & Higuera Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (Sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.DO: 0.433 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y1-R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 30 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Eastham Drive Higuera Street Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R 1- T - R L - T - R L - T - R I I I I I I I I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 I II II I I I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 54 0 122 9 67 0 0 581 223 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 0 0 54 0 122 9 67 0 0 581 223 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 34 0 122 9 67 0 0 581 223 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 54 0 122 9 67 0 0 581 223 Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 54 0 122 9 67 0 0 581 223 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 54 0 122 9 67 0 0 581 223 I II II II 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1500 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.45 0.55 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 1600 3200 0 0 2312 888 I II I I II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKI I Appendix C Page 11 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:07 Page 14-1 2665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 411 Lucerne Ave & Duquesne Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.944 Loss Time (sec): 0 (YR=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 30.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Lucerne Ave Duquesne Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II 11 I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 00 1I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 201 0 95 93 397 0 0 553 231 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 0 0 201 0 95 93 397 0 0 552 231 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 201 0 95 93 397 0 0 552 231 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEE Volume: 0 0 0 201 0 95 93 397 0 0 553 231 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 201 0 95 93 397 0 0 553 231 POE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 201 0 95 93 297 0 0 553 231 I 11 II I I I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.00 0.32 0.19 0.81 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 368 0 174 114 486 0 0 586 661 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.55 xxxx 0.55 0.82 0.82 xxxx xxxx 0.94 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 16.5 29.2 29.2 0.0 0.0 48.5 11.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.5 0.0 16.5 29.2 29.2 0.0 0.0 48.5 11.0 LOS by Move: * * C C D D * * E 13 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 16.5 29.2 37.5 Delay Adj: xxxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: xxxxxx 16.5 29.2 27.5 LOS by Appr: * C D E AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 3.4 2.4 3.4 0.0 6.5 0.5 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 250 Appendix C Page 12 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 12:41:07 Page 15-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length 96) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 412 Jefferson B1 & Duquesne Av ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.882 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 92 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson B1 Duquesne Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I I} 11 1J I Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Include Include Ovl Include|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 417 944 31 12 1128 295 235 34 336 6 36 9 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 417 944 31 12 1128 395 235 34 336 6 36 9 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 417 944 31 12 1128 395 235 34 336 6 36 9 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 417 944 31 12 1128 395 235 34 336 6 36 9 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 417 944 31 12 1128 395 235 34 336 6 36 9 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 417 944 31 12 1128 395 235 24 336 6 36 9 OvlAdjVol: 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3098 102 1600 3200 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 I I I I I I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.26 0.30 0.30 0.01 0.35 0.25 0.15 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.02 0.01 OvlAdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix C Page 13 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:07 Page 16-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) *******************k************************************************************ Intersection #13 Robertson 81 & Venice B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): X Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (seciveh): xLX Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Roberston 131 Venice B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 1 II 11 11 I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10201 0 1 I 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 11 II 11 I Volume Module: Base Vol: 179 369 19 289 240 321 477 2149 97 46 1818 334 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 179 369 19 269 240 321 477 2149 97 46 1818 324 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 179 369 19 289 240 321 477 2149 97 46 1818 334 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 REF Volume: 179 369 19 289 240 321 477 2149 97 46 1818 334 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 179 369 19 289 240 321 477 2149 97 46 1818 334 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 179 369 19 289 240 321 525 2149 97 46 1818 334 1 11 11 11 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1375 2750 1375 1375 1375 1375 2750 4125 1375 1375 4125 1375 1 11 11 -11 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.13 0.01 0.21 0.17 0.23 0.19 0.52 0.07 0.03 0.44 0.24 Crit Volume: 185 289 262 606 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix C Page 14 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:07 Page 17-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #14 National 131 & Venice 81 *******************************k************************************************ Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(x): 0 9'6 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: National B1 Venice 131 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T-R L-T-R L-T- R 1- T - R II 11 11 1 Control: Permitted Prot+Permit Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 o D 0 0 o o 0 0 o Lanes: I 0 1 1 0 101 1 0 1 0 2 I 0 I 0 2 I 0 1 II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 143 769 30 106 419 89 162 1993 337 74 1953 113 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Dee: 143 769 30 106 419 89 162 1993 337 74 1953 113 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 143 769 30 106 419 89 162 1993 337 74 1953 113 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 143 769 30 106 419 89 162 1993 237 74 1953 113 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 143 769 30 106 419 89 162 1993 337 74 1953 113 BCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 143 769 30 106 419 89 162 1993 337 74 1953 112 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.92 0.08 1.00 1.65 0.35 1.00 2.57 0.43 1.00 2.84 0.16 Final Sat.: 1375 2647 103 1375 2268 482 1375 3528 597 1375 3899 226 I I II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.18 0.18 0.]4 0.56 0.56 0.05 0.50 0.5 Crit Volume: 400 106 1 68 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ** * ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 2S3Appendix C Page 15 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2808 13:41:07 Page 18-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection las La Cienega El & Fairfax/Blackwelder ************************************************************************** ***** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1. 7 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega B1 Fairfax Av/Blackwelder St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I 11 IF II I Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 II 11 II 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 1746 976 0 1340 28 9 0 11 1037 28 6 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 25 1746 976 0 1340 28 9 0 11 1037 28 6 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put; 25 1746 976 0 1340 28 9 0 11 1037 28 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 25 1746 0 0 1340 28 9 0 11 1037 28 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 25 1746 0 0 1340 28 9 0 11 1037 28 6 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 25 1746 0 0 1340 28 9 0 11 1141 28 6 I II IF II 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.94 0.06 0.45 0.00 0.55 2.00 0.82 0.18 Final Sat.: 1425 2850 1425 0 4188 88 641 0 784 2850 1174 251 I 11 11 11 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.61, 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.40 0.02 0.02 Crit Volume: 87,á 0 20 570 Crit Moves: **1* **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK1425 1425 1425 1425 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.59 1.34 1.66 0.00 834 1908 2367 0 Appenck C Page 16 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:07 Page 19-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #18 Jefferson B1 & National 131 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(10: 0.5 8 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxybcx Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson BI National BI Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L T - R L T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 555 0 0 0 0 343 142 707 965 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 555 0 0 0 0 343 142 707 965 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 555 0 0 0 0 343 142 707 965 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 555 0 0 0 0 343 142 707 965 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 555 0 0 0 0 343 142 707 965 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 611 0 0 0 0 343 142 778 965 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.41 Final Sat.: 0 0 2850 0 0 0 0 2016 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.00 Crit Volume: 0 0 243 5 Crit Moves: **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendixC Page 17 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:07 Page 20-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #17 La Cienega 51 & Jefferson Bl ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.766 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega B1 Jefferson 51 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L T - R L T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 II 11 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 76 2240 89 31 1987 482 354 405 115 312 1025 104 Growth Ad]: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 76 2240 89 31 1987 482 354 405 115 312 1035 104 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 75 2240 89 31 1987 482 354 405 115 312 1035 104 User Ad]: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Ad]: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 76 2240 89 31 1987 482 354 405 115 312 1035 104 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 Reduced Vol: 76 2240 89 31 1987 482 354 405 115 212 1035 104 PCE Ad]: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Ad]; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1-10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 78 2240 89 31 1987 482 389 405 115 343 1025 104 1 11 11 11 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.89 0.11 1.00 3.00 1,00 2.00 1.56 0.44 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1425 4112 163 1425 4275 1425 2850 2220 630 2850 2850 1425 1 11 11 11 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.54 0.54 0.02 0.46 0.34 0.14 0.18 0.18 0.12 0.36 0.07 Crit Volume: 776 31 195 518 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppenc5xc Page 18 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:07 Page 21-1 8565 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 418 Jefferson B1 & Higuera/Rodeo ******************************************************************************” Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.787 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 87 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson BI Higuera St/Rodeo Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T-R L-T-R L-T- R L - T - R 11 II II Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2010 1 11 II ii I Volume Module: Base Vol: 86 461 505 144 670 69 11 90 14 806 655 95 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 86 461 505 144 670 69 11 90 14 806 655 99 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 86 461 505 144 670 69 11 90 14 806 655 99 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PH? Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 86 461 0 144 670 69 11 90 14 806 655 99 Reduct Vol! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 86 461 0 144 670 69 11 90 14 806 655 99 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ML? Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 86 461 0 144 670 69 11 90 14 887 655 99 - Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1425 2850 1425 1425 2850 1425 1425 2850 1425 2850 1425 1425 II I I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.16 0.00 0.10 0.24 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.31 0.46 0.07 Crit Volume: 86 335 !* 5 *** 65! Crit Moves: **** **** * ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendixC Page 19 Existing AM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:07 Page 22-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #19 La Cienega 81 & Rodeo Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(x): 1.159 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): XXXXXX Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega B1 Rodeo Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L -7- R L T R L - T - R|109| I 1 Control: Protected Protected Prot+Permit Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2021 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 11 II 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 313 1955 43 116 2063 170 129 385 165 194 1097 284 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 313 1955 43 116 2063 170 129 359 165 194 1097 284 Added VoI: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 313 1955 43 116 2063 170 129 389 165 194 1097 284 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 313 1955 43 116 2063 170 129 389 165 194 1097 284 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 313 1955 43 116 2063 170 129 389 165 194 1097 284 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 344 1955 43 128 2063 170 129 389 165 194 1097 284 I II II I I 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.94 0.05 2.00 2.77 0.23 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2750 4036 89 2750 3811 314 1375 2750 1375 1375 2750 1375 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.48 0.48 0.05 0.54 0.54 0.09 0.14 0.12 0.14 0.40 0.21 Crit Volume: 172 744 129 549 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendixC Page 20 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 4-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU I(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) *********************************k********************************************** Intersection 41 Robertson Bl & Washington B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.615 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y±R,-,4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 41 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Robertson B1 Washington B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - I - R L - T - R L - I - R|109| 11 11 11 Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Include Include Include Include|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: 28 197 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 28 197 Added Vol: 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 Initial Fut: 28 197 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 28 197 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Reduced Vol: 28 197 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 28 197 1 Saturation Flow Module Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.66 Final Sat.: 1600 2660 40 132 241 61 128 926 43 70 525 160 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 40 132 241 61 128 926 43 70 525 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 132 241 61 128 926 43 70 525 160 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 40 132 241 61 128 926 43 70 525 160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 132 241 61 128 926 43 70 525 160 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 40 132 241 61 128 926 43 70 525 160 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.34 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.91 0.09 1.00 1.53 0.47 540 1600 1600 1600 1600 3058 142 1600 2453 747 1 11 11 11 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.15 0.04 0.08 0.30 0.30 0.04 0.21 0.21 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK zslAppendix C Page 21 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 5-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak flour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 National El & Washington B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(A): 0.741 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+12.4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 56 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: National 131 Washington B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 I 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 170 525 70 184 839 35 47 840 253 74 559 138 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 170 525 70 184 839 35 47 840 253 74 559 138 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 170 525 70 184 839 35 47 840 253 74 559 138 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 170 525 70 184 839 35 47 840 253 74 559 138 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 170 525 70 184 839 35 47 640 253 74 559 138 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 170 525 70 184 839 35 47 840 253 74 559 138 I I I I I I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.76 0.24 2.00 1.92 0.08 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2880 2824 376 2880 3072 128 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I I I H I I I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.19 0.19 0.06 0.27 0.27 0.03 0.26 0.16 0.05 0.17 0.09 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix C Page 22 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 6-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 La Cienega 131 & Washington B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.881 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 91 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega El Washington B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I I I I I I I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I II II il I Volume Module: Base Vol: 127 1204 53 283 1385 28 40 974 154 60 505 107 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 127 1204 53 283 1385 28 40 974 154 60 505 107 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 127 1204 53 283 1385 28 40 974 154 60 505 107 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 127 1204 53 283 1385 28 40 974 154 60 505 107 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 127 1204 53 282 1285 28 40 974 154 60 505 107 BCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 127 1204 53 283 1385 28 40 974 154 60 505 107 I I I I I II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.94 0.06 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4598 202 1600 4705 95 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.30 0.10 0.04 0.16 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix C Page 23 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 7-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU Moss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Hayden Av & National B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.668 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av National B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10 1!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 I II I I I I I Volume Module: Base Vol: 505 0 96 0 0 0 0 990 178 25 252 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bge: 505 0 96 0 0 0 0 990 178 25 252 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserEyVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 505 0 96 0 0 0 0 990 178 25 252 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 505 0 96 0 0 0 0 990 178 25 252 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 505 0 96 0 0 0 0 990 178 25 252 0 POE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 505 0 96 0 0 0 0 990 178 25 252 0 i II II Il I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.68 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.70 0.30 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 2689 0 511 0 0 0 0 2712 488 1600 3200 0 I I II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.00 0,19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.37 0.02 0.08 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK .452-Movement: L - T R Control: Stop Sign Rights: Include Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 Appendix C Page 24 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 14:22:56 Page 4-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Eastham Dr & National 131 ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 0.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: BE 12.5] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Eastham Dr Approach: North Bound South Bound National 131 East Bound West Bound I I Volume Module: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II Stop Sign Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Include Include Include 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 II II I Base Vol: 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 1013 59 0 266 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 1013 59 0 266 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 1013 59 0 266 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 1013 59 0 266 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 1013 59 0 266 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx 6.2 7.1 6.5 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.3 3.5 4.0 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx I I I I I I 536 773 1338 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 549 319 154 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 549 279 154 xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.12 0.00 0.00 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx I I I I I I I I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx 0.4 xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx 12.5 xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * B * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.0 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: * * * * * * A * * * * * ApproachDel: 12.5 xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: 8 * * * k******************************************************************************* Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 7.(0-3Appendix C Page 25 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 9-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Hayden Av & Warner Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 2.2 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 14.0] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av Warner Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Sound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L T - R L T - R 1- T - R|109| 11 II II Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 1L0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 398 89 60 103 0 0 0 0 46 0 33 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 398 89 60 103 0 0 0 0 46 0 33 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserSyVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 398 89 60 103 0 0 0 0 46 0 33 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.00 P1-IF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 398 89 60 103 0 0 0 0 46 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 398 89 60 103 0 0 0 0 46 0 I II 11 II 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 11 11 487 xxxx xxxxx XXXX xxxx xxxxx 666 666 442 1086 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 428 383 619 1086 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 409 361 619 0.06 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.11 0.00 0.05 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 33|1010|33 6.2 3.3 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: Movement: LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx A IT - LTR - RT LT - LTR PT IT - LTR - PT xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 477 xxxxx 0.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.6 xxxxx 8.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 14.0 xxxxx A ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 14.0 ApproachLOS: ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK ark*********** ***************************************** Appendix C Page 26 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 10-1 6665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 47 2astham Drive & Warner Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.3 Worst Case Level Of Service: Af 9.9] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Bastham Drive Warner Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L - T - R L - I - R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 00 10 0 00 1! 0 0 I I 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 41 37 0 0 163 6 8 0 129 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 41 37 0 0 163 6 8 0 129 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 41 37 0 0 163 6 8 0 129 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 O 0 163 6 8 0 129 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 163 6 8 0 129 0 0 0 II II II I PHF Volume: 41 37 Reduct Vol: 0 0 FinalVolume: 41 37 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 II II Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 169 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 285 285 166 350 288 37 Potent Cap.: 1421 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 710 628 884 609 625 1041 Move Cap.: 1421 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 694 609 884 508 607 1041 Volume/Cap: 0.03 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.01 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00|1010| 6.2 7.1 6.5 3.3 3.5 4.0 I I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A Movement: LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A ApproachDel: xxxxxx ApproachLOS: **************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK I 1 c)9AppendixC Rags 27 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 11-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #8 Lucerne Av & Higuera St ***************************************************k*************************** Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.364 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R.4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.7 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Lucerne Av Higuera St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 11 11 11 1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 11 11 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 112 1 97 0 2 1 2 161 123 82 126 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 112 1 97 0 2 1 2 161 123 82 126 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 112 1 97 0 2 1 2 161 123 82 126 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 112 1 97 0 2 1 2 161 123 82 126 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 112 1 97 0 2 1 2 161 123 82 126 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 112 1 97 0 2 1 2 161 123 82 126 0 I II II II 1 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.53 0.01 0.46 0.00 0.67 0.33 0.01 0.56 0.43 0.39 0.61 0.00 Final Sat.: 372 3 322 0 418 209 5 443 338 283 435 0 1 11 II II 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.30 0.30 0.30 xxxx 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.29 0.29 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 9.7 9.7 9.7 0.0 8.1 8.1 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.7 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 9.7 9.7 9.7 0.0 8.1 8.1 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.7 0.0 LOS by Move: A A A * A A A A A A A * ApproachDel: 9.7 8.1 9.8 9.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 9.7 8.1 9.8 9.7 LOS by Appr: A A A A AllWayAvg!): 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppenchxC Page 28 Existing PM Wed May 22, 2008 13:41:20 Page 12-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 Hail 4-Way Stop Method (Puture Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9 Hayden Av & Higuera St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.436 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.5 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av Higuera St Approach: North Bound South Hound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 II il II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 136 163 0 38 123 111 1 79 21 1 239 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 136 163 0 38 123 111 1 79 21 1 239 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 136 163 0 38 123 111 1 79 21 1 239 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 136 163 0 38 123 111 1 79 21 1 239 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 136 163 0 38 123 111 1 79 21 1 239 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 136 163 0 38 123 111 1 79 21 1 239 1 II I I II I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.45 0.55 0.00 0.24 0.76 1.00 0.17 0.83 0.16 0.84 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 312 374 0 155 501 524 107 514 92 478 652 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.44 0.44 xxxx 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.01 0.15 0.23 0.00 0.37 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 11.4 11.4 0.0 9.5 9.5 10.7 8.8 8.8 8.9 8.9 10.6 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 11.4 11.4 0.0 9.5 9.5 10.7 8.8 8.8 8.9 8.9 10.6 LOS by Move: * B B * A A B A A A A B ApproachDel: 11.4 9.6 9.9 10.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 11.4 9.5 9.9 10.4 LOS by Appr: B A A B AllWayAvgQ: 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ (MUTSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix C Page 29 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 13-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length P6) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10 Eastham Drive & Higuera Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.384 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Eastham Drive Higuera Street Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 1 II 11 11 I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 H II 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 277 0 17 10 241 0 0 274 61 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 277 0 17 10 241 0 0 274 61 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 277 0 17 10 241 0 0 274 61 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 0 0 0 277 0 17 10 241 0 0 274 61 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 277 0 17 10 241 0 0 274 61 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adi: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 277 0 17 10 241 0 0 274 61|109| II 11 11 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 0.36 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 1600 3200 0 0 2617 583 I 1I II 11 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 7.GE)Appendix C Page 30 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 14-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 411 Lucerne Ave & Duquesne Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.880 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R.4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.0 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Lucerne Ave Duquesne Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 1 11 11 II I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 I II II 11 I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 194 0 81 69 501 0 0 331 162 Growth Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 0 0 194 0 81 69 501 0 0 331 162 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 194 0 81 69 501 0 0 231 162 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 0 0 0 194 0 81 69 501 0 0 331 162 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 194 0 81 69 501 0 0 331 162 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 194 0 81 69 501 0 0 331 162 1 II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.29 0.12 0.88 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 391 0 163 78 569 0 0 582 656 1 II II If I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.50 xxxx 0.50 0.88 0.88 xxxx xxxx 0.57 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.7 0.0 14.7 34.8 34.8 0.0 0.0 16.1 9.7 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDeliVen: 0.0 0,0 0.0 14.7 0.0 14.7 34.8 34.8 0.0 0.0 16.1 9.7 LOS by Move: * * * B * B D D * * C A ApproachDel: xxxxxx 14.7 34.8 14.0 Delay Adj: xxxxX 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: xxxxxx 14.7 34.8 14.0 LOS by Appr: * B D B AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 0.0 1.2 0.3 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix C Page 31 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 15-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #12 Jefferson El & Duquesne Av ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.798 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R.4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 66 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson El Duquesne Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T R L - T - R L - T R L - T R Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Include Include Ovl Include|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: Volume Module: Base Vol: 311 1279 17 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial See: 311 1279 17 Added Vol: 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 311 1279 17 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 311 1279 17 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 311 1279 17 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 311 1279 17 OvlAdjVol: 24 729 208 416 53 307 18 29 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 24 729 208 416 53 307 18 29 23|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 729 208 416 53 307 18 29 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 24 729 208 416 53 307 18 29 23|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 729 208 416 53 307 18 29 23 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 24 729 208 416 53 307 18 29 23|1010|Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.97 0.03 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final. Sat.: 1600 3158 42 1600 3200 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 I II I I I I I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.41 0.40 0.02 0.23 0.13 0.26 0.03 0.19 0.01 0.02 0.01 OvlAdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (0) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK1 Appendix C Page 32 Existing PM Wed May 28. 2008 13:41:20 Page 16-1 0665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #13 Robertson Si & Venice 131 *************************************************************************** *** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0. 7 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xx xx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Roberston 131 Venice 131 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T-R L-T-R L-T-R L-T- R I II 11 11 I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 I II II 11 I Volume Module: Base Vol: 143 261 48 228 232 368 482 2427 118 52 1611 85 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 142 261 48 228 232 368 482 2427 118 52 1611 85 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Rut: 143 261 48 228 232 368 482 2427 118 52 1611 85 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 143 261 48 228 232 268 482 2427 118 52 1611 85 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 Reduced Vol: 142 261 48 228 232 368 482 2427 118 52 1611 85 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 143 261 48 228 222 368 530 2427 118 52 1611 85 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1375 1275 1375 1375 1875 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1275 Adjustment: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.99 1.01 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1375 2750 1375 1363 1387 1375 2750 4125 1375 1275 4125 1375 1 I II Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.09 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.27 0.19 0.59 0.09 0.04 0.39 0.06 Crit Volume: 143 2/0 809 52 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU t MONTEREY PKAppendixC Page 33 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 17-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #14 National 81 & Venice B1 *********************************************k********************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. 