The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-12-A (47)~ ~ ~ TT~ -~1'I'7~t~~ ~ CITY PLANNING DIVI~ION cainmunity and Ecanamic Development Departmant M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 2, 1989 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission FR~M: Planning Staff SUBJECT: DR 470, ZA ~368--Y, EIA 88'7 Address: 2320 Wilshire Baulevard Applzcant: HSM Group SUMMARY This is an updated staff ning Commission for the Changes from the prior variety of citizen camme the June 21 repart, and amount for the project. report from that received by the Plan- hearing continued from ~'une 21, 1989. staff repart inc].ude responses to a nts made subsequent to the issuance of correction of the in-lieu fee payment Proposed Project: Certification of Environmenta~ Impact Repart, EIA 887, and Approvai of De~elopment Review 470 and Variance zA 5368-Y, to a].low the construc'~ion of a five-story, 66'-6" tall, 108,98o square~foot, 2.68 FAR commercial of~ice development with a four-level subterranean garage and replacement of a car wash in the Wilshire C4rridor. Recommendation; Certify EIA 887 and approve DR 470 and ZA 5368-Y at a reduced four-stary height and reduced FAR with conditions. This recommendation would cut approximateZy 17,160 sq. ft. of floar area from the project and provide an FAR of about 2.26. Sinca the "as-of-right" standard for Wilshire Soulevard at the time of applicatian was 4 stories and 2.5 FAR, the Commission may ~rish to cansider approval a~ that Zeve]., particu~,ar~y since the car wash facility can be c~nsidered a community-serving use. Permit Streamlining Expiration Date: A~gust 8, ].989 (Includes 90-day extensian.} Rent Control Status; Site is in commercial use and has na con- trolled rental units, SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject property is a 40,643 sq. ft. parcei I.ocated on the south side of Wilshire Boulevard between 23rd and 24th Streets having a frontage of 280 ~eet on wilshire Bauleva~d and 145 feet - 1 - i i on each of the side streets. 5urrounding uses cansist of retail and office uses across Wi3.shire and to the east and west along Wilshire, and low-density residential (R2) to the south. Zoning Districts: C4 (previous zoning); C6 (current zoning) Land Use Districts: Wilshire Corridor Parcel Area: 280' X 145' = 4D,643 sq. ft. PROPOS~D PROJECT The proposed project consists of the constructian of a five- story, 66'-6~~ tall, 108,980 square-~4Qt commercial affice development with a four-level subterranean garage and repiacement of a car wash in the Wilshire Co~ridor. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The propased pro~ect is consistent with the Municipal Code in affect at the time the app~ication was deemed compl~te and in confarmity with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A. CEQA STATUS An Environmental Tmpact Report (EIA 887) has been pxepared for this praject. Cogies of the Draft EIR were distributed to the Planning Commission at the baginning of the 30-day public review pariod. Co~nmsnts ~rere received and ~he respanses to tha comments are incorporated into the Final EIR. An Addendum to tha EIR has been prepared ta provida an updated ~raffic analysis based on a recent design of the point of access to the project and reduction in prQject size. A resvZution of certificatian of the FinaZ ETR is att~ched. FEES This project is subject to the Housing and Parks Project Mitiga- tion Measures of the Land Use and Circulation El.ements of the General Plan. The project mitigation measures may be satisfied by payment of an in-lieu fee to the City as established by ~r- dinance 1367 (CCS) and as autlzned by condition of approval far this project. ANALYSIS Praject Description The originally-proposed praject cansisted Qf the demolition and removal af all exi.sting uses at the site and deve].opment of a six-story, 118,640 sq. ft. building w~th a 10,585 sq. ft. car wash facility at the rear, In sta~f's view, while it does gener- ate a substantial volume of traffic, the car wash represents a communit~-serving use, and replacement of the existing facility is a positive aspect o€ the project. - 2 - ~ ~ As originally design~d, the car wash would have been partially unenclosed. Retail uses were praposed for the ground floor Wi.l- shire frontage. The entrance to t~e office por~ian of the proj- ect was propased for 23rd Street, with an exit on 24th. Hourly parking fees were propased for tenant~, emplayees and vi.sitars to the ~roject. The FAR of the project was originaZly proposed at 2.92. xn response to the evaluatian of the project in the Environmental Impact Report, and as a result of com~ents and mee~ings with residents o~ the praject area, the applicant revised the praject design ta address a number of concerns. The changes m~de Sncluded cutting one stary fram the design and adding increased building setbacks at th~ 3rd, 4th, and 5th floars, fu11y enclosing the car wash facilf.ty to addr~ss poten- t~al adverse noise ~mpacts associa~ed with car wash operation, deleting retail uses fram the ground floor to reduce overall traffic generatian, changing the locatian of the primary vehicle ~ntrance and exit from the side streets to Wi].shire Baulevard, and prapasing free parking far emplayees and tenants un~ess and until ~ preferential parking district is established in the area. The FAR of the project has been decreased from 2.92 ta 2.68. Parking and Variance ~'aur hundred and six parking spaaes would be provided in the prajact. Two hundred twenty-eight of theser ar 56~, would be standard spaces, 125, or 31~ would be compact spaces, 6 spaces or i~ would maet handi.capped requirem~nts, and 47 spaces, or 12~ would be ~tandard spaces 3.n a tandem format. A variance is re- quired for the compact spaces. The current municipal cade wauld permit 40$s compact spaces as of right; beaause the project falls under the for-~n code standards, a variance is needed for that aspect of the praject, I~ the tandem ~paces served as part of the required parking far the project, a variance wauld be needed for that aspect, however since an excess of parking is being pro- vided, no wariance i.s need~d for the 47 tandem spaces. The code-required number af spacea for the office portion of the praject is 324 s~aces. The former code Iacked a parking standard for car washes. Ho~rever, using the current parking requirem~nt af two spaces per washing stall for the car wash portion af the praject, this component wou],d have a parking requirement of 32 spaces, resuZting in an overa].l parking requiremenfs of 356 spaces. The proposed 406 space-praject would axceed code re- quirements by 50 spaces. Althaugh th~ developer contends that a variance for campact park- ing spaces may not be required, an July 19, 1989, attorneys for the developer submitted a variance ap~licatiQn for co~npact spaces. The current Zoning Ordinance permits ~p ~a 40~ comgact spaces as-of-right fox a commercial pro~ect. Hawever, this proj- ect is governed by the ardinance provisions in efFect at the time of application. At that time, the relevant cade pravisions did not specify an a3lowable compact space percentage. Under the old -- 3 - • i ordinance, hawever, the City rnutinely approved projects with up to 40~ campact spaces without variances. Arguably, the applicant cauld simply abtain approval of a praject under the old code without compact parking spaces, then re-stripe the spaces ta co~np3y with the curr~nt cade provisions. Staff feels it is more appropriate to have the applicant fa.le a variance applicatian for compact spaces under tha old code, since the project itself has been filed under the old code. There is no prejudice to the pub].ic in a].lowing this app].ication to be f iled . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT An Environmental Impact Repart (EIR) was prepared on the praject by Willdan Associates consultants to the City. The EiR was cir- cuZa~ed for the r~q~zired pub~.ic revi~w period. Among the issues identified in the EIR was the heiqht of the pro- posed project. The originai application ~~as for a six-stary, 83', 2.92 FAR praject. The effect~.ve development standards at the time of the app~ication are set forth in th~ Land Use Element af the G~neral Plan, which stated limits of four stories and 2.5 FAR, or with Site Review~ up ~0 3.0 FAR and six stories. The EIR recpmmended a reduction in the height of the building to address what it identifi~d as adverse impacts resu~ting from the building's height and bulk. In response to the EIR's recammenda- tions and neighborhood cancerns, the applicant has reduced the h~ight from six to five stories, and FAR has also been reduced from 2.92 ta 2.68. The site review standards of the Land Use Element require that the PZanning Commissian, or Council an appeal, find among oth~r requirements, that the location, size and uses of site review projects are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoad, that rights-o€-way can accomodate prajected traffic, and that the project is genaraJ.ly consisten~ wi'~h the Municipal Code and General Plan. In a number of recent project~, the Planning Com- missian has indicated that in order to receive the additianal height ~r FAR alZowed through site review, such pro3ects should prov~de autstanding public a~nenities, mitigatian, and the design to balance the added impacts of greater height and FAR, WhiZe the applicant has addressed the EIR's concern ]ay r~ducing building height by one story and reducing FA.R, the project still is higher than most other buildings in its vicinity. In addi- tion, whiZe it does provida setbacks at the ground floor and an upper stories and the design represents a reasonable approach to development in the area, the overalZ praj~ct does not pr~sent significant benefits to the City which balance the added height and FAR being requested. For this reason, staff is recom~ending that the building height be reduced to four stories, with the remaining floors maintaining their basic layaut. This would also result in an FAR reductidn to 2.26. - 4 - s s Since the non-site review standard in effect at the time of ap- plication was 2,5, and since the car wash facility may be con- sidered a community-serving use, the Commissian may wish to con- sider approval at a 2.5 FAR, which would equate to a total square foQtage of 101,608, a r~duction fram the 108,923 sq. ft. request- ed by th~ app~zcan~. Althaugh 2.5 FAR is cons~dered a"by right" level of intensity, the Commission has discretian under the Develapment Review Permit to impose conditions which mitigate impacts or otherwise are deemed necessary. Traffic and circulation The draft ~IR indicated that the originalZy-proposed pro~ect wauld create signif~cant traffic impacts at the following five intersections; Wilshire and 26th; Cloverfield and Santa Mon~ca B~vd.; Cloverfi~ld and Colorada; Wilshire and 23rd; and Santa Monica Blvd. and 23rd. The draft indicated that all of these significant impacts could be mitxgated with feasible mitigation measu.ras, which are iden- tifisd on pages 4-14 through 4-22 of the E~R and also in the response to commants section. The ETR also identified a reduc- tian in project sa.ze waul.d serve as an alternat~ mitigation mea- sure tQ street i~ap~vve~ents. The EIR ind~ca~ed that at reduc-- tions to a 13,500 sq, ft. along w~th the exclusiQn of all retail uses would also ~~iminate significant impacts. As a result of the en~viror~mental impacts identifisd in the EIR and citizen dialog with the developer, the develop~r revised the pro~ect in several respects relating to traffic impacts. The two principal driveways were reZocated fro~ the S3CZE streets to WiZ- shire. Retail uses were eliminated. Floor area was reduced from over 118,000 sq. ~t. to about 109,000 sq. ft. To analyze the down~sized version ~f the project, including the relocatian of the principal vehicle access to the project, Kaku Associat~s, consultants to the applicant, prepared an analysis far review by the Cityfs cansultants. This ana~ysis was prepared using assumptians and methads agreed upon by the City Parking and Traffic Engineer, the City's cansul.tants, Willdan Associates, and Kaku Associates. The analysis, accompanied by a Ietter from willdan, comprises the Addendum to the EIR which is attached as Exhibit G. The results of this anaZysis inc].ude the foZlowing: -Due to the elimination of bank and retail uses, the revised project wou3d generat~ signi€icantly ~ess traFfic. -The revised project wou~d have significant ix~pacts at two inter- sections: 26th and Wi].shirs during the morning peak hour and 23rd and Santa Monica BZvd. during the even3ng peak hour. -Restricting parking an the south side of Wilshire for about 150 feet west of 26th would reduce praject impacts at this intersec- tion below a significant level. - 5 - ~ ~ -Restriping and/or widenir~g of the narth leg of 23rd at Santa Monica to allow for three sQUthbound lanes wou~d a~low this intersection to operate at LOS D or better du~ing both peak periods. Prior to the June 2Z hearing date, questions were raised abaut the list of cumulative projects far the traffic analysis of the project. A major project, Colo~ado Place Phase II, was incom- pletely idanti~ied in the list of cumulative pro~ects. The movie theater portion of the project was considered, but 450,000 