0: 1.068 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (seciveh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street. Name: National B1 Venice 81 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T R L T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Prot+Permit Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 143 505 58 144 722 113 151 2332 249 48 1595 86 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 143 505 58 144 722 113 151 2332 249 48 1595 86 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 143 505 58 144 722 113 151 2332 249 48 1595 86 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 143 505 58 144 722 113 151 2332 249 48 1595 86 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 143 505 58 144 722 113 151 2332 249 48 1595 86 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 143 505 58 144 722 113 151 2332 249 48 1595 86 I II II- II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.79 0.21 1.00 1.73 0.27 1.00 2.71 0.29 1.00 2.85 0.15 Final Sat.: 1375 2467 283 1375 2378 372 1375 3727 398 1375 3914 211 - I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.11 0.63 0.63 0.03 0.41 0.41 Crit Volume: 143 418 860 48 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ************************************************************M***************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix C Page 34 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 18-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 222 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #15 La Cienega BI & Fairfax/Blackwelder ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X) Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): Optimal Cycle: 105 Level Of Service: Street Name: La Cienega B1 Fairfax Av/Blackwelder St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - I - R L -T-R L -T- R I I! I il I Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 II II ll I Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 1207 1401 0 1607 a 33 0 6 931 5 6 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 10 1207 1401 0 1607 8 33 0 6 931 5 8 Added Vol: o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o o PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Initial Put: 10 1207 1401 0 1607 6 33 0 6 931 5 8 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 10 1207 o 0 1607 a 33 o 6 931 5 8 Reduct Vol: 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 Reduced Vol: 10 1207 0 0 1607 a 33 0 6 931 5 8 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 10 1207 o 0 1607 8 33 0 6 1024 5 a I 1 1 1 1 1 1 - -I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.99 0.01 0.85 0.00 0.15 2.00 0.38 0.62 Final Sat.: 1425 2850 1425 0 4254 21 1206 0 219 2850 548 877 I 1 1 1 I ( I I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.36 0.01 0-01 Crit Volume: 6 *** o 39 512 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PE(Capacity Analysis Module: II Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.34 Crit Volume: 4 Crit Moves: * * * If 11 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.36 0.16 0.16 0.00|109| 515 **** **** Appendix C Page 35 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 19-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** ' Intersection #16 Jefferson Bl. & National B1 *******************************************************************************r Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap,(M): 0.705 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 63 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson 131 National 131 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I 11 II II I Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Include Min. Green: Lanes: 254 381 244 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 254 381 244 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254 381 244 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 254 381 244 0 0 0 0 0 254 381 244 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 254 419 244 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 I 11 II 11 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 890 0 0 0 0 776 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 0 0 890 0 0 0 0 776 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q Initial Fut: 0 0 890 0 0 0 0 776 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PIT Volume: 0 0 890 0 0 0 0 776 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 890 0 0 0 0 776 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 979 0 0 0 0 776 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.51 Final Sat.: 0 0 2850 0 0 0 0 2147 1425 1425 1425 1425 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 0.49 1.90 1.10 0.00 703 2702 1573 0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendixC Page 36 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 20-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #17 La Cienega BI & Jefferson Dl ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.985 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: 2 ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega El Jefferson El Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T-R L-T-R L-T- R L - T - R 1 II 11 11 1 Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1030 201 Control: Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Permitted Ovl|109| 2 0 1 1 0 20 11 I I Volume Module: Base Vol: 41 2011 243 42 2233 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 41 2011 243 42 2233 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 41 2011 243 42 2233 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 41 2011 243 42 2233 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 2011 243 42 2233 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 41 2011 243 42 2233 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.68 0.32 1.00 3.00 Final Sat.: 1425 3814 461 1425 4275 1 11 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.53 0.53 0.03 0.52 Crit Volume: 751 42 Crit Moves: **** **** 199 587 791 247 166 390 72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 199 587 791 247 166 390 72|109| 0 0 0 0|109| 0 0 0 0 0 199 587 791 247 166 390 72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 199 587 791 247 166 390 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 199 587 791 247 166 390 72 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 199 646 791 247 183 390 72 1 I I 1 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.52 0.48 2.00 2.00 1.00 1425 2850 2172 678 2850 21350 1425 0.14 0.23 0.36 0.36 0.06 0.14 0.05 519 91 **** **** ***************************************k**************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix C Page 37 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 21-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #18 Jefferson BI & Higuera/Rodeo ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0 6 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: XX XX )a- ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson 51 Higuera St/Rodeo Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I 11 II 11 I Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 I I I /1 I I 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 45 674 910 219 470 56 43 389 86 398 246 42 Growth Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bee: 45 674 910 219 470 56 43 389 86 398 246 42 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 45 674 910 219 470 56 43 389 86 398 246 42 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 45 674 0 219 470 56 43 389 86 398 246 42 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 45 674 0 219 470 56 43 389 86 398 246 42 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 45 674 0 219 470 56 43 389 86 438 246 42 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1_00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1-00 Final Sat.: 1425 2850 1425 1425 2850 1425 1425 2850 1425 2850 1425 1425 I 11 II I 1 I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.24 0.00 0.15 0.16 0.04 0.03 0.14 0.06 0.15 0.17 0.03 Crit Volume: 337 219 195 246 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix C Page 38 Existing PM Wed May 28, 2008 13:41:20 Page 22-1 8665 Hayden Place Existing 2008 Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #19 La Cienega B1 & Rodeo Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (Sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.124 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega B1 Rodeo Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L T - R L - T R L T - R Control: Protected Protected Prot+Permit Protected Rights: Include Include Ov1 Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2021 0 1020 1 0 2 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 210 1903 130 322 2274 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 210 1903 130 322 2274 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 210 1903 130 322 2274 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 210 1903 130 322 2274 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 210 1903 130 322 2274 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 FinalVolume: 231 1903 130 854 2274 Saturation Flow Module: II Sat/Lane: 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.81 0.19 2.00 2.89 Final Sat.: 2750 3861 264 2750 3971 -1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.49 0.49 0.13 0.57 Crit Volume: 116 787 Crit Moves: **** **** 88 182 913 435 186 496 181 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 88 182 912 435 188 496 181 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 182 913 435 186 496 181 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 88 182 913 435 186 496 181 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 182 913 435 186 496 181 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 88 182 913 435 186 496 181 I / 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 154 1375 2780 1375 1375 2750 1375 I I II 0.57 0.13 0.33 0.32 0.14 0.18 0.13 457 186 **** **** **********************W********************************************************* Traftix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAPPENDIX D Intersection Level-of-Service Worksheets Ambient Growth and Related Projects Conditions (Year 2010) Prepared for 12Ethink Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place July 14, 2008 KOA CorporationAppendix D Pagel Future No Project AM - HaydPri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:21 Page 7-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Robertson 81 & Washington 81 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.825 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 76 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Robertson 731 Washington 131 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L -7- R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10110 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol.: 26 259 122 117 217 44 42 480 44 106 767 312 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 27 264 124 119 221 45 43 490 45 108 782 318 Added Vol: 4 2 0 81 8 1 9 196 16 0 343 14 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 31 266 124 200 229 46 52 686 61 108 1125 332 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 31 266 124 200 229 46 52 686 61 108 1125 332 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 31 266 124 200 229 46 52 686 61 108 1125 322 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 31 266 124 200 229 46 52 686, 61 108 1125 332 I I I I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 160p 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.36 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 1.54 0.46 Final Sat.: 1600 2181 1019 1600 1600 1600 1600 2939 261 1600 2471 729 I I I I I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.23 0.23 0.07 0.46 0.46 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK zA51Appendix D Page2 Future No Project AM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:21 Page 8-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 442 National El & Washington El ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.894 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 97 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: National El Washington B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T R L T R L T - R L T - R I II Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 296 751 83 116 708 41 14 563 129 120 818 167 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 302 766 85 118 722 42 14 574 132 122 834 170 Added Vol: 99 22 6 -10 30 2 3 158 180 11 430 4 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 401 788 91 108 752 44 17 732 312 133 1264 174 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 401 788 91 108 752 44 17 732 312 133 1264 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 401 788 91 108 752 44 17 732 212 133 1264 174 pC2 Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 401 788 91 108 752 44 17 732 312 133 1264 174 I I I II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.79 0.21 2.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2880 2870 330 2880 3024 176 1600 3200 1600 1600 2200 1600 I I I II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.27 0.27 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.01 0.23 0.19 0.08 0.40 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix D Page3 Future No Project AM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:21 Page 9-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 La Cienega El & Washington 31 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.181 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega 51 Washington Bl Approach: North Bound South Sound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - V - R L - T - R 1 11 II 11 I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I 11 II I I I Volume Module: Base Vol: 258 1531 20 115 1266 37 51 557 96 59 1278 303 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Sse: 263 1562 20 117 1291 38 52 568 98 60 1304 309 Added Vol: 125 18 2 1 51 23 33 125 21 3 273 9 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 388 1580 22 118 1342 61 85 693 119 63 1577 318 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 388 1580 22 118 1342 61 85 693 119 63 1577 318 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 388 1580 22 118 1342 61 85 693 119 63 1577 318 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 388 1580 22 118 1342 61 85 693 119 63 1577 318 1 II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.96 0.04 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4733 67 1600 4592 208 1600 2200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I 11 11 II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.24 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.22 0.07 0.04 0.49 0.20 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 2pAAppendix D Page 4 Future No Project AM - HaydPri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:21 Page 10-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Hayden Av & National B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.710 Loss Time (sec): 10 ("Yi-R.4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 51 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av National B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II I I I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 I II II II Volume Module: Base Vol: 505 0 44 0 0 0 0 663 162 118 775 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 515 0 45 0 0 0 0 676 165 120 791 0 Added Vol: 12 0 8 0 0 0 0 189 22 39 109 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 527 0 53 0 0 0 0 865 187 159 900 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 527 0 53 0 0 0 0 865 187 159 900 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 527 0 53 0 0 0 0 865 187 159 900 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 527 0 53 0 0 0 0 865 187 159 900 0 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.82 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 0.36 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 2908 0 292 0 0 0 0 2631 569 1600 3200 0 I Ii I I II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.33 0.10 0.28 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix0 Page5 Future No Project AM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:21 Page 11-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Eastham Dr E., National B1 ********-************************************************************************ Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.784 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 93 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Eastham Dr National El Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L T - R L - T R L T R I II 11 II I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 11 11 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 486 121 0 979 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 496 123 0 999 0 Added Vol: 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 197 0 0 148 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 693 123 0 1147 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 693 123 0 1147 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 693 123 0 1147 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 693 123 0 1147 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.70 0.30 0.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1500 0 1500 0 0 2546 454 0 1500 0 1 IF 11 11 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.76 0.00 Crit Volume: 30 0 0 1147 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKXXXXXX Level Of Service Module 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx Control De1:xxxxx xxxx LOS by Move: Movement: LT - LTR Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx Shared LOS: ApproachDel: xxxxxx ApproachLOS: *********************** XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LT - LTR RT LT - LTR - RT xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 247 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 5.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 56.8 xxxxx 56.8 *********************************** Appendix D Page 6 Future No Project AM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:21 Page 12-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Hayden Av & Warner Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[ 56.8] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Approach: Movement: Hayden Av Warner Drive North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R|109| II 11 11 I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0|109| II II II Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 578 110 69 201 0 0 0 0 150 0 24 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 590 112 70 205 0 0 0 0 153 0 24 Added Vol: 0 8 4 26 26 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 PasserByVol: 0 -1 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 597 116 96 224 0 0 0 0 155 0 37 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 597 116 96 234 0 0 0 0 155 0 37 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 597 116 96 234 0 0 0 0 155 0 37 I 11 i 1 II 1 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 712 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1081 1081 655 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 896 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 243 219 470 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 896 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 222 195 470 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.11 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.70 0.00 0.08|1010|Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix D Page 7 Future No Project AM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:21 Page 13-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HOW Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Eastham Drive & Warner Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 9.8] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Eastham Drive Warner Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T -R L - T - R 1 11 II II I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 00 lE 0 0 00 10 0 I 11 11 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 126 77 0 0 104 9 11 0 85 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 129 79 0 0 106 9 11 0 87 0 0 0 Added Vol: 6 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 135 78 0 0 106 5 14 0 91 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 135 78 0 0 106 9 14 0 91 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 135 78 0 0 106 9 14 0 91 0 0 0 1 11 11 11 I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xXxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 1 11 11 11 1 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 115 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 457 457 111 502 462 78 Potent Cap.: 1486 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 565 503 948 483 500 989 Move Cap.: 1486 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 523 454 948 404 451 989 Volume/Cap: 0.09 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Level Of Service Module: xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - FT LT - LTR - FT LT - LTR - FT LT - LTR - FT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 854 xxxxx xxxx 0 xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 9.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * ir * A * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.8 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * A * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** 2Way95thQ: 0.3 Control Del: 7.7 LOS by Move: A Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix D Page 8 Future No Project AM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2006 09:22:21 Page 14-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #8 Lucerne Av & Higuera St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.725 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.8 Optimal Cycle: C Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Lucerne Av Higuera St Approach: North Hound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I 11 11 11 1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 00 10 0 0 1 0 0 0 I 11 11 II 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 159 0 113 1 2 5 1 166 102 216 230 0 Growth Adj.: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial 8se: 162 0 115 1 2 5 1 169 104 220 235 0 Added Vol: 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 0 4 33 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 162 0 117 1 2 5 1 178 104 224 266 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 162 0 117 1 2 5 1 176 104 224 268 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 162 0 117 1 2 5 1 178 104 224 268 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 162 0 117 1 2 5 1 178 104 224 266 0 1 11 11 11 1 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.58 0.00 0.42 0.12 0.25 0.63 0.01 0.63 0.36 0.46 0.54 0.00 Final Sat.: 346 0 250 62 124 310 2 418 244 310 369 0 11 11 11 I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.47 xxxx 0.47 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.72 0.72 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 12.9 0.0 12.9 9.1 9.1 9.1 11.7 11.7 11.7 19919.9 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 12.9 0.0 12.9 9.1 9.1 9.1 11.7 11.7 11.7 19.9 19.9 0.0 LOS by Move: 8 * 8 A A A 8 8 B C C * ApproachDel: 12.9 9.1 11.7 19.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 12.9 9.1 11.7 19.9 LOS by Appr: B A 8 C AIlWayAvgQ: 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 2.2 2.2 2.2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (0) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKI I AppendixD Page9 Future No Project AM - HaydPri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:21 Page 15-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 PICM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 49 Hayden Av & Higuera St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.854 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.4 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av Higuera St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - I - R L - T - R L - T - R I 11 11 II I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 00 l0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 I 11 11 II 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 23 19 0 39 215 89 1 69 22 16 598 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 1 23 19 0 40 219 91 1 70 22 16 610 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 38 11 0 0 0 0 1 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 23 19 0 40 257 102 1 70 22 16 611 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 1 23 19 0 40 257 102 1 70 22 16 611 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 23 19 0 40 257 102 1 70 22 16 611 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1 23 19 0 40 257 102 1 70 22 16 611|109| 11 1i Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.02 0.54 0.44 0.00 0.13 0.87 1.00 0.19 0.81 0.07 0.93 1.00 Final Sat.: 12 283 234 0 84 544 510 112 488 43 578 715 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.08 0.08 xxxx 0.47 0.47 0.20 0.01 0.14 0.52 0.03 0.85 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 9.7 9.7 9.7 0.0 12.7 12.7 10.9 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.8 28.5 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 9.7 9.7 9.7 0.0 12.7 12.7 10.9 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.8 28.5 LOS by Move: A A A * n B B A A A A D ApproachDel: 9.7 12.7 10.1 27.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 9.7 12.7 10.1 27.4 LOS by Appr: A B 8 D AllWayAvgQ: 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 4.1 4.1 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix D Page 10 Future No Project AM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:21 Page 16-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU '(Loss as Cycle Length 96) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10 Eastham Drive & Higuera Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.442 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 30 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Approach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: Eastham Drive North Bound South Bound L T - R L - T R II Permitted Permitted Include Include|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Riguera Street East Bound West Bound L - T R L - T - R Permitted Permitted Include Include|109| 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 I II II Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 54 0 122 9 67 0 0 581 223 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 SS 0 124 9 68 0 0 593 227 Added Vol: 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 59 0 124 9 68 0 0 594 234 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj . : 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 59 0 124 9 68 0 0 594 234 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 59 0 124 9 66 0 0 594 234 POE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 59 0 124 9 68 0 0 594 234 I I I I I I I I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 0.57 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 1600 3200 0 0 2294 906 I I I I I I i I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** 13 Traffix 7,9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK93 397 1.02 1.02 95 405|109| 38|109| 0 95 443 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 95 443|109| 0 95 443 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 95 443 0 0 553 221 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 0 0 564 236 0 0 132 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 696 251 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 696 251 0 0 0 0 0 0 696 251 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 0 696 251 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.18 0.82 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 105 490 0 0 573 645 Appendix D Page 11 Future No Project AM - EaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:21 Page 17-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 RCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 411 Lucerne Ave & Duquesne Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.215 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R-,--4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 68.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Lucerne Ave Duquesne Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 201 0 95 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 205 0 97 Added Vol: 0 0 0 4 0 0 PasserByVol: G 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 209 0 97 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P1-IF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P1-IF Volume: 0 0 0 209 0 97 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 209 0 97 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 209 0 97 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.32 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 367 0 170 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.57 xxxx 0.57 0.90 0.90 xxxx xxxx 1.22 0.39 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 17.7 41.1 41.1 0.0 0.0 133 11.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 17.7 41.1 41.1 0.0 0.0 133 11.8 LOS by Move: * * * C * C E E * * F B ApproachDel: xxxxxx 17.7 41.1 101.2 Delay Adj: xxxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: xxxxxx 17.7 41.1 101.2 LOS by Appr: * C 2 F AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 5.3 5.2 5.3 0.0 19.8 0.6 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 2211AppemiD Page 12 Future No Project AN - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:21 Page 18-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #12 Jefferson 81 & Duquesne Av ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.084 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+12-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson 81 Duquesne Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Include|109| 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 417 944 31 12 1128 395 235 34 336 6 36 9 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1_02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 425 963 32 12 1151 403 240 35 343 6 37 9 Added Vol: 137 86 0 0 306 10 a 0 34 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 562 1049 32 12 1457 413 248 35 377 6 37 9 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 562 1049 32 12 1457 413 248 35 377 6 37 9 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 562 1049 32 12 1457 413 248 35 377 6 37 9 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 562 1049 32 12 1457 413 248 35 377 6 37 9 OvlAdjVol: 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.94 0-06 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3106 94 1600 3200 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 I I I I I II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.46 0.26 0.15 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.02 0.01 Ov1AdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: Protected Permitted Protected Permitted Include Include Ovl|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 I I II I I Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 21c)Appendix 0 Page 13 Future No Project AM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:21 Page 19-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #13 Robertson )31 & Venice 131 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.097 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Roberston BI Venice B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T-R L -T-R L -T-R L-T- R I II II II I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 I II II II ! Volume Module: Base Vol: 179 369 19 289 240 321 477 2149 97 46 1818 334 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 183 376 19 255 245 327 487 2192 99 47 1854 341 Added Vol: 6 43 9 67 89 143 0 SO 1 1 152 7 PaseerByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 189 419 28 362 334 470 487 2242 100 48 2006 348 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 189 419 28 362 334 470 487 2242 100 48 2006 348 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 189 419 28 362 334 470 487 2242 100 48 2006 348 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 189 419 28 362 334 470 535 2242 100 48 2006 348 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1375 2750 1375 1375 1375 1375 2750 4125 1375 1375 4125 1375 - I I/ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.15 0.02 0.26 0.24 0.34 0.19 0.54 0.07 0.03 0.49 0.25 Crit Volume: 210 362 268 669 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ** * * ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 2. 11Appendix 0 Page 14 Future No Project AM - HaydFri dun 6, 2008 09:22:21 Page 20-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #14 National 81 & Venice 81 **************************************************************************** *** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.9 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xx xx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: National 81 Venice 131 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R - 1 II II II I Control: Permitted Prot+Permit Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 i II 11 11 I Volume Module: Base Vol; 143 769 30 106 419 89 162 1993 337 74 1953 113 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1_02 1.02 Initial Bse: 146 784 31 108 427 91 165 2033 344 75 1992 115 Added Vol: 4 25 0 6 27 4 5 67 -5 1 216 1 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 150 809 31 114 454 95 170 2100 339 76 2208 116 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 150 809 31 114 454 95 170 2100 339 76 2208 116 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 150 809 31 114 454 95 170 2100 339 76 2208 116 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume; 150 809 31 114 454 95 187 2100 339 84 2208 116 I I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.93 0.07 1.00 1.65 0.35 2-00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1425 2746 104 1425 2358 492 2850 4275 1425 2850 4275 1425 1 11 11 11 I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.29 0.29 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.49 0.24 0.03 0.52 0.08 Crit Volume: 420 114 94 736 Grit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2006 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix D Page 15 Future No Project AM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:22 Page 21-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ****************************************************************************** * Intersection #15 La Cienega B1 & Fairfax/Blackwelder *************************************************************************** *** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1. 65 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+12.4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega B1 Fairfax Av/Blackwelder St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I I II 11 I Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 00 U0 0 2 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol:. 25 1746 976 0 1340 28 9 0 11 1037 28 6 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 26 1781 996 0 1367 29 9 0 11 1058 29 6 Added Vol: 0 145 47 0 75 0 0 0 0 172 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 26 1926 1043 0 1442 29 9 0 11 1231 29 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 26 1926 0 0 1442 29 9 0 11 1231 29 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 26 1926 0 0 1442 29 9 0 11 1231 29 6 POE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ML? Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 26 1926 0 0 1442 29 9 0 11 1354 29 6 1 11 11 11--------- ------ 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.94 0.06 0.45 0.00 0.55 2.00 0.82 0.18 Final Sat.: 1425 2850 1425 0 4192 83 641 0 784 2850 1174 251 1 11 11 II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.48 0.02 0.02 Crit Volume: 9 *** 0 20 677 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ MUTSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix 0 Page 16 Future No Project AM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:22 Page 22-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) *******************************************************************************k Intersection #16 Jefferson B1 & National B1 *************************************************************************** **** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0. 8 ..., Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxx Optimal Cycle: 60 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson B1 National B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II - - I I Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 II II Ii I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 555 0 0 0 0 343 142 707 965 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 0 566 0 0 0 0 350 145 721 984 0 Added Vol: 54 0 45 0 0 0 0 70 130 169 95 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 54 0 611 0 0 0 0 420 275 890 1079 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P1-IF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 54 0 611 0 0 0 0 420 275 890 1079 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 54 0 611 0 0 0 0 420 275 890 1079 0 POE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 54 0 672 0 0 0 0 420 302 979 1079 0 I II Il II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74 1.26 1.43 1.57 0.00 Final Sat.: 1425 0 2850 0 0 0 0 2485 1790 2034 2241 0 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.17 0.48 0.48 0.00 Crit Volume: 54 0 2(i 6 Crit Moves: **** * ** *** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKJefferson El East Bound West Sound L - T - R L T R 115 312 1035 104 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 117 318 1056 106 17 12 56 -4 0 0 0 0 134 330 1112 102 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 134 330 1112 102 0 0 0 0 134 330 1112 102 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 134 363 1112 102 Appendix D Page 17 Future No Project AM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2003 09:22:22 Page 23-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Retort Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #17 La Cienega El & Jefferson El ************************************************************************* **** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1 X62 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R.4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega El Approach: North Bound South Bound Movement: L - T R L - T - R I II 11 Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Include Ovl Include Include|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 I II 11 II I Volume Module: Ease Vol: 76 2240 89 31 1987 482 354 405 Growth Ad]: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 78 2285 91 32 2027 492 361 413 Added Vol: 25 147 2 1 64 183 49 48 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 103 2432 93 33 2091 675 410 461 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PBS' Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 103 2432 93 33 2091 675 410 461 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 103 2432 93 33 2091 675 410 461 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 FinalVolume: 103 2432 93 33 2091 675 451 461 I II II Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.89 0.11 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.55 0.45 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1425 4118 157 1425 4275 1425 2850 2207 643 2850 2850 1425 - I 11 11 11 I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.59 0.59 0.02 0.49 0.47 0.16 0.21 0.21 0.13 0.39 0.07 Crit Volume: 842 33 226 556 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ************************************k******************************************* Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSO, MONTEREY PH144 670 1.02 1.02 147 683 19 230|109| 0 166 913 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 166 913|109| 0 166 913 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 166 913 1425 1425 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1425 2E150 69 11 90 14 606 655 99 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 70 11 92 14 822 668 101 0 0 1 3 85 2 3|109| 0 0 0 0 70 11 93 17 907 670 104 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 70 11 93 17 907 670 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 11 93 17 907 670 104 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 70 11 93 17 998 670 104 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1425 1425 2850 1425 2850 1425 1425 0.12 0.22 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.01 0.35 0.47 0.07 457 74 670 **** **** **** Appendix 0 Page 18 Future No Project AM HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:22 Page 24-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #18 Jefferson 31 & Higuera/Rodeo **************************************************************************** *** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical VoI./Cap.(X): 0.8 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec} Average Delay (sec/veh): xx6xx Optimal Cycle: 167 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson PI Higuera St/Rodeo Rd Approach: North Bound South Hound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L -T - R L - I - R L - T - R|109| 1 1 1 1 i Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Ignore Include Include Include|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 I 0 1 11 Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: 11 Volume Module: Base Vol: 86 461 505 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 88 470 515 Added Vol: 5 72 17 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Put: 93 542 532 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 PHF Volume: 93 542 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 93 542 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0-00 MLF Ad]: 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 93 542 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1425 2650 1425 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0,07 0.19 0.00 Crit Volume: 93 Crit Moves: **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 2-1(e)Appendix Ci Page 19 Future No Project AM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:22 Page 25-i 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #19 La Cienega 81 & Rodeo Rd *************************************************************************** **** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1. 7 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): x xxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega 81 Rodeo Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 1 II II II I Control: Protected Protected Prot+Permit Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 313 1955 43 116 2063 170 129 389 165 194 1097 284 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 319 1994 44 118 2104 173 132 397 168 198 1119 290 Added Vol: 8 144 0 2 39 53 12 15 11 0 29 19 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 327 2138 44 120 2143 226 144 412 179 198 1148 309 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 327 2138 44 120 2143 226 144 412 179 198 1148 309 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 327 2138 44 120 2143 226 144 412 179 198 1148 309 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 360 2138 44 132 2143 226 144 412 179 218 1148 309 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.94 0.06 2.00 2.71 0.29 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2750 4042 83 2750 3731 394 1375 2750 1375 2750 2750 1375 1 II II II i Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.53 0.53 0.05 0.57 0.57 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.08 0.42 0.22 Crit Volume: 180 790 144 574 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix D Page20 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 7-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Robertson Bl & Washington B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(x): 0.810 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Robertson B1 Washington 51 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L - T - R L - T R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 C 1 0 1 1 0 1 11 11 11 Volume Module: Base Vol: 28 197 40 132 241 61 128 926 43 70 525 160 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 29 201 41 135 246 62 131 945 44 71 536 163 Added Vol: 17 9 0 62 5 8 2 489 8 0 213 15 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 46 210 41 197 251 70 133 1434 52 71 749 178 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 •1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 46 210 41 197 251 70 133 1434 52 71 749 178 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 46 210 41 197 251 70 133 1434 52 71 749 178 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 46 210 41 197 251 70 132 1424 52 71 749 178|109| 11 11 11 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.93 0.07 1.00 1.62 0.38 Final Sat.: 1600 2679 521 1600 1600 1600 1600 3088 112 1600 2585 615 1 I 11 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.04 0.08 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 29BAppendix D Page 21 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 8-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 National 91 & Washington B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.968 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 152 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: National B1 Washington 131 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I I I I I II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 170 525 70 184 839 35 47 840 253 74 559 138 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 173 536 71 188 856 36 48 857 258 75 570 141 Added Vol: 123 81 6 -6 20 3 3 515 189 6 163 -11 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 296 617 77 182 876 39 51 1372 447 81 733 130 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 296 617 77 182 876 39 51 1372 447 81 733 130 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 296 617 77 182 876 39 51 1372 447 81 733 130 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 296 617 77 182 876 39 51 1372 447 81 733 130 1 11 11 11 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.78 0.22 2.00 1.92 0.08 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2880 2843 357 2880 3065 135 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I I I II I I I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.43 0.28 0.05 0.23 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 2‘1'tAppendix D Page 22 Future No Project PM - HaydEri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 9-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 La Cienega Bl & Washington El ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.032 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Approach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: La Cienega 81 Washington El North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R II II I I I Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Include Include Include Include|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 10 201 Volume Module: Base Vol: 127 1204 53 283 1385 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Rae: 130 1228 54 289 1413 Added Vol: 20 45 5 8 29 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Rut: 150 1273 59 297 1442 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P1-IF Volume: 150 1273 59 297 1442 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 150 1273 59 297 1442 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 150 1273 59 297 1442 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.88 Final. Sat.: 1600 4587 213 1600 4600 28 40 974 154 60 505 107 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 29 41 993 157 61 515 109 34 30 375 99 5 109 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 71 1368 256 66 624 111 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 63 71 1368 256 66 624 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 71 1368 256 66 624 111 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 63 71 1368 256 66 624 111 II II I 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 200 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I I I 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.43 0.16 0.04 0.20 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK Appendix D Page 23 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 10-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Four Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Hayden Av & National B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.782 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 62 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av National B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Sound Movement: L - T -2 L - T - R L - T - R L - T -2 I I I II I I I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10 1! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 505 0 96 0 0 0 0 990 178 25 252 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 515 0 98 0 0 0 0 1010 182 26 257 0 Added Vol: 45 0 34 0 0 0 0 155 56 18 157 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Rut: 560 0 132 0 0 0 0 1165 238 44 414 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 560 0 132 0 0 0 0 1165 238 44 414 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 560 0 132 0 0 0 0 1165 238 44 414 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 560 0 132 0 0 0 0 1165 238 44 414 0 I I I I I I I I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.62 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.66 0.34 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 2590 0 610 0 0 0 0 2658 542 1600 3200 0 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.22 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.13 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix 0 Page 24 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 11-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 45 Eastham Dr & National El ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.480 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+12.4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Eastham Dr National El Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R II 11 11 1 Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 68 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 0 0 69 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 10 0 0 0 PasserEyVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 79 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 79 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 79 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 79 0 0 0 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1500 0 1500 0 O 1013 59 0 266 0 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 O 1033 60 0 271 0 O 189 0 0 175 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 1222 60 0 446 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 1222 60 0 446 0|1010| 0 0 0 0 0 1222 60 0 446 0 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0 1222 60 0 446 0 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1900 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.91 0.09 0.00 1.00 0.00 O 2859 141 0 1500|109| 11 11 11 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.30 0.00 Crit Volume: 79 0 641 0 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix D Page 25 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 12-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Hayden Av & Warner Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 17.2] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av Warner Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L T - R L T - R L - T R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stop Sign Include 0 0 11 0 0 I 11 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 398 89 60 103 0 0 0 0 46 0 33 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 406 91 61 105 0 0 0 0 47 0 34 Added Vol: 0 33 11 65 9 0 0 0 0 7 0 47 PasserByVol: 0 -3 0 0 -17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 426 102 126 97 0 0 0 0 54 0 81 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 436 102 126 97 0 0 0 0 54 0 81 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 ?inalVolume: 0 436 102 126 97 I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 0 81 1 1 II 1 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 PollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 11 11 11 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 538 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 836 836 487 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1041 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 340 305 585 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1041 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 306 265 585 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.12 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.18 0.00 0.14 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx LOS by Move: * * * A * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - FT LT - LTR - FT LT - LTR Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 8.9 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx Shared LOS: * * * A * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * * ******************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************** XXXXX XXXX XXXX xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx -FT LT - LTR RT xxxxx xxxx 428 xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.3 xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 17.2 xxxxx 17.2 ************************ ************************ Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KPLTZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 5r)".Appendix D Page 26 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 13-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 47 Eastham Drive & Warner Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: B[ 10.2] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Eastham Drive Warner Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II 11 I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 I II II 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 41 37 0 0 163 6 8 0 129 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 42 38 0 0 166 6 a 0 132 0 o 0 Added Vol: 15 1 0 0 0 0 9 0 14 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 -4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 57 35 o 0 166 6 17 0 146 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 57 35 o 0 166 6 17 0 146 o 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 FinalVolume: 57 35 o 0 166 6 17 0 146 0 0 0 I II II H 1 Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 1 11 II II I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 172 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 318 318 169 390 321 35 Potent Cap.: 1417 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 680 602 880 572 600 1044 Move Cap.: 1417 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 658 577 880 462 575 1044 Volume/Cap: 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.03 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00|109| I I I I II I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 850 xxxxx xxxx 0 xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.2 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix D Page 27 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 14-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #8 Lucerne Av & Higuera St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.427 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.3 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Lucerne Av Higuera St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 00 1! 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 00 1! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 I I I II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 112 1 97 0 2 1 2 161 123 82 126 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 114 1 99 0 2 1 2 164 125 84 129 0 Added Vol: 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 36 1 3 13 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 115 1 105 0 2 1 2 200 126 87 142 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P1-IF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 115 1 105 0 2 1 2 200 126 87 142 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 115 1 105 0 2 1 2 200 126 87 142 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 115 1 105 0 2 1 2 200 126 87 142 0 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.52 0.01 0.47 0.00 0.67 0.33 0.01 0.61 0.38 0.38 0.62 0.00 Final Sat.: 352 3 321 0 397 198 5 469 296 267 436 0 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.23 0.33 0.33 xxxx 0.01 0.01 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.32 0.32 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 10.1 10.1 10.1 0.0 8.3 8.3 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.1 10.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 10.1 10.1 10.1 0.0 8.3 8.3 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.1 10.1 0.0 LOS by Move: 8 B 8 * A A B 13 B B B * ApproachDel: 10.1 8.3 10.7 10.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 10.1 8.3 10.7 10.1 LOS by Appr: B A 8 B AllWayAvgQ: 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (a) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 50F'Appendix D Page 28 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 15-1 6665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9 Hayden Av & Higuera St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.465 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.2 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av Higuera St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - I - R L -T-R L-T- R I I I I I I / I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 I II II II / Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 136 163 0 38 123 111 1 79 21 1 239 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1_02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 139 166 0 39 125 113 1 81 21 1 244 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 16 42 0 0 0 0 1 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 139 166 0 39 141 155 1 81 21 1 245 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PER Adj: 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEF Volume: 0 139 166 0 39 141 155 1 81 21 1 245 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 139 166 0 39 141 155 1 81 21 1 245 PCE Adj: 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 139 166 0 39 141 155 1 81 21 1 245|109| / / I 1 I / I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.45 0.55 0.00 0.22 0.78 1.00 0.32 0.68 0.16 0.84 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 298 357 0 135 493 515 191 407 86 462 626 / 11 11 11 I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.47 0.47 xxxx 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.01 0.20 0.24 0.00 0.39 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 12.2 12.2 0.0 10.1 10.1 11.9 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 11.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 12.2 12.2 0.0 10.1 10.1 11.9 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.1 11.2 LOS by Move: * B B * B B B A A A A B ApproachDel: 12.2 10.1 10.9 11.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 12.2 10.1 10.9 11.0 LOS by Appr: B a B B AllWayAvgQ: 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.5 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7_9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 3(43Appendix ID Page 29 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 16-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10 Eastham Drive & Higuera Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 160 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.404 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (see/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Eastham Drive Higuera Street Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Sound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 1 II 11 II I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 I 1 0 I II II 11 I Volume Module: Base Vol:., 0 0 0 277 0 17 10 241 0 0 274 61 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 282 0 17 10 246 0 0 279 62 Added Vol: 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 16 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Hut: 0 0 0 297 0 17 10 246 0 0 280 78 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 297 0 17 10 246 0 0 260 78 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 297 0 17 10 246 0 0 260 78 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 297 0 17 10 246 0 0 280 78 1 II H II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.40 0.00 0.00 1.56 0.44 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 1600 1600 3200 0 0 2602 698 I 11 II 11 I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat; 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix D Page 30 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 17-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #11 Lucerne Ave & Duquesne Ave ******************k************************************************************* Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.125 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y-I-R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 53.7 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Lucerne Ave Duquesne Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - I - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 00000 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 i 1 I I II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 194 0 81 69 501 0 0 331 162 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 0 0 0 198 0 83 70 511 0 0 338 165 Added Vol: 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 126 0 0 41 7 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 214 0 83 70 627 0 0 379 172 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 214 0 83 70 627 0 0 379 172 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 214 0 83 70 637 0 0 379 172 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 214 0 83 70 637 0 0 379 172 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.28 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 395 0 152 63 566 0 0 567 637 I I1 I II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.54 xxxx 0.54 1.12 1.12 xxxx xxxx 0.67 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 16.6 97.6 97.6 0.0 0.0 20.5 10.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 16.6 97.6 97.6 0.0 0.0 20.5 10.3 LOS by Move: * * * C * C F F * * C B ApproachDel: xxxxxx 16.6 97.6 17.3 Delay Adj: xxxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: xxxxxx 16.6 97.6 17.3 LOS by Appr: * C F C AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 15.5 15.5 15.5 0.0 1.8 0.4 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix D Page 31 Future No Project PM - HaydPri Jun 6, 2006 09:22:34 Page 18-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #12 Jefferson 81 & Duquesne Av ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.896 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 98 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson 81 Duquesne Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I H 11 11 I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 311 1279 17 24 729 208 416 53 307 18 29 23 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 317 1305 17 24 744 212 424 54 313 18 30 23 Added Vol: 41 245 0 0 164 8 11 0 131 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 358 1550 17 24 908 220 435 54 444 18 30 23 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 358 1550 17 24 908 220 435 54 444 18 30 23 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 358 1550 17 24 908 220 435 54 444 18 30 23 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 358 1550 17 24 908 220 435 54 444 18 30 23 Ov1AdjVol: 86 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.98 0.02 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3165 35 1600 3200 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1 11 11 11 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.22 0.49 0.49 0.02 0.28 0.14 0.27 0.03 0.28 0.01 0.02 0.01 OvlAdjV/S: 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix D Page 32 Future No Project PM - HaydPri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 19-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #13 Robertson B1 & Venice 131 **************************************************************************** *** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.9 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/vet): xx x Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: ************************************************************************* ***** Street Name: Roberston 91 Venice 81 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I I I I I I I I Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 I IF II Ii Volume Module: Base Vol: 143 261 48 228 232 368 482 2427 118 52 1611 85 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 146 266 49 233 237 375 492 2476 120 53 1643 87 Added Vol: 7 52 x 2 30 64 28 0 133 3 8 49 27 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 153 318 51 263 301 403 492 2609 123 61 1692 114 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 153 318 51 263 301 403 492 2609 123 61 1692 114 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 153 318 51 263 301 403 492 2609 123 61 1692 114 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 153 318 51 263 301 403 541 2609 123 61 1692 114 1 II II II Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.93 1.07 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1375 2750 1375 1282 1468 1375 2750 4125 1375 1375 4125 1375 i II 11 II i Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.12 0.04 0.20 0.2 0.29 0.20 0.63 0.09 0.04 0.41 0.08 Crit Volume: 159 2J2 870 61 Crit Moves: **** * * **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.3.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix D Page 33 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 20-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #14 National 81 & Venice B1 ************************************************************************** *** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.9 8 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: ...-E" ******************************************************************************** Street Name: National 221 Venice 81 Approach: North Sound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I / I II I 1 ( Control: Permitted Prot-I-Permit Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 143 505 58 144 722 113 151 2332 249 48 1595 86 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 146 515 59 147 736 115 154 2279 254 49 1627 88 Added Vol: -3 75 1 1 12 4 14 170 1 3 69 6 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 143 590 60 148 748 119 168 2549 255 52 1696 94 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PBS' Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 143 590 60 148 748 119 168 2549 255 52 1696 94 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o 0 Reduced Vol: 142 590 60 148 748 119 168 2549 255 52 1696 94 PCS Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 143 590 60 148 748 119 185 2549 255 57 1696 94 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.81 0.19 1.00 1.73 0.27 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1425 2586 264 1425 2458 292 2850 4275 1425 2850 4275 1425 I ( I 11 ! I 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.22 0.2 0.1 0.20 0.30 0.06 0.60 0.18 0.02 0.40 0.07 Crit Volume: 3 '5 a 850 29 Crit Moves: **** * ** **** **** **********************************k********************************************* Traf fix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 311Appendix D Page 34 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 21-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #15 La Cienega 131 & Fairfax/Blackwelder ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y-i-R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): XX,XXXX Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: *************************************************************************2*** Street Name: La Cienega 131 Fairfax Av/Blackwelder St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T-R L-T-R L-T-R L-T- R I 11 II II 1 Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o Lanes: 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 I 0 00 U 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 I 11 II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 1207 1401 0 1607 8 33 0 6 931 5 8 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 10 1231 1429 0 1639 8 34 o 6 950 5 8 Added Vol: 0 70 125 0 133 0 0 0 0 107 0 0 PasserByVol: o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Initial Fut: 10 1301 1554 0 1772 8 34 0 6 1057 5 8 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 10 1301 0 0 1772 8 34 0 6 1057 5 8 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 a 0 Reduced Vol: 10 1301 0 0 1772 8 34 o 6 1057 5 a PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 10 1301 0 0 1772 8 34 0 6 1162 , 5 8 1 11 II II Saturation Flaw Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.99 0.01 0.85 0.00 0.15 2.00 0.38 0.62 Final Sat.: 1425 2850 1425 0 4253 20 1206 0 219 2850 548 877 1 11 II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.41 0.01 0.01 Crit Volume: 6 o 40 581 Crit Moves: * **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 312Appendix 0 Page 35 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 22-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #16 Jefferson B1 & National B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.707 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 64 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson tl National B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T-R L-T-R L-T-R L-T- R 1 II 11 II I Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 I 11 11 II I Volume Module: Ease Vol: 0 0 890 0 0 0 0 776 254 381 244 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial tse: 0 0 908 0 0 0 0 792 259 389 249 0 Added Vol: 81 0 111 0 0 0 0 104 97 106 97 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 81 0 1019 0 0 0 0 896 356 495 346 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 81 0 1019 0 0 0 0 896 356 495 346 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 81 0 1019 0 0 0 0 896 356 495 346 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 81 0 1121 0 0 0 0 896 392 544 346 0 1 11 II II 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.83 1.17 0.00 Final Sat.: 1425 0 2850 0 0 0 0 2850 1425 2614 1661 0 I II 11 II 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.27 0.21 0.21 0.00 Crit Volume: 560 0 448 0 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppenck D Page 36 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun G, 2008 09:22:34 Page 23-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 417 La Cienega BI & Jefferson 131 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap,(X): 1.081 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service; F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega 31 Jefferson 31 Approach; North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T-R L-T-R L-T- R L - T - R 1 11 11 11 Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes; 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 11 11 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 41 2011 243 42 2233 199 587 791 247 166 390 72 Growth Adj: 1.02 1-02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1-02 1.02 Initial Bee: 42 2051 248 43 2278 203 599 807 252 169 398 73 Added Vol: 29 61 9 -4 135 110 136 62 17 5 65 -2 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Filt: 71 2112 257 39 2413 313 735 869 269 174 463 71 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 71 2112 257 39 2413 313 735 869 269 174 463 71 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 71 2112 257 39 2413 313 735 869 269 174 463 71 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 71 2112 257 39 2413 313 808 869 269 192 463 71 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.67 0.33 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.53 0.47 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1425 3811 464 1425 4275 1425 2850 2176 674 2850 2850 1425 J II 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0-55 0.55 0.03 0.56 0.22 0.28 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.16 0.05 Crit Volume: 71 804 569 96 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 3tAi-AppendixD Page 37 Future No Project PM - HaydEri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 24-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 418 Jefferson B1 & Higuera/Rodeo ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.794 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 90 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson 131 Higuera St/Rodeo Rd Approach: North Bound South Sound East Sound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II I 1 I Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10201 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 45 574 910 219 470 56 43 389 86 398 246 42 Growth Adj: 1,02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial See: 46 687 928 223 479 57 44 397 88 406 251 43 Added Vol: 12 177 68 19 122 0 0 5 9 40 5 4 PasserSyVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 58 864 995 242 601 57 44 402 97 446 256 47 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEE Volume: 58 864 0 242 601 57 44 402 97 446 256 47 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 58 864 0 242 601 57 44 402 97 446 256 47 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 58 864 0 242 601 57 44 402 97 491 256 47 I Ir II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1425 2850 1425 1425 2850 1425 1425 2850 1425 2850 1425 1425 1 I I I I II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.30 0.00 0.17 0.21 0.04 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.17 0.18 0.03 Crit Volume: 432 242 201 256 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix D Page 38 Future No Project PM - HaydFri Jun 6, 2008 09:22:34 Page 25-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 No Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #19 La Cienega BI & Rodeo Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1. 6 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega B1 Rodeo Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T R L - I R L T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Protected °Prot+Permit Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 1 II II Volume Module: Base Vol: 210 1903 130 322 2274 88 182 913 435 186 496 181 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 214 1941 133 328 2319 90 186 931 444 190 506 185 Added Vol: 7 47 0 7 122 27 43 34 15 0 14 10 PassarByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 221 1988 133 335 2441 117 229 965 459 190 520 195 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 REF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 REF Volume: 221 1988 132 335 2441 117 229 965 459 190 520 195 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 221 1988 133 335 2441 117 229 965 459 190 520 195 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 243 1986 133 369 2441 117 229 965 459 209 520 195 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.81 0.19 2.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2750 3667 258 2750 3937 188 1375 2750 1375 2750 2750 1375 I! Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.51 0.51 0.13 0.62 Crit Volume: 122 853 Crit Moves: **** **** 0.62 0.17 0.35 0.33 0.08 0.19 0.14 483 1 **** **** ** ** * ******** ******* ************ ******** ************** * ** ** *** * *W** **** ***** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 31(pAPPENDIX E Intersection Level-of-Service Worksheets Ambient Growth and Related Projects and Project Conditions (Year 2010) Prepared for REthink Development Corp. Traffic Impact Analysis — 8665 Hayden Place July 14, 2008 KOA CorporationAppendix E Page 1 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 8-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Robertson B1 & Washington Bl ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.840 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 77 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Robertson 61 Washington 81 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L - T - R L T - R L - T R Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 I 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 I I I Volume Module: Base Vol.: 26 259 122 117 217 44 42 480 44 106 767 312 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 27 264 124 119 221 45 43 490 45 108 782 318 Added Vol: 4 2 0 86 10 1 9 204 17 0 345 14 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Hut: 31 266 124 207 231 46 52 694 62 108 1127 332 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 31 266 124 207 231 46 52 694 62 108 1127 332 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 31 266 124 207 231 46 52 694 62 108 1127 332 POE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 31 266 124 207 231 46 52 694 62 108 1127 332 1 11 I I I 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.36 0.64 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.84 0.16 1.00 1.54 0.46 Final Sat.: 1600 2181 1019 1600 1600 1600 1600 2938 262 1600 2472 728 1 II 11 II 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.03 0.03 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.46 0.46 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK 31E)Appendix E Page2 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 9-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length 96) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 National B1 & Washington 81 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.898 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 99 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: National 81 Washington B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I 11 il 1 I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 I I II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 296 761 83 116 708 41 14 563 129 120 818 167 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial 15se: 302 766 85 118 722 42 14 574 132 122 834 170 Added Vol: 101 25 6 -10 42 2 3 158 195 18 430 4 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 403 791 91 108 764 44 17 732 327 140 1264 174 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 403 791 91 108 764 44 17 732 327 140 1264 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CY 0 0 Reduced Vol: 403 791 91 108 764 44 17 732 327 140 1264 174 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 403 791 91 108 764 44 17 732 327 140 1264 174 1 11 II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.79 0.21 2.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2880 2871 329 2880 3026 174 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I II 11 11 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.28 0.28 0.04 0.25 0.25 0.01 0.23 0.20 0.09 0.40 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSH, MONTEREY PKAppendixE Page3 Future With Project AN - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 10-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ****************************k*************************************************** Intersection 43 La Cienega B1 & Washington B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.164 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega Bl Washington B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II 11 II Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I I I 1 I II Volume Module: Base Vol: 258 1531 20 115 1266 37 51 557 96 59 1278 303 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 263 1562 20 117 1291 38 52 568 98 60 1304 309 Added Vol: 125 19 2 1 55 23 33 125 21 3 280 9 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 388 1581 22 118 1346 61 85 693 119 63 1584 318 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 388 1581 22 118 1346 61 85 693 119 63 1584 318 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 388 1581 22 118 1346 61 65 693 119 63 1584 318 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 388 1581 22 118 1346 61 85 693 119 63 1584 318 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.96 0.04 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4733 67 1600 4593 207 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I II I I II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.24 0.33 0.33 0.07 0.29 0.29 0.05 0.22 0.07 0.04 0.49 0.20 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 4 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 11-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Hayden Av & National 81 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.733 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 55 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av National 81 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T R L - 7 - R L T - R L - T- I II II I I I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10 l!0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 I II I I / I I Volume Module: Base Vol: 505 0 44 0 0 0 0 663 162 118 775 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 515 0 45 0 0 0 0 676 165 120 791 0 Added Vol: 16 0 11 0 0 0 0 189 56 56 109 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 531 0 56 0 0 0 0 865 221 176 900 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 531 0 56 0 0 0 0 865 221 176 900 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 531 0 56 0 0 0 0 865 221 176 900 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 531 0 56 0 0 0 0 865 221 176 900 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.81 0_00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.59 0.41 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 2895 0 305 0 0 0 0 2548 652 1600 3200 0 1 I I II 11 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.11 0.28 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK "2-1Appendix E Page5 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 12-1 6665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 45 Eastham Dr & National 81 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.796 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 98 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Eastham Dr National Bl Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I 11 H 11 I Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 486 121 0 979 0 Growth Ad]: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 496 123 0 999 0 Added Vol: 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 199 0 0 165 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 695 123 0 1164 0 User Ad]: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 695 123 0 1164 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 695 123 0 1164 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 695 123 0 1164 0|109| II H II 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.70 0.30 0.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1500 0 1500 0 0 2547 453 0 1500 0 I Ii II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.78 0.00 Crit Volume: 31 0 0 1164 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK0 155 0 37|109| 0 0 0|109| 155 0 37 Appendix E Page 6 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 13-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HON Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Hayden Av & Warner Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: F[ 68.7] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av Approach: North Bound South Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R Warner Drive East Bound West Bound L - T R L - T - R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 578 110 69 201 0 0 0 0 150 0 24 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 0 590 112 70 205 0 0 0 0 153 0 24 Added Vol: 0 14 4 26 86 ' 0 0 0 0 2 0 13 PasserByVol: 0 -1 0 0 -7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 603 116 96 284 0 0 0 0 155 0 37 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 603 116 96 284 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 603 116 96 284 0 0 0 I II H Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 II Ii Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 719 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1137 1137 661 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 892 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 225 203 466 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 892 xxxx ,xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 205 180 466 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.11 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.75 0.00 0.08 II I Level Of Se 2Way95thQ: Control Del: LOS by Move: Movement: Shared Cap.: SharedQueue: Shrd Cannel: Shared LOS: ApproachDel: ApproachLOS: ************ Note: Queue ************ vice Module: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx * * * A * * * * * * * LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 230 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 6.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.5 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 68.7 xxxxx * * * A * * * * * F * xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 68.7 * * * F ******************************************************************** reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************** Traffix 7. 9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 7 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 14-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Eastham Drive & Warner Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.8 Worst Case Level Of Service: A[ 9.8] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Eastham Drive Warner Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L I - R L - I R L - I R L - I R Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 00 11 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol; 126 77 0 0 104 9 11 0 85 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 129 79 0 0 106 9 11 0 87 0 0 0 Added Vol: 6 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 -2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 135 78 0 0 106 9 14 0 91 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PUP Volume: 135 78 0 0 106 9 14 0 91 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 135 78 0 0 106 9 14 0 91 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 I I I I I I I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 115 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 457 457 111 503 462 78 Potent Cap.: 1486 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 565 503 948 483 500 989 Move Cap.: 1486 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 523 454 948 404 451 989 Volume/Cap: 0.09 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 I II II II I Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LIR - RT LT - LIP. - ET LT - LIR - RT LT - LIR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 854 xxxxx xxxx 0 xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.3 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.7 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 9.8 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * A * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 9.8 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * A * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page8 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:2748 Page 15-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HON 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #8 Lucerne Av & Higuera St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.727 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Lucerne Av Higuera St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound west Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 11 0 0 00 110 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 159 0 113 1 2 5 1 166 102 216 230 0 . Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Ese: 162 0 115 1 2 5 1 169 104 220 235 0 Added Vol: 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 12 0 4 33 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 162 0 120 1 2 5 1 181 104 224 268 0 User Ad]: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 162 0 120 1 2 5 1 181 104 224 266 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 162 0 120 1 2 5 1 181 104 224 268 0 POE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Ad]: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 162 0 120 1 2 5 1 181 104 224 268 0 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.57 0.00 0.43 0.12 0.25 0.63 0.01 0.63 0.36 0.46 0.54 0.00 Final Sat.: 343 0 254 62 123 309 2 420 241 309 368 0 I I I I I I I I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.47 xxxx 0.47 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.73 0.73 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** DelayiVeh: 13.0 0.0 13.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 11.8 11.8 11.8 20.1 20.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 13.0 0.0 13.0 9.1 9.1 9.1 11.6 11.8 11.8 20.1 20.1 0.0 LOS by Move: B * B A A A B B 8 C C * ApproachDel: 13.0 9.1 11.8 20.1 Delay Ad]: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 13.0 9.1 11.8 20.1 LOS by Appr: 13 A B C AllWayAvgQ: 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 2.2 2.2 2.2 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page9 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 16-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ****************************************************A*************************** Intersection #9 Hayden Av E Higuera St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.893 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 23.4 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av Higuera St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I I I I I I I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 00 1!O 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 I I I I I I I I Volume Module: Base Vol: 1 23 19 0 39 215 89 1 69 22 16 598 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 1 23 19 0 40 219 91 1 70 22 16 610 Added Vol: 0 7 3 0 50 38 11 0 6 16 0 1 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 1 30 22 0 90 257 102 1 76 38 16 611 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 1 30 22 0 90 257 102 1 76 38 16 611 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1 30 22 0 90 257 102 1 76 38 16 611 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 1 30 22 0 90 257 102 1 76 38 16 611 I I I II I I I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.02 0.57 0.41 0.00 0.26 0.74 1.00 0.15 0.85 0.12 0.88 1.00 Final Sat.: 10 290 213 0 159 456 489 85 489 69 527 684 -j 11 11 1/ / Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.11 0.11 xxxx 0.56 0.56 0.21 0.01 0.16 0.56 0.03 0.89 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 10.1 10.1 10.1 0.0 15.0 15.0 11.4 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.3 34.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 10.1 10.1 10.1 0.0 150 15.0 11.4 9.4 9.4 9.3 9.3 , 24.4 LOS by Move: B B B * B B B A A A A D ApproachDel: 10.1 15.0 10.5 32.4 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 10.1 15.0 10.5 32.4 LOS by Appr: B B B D AllWayAvgQ: 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 5.0 5.0 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 10 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 17-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #I0 Eastham Drive & Higuera Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.448 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 31 Level Of Service: , A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Approach: Movement: Control: Rights: Min. Green: Lanes: Eastham Drive North Bound South Bound L - T - R L T - R I Permitted Permitted Include Include|1010| 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Higuera Street East Bound West Bound L - T R L - T - R 11 Permitted Permitted Include Include|109| 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 Volume Module:|109| II 11 1 Base Vol: 0 0 0 54 0 122 9 67 0 0 581 223 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 55 0 124 9 68 0 0 593 227 Added Vol: 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 16 7 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 59 0 124 10 70 0 0 609 234 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 59 0 124 10 70 0 0 609 234 Reduce Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 59 0 124 10 70 0 0 609 234 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 59 0 124 10 70 0 0 609 234 11 11 1 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.56 1600 1600 3200 0 0 2310 890 11 *** * **** **** ***** **** *** ****** ****** ********* **************** ********* ***** *****************|109| 11 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 1 11 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.26 Crit Moves: Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Pagel"' Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 18-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 RCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #11 Lucerne Ave & Duquesne Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.216 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 68.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Lucerne Ave Duquesne Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ) 1 1 1 1 I I I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 00 l!0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 I 1 I I I 1 I I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 201 0 95 93 397 0 0 553 231 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 0 0 0 205 0 97 95 405 0 0 564 236 Added Vol: 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 38 0 0 132 18 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 209 0 97 96 443 0 0 696 254 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Volume: 0 0 0 209 0 97 96 443 0 0 696 254 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 209 0 97 96 443 0 0 696 254 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 209 0 97 96 443 0 0 696 254 I I I I i 1 I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.32 0.18 0.82 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 367 0 170 106 489 0 0 573 644 I 1 I I I I J Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.57 xxxx 0.57 0.91 0.91 xxxx xxxx 1.22 0.39 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 17.7 41.4 41.4 0.0 0.0 134 11.9 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.7 0.0 17.7 41.4 41.4 0.0 0.0 134 11.9 LOS by Move: * * * C * C E E * * F B ApproachDel: xxxxxx 17.7 41.4 101.1 Delay Adj: xxxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: xxxxxx 17.7 41.4 101.1 LOS by Appr: * C E F AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 1.2 5.3 5.3 5.3 0.0 19.8 0.6 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 12 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 19-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 412 Jefferson Bl & Duquesne Av ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.086 Loss Time (Sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson Bl. Duquesne Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 11 11 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 417 944 31 12 1128 395 235 34 336 6 36 9 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial BSe: 425 963 32 12 1151 403 240 35 343 6 37 9 Added Vol: 139 95 0 0 308 10 8 0 34 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 564 1058 32 12 1459 413 248 35 377 6 37 9 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PRF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 564 1058 32 12 1459 413 248 35 377 6 37 9 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 564 1058 32 12 1459 413 248 35 377 6 37 9 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 564 1058 32 12 1459 413 248 35 377 6 27 9 OvlAdjVol: 0 1 11 11 11 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3107 93 1600 3200 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1 11 11 11 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Val/Sat: 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.01 0.46 0.26 0.15 0.02 0.24 0.00 0.02 0.01 OvlAdjV/S: 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ********************************************************************************|109| 1 I 11 Protected Permitted Permitted Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendxE Page13 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 20-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #12 Robertson 131 & Venice B1 ***************************************************************************** * Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1. Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Roberston El Venice El Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T-R L-T-R L-T- R L - T - R 1 11 11 II 1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 I 11 II /1 ------- --------1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 179 369 19 289 240 321 477 2149 97 46 1818 334 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 183 376 19 295 245 327 487 2192 99 47 1854 341 Added Vol: 6 43 9 73 96 143 0 52 1 1 152 8 PasserEyVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 189 419 28 368 341 470 487 2244 100 48 2006 349 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PUP Volume: 189 419 28 368 341 470 487 2244 100 48 2006 349 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 189 419 28 368 341 470 487 2244 100 48 2006 349 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 189 419 28 368 341 470 535 2244 100 48 2006 349 I I I I I I I I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final San.: 1375 2750 1375 1375 1375 1375 2750 4125 1375 1375 4125 1375 1 11 11 11 I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.15 0.02 0.27 0.25 0.34 0.19 0.54 0.07 0.03 0.49 0.25 Crit Volume: 210 368 268 669 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PI(Appendix E Page 14 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2.000 16:27:48 Page 21-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 414 National B1 E. Venice El ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.9 7 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: National B1 Venice B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L -T-R L-T- R L - I - R 1 H 11 11 I Control: Peimitted Prot+Permit Protected Protected Include Rights: Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 I II 11 II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 143 769 30 106 419 89 162 1993 337 74 1953 113 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 146 784 31 108 427 91 165 2033 344 75 1992 115 Added Vol: 5 26 0 6 28 4 5 67 2 5 216 1 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 151 810 31 114 455 95 170 2100 346 80 2208 116 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PRF Volume: 151 810 31 114 455 95 170 2100 346 80 2208 116 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 151 810 31 114 455 95 170 2100 346 80 2208 116 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 151 810 31 114 455 95 187 2100 346 89 2208 116 I II II II I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.93 0.07 1.00 1.66 0.34 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1425 2746 104 1425 2359 491 2850 4275 1425 2850 4275 1425 I H li H I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.30 0.30 0.08 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.49 0.24 0.03 0.52 0.08 Crit Volume: 96 114 **** 94 **** 736 Crit Moves: **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E. Page 15 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 22-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #15 La Cienega 131 & Fairfax/Blackwelder ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1. 1 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xx dbcx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega 131 Fairfax Av/Blackwelder St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II II II I Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 11 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 I II II II i Volume Module: Base Vol: 25 1746 976 0 1340 28 9 0 11 1037 28 6 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1,02 Initial Bse: 26 1781 996 0 1367 29 9 0 11 1058 29 6 Added Vol: 0 146 50 0 79 0 0 0 0 187 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 26 1927 1046 0 1446 29 9 0 11 1245 29 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PUP Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PIN' Volume: 26 1927 0 0 1446 29 9 0 11 1245 29 6 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 26 1927 0 0 1446 29 9 0 11 1245 29 6 PCE Adjt 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 26 1927 0 0 1446 29 9 0 11 1369 29 6 I II II -11 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.94 0.06 0.45 0.00 0.55 2.00 0.82 0.18 Final Sat.: 1425 2850 1425 0 4192 83 641 0 784 2850 1174 251 I II 11 II 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.02 0.62 1,. 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.34 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.48 0.02 0.02 Crit Volume: 9 , 0 20 685 : Crit Moves: *4,ri **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 16 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 23-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #16 Jefferson B1 & National B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0. 3 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xx xxx Optimal Cycle: 61 Level Of Service; ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson B1 National B1 Approach: North Bound South Sound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 II II 11 i 555 0 0 0 0 343 142 707 965 0 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 566 0 0 0 0 350 145 721 984 0 45 0 0 0 0 73 130 169 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 611 0 0 0 0 423 275 890 1096 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 611 0 0 0 0 423 275 890 1096 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 611 0 0 0 0 423 275 890 1096 0 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 672 0 0 0 0 423 302 979 1096 0 II II I I I : 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 1.25 1.42 1.58 2850 0 0 0 0 2493 1782 2017 2258 I 11 11 11 I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 0.49 0.49 0.00 Crit Volume: 54 0 2/.2 Crit Moves: **** **** * ** ******************************************************************************** Volume Module; Base Vol: 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee; Added Vol: 54 0 PasserByVol; 0 0 Initial Put: 54 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 pHF Volume: 54 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 Reduced Vol: 54 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 54 0 Saturation Flow Module Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1425 0 1425 1.00 0.00|1010|Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix 6 Page 17 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 24-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #I7 La Cienega 131 & Jefferson Bl ************************************************************************* ****** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol„/Cap.(X): 1. 4 Loss Time (Sec): 0 (Y+R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxkxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega Bl Jefferson 21 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T- R L - T - R L - T - R i II II II I Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 I II II II 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 76 2240 89 31 1987 482 354 405 115 312 1035 104 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1,02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 78 2285 91 32 2027 492 361 413 117 318 1056 106 Added Vol: 25 148 2 1 67 198 52 49 17 12 59 -4 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 103 2433 93 33 2094 690 413 462 134 330 1115 102 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 103 2433 93 33 2094 690 413 462 134 330 1115 102 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 103 2433 93 33 2094 690 413 462 134 330 1115 102 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 103 2433 93 33 2094 690 454 462 134 363 1115 102 I Il II 11 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 2425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.89 0.11 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.55 0.45 2.00 2.00 1,00 Final Sat.: 1425 4118 157 1425 4275 1425 2850 2208 642 2850 2850 1425 1 II II Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.59 0.59 0.02 0.49 0.48 0.16 0,21 0.21 0.13 0.39 0.07 Crit Volume: 842 • 33 227 5 Crit Moves: **** **** **** * ** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 18 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 25-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection 418 Jefferson BI & Higuera/Rodeo ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.900 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R.4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson 51 Higuera St/Rodeo Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L T - R L - T - R L - T R L - T - R II II II I Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Include Rights: Ignore Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 I 11 11 11 I Volume Module: Base Vol: 86 461 505 144 670 69 11 90 14 806 655 99 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 88 470 515 147 683 70 11 92 14 822 668 101 Added Vol: 14 72 17 19 230 0 0 2 4 85 9 3 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fat: 102 542 532 166 913 70 11 94 18 907 677 104 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 102 542 0 166 913 70 11 94 18 907 677 104 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 102 542 0 166 913 70 11 94 18 907 677 104 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 102 542 0 166 913 70 11 94 18 998 677 104 I II II h I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1425 2850 1425 1425 2850 1425 1425 2850 1425 2850 1425 1425 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.07 0.19 0.00 0.12 0.32 0.05 0,01 0.03 0.01 0-35 0.48 0.07 Crit Volume: 102 457 47 677 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix 8 Page 19 Future With Project AM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:48 Page 26-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions AM Peak Sour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** , Intersection #19 La Cienega 131 S Rodeo Rd ***************************************************************************** Cycle (see): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.729 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y*R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xXxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega El Rodeo Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T R L - T R L I - R L T - R Control: Protected Protected Prot+Permit Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 I 11 H li I Volume Module: Base Vol: 313 1955 43 116 2063 170 129 389 165 194 1097 264 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 319 1994 44 118 2104 173 132 397 168 198 1119 290 Added Vol: 10 144 0 2 39 56 12 15 12 0 31 19 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 329 2138 44 120 2143 229 144 412 180 198 1150 309 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 329 2138 44 120 2143 229 144 412 180 198 1130 309 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 329 2138 44 120 2143 229 144 412 180 198 1150 309 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ML?' Adj: 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 362 2138 44 132 2143 229 144 412 180 218 1150 309 I 11 11 -11 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.94 0.06 2.00 2.71 0.29 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2750 4042 83 2750 3726 399 1375 2750 1375 2750 2750 1375 1 II II H I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.53 0.53 0.05 0.58 0.58 0.10 0.15 0.13 0.08 0.42 0.22 Crit Volume: 181 791 144 575 **** Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 20 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:59 Page 8-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #1 Robertson Bl & Washington B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.811 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 69 Level Of Service: D ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Robertson 131 Washington B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 1 II II II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 I 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 28 197 40 132 241 61 128 926 43 70 525 160 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 29 201 41 135 246 62 131 945 44 71 526 163 Added Vol: 17 9 0 63 5 8 2 491 8 0 222 15 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 46 210 41 198 251 70 133 1436 52 71 758 178 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PRP Volume: 46 210 41 198 251 70 132 1436 52 71 758 178 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 46 210 41 198 251 70 133 1436 52 71 758 178 PC2 Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 46 210 41 198 251 70 133 1436 52 71 758 178 I II II I 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.67 0.33 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.93 0.07 1.00 1.62 0.38 Final Sat.: 1600 2679 521 1600 1600 1600 1600 3088 112 1600 2591 609 I J I I II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.04 0.08 0.46 0.46 0.04 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 21 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:59 Page 9-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #2 National BI & Washington B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.973 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 157 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: National B1 Washington )31 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II H 11 I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 170 525 70 184 839 35 47 840 253 74 559 138 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Else: 173 536 71 188 856 36 48 857 258 75 670 141 Added Vol: 132 96 8 -6 22 3 3 515 192 7 163 -11 PasserByVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 305 632 79 182 878 39 51 1372 450 82 733 130 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEP Adj: 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 305 632 79 182 878 39 51 1372 450 82 733 130 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 305 632 79 182 878 39 51 1372 450 82 733 130 POE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 305 632 79 182 878 39 51 1372 450 82 733 130 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 0.90 1.00 1.00 0.90 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 1.78 0.22 2.00 1.92 0.08 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2880 2843 357 2880 3065 135 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 II II II Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.22 0.22 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.03 0.43 0.28 0.05 0.23 0.08 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppenthxE Page 22 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:59 Page 10-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU 1(Loss as Cycle Length 50 Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #3 La Cienega El & Washington B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.034 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega 81 Washington B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L -T - R 1 II II II I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 I II 11 I I I Volume Module: Base Vol: 127 1204 53 283 1385 28 40 974 154 60 505 107 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 130 1228 54 289 1413 29 41 993 157 61 515 109 Added Vol: 20 51 5 8 30 34 30 376 99 5 111 2 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Rut: 150 1279 59 297 1443 63 71 1369 256 66 626 111 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PER Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 150 1279 59 297 1443 63 71 1369 256 66 626 111 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 150 1279 59 297 1443 63 71 1369 256 66 626 111 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Ad]: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 150 1279 59 297 1443 63 71 1369 256 66 626 111 1 II I I I I I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.87 0.13 1.00 2.88 0.12 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 4588 212 1600 4601 199 1600 3200 1600 1600 3200 1600 I I I II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.28 0.28 0.19 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.43 0.16 0.04 0.20 0.07 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 23 Future With Project PM - HaThu dun 12, 2008 16:27:59 Page 11-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #4 Hayden Av & National B1 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.799 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y-FR-.4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 66 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av National B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T R L T - R L - T R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 10 U0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 11 H 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 505 0 96 0 0 0 0 990 178 25 252 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 515 0 98 0 0 0 0 1010 182 26 257 0 Added Vol: 71 0 51 0 0 0 0 155 62 21 157 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 586 0 149 0 0 0 0 1165 244 47 414 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PEE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 P1-IF Volume: 586 0 149 0 0 0 0 1165 244 47 414 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 586 0 149 0 0 0 0 1165 244 47 414 0 pCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 YinalVolume: 586 0 149 0 0 0 0 1165 244 47 414 0 I 11 H 11 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.07 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.59 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.65 0.35 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 2552 0 648 0 0 0 0 2647 553 1600 3200 0|109| 11 11 II 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.44 0.03 0.13 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Ti-affix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 24 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:59 Page 12-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #5 Eastham Dr & National Bl ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.490 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Approach: Movement: Eastham Dr North Bound South Bound L - T - R L T - R National 81 East Bound West Bound L - T - R L T R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: Lanes: 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 1013 59 0 266 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 1033 60 0 271 0 Added Vol: 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 205 0 0 179 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 1238 60 0 450 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 1238 60 0 450 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 1238 60 0 450 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 85 0 0 0 0 1238 60 0 450 0 I I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.91 0.09 0.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 1500 0 1500 0 0 2861 139 0 1500 0 I I I I I II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.30 0.00 Crit Volume: 85 0 649 0 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 25 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:59 Page 13-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #6 Hayden Av & Warner Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.6 Worst Case Level Of Service: C[ 18,4] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av Warner Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II 11 II I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 10 0 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 398 89 60 103 0 0 0 0 46 0 33 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 406 91 61 105 0 0 0 0 47 0 34 Added Vol: 0 74 11 65 19 0 0 0 0 7 0 47 PasserByVol: 0 -3 0 0 -17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 477 102 126 107 0 0 0 0 54 0 81 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 477 102 126 107 0 0 0 0 54 0 81 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 0 477 102 126 107 0 0 0 0 54 0 81 Critical Gap Module: Critical Op:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 579 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 887 887 528 Potent Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1005 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 317 285 554 Move Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 1005 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 284 247 554 Volume/Cap: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.13 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.19 0.00 0.15 Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: xxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: * * A * * * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 401 xxxxx SharedQueue:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 0.4 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 1.4 xxxxx Shrd ConDel:xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 9.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 18.4 xxxxx Shared LOS: * * A * * * * * C * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx 18.4 ApproachLOS: * * * C ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSN, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 20 Future With Project PM - HaThu dun 12, 2008 16:27:59 page 14-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM Unsignalized Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #7 Eastham Drive & Warner Drive ******************************************************************************** Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.9 Worst Case Level Of Service: 13[ 10.2] ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Eastham Drive Warner Drive Approach: North Bound South Bound Fast Bound West Bound Movement: L - T R L - T R L - T R L T - R I II II 11 I Control: Uncontrolled Uncontrolled Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 II 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I Volume Module: Base Vol: 41 37 0 0 163 6 a 0 129 0 0 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 42 38 0 0 166 6 a 0 132 0 0 0 Added Vol: 15 7 0 0 0 0 9 0 14 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 -4 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 57 41 c 0 166 6 17 0 146 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 57 41 0 0 166 6 17 0 146 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 FinalVolume: 57 41 0 0 166 6 17 0 146 0 0 0 I I I I 1 1 I Critical Gap Module: Critical Gp: 4.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 6.4 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2 FollowUpTim: 2.2 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx 3.5 4.0 3.3 3.5 4.0 3.3 I I I II J I I Capacity Module: Cnflict Vol: 172 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 324 324 169 396 327 41 Potent Cap.: 1417 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 674 597 880 567 595 1036 Move Cap.: 1417 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx 653 573 880 458 570 1036 Volume/Cap: 0.04 xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.03 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 I I 1 1 I I I J Level Of Service Module: 2Way95thQ: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx Control Del: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx LOS by Move: A * * * * * -* * * * * * Movement: LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT LT - LTR - RT Shared Cap.: xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxx 849 xxxxx xxxx 0 xxxxx SharedQueue: 0.1 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 0.7 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shrd ConDel: 7.6 xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xxxxx 10.2 xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx Shared LOS: A * * * * * * B * * * * ApproachDel: xxxxxx xxxxxx 10.2 xxxxxx ApproachLOS: * * B * ******************************************************************************** Note: Queue reported is the number of cars per lane. ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 27 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:59 Page 15-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #8 Lucerne Av & Higuera St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.429 Loss Time (Sec): 10 (Y+12...,4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.4 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: B ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Lucerne Av Higuera St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R ---------- II 11 II I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 00 10 0 0 0 0 1 0 00 110 0 0 1 0 0 0 -I I I II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 112 1 97 0 2 1 2 161 123 82 126 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 114 1 99 0 2 1 2 164 125 84 129 0 Added Volt 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 37 1 3 13 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 115 1 106 0 2 1 2 201 126 87 142 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 115 1 106 0 2 1 2 201 126 87 142 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 115 1 106 0 2 1 2 201 126 87 142 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 115 1 106 0 2 1 2 201 126 87 142 0 I II I I I I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.52 0.01 0.47 0.00 0.67 0.33 0.41 0.61 0.38 0.38 0.62 0.00 Final Sat.: 351 3 323 0 396 198 5 469 295 267 436 0 I H II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.33 0.33 0.33 xxxx 0.01 0.01 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.32 0.32 xxxx Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 10.2 10.2 10.2 0.0 8.3 6.3 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.1 10.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 10.2 10.2 10.2 0.0 8.3 8.3 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.1 10.1 0.0 LOS by Move: 13 8 B * A A 8 B B B B * ApproachDel: 10.2 8.3 10.7 10.1 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 10.2 8.3 10.7 10.1 LOS by Appr: B A B B AllWayAvgQ: 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 28 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:59 Page 16-1 8565 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 126 163 0 38 123 111 1 79 21 1 239 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 139 166 0 39 125 113 1 81 21 1 244 Added Vol: 0 42 21 0 10 16 42 0 1 3 0 1 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 181 187 0 49 141 155 1 82 24 1 245 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 181 187 0 49 141 155 1 82 24 1 245 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 181 187 0 49 141 155 1 82 24 1 245 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 181 187 0 49 141 155 1 82 24 1 245|109| 11 11 H 1 Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.49 0.51 0.00 0.26 0.74 1.00 0.31 0.69 0.18 0.82 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 318 330 0 155 449 492 178 389 95 430 595 1 11 11 II i Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: xxxx 0.57 0.57 xxxx 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.01 0.21 0.26 0.00 0.41 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 14.4 14.4 0.0 10.6 10.6 12.4 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 11.8 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 14.4 14.4 0.0 10.6 10.6 12.4 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 11.8 LOS by Move: * 2 2 * B 2 2 A A A A B ApproachDel: 14.4 10.6 11.4 11.6 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 14.4 10.6 11.4 11.6 LOS by Appr: B B B B AllWayAvgQ: 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.6 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #9 Hayden Av & Higuera St ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.567 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R.4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 12.3 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: 2 ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Hayden Av Higuera St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - I - R L - I - R L - T - R 1 11 11 11 1 Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 11 11 II IAppendix E Page 29 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2002 16:27:59 Page 17-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length %) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #10 Eastham Drive & Higuera Street ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.408 Loss Time (sec): 10 (YA-R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: A ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Approach: Movement: Eastham Drive North Bound South Bound L - T R L - T R Higuera Street East Bound West Bound L - T - R L T - R Control: Rights: Min- Green: Lanes:|109| 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1|109| I I|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 II Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Include Include Include Include Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 277 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 283 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 14 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 0 0 0 297 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 0 0 297 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 297 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 297 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1600 0 Capacity Analysis Module: 17 10 241 0 0 274 61 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 17 10 246 0 0 279 62 O 6 16 0 0 4 16 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 16 262 0 0 283 78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 17 16 262 0 0 283 78 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 16 262 0 0 283 78 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 17 16 262 0 0 283 78 I I I I I 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 1.57 0.43 1600 1600 3200 0 0 2508 692 I I II Vol/Sat: 0.00 0_00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.11 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PRAppendix8 Page 30 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:59 Page 18-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report 2000 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #11 Lucerne Ave & Duquesne Ave ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec) : 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.125 Loss Time (Sec): 0 (Nr+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 53.7 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Lucerne Ave Duquesne Ave Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - I - R L - T - R L - T - R II II II I Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 00 10 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 11 II 11 I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 194 0 81 69 501 0 0 331 162 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 198 0 83 70 511 0 0 338 165 Added Vol: 0 0 0 16 0 0 0 126 0 0 41 7 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 214 0 83 70 637 0 0 379 172 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PER Volume: 0 0 0 214 0 83 70 637 0 0 379 172 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 214 0 83 70 637 0 0 379 172 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 0 0 0 214 0 83 70 637 0 0 379 172 I II II Ii I Saturation Flow Module: Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1_00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.28 0.10 0.90 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 395 0 152 63 566 0 0 567 637 1 II- -11 11---------------/ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: xxxx xxxx xxxx 0.54 xxxx 0.54 1.12 1.12 xxxx xxxx 0.67 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.6 0.0 16.6 97.6 97.6 0.0 0.0 20.5 10.3 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 0_0 0.0 16.6 0.0 16.6 97.6 97.6 0.0 0.0 20.5 10.3 LOS by Move: * * * C * C F F * C 13 ApproachDel: xxxxxx 16.6 97.6 17.3 Delay Adj: xxxxx 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: xxxxxx 16.6 97.6 17.3 LOS by Appr: * C F C AllWayAvgQ: 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 15.5 15.5 15.5 0.0 1.8 0.4 ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Pa0e31 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:59 Page 19-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report ICU l(Loss as Cycle Length 96) Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #12 Jefferson Bl & Duquesne Av ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.901 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 100 Level Of Service: E ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson 81 Duquesne Av Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II I I I I I Control: Protected Protected Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 -1 I I II I I Volume Module: Base Vol: 311 1279 17 24 729 208 416 53 307 18 29 23 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 317 1305 17 24 744 212 424 54 313 18 30 23 Added Vol: 41 247 0 0 173 8 11 0 131 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 358 1552 17 24 917 220 435 54 444 18 30 23 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 358 1552 17 24 917 220 435 54 444 18 30 23 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 358 1552 17 24 917 220 435 54 444 18 30 23 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 358 1552 17 24 917 220 435 54 444 18 30 23 OvlAdjVol: 66 I I I I I I I I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.98 0.02 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1600 3165 35 1600 3200 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 1600 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.22 0.49 0.49 0.02 0.29 0.14 0.27 0.03 0.28 0.01 0.02 0.01 OvlAdjV/S: 0.05 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 32 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:27:59 Page 20-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #13 Robertson Bl & Venice El ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0Xe Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R.4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xx xx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Roberston El Venice 81 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R 1 11 II 11 1 Control: Split Phase Split Phase Protected Protected Include Rights: Include Ovl Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 11 11 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 143 261 48 228 232 368 482 2427 118 52 1611 85 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Ese: 146 266 49 233 237 375 492 2476 120 53 1643 87 Added Vol: 7 52 2 31 65 28 D 134 3 8 51 32 PasserEyVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 153 318 51 264 302 403 492 2610 123 61 1694 119 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 153 318 51 264 302 403 492 2610 123 61 1694 119 Reduct Vol: o 0 o 0 0 o o 0 o o o 0 Reduced Vol: 153 318 51 264 302 403 492 2610 123 61 1694 119 POE Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 153 318 51 264 302 403 541 2610 123 61 1694 119 1 11 11 11 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.93 1.07 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1375 2750 1375 1282 1468 1375 2750 4125 1375 1375 4125 1375 -1 11 11 11 1 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.12 0.04 0.21 02i, 0.29 0.20 0.63 0.09 0.04 0.41 0.09 crit volume: 159 2 870 61 Crit Moves: **** *I** **** **** **************************k***************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix 6 Page 33 Future With Project PM - HaThu L7un 12, 2008 16:28:00 Page 21-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #14 National 81 & Venice 81 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): ILe Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (seciveh): x x Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: E= ******************************************************************************** Street Name: National 131 Venice 131 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - I - R L - T - R L - I - R Control: Permitted Prot+Permit Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 3 0 1 2 0 3 0 1 11 11 11 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 143 505 58 144 722 113 151 2232 249 48 1595 86 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 146 515 59 147 736 115 154 2379 254 49 1627 88 Added Vol: 4 82 1 1 13 4 14 170 3 3 69 5 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 150 597 60 148 749 119 168 2549 257 52 1696 94 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PUP Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PUP Volume: 150 597 60 148 749 119 168 2549 257 52 1696 94 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 150 597 GO 148 749 119 168 2549 257 52 1696 94 PCB Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 150 597 60 148 749 119 185 2549 257 57 1696 94 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 5 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 1.82 0.18 1.00 1.73 0.27 2.