sq. ~t. af affice space was not part af the cumulative analysis. To address th~s oversight, Kaku Ass~ciates, traffic cansultan~s to the applicant, in consultation with Willdan Associates, con- su~tants to the City, prepared a revised cumulative traffic im-~ pact analysis which included aIl components of Colarado P~ace Phas~ II. This analysis, in the forni of an Addendum to the EIR, is attached as an exhibit, as is Wil].dan's evaluation of th~ analysis. The Kaku analysis conclud~s that the inclusion of all components of Ca3orada Place Phas II does not aff~ct the conclu- sions previausly made regarding the impacts of the HSM gro~ect. ISSUES RAISED_BY THE PUBLIC Prior to the schedu~ed June 21 public hearing on the praject, as well as subsequently, a number of iss~es have been raised by mem- bers af the p~blic. '~hese inc].uded the Zack of a variance ap- plication for compact parking spaces, the incamplete identifica- tion o~ Colorado Place Phase II in the cumulative traffic anaiy- sis, whether the added traffic anaJ.ysis prepared subsequent ta circuZation of the draf~ EIR should have taken the form of a Sup- plement to the EIR rather than an Addenduxn, whether a particular mitigation measure identifa.ed in the Jun~ 6 Kaku report shauld be inc~uded as a canditian af approval, whether the pra~ect app~ica- ti.on met the relevant requirements to be considered under the pre-April 29, 1988 regulations, and the recent insertion of a date dn a project file docwment by a member o~ City Planning staff. Each of these ussuss is discussed below. Variance Application As noted above, on July 19~ I989~ the applicant's attarneys sub- mitted a ~ariance application for compact parking spaces. Appro- priate findings are pravided in this ~taff ~eport for approva~ of the variance. Colorado Place Phase II Identification As discussad abave, added analysis was prepared to correct the previous analysis~ which did not inciuded a complete description of Colorado Place Phase II. This analysi~ indicates that the prior canclusions regarding project impact remain unchanged. Form of Additional Traffic Analysis - fi - . ~ The additianal traffic impact analysis prepared subsequent ta ciraulation of the draft EIR for the project took the farm of an Addendum to the EIR. An Addendum was the appropriate farm for this analysis, since the analysis did not involve identification of new significant eff~cts but instead represented clarification and updating of previous analysis, including analysis of a proj-- ect oP reduced scope which was specifically intended to reduce adverse effects previously identified by the EIR. Gi~en the technical update nature Q~ the additional analysis and the lack of significant new information provided, a Supplement or recir- culation of the EIR is not necessary under the provisions of CEQA. Inclusion of Mitigation Measuzes On page 4 af th~ June 19, 1989 letter from Ton Kingsley et al, provided to the Commission as part of the June 21 packet, it is stated that particular mitiqatian measures relating to Wilshire and 26th and 23rd and Santa Monica which were recommended by the June 5 Kaku analysis were not included in the conditions of ap- prQVal of the June 21 staff report, and that therefore, the proj- ect shou~d be downsized or denied. In fact, the June 21 staff report included these m.itigation measures on page 14 under Cond~- tion 42, Theae canditions are also included in this staff report. Date Applicatian Deemed Camplete A significan~ issue that has been raised regarding the project relates to its conformance to s~veral interim ordinances enacted by the City. Ordinance 1321, adopted in 1984, es~ablised ~nterim d~velopment atandards and procedures subsequent to adoption af a new Land Use EZement, and pending the adoptian af a new Zoning Ordinance implementing th~ n~w Element. The proposed praject is consist~nt with the standards of Ordinance 132i, which a1.Iawed up to six stories and 3.0 FAR at the project site with discretionary review by the P3anning Cammission or City Council on appeal. In recagnition of the fact that the new Zvning Ordinance wouid not be adopted for several months, in May 1988 the City Cauncil ad~pted Interim Ordinance 1441 to set lower heights and FAR"s in a number af zoning di.stricts, including commercial property on Wilshire Bou3.evard. Ordinance 1449, which ~ncorporated minor amendments to Ordinance 1441, was adopted in June 1989, Both ordinances established new interim standards, which were later ta become part of the new Zoning Ordinance. These ordinances provided that in order to be eligible for the develapment standards set farth in ordinance 1321, applicatians must have been deemed compl~te "on or b~fore April 29, 1988." The ordinances further defined "campleta" to allaw applications to be cansidered "substantially comp2ete" if any missing infarmation was supplied w3thin two warking days of the City's request for the missing information. - 7 - ~ i There are three issues relating to HSM's status ragarding the "complete application" provisions. These are ].) the relationship between the pravisians of Ordinances 1441 and 1449 and the Zoning Ordinance adopt~d on September 8, 1988, 2) the facts regarding the "completeness" determinatians made shortly after the project appZication ~aas sub~i~ted in Apri~ 1988, and 3} ~he dating of a project fale document in June 1989. Each o~ these is discussed below. While Ord~nances ~44]. and 1449 cantained identica]. ~anguage regarding deeming projec~s complete "an ar before April 29, 1988," Section 9002.2 of the 2oning Ordinance adapted by the City Council on September 8, 1988 provides that certain pxojects had vested rights to proceed without complying with the Zoning Or- dinance. Sectivn 9002.2(d) specifies that: "Any project ~or which an application r~,Tas filed pursuant to Ordinance Number 132I (CCS} and deemed co~uplete in accardance with Ordinance Number ~44Z (CCS) or 1449 (CCS) priar t~ Apri1. 29, 1988" has such a vest~d right. This language created an internal inconsistency between the three ordinances, since 1441 and 1449 both contain the "on ar before" Ianguage, and the Zoning ~rdinance contains the "priar to" language, and yet also states "deem~d camplete in accardance with~' the prior two ordinances. Staff believas th~t the Zoning Ordinance language was intended to be consistent with the two interim ardinanc~s, Given the intex- nal inconsistency of the Zoning Ordinance language, the clear Iegislative history embodied in ardi.nances 14~4~ and 144~9, as we~.l as the City's processing af this praject, and the develaper's reliance upon a determination of "campleteness" between April 1988 and the present, staff believes that this pr~ject which was deemed complete in accordanc~ with the two ordinances, meets the effective requiremen~s of thflse ordinan~es and ~he Zaning Ordinance. The P~anning Division deemed the pro~ect application "substan- tially complete~~ in a letter dated April 29,1988. The only items ].isted as missing ~,rere mail.ing labels and a radi~s ~ap. On May ~0, 1988, the P~anning Division issued a letter indicating that the application was complete. Exact informatian in the record as to the date that mailing ~aba~s and a radius map were supplied is lacking. Staff believes that in the absence af informatian to the contrary~ and given the Zetter deeming the project applica- tion fully complete, as well as the applicant's r~liance upan that determination and the City's processing the project €rom April 1988 to the present, the determination of completeness that was made in 1988 should stand. The third issue regarding the "completeness" determination invol- ves a more recent event. In June ~989, a project applicant rep- resentative and a Planning Division clerical staf~person dis- cussed the issue of the dats that the mailing labels and radius map were supplied to the Ci.ty. As a resul~ of this canversation, the staffperson altered the radius map ~or the pro~ect by writing - 8 - ~ ~ the date "April 22, 1988" on it. This was an inappropriate ac- tion, and the P1.anning Director placed a memorandum in the proj- ect file indica~~.ng that the inserted date had no re~evance to the map ar mailing labels. There is no dispute as to whether th~ insertion of the date occurred. Although the insertion should not have occurred, it occurred weZZ after a datermination of com- pleteness had aixeady been made. CONCLUSION The basic layout and uses of the pra~ect conform to th~ relevant requirements of tha Municipal Cade and General P1an that ware in effect at the time of applicat~an. Of particul.ar concern, however, are the height and bulk of the project in rslation to the standards for site Review. Staff is recommending that the project be reduced in scope from five to four stories in the ab- senca of significant aspects o~ the project justifying a si~~ review bonus. This reduction would further mitigate ad~erse height, bulk, and traffic impacts of the proposed praject. A].tarnatives which may be considered by tha Cammission includ~: -Approval af the fi~e-story version of the praject as requested b}r the app~icant. -Approval of a reduced 4-stary, 2.5 FAR project consistent with the "as-of-right" standards in effect at the time of application. -Approval of a xeduced 4-story, 2.26 FAR project as recommended by sta€f . -Deletion of the car wash use from the proj ect ~ which would re- duce trips associated with the project, but which would eliminate a commmunity-serv3.ng use. If the car wash were to be eliminated, a limited amount af retail uses should be considered for the ground-floor Wi~shire frontage of the project, which encampasses an entire block, -~Further reductions in FAR and/or height. -Denia7. of the praject. REC~MMENDATI~N It is recommended that the Planning Commzssion: 1) Adopt the attached resolution certi.fying ths EIR for the project; and 2a Approve a reduced faur-story ~ersion o~ the propased proj- ect with the following findings and conditions. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDTNGS 1. With the conditions recommended by staff, the physical locat~.on, size, massing, and placement of the proposed - 9 - ~ ! ~ structures an the site and the location of proposed uses within the project are compatible with and relate harmo- niausly to surrounding sites and neighborhoods, in that the buiZding is located on W~.1.shire Bou~.evard which is characterizad by a range o~ comznercial development, in- cluding offiae buildings both larger and smaller than the deve].opment recommended by sta€f; and tha~ the praposed development with its four-story height, stepbacks along the alley elevation, and landscaping provides an appropri- ate transition between the commercially-zoned land on Wil- shire and the residentially-zoned land ta the south of Wi].shire. 2. The rights-of way can accommadate autos and pedestrians, i.ncZuding parkzng and access, in that the site design pro- vides adequate driveway and parking facilities and the site is adj~cent ta three a.mproved streets: Wilshire, 24th, and 23rd. 3. The health and saf~ty services (police, fire, etc.) and public infrastructure (e,g. uti~ities} are sufficient to accom~modate the new development, in that the project is proposed to be an in-fi11 af an already developed area with all necessary services and infrastructure pre- establised. 4. Any on-~site provision of hausing or parks and publi.c open space, which are part of the required project mitigation meas~zres required in Subchapter 5G of the City of ~anta Manica Camprehensive Land Use and Zaning Ordinance, satis- factorily meet the gaals of the mitigation program, in that the proa ect will be required to compl~ with th~ re- quirements of this program. 5. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan, in that the project as conditioned is designed to meet all cade and ~enera3. Plan require- ments, with the exception af the required parking var~,ance. 5. Reasanable n~~tigation measures have been included for all adverse i.mpacts identified in an Initial Study or Environ- mental Impact Report, in that a31 reasonable mitigatian measures reCommended by the EIR and its Addendum have been included as canditians of approval for the pra~ect. 7. That the application for this pro3ect was filed in aacor- dance with Ordinance ].321 and the Land Use E~ement af the General Plan on April 22, ~.988, and on April 29, 1988 was deemed substantially complete relative to the provisions of Ordinances 1441 and 3449 on April 29, 1988, and on May I0, 1988, the Planning Division issued a letter deeming the app~icatian camplete in accordance with the afarmen- tioned laws. - 10 - ~ ~ 8. That ir~ September 1988, the City adopted a new Zoning Or- dinance, which ~nc~uded a similar, although not identical standard for d~eming grojects compiete as was included in Ordinances 1441 and 1449, and that the Zoning Ordinances 1441 and 1449, and that the Zaning ordinance language con- tains internally inconsistent language by referring to the two oxdinances and thei~ standards for dee~ning projects campZete, but also p~oviding a sZ~ght7.y different standard for the date by which pxojects must have been deemed complete. 