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1425 2589 261 1425 2459 391 2850 4275 1425 2850 4275 1425 1 II Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.22 0.23 0.10 0.30 0.20 0.06 0.60 0.18 0.02 0.40 0.07 Crit Volume: 850 29 1,* 11( **** * 3. 1! * * **** Crit Moves: ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK Appendix E Page 34 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:28:00 Page 22-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) *************k****************************************************************** Intersection #15 La Cienega El & Fairfax/Blackwelder *************************************************************************** **** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0.8 6 Loss Time (sec): 10 (Y+R.4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): x x Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: B *******************************************************************************,k Street Name: La Cienega El Fairfax Av/Elackwelder St Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - V - R L - V - R L - T - R L - T - R I I I I I I I I Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 00 11 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 II II Il 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 10 1207 1401 0 1607 8 33 0 6 931 s 8 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1_02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 10 1231 1429 0 1639 8 34 o 6 950 5 a Added Vol: 0 76 142 0 134 o 0 o 0 110 o 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 o o 0 o 0 o 0 0 o 0 Initial Flit: 10 1307 1571 0 1773 8 34 0 6 1060 5 a User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PM' Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PI-!F Volume: 10 1307 o 0 1773 8 34 0 6 1060 5 8 Reduct Vol: 0 0 o o 0 0 o 0 o o o o Reduced Vol: 10 1307 0 0 1773 a 34 0 6 1060 5 e FCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 10 1307 0 0 1773 8 34 0 6 1166 5 8 - I 11 II ---------------H I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 2.99 0.01 0.85 0.00 0.15 2.00 0.38 0.62 Final Sat.: 1425 2850 1425 0 4255 20 1206 0 219 2850 548 877 I II !I II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.4 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.41 0.01 0.01 Crit Volume: 64 0 40 583 Crit Moves: * ** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Trait ix 7-9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITS11, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 35 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:28:00 Page 23-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #16 Jefferson B1 & National 81 ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical VoI./Cap.(X): 0.715 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y-1-R4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 65 Level Of Service: C ************************************************************k******************* Street Name: Jefferson BI National B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T-R L-T-R L-T-R L-T- R 1 11 II II 1 Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ovl Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 I 1 1 0 0 I 11 11 I/ I Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 890 0 0 0 0 776 254 381 244 0 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Lee: 0 0 908 0 0 0 0 792 259 389 249 0 Added Vol: 81 0 111 0 0 0 0 126 97 106 100 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Put: 81 0 1019 0 0 0 0 918 356 495 349 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 81 0 1019 0 0 0 0 918 356 495 349 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 81 0 1019 0 0 0 0 918 356 495 349 0 POE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVoIume: 81 0 1121 0 0 0 0 918 392 544 349 0 II 11 II 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.83 1.17 0.00 Final Sat.: 1425 0 2850 0 0 0 0 2850 1425 2605 1670 0 I II II 11 I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.06 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.27 0.21 0.21 0.00 Crit Volume: 560 0 459 0 Crit Moves: **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 36 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:28:00 Page 24-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #17 La Cienega 31 & Jefferson Dl ************************************************************************** ** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega Dl Jefferson B1 Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L -T-R L-T-R L-T-R L-T- R I 11 II 11 I Control: Permitted ' Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ovl Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 1 11 11 II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 41 2011 243 42 2223 199 587 791 247 166 390 72 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bee: 42 2051 248 43 2278 203 599 807 252 169 398 73 Added Vol: 29 65 9 -4 126 112 156 64 17 5 65 -2 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 71 2116 257 39 2414 315 755 871 269 174 463 71 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 71 2116 257 39 2414 315 755 871 269 174 463 71 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 71 2116 257 39 2414 215 755 871 269 174 463 71 BCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 71 2116 257 39 2414 315 820 871 269 192 463 71 I 11 11 11 I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.68 0.32 1.00 3.00 1.00 2.00 1.53 0.47 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1425 3812 463 1425 4275 1425 2850 2178 672 2850 2850 1425 I 11 11 II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.05 0.56 0.56 0.03 0.56 0.22 0.29 0.40 0.40 0.07 0.16 0.05 Crit Volume: 71 805 570 96 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 37 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2006 16:28:00 Page 25-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level Of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #18 Jefferson Bl & Higuera/Rodeo ****************************************************************************k*** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 0,797 ' Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R=4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 92 Level Of Service: C ******************************************************************************** Street Name: Jefferson B1 Higuera St/Rodeo Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I II I I 1 I I Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Min. Green: Lanes: 219 470 1.02 1.02 223 479 19 122|109| 0 242 601 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 242 601|109| 0 242 601 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 242 601 Ignore|109| 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 I II II II I Volume Module: Base Vol: 45 674 910 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Bse: 46 687 926 Added Vol: 14 177 68 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 Initial Put: 60 864 996 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 PEP Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 PET Volume: 60 864 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 864 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 FinalVolume: 60 864 0 56 43 389 86 398 246 42 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 57 44 397 88 406 251 43|109| 11 19 40 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 44 408 107 446 258 47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 57 44 408 107 446 258 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 44 408 107 446 258 47 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 57 44 408 107 491 258 47 I I I I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1425 1425 1425 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 1425 2850 1425 1425 1425 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1425 2850 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1425 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1425 1425 2850 1425 2850 1425 1425 I II II II I Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.30 0.00 0.17 0.21 0.04 0.03 0.14 0.07 0.17 0.18 0.03 Grit Volume: 432 242 204 258 Grit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PKAppendix E Page 38 Future With Project PM - HaThu Jun 12, 2008 16:28:00 Page 26-1 8665 Hayden Place Future 2010 With Project Conditions PM Peak Hour Level of Service Computation Report Circular 212 Planning Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******************************************************************************** Intersection #19 La Cienega 31 & Rodeo Rd ******************************************************************************** Cycle (sec): 100 Critical Vol./Cap.(X): 1.137 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R-4.0 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): xxxxxx Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ******************************************************************************** Street Name: La Cienega S1 Rodeo Rd Approach: North Bound South Bound East found West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R I 11 11 II I Control: Protected Protected Prot+Permit Protected Rights: Include Include Ovl Ovl Min, Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 210 1903 130 322 2274 88 182 913 435 186 496 181 Growth Adj: 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 Initial Pse: 214 1941 133 328 2319 90 186 931 444 190 506 185 Added Vol: 8 47 0 7 122 28 46 35 17 0 15 10 PasserSyVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 222 1988 133 335 2441 118 222 966 461 190 , 521 195 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ?BF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Volume: 222 1988 133 335 2441 118 232 966 461 190 521 195 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 222 1988 132 335 2441 118 232 966 461 190 521 195 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1. 100 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 FinalVolume: 244 1988 133 369 2441 118 232 966 461 209 521 195 - I II II II Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 1375 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 2.00 2.81 0.19 2.00 2.86 0.14 1.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 2750 3867 258 2750 3935 190 1375 2750 1375 2750 2750 1375 11 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.51 0.51 0.13 0.62 0.62 0.17 0.35 0.34 0,08 0.19 0.14 Crit Volume: 122 853 483 104 Crit Moves: **** **** **** **** ******************************************************************************** Traffix 7.9.0215 (c) 2008 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to KATZ OKITSU, MONTEREY PK25' II .5 II 25' I- I[ WI NOTES 1. PROJECT DESCR1PlION: THE SITE IS PRESENTLY in. - 31E.LoPED Lwrii AN INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE BOILING THIS STRUCTURE ARO TI-15 SPE WILL DE CLEARED TO ALLOW FOR RECONsTRucTION ON THE SITE OF A NEW -OFFICE ODNUOmN[Um PROJECT.|109| OwNERAD8DivI2E0: RETAINS 10110 GREEN [LET 4262 LINCOLN AVENUE CULYER CITY, CA 00232 (3-14) 253-9131|109| SETE ADDRESS,. , HIGUERA ST _ (09.c,a-rc (TO.117}1.-L VICINITY MAP 111 .1. (NO 8o)p' DRNsyNLY (N0 25)1C Bc.65 HAYDEN PLACE, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 07232|109| FXIST1N1G LEGAL DESCRIPNON: PARCEL A (FEE OWNERSHIP), PARCEL 7, AS SHOWN ON PARcEL mAP NO. 7573, I'D THE CITY OF CULVER CITE, couNr( OF LOS ANGELES. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 00 PER MAP FILET] IN NOOK 78, PAGE 87 OF FARCE, mAPS. IN THE OFFICE or THE COUNTY RECORDER DE SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 8 (NOT FEE OWNERSH/P BUT EASEMENT RIGHTS DYER AOACENT PROPERTY AS SHOWN HEREON): AN EASEMENT TOT miTEITAL ACCESS ANT INCIDENTAL PURPOSES. OVER THE EASTERLY 17,00 FEET OF PARCEL 2 OF SAO PARCEL MAP 7673. (90 06)00 T.6,:r)rs KEY TO MAP SYMBOLS SAID EASEMENT IS ITO EXTEND PASO THE NORTHERLY UNE OF SAID PARCEL 2 TO THE wEsTERLy TERMINUS OF HAYDEN PEACE. , C CIJE 02.5 90.40F5_ •••••• n •••••• m• wig •••• morywiwoo. Old --fl- _ _ 26- P105E1. C (NOT FEE OWNERSHIP BUT EASEMENT RIGHTS OVER ADJACENT PROPERTY AS SHOWN HEREON): AN EASEMENT FOR muTLJAL ACCESS AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSES, CNER THAT PORTION OF LOT 11 DE TRACT NO, 32550. AS PET NAP RECORDED IN 0004 605, PAGE(S) 11 TO 14 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS. RECORDS OE SAID COLTICY, 1NcLuDED wiTHLN U STRIP or LANE, 17.20 FEET WIDE, THE WESTERLY LINE OF WHICH 8LIFIG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 11. f NA SAO EAI LIMENT - TO EXTEND FROm HIGHER. STREET TO 0505E0 PLACE, O. TAX ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 4204-L.00-720 2006 11101mAs WIDE PAGE 672 CRIII 01 0 ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: ZONING, INOuSTRIAL CENERAL (IC) ZONE GENERAL ELAN DESToNATIoN: INDUSTRIAL =TREE (TREE DIAMETER I NDICATED By TREE) U 0112. =CONCRETE =CENTERLINE OLE = CHAIN LINE FENCE FS =FINISHED SURFACE NC =NATLJNAL GRADE IC =TOP OF CURT FL =FLOW LINE -TOP OF WALL RP =PowER POLE GEIW -CONCRETE &OCR WALT TOP -TYPICAL = SEWER MANHOLE =PROPERTe LINE PP = POwER/ POLE PA -PLANTER AREA (0000) =10150 ELEVATIONS A IL 7. ONE LOT AREA CALCULATIONS: SF ACRES 34.500 0.7n SITE DRAINAGE -----HOUNDAn y OF SITE TO OE PER ALL GOY ANT L.A. COUNTY 'DEPAR TMENT OF PLIALIC WORKS REQUIREMENTS FLOOD LLAFARD NOTE, SITE IT NOT LOCATED IN A SPECIAL FLOES HAZARD AREA ANT IS LOCATED IN TONE C PER FIRM 06011 40005C 01101105 SEWING THE SITE, 7J----1-5- TOP 1'L cufy SANITAny SEWER PROPOSED n?,;_ CONDOMINIUM BUILDING -a- CARLE TINE WARNER, ELECTRETYE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISION, NATURAL CASE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CAS COMPANY; SEWER: 0110 or ctiLvER CRY; TELEPHONE , 0100 W ATER: GOLDEN STATE WAiLG COMPANY: TRASH: CEFY OF CULVER CITY. : —11 112511 I T. DATUM FOR ELEVATIONS:. LOS ANGELES COUNTY ROAD CEPARTLADNT Om NO c y 0339 (cuLvER 02140, 1980 ADJUS50E1TT1; LEAD AND SP1T IN CONG GORE 49 PE V & 22 FT. 2//0 APPROX. INT. OF JEFFERSO N REVD_ ANT HETZLER RD N SE CORNER OF CBE I1500 1920, ELEV.-27.255 (BM AND ELF/ 500559 HEREON WERE PROVIDED BY OTHERS) 12. EASEMENT NOTE, EASEMENTS HEREON ARE PER c oz ,./Dnion LANDAmmicA commorTwEALTH TITLE REPORT, 00000 HO. '36157354-09 (.LL • ENDR ES EXCEPT frEm z ARE PLOTTED oti 'DAS HAP ONO REFERENCED EH CIRCLED . LETTERS REVD) TO TREE LETTERS GELOW): A EASEMENT FOR FRANC STORM DRAIN, OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, PET HOEK O 318 FADE 180, 0x'30/29. 0.R_ NOTE, THE GOuNTY OF LOS ANDELE5 IS THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TG THE OTC OF LOT ANDELEs FOR THIS STORM O tAsEmENT- FOR PLIELIC OIL:TIES, OF 300T8ERN CAL.EORNA EOISON COmPANY, PER INsTFLumENT No_ 3105, 9/2/75, 0.0. G EASE -NENT FOR PiOnESS ANC EGRESS AND OTHER PURPOSES. PER COVENANTS, CONDI-1E0G AND RESTRICTIONS, INSTRUMENT TO 2C60, Li/TO/PT, AND EASEMENT FOP EAUTUAL ACCESS, PER INsTRumENT No. 77-3053.02, 0/15/77. BoTH G.R.|1010|a GRAPHIC SCALE 0' 20' 40' SCALE: 1" ,,-- 20' I TAW-00y SEWER _.(01.12)Tyf (87.10)00 "PARCEL D EASEMSTNT FOR SANITARY SEWER, OF CITY OF COLDER CITE. PER losTRumENT No 77-123E20, 2/3/77, OR. (33.22)1-2/ 201.0 (52.74)0-5 II II (02'77)`.5 erFsrTE BLOC (NOT A PART) _ (PARCEL 2 PARCEL MAP 7673, Pm8 70/81) EVERYTHING SHOWN HEREON IS EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE NDICATED DCA JIN 07 , 10:93-9899 000 -O44 roOM NILuDFIA ST FMTOCN ,EACE. SEE PAVED ORwEWAY LEOAL DESCRIPTION mEREON) "PARCEL B" 1E111005 FROM 10E0 SOU,: PI_ TO FLMODN PITIZE EF,E LEDAL 0.0900EPTON HT9E0a) E EASELAENTS FOP INGRESS AND EGRESS ARO WATER PIPES, OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA wATER C IALPANY. PER INSTRUMENT NO 72-129 E015, 2/4/77. 4110 INSTRUMENT NO. 77-300E37, 3/20/77, BOTH OR. THESE TWO EASEmENTS ARE NOT PLO1TABLE DECAILSE THE EASEMENT' DOCUMENTS 00 NOY PROVIDE ENOuCH 711000IATIDN To 17ETERmiNE THE EASEMENT LOCATIONS_ THESE EASEMEN TS WERE 000NTEE1 TO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA wATER COmPANY PER THE DOCUMENTS NOTED; THE SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST IS GOLDEN STATE STAEER cOmpANy. NIS TENTATIVE MAP Has BEEN PREPARE] uNtICH cKARB S. ClimmINS DIRECT UPERVISION AND SOWS ALL EASELTENTS OF 1000000 05 REPORTED IN THE TITLE REPORT PREPARED BY COMMONLy EALTII TITLE COMPANY AND DATED JULY 0, 2002 g• _40e CIVIL ENGINEERING GROUP 17- TULta04,Wgi :7ectO Ltannal7 SEORN 00010 TA. an170t7117,A5N,Mrect=fignIVVV" LOS S, CULARNS RILE NO 4524 EXP. DATE: 9/30/00 17620 Crenshaw TAE, SIO. DIO0 TOODEtro, Osittornia 90504 101: 010) 327-001a Ess, (7103327175 cloaDiVIIDogoom CIVIL ENG/NEHHING - LAND PLANNING . SURVEYING & MAPPING - A L.T.A. SPECIALISTS TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 69769 A ONE LOT SUBDIVISION FOR (30 AR SPACE CONDOMINIUM UMTS PURPOSES, OF LOT 1 OF PARCEL MAP 7673, THE CITY OF CULVER CITY, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALFORNIAPLANNING DIVISION Attachment iN (310) 253-5710 FAX (310) 253-5721 9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM AND ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Project Title: Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183; Height Exception, HTEX P-2008111; Tentative Tract Map No. 69769, TTM P-2007184; and Administrative Use Permit, AUP P-2008110. Lead Agency: City of Culver City Planning Division 9770 Culver Boulevard Culver City, California 90232 Contact Person: Joseph Montoya, A1CP, Associate Planner (310) 253-5736 Project Location: 8665 Hayden Place [south of Higuera Higuera Street Street] APN: 4204-005-025 Nearest Cross Street: Project Sponsor's Name & Address: Greg Reitz Rethink Tara Green LLC 4262 Lincoln Avenue Culver City, California 90232 General Plan Designation: Industrial Zoning: Industrial General (1G) Redevelopment Project Area: Component Area No. Overlay Zone/Special District: N/A. Project Description and Requested Action: The proposed project consists of demolishing an existing 18,000 gross square foot (GSF) industrial building and then constructing a new terraced four (4) story / 63,615 GSF office building measuring between 32 and 61 feet in height. A total of 181 parking spaces [including tandem] will be provided onsite in a combination of surface and subterranean parking spaces. Offsite improvements include reconstruction of curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk plus additional street tree planting. The requested actions include a Site Plan Review to construct the office building, parking and onsite / offsite improvements; a Height Exception to exceed the 43'-0" maximum height allowed in the IG Zone; a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the proposed site and building into condominium office units; and an Administrative Use Permit to allow the use of 18 pairs of tandem parking spaces [18 block spaces and 18 aisleway spaces].Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green LLC 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 2 of 21 Existing Conditions of the Project Site: The project site, measuring 34,580 square feet / 0.79 acres, is located on one (1) parcel with vehicle access from the Hayden Place cul-de-sac to the south provided via a shared easement roadway along the easterly portion of the site. An emergency fire lane and emergency access gate to Higuera Street is provided along the extended easement roadway that slopes upwards to a maximum of 4'-10" to the top of the abutting Higuera Street public sidewalk. The existing industrial building, surface parking and site improvements are to be demolished. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: To the North: across Higuera Street, the area is developed with single and multiple family residential uses. To the East: across the sloping emergency fire lane, the area is developed with industrial buildings and surface parking; To the South: the area is developed with industrial buildings and surface parking; and To the West: the area is developed with single and multiple family residential uses. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Culver City City Council and the Culver City Redevelopment Agency. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a 'Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages: Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: C Mineral Resources 0 Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic LI Utilities / Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Z I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. find that the proposed project MAY have a 'potentially significant impact' or 'potentially significant 315e)ociate Planner September 16, 2008 Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 3 of 21 unless mitigated' impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier DR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. *351'AESTHETICS -- oid the project., a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Responses: Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green L- 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 4 of 21 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Li LI LI Li Li LI El LI a). Less Than Significant. The project is located in an urbanized area, with industrial, commercial and residential buildings in the immediate vicinity. The topography surrounding the site is primarily level with no substantial ocean or mountain views that can be considered scenic that will be affected by the project. No mitigations are necessary. b). Less Than Significant There are no significant rock outcroppings on the site or historic buildings within a state scenic highway. The project site is currently an industrial building with pavement and landscaping. The Higuera Street frontage is developed with a landscape area within the public right-of-way. The proposed project will include additional offsite [i.e., addition new street trees] and onsite [i.e., trees, planters and landscape screening]. As a standard code requirement and condition of approval to the project, the developer is required to prepare and submit a landscape and irrigation plan [prepared by a state licensed landscape architect] that meets the requirements of the City and provides enhanced and improved parkway landscaping including the provision new street trees. The proposed landscape plan will reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. No mitigations are necessary. c). Less Than Significant. There is minimal visual character or quality of the project site as it is developed with an industrial building and is partially screened from the Higuera Street frontage by the existing public right-of-way landscaping. The proposed project will improve the visual character and quality of the site by constructing a modern and architecturally unique building making use of a variety of building materials including wood cladding, fiber cement cladding, anodized aluminum, glazed windows, cast concrete, perforated stainless steel screening and metal guard rails. The project is also an "environmentally friendly" green building consisting of "green screens" (metal screens with landscaping) on the building façades, provisions of photovoltaic solar arrays on the rooftop, the use of "green" roof areas and passive design elements such as natural ventilation and radiant floor heating. Also, the proposed project as mentioned above will result in enhanced and improved streetscape and parkway improvements with the addition of new street trees and landscaping along the public right of way. Finally, portions of the building facades are intended to be decorated with public artwork in compliance with the City's Art in Public Places program. Once constructed, the proposed project may help to stimulate the redevelopment of other building along the subject industrial area of the city. In conclusion, the project will not degrade the visual character of the site and will be a significant improvement for the immediate area. No mitigation measures are necessary. d). Less Than Significant The proposed project will bring new sources of light at nighttime from exterior lighting of the building and to a smaller extent, interior lighting of the building. However, the project is required to be built to City codes and all exterior lighting is required to be shielded or recessed so that direct glare andPotentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitlgation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated reflections are confined to the boundaries of the site and not shine or glare directly onto adjacent public and/or private properties. With implementation'of these code requirements, this potential impact is reduced to a level that is less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. El Where available, the significance criteria established , by the applicable air quality management or air rict may be relied' upon to make the following determinations. Would the ' - Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 5 of 21 II. AGRICU LTURE RESOURCES: In de riT li1. rig whether impacts tp agricultural resources are significant enyironMental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Cal' orrna Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept: of conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and fagniand. Would the project. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Responses: a).- c). No Impact. The project site is not located on land identified, utilized, or zoned for agricultural purposes, and there is no known Williamson Act contract in effect on the project site. No mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? El zGreg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green LA; 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 6 of 21 • Potentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Responses: a). Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. Air quality conditions in the Basin are under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are responsible for formulating and implementing an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin. The current AQMP was approved in 1997. Implementation of the AQMP is based on a series of control measures that vary by source type, such as stationary or mobile, as well as by the pollutant targeted. Since the AQMP is based on growth projections reflected in local general plans, only new or amended general plans, or projects that exceed the level of development contemplated in the general plan have the potential to conflict with the AQMP. The proposed project does not require an amendment to the General Plan land use designation of Industrial, therefore no conflict with the AQMP would occur. No mitigation measures are required. b).-c). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would result in short-term emissions during construction (i.e., dust, construction equipment exhaust) and long-term emissions due to traffic generated by the project after construction is completed. In its CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the SCAQMD provides specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant, Project Emissions. Tables 6-2 end 6-3 of the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook provide guidance for determining whether a project could exceed these thresholds of significance during construction or operations. For construction emissions, the threshold for an office project is 559,000 square feet of gross square feet (GSF). For operations emissions, the threshold for a small office project (10-100 units) is 96,221 GSF. The proposed project as analyzed in the traffic study would contain a maximum of 63,615 GSF [although the preliminary development plans intend to develop a project measuring only 62,765 GSF]; therefore it is below the SCAQMD threshold of significance for construction and operations. The threshold for grading is 177 acres. The proposed project would result in excavation and grading for the subterranean garage. However, said excavation and exporting of soil [approximately 23,864 cubic yards of dirt] is anticipated to be well below the threshold of significance for grading activities. In addition, the proposed conditions of approval for the project would reduce dust emissions through compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) water quality requirements. No mitigation measures are necessary. d). Less Than Significant Impact. Sensitive receptors include single and multi-family residences to the west and north of the site and the industrial uses to the east and south. Although the project site would cause emissions in close proximity to existing residences and industrial uses, these emissions would be less than significant due to the temporary nature of construction and the proposed office use of the property as discussed above. e). Less Than Significant Impact. Diesel-powered equipment used for construction could cause odors and emissions that may be offensive to sensitive persons. The closest sensitive uses to the project include single and multi-family residences to the west and north of the site and the industrial uses to the east and south. This would be a temporary impact and would be mitigated by existing SCAQMD regulations requiring proper maintenance of vehicle engines and exhaust systems, and therefore is not considered significant. No mitigation measure is necessary. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 7 of 21 Potentlally EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated OLOGiCAL RESOURCES Wou d the project: Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Responses: LI z LI z a).- f). Less Than Significant impact. The project site is currently developed with an industrial use and contains limited vegetation; however the site is existing disturbed land as it was previously developed with various uses including the current industrial building. No sensitive native plants or wildlife are known to inhabit the site. There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community on the site. The project site supports no federally-protected wetlands or waters of the United States as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Because the project site is completely surrounded by development and within an urbanized area, it is not part of a resident migratory wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site. Development of the proposed project would result in impacts that are less than significant. No mitigation measure is necessary. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. 3(p73EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 15064,5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?|1010|No Impact PotentiaIly Potentially Significant Less Than Significant Impact unless Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project: z Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 8 of 21 Responses: - a).- d). Less than Significant Impact. Information on existing conditions of the project site per City records and information submitted by the applicant with project application materials indicates no identified cultural resources exist on site and no significant adverse impacts relative to cultural resources are associated with the project. The proposed project is an intensification of the existing building gross square footage on a previously developed and disturbed land. No mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating 8ubstantial risks to life or property?Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green LL 8665Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 9 of 21 Potentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Responses: Less Than Significant Impact. Based on a review of City records, the site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo zone. The closest active faulting occurs on the Santa Monica Fault Zone, which is located approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the site and the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone approximately 4.0 miles to the east. As a result, surface rupture is not likely on the site, although the site would be expected to experience ground shaking during a seismic event in the area. In the event of a strong earthquake, there is a potential for structural damage to the building and utilities. A standard code requirement requires the submittal of the geotechnical report to ensure adequate seismic safety arid soils stability of all proposed development improvements for the project. In addition, the project grading plan and building plans are required to conform to the recommendations in the required geotechnical report in a manner meeting the approval of the City. Compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and standard building code requirements would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. a)(iii). Less Than Significant Impact. Based on information contained as referenced above, the project site is not located within an area subject to liquefaction. Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which saturated silty to cohesesionless soils below the groundwater table are subject to a temporary loss of strength due to the buildup of excess pore pressure during cyclic loading conditions such as those induced by an earthquake. Liquefaction-related effects include loss of bearing strength, amplified ground oscillations, lateral spreading and flow failures. Based on a liquefaction analysis of the soils as part of the required geotechnical report referenced above, the site soils would not be capable of liquefaction. Based on the information noted above, the project will ensure adequate seismic safety and soils stability of all proposed development improvements for the project. In addition, the project grading plan and building plans shall conform to the recommendations in the geotechnical report in a manner meeting the approval of the City. Compliance with the recommendations in the geotechnical report and standard building code requirements would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. a)(iv). Less Than 'Significant Impact. The site is relatively level with a slight upward slope in the north portion of the site abutting Higuera Street. Based on the information noted above, the probability of seismically-induced landslides occurring on the site is considered to be low due to the general lack of elevation difference across or adjacent to the site. No mitigation measures are necessary. b). Less Than Significant Impact. Soil erosion can occur naturally, and may be accelerated during excavation and construction when vegetation cover is removed and bare soil is disturbed. However, standard code requirements and conditions of approval require the preparation of erosion/sediment control plans such as the Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (LSWPPP) and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to regulate and control pollutant run-off by using Best Management Practices (BMP's) accordance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). These plans shall show all temporary and permanent erosion control devises, effective planting of graded slopes, practical accessibility for maintenance purposes and proper precautions and fences to prevent public trespass onto certain areas where impounded water may create hazardous condition. These plans would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. c). Less Than Significant Impact. See Section VI.a, above. No mitigation measures are required. d). Less Than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are generally high in clay content. The standard code requirements and project condition of approval described in Section VI.a, above, will ensure this project complies with applicable engineering standards and that potential impacts are reduced to a level that is less[51 Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green L.L.— 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 10 of 21 Potentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Lees Than Significant impact No Impact Incorporated than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) No Impact, The project would not involve the use of septic tanks. All wastewater is proposed to be conveyed off-site via City approved connections to the public sanitary sewer system. No mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would the projec a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildand fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Responses: a). Less Than Significant. No routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials is proposed in connection with the operation of the project. No mitigation measures are necessary. b). Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, gasoline- and diesel-powered equipment would be used. In the event of an accident, gasoline or diesel fuel could be spilled. Standard building permit and construction provisions would require the contractor follow proper site maintenance and spill cleanup procedures toPotentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated minimize health hazards. No mitigation measures are necessary. c). Less Than Significant. No hazardous materials would be used in connection with the proposed project. The site is within 1,400 feet of The Willows Community School, located to the east at 8509 Higuera Street. The only potential hazardous materials present as part of the existing site improvements may be asbestos or lead- based paint in building materials to be demolished and removed. However, since all demolition shall be cone in a manner required by all applicable codes related to potential hazardous materials, this reduces this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. d). No Impact. The applicant's Phase 1 report of the site and former warehouse use and City records indicate the property is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites, No mitigation measures are necessary, e). No Impact. The project site is not located within a tow (2) mile radius of any airport. The nearest airport (Los Angeles International Airport (LAX)) is approximately 3.5 miles south of the site. No mitigation measures are necessary. f). No Impact. There are no private airstrips within the project vicinity. No mitigation measures are necessary. g)- Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would have no long-term effect on any emergency response or emergency evacuation plan or procedures. Emergency evacuation routes could be affected during construction due to temporary street or lane closures. Implementation of standard City conditions require the preparation and implementation of traffic control plans to ensure construction does not obstruct emergency access. No mitigation measures are necessary. h). Less Than Significant Impact. The project is not located on an urban/wildland edge. Standard building and fire code requirements would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green LLC 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 11 of 21 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the projec t a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements'? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? [7]Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green LLt.; 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 12 of 21 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17 LI LI Li LI LI LI LI LI EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: a) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storrnwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Responses: a). Less Than Significant Impact. During excavation and construction, erosion and siltation could occur resulting in water pollution and a violation of Regional Water Quality Control Board standards if proper steps are not implemented. Standard code requirements and conditions of approval to the project requires the preparation of erosion/sediment control plans such as the Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (LSWPPP) and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), to regulate and control pollutant run-off by using Best Management Practices (BMP's) in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). These plans shall show all temporary and permanent erosion control devises, effective planting of graded slopes, practical accessibility for maintenance purposes and proper precautions and fences to prevent public trespass onto certain areas where impounded water may create hazardous condition, The proposed project also incorporates certain environmentally friendly design elements such as new landscape planter areas and a green roof design. City and State standard code requirements and site design elements would reduce this potential impact to a level that is less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. b). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would have negligible effect on groundwater supplies or recharge. No wells are proposed as part of the project. The project would replace a developed industrial site with an office use that may result in an increase in storrnwater runoff but the amount of new impermeable surfaces (less than 25,000 square feet) would have no measurable effect on groundwater recharge. In addition, the projects' green roof and other landscape irrigation would result in increased groundwater percolation during dry months, offsetting the effect of new impermeable surfaces to some extent. No mitigation measures are necessary. c). Less Than Significant Impact. Grading in connection with the project would result in insignificant changes to existing drainage patterns. The proposed project plans include facilities to collect and convey runoff to the storm drain system located in public streets. The standard City and State code requirements for storm water runoff and drainage plans are adequately prepared and ensure that grading and drainage would be done in a manner that does not cause substantial erosion, siltation or flooding. Such requirements would reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. d). Less Than Significant impact. The site is mostly developed with building and limited ground area. However, standard code requirements and conditions of approval to the project requires the preparation of erosion/sediment control plans such as the Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (LSWPPP) and Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to regulate and control pollutant run-off by using Best Management Practices (BMP's) in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The construction of theIX LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project; 1-1 Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green L.A., 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 13 of 21 Potentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated proposed office development would not result in a significant increase in runoff during storm events. There are no streams or rivers on or adjacent to the site. All standard City and State code requirements for stormwater runoff and drainage as described in the above sections would substantially reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. e). Less Than Significant Impact. See Sections VIII. a). - d)., above. The project would be expected to result in an insignificant increase in runoff, which would be conveyed to public storm drains by required drainage improvements. No mitigation measures are necessary. 1). Less Than Significant Impact. See Sections VIII, a). - d),, above. There are no other known impacts to water quality. No additional mitigation measures are necessary. g).-h). No Impact. The site is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. No mitigation measures are necessary. i). Less Than Significant Impact. The site is located within the Stone Canyon Dam Inundation Zone. Although the potential for dam failure is low, dam owners are required under Section 8589.5 of the California Government Code to prepare emergency response plans for warning, evacuation and post-flood actions. Due to the distance of the project site from the Stone Canyon Dam and the extent of intervening development, as well as early warning systems in place, impacts associated with exposing people or structures to significant risk as a result of dam failure are Jess than significant, J) , No Impact. The site is not located in an area that is subject to seiche, tsunami or mudfiows. No mitigation measures are necessary, Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. a) Physically divide an established community? Li b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Responses: a). Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not physically divide an established community as the proposed office use is of similar types of land use to the existing industrial uses directly to the east and south of the project site. No mitigation measures are necessary. b). Less Than Significant Impact. The General Plan Land Use Element designates the property Industrial which permits office development. The property is presently zoned Industrial General (IG) which permits the proposed office use. The proposed office use is consistent with these designations and respects all provisions and development regulations of the Zoning Code and General Plan. The application does not include any request to amend the General Plan or Zoning designations. No mitigation is necessary. c). No Impact. The site is not located within a Natural Community Conservation Plan area, or other habitat conservation plan area. No mitigation measures are required, X MINERAL RESOURCES Would the ritoi6ot XL NOISE --Would the proi0 99t result in:|1010|a) LI LI Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 14 of 21 Potentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. LI a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Responses: a).-b). No Impact. Current site conditions and City records indicate that there are no mineral resources on or within the project site and no locally important mineral resource recovery areas located in the project area. No Mitigation Measures are necessary. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Responses: a). & cf).Less Than Significant Impact. There are two potential sources of concern regarding noise: 1) noise generated on adjacent properties during construction, and 2) noise impacts caused by the additional traffic generated by future occupants of the proposed project:Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green 8665, Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 15 of 21 Potentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated 1. Construction Noise. A short-term noise increase during construction would be expected to occur from the use and transport of heavy construction equipment. Pursuant to the City's Municipal Code, any construction adjacent to noise-sensitive land uses shall be limited to the standard restriction hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM, Monday through Friday and 9:00 AM through 7:00 PM on Saturday and 10:00 AM through 7:00 PM on Sundays. However due to residential neighborhoods located near the project site, further [imitations to construction hours are at times imposed as part of a project's approval such as this. A condition of approval is placed on the project prohibiting construction on Sundays and on City specified holidays and further limiting construction activity from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM on Mondays through Friday. Dirt hauling and construction material deliveries or removal are prohibited during the morning (7:00 AM to 9:00 AM) and afternoon (4:00 PM to 6:00 PM). Any construction that occurs outside these hours shall comply with the noise limits contained in the Municipal Code. The standard code requirement and conditions of approval further limiting the hours of construction activity would reduce construction noise to a level that is less than significant. 2. Traffic Noise. The proposed project would generate additional traffic on the surrounding street network, which could result in an increase in traffic noise levels. The project would be expected to generate approximately 575 daily trips. This traffic would result in a negligible increase in noise. No mitigation measures are necessary. b). Less Than Significant Impact. A short-term increase in groundborne vibration and noise would be expected to occur during grading and construction. The small size of the project and limitations on allowable hours of construction found in the City's Municipal Code as well as those restrictions that may be imposed through the conditions of approval would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. c). Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Section Xl.a.2 above, the proposed project would generate an insignificant increase in noise levels due to marginal increases in traffic on surrounding streets. No mitigation is necessary. e).—f). No Impact. The site is not located near an airport flight path and there are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the site. No mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. XII POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project* a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Responses: a). No Impact. The proposed project contains no residential uses; therefore it would not induce any population growth. No mitigation measures are necessary. b). No Impact. No homes would be displaced by the proposed development. No mitigation measures are necessary. LI LI LI Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 16 of 21 Potentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated c). No impact See XII.b, above. No mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measure(s1 None Required. LI 'SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Responses: a) Fire protection? Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is surrounded by existing development that is currently served by the Culver City Fire Department and the project would have no significant effect on the long-term demand for fire protection. Temporary impacts on fire protection could occur due to street lane closures during construction. However, standard conditions regarding street improvements require the preparation and implementation of traffic control plans to ensure construction does not obstruct emergency access. No mitigation measures are necessary. b) Police protection? Less Than Significant Impact, The proposed project would not cause a substantial increase in demand for police protection; however temporary impacts could occur due to street lane closures during construction. Standard conditions regarding street improvements require the preparation and implementation of traffic control plans to ensure construction does not obstruct emergency access. No mitigation measures are necessary. c) Schools? No Impact. The proposed project would not generate additional students since it is not a residential use. No mitigation measures are necessary. d) Parks? No Impact. The proposed project would not generate additional residents or demand for park usage since it is not a residential use. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed project would have no effect on any other public facilities. No mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required.LI Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green Le,., 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 17 of 21 Potentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated RECREATION',i'. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Responses: a). No Impact. The proposed project would not generate additional residents or demand for recreational facilities since it is not a residential use. No mitigation measures are necessary. b). No Impact. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities, nor would it generate additional residents or demand for recreational facilities since it is not a residential use. No mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. xv TRAktOokrAticikiTRAFftd : - Id thg Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access?|109| Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Responses:|1010|LI LI X The following analysis is based on the Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Office, Culver City, California dated July 23, 2008 and prepared by KOA Corporation: a).-b). Less Than Significant Impact. Two separate issues are addressed in this section: 1) Impacts after project completion; and 2) Impacts during construction. Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 18 of 21 Potentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated 1. Impacts After Project Completion Level of Service (LOS) is a professional industry standard by which to measure the operating conditions of a given roadway segment or intersection. Level of Service is defined on a scale of LOS A to LOS F, where LOS A represents free flowing traffic conditions with no restrictions on maneuvering or operating speeds, low traffic volumes and high speeds; LOS B represents stable flow, more restrictions, operating speeds beginning to be affected by traffic volumes; LOS C represents stable flow, more restrictions, speed and maneuverability more closely controlled by higher traffic volumes; LOS D represents conditions approaching unstable flow, traffic volumes profoundly affect arterial flow; LOS E represents unstable flow, and some stoppages; and LOS F represents forced flow, many stoppages, and low operating speeds. The proposed office building is expected to generate approximately 575 net new daily trips, including 82 net trips during the AM peak hour, and 77 net rips during the PM peak hour. The traffic study analyzed potential traffic impact on 19 intersections adjacent or in close proximity to the project site. A total of 7 of the 19 intersections studied are located in the City of Los Angeles. According to the traffic study, under the "existing conditions" (2008) summary, 6 of the 19 intersections operate at LOS E or worse during the AM or PM peak hour; while under the "future with ambient growth and related project" (2010) summary, 10 of the 19 intersections would operate at LOSE or worse. This deterioration in level of service is a result of ambient traffic growth and on going and/or proposed development within and near the study area, and is expected to occur whether or not the proposed project is built. In the future (2010) "with" project analysis, the proposed project will generally result in only nominal incremental increases in area intersection operations and is not expected to produce any changes in the forecast "without" project levels of service in any of the listed intersections. Hence, the addition of the proposed project traffic would not have a significant impact on traffic conditions in the near term (2010). No mitigation measures are necessary. 2. impacts During Construction Short-term impacts would occur due to construction traffic and temporary street lane closures. Standard conditions require that a traffic control plan be prepared to specify measures to minimize travel disruptions and safety hazards. This provision would reduce potential short-term construction traffic impacts to a level that is less than significant. c). No impact. The project would have no effect on air traffic patterns. No mitigation measures are necessary. d). Less Than Significant Impact. The operations of the project's driveway onto the easement roadway to and from the Hayden Place- cul-de-sac was examined to assure that safe operations and adequate capacity is provided to accommodate the anticipated vehicular demands of the project. Access to the project's parking facilities will be provided via the existing easement roadway; and no vehicular site access is to be provided from the emergency fire lane barricaded driveway to/from Higuera Street. The traffic study prepared for the project analyzed and concluded that the proposed parking access will operate adequately, with no external vehicular queuing onto the easement roadway to/from Hayden Place, and no significant internal queuing within the parking area is anticipated to occur. Visibility for drivers entering or exiting the site driveway to/from the roadway easement is also not anticipated to be a concern. Vehicles entering the site's driveway are provided with adequate maneuvering room to/from with the parking row along the easterly edge of the site and the subterranean garage entrance/exit along the same easterly edge; or within the site itself. Site distance and driver visibility of oncoming vehicles at the site parking area and ingress / egress is also acceptable. No structure or fence at any driveway location is anticipated to impact the "eye height" and/or "line of sight" of any vehicle. Loading for the project is proposed via an on-site parking space located along the row of parking at the easterly edge of the site. The standard City code requires the on-site loading zoneF|1010|Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 19 of 21 Potentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Manger to ensure no loading impacts will occur and that proper signing and hours of operation are in place if deemed necessary. As mentioned above in Section XV.a,b, the project will be required per the City codes to improve all required roadway and parking surfaces so as to provide a safe, smooth and easy onsite circulation plan. Implementation of these code requirements and site design elements of the proposed project would reduce any potential impacts below the level of the significance. No mitigation measures are necessary. e) Less Than Significant Impact. See Sections XIII.a and XV.a and d, above. The standard code requirements and site design elements discussed in those sections would reduce potential impacts to a level that is less than significant. f). Less Than Significant Impact. The project will provide a total of 181 onsite parking spaces including 9 spaces along the parking row at the easterly edge of the site and the remaining 163 parking spaces within the four (4) levels of subterranean parking. This plan includes standard, tandem [both aisle and blocked] loading and handicapped parking spaces. In accordance with the requirements of the CCMC, the tandem parking spaces require the prior approval of an Administrative Use Permit prior to being constructed. The project meets the current City parking requirements for office type uses. Therefore, no project-related parking shortages or "overflow" parking in the adjacent residential neighborhoods or industrial / commercial areas by the project employees or visitors is anticipated. No impact Although there are no requirements or policies that apply to the project related to alternative transportation, the applicant provides to permanently make available the use of a "shared" vehicle for onsite tenants that use non-standard vehicle modes of transportation [i.e., walking, bicycling, carpooling, public transit (bus or rail transit)]. No mitigation is necessary. Mitigation Measure(s): None required. UTILITIES ANER SYS --Would the proje a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green 8665 Hayden Place September 16,2008 Page 20 of 21 Potentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Responses: a),b),8,e). Less Than Significant Impact. Culver City maintains its own sewage collection facilities within the city limits and contracts with the City of Los Angeles for treatment service. Treatment occurs at the Hyperion Treatment Plan, located southwest of the City within the City of Los Angeles city limits and which has sufficient capacity to serve the needs of the proposed project. No expansion of the existing facilities is necessary as a result of this project. The proposed project will have less than significant impacts to the waste water system. No mitigation measures are necessary. c). Less Than Significant impact. The City is primarily served by the Los Angeles County Storm Drainage System. The City currently maintains some its own storm drains that connect to the County system. The combined system is adequate to serve the proposed project. No mitigation measures are necessary. d). Less Than Significant impact. Water service for this project site comes from the Golden State Water Company which depends on the Metropolitan Water District for its supply. There is sufficient water supply to the City to serve the proposed project and no expansion to the service is necessary. The proposed project will have less than significant impacts to the water system. No mitigation measures are necessary. f). Less Than Significant Impact. Solid waste disposal service for this project site is provided by the City. Disposal sites include the Puente Hills landfill in the City of Industry. Other landfills available for City waste disposal include BKK Sanitary Landfill in the City of West Covina and Bradley West Landfill in the City of Sun Valley. The CCMC requires provision of trash containers for recyclable materials and yard waste to reduce solid waste generation. No mitigation measures are necessary. g). Less Than Significant impact. See Section XVI.f, above. The project could generate solid waste during construction. Standard conditions requiring the contractor to remove and dispose of waste in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations as noted by the Sanitation Division which would reduce this impact to a level that is less than significant. No mitigation measures are necessary. Mitigation Measure(s)i None Required. XVIIMANDATORY 'UNDINGS OF SIGNIFICANC - a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Cumulatively considerable means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? zPotentially EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Incorporated Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Responses: a) No impact. The project will not degrade the quality of the environment nor have any significant impacts to any plant or animal wildlife species because the site itself is currently developed with no significant vegetation. The proposed project will be a significant aesthetic improvement to the site and revitalize the surrounding area by activating the site with new office uses. Also, the project will introduce new and enhanced landscaping and vegetation where currently there is minimal to none. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The project would contribute to short-term cumulative impacts in the areas of air quality, noise and traffic during the construction period. The project's contribution to these cumulative impacts would be substantially reduced by the standard City code requirements and proposed conditions of approval, and hence the incremental impacts of the project would be less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The project does not have the potential to cause adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposed project's design features, standard City code requirements and conditions of approval described herein reduced any potential impacts to a level that is Jess than significant. Mitigation Measure(s): None Required. Greg Reitz, ReThink Tara Green 8665 Hayden Place September 16, 2008 Page 21 of 21 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES: None References Utilized: 1. CEQA Air Quality Handbook by SQAMD, 1993 update, 2. City of Culver City General Plan Program EIR, November 1995. 3. Culver City Redevelopment Plan Amendment and Merger EIR, November 16, 1998. 4. Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by KOA Corporation, July 23, 2008.fr o io \ 411, itoor. PLANNING DIVISION 9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507 Attachment 10 (310) 253-5710 FAX (310) 253-5721 PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title and File No.: Site Plan Review (SPR) -P2007183; Height Exception (HTEX) P20008111; Tentative Tract Map (TTM) -P2007184; and Administrative Use Permit (AUP) - P2008110. Project Location: 8665 Hayden Place Culver City, CA 90232 (at Higuera St.), Project Sponsor: Rethink Tara Green LLC — Greg Reitz 4262 Lincoln Avenue, Culver City, CA, 90232 Project Description: Proposed four (4) story 63,615 square foot office building measuring between 32 and 81 feet in height with a total of 181 parking spaces provided at the surface and subterranean level. This request also includes a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the property for commercial condominium purposes. Environmental Determination: This is to advise that the City of Culver City, acting as the lead agency, has conducted an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment and is proposing this NEGATIVE DECLARATION based on the following finding: The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or El The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects, but: 1. Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before this proposed MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY was released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and 2. There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the Initial Study, and any applicable mitigation measure, and any other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City based its decision to adopt this NEGATIVE DECLARATION may be obtained at: City of Culver City, Planning Division 9770 Culver Boulevard, Culver City, CA 90232 The public is invited to comment on the proposed NEGATIVE DECLARATION during the review period, which ends Wednesday, October 8, 2008. Joseph ontoya Date Associate PlannerOctober 3, 2008 Attachment 1P . THI NK „AI) Att Deve!opment v riete Dear City of Culver City Planning Commission, A petition has recently been submitted relating to our project at 8665 Hayden Place, The petition to which people have been asked to sign their names has several factual inaccuracies. There is no way to know how many signatures would have been collected had the individuals been given accurate, factual information about our project. Below is a summary of the inaccuracies in the petition and cover letter. 1) 4 stories. The building has four (4) stories of office use. The claim that the building is five (5) stories is incorrect. 2) Demolition. Demolition is more likely to be completed in two weeks, not 4-6 months as claimed. 3) Green Belt. Our project proposal will enhance the landscaped area in the setback adjacent to our building and the City parkway by adding trees and landscaping and result in rehabilitation of the existing street trees. (There are no old-growth trees on or near our property.) 4) Emergency Vehicles. Our project will not impede the access of emergency vehicles to the neighborhood. 5) Traffic, noise, pollution. There is no data to support claims of increased noise or pollution. On the contrary, we believe the existing use when we purchased the property (warehouse storage and truck transport of electronics and photographic chemicals) contributed more pollution and noise to the neighborhood than will the proposed building. According to the traffic study no significant traffic impacts are created by our project. 6) Traffic Study. An extremely thorough traffic study has been conducted, made public, and is available at the public counter. 7) Environmental Review. The project review conforms to CEQA guidelines. An environmental review by City staff has been conducted and will be made public. 8) Signatures on Petition. Please note that pages 13 and 16 of the submitted petition are from a petition from a different project (4043 Irving) and there are irregularities in the many of the other signatures collected. We have been making an effort to educate the neighborhood with the facts regarding the project over the past year and in response to the petition submitted. However, one can't "un-ring a bell". We are concerned that a great number of residents now have heightened concerns about our project that are unfounded. Sincerely, Greg Reitz Principal, REthink Development 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 <> 1.310.253.9131 <> F.310.943.1519 -31-11PLANNING DIVISION Attachment IQ (310) 253-5710 FAX (310) 253-5721 planningaculvercity.org 9770 CULVER BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA 90232-0507 HEIGHT EXCEPTION SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Pursuant to Section 17.300.025.C.1 of the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC), "the Council, after consideration of recommendation by the Commission, may by resolution establish a maximum building height for new construction in the Redevelopment Project Area Component Areas 1 through 3, consistent with the Design for Development established by the Redevelopment Agency." Defined herein is the process and criteria for consideration of a height exception in connection with a new or existing Design for Development. PROCESS Any application for a height exception shall include the following: 1. Pro forma — A pro forma to determine whether the proposed project is financially -feasible without the additional height requested. 2. Market Analysis — A market analysis to determine whether the resulting project is demanded by the market. 3. Public Participation Plan — A public participation plan identifying the number, location, and scope of outreach meetings to adequately present the project to the community outside of the public hearing process. 4. Traffic Study — A traffic study of the additional traffic generated by the additional development (resulting from the granting of a height exception) and identifying methods to mitigate additional traffic. 5. Design Studies — Design studies (shade/shadow, line-of-sight and a visual simulation) to identify potential impacts of additional height as determined by staff. If a height exception is sought for a project and the granting of a height exception does not result in additional building floor area, requirement Nos. 3 and 5 above shall apply only.Attachment 1. R Brian & Jacy Gross Resident 9037 Lucerne Ave. Culver City, CA 90232 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses, The existing building at 8665 Hayden Place is one of the last blighted areas of our Rancho Higuera neighborhood. We love our neighborhood. The beautiful building that REthink Development has proposed will dramatically improve the corner of Higuera and Lucerne and enhance the neighborhood in general. The stepbacks of the upper floors create a nice transition to the residential neighborhood. We also appreciate that the developer has agreed to maintain the street trees along Higuena and further enhance the landscaped area. The traffic in the Rancho Higuera residential neighborhood must be reduced, and the parking situation on Lucerne corrected. However, this problem existed before the proposed project at 8665 Hayden Ave was even introduced. Yes, the 8655 Hayden development will add to the current traffic, but perhaps the city could use the all important tax dollars this development will bring to the community to help solve the traffic issue. We believe the current traffic problem is not a direct result of the Hayden Tract businesses anyway. Upon reading the most recent traffic report, it is clear that the Lucerne / Higuera pass is being used by thru traffic as a short cut. We feel a less residential route like National Blvd. would be more appropriate. Perhaps turning the Hayden roundabout into a cul-de-sac would be an easy, inexpensive solution. This is not a responsibility of the new development. It is our responsibility to work with the city to correct problem. The project should be approved as proposed, but I urge the Planning Commission to begin working on solutions to the traffic problem in our residential neighborhood right away. I support any plans to reduce traffic along Higuera and Lucerne. Sincerely,Adam O'neill Resident 3318 Fay Ave Culver City, CA 90232 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: Support for Proposed 8666 Hayden Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses, I would like to offer my support of the project at 8666 Hayden Place. As a resident of Culver City near the proposed project and a couple hundred yards from another group of proposed projects at Washington and National, I anticipate the project will enhance my neighborhood and the area. The proposed green office building is a much better fit than the former industrial use for the area. With the Expo Line arriving, the Hayden Tract's creative office reputation, and the much improved downtown the project makes sense. Although the building will add some traffic to the area, I believe the benefits will outweigh the impact of a few additional cars from a net gain of an additional 37,000 square feet of building added to the area have been pleasantly surprised by the effort REthink has made to talk to the neighbors and work to respond to reasonable concerns. The manner in which they changed the building over time in response to concerns was well done and has made it less visually impactful. Additionally, I commend them on their efforts to build a LEED Gold certified building close to future mass transit. If we as a society are going to try to control global warming we need to start to think differently, get out of our cars, and work and live in environmentally friendly buildings that don't require us to commute across LA County. Rethink's project addresses these issues head on. All in all, I have been impressed with the changes that have occurred in Culver City over the past 5 to 10 years. It is becoming a more vibrant and interesting place with a unique cross section of residents and businesses. REthink's proposed project ensures this course will continue. I believe the proposed development wil a positive for the city, my family, and property values and offer it my support. Sincere] Adam 16111 Phone #310-346-3369Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses, I would like to offer my support of the project before you at 8665 Hayden Place. My wife and I have been residents of Culver City for almost 4 years. We currently live on Van Buren Street, a few blocks away from the proposed project site, as well as a couple hundred yards from another proposed project on Irving Place. I anticipate that the project on Hayden Place will enhance our neighborhood as the proposed office building is a better fit for the community than the former industrial building. The project will replace an ugly concrete warehouse, which has been served by noisy, polluting trucks, with a well designed "green" office building. Although the building will add some traffic to the area, I believe the benefits of a revitalized neighborhood will far outweigh the impact of a few additional cars during morning rush hour. While I appreciate the fact that the building is currently empty and any increase in it's use will have an impact on the neighborhood, I have always understood that the site, and others like it, would have a better future use. Even though the changes that have happened in Culver City over the last few years may have been a difficult adjustment for some residents, I believe the results are now enjoyed by everyone. If we as a society are going to try to save the world from climate disaster, we need to get out of our cars, or at least spend less time in them, and work and live in environmentally friendly buildings. We don't "ruin" neighborhoods by building an office project within walking distance of light rail, but we do detract from the common good of all of Los Angeles by having people live an hour from where they work and drive through places like Culver City to get there. If Culver City is to be on the cutting edge of urban planning, we need buildings like this as well as smart development of dense residential units. This project is a great location for an office close to the Expo Line, Downtown, and in the middle of the West Side. Hayden Place will be a leading green building and a great example of smart development. I have been more than impressed by the effort REthink has made to talk with neighbors and to provide shadow studies and excellent renderings of what the building will look like from the street. I believe the proposed development will be a positive for the Culver City, my family, and property values and I offer Hayden Place my support. Dave Zigal 4083 Van Buren Street Culver City, CA 90232 (650) 207-268010/22/2008 James Bancroft 4289 Jasmine Ave. Culver City, CA. 90232 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, I was planning to attend this evening's meeting but my scheduled babysitter canceled at the last minute. Please accept this letter in place of my appearance. I have been a homeowner in Culver City for over five years and currently work at Sony Pictures Imageworks, located just across Ince Blvd. from the Culver Studios. I feel fortunate to live and work in a community that continues to attract high quality businesses. The positive changes I have witnessed since moving here have visibly increased the quality of life in Culver City. Although this change has resulted in some increased traffic, it is an expected price to pay for gaining access to the growing list of amenities Culver City offers. This development has made Culver City a much more desirable place to live, and has held property values up in an otherwise depressed market. The project proposed by REthink Development continues the positive trend. I am usually wary of developers. I certainly oppose developments like the one proposed at 4043 Irving, especially when they do not respond to the concerns of the neighbors. The new 4 story building at Culver Studios, across from my work, is also one that I do not think fits. This project and this developer are very different. REthink has listened to the concerns of neighbors and made great strides to address them. I am grateful that Culver City has attracted such a forward thinking developer who is willing to listen to the residents and incorporate good design and green building measures in the building. Public process is critical and I appreciate the effort they have made.James Bancroft The building they have proposed will be a great addition to our City. It will give others the same opportunity as me to live within walking or biking distance of work. If this project is not approved, another office building will be built just outside the borders of Culver City instead. Traffic will still cut through our city but we will not have the opportunity for locals to walk to work nor will the City get the benefits of the tax revenues. Finally, the building is a beautiful design that will attract creative businesses from the industry I work in. Having a good home for the creative businesses we work with at Imageworks will be great for our business and great for the long-term economy of Culver City. I urge you to approve the project as proposed. 10 -2Z-06 83James Wood 4043 1/2 Lincoln Avenue Culver City, CA 90232 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission: I have been a resident of Culver City for three years and have enjoyed how the city has evolved since joining the community. The REthink Development project proposed for 8665 Hayden Place would be another great addition to Culver City. Culver City depends on the businesses that are located in the city to provide the tax revenues that allow for key services that help keep our community running smoothly. This project will attract the creative industries that will ensure the Culver City business climate continues to remain strong. The plans for the new building at the corner of Lucerne and Higuera represent a beautiful design and a welcome change to what is currently there. The green building features are very important for our city and our planet's future. Furthermore, this type of building will only enhance the business and community environment in Culver City_ I support this project and I ask that you support it as well. Sincerely, N14 es Wood •5ScaSinc re M ga asc Phone: 310.621 .2008 Morgan Pasco Resident 5379 Dobson Way Culver City, CA 90232 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses, would like to offer my support of the project at 8665 Hayden Place. I am a resident of Culver City and a real estate broker in the area. I have been involved in over 40 residential transactions in Culver City over the last couple of years. The transformation of Culver City both downtown and in the Hayden Tract has done a lot to propel residential real estate values upward and keep them up in these tough times unlike other areas of California. The addition of the proposed project will continue this transformation and help add to it by bringing a leading green office building to the area that is also architecturally striking. The type and quality of tenants attracted to this building will further help push residential real estate values upwards as creative industry employees in a green building will strive to live close to work. The nexus of a leading green building, the future Expo Line, and great downtown have this residential pocket's real estate values set to take off once the real estate market settles down. As both a real estate agent and a resident I have been very impressed by the effort the developer has put out in responding to neighborhood concerns. Many developers that I have run into in the business would not be so compromising and would rather pay consultants and lawyers to fight the City and its residents. The set backs and step backs made on the building very much reduce its impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The existing and planned landscaping also helps soften the building and beautify the area. Overall, I believe the proposed development will be another positive for the city, its residents, businesses and property values. It is a good example of smart environmentally friendly development. I very much encourage you to support this project.Jason Kay Former Co-Founder Rektor, Inc. Culver City Planning Commission . t.y o.f Culver City - City Hall .977.0 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses, would like to offer my support for the proposed 8665 Hayden Place Protect. As a tenant in the Hayden Track on multiple occasions, I've chosen to put my media and technology startups in this part of Culver City because of the great office environment, convenient location, excellent fiber infrastructure and affordable office space and parking. When I start my next company, expect that the Hayden Tract will again my first choice for office. space, The ongoing light rail project Will .„ only make that decision easier for me. MO P roposed project at 8665 Hayden Place represents the next phase in an ongoing and inevitable re. gentrification of the Hayden Tract. While Culver City in general and the Hayden Tract specifically benefits from a central location, good transportation infrastructure and a growing amenity base„ outdated manufacturing and warehouse uses are simply no longer functional in this area nor are they compatible with the neighborhood's transformation. As a member of the arts and media community, I've selected the Hayden Tract because of its burgeoning creative office market and the syne.rgies which it allows. This in mind, we are excited to see the tract continue to re-invent itself as a center of technology, entertainment, design and advertising. Furtherrrtore, we were very happy to hear that the project will be a LEED Gold Certified building, It's encouraging to see that private developers are taking up the cause of sustainability, / 7 , , / / ,,, Jaion Kay 310-435-3686 .4041010.9/25/08 Rob Barber Owner of Stellar Hardware Building Former owner of Stellar Hardware RE: 8665 Hayden Place Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses, Unfortunately, am not able to attend the first planning commission meeting as I will be out of town. But in lieu of my presence, I would like to offer my support of the project before you at 8665 Hayden Place. Being a long time business owner in Culver City with Stellar Hardware I have welcomed and enjoyed the change that has occurred in Culver City over the past 10 years. It has made Culver City a more vibrant, functional, and enjoyable city. The quality development and change in downtown and in the Hayden Tract has been unique and exciting. I have great hope that tt continues. The proposed development continues down this quality, unique and exciting path further making Culver City a distinct and special place. It will offer business owners an option to own high quality office space in the Hayden Tract while furthering the reputation of the area as a creative office and business enclave. It is well located with close proximity to downtown and the new Expo line terminus. To this end, it will further support downtown by providing new patrons for existing and future businesses and will support the use of alternative transportation with the new Expo line. And from what I understand it is going to be a great example of green building. It makes sense to build a building such as this in this location with all the nearby attributes and benefits. Additionally, i feel the development team has gone out of their way to push and pull the building in places to make it less impactful on its neighbors when there was no need to do so according to the property's zoning rights. I am also pleased that the development will integrate some of the film history that happened on the location many years ago. All in all, I believe the proposed development will definitely be a positive for Culver City and is a good example of how quality development should be done. Sincerely, Rob Barber Phone Number: 6: e c9 y.p3 7 .S7 " V1:615-EILIfEli Je 4QT:r:ln onr.d-X ;3108154644 # 1/ 10/18/08 Oscar Castillo I mageWorks 9050 Washington Blvd Culver City, CA 90232 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses, I would like to offer my support for the proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project. As a member of the Culver Citys arts and media community. REthink's development has the opportunity to bridge the rich history of entertainment industry in Culver City and its future as a focus of creative office space and creative capital within the Los Angeles metropolitan area Hayden Tract, along with the Jefferson Blvd corridor and downtown Culver City, has become a unique and burgeoning creative office market. There exists opportunity to marry the City's physical amenities — central Westside location, proximity to transit and underused manufacturing or warehouse uses —with a cultural identity of creative development. The proposed project at 8665 Hayden Place is a natural progression for the City. Current manufacturing and warehouse uses are no longer an efficient use of space. Their footprint, however, is an opportunity to shoehorn creative office spaces into an underused environment of Culver City. Use of these spaces can support the growth of the City in a focused fashion through a familiar industry and support of the City's restaurant scene and sustainable efforts. believe the proposed development will be a positive for the neighborhood and the City much like the arrival of the Expo Line and the resurgence of downtown. I believe the City is on the right track with smart progressive development such as this. I enjoy being a part of this progressive community and sending my son to school in Culver City. I endorse the proposed 8665 Hayden Place project.Devin Burke CEO Universal Cargo Management Inc 10825 Washington Blvd Culver City, CA 90232 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses, • Unfortunately, I am not able to attend the first planning commission meeting as I will be out of town. • I am a business owner and property owner in Culver City. My company is head quartered at 10825 Washington Blvd in Culver City which I also own. • Being a business and property owner in Culver City I have welcomed and enjoyed the change that has occurred over the years. It has made Culver City a bigger player in the region. The development and transformation in downtown and in the Hayden Tract has been unique and exciting. I hope it continues and spreads westward • The proposed project with its central location in the middle of the Westside, closeness to educated workers and entertainment and creative industries, along with its proximity to the future Expo Line makes it a great location for creative office uses. • The project is a good example of smart development with its location, proximity to mass transit, projected LEED Gold certification among other things. • If we are to accommodate California's projected population and economic growth while reducing our impact on our environment it is imperative that project such as this are built. We need to start looking out of our own backyards and at the context of the larger community and region around • I believe the proposed development is allowed per zoning code, should be allowed, and is good for the area. • I offer my support for the proposed project. Sincerely, Devin Burke CEO of Universa argo Management Owner: 10825 to 10899 Washington Blvd Phone Number: 310-216-4024October 22, 2008 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA_ 90232 RE: Support for proposed 8665 Hayden Place project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, I am writing you to share my thoughts on the public outreach process that REthink has conducted on their Hayden Place proposal. As a developer myself, I have been very impressed with the amount of outreach and public input that has been solicited and considered by REthink. Many times, developers listen to community input, but I believe that this developer has gone above and beyond average efforts to accommodate the community's concerns. Among other modifications, REthink has reduced the height of the building along the residential boundary as a response to resident's concerns. The resulting building design requires a height exception. REthink believed this change and additional expense was worth it to deliver a project that would be more appealing in the neighborhood than the project they could have done by right. Most developers would have stuck to a project with as few modifications as possible to ensure easy approval. The City would like to encourage more public input to the development process. This project is an example of a real collaboration between residents and property owners. While you can never make everyone happy, reasonable residents should applaud the result. In making your decision tonight, I hope that you seriously consider REthink's efforts to change their plans to accommodate the community's concerns. Sincerely, Joseph Miller\k/dna I)inata Owner PUMP Positive Desin I I 043 Braddock Dr. Culver City. CA 90232 Culver City Hannim; Commissi'on- City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232- RE: Support tbr Proposed 8665 fla den Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses. As an owner of a Culver City-based creative business, I appreciate many aspects of the RE think project proposed at 8665 Hayden Place. First, there are very few opportunities for small and medium sized businesses to own quality office space in the area. Opportunities to own a green, healthy building. are nonexistent. The REthink project gives businesses like mine such an opportunity. In addition, appreciate that their project that honors the creative history of Culver City. The project is being built on the site of the former set of the Tara Ranch in Gone with the Wind and many other famous productions. The REIthink project will honor this significant history by integrating it into their new development in a creative way. In a city that often discards the limited history it has, they are to be commended for their effort to preserve it, Finally, in general, [like the way that Culver City has evolved over the past several years and I believe this is a good continuation orthat trend. The building is beautiful, "green", and ;ituated in an idea/ location for people to take the Expo line to work and for locals to walk or bike. I encourage you to approve this project.Gorham, Thomas From: Steven Rose [ssssteve@culvercitychamber.com ] Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 3:58 PM To: Gorham, Thomas; Cole, Martin Cc: Greg Reitz Subject: FW: Hayden Ave. Steven Rose President/CEO Culver City Chamber of Commerce 4249 Overland Avenue Culver City, CA 90230 310-287-3855 phone 310-287-1350 fax ssssteve@culvercitychamber.com http://www.culvercitycharnber.com Forwarded Message From: Steven Rose Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:54:15 -0700 To: , , "Cole, Martin" Cc: Greg Reitz Subject: Hayden Ave. Dear Planning Commission, After reviewing the many modifications to the Rethink development in the "Bask 40" that most people call the Hayden Tract incorrectly! The 'Back 40" is really on 26 acres... I personally believe that this project and the changing in economy of the world and Culver City fits the best purposes of all of Culver City. I personally support the revised plan and urge you to pass the proposal as presented. Thank you for your hard work. Steven RoseJulie Lugo Cerra 4022 Lincoln Avenue, Culver City, CA 90232 310 838-0215 To: Planning Commission From: Julie Lugo Cerra, as an individual RE: New construction — 8665 Hayden DATE: October 22, 2008 Commissioners: I would like to commend the owners who are building their project at the above address for their sensitivity to the environment. To aspire to build "LEED gold" is certainly impressive and good for our community. We are lucky to have ReThink, a company with a proven "green" record as the developer. I am delighted that they also recognize the history of the property. The fact that this project will be built on a portion of the "40 Acres" studio backlot offers an interesting and positive identity here in Culver City, the Heart of Screenland. There is a concern, however that the city is referring to that area as part of the Hayden Tract, which lacks accuracy, since its western boundary was Higuera St Sam Hayden came from New York, enlisted the help of the Culver City Chamber president A. Steller, to build the Hayden Tract a post WWII development of the first industrial tract in the city. And the rest is history :11SLund Smith Resident 4122 Higuera Street Culver City, CA 90232 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RECEIVED OCT 20 2008 Culver City Planning Division RE: Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses, I would like to offer my support of the project before you at 8665 Hayden Place. I acknowledge that several of my fellow neighbors are opposed to the project, but I believe that their concerns and fears of the project are unfounded, and that the positives of 8665 Hayden Place far outweigh the negatives. ReThink Development has done an exceptional job at reaching out to neighbors in the area. Specifically, they have gone door to door hearing and engaging the neighbors in the process, and have voluntarily held public presentations on the project to inform the public and let the residents voice their opinions. For a project of this size, ReThink Development has gone above and beyond what I have seen other Developers do. Since purchasing my home on Higuera Street a number of years ago, I have seen many improvements in Culver City that have enhanced the quality of life, and spurred economic growth and brought excitement to the area. I anticipate that the proposed project will enhance my neighborhood and complement the previous developments in the neighborhood and downtown. In addition, it will improve the transition from a residential neighborhood to the Hayden Tract Area. The green office building will replace an ugly concrete warehouse served by noisy, polluting trucks, and it will hopefully set the stage for more green building on the street. Both the initially proposed and the revised plan for the office building at 8665 Hayden Place offer a much better alternative to the industrial building that currently sits there. In regards to the zoning on the site, the current zoning allows for a building of 43 feet with an additional 5 foot parapet. ReThink Development's original proposal conformed to the height requirements, but they have modified their design in response to the neighbors concerns by placing stepbacks to make it appear more in scale with the residential neighborhood. I also believe their modified design is a creative solution to the problem, and that a height variance should be granted for the portions of the building in which they are requesting a height limit to exceed the 43 feet + parapet. It makes sense to design the building this way because I believe the purpose behind the zoning is to not obstruct or take away from surrounding buildings or streets. In theirmodified design, the portions of the building that exceed 43 feet back up to other industrial buildings. This should be ideal in my opinion. The biggest concern for most of my neighbors is the traffic, and this is a legitimate concern. Traffic is an unfortunate consequence of growth. As you are well aware, Culver City is now a go to destination for many consumers and businesses so the residents on Higuera Street and Lucerne have seen traffic increase rather dramatically in the last few years. This proposed project at 8665 Hayden Place has become the primary avenue for the residents surrounding the site to complain to city officials about the traffic in the area. They are unduly putting the blame on the future development of this site. The building may add some traffic to my street, but I would rather have a few extra cars a day than a couple extra large trucks. Perhaps the city can find a solution to redirect the traffic on our street or somehow reduce the thru traffic that goes down Higuera Street and Lucerne to the Hayden Tract. This is the real issue, not the few extra cars generated by this project. As a resident of Culver City I have enjoyed the change that has occurred over the past several years. it has made Culver City a better place to live. Overall, 1 believe the proposed development will be another positive for the city and is a good example of quality development. I encourage you to support this project.Hedy nd Samy Kamienowicz Sincerel CSarny L.'s 10/15/08 Hedy and Samy Kamienowicz Owners of Samy's Camera, Inc 4411 Sepulveda Blvd Culver City, CA 90230 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses. We are business owner in Culver City and a former property owner. We have a Samy's Camera located on Sepulveda Blvd in Culver City and had a warehouse in the Hayden Tract. We moved out of the Hayden Tract warehouse over a year ago because it did not meet our warehouse and distribution needs. We needed a bigger building in an area more suited to those uses which the Hayden Tract no longer represents. The proposed development at 8665 Hayden Place is an appropriate use for the Hayden Tract. With a reputation already preceding it, the Hayden Tract has become quite a creative office center in which well known creative companies thrive. The proposed development will further this reputation; allow new businesses to come to Culver City, and start to push the area green. The Expo Line expansion to the area further demonstrates the need for more people based businesses and buildings to be located there. When looking at the Hayden Tract in a more regional context buildings such as the one proposed should be encouraged not discouraged by cities, business, and residents alike. I support the project and believe it smartly meets the needs of business in the area while reducing the impact on its surroundings as compared to the existing distribution warehouse use. 431 South Fairfax Avenue • Los Angeles, CA 90036 • 323. 938-2420 • fax: 323. 937-2919 E-Mail: sarays@samys.coniT ;r3.L i !1" October 2, 2008 CAMPBELL VVELLMAN PROPERTIES To: Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City — City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA 90232 RE: Support for proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project From: David Smith, Realtor, Campbell Wellman Properties 4747 Coolidge Ave, Culver City, CA 90230 To City Planning Commission, I am writing to indicate my support for the proposed development at 8665 Hayden Place. As a resident of Culver City as well as a Realtor, it is my opinion this project will have a positive affect on local property values, both those within the commercial zone that the property resides as well as the surrounding residential area. This is exactly the type of development this area needs to fulfill its potential from a property value perspective, the start of what I anticipate to be a wave of interest in modernizing the local Real Estate stock. Precedent for this modernization has been set with the recent and ongoing developments in the downtown Culver area. Further, a project of this type which will meet the United States Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) standards to receive a Gold rating, would be a feather in the City's cap, one which will inspire Commercial/Residential developers to build to a similar level of quality and energy conservation in future projects. As stated above, clearly this project will be a great benefit in positively influencing property values within the commercial zone as the proposed development will be superior in quality and use from the existing structure. To address residential property values and the proposed height of the structure, in my visits to the site and reviewing the proposed structures drawings, sufficient care has been taken in setback distance as well as using the existing tree cover that there will be little change from the current physical state for local Residential properties. The surrounding Residential property values can only be helped by projects of this type, an office complex which will bring an affluent work force to the area, heightening demand for local housing stock. As a Culver City resident and business person I vigorously support Environment-friendly development of this type and implore you to as well. Respectfully, David B. Smith, Realtor I STORE & GALLERY livin Page I 10/17/08 Ellen Strickland, owner Livingreen 10000 Culver Blvd Culver City, CA 90232 To: The Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses of Culver City RE: Support for 8665 Hayden Place Dear Community, I would like to offer my support of the project proposed at 8665 Hayden Place. As a business owner in Culver City I have been watching, supporting, and participating in the changes occurring here over the past several years. These changes allow a business such as mine to thrive and become a fixture of our downtown area. As a resident I am enjoying the growing vitality to the neighborhood where I live and a level of service and quality of life that contributes to a strong downtown. This proposed development at 8665 Hayden Place continues the trend to make Culver City a distinct and special place. It will further support the downtown by providing new patrons for my business and others in the area. As a long-time member of the green • building community, I am familiar with the work of REthink Development and its founders. REthink has won awards for the green buildings they are building in Los Angeles and one of the company's founders and local residents, Greg Reitz, is recognized as a leader in the industry. Mr. Reitz was recently awarded the 2008 Earth Month award by the City of Los Angeles for his work advancing green building and environmental initiatives in the region. He is also the co-founder, with me, of the Culver City Green Business Association. He has shared with me in contributing to outreach efforts to increase community awareness of sustainable practices in our city, giving special attention to the concerns of the neighbors and neighborhood associations. I can personally attest to the efforts that Rethink Development and Mr. Reitz have gone to in addressing these residential and neighborhood issues, certainly more than any of the other developers I have known working in this area over the years. 10000 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA 90232 Phone 310.838,84421 Fax 310.338.8495 I vvww.fivingreen.cornPage 2 STORE & GALLERY The building they have proposed in the Hayden Tract will be one of the greenest office buildings in the region. As such, it will be another source of pride for the City. I believe we need to encourage buildings like this as much as possible. 1 encourage you to approve this beautiful, green project. Sincerely, Ellen Strickland 310-838-8442 Livingreen 10000 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA 90232 Phone 310.838.8442 /Fax 310.838.8495 1 vvvvvv.livingreen.com -10 t3578 Hayden Avenue Culver City, CA 90232 Tel. (310) 559-8300 Fax (310) 559-0452 INTERNATIONAL MOLDERS INC. DIV iS1ON OF ADVANCE LATEX PRODUCTS INC. e-mail: adviniearthlink.ilet October 1, 2008 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City-City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, Ca 90232 Dear Culver City Planning Commission and City Council Members I am aware of the proposed project by ReThink Development at 8665 Hayden Place. My family has been owners and business operators in the Hayden Tract for 50 years and has seen the changes that have continued to take place in the area during this time frame. For a number of years it has become evident that our area is destined to change from the light manufacturing of the past to one that continues to be more suited for the demands of office and creative space. It is inevitable that this is the direction the area will continue to head. Over the last six months or so, I have become familiar with ReThink Development as well as a couple of projects that they have developed. Since I do believe the direction of the future for the area is office and creative space, I believe it would be in everyone's best interest to support progressive developers who have a great reputation for considering and respecting their neighbors and the environment. Aligning the city with the ReThink approach to green development can become the guideline for the future growth in the area, and something that both the city and neighborhoods will look back upon in the future and be proud that they supported. Michael Wellman 3578 Hayden Avenue Culver City, Ca 90232Sincerely, I 4' Jeffrey Palmer Managing Member - Hayden Place, LLC Hayden Place, LLC 1000 Roscomare Road Los Angeles, CA. 90077 Ter (310) 476-1703 Fax (310) 471-4886 October 20, 2008 RE: Proposed Project at 8665 Hayden Place To Whom it May Concern: We, the owners of 8669-8675 Hayden Place, the property adjacent to the proposed project, would like to support the proposed project at 8666 Hayden Place. This project will help upgrade the aesthetics of Hayden Place similar to that of the Hayden Tract. It will help beautify Hayden Place, set the standard for innovative architecture for the street and promote better green building practices within the area. This project is slated to have parking at 3.5 per 1000 gross square foot ratio, which is an adequate ratio, providing 181 parking spaces in an underground structure. Parking has always been a problem on Hayden Place since it has been monopolized by movie studio production groups who have perpetually been given temporary street parking permits for the last 10 years. On another note, adequate construction parking should be provided so that workers, vendors, and suppliers are not forced to park illegally.IJLI-008 16:50 FROM:CENTURY STUDIO 13102873608 TO: 13109431519 P.2/2 8660 Hayden Puce, Culver City, CA 90232 ?hone 310.287.3600 Fax 310.287.3608 nar...131EXE1.11.41a.12211 10/20108 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council. Residents and Businesses, The purpose of this letter is to offer our support for the proposed 8665 Hayden Place project. We operate two large Studios at 8660 and 8635 Hayden Place as well as another Studio on the Los Angeles and Culver City border at 3322 La Clenega Place, LA, 90016. Our website is www_centurystudie,com. As our neighbors Steve Edwards and Oreg Reitz have familiarized us at Century Studio with their proposed project In oar conversations we discussed the demand for creative industries to be located here, much as we are. Save for Brotman Medical Center, the larger building footprints in Culver City are film and television studios or outmoded warehouses. Studios and creative effiees support creative capital and individual employment instead of product manufacturing or volume storage. Future use can therefore he identified as homes to employees instead of industrial uses that cannot support the new Expo Line, new measures for sustainability in Culver City, or restaurants and entertainment in downtown Culver City. The substitution of creative offices for warehouse and industrial uses allow developers to work with large tenants like a film studio or smaller tenants like an architecture firm to creatively transition away from residential and into mixed-use. Although some residents express concerns over movement in this direction or change at all, change is and should be happening. Plans for the proposed project show a concerted effort to mitigate change in the form of the project's height and in a manner sensitive to the residential neighborhood. We understand the neighbor's concerns; however those concerns do need to be balanced by property rights, allowable zoning code, and the need to adapt to and conduct reasonable business. At the risk of redundancy, again let me state that we support the proposed 8665 Hayden Place project. Sincere! Trish Benson Studio Manager Century Studio CorporationSincere L. Po Company Larry Wood Chief Final 'al Officer (310) 204-2224 (800) 622-4456 Outside California "owe! FAX 310 837 6223 or 310 839 9083 1 E-mail: powell@powelicomponycom Web Site: www.powellcompany.com|1010|EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 8631 HAYDEN PLACE • MAILING ADDRESS: PO. BOX 1408 • CULVER CITY, CA 90232-1408 October 22, 2008 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project I am familiar with the proposed development of 8665 Hayden Place by REthink. As their neighbor on Hayden Place I support their efforts. Just as I am sure some longtime residents have their misgivings about the proposed project, Powell, a Culver City business since 1987, supports new development. We at Powell have heard the change the City has called for over the years. Increasingly, it is easy to see that the change Culver City is making is a positive with the resurgence of downtown, the increasingly popular Hayden Tract and the future Expo Line. The proposed project (projected LEED Gold certification) with its central location enhances the City's efforts to support area concerns such as the vitality of local business and transportation ingress and egress. There are two easily identifiable elements that are fundamental to Culver City that REthink supports in its business and its development: the creative capital of Culver City; and secondly, sustainability. As California population and business continues to grow, the need to reduce our impact on the environment is increasingly apparent. Culver City has a history as an arts destination. While the type of arts may be changing from the history of film and television to arts such as graphic design and print media, REthink supports Culver City as a hub of creative capital within Los Angeles. The growth of artist employment within Culver City is supported by REthink's proposed creative office building in the most ecologically conscious manner possible. Their approach would have att acted Powell as a young business to Culver City over 20 years ago. Again, I would like to offer my support for the proposed project at 8665 Hayden Place. Thanks.HAYDEN/HIGUERA, LLC 10/20/08 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: 8665 HAYDEN PLACE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, I have owned and managed the building at 8563-8579 Higuera Street for the last 11 years. I support the above project for the following reasons: it's high quality design will enhance the neighborhood, it is clearly an upgrade from the mundane industrial buildings that now dominate the area. The fact that it will achieve a LEED Gold rating is a plus too_ The area has been upgrading over the last several years, and this project is a natural progression of that trend. That coupled with the fact that it will be one of Southern California's leading green buildings has caused the project to gain my support. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Will Pastron, Manager 551 Amalfi Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90272 (310) 729-7100 P (310) 459-9574 r3635 Hayden Avenue Cuiver City, CA 90232 'T. (310) 837-8863 F. (310) 837-8776 Stephen M. Albert Principal The Albert Group Architects 3635 Hayden Ave. Culver City, CA 90232 Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses, • I am a business owner in Culver City. My company is head quartered at 3635 Hayden Ave in Culver City. I would like to support the proposed project at 8665 Hayden Place • My perspective is that of the building industry, and an architect. • Nevertheless, buildings are not the Client. Instead the residents and business owners are our clients. And together we must take into consideration location as well as district and regional needs for buildings to exist in the most sustainable context. • In other words, we try to meet the greatest benefit with the least social and ecological cost. • It behooves us to work with the City to match the Clients needs in line with the City's efforts. Characteristics of this Project • For location, the proposed project cannot be beat: central Westside, proximity to educated. workers as well as entertainment and creative industries, and proximity to Expo Line. • The project is a good example of smart growth with its location, proximity to mass transit, projected LEED Gold certification among other things. • Enhanced landscaping, green roof and green wall are all planned to provide a green buffer between building and neighborhood. Green building (solar, water conservation, green materials etc) is at greater cost to the developer. • Massing of height is off-street pushed toward the industrial area, away from residential view. Dramatic setbacks begin 32 feet above the street and continue inwards even more as the building raises higher. The building (in part due to topography) is sunk below grade. Thus, at increased cost, the developer has created a building that can more easily be integrated into the community. %A.Av‘v.thc;Ilbertgrooparchikx[s.com• Green building features are a boon for future architectural and development efforts in Culver City. • believe the proposed development is allowed per zoning code, should be allowed, and is good for the area. t offer my support for the proposed project. Yours truly, Stephen NI. Albert, MA Prindpal wwkv.i.lIcalberigrouparchitccts.corn 2Attachment No. 2 October 22, 2008 7:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA Call to Order & Roll Call The meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: John Kuechle, Vice Chair Linda Smith Frost, Commissioner Anthony Pleskow, Commissioner Absent: David Rockwell, Chair (Excused) Marcus Tiggs, Commissioner (Recused) Staff Present: Sol Blumenfeld, Community Development Director Thomas Gorham, Planning Manager Heather Baker, Assistant City Attorney Barry Kurtz, Engineering Traffic Consultant Joseph Montoya, Associate Planner Yvonne Hunt, AdMinistrative Secretary o0o Invocation/Pledge of Allegiance Assistant City Attorney, Heather Baker led the Pledge of Allegiance. o0o Comments NOT on the Agenda None. o0o PUBLIC HEARING Item PH-1 Site Plan Review, Administrative Use Permit, Negative Declaration, recommended Height Exception and Tentative AcrPlanning Commission Meeting October 22, 2008 Tract Map for the Construction of a Terraced/Split-Level 4- 5 Story Condominium Office Building located at 8665 Hayden Place Staff provided a summary of the material of record. Vice Chair Kuechle received agreement from staff regarding re-wording the tandem parking language; inquired about a specific plan for the property and the area to the west and required setbacks; and asked about potential traffic mitigation requirements from the owner. Present for the applicant: Greg Reitz, Re-Think Development Jonathan Watts, Cunningham Group Architecture Jasper Domingo, KOA Corporation Steve Edwards, Re-Think Development Vice Chair Kuechle received clarification that the applicant would be willing to participate in a traffic calming fund to be applied to existing traffic issues. Commissioner Smith Frost received clarification that the 1% traffic increase pertained to the area along Higuera Street; asked about the shade and shadow study; and asked about the plan to provide additional parking and their ability to sell those spaces. Commissioner Pleskow received clarification that although the applicant could have built to 115,000 square feet, the proposal is for approximately 62,000 square feet. Vice Chair Kuechle invited public comment. The following public speakers spoke in opposition to the project as proposed: Chris Brown Sylvia David Laura Bethal David Hauptman Lauren Laster Ron LeBlanc Donna LeBlanc Abe Sheik Monica Granadas Page 2 of 10 -4-toPlanning Commission Meeting October 22, 2008 Mary Ellen Nugent Melanie Weber Michael Miller Chris Walchesen Linda Messner Stacy Narni Jennifer Edwards Holly Connors Eleanor Osgood Laurie Garcia Peggie Shoe Gerald Anguez George Shaultus Cary Anderson • The public speakers' concerns with the project included: the scale of the building and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood; the height exception; exacerbating existing congested and dangerous traffic conditions; unclear traffic figures from the applicant; .view obstruction; breeze blockages; increased noise and pollution; decreased property values; decreased privacy; parking issues; the proposed parking sticker program; Ancotpatibility with zoning; danger to handicapped esidents in the area; concerns with unknown usage of the •building and the number tenants and employees; a suggestion to impose a moratorium on development in the Hayden Tract on both sides until there is a plan in place for development; concern that the building would become residential; assertions that the courtyard space be Used so the building height can be reduced; objections to Expo credits for the project; a request that an EIR be done; concern that a full traffic study was not conducted; skepticism that the project will have no impact on the area; the number of deliveries to the building; questions about who ensures compliance once the building is sold; the cumulative impact of developments in the neighborhood; concern that not enough options are being considered; accountability and fines for exceeding traffic projections; concern that a conflict of interest may exist as applicant Greg Reitz had previously advised the City on green building issues; a suggestion to work with the building already on the site; and a suggestion to create a cul de sac. The following public speakers spoke in support of the project: Page 3 of 10 411Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2008 Dino Parks Brenden McEnemy, Green Building Program Advisor, City of Santa Monica, Board Member, Los Angeles Chapter, United States Green Building Chapter Al Rosen, an investor in the project, member of Santa Monica Sustainable City Task Force, and former Santa Monica Housing Commissioner Seth Willisette Margaret Griffin Dorian Byby James Lehy, Member of the Board of Directors of the local Chapter of the U.S. Green Building Council Timothy 2ourget Sean Bourquist Rollin Gennick Greg Sears Tyson Sales Francle Stephan Lund Smith The public speakers' reasons for support of the project included: amenities provided to bicyclists; the project as a great example of green building; environmental and sustainable aspects of the project; increased property values; the importance of nurturing growth in the City; the developer's restraint in not building to the maximum square footage; the developer should not be held responsible for the area's pre-existing traffic issues; the fact that the project is seeking Leed Gold Certification; assertions that the applicant worked with the neighborhood to address their concerns; the project addresses Ballona Creek pollution issues; increased tax revenue for the City; the applicant followed the rules and worked within the established General Plan and zoning code; and a suggestion that revenue from the project could be put into a. fund to solve traffic issues in the area. Recess/Reconvene: Vice Chair Kuechle called a brief recess from 10:02 p.m. to 10:22 p.m. Yvonne Hunt reported that 18 comment cards in support of the project and 29 comment cards against would be incorporated as part of the public record. Page 4 of 10Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2008 Greg Reitz addressed speaker issues regarding: the traffic study; credits for transit oriented development; parking issues; working on solutions for the area; funding a crossing guard; and additional stop signs. Comments from Commissioners: Commissioner Smith Frost • Asked about oversight of the building • Requested