9. That the project appiication is consistent and in confor- mance with the p~ocedura3 r~quiremer~ts of Ordinances 1322, 1441 and 1449 and the Zoning Ordinance, The ambiguity created in the Zoning Ordinance language must be resolved by examining the ~verall statutory framework. In view of the legislative history under~.ying Ordinances 1441 and 14~9 ~.nd the Zoning Ordina~ce, artd the City's determiMa- tion~ regarding the subject project and its processing, finding af consistency is appropriate. 10. That in June 1989, a Planning Divisivn staffperson a~terEd ~he ~adzus map for the project by inserting the date "April 22, 1988" on it, and that this was an inapprapriate action which has no relevance to the determinations regarding a complete application which were made in April and May 1988. VARIANCE FINDINGS 1. There are special circumstances ar exceptianal charac- teristics applicable ta the property involved, including size, shape, topagraphy, Zocation, ar surroundings, or ta the intend~d use ar development of the property that do n~t apply ta other properties in the vicinity under an identical zoning classification, in that the number of on-- site parking spaces exceeds the code requirement and the inc~us~on of compac~ and tandem parking spaces ~ril]. not detrimentally affect the c~rculation and parking patterns of" the proj ect . 2. The granting of such variance will not be detri.mental or injurious to the praperty or impravements ~n the general vicinity and district in which the property is located, in that sin~ilar pro~ects in the past have utilized campact and tandem parka~ng with na significant impact on circula- tion patterns or n~ighboring praperties and that pravzded parking is in excess af that required. 3. The s~rict appZicatian of the provisions of this Chapter wauld result in practica~ difficulties or unnecessary hardships, not including ecanomic difficulties ar economic hardships, in that past pro~e~ts have incorpor~ted compact and tandem parking spaces w~th no significant impacts and the tata]. number of park~ng spaces provided exceeds the r~quired number. - 11 - ~ ~ 4. The granting of a variance will not be contrary to or in canflict with the general purposes and intent of thi.s Chapter, or to th~ goals, objectivas, and policies af the Gen~ra3 Plan, in that the praj ec~ as conditioned is con- sistent with the General Plan. 5. The variance wauld not impa~.r the integri~y and charac~er of the distriat in which it is to ba lacated, in that mare parking than is required wi11 be provided and the variance will not affect the appearance vf the project. 5. The subject site 15 physically suitable for the proposed variance, in that it is a recycling af commercial land with the provision of adequate access and circulation. 7, There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public uti.lities and services to ensu~e that the proposed variance t,rouZd not be detrimental ~o public health and safety, in that the project is an in-fill in a developed area with all necessary improvements. 8. There will be adequate provisions for public access to serve the sub~ect variance proposai, in that adequate driveways will be provided and pedestrian sidewalks are in existenc~. 9. The strict application of the provisions of Chapter i0 of the City of Santa MoniCa Comprehensi~e L3nd Use and Zoning Ordinance would result in unreasonable deprivation af the use or enjoyment of the praperty, in that similar varian- ces have been granted in the past which have not created any deleterious effects and parking is provided for the project in exae5s of that required. carrD~TZOrrs Plans 1. This approval is ~or those plans dated 4/19f89, a capy af which shall b~ maintained in the files of the City Plan- ning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such pians, except as otherwis~: specified in these conditi~ns af approval. z. The P].ans sha~7. comply with a17. ather provis3ans of Chap- ter 1, Article IX of the Municipal Cade, (Zoning Or- dinance) and all othar pertinent ardinances and General Plan polzcies of the City of Santa Monica. 3. Final pa~king lot layout and specifications sha~l be sub- ~ect to the raview and approva3 of tha Parking and Traffic Engineer. 4. Minvr amendments to the plans shall be su}aject to appraval by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the appraved concept shall be subject ta Planning Commission - 32 - • ~ Review. Construction shall be in conformance with the plans subm~tted or as modi.fied by the Planning Commissian, Architectural Rev~ew Board or Director af Planning. 5. Plans for final design, landscaping, screening, trash en- closur~s, and signage shall be subject to raview and ap- proval by the Arahitectural Review Baard. 5. The Architectural Review Board, in its review, shall pay particular attention to the project's pedestrian orien~a- tion and ameniti.es; scale and articulation of design ele- ments; exterior colors, textures and materials; window treatment; glazirig; and landscaping. Fees 7. The City is cantemplating the adoptian of a Transpartation Management Plan which is intended ta mitigate traffic and air quaZity impacts resuZting from both naw and existing development. The P3.an will likely include an ardinance establishing mitigatian requirements, including one-time payment af fees on certain types of new devel.opment, and annual fees ta be paid by certain types o~ employers in the City. This ordinance may require that the owner nf the proposed project pay such new development fees and that employers within the project pay such new annual em- ployer fees related to the City's Transportation Manage- ment Plan. Demol.itian 9. Unti~ such time as the demolition is undertaken, and un- less the structure is currently in ~se, the existing structure shall be raaintained and secured by boarding up all openings, erec~ing a security fence, and removing all debris, bushes and planting that inhibit the easy sur- veilance of the property to the satisfaction of the Build- ing and Safety Offfcer and the Fire Department. Any land- scaping material remaining shall be watered and maintained until demolition occurs. ~0. Unless otherwise appraved by the Recreation and Parks De-- partment and the Planning Division, at the time of demoli- tion, any straet trees shall be protected fram damage, death, or remaval per the raquirements of ~rdinance 1242 (CCS). 11. Immedia~tely after demolition (and during constructian?, a security fence, the height of which shall be the maximum per~mitted by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be maintained around the perimeter of tha lat. The lat shall be kept clear of a11 trash, weeds, etc. 12. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, applicant shal2 prepare for Building Division approvaZ a radent and pest control plan to ensure that demolition and canstructian - 13 - ~ ~ activities at the site da not create pest control impacts an the project neighborhood. Construction 12. Unless otherwise approved by the Department of Gen~raZ Services, all sidewalks shall be kept clear and passable during the grading and construction phase of the project. 13. Sid~walks, curbs, gutters, paving and drivewaya which need replacing or removal as a result of the project as deter- mined by the Department of General Services shall be re- constructed to the satisfaction of the Department of General Services. Approval for this work sha~l be ob- tained from the Department of Genera~ Services prior to issuance of the buil~ding permits. 14. Vehicles ha~ling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any open load with a tarpaulin or ~ther secure covering to minimize dust emissions. 15. Street trees sha11 be maintained, relocated or provided as required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Cade {Ord. 1242 CCS) , per the specifications of the Department of Recreation and Parks and the Department of General Ser- vices. No street tree shall be removed without the ap- proval of the Department of Recreation and Parks. 1~. A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for approval by the Department of General Ser~ices prior to issuance of a building permit. As ap- plicable, this plan shall 1.) Specify the riames, addresses, telephone numbers and b~siness license numbers of all con- tractflrs and subcontractors as well as the devalaper and architect; 2) Describe how demalition af any existing structures 3s to be acco~plished; 3) Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/canstruction; 4) Describe how much of the public street alleyway, or side- walk is proposed ta be used in con~unction with construc- tian; 5) Set farth the extent ar~d nature of any piledriv- ing operations; 6) Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend under the praperty of other persons; 7) Specify the nature and extent of any dewater- ing and its effact on any ad~acent building; 8) Describe anticipated canstruction-re].ated truck routes, number of truck trips, hours of hauling and parking location; 9) Specify the nature and extent of any he~icopter hauling; 10) State whether any construction activity beyond normal- ly permitted haurs is proposed; 11) Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation measures; 12) Describe can- struction--periad security measures inc2uding any fencing, lighting, and security personnel; 23) Provide a drainage plan; 14} Pravide a cvnstruction-period parking p].an which shall minimize use of pulalic streets far parking; 15) List a designated on-site construction manager. _ I4 _ ! • 17. A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consis- tent with the pubiic hearing sign requirements which sha11 identify the address and phone number of the owner and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and complaints during the construction period. Said sign shall a].so indicate the hours of permissible constructian work. 18. A copy of these canditions shall be posted in an easily visible and accessible locatian at all times during con- struction at the project site. The pages shall be lami- nated or otherwise proteated to ensure durability af the copy. Enviranmental Mitigation 19. Ultra-low flow pl~mbing fixtures are required an al~ new development and remodeling where plumbing is to be added. (Maximum 1.6 gallon to~Iets and 1.0 gallon urinals and low ~low shower head.) 20. Priar to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, project owher sha11 present documentation to the General Services Department certifying that existing ~anta Monica occupan- cies with tailets installed pra.or to 1978 have bean retro- fitted with ultra low-flaw toilets (1.6 gallons per flush or less) such that deeelopment of the new project will hot result in a r~et increase in wast~water flows. Flow from existing occupancies which will be removed as part of the new development may be deducted from flaw attributable to the new development if such occupancies have been occupied within ane year prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the prapased praject. Flow ca].culations far new develop- ment and existing occupancies shall be consistent with guidelines developed by the Genaral Services Department. 2Z. Ta mitigate so].i.d waste impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, project owner shall submit a ~ecycling plan to the Department of General Services for its approval. The recyc3.ing plan shall include 1) list of materials such as white paper, metal cans, and glass to be recyc~ed; 2) locatian of recycling bins; 3) desig- nated reaycling coordinator; 4) nature and extent of internal and external pick-up service; 5) pick-up schedule; 6} plan to inform tenants/occupants of service. 22. To mitigate circulation impacts, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, project owner shal7. submit a transpflrtation demand management plan to the Department of Genaral Services far its approval. This p~an shall in- clude: 1) Name, address and telephone number af desig- nated persan(s) responsible for coordinating transporta- tion demand management measures at the development. 2) Demand managamant measuras to be employed at the site to reduce circulation impacts which wauld otherwisa accur. - 15 - ~ ~ Such measures may include, but are not limited to programs addressing: A. Edt~aation and Marketing to alert employees and visitars to the site of d~mand reduction programs and incentives; B. Parking Management such as parking charges for single-accupant vehicles, reduced rates for car and vanpools; C. Ridesharing programs such as a rideshare ma~ch~ng pragram, incentives, and car and vanpool s~zb- sidies; D. Transit pragrams such as pro~isian of bus schedules to employees and visitars, subsidized bus takens and passes ta employees and visitors; E. Bicycling pro- grams st~ch as prov~sion of secura bicycle storage facili- ties, pravision of showers and lockers; F. Alternative Work Schedules for building employees ta avoid peak AM and PM traf~ic hours and reduce o~erall trips; G. Trip Length Reduction by programs ta increase praportion of employees residing within three miles o~ the praject site. The goal af the Transportation Demand Management Plan shall b~ ta reduce vehicle trips which would otherwise occur by twenty percent. 23. Landscaping plans shall cQmply with Subchapter 5B (Land- scaping Standards) of the Zoning ~rdinance use of wat~r- conserving Yandscaping mat~rials, landscape maintenance and other standards contained in the Subchapter. Miscellaneous Conditions 24. The building address shall }ae painted on the raof of the building and shall measure four feet by eight feet (32 square feety. 25. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reasan of ~ights, noise, acti~ities, parking or other actions. 25. No medical office use shall be permitted at the si~e. 27. If any archaealogical remains are uncavered during excava- tion or constructian, work in the affected area shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be contacted to conduct a survey af the a~fected area at project's owner's expense. A determination shall then be made by the Directar of Planning to determin~ the significance of the survey fir~dings and apprapriate actians and require- ments, if any, to address such findings. 28. Refuse areas, starage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened in accordance with SI~IC Section 9040.13- 9040.15. Refuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need, including recycling. The Architectural Re- view Board in its review sha~.l pay particular attention to the screening of su.ch areas and equipment. 29. Street and/or alley lighting shall be provided an public rights af way adjacent to the project if and as needed per _ 16 _ ~ . the specifications and with the appraval of the Department af General Services. Validity of Permits 30. In the event permittee violates ar fails to comply with any conditions of approva], af this permit, na further per- mits, licenses, appravals ar certificates o~ accupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied. 31. Within ten days of Planning Division transmittal of the Statement af Official Action, praject applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Offic~ai Action pre- pared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Conditions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions sha~.~ canstitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By sa.gning same, ap- plicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may passess regarding said canditions. The signed State- ment shall l~e returned to the Planning Division. Failure to comply with this candition shall constitute graunds for potential permit revocatian. 32. This determination shall not become effective for a period af faurteen days from the date of determinatian or, if appealed, until a final det~rminatian is made on the ap- peal. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zaning Administrator. Monitoring of Conditions 33. Pursuant to the requirements of Public Resources Code Sec- tion 2108~..5, the City Planning Divisian wil~ coordinate a monitoring and reporting program regarding any required changes to the pr~ject made in conjunction with project approval and any conditions af approval, inc].uding those conditions intended to mitigate or avaid significant ef- fects on the enviranment. This program shall i.nclude, but is not ~.imited to, Ensuring that the Planning Division itself and other City divisions and departments such as the Building Divisian, the General Services Department, the Fire Department, the Police Dapartment, the Community and Economic Dev~lopment Department and the Finance De- partment are aware of project requi.reAtents which must be ~atisfied prior to issuance of a Building Permit, Certifi- cata of Occupancy. or other permit, and that other respon- sibl.e agencies are also infarmed of conditians relating to their responsibilities. Project owner shall demonstrate compliance with conditions of app~oval in a written report submitted ta the Flanning Director and Building oft~.cer prior to issuance of a Bui~ding Permit or Certificate of Occupancy, and, as applicabie, pravide periodic reports regarding compliance with such conditions. SPECZAL CONDITIDNS - 1~ - ~ ~ 34. ~perating hours for the car wash component of the praject shall be 8:0o AM to 4:30 PM, to reduce impacts an peak hour congestion and reduce operating-related impacts on nearby neighborhoads. 35. To mztigate adverse height, bulk, and traffic impacts of project as identified in the EIR, the fifth flaor of the project shall be eliminated and the design of the remain- ing floors shall remain substantially in conformance with the current design of those fZoors. Floor area shall be limited to 2.26. The bui].ding footprint and setbacks shall remain in substantial conformance with the plans approvsd by the Planning Commission. The Architectural Review Board shall reviaw the redesignad project to ensura that it is cansistant with the basic design themas of the five-story version of the project. Parking may be reduced at a ratio of one space for every 300 sq. ft. of floor area eliminated from the versian requested by the applicant. 3fs. On-site parking shall be provided without charge to ten- ants and emp~oyee~ at the project site unless and until such time as a preferential parking district is es- tablished in the project area which in the judgement of the Planning Director and Parking and Traffic Engineer wi~]. adequately protect neighborhood residents from poten- tial parking impacts of the project. 37. To mitigate traffic impacts identifi~d in the environmen- tal impact analysis, no retai ar bank us~sshali be per- mitted in the project, other than the car wash faciZity. 38. If requested by the Santa Monica Trahsportatian Depart- ment, project ownar shali pravide and maintain a bus shel- ter built to City specifications along the Wilshire frontage of the project to facilitate use af bus transit by project emplayees and visitors. 39. The exterior building materials shall be light in colar. No ~irrored or darkly--tinted glass shall be used on the exteriar af the building. The ARB shall pay particular attention to these ele~ents of the deveJ.opment. 4b. The car wash shall incorporate an on-site water reclama- tion system, such as the Hanna Model 60, which reduces water consumption by 50~. This system shall be sulaject to the approval of the General 5exvices pepartment. 41. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the project, and if required by the General Services Depart- ment, applicant shall perform to the satisfaction or reim- burse the City for the cost of the fo~lowing traffic mitigation measures: A) Modify the parking restrictians an the south side of Wilsh~re fax the last 150-20~ feet west af 26th Street to - 18 - ~ ~ prohi~ait parking during the mvrning and evening peak peri- od betwean 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM and 6:0~ PM. This would affect approximately five parking spaces. B) Restripe or re-canfigure the north Ieg (on 23rd) of 23rd and Santa Monica Blvd. pursuant to the direction of the Parking and Traffic Engin~er basd upon the suggestiona identified in the J~zne 6, 1989 memorandum prepared by Kaku Associates. C) If required by the Parking and Traffic Engineer, proj- ect owner shall install "no left turn" signs on wilshire facing the project driveway to ensure that exiting traffic turns r~ght. PROJECT MITIGATION FEE C4NDTTION 1. In accordance with Sections 9046.1 - 9046.4 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, prior to issuance of a building perniit the develaper sha11 execute an irrevocable letter of credit or other forn~ o~ security acceptable to the City for the payment of an in-].ieu fee far housing and parks equal to $2.25/sq.ft. for the first ~5,00~ sq.ft. of net rentable a~fice floar area and $5.00/sq.ft. for the remaining net rentab~e aff~.ce floor area. This fee shall be adjusted for inflatian by the percentage change in tha Consumer Price Index ("CPI"y between October 1984 through the month in which the payment is made. Upon mutual agreement of the deve].oper and the City, the developer may satisfy the Project Mitigation measures by providing low and moderate income housing or devel~ping new park space on or off the pra3ect site. To fu~fill thxs abligation an agreement shall be secured in writing by the devleaper and appraved by the City Attorney and City staff prior ta is- suance of a building permit. This fee will be appraxi- matEly $442,300. Prepared by: D. Sh Attachments: A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. DKW:SL:eg PC/DR470 7/26/89 Kenyan Webster, Principal Planner ari Laham, Assaciate Planner Municipal Cade and General Plan Conformance Radius and Location Map Pro~ect Statistics summary Sheet Resolution ~f Certification of EIR Statement of Certificatian of ETR Final EIR, EIA 887 Addendum to Fina1 ExR, EIA 887 Secand Addendum to Final E~R, EIA 887 - ].9 - ~ ATTACHMENT A MUNICIPAL COD~ AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE ~ Land Use Category Municipal Code Element Praject Permit~ed Use Commercial Commercial Office/carwash Height 6 stories/90' 4 staries/56' 5 staries/66' w. site review 6 stories/84' F.A.R. 3.3 2.5; with site 2.68 review, 3.0 Parking 35S same 406 - 20 - ?~~c~~~ ~ ~ __ ~ _ CTTY PLANNING DIVISION Community nnd Econcmtc Develapment DepATtIQSIS~ M E M 4 R A N D U M DATE: June Z3, 1989 TO: File ~' ~ -~. FRDM: D. ICenyon Webster, Principal P~anner ~~ 8UHJECT: Add~ndum to EIR for HSM Pro~ect at 2320 Wilshire As a result of changes to this project by the applicant, including relocation of principal access to Wilshire Blvd., elimination of retail and bank uses, and deletion of the sixth story of the originally-proposed project, additianal traffic analysis of the revised pro~ect was commissianed by the applicant. This analyais was prepared using assumptiona and methodology agreed upon by the City Parking and Traffic Engineer, Willdan Associates, the City~s cansultants~ and the applicant's traffic consultant. A letter praviding willdan's review of this analysis is attached to this memorandum, fo3lowed by the analysis, whi~h was prepared by Kaku Assoc~atss. Thi~ informa~ion cons~itutes an Addendun~ to the EIR on the HsM pra~ect. It ind3cates that traff~.c impacts of the revised prajec~ are reduced as ~ampared to the or~ginal pro~ect. No new significant irnpacts are identified. Attachments: June 33, ~989 letter f~am Willdan Assoc~.ates ~a Itenyon Webster June 6, I489 memorandum fram FCaku Associates to Ron Fuchiwakf pc/dr470B ~Cv B~.Xerax ~e'e~~vier 7uZf ; 6-~3-89 , t5;~g ; ~138~~~'24i Z~33~4~9~Z~~ t ~~ iMLLDAN ASSO~~ATES ^ ~~ti~~~~EFRS & ~L.A~;,'~~rs ~ , ~ Jur~e ~3, 1989 Mr, iCanyan Web~ter princlp~! P~annar City of Santa Moni~a 1665 Main Street Sat~ta Monica, CA 90uQ~-32~~ 5ut~~e~t: Review af HSM Grdup aevatapment project-Tra~flc A~slysis Dear h4r. W~bste~: As requested, Willdan Associates has reviewed the MSM Grou~ [3ev~tapmer-t Pra)act traff~c analysis for the s+te lacated at 732Q `~ttshfre Bo~lavard. Tf~e fr~fflc analysis, c~~ted luna S, 1989, w~s pre}~~red by Kak~ Associatss an bahaif af the HS~t Graup. Kaku Associates did c~nfer witt~ the City~3 P~rkin~ an~i Trafflc Engineer and Wi~ld~n A3soc~~t~s ~n tY~e preparati~n of t~l~ traf~rc impact st~cfy. ~h9s study made ~evar~l ~ngln~aring ~ssump#io~s wlth r~gard to tri~ distrfbut~~n and assignmant and used a~tandard met~odalagy a~~ agrQ~d u~on by #he #hres part9es. With these ~s~umpt~or~s and methodo~~9Y agreed upor~, th~ trafflc ~mpact anafy~is f~r the HSM Group site fs cansid- ered adequat~. The traffic tmp~sc~ aneiysis far tf~e HSNS Crflup site id~ntified 26th Str~e~t~Wil~t~tr~ Boufevard anc! ~3rd Stree#~W~[3h€re 8ou~$vard to b~ sfgr~fft- cantl~- impa~ted ~y th~ revis~d arajeci s~~nar~o. The mit9gatiari m~~sur~s ~~commend~d by Kaku Assaciates wa~ld r~du~a thrsa impacts to Ensignffi- c~nt lavel:. Two ~ddlttonal mfit9gt~#~on rrie~sures w~~e suggeated by Kak~ Assaciat~s for the prate~t. Left-turn restrlctions fpr uehieles exlt~ng the proje~t onto Witshire Bou(evard war• suggested. This mi~sure is supparted by the Clty'~ Paricin~ and TraTflc Engineer and wot~id reduc~ ve~i~ular ~ar~t!lcts on W~fshire Boulevard. Th~ s~cand recommendatlan was to prohiblt eastt~~u~d r~ght-t4rns ~t tt~e 9nter~~ctior~ of Wilsfi~i~e Baulevard ~~d Z#t~t St~eet bftw~er~ tha ~ours ot' ~ p.m. and 6 p.m. Thls mea~surr wa~ recomn~-e~+d~d to reduce praj~ct--r~etB~Ced tr~ffic impacts vn 2~th Str~Et. however, t~e analysls does not address tha secontfary fmpacts th~t th~~ me~surQ v~ouid have. Ths righ#•turn restrlctlons wou~d aSso impact existing turn rnovaments, Dac~mentst~an af these 'smp~~ts wo~id ba r~a~es~ary ~f this ~estt~tctt~~ is put forw~rd as a mitig~t3an me~s~tr~. _ _ ~.. ..nw _ •-iro i0~'~ 1"`4i iFf1CNY~ 0174F`~'X/~4 ~ f?1'~1 ~1 + ~/~ ~Q1.~1 `~"r~ ~C`! 3Y~ker:x Te'eca~~er 7y1' ~ R-'3-B~ ; 15~3~ ~ 2~388~Y~P~y ~~33~d~~~Zi~ 3 J ~ne ~ 3 ~ T ~$~ Paga 2 Kaisu A~sotiat~s alsn analyzec~ fnur' 4~ter~ect;ons not includ~~ as part of tlle ~1R, Sir~Ce tnese ~r~t~r~ectiars wer~ not ~r~vlously analyzed, w~ c~riro# verify flr comr-msnt fln thQ ~~curatv Af ~he #ra~fl~ cour~t dat3 or in ~ersactiv*~ capaci#~~ analy~ls. Sha€~Id ya~. hav~- questfan3 r~g~rrdirrg o~ar evaluat~on o~ this traffic analy- sis, p;ease carrtac# r~e ~r !vls. ~vanna ttagalcl at {213) 695-QS51. Vary truly yo~rs, W1 LLDA~V l~~S~CiAT~S ~ ~ ~~ e~~~~ c. ~~ Senior P jec? Manager ~cpy: Ra~n F~C~'1~W~ICj. Ci.y o~ Santa ,U~vn~ca Ran~y Nichvis, Willda~ Assoc3etes JCi:mn 4~ 3~4#J~3d7JC56 ~.~ 3 iTr~f . C4.:t!l/1SSOCEIITES ~~TY CF ~ ` ~'~' i I~~T ~ .... _ ~_ > > ~~,- ~ '~5 ,'L~P! - ~ ~ ] y / T0: ~on F~chiwaki FRONl: Di ck Kalcu ~une 6, 1989 SUBJECT: HSFf Group ~evejopment Project/2320 Wilshire Boulevard Ref: 455 As you knaw, we ~ave b~en requested by HSM ~roup ta conduct a traffic ar~alysis af the revised project for the pro~osed HSM Dffice ~eve3apmer~t at 2320 Wi~sh~re 8o~levard. We understand that the new program for the project consists af a total of I08,984 tata~ floor area of new ca~ercial deveiopment, 98,395 syuare feet of w~i ch wi 13 be off i ce use, and the bal ane~ af whi ch wi 11 t~e used for repiacement af the exist~ng car wash. We alsa ur~derstand that tne car wash w~ll be madified to i~m~t f~aurs of aperation fram 9:Q~ a.m ta 4:3fl p.m. The driveway entrance for the afFice ~evelopment s[~a1~ be lacate~ on Wilsfiire Bou~evard. The fo]]owing summar9zes the key elements of the traffic study indicating the assumpt~ons, base da~a and results. fiRA~~IC 6€RERATI~~f The table below surr~marizes the trip generation rates and tt~e trip generat~on estimates for the proje~t usir~~ these rates. The trip ge~eration estimates for the propose~ project as c3escri~ed ~n the FEiR is sttrtanar~zed ~rt ~xhib~t R. Da~lv fv~dl AM Peak Hour ~vnhl PM Peak Hour {vahl Rat~ Vo~r~~ae Rate Volume ~ FR Rate Yo]ume ~ In Office {98,395 5F) 13.71 I,355 2.t#l 19$ 81% 1.97 194 16~ ~ar Wash - 4~0 - 5 0 - 30* 0 Tota7 1,165 vpd 203 vph 224 vph * It should be noted that the antic~pated hours af operat~on of the car was~ ~9 a.m. t~ 4:30 ~.m.) are such that ~he attua) trip generat9or~ is ~ilce]y to be 7ess than indicated. It ca~ be seen that primary reaso~ far~ t~e ~awer trip generat3arr rates is t~at the revised project does not have a retaii component and is ~11 office. Aithaugh the affice component of the project did not decrease substantially, the projected the ~rojected traff~c ger~eration ~ecreased sign~ficantly. The rema~n~er af the ~ i~27 Sanra ~t~an~ca ~~!a1; Su~re 20] ,iaora hfon,ca ::.~ s~'d01 ~1~31 458-99~6 Memo to: Ron FuCh~wak~ ~une 6, 1989 Pag~ 2 redu~tion, 98~a is due to the e~imination of the pr~posed retail and bank uses on ~he s~te. 7he traff~c ge~eratioR far the revised proJect descripttan was estimated using the same source used in ~he EI~ traffic analysis (Traffic Genera~ion, I~stitute of 7ransportation Enqineers, 4th Editian, 1987) ~f the project. TRAF~IC DISTRiBUTIQN AHD ASSIG~ME~T Th~ assignment of project generated traffic is based on the same distribution pattern used in the EIR. The aetua~ assignment ta the street system differs ~rom the or~g~~al deve7o~ed €or the EFR beca~s~ of t~e pro~osed ~ew 2ocat3oR of the driveway. By locating the drrtveway an Wiishire Boulevard, ~roject traffic can be directed anto Wilshire BouZevar~ and away frarn 23rd and 24th Streets. Figure 1 sur~arizes the as5ignment of project traffic to the seven intersectians which w~re analyzed in th~s study. As a~asis af comparisan, Figures 2 a~d 3 il~ustrate t~e assignment of o~tba~~d traffic dur~ng t~e even~~g peak ~aur as conduct~d for the revised project and as deveioped in the EIR, respectively. The figures indicate that the original pro~ect design would Zead to a muc~ greater u5e of 23rd and 24th Street by the project traffi~. U~der the revised pro~ect design, the southbo~nd traff~c wou~d ~se bot~ 23r~/24th Streets and 2fit~ Street to access the I-ZO Freeway aR~ #a trave~ so~thbouRd on surface streets. The pro3ect traffic volumes illustrated in Figure 1 were added to the Cumu~ative Sase traffic valu~es which were developed for the original project. Figure 4 il~ustrates the Cu~u2ative PZus Project traff~c ass~g~ment for the revised pro3ect. TRAF~IC IMPACT ANALYSIS fac~ af th~ seve~ intersections selected for st~dy in the EIR on the originai project were analyzed to assess the potential impaCt of projec~-generated traffic under the revised praject scenario. Table 1 su~-arizes the results of the analys~s i~d~cati~g tha# the revised projecL wou~d have a significan~ iropact at two intersect~ans, 2Gth 5treet & Wi~s~zre Boulevard during the morn~ng peak and 23rd 5treet ~ Santa Manica 6oulevard during the evening peak. it can be se~n that the project traffic is expected to increase the volume/capacity ra~io by 0.04 at 26t~/Wilshir~ duri~g the ~orning peak hour and by 0.03 at 23rd/Santa Monica d~ri~g the evening peak hour. The ~ncrease in the Y/C ratio is expected to be 0.01 or ~ess d~ring both Peak pertods at 23rd~~i~shire, 20th/Wi~sh~re a~d Cioverfie3drCo~orado, during the marning peak period at 23rd/Arizo~a, and during the evening peak perio~ at 26tfi/Wi15~ire and Cloverfield/Santa ~onica. Aithough ~ U7 ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ L l~ N M ~ N ~ N ,~ ~ .-- SJZD ~ .-~ 5QltU WIISr11f @ ~IvCI 15J5-•. i5P5 --~ ~q I~ PRO IECT - . i f4160 -' 3 I M SCf E 10164 -'~ S ~ I 1 t-5-20 r ~r~ Ari7.Ona Ave ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~r5 Santa Mc~nica f.31vd s~~o-~ '1 a ~ ~ C;olorado Avc~ 1 ~ O{ympsc (34vcs $8R~'9 Mor-1ca Freey-,~Y 'C3 ~N ~pt t0 5CN,E La •nd ~ XXXlXKI( - AM Twnmq MorementslPM Turnmq Movements 4 ~ ~~ All Vdumas pounded l0 ~he hfearesi Fne Vehrcles ~ ~ ~.~ .-_ ~ .- - - - - LCAL~UI~,SSOCi/1TES -----, Fjgur~ 1 PROJECT GENERATED PEAK HOUR TURNING M4VEM~NTS IR~V~SED PR4.~EC~ ~s vett -~~_-._..-_.,..--_+ \1 ~ ~ v~ ~ "' ~' ~ ~ - ~ a M ~ ~ ~ c~ `~ `v `~ 1 ~7s vrx y ssrre .~.,..,.._~..._.~............._...~ --~ ~~~ ~ Wilshue Blvd wa rr~rr~w.y~ ~=s v~~ r•• PR~JEC~ ~ 1~r....._~_._....._r..~......_.~,^I~~~~.._~^~- ss vrt; j sl~r~ ~ I I _ rwr.~w ~rww~ ! i ~~ ~I N ~ N I N ' s~ vrx I ~ ~ r._..~............~_~_, _ ~ Ar~zona Ave ~i ~ M~ I ~ ~ Santa Mon+ca Blvd , . ~ .,~~.....~~.._ -~- - L .~. _..r «.. _. ~ i ~ [ Coiorado Ave ~ ~ ~... ~ ~ Olymp~c Blvd ~~ ~rr~ .^...! ~ ~ ~.. ...~ .r .,. _ _ ~. ~. .... ~. ~.. ~ ... ~ _.. ., ~I ~ - - ---~ ~t ~ I ~ S~nt~ Md~,rc ~+r . `~ ~ s Freeyy$Y I ~` r d~~~~+r ~~~~.~ ~ ~ '~„' ~i y > ~~~`~~~~ ~ ~~YPH M~ ~; ~ ~ ao ~rx ,r U Flgure 2 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC (PM PEAK HOUR 4UTBOUND - REVISED PRO,lECT) ._ .... _... ._ ~ ..~ ..... ..._ ._~. i s v e u N~ ~x~i ro x+at teaend ~ ~]f F~Hf Peak Hoi~i Ou4tx,urui ~Gf1~CUIISSOC~/1TES _ .. ~ v~ - r O N' ~i ~ N ~ ~ N ~s ~rn ss Yr~t -~-..r.r ....~....... r,._._... ~. ~ ........_._._......... _ ~ . as vr~[ ~i 1 s ~ N ~ i I.....,._..,........, -- - us rr~i .......,~._ ~ ~-....._....~~,..,....,~..~~......._....,_~. _.~ ~Y- 7e vr~s ~ ! PROJECT , ~ sir~ , '} 1 ~ ~~~~w~rrwrwrwf f m ~ ~ ~ I v~ M ' w i 1, ~ ' ~.,~~....~......__.......---~ Arizo~a Ave, w~ ~~ ~) is wrtt -~-.~--. .~~.............^...r....-~ Santa Mon+ca 61vd L ... ~t_rrnwr .._., ..-. ~.. ~ ~...r r.. ... .~ ~..... ~ r. ..~ ...~ ..~. .... r.. r ~ ~ .,. r~ r. ~ .-.. ~i"- T6 YPF 3 ~ Colorado Ave ~ ~~ R ( Olymp~c Blvd i ! ~ e r [ ~ ~~~ S~nla Mor~fc~ ~fegyr,~Y ~ ~ 3i ^ ~ ~ ~''~2l9 1?li j}m Q ~~ ~S Yl1S Flgure 3 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC (PM PEAK HOUR OUTBOU~lD --. PROPaSED PROJEC~'? ~ w7 ~o zR.E LeOCrQ ~--~ ^-q~ PA1 P~~h Fbat OutEaund ~cnrcunss~in~s ~ ~ ~ N -- --~--._ ~.^--_-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~-~ ~ ~ N ~a N $ N F~ LV ~ O ~~ e~~~ ~ ~ L~~ ~ ~~~ r ~ ~ ~'~~ 4t~0!_A25 5~64 ~ ~ ~ ~ ,. a-31~51A75 r-~ppll75 W~Ish+re f3fvc ~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ •o 9011100 -* 1301140 -1 1A70I1695"~ 6d1S '"1 p~OJEGT i I SfYE 1356J1765 ~ t051ffi0 "i ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ...` _ _ _..1 ~ ~ ~~~ R"30160 .1 ~ l. ~~~~ j- ~~r~o ~ Anzona Av~ n~,o~ y 1 r tOQI3i5-~ t301?DS ~ ~ ~° ~ ~ ~~ 1-235rTT5 .~ 1 ~-1385l1595 --- pi5J1960 ~-%rsa r-+~a2ts Santa Mon~c~ 35150-t 101611~15--. ~ f n25fYs25-+ 370I~ta -i ; ~ ~ ~~~°~ ~ ~ Cofnrado f 0lym{~~c t3lv ~ ~ $anl~ n!c ~~i~ ~8 a ~ ~ reaw..._ o L~~vd ve l\ .~ ~o ~,~ .~ ; `~ r" 11611,0 ~~~ ~e •na ~ . ~~~-1 'I 1 (` ~ ~ )qIXlX)(Sf ^ Atii Turnhq Mov~menlslPM TurrxnQ Mbvements ~p~q-~ ~S ~ ~ m All Volumes ~ounCe6 fo tns Neare~l Frve Veh~cles ~ g U Itntt~unssoc~nr~S _._.. _.. J Flgure 4 CUMULAT~VE PLUS PRO,~ECT PM PEAK HdUR TURNING M4V~MENTS IREV~SED PRO.lECT) fABt,e i C13NillLATIY~ PLUS P~OJECT INT~RS~CTIUN L~VE~5 OF SERVIC~ Niornina Peak Ftour Ever~in Pe~ak flntir __- Cumulative Cumalat~tve Cumu~ative Camu~at~ve ase _ Qlus Proie~~ Increase _ Base ___ Plus Prol~ct Irrcrease ~ ~ ~pS Y/C OS ~ i V C V C ~.DS V C tOS i n V f ~ S ~ , „ 1. 26th S! & wf7shir~ ~lvd. 0.94 ~ 0.9$ b4 O E B ~ 0.04 a2 + O Z.32 84 0 F D 1.33 F ~.85 D +~ OI + O.ot 2. 3 23rd 20th St St ~ & wilshire 4fiishire B~vd 6Zvd 0.62 1.46 8 F . 1.Q1 F . + O.OI . 1.37 F 1.3] F 000 . 4. 23rd St ~ Arl2ana Ave Q.31 4 A D 0.37 86 4 A D 0.00 + 0 ~2 0.54 1,09 A F 0.57 A 1.~0 F ~ 0.~ + 0 01 5. Ciov er~~ el d Blvd E~ 5anta Monica 82vd 0.8 0 74 C . 16 O C . + 0.02 0.42 E O.g5 ~ ~ a~3 6. 7. 23rd St ~ Santa Mo Cloverfleld 61vd ~ nica Bivd Colorado Rve . Q.79 C . 0.80 C + 0.41 1.00 E 1.01 F + 0~ '~he BOLD vaZues ~ndicate a signiflcantly impacted intersecti~r~. ~ABLE 2 CUMUL.ATIYE PLUS PROJECT ~#~~ERSECTI4K LEV~tS OF S~RVICE WITH MI~'IGASIONS a e k o r venin Peak I~our Cu~u~ativ~ Cumu]ative Cumulative Cumulative PZ~s Pro~ect Cumulattve Cumuiative P~us Projec~ ` gaS~ 1 o e w t ian 8,~,. ase _ lus ra ect ti atinn w M Inter~e~tion ~LC ~ ~-L ~ vrc_ ~ ~~ ~ Y/C L05 Y C LOS 1. 2bth St ~~1t~s~ire B~vd. 0.94 E ~.4$ E C 66 8 0 92 E p 95 E 0 4.82 D b. 23rd St ~ Sa~ta Monica B~vd 0.74 C O.7b . . . Memo to: Ron Fuch~waki June b, 1989 Page $ the ~ro~ect is expected to increase the u/C ratio by 0.03 dur~ng the eve~~ng peak ~o~r at 23r~/krizona a~d ~y 0.02 at C~overfie~d/Sartta Mon~ca during the mor~ing peak hour and 23rd/Wi~sh~re during the marning peak haur, ~hese intersections are prajected to aperate at LOS D or better during both peak periads. Since LOS D~s a~ acceptable o~erating condition, this ~~crementa~ c~ange is not co~s~~ered a s~gn~f~cant ~mpact. MITIGA7YflN MEASURES The ~mpacts at the i~tersect}ons of 26th Street & W~lshire B~~~evard and 23rd Street & Santa Monica Bau~evar~ can be mitigated with the implementation of the foiiowing measures: a Mod~fy the park~ng restr~ct~ons on the sou~h side of Walshire gouievard far t~e ~ast 1~0 to 200 feet west of 25th Street to prohibit parking during the morning and evening peak periad between 7:00 and 9:00 a.m. an~ 4:04 and 5:00 p.~, respectively. This wa~ld a~law this i~tersection to aperate with an Qxclusive right-turn lane ~n the eastbo~~~ appraach d~r~ng these periods a€ the day. Th~s measure wou~~ require the remavai of five an-street metered parki~y spaees from t~e existing on-street supply during the peaK periods but wau~d aliaw them to be available before 7:00 a.m., after 6:40 p.m., an~, most imporLantly, betweQ~ 9:Q0 a.m. and 4:4U ~.m. on weekdays. This prohib~t3on wa~ld ~ot be in effect u~ Sat~raays ar Sundays. a Re-stripe or re-configure the narth leg (on 23rd Street} of this i~tersECtion. The north leg is current]y 40 feet wide with one i8- foet ~orthbau~d la~~, and two 21-foot so~t~boun~ ~anes. O~e saut~bound iane is striped to allow ~eft-turns o~ly and t~e second a~iows ri~~t-turns. Two alternative schemes have been deve~a~ed for this leg which wuuld improve nperating cond~t~ons at this loration. Figures 5 and b~llustrate t~e~e two schemes. Fig~re 5~1]ustrates the scheme wit~ na wide~ing af the street but with a re-strip~ng t4 provide 4 lanes on this leg: one 11-faat nort~bou~d la~e, one 11- fout sout~baund lane restricted to right-turns, and two 9-foat southbound lanes far ~e~t-turns. it may be necessary ta increase the radi~s oR t~e ~ortheast car~er ~o faci~~tate right-tur~s from ~est~ound on Santa ~onica Boulevard onto 23rd Street. Spacer far ~igure 5 ~ tr? ~ ~ ~ N 1 ti~` ~ ~ _ ,o• ~ _ f~~ _~_ `~~ _ ~ _ 9~ _i_ 1~' _ _~_ -i_ -~- =~ ~ +•~~ L/ V ~ ~ N Aprox,mately 5 6' Santa Monica Bl~d. ~~ ~ ~ ~ r r f ~ r'~ ~ «~~~ Figc~re 5 PROPOSE~ MlTICATiON MEI~SURE WITHDUT WtDENING Memo to: Ra~ Fuchlwaki June 5, 1989 ~age 9 The secand alternat~ve, shown 1n Figure 6, requires minor w~dening of the north 7eg for about 15D feet. This scheme req~ires that the roa~way be w~dened by 5 feet, about 3 fe~t from west sid~ a~d 2 feet fram the ~ast side. T~is wouZd a3~ow the sidewaiks ta be maintained at an 8-~not width on bath si~es. 7~e Ieg would be striped for four 1 anes al so: one 13-foot northbound 1 ane, one 12-foot southbound 1 ane for r~gt~t-turns, and two lA-foot south~ound ~anes far 7eft-t~rns. T~is wou~d provide for wider ~anes in each af the four lanes. The potentia~ effect of this mitigatian measure is sumnarized in Ta~le 2. It can be seen that the addition of the eastbound rtight-turn lane an Wi7shire BQ~~evard at 2bth Street dur~ng the peak periods wo~~d re~uce the praject ~mpacts below ievels of signif#cance d~tring both peak hours. ~he incremental f~rcrease in the v/c ratia wouZd be 0.01 during the morning peak hour witf~ the implemen- tation of this measure, The add~tional southbflund lane on 23rd Street at Santa ~lonica Baulevard would allaw the intersection to operat~ L4S C during the morning ~eak hour and L~S D during the evening peak hour. Both are a~ce~tab~e condit#a~s. ~'wo additionai mitigation measures are suggested for the ~raject. The ~'irst is to ~nstall "no left-turn" signs an Ylilshire Boulevard facing the project drive~ay tu ens~re that a71 ex~ti-~g ~r~aject traff~c turns r~ght ar~~ trav~ls eastbound an I~~ishire Bou~evard. The seco~d is to instai~ a"no right-turn between 4:~0 and 6:Oa p.m." sign on eas~6aund approach af Wilshire Baulevard at 24th Street. This sign is designed to prohibit project traffic fram turning right anta 24th Str~et ~~f of wi7shire Soulevard. If ti~is peak p~riod prohibi~ion werQ ir~~~emented and er~forcea, #t wfl~ld ensure that none of t~e project traffic exiting from the site would use 23rd or 24tir Street and aii would travei soc~th an 25th Street. ANALYSIS OF 1lDQITI01~l14L Ifi['i'ERSECFIQNS We are aware ~hat the Planning Comnission (~as, on accasian, asked why additional in~ersect~an were not analyzed as part of the EIR. In anticipation of th~s problem, we have rev~ewed aur f~~es to i~ent~fy avai)able traffic ir-formataon fr-~r~ previous2y c~nducte~ stud~es for ot~rer intersections ir~ the v#cirt~ty of the project site. I~ particuiar, we ~oaked for data for the following intersections: 0 20th St. & Santa Moni~a ~lvd. o CentiRela Ave. ~ W~lshire B~vd. 0 26th St. & Arizona Av~. 