an update on the status of a request for permit parking in the area Vice Chair Kuechle • Asked about covenants to follow the building Commissioner Pleskow • Questioned whether a non-height exception had been explored and asked about ways to address speaker concerns with height • Suggested using horizontal fins to reflect light back into the building • Received clarification that there were no parapets on the building due to minimization of mechanical needs • Suggested a café in the building to decrease traffic at lunchtime • Wanted to see the traffic impact of the project neutralized at zero Commissioners, staff and the applicants discussed the previous plans and the applicant indicated that it was not economically feasible to make the building smaller as they had already compressed the design leaving little room for change. Greg Reitz confirmed the following conditions that would be added to the resolution: • parking passes • a stakeholders group to work on the traffic solution with other businesses and residents in the area • CC&Rs to follow the project • an office owners association established to maintain and enforce CC&Rs • a doggy drinking fountain and bench in the area for the many people who walk their dogs Page 5 of 10 -411'7Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2008 Greg Reitz explained the building's green building features and asserted that their design was necessary for those elements to work. Community Development Director Blumenfeld stated that a cul be sac on Higuera Street would require additional study and that the project could be conditioned to require evaluating and contributing to the actual implementation of such a program. He indicated that trip mitigation would require paying a trip fee to help deal with larger scale trip generation issues if certain targets weren't met. Traffic Engineering Consultant Kurtz suggested traffic mitigations such as making Higuera Street one way towards Lucerne at Hayden Place on a test basis with input from residents, or posting signs limiting turns during peak hours. Vice Chair Kuechle • Received clarification that the land was not zoned residential • Received clarification that an exception to the height limit was allowed because it is within a redevelopment area • Asked about traffic accountability Community Development Director Blumenfeld suggested an annualized monitoring program, done at the owners' expense. Commissioner Pleskow received clarification that one-way traffic on Higuera Street had not been considered by residents. Commissioner Smith Frost • Complimented the applicant on the public participation and outreach, and good design • Commented that Leed Gold Certification is important for the City • Was comfortable with the traffic study • Felt the project was consistent with the mixed use nature of the area • Felt granting a variance to the code called for extraordinary circumstance • Wanted the project within the height limits Page 6 of 10 '414 Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2008 • Wanted to see contribution to future traffic mitigation • Wanted to see a Plan C Assistant City Attorney Baker clarified for the record that this was a height exception rather than a height variance, which requires a stricter standard in order to grant it. She added that height exceptions were considered on their own and did not set a precedent. Commissioner Pleskcw • Appreciated the extensive outreach and redesign of the project after the outreach • Appreciated the high-performing building and wanted the code to require that buildings in Culver City meet a minimum certified level • Observed that the developer was trying to mask the building as much as possible behind green screen and vegetation even though they were not required to do so • Felt the project would provide tax revenue for the City • Felt it important to build with multiple uses, enabling people to work in their community and reduce car trips • Supported the project knowing that it is a height exception • Felt it important that, as a condition of approval, the traffic be mitigated as much as possible to make the project traffic neutral or reverse consequence Vice Chair Kuechle • Felt Culver City benefited from having a first rate project in the area • Emphasized the importance of making sure that developers take all reasonable measures to mitigate the impact of the projects on their neighbors • Questioned what reasonable additional steps could be imposed to provide more mitigation • Acknowledged general consensus among the neighbors that the building is bigger than they would like but he doubted that anything would fundamentally change if the building were reduced in size • Expressed concerns with parking and wanted to make sure that no one who came to the project would park on the street Page 7 of 10 -4417Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2008 • Wanted a condition stating they can't charge for parking if there is a problem and wanted to make sure there would be no reason to park on the street • Did not think this project would have a key impact on the traffic problem go Supported the project with trepidation and conditions imposed Staff and the Commission discussed possible traffic mitigations and reasonable requirements of the applicant. The Commission agreed to have staff work with the applicant on possible methods to address neighborhood traffic issues, and if substantive issues arise, return it to the Commission for consideration of additional mitigations or conditions. Moved by Commissioner Smith Frost, seconded by Commissioner Pleskow, and unanimously passed (absent Chair Rockwell and. Commissioner Tiggs) to close the public hearing. MOVED BY COMMISSIONER SMITH FROST TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY FINDING THE PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT (ATTACHMENT NO. 15) AND APPROVE SITE PLAN REVIEW SPR P-2007183 AND ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT (AUP P- 2007184) SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN RESOLUTION 2008-P012 (ATTACHMENT NO. 1), AS AMENDED AND RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF HEIGHT EXCEPTION (HTEX P-2008111) AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 69769 (TTM P-2007184) SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AS OUTLINED IN RESOLUTION 2008-P012 (ATTACHMENT NO. 1), AS AMENDED. Staff clarified amendments and revisions to conditions 63 and 118, and the new condition 9D, a trip mitigation and trip monitoring condition, linking of the project to any potential future neighborhood traffic mitigation efforts or programs, there was also discussion of CC&Rs and an office owners association; as well as a program to pay for preferential parking in residential area if warranted, and the dog amenities. COMMISSIONER PLESKOW SECONDED THE MOTION. Vice Chair Kuechle requested that clarification of support notification and upgrade of adjacent properties be included Page 8 of 10 -AgoItem C-1 Meeting Minutes Item C-2 The Commission received clarification that no actual projects would come before them for the rest of the year o0o Page 9 of 10 o0o Planning Commission Meeting October 22, 2008 in the resolution as well as clarification of condition 118. VOTING ON THE MOTION WAS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT CHAIR ROCKWELL AND COMMISSIONER TIGGS). o0o nsent Calendar MCVI BY COMMISSIONER PLESKOW, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SMIT FROST AND UNANIMOUSLY PASSED (ABSENT CHAIR ROCKWELL AND CO ISSIONER TIGGS) TO APPROVE CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS C-1 THRO CH 0-2. Secretary's Re ort The Commission reeived and filed the report of the secretary regardin posting of the agenda for this meeting. The Planning Commission appro ffd minutes for the Regular Meeting of September 24, 2008. Items from Staff Planning Manager Gorham indicated that Commissioners updated as to whether tra be addressed on November 12 and that the w multi-family design guidelines would be bra December meeting along with a proposed text a regarding car wash uses in the East Washington area. e would keep 'c criteria would rk plan on the ht back at the endment verlayAttachment No. 3 Notice of Appeal November 4, 2008 Decision of Culver City Planning Commission (Approval of Site Plan and Negative Declaration) Hearing Date: October 22, 2008 Project: 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, CA (Commercial Condominium Offices) 4-11 )1111 2°Q8 NQV O F-2: 06 CITY ti.Fk, Concerned residents of Rancho Higuera and other Culver City neighborhoods hereby appaltrttIeTfilmr i ci y)Ppging Commission's ("Commission") approval of the proposed Project at 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City ("Project").The Project is a five-story (61'9" height) 63,615 square-foot commercial condominium structure with surface and three-level subterranean parking with 181 parking spaces. Per the Traffic Report, the Commission authorized credits to include Transit Oriented Development, despite the fact that there is no existing Culver City Code allowing these credits. In addition, the Commission authorized existing Use Credits for a warehouse structure that has contributed no measurable traffic to the area for at least 25 years. B. Basis for the Appeal — a dispute regarding the sufficiency of the findings for approving the Site Plan for the Project (including the Negative Declaration) and an inadequacy of conditions to mitigate significant impacts. 1. The Commission inadequately considered the Project's lack of compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood. a. Significant traffic would be generated which has not been adequately mitigated by the adopted conditions. b. The tallest part of the Project is more than 18 feet taller than the existing maximum zoned height and is in excess of the 1G zone's 43-foot height limit. A parapet adds five feet to the Project. In addition, the Project is more than ten feet taller than the City's 56 foot height limit. c. Terracing of the lower floors of the Project is not sufficient to establish neighborhood compatibility, especially when the applicant's response is a building that is significantly out of scale with the neighborhood. d. Credits for the Traffic Report, though not based upon any specific Culver City Code, were improperly given for Transit Oriented Development. Existing Use Credits should not have been allowed as the building has been used as a warehouse with no measurable traffic. e. The City has no standards to measure significant impact on non-signalized intersections. All of the intersections in the vicinity of the Project are non signalized. The lack of established criteria for non- signalized intersections made it impossible to measure the potential impact of the Project. 2. At the October 22 Planning Commission meeting, commissioners improperly gave equal weight to testimony from non-Culver City residents. Commissioners failed to allow all the submitted speaker/comment cards to be read into the public record. No mention was made by staff nor the commissioners of a petition consisting of 262 valid signatures, opposing the Project scale, submitted to an Associate Planner in the Planning Division September 29, 2008. C. Dispute as to the findings for Site Plan Review, SPR P-2007183 1. The general layout of the Project heights, circulation, and parking are not consistent with the purpose and intent of the Culver City Zoning Code for an IG area. The issue is that the north and west portions of the building face the surrounding residential neighborhood. .41t5 A. General Statement:The tandem parking and large number of parking spaces do not protect . the adjacent residential streets from visitors and guests of the Project who will use adjoining residential street for off-site parking. The proposed terraced / split-level building, with a building height varying between 30'-6" and 61"-9", is in no way compatible with the surrounding neighborhood as it exceeds the 43'-0" maximum building height in the iG Zone. The Commission improperly gave too much consideration to the terracing of the first floors and the "Green" nature of the proposed building to justify an improper finding of compatibility for a building that exceeds 60 feet. The Project generates over SOO new trips (without credits approximately SOO new trips) to the area with no measurable mitigation measures to protect the residential residents. 2. The architectural design of the structure, in particular its height, is incompatible with the scale and character of surrounding development and other improvements on the site. The site is bordered on two sides with low density single family residents with no home in excess of 2 stories. The other two sides of the proposed Project is bordered by other commercial uses, none of which are more than 2 stories. This building (61'9" height), though terraced, is not compatible with the neighborhood. The Project's traffic impact and excessive massing (as compared to neighborhood homes and commercial structures) are not mitigated by the Project as proposed, nor because it is a proposed "Green" building. Furthermore, the proposed landscaping may be best described as minimal with ineffective screening for the adjacent residential areas. The fact that the Building may seek LEED certification was improperly given excessive weight by the Commission when balancing the Projects footprint and the surrounding area. The modern nature of the building, though appealing is incompatible and out of scale in its present location and orientation adjacent to single family residential homes, and with the neighborhood as a whole, on two sides of the building. 3. The landscaping of the Project seeks to, in part, include the location, type, size, color, texture, and coverage to "soften the massing of the proposed building and improve the visual image of the project from the adjoining residential neighborhood." The fact that this language is found in the findings for the Site Plan Review is an admission by the developers that the Project in its present form will be incompatible with the area—something not adequately considered by the Planning Commission. It is hard if not impossible to soften the massing of a 61'9" height building when there are adiacent residential single story homes---this Project is no exception. 4. The design and layout of the proposed Proiect will interfere with the use and enioyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will result in excessive vehicular traffic and that will not be in the best interest of the city or the surrounding area. The proposed location of the Project will conflict with uses in the existing adjacent residential neighborhood through a) increased offsite parking caused by the Project, b) unmitigated excessive traffic caused by the Project and, c) excessive massing of the building and obstruction of views. Furthermore, egress and ingress via the Hayden Place cul-de-sac will lead to a significant increase in cut-through traffic throughout the neighborhood something not adequately considered by the Commission. 5. Need an Environmental impact report (EIR). i/o l/ v ec)/ v-cfc e,/,/y) 33 I 0.3 7 7245 10" 8681395.0547 TOTAL MRCSS RESOURTE Attachment No. 4 ADVANTAGE FITNESS PRODUCTS Culver City Planning Commission City of Culver City - City Hall 9770 Culver Blvd. Culver City, CA. 90232 RE: Support for Proposed 8665 Hayden Place Project Date: October 21, 2008 RECEIVED OCT 23 2008 Culver City Planning Division Dear Culver City Planning Commission, City Council, Residents and Businesses: This is a letter of support for the proposed project at 8665 Hayden Place by REthink Development. Here is a quick background on our company and operations in the Hayden Tract: Advantage Fitness Products (AFP) is proud to list among its clients the Los Angeles Dodgers, Los Angeles Clippers, Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles Police Department, United States Army, UCLA, and USC. We are proud of all of our clients and happy to call Culver City home. While we have leased a number of distribution centers, Culver City was not an option for this use due to the cost of real estate in the area as well as the functional obsolescence of its industrial product. Instead of warehousing and fulfillment, we found this area ideally suited for our administration, marketing and design functions. Therefore, we chose the Hayden Tract for our corporate headquarters. Better use of land and location should be encouraged in this area, much as REthink has proposed. Recognizing many of our neighbors as members of the entertainment and media industries, it is evident this is already organically happening. Manufacturing, storage and distribution can take place in any non-descript building in a number of inexpensive areas, but there exists only a few areas in the county that have the opportunity to attract the types of innovative and collaborative companies that call the Hayden Tract home. For this reason I strongly support the proposed project at 8665 Hayden Place. Sincerely, an Green President — CEO, Advantage Fitness Products 4-207|1010|S5 cl CC fr 414 14 it v .1 — — lir. f r i r s. , r #161114110r Af ig:r irr|1010 1010|We, the undersigned neighbors of 8665 Hayden Place, believe the proposed project is a natural progression of smart property use considering how the Hayden Tract has changed for the better over the years. Its central Westside location, the arrival of the Expo Line, and the continued resurgence of downtown Culver City coupled with the fact that it will be one of Southern California's leading green buildings makes the project a welcome and smart addition to the area. Projects such as this will continue to keep the Hayden Tract moving in the right direction as an unique creative office enclave. I believe the proposed development is allowed and should be allowed considering its property and business rights. I offer my support for the proposed project.Attachment No. 5 3-3 Design For Development 8665 Hayden Place Located in Component Area No. 3 Of The Culver City Redevelopment Project November, 2008 42'Design for Development 8665 Hayden Place Page 1 of 6 This Design For Development (DFD) is created for the purpose of harmonizing the development of 8665 Hayden Place with the surrounding neighborhood. The property at 8665 Hayden Place is located at the transition between industrial property to the south and east and residential property to the north and west, and because of this dose proximity to residential uses, requires extraordinary measures to reduce the project's impacts. The primary objectives of this DFD are: to establish a height exception so that permitted floor area under the Culver City Municipal Code (CCMC) can be shifted away from the residential uses; and enhanced screening; The Culver City Redevelopment Agency has the authority to direct and guide the use and development of property within adopted project areas. Pursuant to Section 422 of the Redevelopment Plan for Component Area No. 3 of the Culver City Redevelopment Project, the adoption of this DFD establishes development and design standards necessary for the redevelopment of certain property, commonly known as 8665 Hayden Place (the "Site"). This DFD describes the design and development standards which shall apply to all new construction and rehabilitation on the Site. Moreover, pursuant to guidelines adopted for establishing a DFD, in which a height exception is allowed, the Agency has received from the developer of the site, the following supplementary information for the record: 1. Pro-forma Analysis 2. Market Analysis 3. Design Analysis; and 4. Public Participation Plan. The Pro-forma analysis prepared by the owner indicates the financial viability of the proposed project does not produce a higher value for the project. The property owner has submitted a pro-forma to the Agency's financial consultant to review. The pro-forma indicates that shifting the allowable square footage from a lower floor to a higher floor as a design mitigation measure results in a less profitable building. The Market Analysis submitted indicates a strong demand for new office space in the "Hayden Tract" sub-market. In addition to a need for office space, the developer found anecdotal evidence that neighboring non-residential properties are under parked. The proposed project is parked to meet code requirements. The marketing analysis is included as Attachment No. 1.Design for Development 8665 Hayden Place Page 2 of 6 The Public Participation Plan (included as Attachment No. 2) indicates that the Developer has hosted a series of meetings with neighborhood organizers beginning in September 2007 and concluding in July 2008. The Design Studies, (included as Attachment No. 3) include Shade/Shadow effects throughout the year and visual simulations of the appearance of the completed project. Based upon a review of the above submitted material, it may be concluded that a DFD allowing a height exception is warranted for the Site because of the following findings: The project is designed to reduce the building mass along the adjacent residential uses that is below the allowable height envelope in the residential Two-Family (R2) zone (i.e. 35 feet) while providing increased height along the industrial boundary. A project conforming to the 35 foot height across the entire property would be financially infeasible as demonstrated by the financial pro-forma. The project pro-forma demonstrates that the projected annualized return on equity of 18%, commensurate with industry standards for this type of development would drop to an unacceptable 10.9% annual return on equity with such a building. The Agency's financial consultant has found that the financial returns that would result from the project as proposed are less than a building designed to conform to the existing zoning code on the site. A. The developer has met with adjacent residents in the neighborhood on seven occasions and revised project plans to step the building away from abutting residential properties to create greater setback between residences and the upper floors of the proposed project. The developer has suggested trading off building setback for building height in excess of the CCMC so that the setback at the upper story of the project is 60 feet from the nearest residential property line, but that the building height is 61 feet to the top of the roof to compensate for the reduced building area in the floors below. The community meetings pursuant to the Public Participation Plan have produced some agreement on the issues related to privacy screening and landscaping, but have failed to produce unanimous consent regarding approval of the proposed development height. B. The developer has prepared shade/shadow design studies for the most acute shadowing that will occur during the year. These studies indicate that on December 21st (when the longest shadows of the year will be cast,) the project will not affect any abutting development. The developer has also prepared a longitudinal section drawing to indicate the highest point of the project relative to the abutting residential development which is enclosed as Attachment No. 4. I. Project Overview 42-Design for Development 8665 Hayden Place Page 3 of 6 The Site shall be designed in an environmentally and contextually sensitive manner in accordance with all applicable city regulations. Furthermore, the design of the improvements on the site and the operational procedures once built, shall take into consideration efforts to achieve the Agency's goal relative to greenhouse gas emissions reduction through a 50% reduction in energy use. Redevelopment of the Site shall achieve no less than a LEED Silver certification. There shall be a minimum 7'-2" foot landscaped buffer at the property line adjacent to any residential use. II. Site Description The property is located at 8665 Hayden Place, Culver City, and the legal description is, Parcel No. 1 of Parcel Map No. 7673, as recorded in of Book 78, Page 87 of Maps in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County. The Site measures 34,580 square feet (.79 acres). There is an existing 18,000 square gross square foot (GSF) single-story warehouse on the Site including approximately 2,000 GSF of office space. Ill. Description of Development The Site shall be developed for commercial use in accordance with existing codes and criteria set forth herein. The building shall be environmentally friendly; shall achieve a high level of LEED certification, minimum LEED Silver Certification; and shall have an extensive, well-integrated landscaped buffer between it and the westerly residential adjacent use. The "northerly" buffer exists as of today as part of the landscape maintenance district. The building shall be developed in accordance with the Specific Plan, SP-2-74, for the area, zoning requirements for Light Industrial (16) zone with the exception of the standards outlined in this document and with all other conditions that may be imposed on the project by the Planning Commission, City Council and Redevelopment Agency. The existing 18,000 GSF structure may be demolished and replaced with a new commercial structure of no more than 63,600 GSF. IV. Uses permitted All uses permitted in the IG zone are allowed. V. Development Standards Development of the Site shall meet the standards for the 1G Zone except as outlined herein. A. Plans Plans may be subject to a site plan review pursuant to Section 17.540 of the CCMC and all other applicable applications.Design for Development 8665 Hayden Place Page 4 of 6 B. Building Height The maximum building height nearest the residential boundary along the westerly rear property line shall be limited to conform to the allowable building envelope for the surrounding R2 zone. The building height limit in the R2 zone is 30 feet plus a 5 foot parapet. This is significantly less than the allowable 43 feet plus 5 foot parapet in the IG Zone. In exchange for presenting a lower height towards the adjacent residential property, the maximum building height shall be increased to 65 feet to the top of the roof plus a five foot parapet on the side facing the adjacent industrial property. The new height condition is summarized below. • The existing 43 foot height limit shall not apply to the Site based upon findings and studies related to the height exception. • The building height shall not exceed 35 feet above existing natural grade for any portion of the building within 20 feet of the north (facing Higuera Street) property line. • The building height shall not exceed 35 feet above existing natural grade for any portion of the building within 20 feet of the west (facing Lucerne Avenue) rear property line. • The building height shall not project above a 45 degree line starting at 35 feet above natural grade and 20 feet from the north and west property lines. The maximum height allowed on the Site shall be 65 feet to the top of the roof plus a five foot parapet. Refer to Attachment No. 4. C. Building Setbacks The setback of the building shall conform to the drawings dated July 29, 2008, submitted for Site Plan Review (SPR P-2007183). As shown in Section No. 1 of the above referenced drawings, the setbacks shall be increased as the building height increases. Walkways may be installed in the setback areas as required for pedestrian access. D. Parking Requirements The number of parking spaces on the Site shall be no less than the minimum number for commercial parking per the CCMC. No more than ten percent (10%) of the required parking spaces may be tandem parking. E. Transit New construction on the Site shall be designed to encourage the use of public and alternative means of transit. Development on the Site shall comply, where applicable to the City's Congestion Management Plan. The building shall include bike lockers and onDesign for Development 8665 Hayden Place Page 5 of 6 site showers to encourage bicycle use. There shall be preferred parking for carpools. There shall be a shared vehicle on the Site for use by all tenants who need to go to a meeting or do errands during work hours and arrived at the Site by public transit or carpool. The property owner and/or developer and/or lessor shall provide, insure and maintain said vehicle. F. Landscaping The landscaping shall be designed to provide a lush, green buffer, no less than seven feet two inches (7 ?-2") in width between the Site and the surrounding residential neighborhood in order to separate the uses and protect the privacy of the neighbors. The owner of the site shall retain a landscape architect to consult with the City on the appropriate design to create an effective screen. The owner of the site shall make a supplemental contribution to the Higuera Landscape and Lighting Assessment District in excess of the regular annual assessment sufficient to pay for the additional landscaping recommended by the landscape architect and the City. Additional landscaping in the form of low-lying shrubs and grasses shall be planted along the property line closest to Higuera Street to further complete the landscaping border. All selected plant material shall be low-water, drought tolerant plants. All landscaping installed shall be pursuant to a landscape plan approved by the City of Culver City and/or the Culver City Redevelopment Agency. New development on the Site shall be landscaped and irrigated in compliance with landscape plans reviewed and approved by the Planning Division. The landscape shall meet all CCMC requirements and all requirements described in the underlying Specific Plan. Such landscaped areas shall be maintained thereafter in a well kept condition. G. Architectural Design 1. The building shall be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with City approved plans using environmentally friendly materials with the objective to achieve a LEED Silver Certification. 2. Building exteriors shall not create excessive glare that would affect the comfort or safety of residents and motorists in the vicinity. 3. Windows on floors above the ground floor, which face residences, shall be no lower than five feet and six inches above the finish floor height and shall be effectively screened to prohibit direct line of sight to residential back yards. Examples of acceptable screening methods include but are not limited to exterior, wall mounted louvers, landscape buffers and opaque window treatments. H. Equipment Screening -12e)Design for Development 8665 Hayden Place Page 6 of 6 All mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from adjoining public and private properties as meets the Planning Manager's approval. Roof mounted equipment shall not project above the horizontal plane of the building's lowest primary opaque architectural feature of the roof. I. Signs All signs shall be designed in accordance with applicable CCMC regulations. J. Lighting All exterior lighting shall be of full cutoff design and installed such that the illumination does not rise above a horizontal plane from the lurninare. There shall be no excessive glare or light trespass onto adjoining properties or public right-of-ways from the Site. VI. Circulation and Access All access shall be provided in accordance with all applicable building codes of the State of California and the City of Culver City, including Title 24. VII. Responsibility for Securing Permits and Paying Fees Nothing in this DFD or any subsequent agreements shall be construed in any way to exempt the developer, property owner (or their assignee, buyer, transferee, conveyee, or lessee) from securing all permits and paying all fees required of developers of private property within the City of Culver City, including the New Development Impact Fee and in complying with the Art in Public Places Ordinance. VIII. Environmental Review The Culver City Planning Division shall be responsible for conducting any required environmental review for new development on the Site. The property owner or developer shall be responsible for providing a traffic study as may be determined necessary by the Planning Division and/or the City's Public Works Director. IX. City Zoning, Architectural and Other Requirements The City of Culver City has adopted zoning, architectural, and other requirements relating to development of land within its jurisdiction. These requirements shall be adhered to in the planning and implementation of all developments. The requirements contained in this DFD shall be construed as being in addition to City requirements. In the case of the height of the Site, this Design for Development should be considered the document to permit the filing of a height exception application as outlined in the CCMC. 4„aTAttachment 1. Market Overview Rethink 'Development is building the first Silver (or Gold) LEED certified, green creative office building on the Westsi.d.e of Los Angeles. The Hayden Tract is one of the premier office locales for creative services companies. Architects and designers, advertising agencies, public relations and marketing firms, production companies, digital film companies, gaming companies, Internet companies, and media tech companies are among those businesses seeking green., "cool", advanced creative office space. Adding to the building's appeal to businesses, we plan to sell the spaces as office condominiums, rather than leasing them. Businesses such as Nike, Ogilvy and Mather, Eric Owen Moss Architects, Tennis Channel, Smash Box Studios, and Ed Hardy are already marquee names in the Tract. The Tract includes many architecturally renowned buildings but there is almost no opportunity for these companies to own their offices. This project will be the first opportunity for businesses to escape annual rent increases and be in a leading edge green building. Market Hielilights • Office market indicators are all heading in the right direction: office rents are increasing 5% to 20% per year; vacancy rates are below 4% across the Westside and down to 2% in Culver City; the Los Angeles economy is strong, diverse, and growing; and rents in Santa Monica and West LA are $5 to $6/ per square foot per month (PSFPM), pushing companies to look for less expensive alternatives of $3 PSFPM and higher in Culver City. • Premier location and. site for medium density creative office in the increasingly popular and noteworthy Hayden Tract, with rent and. sales price comparables rising rapidly. • Centrally located on the Westside, close to the 10 and 405 Freeways. About 15 minutes from Santa Monica, Downtown Los Angeles, LAX and Hollywood. • The site is located within a 1/2 mile from the future Metro Expo Light Rail line stop, downtown Culver City's restaurant and entertainment district, and many other amenities. 4262 Lincoln Ave, Culver City, CA 90232 P. 310.253.9131 <> F.310.943.1519• Building to LEED certification standards will distinguish our development in quality, operating costs, design and technology, productivity increases, and occupant health from any other creative office product in Culver City or Los Angeles. • A green building will have great appeal to the psychographics of creative services business ownership, management, employees, investors and customers. • The project will be designed by the Cuningham Architecture Group, an award winning, green architecture firm Cuningham plans to make this building their Los Angeles area headquarters. They are investing about 25% of the equity capital and are under contractto purchase 20% of the space. • The project will be one of the few properties in the district that is fully parked to office code. 4262 Lincoln A ye, Culver City, CA 90232 <> P. 310.253.9131 <> F.310.943.1519ATTACHMENT 2 Public Outreach Process for 8665 Hayden Place Over One Year uf Outreach and Public input 08/17/07 initial plan presentation at the home of Loni Anderson, 11/14/07 Neighborhood Presentation at the building 5fte. 12/05/07 Discussed concerns with two neighbors. 12/10/07 Discussed concerns with concerned resident. 02/13/08 Discussed possible changes with four neighborhood organizers. 02/20/08 Follow up meeting (canceled by neighborhood organizer). 05/14/08 E-mail invitation to 'view updated Oan,s/ voice concerns 06/20/08 Neighborhood ofganiiii.er viewed plans and agreed to set up neighborhood presentation. 06/30/08 Neighborhood Presentetien (canceled by neighborhood organizer). 07/12/08 Mailed over -four hundred (400) postcard presentation invitations to 07/22/08 Neighborhood Presentation at the building site organized by REtNnk Dev. 09/30/08 Open and targeted invitation to landscape design review meeting 10/01108 Four hundred (400) Postcard mailing with project facts. 10/01-15/08 Dooritoidoor walks through the neighborhood, 3 nights (200-F doom spoke with +/- 100 residents)WINTER YDEN Pl. ACT' CUNIN6,1€Ahl: HAYDEN:PI:ACE cuNINGHAm G 1:1 6 ?I I,SUMMER CUMNGHAM„--- i r- s " 171-'1 A7 3 3,A41 NOTE: r MINIMUM HEIGHT CLEARANCE TO BE MAINTAINED IN ALL SPACES OF PARKING, ELEVTIONS AT MOST RESTRICTIVE POINTS ALONG THE TOP OF ROOF PARAPET AND IDENTIFY CONTROL POINTS OF NATURAL GRADE. 1...HAVER.PLACE::.:•••:::•••••••1.1 •••:•:•.:•.:••••1c1:6.i,,it1R11(1 .:Rv.1.CALIff0P.NIA BUILDING SECTION 1 SCALE 1: 29 C 10' 20' 10' emm'Isimmammoi SCALE: 1" = 20' • .•. • •.• • ; my . 10.....;,76: 13 1.5 3; 1167' 05 3.11|109| 83.51 ^Of 37113 Al E6181 111.71 J\ 84,52' NATuRAL 31 1717.1 3 AT _"09_01 81.141011-3 sEcilor: 00 1301 — GARAGE P2 I - 11 1 '--1 1, I 1 —1 =1 1 ="_|109| 11 111 _ •I — GARA GARAGE OFFICE NATURAL GRADE AT SECT10,1 IfF,IihrVA VE,_ OFFICE i]T67- 105 3|1010|76 25" 56 25' 28 0CO33133R03. 333,3.334 SCRial Y33/33.L 97,3' -11M2 H1GUERA 90.:5' ,Z1(I it5 -7 - • 11 I 1= — 7 11 :I GARAGE PI ' j=) H GARAGE P2 I GARAGE P3 OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE '1=111 H IH I I HI I h-s= if I H •1:, _ I L1T111-H 1711 j= - 11 17 I 17 .1 1 r--1[11-1 I I 1r IA r=i 4X, um: 53.13 sax 061060, 1327,51 7-4 0115 NATURAL GRADE AT sEcTICAI _ :IT I 7525' GARAGE Li GARAGE PI - I 12 56.25' GARAGE P2 I j I I— I I 1- I 1.-TI I I 1 11- 1 I 17:- BUILDING SECTION 2 0 10 30 40- SCALE 1:20 617111e1.11.111111.11111 SCALE] = 20' 5713,1, -zortIRT, LEHI_ NOTE: 7 MINIMUM HEIGHT CLEARANCE TO BE MAINTAINED IN ALL SPACES OF PARKING. FLEVTIONS AT MOST RESTRICTIVE POINTS 1 ALONG THE TOP OF ROOF PARAPET AND IDENTIFY CONTROL POINTS OF NATURAL GRADE. COURTYARD '4H1-411- OFFICE OFFICE OFFICE 3.3,3337.33, • I 55.5.3" 105-33' t HAYDEN PLACE 21. :ZOOLI CUNINGHANI col vER CI rr CAI IFOR-74:A GA 06PAttachment 6. ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REDEVELOPMENT MEETING MINUTES EADRAFT November 6, 2008 Call to Order: The meeting of the Advisory Committee on Redevelopment was called to order at 6:31 p.m. in the Patio Room, third floor of City Hall, 9770 Culver Boulevard, Culver City, California. Roll Call: Roll call was taken: Members present: Paul Struhl Pierre Joujon-Roche Amy Rosenstein Vernon Taylor, Jr (left at 7:22) Joel Forman Steve Paddock (arrived 7:00) John Derevlany Arthur Garcia Members excused: Scott M. Voelz Staff: John Fisanotti, Redevelopment Project Manager Project It was moved (Mr. JouJon-Roche) and seconded (Mr. Manager's Forman) and passed by a vote of 7-0 (Paddock and Voelz Report absent) to receive and file the Project Manager's report of the posting of the agenda for the meeting. Approval of It was moved (Mr. Forman) seconded (Mr. Taylor) and passed Minutes: by a vote of 7-0 (Paddock and Voelz absent) to approve the Minutes of the meeting of August 12, 2008. Audience Mr. Struhl announced that members of the audience who Participation: desired to participate would be recognized at the time the agenda item is called. An additional opportunity for audience participation on non-agenda items will also be provided. Ms. Marta Zaragoza submitted written comments on behalf of Mrs. Sadie Cerda, 3552 Scheafer Street, Culver City. Redevelopment Project Manager Fisanotti read the comments into the record. Mrs. Cerda is against the project and asked that the item be postponed until there can be more public input on the process. Mrs. Cerda stated she was not notified -.4Pd6Minutes of Advisory Committee On Redevelopment November 6, 2008 Page 2 of 3 -2DRAFT of the many public meetings the developer had conducted with the neighborhood, and had not authorized anyone to represent her at the meetings. Consideration of the Draft Design For Development for 8665 Hayden Place Mr. Fisanotti introduced Mr. Greg Reitz, of Rethink Development, the owner and developer of the property at 8665 Hayden Place. Mr. Reitz, responded to Mrs. Cerda's comments by stating that her address was on his contact list for noticing meetings. Mr. Reitz described his proposed project for 8665 Hayden Place and answered questions from the Committee members. Mr. Taylor Jr. announced that due to an emergency, he needed to leave the meeting. Mr. Taylor Jr. asked to go on record in support of the project and advised Mr. Reitz to re- double his efforts to reach out to the community. Mr. Taylor Jr. left the meeting at 7:22 p.m. Mr. Reitz responded to further questions from the members It was moved (Mr. Garda) and seconded (Mr. Forman) to recommend to the Culver City Redevelopment Agency that it approve the Design For Development and the project proposed for 8665 Hayden Place. Motion approved by a vote of 7-0 (Voelz and Taylor, Jr. absent). Selection of a Delegate and an Alternate to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee Items from Staff, or the Committee It was moved (Mr. Struhl) and seconded (Mr. Garcia) to appoint Vernon Taylor, Jr. as the Delegate, Joel Forman as the Alternate, and Mr. Paddock as the second Alternate to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee, an approved by a vote of 7-0 (Taylor Jr. and Voelz absent). None. 49.Minutes of Advisory Committee On Redevelopment November 6, 2008 Page 3 of 3 2uRAFT Adjournment It was moved (Mr. Forman) seconded (Mr. Paddock) and passed unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m., to the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 4, 2008, at 6:30 p.m. in the Patio Room, third floor, City Hall. John Fisanotti, Redevelopment Project Manager