0 25th St. & Santa Manica $lvd. 3" 2' --•~ ~-- -~; I-F-- ~ , ~~ alk ' S' Mon~ca 8~~d. ~ % ~~ ^-Mw~vr ~7\.7\.J\JV ~~ Figure S PROPQSED MITiGATfON MEASURE WITH WtDENING Memv to: Ron FuChtwaki June 5, 1989 Page lI ~raffic counts and farecasts of fu~ure traffic were found for t~ese ~aur intersections ident~fied above. 7he assignment af project-generated traff~c was Qxtended to each of the four ~ntersections ide~tified above. An intersection capa~9ty ~na3ysis was cond~ct~d for the f~ture conaitions at these fQ~r locatio~s under Cur~w~ative Base a~d Cumuiative Plus Pralect conditions. The results of the analysis, Which are s~mmar~zed in ~able 3, indicate that tf~e revised project wou~d r~ot have a s~gn~ficant impact at any of the four additional intersections that were analyzed. 5~~~lARY AND CQHCLk~SIONS The resu~ts of t~e analysis ind~cate that the Foi~owing: a The revised pro~ect woutd generate signif~cant~y less traffic than the proposed project described in the FEIR. The average daily traffic would be 1,765 vpd of which 205 vph wauld occur during the marning peak hour and 225 vph durinq the evening peak hour, The signif~cant iropacts of ~he origina] pro~ect, as indicated in the FEIR, wa~ld each ~e r~~t9~ated by t~e rev3sed ~roject des~gr~. fl ~he revised praject woul~ ~ave a significant impact at two af the seven interseCtions ar~alyzed in t#~is s~udy, 26t~ Street & Wi~shire Boulevard during the morning peak hour and 23rd Street & 5anta Mar~ica Bat~levard during the evening peak hour. 0 7he pro~osed measure ~f restricting parking on the sauth si~e of Wi~sttire Bo~tlevard for a~o~t 15D feet west of 26th Street wo~ld mztigat~ the proJect impact at this locati~n to a'leve~ of insignificance. o The proposed re-striping and/or widening of the nortl~ leg of 23rd S~reet to allow for three southbau~d lanes wou~d allaw this intersection to operate at LflS D or better during both ~eak periods. 0 7he rev i se~ pra,ject traf f i c wo€~7 d not ~ mpact any add i t i or~a7 intersectTans irr the v#cinity of ti~e pro3ect site ~~cl~~ing 2~th/Santa ~ionica, 26tt~/Santa f~onica, 2Gth/Rrizona, and Centinela/Wilsi~ire. ~ABL~ 3 ~UMULATIY~ PL~S PROJECfi IN~ERS~~TIAN LEY~LS OF SERYICE ~ Intersec~ion - - - ~, 20th St ~ Santa Monica 61vd. 2. C~ntinela Ave. & Wilshlre Blvd 3. 26th 5E ~ Arixana Ave. 4. 26th St b Santa Manica Bivd. - - --F4~rr ~ir~q ~'e~k ~la~r ~ Cum~~ative . Cum~lative ~ .~~_~ Base ~1ws Pro.iect Increase vic ~as .~Lc ~ s ~ u o.~a c o.7a ~ a.oo 0.65 8 0.66 B 0.00 0.76 C 0.79 C +~ O.Oi ~.12 C 0.72 C 0.04 ~ veninq Peak Hour r _ Gumu]ative C~~uiative ~~se _ ~,]us Pro~ect Incre~se Y C l.C3S il C LQS i n V C 0.99 E 0.99 f 0.00 0.87 ~ 0.89 D + O.L~ 0.94 ~ 0.95 E ~ 0.~2 0.95 E 0. 95 E 0 Ofl MemQ to: Ro~ F~~h~wak~ June 5, I989 Page 13 o Two additionaj mitigation measures incl~~e the possibility of adding a"no left-t~rn" sign on Wilsh~re Boulevard facing the pro~ect driveway so pra~ect traffic would be forced to turn right and travel eastbound on Wilshire Bo~3euard, and a"na right-turn between 4:00 and 6:00 p.rn." o~ the eastbo~nd approach of Wi~shir~ Bou~evard a~ 24th Street to ~ncot~rage autbound ~raject tra~fic to use 2f~th Street rather than 23rd ar 24t[~ Str~ets to trave~ south. if you have any questians or nee~ additiona~ information, pTease call me. CC Lew Hai pert, IiSM Grflup Kenyan Webster, City af Santa Monica fCen Kutcher, Lawrence and Harding ^1F AX ~. ~~ Traf _ c Anal ysi s on Mi cror~rn~~ ~~ ~ F'F;C ~raGI~~E~ Ir~r Pragram ~icen5ect Ta: F a~-u Assa~iates : =~~>> WILSHi~E LLfMt1LATiVE P~US F'R~,IECT ~h4 ~'~Af NOtJR ~EVELS OF SERVICE b~iJ89 ~EVISED F~~D3EGT WrC~M~•FC~MIS~D DIST~I£+UTiQiv Intersectianc 1 ~6TH °• WiLSF~iI~E L~ne Configuration and ~urn Volumes , ~---- ~ ------ --------- -- , , ~___ _~____~_ ~~ ___ ,__ , ~____~___~__ _~~ , _______ _____ _____ , < ~ , ~ ~~; ~~~ ~F~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 _ . ~ ~ < ; ~ 1 / ~ f i ~~ I 1 ` ~ 1 ~ . I ~ I ~ L 1~7 -- ; /~3 : ~L 14~ F; 178~ \ F~ ~1~ • ; ----- ~ vv ~ ~ , ---- ~ ~ ~' I764 -----.. r ; ~ ' ' , i , ---- T 1774 ~ ~ ~ \ ~ , ~ r ~~ ~~/ ~ ~ -- ~ , R 179 v,R 114 ~ ~~~~~ !:; ~ / L 177 ~ ~ i c i i i ~ ~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~l i ~ ~ T $~76 ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ , __.,__ ______ ~ _ _________ ~ _ _ ___ ---- ---- ~~_ ~ ~ - s - _ ~_________ - ___ ~ _______ - , - ~__ _ - ____ _~ - ~ i 1 ~ ~ F + ~ ! ~ ! ! , ~.--.~~. , ~~~~- , .~~~ ' ~~..~~~» + ~~'~~~~ I ~A~pr~ La~e ~Na of~F~er Lan~~Critical7 ! ; GraiEp ! Lanes ~ Val ~{me ~ Vo] ~.ime ; ~ ---- ~ ------- ~ ----- ~ -------~ ~ ---__----__ ; ! 1Y~ k G/tL. 1 1 ~ 1`TL 1 ~ ~ 1 TR ; ~~ 6~?7 ~ 6Q7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ r r a e r + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w i E SL1 t ~/1L i 1 1 iQL 1 ~`~L 1 ~ ~ xR ~ ~~ 4f~~ ~ ~ , , ~ , , ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ < < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EB i Ekl. ~ 1 i 147 ~ 197 ~ ~ ~ TR ` 2 ' 9~2 , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ! f ~ 1 f 1 1 [ 1 1 l 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 1 i i Y~L~ i ~/~` i 1 i 17~ e i ~ ~ ~R ~ i ; 445 ~ 445 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E~~~~ l~~~'~~~ 1~~~~~ ;~~~~~~~~ 1~~~~~..~~.~ 1 ~ TQta3 Cr~t~ca2 Val~~me t 2~~7f ~ -'------- ' ~-_____--------------------- ~ -~ N/S Si gna] P~asa. rrg 1 ~ _ 1 ~ ~~ 1 ~ .^~~'.' ; ~ __ ___r + y_ _..,w i _ _ ~ I i I 7 7 1 f 1 { 1 1 7!` 1 1 1 ~ < v ;> ~ E ~ f ~ h , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i i ~ i ~ i~ i i i ~ ~ i ~ ~ + : + ~ e ~ r.... ~~ ~ ~.rr.-~.i ~ ~..~~-~.~ ~ ~ -~~ ~ i ...~. ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ .~ ~__~ ~ 1 ~~ 1 ~ ---_~___~__~_________~~_______ ~ 1 Ma:~ z mum TQ'tal Cr i ti cal Val umes ~ E 1 ti 1+ 1 ~ 1 , ---___ , ~.~___ , ______,_~ ____, ~~.evei of f ~wa ~~hre~ ~ F~iur ~ ~Servite ~ Fhas~ ; PF~ase ~ ~Fsase ~ 1 ~__ ~ ___ ~ 1~ 1 1 l __ , ~___~_~__~____~_______, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; A ~ ~ ~ 94~ ~ ~ 855 ~ ~ ~~~ t ; ~ { io~~ ; i~~~a ; 9~s ; 7 G ; 1~0~ ~ 114C~ i 1 1~?~~ ; ~ D ! 1~5Q ~ 1; 75 ; 1~~~ ~ ; E ~ i5~-~] ~ 14~5 ~ i;75 ~ ~ ~ ~ F i ~ t NA ~ < < NA ; < < NA i < < F ~ ~w~ ~ .~~~~~~ e ~~~~~ ~ 1 ~~~~~~~~ , ~~ ~~ 1 ~ ~ k ~ ~ r r.~~w~~.~-....~~..~~..-.~.':~.~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Critscal Vol~me = 2~1~~i ~ E No c~f Crit~cal ~h~ses = ~ ; ~ Level af S~rv~ce - F ~ ; Volume/Capacity = 3.~3 ; ~ -------------------___________ ; E/W Szgnal Fhasang ' ------ ' ------- ~ ___--~-_ ~ 1 ~ ~ f ~ R [ ~ ~ [ 7 rti ~ f ( ~ ~ F 1 { ,~ ` 1 1 i E 1 7 ~ ' ! c. --- ! 7 ~ t ~ __} t ~ ; ; i ~ V i i i e Y i i i i ~~~~~~~~ i ~.~..-«~.~~ ~ ~~.~~.«~~ ~ r r f ~ i ~ ~ t ~ r ~ ~ Phas~ Szgnar t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ _~w.~__ ~ 4 ~ t a MFAx i. ~~ Tl~d# r i ~ f~nal ysi s or~ Mz crocampz~t ~ F'rogram Li~ensed Ta: i aE u Assaczates ~~~'=~ .~lILSHIR~ F'F~~ = h~G I f~~~~~ I NG C~JM~JLA~'IUE F'L~~~ ~'ROJECT F'~1 F'~Ah HOUR ~EV~LS C~F SERVICE ~~~.~I5ED PFO.J~~`T WrCQMF~R0~tI5ED DISTRiBUTI~N ~ntersecti~n: ? ~1FiD °~ WILSHIF~E L~ne Conf ~ g~sr~ti ~r,~ ~nr~ T~_irn Uoi ~.imes ~ ___ __~__~.__ ~ ____~_____ r ~ _~.___.~__ ~ ________ ~ _._,____ ___- ~ _______ 1 ~ ~ 1 1 3 ~ ~ ; i ~ ; ; I ; T ; f.~7 1 ~ .~ ~ Z ~: -- r / ~ ; r ~ L 1 ~?9 R ~ 1 ~ }~ ~ i ; ----- ~ Vi/ : ~ r-~_. ; T i 897 --___ ; ' 4 ~ ` ' ---- ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~~ ~E,r ~ , __ ~ R 7~ ~ ~ F; '~ ~ ~~ ~ f ~ ~ ! ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~~ ~. , ~ v 1 1 ~ i 1 _ 1 k 1 1 1 i ; ~~~~.`__~__.~ -~~..~~~~~ ~ ~.~~.'~~...~~~ ...~~~~~~.-~ 1 ~"~~~~~ ~~.~.~.~~ ~~`~ 1 1,~ ~ l~ l ` 1~ 1~ l ~ ~.~ 1 ~r.~.~~ «r. ~ f._~~_~+~ ~ ~~~~~~_ F ~ Appr ~ I~ar~e : No of ~ F'er Lar~Q ~ Cri t a cal ~ ~ ; Group ~Lanes; Valume ~ Val~Eme ~ ~ _~_ _~_ < < , _--_ ~ __--_- ~ ---- ~ -------- , --------- , ~ l~lE~ ~ L f ~? ~ 1 t~9 ; ~ ~ ~ TR ~ ~ ~ 3.69 ; i64 ~ f i I 1 1 1 T F [ I ~ [ 1 1 1 1 J 1 f E ~ r ~ t i SB ~ L ~ <~ ~ ~~ ~ 5T ~ ~ E TR ~ ~ ~ 81 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , , k 1 7 i 1 1 . ~ < < ~ ~ ~ EE'f ~ E?CL ~ 1~ 4~ ~ ~ : ~ TR ~ ~ ~ 9B7 7 9~7 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 e 1 1 1 1 [ ! ~ 1 i WC~ i GX~ i ~ i C}~ i G3~1 i E ~ TR ~ 2 ~ 88fa ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~ , ~ , 1`_~' i'^~~_~"" t~~~~~ 4 ~ 1 .~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ------- ' -----~-- ~ ~ 'fat~l Crztical Vol~~me t 1~69 ; ~ ___________.______,_______.__ ~ _____4_ ~ ~- ~ -, N/S 5ignal Phasing 1 ~~~~~~~~ I ~ ~ 1 1 ` ' ------ ~ -_..___ ~ 1 1 i 1 ~ ! { l 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ f i ~ ~ ~ + r z e ~ r ~ • V i i + ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~' t ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 k 1 1 ! ! f 1 1 1 ~~~...~r~~ ~ ....rw~« ~ ~~~~~~ ~ f 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ! i ~ ~ ~hase Sig~a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , -- - -- _ __ ~ __s____ ~ 6~1l84 --------' 1 ~ , , F' 46 ; ~ ~ T i7~5 ; ~ ~ bi~ ~ 1 ~~~.~.~~~~~~~ i 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~~-.~~ ~~.~~.-.~.»~~.~~~~«~ --~-~ 1 ~ Ma.sxmum Tatal Gritzcal V~l~.im~~ ~ #---___--~-------~-------~--------~ f Level of ; Twa ~ T~ree ; Four ~ ~Service ~ ~'hase ~ F~ha~e ~ Fhase ~ ~_ ~_ ~ _~_ _, ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~-..~-~~ j ~~~~~-. ~ ~~_~~ ~ 1 f i 1 4 1 f I t t t A ~ 9~If~ ~ B5S ~ 825 ~ ; B ~ 1~5~? ~ 1~+~~ ~ 96~ ~ ~ C ~ 1~t7~3 ; 114t? ~ 1 1 s~c7 ; f D ~ 175C> f 1~75 ~ 1~~~ ; k E ~ 15~~~7 ~ 1425 ; 1~75 ~ ; F ; ~vA ; ~va ; n~a ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ 1 1 k 1~~~.~' 1 1~~~~`~' 1~~'_.'~~ 1 I 1 I ~~~~~~~.~~~~~~~~.~~.~~~~~~~~~~.'~-~ ~ ~ Criti~al Voium~ = 1269 ~ ~ No of ~ritica2 ~fiases = ^ ~ ~ Lev~l ~f S~?rvk ce - D ~ f Vv1t~mQ/Capaca ty = ~a, 8~ ~ ' - ------ _ __________________ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ j E/W Signal F`~asing j ~.~~~~~~~ k ~~.~~~~...~ 1 ~~...~~w~~~ ~ 1 .t t 1 l 1 ! 1 ~ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~" i i i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ` V i i i ~ ~ i ~ 1 v 1 i 1 ~ ~ r~~ ~ ~.~~~~....... ~ ~~~~.~~~.^ ~ 1 ~!`~ 1 ~ I 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ___ __ ~ , -- ~ ~"1F A~ ~. ~~ Tra, i c An~l ysi s~n Mt cro~omp~~t s ~'F~C tNGIN~ERING F'rac}ram i.~ cens~d To: F a! u Rs~oc x a~es ~~~C~ WELSh-tIF~ CUMULA7IVE F~LLl~ F'F~~JJEGT F~M F'EA1 Hl~l1~' LE~JELS p~ ~EFtVICE 'u/1:89 F;EVi~~TJ ~'RQJECT W/~~~1F`~;Oh1ISED DISTfiI~U`fIOkV I~tersection: = :'t>TH °, WILSHIRE L~ne ~~~nf i g~~r~ti an and TL~r-n Vol umes ; ___--_--_____~_____ ; ~____~_________~__ ~ ~ ______~w_--------- : ___------_~______ ; , ~ ~ ~ ~~ ; , , ~ ~~ ~ T ~~9 ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ / t ~ l ~ i r ~ I 1 1 f ~ L ~T -- ~ f ~ ` ~ L ?cl~ Fi ~Ea7 t \ ~: 1i~~9 ~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ----- ~ v ~ ~ ____ ' T 17~;~t7 ---- ~ ~ , , ____ , ~ ~ ~ T 1 b: 5 ; ! I 1 i k I ~ r ~ < < < -- ~ ~ h I4~j v ~ fi b~- L ~t~~y f \ i/ ~ / L .^_86 ; f E I f ~! f `, f 1 I i 1 1 1 1 Y I i ~ ~ ~ l J01 i i i i i i ~ ~.'~~~.--.~~-~~...~~w...~~~' ~ ~~.~~~.~~~~~~.~~~~~~..~ ~ ~.~~~.~~.~~«.~~..~....~~r.~~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 r.~~~~.~.~.~...~~_~~~_.~~_ ~ ~~~.~ ~ .... ~ ~~~..~~_ ~ 3 1_~~ I -~ ~ ~-~~~-~~ 1 ~_ ; _~__~__ ~ Appr ~ Lane ~ fVo af ~ Per L.an~ ~ C r i~ i c ai ~ ~ ~ Group ~ Lanes ; Vol ~.tme ~ Vok ~~me ~ e 1 ~~~ i~, ~ E ~'~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~.~~.~ i ~ .~ ~i ~~ ~~~ ~ fVL' 1 G/\L E ~ 1 r+_}i 1 r~la~ i F ! T 1 L 1 ..{47~ l 1 ; ; ~xa ~ i ; ^~7 ~ ; , 1 ~ 1 1 7 F 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 f ~7~ ~ GAL. ! 4 ! Lti•w_ e I 7 ; ~ , , TI~ ; . ~ 1~ ~ ~ 643 P ~ ~ b43 ~ , , ; ~ EP ~ ~ ~ ~XL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ ~7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ 1 ~ ~ I TR : ~ 1 '~ ; ~ F 4~~ 7 ~ I 9~~ i ~ 7 F 1 ~ W~ 1 { ~ ~XL f 1 ~ I 1 1 ~ ~86 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~86 i ~ ~ 7R l y f 867 ~ : ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ---- _~_ ~ -____ ~ _ , __ _,_ ~ _~ __. , --_._.___ , _______ ~ ~ Tatal Criticai Vnl~tme ~ ~{>~I ; ~ _________..___ __~.___.~____~ ~ _____~ k ,~ _ ,~- ~ 1 ; ~ ~~~-~.~-~~~.-.~~.~~.~.~~~~.~~~~~.~-.~~.-~~~ ~ Ma:~im~im To~al Cr~ifical Volumes : ~_ ~_ ~ ~_ _~ , _______ , ______ , _______ , ~___~ , ; Levei of f Two : 7hre~ ~ Four- ~ ~ Service E FhaSe ~ F~t~ase ~ fihase ~ 1 ! ~ ~ 7 1 ,~ , ~ ~~'~~~~ [ ~~~~~ 1 ~~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ i 1 i 1 I I 1 1 t 1 ~ A ~ 90~ ~ 855 i ~3~5 ~ i ~ i 1~1~C7 i ~ 4~C)f7 f 96~ ~ ~ C i I ~~~~ ~ 1! 4~? t 1 1 fs~.~ ; ~ ~ ~ 1Y5Q ; 1275 ~ 1~~5 ~ ~ E ; 1~0~ ; 14~5 ~ 1~75 ~ ~ F ; NA ~ I~A ~ NA ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . r ~ ~ . ~ ___-_- ' ----~___ ~ --------' ----- ; E " ~ 1 1 ~ ! ~____________________________~---' ~ Critical Volume = ~[~51 ~ ~ No 04 Cr~tical F~iases = ~ ~ i Level of S~rvx c~ = F ~ ~ Vvlume/Capacity = 1.37 ~ ; ____----------------------~______ ~ N/5 ~~gnal Phas~ng ~_ ~_.. w _~_ _~ , _______ , --- - ~ ------- ~ ~ 1 ~ L 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 ~ '~ 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ i ~ \;/ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ___ __ ~ ~..~~ ~ _ _~~w~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~-~~ _~~~ , ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ r 1 1 1 f ` ' Fhase Signa ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ------ ' f -- - ~ E/W Signal ~hasinr~ ~ Y ;~_-- ~ ------- ' ---_~-__' ,-- _ ..~- -~- ~ . ~ , ~ 1 ~ , E E I +• 1 \ 7 7 l ~ i 1 i / 1 p4 ~~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ti ~' ~ ~ 1 I ~ r t e e 7 \ v ~ 3 ; ~ v ~ ~ t ~ ,---- ~ ----~ ~......_ ~ -------- ` -- ~ ~ ~ ~ r i ~ ~ ~ i E i ~ ' ~ ~ , ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ - ---' , - -- , IPIFA3C ~. ~~ ~!'d 1 C A+ld~ y5I S t]f-~ ~i ~r-~CC3lnF'iZ[ ~a ~='FiC ~f°.~r I hi~EF r~`d~ F~ogram Licensed To: waku ASSOCia~~+5 ~T~c i W I I.._~H I~:E ~~M+JLA7I VE F~LUS F~R~~.7ECT Ph1 F~EAY HOiJFi ~EV~L.S ~~ ~ERV I CE bi 1:'8~~+ ~EUIS~D ~•~OJE~T l~,'GOMF'~DM~S~D I?iS~F~IPl~TION Intersectian: 4 ~'~iD °• A~CIZQNA Lane Cc+nf~gur~tior, and 3~rn Vclumes ; ________________,~~- ~ ,------------_----_ ; ___,______________ ~ ~__ ~ ~ , ; ~~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ; '~ ' T ^1~ : ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , , ; !~ 4r a / ; i . ` 1 L ~9 R ~ 1 ~ • ~' ~q ; ~ ~ ~ ____ ~ --- ~ v , ~ ~ ; T ' 1 ~ ----- ~ ; ~ ~ ~ -- T ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ i ~ f ~ [ / ~ ~ R <<a4 v '~ ~ ~7 L 16 ~ ~~ f v L 69 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~~ , ~ , ~ ~ ,~ ~ ' T l ..~.r 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ___________________ ~ ________,___----- ; -_______________-- ~ ~ ~_ ~~ _~_ _~_ _ ~~ _ _~ ~ __ ~ ______ ~ _~_ ~ ----- -, --- -- , 3 Appr ;~.an~ ~!~a af ~ Per ~ane , Crz ti~a~. t ~ : Graup ~La~es~ Vvlume~ ~ Volume ; ~ ~ , -~__ , _____ , ___ , _____ ~~ ~~, ~ ~~~ , _ .~___ ~~ , ~ ~1H ~ EXL ~ 1 ~ ~9 ~ ; i ~ 1 ~ ~ I TR ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I I ~43 ~ ~ 1 ~4~ ~ ~ 1 ~ l ~ ~ 1 SB ~ EXL ; ~ l ~ }, ~ 16 ~ F ~ 16 , 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~R ; i ~ , ~ ~ iB5 ~ ~ < ; ~ < ~ < ~ ~ < E& ~ E7(L, , ~ ~ ~ ~ 1; 4~7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ 1 ~ 1 f TF~ ~ 1 i l I 1 1 5~~ti ~ 1 i 5~U ~ 1 1 1 f ; I 1 WF~ ~ EXL l 1 i i ~ Z; b9 1 1 ~ 6S~ t 1 ~ ~ i ; r TR ~ i ~ i ~ 275 ~ i ~ ~ ~ i 1~~~~ f ~~~~~~ ~ i _ 1~~~~~ 1~~~~~~~.~ i j~~~~~._~ ~ ~ j ~ Totai Crzt~cal, Uolume ~ ~48 ~ 1 ' ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~' ~ ~ w~' ~'~ l T f ~ ~r~~~ 1 ' ~ _~ ~ ~ ~______________.~_____~____- -_ - ~ Maxzmum Totai Criti~at ~ol~cr~es ~ ~_._~__~__~____---'-------~ ~ ~ , ~ ,-------~ ; Level of ; ~"wa ~ 1"hree ; F~ur ~ ~8erv~c~ ~ F'ha5e ~ Phas~ ~ Ph~se ; ` -------- ' ------_ ~ --_____--' -------' ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ! A ! 9~~ f B~5 ~ B~5 ; ~ H ; 1 ~?~t~ ! }. n~i r ; 96~ ~ 7 C ~ i~c?n ; i i4<.~ ~ 1 1~~~t ; ~ + -~ + r+ r e ~n~ i , I3 ~ 1.~5~~ ~ 1 ~7., ~ 1 r..~.., ~ E ~ 15~7s~ ~ 1425 ~ I37~ ; ; F ~ NA ~ Np ~ I~A ~ ~ ~ , ; ~ { [ 1 F ~ > > ++.~ ~~~ 1 ~'~..~~ ~ ~ R~.~.~~ ~ ' .-.~~~~.~ 1 - ~ - I ~ ~.~~~.-..w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~r~~.~~~~-- ~ ~ Critital VoZume - 84$ , ~ Na of C~itical Fhases = ~ ~ ~ Level vf ~ervi ce - A : ~ Vc,lu~-e/Cap~c~ty = i-,57 ~ ; _w_____~_____----------____~____ s N~5 Signal Phasing ~ r~_ ~ _~ , ~_____ , ___r~__t_______ ~ 1 1 [ 1 1 i f ~~ ~ e r ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ V r i i i i - }~ i ~ i ~ ~ e i ~ \ 4/ 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 1 ~ ~~.~~~~~~ 1 .~~~~~~...~ ~ .-.~.~~~~~~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 ! E/W Signal Fhasrng ~_ _~_ _ ___~__~_____~ , -_____ ~ __ - ~ , 1 +ti 1 I 1 1 t l ~ l 1 \ t i 1 ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ e ~ :~-i i + ~ ~~ w ~ ~ ; ~ f / ~ ~ 1 1 V 1 k I 1 w [ 1 ~ i .~...~~~~~ F ~~~~~`~ ~ ~'~`~~ ~ f 1 f ~ f 1 1 ~ 1 [ 1 ~ ; ~ ~ Phase Signal ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~__~___ ~ _ ! -~ < < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,_ ~ ~ ___~~_ , ~ MF'AX ~. ~~ 7r~, ~ c An~i ~s~ ~ vn 1~fi cracc~r~~ut = F~F~C ENGIN~~~ I!`JG firogram Lic~nsed To: F'al-u AsS~c~.ates ~=^~i ~~LSHIRE LUI~tJLATIVE F'~.US ~`I~~JECT ~'~I F'EAf HOLJR ~.EVEL~ OF SEFVICE b/3i89 ~;~VISED F'~OJ~CT ~f/CCMF'~C7MISED DiST~iI~UTI~N Int~rsectian: S C~C1V~Fi~IE~D °~ SAN~A MOitifICA Lane Canfig~Era~.~.an and ~~.~~-~ 'Jaii~mes ~ ' ------ , ~ ------- ~ _______ --------- ~ ~ ~ ______------ ~ -----------------_ ; _____ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ----- ; ----- ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ L 644 F: ~B~ ~ -___ ~ ~ --- ~ ~ ~ , ~ { ; T 1 414 ~ \ ; ~ ~ - ~ ` ~ --- ~ 1 = 58 , ; ~ v ~ ~ \ / 1 / ~ ~ F: ; 411 ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ v < <~ ~ , ~~ ~ ~ ~7'7 ~ ~ ~ ; _____ _____ ~ , ~_ ________ , ------ __ _ ___ -- - - - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ _______ _______ _~ _ _____ _ , - - - , - - - _ - ___ .~ -- - ~ ~ ~ , 1 1 ~ -~~ ~ -~-~-~~ ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~- ~ ~~.^.~~~~ t ~ _~ _ _ I ~ r ~. ~ ~ 1 _~ _ _ _~ _ _ ~ F ~ ~ ~~~~~.. w ~ w~ r~ ~ r.~ ~ ~r. _ ___ ~ ' ; Appr ~ Lane 7 Na af : Fer L~ne ! Cr~. ti cal ; ! Max i m~tm Total Grs ti cal VoI ~~mes i < < ~ro~~p ! l~ar~es ~ Vai i~me ~ Vol ~~m~ ; ~ _______.~ ~ _____~_ ; _______ ~ _______ ; ; ___ ; __.~___ _ ~ _____ ; ______-- ~ ---------- ~ ! Lev~l of ! Twa ~ Tf~ree ~ ~oi~r ~ ; ~lE~ ; ~R ~ ~ ~ 465 ~ 4b~ ; ;Service ~ F~a~e ~ Fhase ! Pha~~ ; ~ ~ 1 I I ~ ~ 4 1 I 1 , ~ k 1 1 1 ,________~ ~ ~ { 1~.~.~~~.~~ l~.~'~~.~~ 1~.~~~,~...~~ f i i 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 i t 1 l 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ i 7V'J i O~~ ~ 1 i 4i~ ~ i < < ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ 1 ~5Q ~ 1 ~0~~ ~ ~ 9Es~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ 1~~]f~ ~ 114~? ~ ~.I~~~~ ; ; ~ , ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ , { ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ D ~ 1..~ O , I.. ..~ ~ , -,~~ 1 ~_.~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ i50~~ ~ 14?5 ; 1175 ~ ~ E~ ~ ~ ~ T~, ~ ~ ~ 91 ~ ~ ~ ; 91 a ~ , ~ ~ F E IYA ~ HA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~[A : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F 1 1 ~ ~ ~ , ! 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ _~_ 1~r~~~~~~ I ~~~l~ 1 ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 _ ~T-~ -~ ~ , ~ 1 1 ~ WE~ i EXL 1 i ~ f ~ 277 1 1 ~ ^77 ; ~_______________________.~- ------ ' _, ; : 1' ~ '? ; 579 ; ; ; Critical Valum~ -- fb55 ; ~ ~ ~ ! i ~ ~ No of Critical Ph~ses = ~ ~ ____ , ; ' ______ _ ~ ---- ~ _______ '- '- , ______ ~ '- -' ~ ' L~vel af 5ervice - - F ~ ' ' Total Gritical Vol~~me ; 165~ < < Ual~~me/Capac~ty = }..1~~ ~ ; __________ _________...___--- ~ -------- i ~ -_w_________~_____----- -- --~___ ~ N/S Si gr-al Pha~z rrg F --------- ~ -------- ! ---------- ; , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < < , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ k 1 1 1 4 } 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E ` i I 1 I 1 1 1 ~ 1 ! 1 1 i 1 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~....~'~...~' ! ~...`~'~~... 1 ~~~~ .~~ 1 1 1 1 i ~ 1 1 ~ r ~ E/W Szgn~l ~'hasing ~ __.~___ # _~-- -- , - - , ~ - - ' - - ~ --- ---- ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ , ,--~ , , ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ ~---r v ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 I 1 ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ i 1 i l ~~~~r.~.~ ~ .ti.~w~~.~~~ 1 ~~~.~'_.~ l 1 l I 1 1 ~ 1 1 ! 1 k 1 i i ~ F`fld5~ ~1 C~flt~l i i i r + ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ [ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ r.~~~~~~.~ ~ _ _ i ~ - ~` ~ ~ e iMF`AX ~. ~~ ~r~ i~ ~n~iy5:s on !"licroco~rp~~t s F'rogr~m Lic~nsed 7fl: t aE.u Hsso~lat~~ ~'F{:y WILSHI~;£ F~~c ~~v~rr~~~~Yn~~ Cj~hl~J~AT I VE F'~tJS F~iGJ~CT ~'M F`~Rt N~U~ ~EV~~S OF ~~RV I~E ~t~VISED fiF~OJECT W/Et~I~PRQMISED ~'ISTF~I$UTION I n t~r sec t F ort : b ^?RD ?, SA~V7A MON I CA ~ane Gortts~~aration and T+_~r~ ~~it~me~ f ______-------------- -~______________ _~______..________ ~ _________w_ ,- -~- -~- -, ,~ , ~ , ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ < < ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ! r ~ r r r ~ ~ i i i i L c ~ __ i i~ r i c ,(-.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ---- ~ v ~ ~ ---- ~ T 1~~7 ---- ; ~ ~ . --- T ` \ ~ ~ ~ _~ ; R 4~ j v ; f~ $b L ~+?7 l ; / L i i i i W ~ ~ 7 74 ~ ; ~ -------------------- { __----------~----- ~ -________~________ ~ _ _~_ _~_ ' -- _ __~ ~».` ~~~ ~.` ~ J.~~ k ~~~..-.~~... ~~ ~ ~ 1 ;Appr~ ~.ane ~N~ o~~Fer LanelCritxc~l~ : , Gro~.ip : Lan~~ : Vol ~ime ; Vfll tEme ; ~ _~_ _~_ E_ ~ _~ ~-__ ~ _____ ~ ____~ _______,_______ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . < < < ~ 1 k 1 1 1 1 f f F ! 1 1 1 I 1 1 f 1 1 1 l F I ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ < < , ~ ~ ~ SR ~ ~ 7' ~ 1. ~ ~B 1 ~ ~81 ~ ~ ~ ExR ~ 1 ~ 86 ~ t i ~ i i ~ ~ i i ~ i ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ E~ i EK~ ; ~~ 5~ ~ 5^c ~ ; ; TR ~ ? ; 7$4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 7 1 l I ~ 1 1 1 E : w~ ; ~x~. ; 1 ; ~2 ~ ; ~ ~ fiR ~ '~ ; 986 ~ 986 ~ 1 1 1 k 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 ;_---_;__------t-----~--------l--------; ~ Total Crrtical Vo}i~me ~ i419 ; ,_ ,_ _, ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ i N/S Sz grral Phasi ng ~____~__ ~___ l 4 l ~ 1 1 I __~_~__ __ ~ 1 ~' ~~~ 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 i ` f I 1 1 ~ 1 1 ! f ! 4 V - ! I ~ 1 e [ 1 1 1 i f ~ i r r ~ e i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~~.`~~~... + ~. ~.~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~.~. ~ ~~~.~~~ ~ _~ .w !. i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ! ! 1 ' ' 2 Phase Sign~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ i h/Z/89 ~75 ~ 1697 ~ ~ ~ J :. i ~ _~._~__ ; ~_ _ ~ ~ ~~.~~~....~~-~~.'~......^~.-~~_^ _^____^~ ~ ; Maxxmum T~tal Criticai Vol~-mes ~ ~ -_____ _ ~ ~ ~ - __ _~. ; ____..._~. ~ ~ - - ~ __ ~._ ~ - - ~ ~ l~evel of ~ Twa ; Thre~ 1 Faur F :Service 7 Fhase ~ Phase ~ ~has~ ~ ~ ~ w~~~ ~ ~ - - 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~.~~...~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ 1 f - f 1 1 1 ~ A I ~ 1 9t]O 7 855 1 I [ ~3?5 ~ ~ E~ ~ 1~54 ! f L~Q4 ~ 9f,5 ~ ~ C ~ lc^~?~? ~ 114t~ ~ 11~?c] ; + ~ i 1.*i~~~ ~ t{7J i ~~~J i ; E ; is~E3 ~ t4~5 ~ ~ 175 ~ ~ F < , ~ < , NA ~ < ~ NA ~ < ~ NA ~ ~ i _ ~ ~ _ ____ ~ _ ___ ~ ~ r.~.~...~.~~.. ~ ~~~...~~~ [ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;_------------------------------- ; ~ Critical Volume ~ 1419 ~ ; No af Critical Phases = ~ ~ ~ Level of Servi ce - E ~ a Vol urtte/Gap~~k ky = ~?. 95 ; ; --------------____~_~__~.___.~___-- ~ E/W SignaY Phasing ,_ ~ ~_ ~ I ~~~~.~~' E ~.~`~~~~~ S ~~~~~'- 1 1 /+ 4 1 1 l E ~ ~ 1 J~ \ 1 I ! 7 \ ! S 1 ! ' 4 ~~ ! 1 ~ + ~`~ } ~ 1 ! 1 i ~ Y i i i ~ ~ i i ~ V ~ ~ ~ ~ _.,._~~~~ i ~_~.~_,_~ i ....~_~__~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ I 1 1 1 1 1 ! ~ ~ ~ , , ~ , ~ , ~ ~ r y _ ~ 1 ~~' ~~ I I MFAX _, ~~ i ra ~ r 1 C An~l ysi s on M1 *_'IrOCO{It~LI, s F~F~C EN~INE~F~I!'JG F'rog~~m L1Cen5~d ~o: F~-~,c A5sc3r'~ates '??~±~ WI~~~-IIFi~ CUa`1LI~ATIV'~ ~LL~S F'1~'O~IECT FM F`~r'~F ~~]fJFt ~~VELS C7~ SEFiVICE 6/i189 F~UI~ED ~•FiQ~]~'~7' W/~OM~'F`Qi'~EIS~L} DISfF:IEUTICIN Intersettian: 7 CLGVER~I~L(3 ?M Cf3LE]RA~~ l~an~ Cc1nf z qur~t x or~ and Ta_Ern Vol! ~me~; , - ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~~~ ~ ; ~~~ ~ - ~~~ , , t? ~ ~ , ~ ~~ ~ / ~ ~~ ~ , ~ , ~ i ~ ~! '- : ,~ i i t i~ iJ.~3 f~ ~J e ~ ~ti ~~, i ' ---' ~ VV i i '-` i ~ T 75~ ----- ; ~ " , ~ ---- T b49 , ~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ i i J i ~ c ~ i -- ~ ~ ; F: ~~9 v ~R ~5 L 77~ \~~ ~ / L 14~ ~ ; ~ ~ , ~ ,~~ , ,~, , u , , r ~ 7 3. 177 ~ ~~; a ~ ~ ___~ ---_____ _______;__________________~-- ------_---------_;___________~_______; ~ ~ _~.~_ ' __----- , , ~ ~ ' ------ ' --------- ' -------- ' ~ ----~__~_____________ ' ----------- ' ~Rppr~ Lane jNc~ vf~F~~r Lane~Cr~t~~al~ ~ Maximum Tatal Cri~icai ~alumes ; ~ ~ Gro~ip ~~anes~ Volurne ~ Vol~.ime ~ ;___w____;_______;__-----~-------; ~____;_______ ~_____~~______~;--_-----~ ~Le~el of~ ~wa ~ 7hree ~ Four ; ; N ~ . EXL ~ ~ n~~ ~ ~~G ~ , 1. L~,~ ~ ~~,,~ , ~ , ~ , ervi ce ~ ha~e ~ as~ ~ ~ , h~s~ , ! ~ TR ~ ~ 1 56fa ~ , , ~ 1 ,_--_____~ ______+_______~_______~ ~ ,- ~ < < k 1 [ 1 f 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 I 1 1 7 ~ ~ ~ t ! 1 1 ~ A k 4ta~ ; 85S I 1 ~ B~5 ~ i S~ ~ EXL ~ 1 f 77 ~ ~ ~ E~ ~ 1~7a~1 ~ i00~! ~ 965 ~ ; ~~FR ~ ~; blb ~ 61b ~ ~ C ~ 1~~~ ~ I14Q ~ i1Q~~ i ~ ~ < i ~ ~ ~ D ~ Y 7S~> ~ 1 ~75 ; 1: ~5 ~ ~ ~ j ~ ; ~ ~ E ~ 15~:~~y ~ 14~5 1 1?75 ~ ; EB ;~XL ~ 1~ 47 ; ~ ~ F ; I~A ; NA ~ fVA ~ : ~ TR ~ ~: 5~?7 t 5~7 ~ i 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 4 ~ ! 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 F 1 1 ! ~ 1~r~~rir~ ~~...~~.~~ 1 ~~ I f , ~ -' -- ----' ---------- , ! l W~ 1 1 ~/1~ 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 ~T~ l l~~ 1 1~~~.~~~~~w.T~.~-~~--~~._.~~~ ~~~.~~~...~~ 1 ~ ~ Tk ~ ? ~ '4~ ~ ~ ~ Cr~itical U~lurt~e - i5~t~ ~ ' 1 ' k ' ' ' ' 1 1 I 1 ' No af Criti~al F'h~5es 1 " ~ +~ ~ , ------- E -------- ; ----- ~ ----~.___w ; _w______ , ~ Level of Servi ce = F ; ; Tvtal C ri~i~al Volume f 15~~? ~ ~ tlql~~me/C2pacity = 1.~?I ; ~ , ---- -------- ~ ~ --------------- ~ --------- ~ ~ _____-------------------- , - ----_____ ~ ~ N/S Si gnal Phasi r~g ElW Sx gr~a2 Fhasi ng ; ------- , ~ - ; -------- ~ --------- ; , , , ; -__--____ i -~_____--_ ; --------- ; , . ~ , , 1 f 1 / I ` 1 / f\ 1 j 1 ~ 1 I 1 1 1 I 7 1 I h \ 1 l 1 \ k k 1 ~ ~ i / I 1 y r > > ~ 1 1 1 i ~ ~ ~ + 4 ~~ 1 ! ' i i Z .+~. i ~ r ~ ~ f ~ ~ i~ ' ~ [ ~ ~•} ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i f i i r i ~ ~ i i i ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ , i i ~ ~ r Y f r ~ r F ~.....~~.r~ ~ ~ _. ~ .~ _ ~ ~ ~ ! ~.-.~~~~ ~ ~~....~~~` ! f t ~ ~ 1 f ~ ~ ~ ~~.,,~_~_ ~ _.,__~~...' ~ f~~~~.-....~ 1 I `~ 1 1 1 1 ! ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Fhaae Si ~ ~ , , 1 ~ ~ [ ~ i gnal ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , , `. _--_~-_~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --------; It"!F'AX ~.~~ Tf~; ic Anal~sis an ~Itcr~ccmpt~f ~ F'RC Ei'JGI~l~ERING Fr~gram Licensetf To: Faku RSSOCi2tes ~~~i ~ W I LSH I R~ ~UMt1LAT I V~ F~LiJ~ F'~i4,~ECT AM ~`ERF HOIiF LEVELS OF' SERV I~~ b/ 1/89 ~~V I S~D ~~RQJECT l~/ C[3MF'F~Q~1 I SED D I~TR I~UT I ON IRt~r~ectiar~: I :6TH °~ WI~ShIRE L~ne W~nfag~tration anQ T~crn Volum~~ F ~ ~~~~T_~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ 11 l 1 l 1 1 e < i i „ ~ T 659 ~ ~ , ~ ~ E; ~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~~ -- i 1 i 1 ` i L 1~~ Il 1 J~? e ~5 il Jv~.l i ~ + ~ _~~_ f " V W ~ ~ 1 f '~~-~ ~ ~ 1 f ~ J.1 J ---^_ . I ; /4 ' ~ ~ ~~~~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , i i * I 1~ 1 ~~ l ; ~ i~}~ ~ ,~ ~~~ t~ ~~~; ~ ; ; ; r ~ ~s~t~ ; ~ ~ , , , ~~~ ~ y ~ ~~~ , ~ , ' ` 7 B7~ ~ '' ' ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ; ' -- e -- -----__- ---_____ ~ _____~________ i __-_' ---________________ ~ _____~.___ i ~ ____ ______ ~ i ~~ ~ ~~~~«~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~_ .~~~~_ ~ e - - t e ~Appr~ Lane ~No of~~er ~.ane;Critical; ~ ~ Gro~,cp ; Lanes ~ Vol ume ~ VO1 LfA1~ ; ~ _ ~ _____~_ r ____-' -' ----_-_--' ,___ , , ~------- ~ , ~ NF~ ~ EXL ~ 1~ 138 ~ 1W8 7 ; ~ TR ~ 2~ 4i~5 ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 I [ 1 1 E 1 4 1 1 1 E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SP S EXL f ~! !84 ~ ~ : ~ TFC ; ~ ! 5~>~ ; SC~~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ EP ~ EXL S ~ ~ 67 ~ ~ ~ ~ T~t ~ ? ; 73~ ~ 73d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 7 ! 1 1 1 1 ; WB ; ~XL ~ ! ~ 10~ ~ lC~C~ ~ ~ ~ 'FFc ~ ~ ~ b 14 ; ; ~ F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ ~ __ ~_ _ _~. ~_ _____~ , --- ~ ---- ---- ~ - -- ~ --- - - ~ -- , ~ To~al CriE~cal tlolume ~ 1471 1 ;---------------------------~--------; ~ ~...~.~~.~~.~~.~^~~~~~.~~~...~~~~~...~.~_~ ~ 'i ~ Maximum T~tai CriticaZ Vol~Er~es ~ ~ ~_ ___~_ _ ~ ~_ ~ _i ~- -- , - -- -~ ------~------- , , Levei r~f ; Two ~ Three ~ F~ur ~ ~Servzce ~ ~hase E Fha~e ~ F'h~se ; ~ ~_ ~ ~ _, ~--------~ ------_-------,--~---- , ~ ~ ~ , ~ 1 [ 1 7 7 ~ A 1 9t~~ ~ 8~5 f 8L~ ; ~ B ~ 1~5~ ! 1~~~~ t 96~ ~ ~ C I ].2~4 ~ 1! 4c3 ; ~ 1 Oc~ ; ~ D ~ 3~5c_? ~ 1~7~ ~ 1?~5 ~ ~ E ~ i5sJ0 ~ 14~5 ; I ~75 ~ ~ F i NA ~ NA ~ ~fA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~....~ .~ ~.~ ~. ' ~ ~ ~ ~ .~w~~~~~ ~ ~~~.~ ~ ' -~...~ ~ ~ ~... ~~.. ~ i ~~.-.~~.~~~.~~~~~..~.~~.~.~~~~.~~~.~`~.~~~ f ~ Cr-aticai Val~m~ = 147~ ~ ~ N~ of ~ri tz cal F'hases = : : ; Level of Servi Ce - E ~ ~ V~lume/Cat~acitv = t:j.98 ~ ~ ____~.__.~____-_-------________~___ ; N/S S~gnal Phasrng ;--------7--------i--------: 1 1 { 1 k f f ! i 1 1 ! 1 1 f e ~ i Z ~ ~ ~ i r ~ ~ e ~~ Y r ~ ~ t ~ ~ .~ ~ r r ~ ti J t ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ t c 1 ~ 1 F y 1 1 ~.~ ~~...~~ I ~~~~.~~~~ 1 ~.~~.~.'~ ~ j 1 l t e f ( 1 1 i ~ E/W Signal Phasing ' ~~__... - , - ~ ~ ' ~ -' ------- ~ --_--__--_ , 1 h [ ~ i 1 1 f ~ f r1 \ 1 ~ 1 ~ • i i i i ~ ~ ~~ i i i ~ ~~ e e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e e i ~ i ~ i ~ ~/ ~ t i i V i i ~ ~ i ~~ ~r~ ~~~~~~ ~ 1 ~'~~~~~~ 1 .-.~ ` 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ i 1 / f E ~ 2 Phase SigRal ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + ~~~~~~~w ~ i~~~_~~~ ~ i ` ~ ~ ` ~ ~ f1F`AX ~. :'' Tr~ L~ A~a~. ysx s~r~ Mz ~~^ocompc.~t s F~C E~GIN~EFiING ~~O~~ciffl ~i r~fl~~{j TQ: ~~~ l.t ASSOC P~t2S ~~~i:3 WILSHI~E r~iMU~ATIVE F~~.US F~R~JECT r~~i F~EAt ~pf~~ ~EVELS QF SER'JICE 6/1/8~ F;EVT SED F'ROJECT W/ CC~MF'f:0~1iSE~ DISTF;I~ UTION i~tersect~.c~n: ~ "RD °_w WiLSHIF~~ Lane ~ ---- ~`o~figuratian ~nd -------------~-' -- Tur~ Valu~nes ---------___----- ~ , --' -------- _______- ~ -- ~ -____---- ~ __.~____,_ 1 I ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ 1 k i~ ,~ ~~ , ! 1 ~ 7 ~ 5~ 1 1 ~ ~ , I • ~ ~ , L , ~ 14 -- ; ~~ /~~\ ~ ~L ~~ ~; ~ 64~ \ ~ F; 1~ , ~ ---- , vr: ~ ~ ~ s ---- ; ~ 7 1469 -~---- ~ ~ '~ s ~ . ----- T 1 1 ~t- ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ , -- ~ ~ ~~i hi v;R 1b L ~1~ ~~ ~ / L 47 ~ ~ f 1 1 1 F W ~ ; ~ T 98 ~ 1f f ; , ~ ___ ________________ ~ __ ~ _~______----_- -~ ~ _____---- ~ --------- - ~ _, _______~ ~ _________ , ~ ~------- --~__ ___ ~-___~ ~ , _~.__~,________, ; Rppr ~ Lar~e ~ No nf ~ P~r- Lane ~ C1" 2 t E Ce't ~. r ~ ! ~rot~ip ~ Lar~e~ ~ Vc~l ume ~ Vol +~me ~ ~ ~ __ __ ~ _ ~ _ __ ___ + ___...____ ~ ,----~-- - ~--- -, - - ~ ~ ~ AJ ~ ~ ~~ ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ IV~ ~ ~... i ~ ..J~ ~ e 1 1 k~l 1 4~. 3 G7C7 i QQ E 1 1 I f ! ! 1 1 I 1 1 1 ~ , . ~ ~ , ~ ~ , , , ~ i ~~ i ~ + ~ i J~ + J~ i ' ` TR ` ~ ' 84 ' ` ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~E~ ~ EXL i 1 i 14 ~ ~ ~ ~ TR ~ ~ i 765 ~ 7b5 ~ I I 1 l 4 1 1 1 I i I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t k 1 1 1 ~ W~ ~~XL ~ 1~ 47 ~ 47 ~ ~ ~ TR ~ 2 ~ ~66 ~ ~ i f 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ___ ~ __ ~ __~ ~ w~. ~~__ ~ __ ~ ~ - ~ - ____ , .~ _ , _ _ , ______ , ~ ~atal Critical Volume ~ 9~? ; ~ _,~ _, . ------------------------------- , ____--_ ~ N/S Si gr~al Phas~ ng ~ ___...__ ~ w _~.. ~ _ ... _. + ,_ ~,_ ~_ _~~ _ ~ ~_~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ < < . ~ ~ , ~ ~ f I 1 7 1 1~ V s f l I 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 I 1 I \ 7 1 k 1 f ! I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~~r~rr~ ~ ^ar~~ ~ i~~~r~4+ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~` 1 ~ 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 , ~ -, 1 1 i { ~ l 1 1 ~ 1 7 ~ ~r~... w ~ E ~ ~~ f ' --- - - - ---- _- ~ - -- -- ---- ------ -------- ; ~ INax i me.tm Tota3 Cr z t ~, cal Vo~ i.Emes ~ ~--------~-------~~-------~--------; ~ Level of ~ Two ~ Three ~ Four ~ i,~"SB~'i/I CB i ~flcZS~ i ~f7d5~ ~ F''~iel5£~ ; ~ ~~~~~~~~ + ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ w~~w~.~~ ~ 1 1 1 1 I I 3 I J i 1 l 1 [ 1 ~ p ~ 9~?c] ~ 855 t 825 ~ ; ~ ~ i ~~~o c 1 r~c~sa ; 96~ ~ ; c ~ ~ ~c~~ ~ 1 i 40 ; 1 i ~~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ 1w5~J ~ 1~75 ; 1~~5 ~ ~ E k 15~30 ; 14~5 ~ I~75 ~ ~ F ~ NA ~ NA ~ NA ~ 1 E 1 1 4 1 1 { 1 1 ~ tiw wrr ~ ~. r~r. ~ ~.~..~.~~ ~ ~~....~~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~.. .~ i { - ~ ~ + ~ _ _ _ __ __ ~-________~___ ------- -- - - , ~ Critical Volume - 95~ ~ ~ No c-f Critic~i Fhases = : ~ ~ Level af S~rvx ce = L~ ~ ~ Vol ~i~QlGapacity = ~~. b4 ~ ; --------------------~-______--__---- ~ E/W Ssgnal Ph~sing ° - - ' ---.~ ~ ...______ ~ . ----- -- ~ ---- , - , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .ti ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ r~ ~ ~ 1 I / 1 1 1 ~ ~~ ~ 1 1 1 l / 1 1 1 1 \ Y 1 1 1 1 V 1 1 1 ~ r ~ ~ r ~ ~~~~~ 1 1 ~~~~~~. ' ~.~~~~~~ ~ ~ -~ ~ t ! 1 1 ~ t ~ 1 ~ i 1 Phase Signal ~ ~ 1 i 1 1 1 { ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ E i ~ 1 MF'AX ~.:'~ Trat _c knalysi~ ar~ I~~crocomp~.~t ~ =F~~ E^~GI`J~~F.ING F'ra~ram ~.~~ensed Ta: F al..u A~soc~ates ~~~c_r WiL51-iIR~ C1~1"iL3LAT'IUE F'LU5 ~'F+'~JECT Ar'l ~~AE HLJUFi ~EV~LS qF 5EF'JICE f~/li8'~ F:~U I SED F•ft~_~ECT 4~/ r0~1F'F~~M I ~~i? D I S7'F; I E~U"~ I~N InterSe~tian: : ~;?TH °~ WIL.SJ-tIFiE L~n~ C~nfiQ~arati~~rE and ;urn 'Jok~~mes , -_.___~___----------- _______________._ ...__....__.____..._---- ~ __~___.----._______. , ~ -; ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ , , l 1 j 1 7 i 1 i ~ 1 1 f 1 ~ 5 1 , ~ , ~ ~ , , - , , , , , , ~ ~ ~ 4' __ ~ / ~ ` ~ L ~~s~ R 146 ~ \ ~ ~9 ~ ~ ---- ~ V i i ----• i 1 7 119I ---- 1 ~ ;,---- T 9I4 ; , ~ ~ - ~ } ~ _ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ - ~ , F+ i~9 v ~F =~ L 161~ \ E/ ~ f L 17~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ v - : ~ T 58b ~ ~~~ ~ , '------~---_________+-.~_______________~~_ _ _ _____.~______~___________________+ i r r ` r ' r r i ~-- i ~ f ~~~.-'- i -~- r -~ ~ r ~ ~ '-~...r._~ ~ ~ ~ _~r._~~~ ~ ;Appr~ Lane ~I~a afEPer Lane, Criti~al~ ; ~ ~ro~~p ~ Lanes ; Val ~~rne ~ Vol ume ~ ~ r~~~ ! ~ f ~~`~~~ r ~ ~` f ~~~ E [ ~~~~r~~ r ~ [ ~er~~~~~~ ~ 1 ~ N~ ~ EXL : #. ~ 1~C~ ~ f 5~? ~ < i ~ ~ T ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ . ~ , ~ ; ~ ; ~ ~x~ ~ ~ ~ ; , i4~ ; ~ ; , ~ ~ 5~ i ~ EXL ~ ~ a ! 7 i6f i ~ i ~ ~ f 1 ~ / 1 ~R ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 6~3 ~ i 1 b`1 ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~~E~ ~ ~ ; EXL ~ ~ ; ~ ~ 1 1 4~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ t ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 T{~ ~ ! { ~ ; i I b60 ; ~ 1 ~b~ ~ ! 1 ! 1 1 WE~ 1 1 ; EKL 1 1 ~ 7 1 1 i . 173 f [ ~ 1 l i7'~ i ; 1 f 1 T~t ; k s : 1 497 : 7 ; 1 1 i ~ ----- ~ 1 l ------- ~ ----- t ------- 1 - ~ ! ___~--___ ~ ~ Total Cr~tlcal Volume ~ l~s~~4 ~ ~ _ _ _ __ _ .~____.~ __ _ , _ __ __ __ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ , _ ~ __ _____ , r ~ r.~s~~~.~__..-~_~~.___..~~~~~_...._~_~...-- i ~ M~;<imum ~'otal Cr-it~cal tiolumes ~ ~ __ __~ _ __~__~__--'--____ ~ , __ _~ , __ -- ~ , - ~ ~ Lev~l of ! Two ~ Three ~ Faur ~ ~Service ~ F'h~s~ ~ F~ase : Phase ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ _~~.~__~ ~ _~~.~~~w ~ ~.~~~~~.^ ~ »-~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i , , , ~ , : A ~ 9s~e~ ; 8~S ; 825 : ~ B ~ 1 n~4 ~ 1 i?00 ~ 965 ~ i 4r i ZL•J~~ i 1 y~T~J i 11'J~j ~ i V i ~~J~ i '~ ~ r "3'7C ~ a~ V [ ar ~r f1 ~ ~ ~ 15C~0 ~ i425 ~ 1175 1 ~ ~ ~ NA ; ~IA ~ NA ~ E k 1 1 i 1 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k 1 1 1 .~~~~w~ ~ ~~~~~ ~+nr.~~r~~ F r.~~~.~...~~ ~ ' --------------______.~______ ~ , ------~ ~ Crit~cal VQIL1f11B ~ 1~(~~ ; t No of Crztxca~ Phasea - ~ ~ ~ L~~eI af Servzce = ~ ~ ~ Volume/Capacity = 1.+?7 ~ ; ______------------------------- ; N/S 5i gr~a~ ~hasi ng i e ~~.~ ~~~ + ~~~.~~~ ~ ~ ~_~.~~~~~. ~ r. ~. ~ ~ ~ i { ~ i ~ ~ i i f i~ i i i ! f ~ r f ~ t l~- +~ 1 1 1 1 • r i 1 f f { ! ~ ! 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ~ 1 i l 1 f i 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 k '~.~~"~.-. 1 ~.~~~.~'~ 7 ~.~~.-.~.~' , 1 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 f ~ 1 i E/W Si gr~al ~'hasi rrg i _ ~ ~ ~„ ~ ~___~-,~ ` ~ ~~'.~.,~~..._ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ i ~ti ~ t i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ` i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E 1 1 / ' * ! 1 1 I ~ 1 l 1 7 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 [ 1 \ ~ 1 4 1 1 V 1 1 1 ~ tiw.r~~.+~~~ ~ ~~~~~" ~ ~~~~~~~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 ` 1 1 1 ~ 4 ~ ~ i i ! 1 f < i '? Phase Si gnal 7 ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ~ E ~ 1 1 1 ~ i ! ~ i ~ ~ ~ 1 i ...~~~.~~~ ~ -- 4 ~~'~~~ i 1 ~ 1 T,"1F'AX ~. ~~ Tra i c Ana l ysi ~ on F'~1 G~'~rGrtS~ltf ~ Fragr~r~ L1CeC15~d To: F al~u As~oci~tes ~T~c; ;r,)ILaHIFtE F'fiC EfVG I NEEF~ I NG CUMULAT I V~ F~LUS F'~iC~ 7 ECT AM F'EAF HO1~R ~~VELS OF S~R"J I CE f~ I 1 i 89 ~~VISED F'RC1LE~' i W/CCMFRqMIS~D D~5TfiIEllTIQi~k In~er~~cfizon: 4 ^"~17 °• ARiZOr~IA Lane Cqnf i g~tr~t i on a~d ~`urn Vo I umes ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i e ~ i ~ ~ i i ~ ~ 17 / E /~ ~ ~~. i --' ~ V ~ ~ T f r~r_3 _--__ ~ ~ 1 i 1 ~ f ~ i ~ ~~~ Y i'~1~ ~.~ R ~7i ~ ~ ~ r i ~ , , ' T 178 ~ ~ ~_ ~ -•~-~~..'~.-~-.--.~~~~~.-.^~ ~ ~-...~~~-.-.~_~.~-^~-~-- i i -~~~ ~ ~~-~-~- i ~-~-_.. ~ ~..~~~~.^~- ~ -~~~_4~.~~ ~ ~Appr~ L~ne 7Na af,Per ~ane~CrYtical~ ~ ~ Group ~~anes~ Volume ~ Vol!ime ~ ,_ ~ ~ _,_ _,_ , ~ ---~---____~____ , --____ , ---____~ : IVF3 ; ~XL ~ 1 ~ 87 ~ 87 ~ ; ~ TR ~ 1 ~ 148 ~ ~ ~ ~ < < ~ ~ ~ ~ < < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ SB ~~XL E 1~ 17 ~ ~ ~ ~ T~C ~ I~ 1~i4 ~ 194 ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 F ! i 1 1 ~ E~ ~ Ek~. ~ I ~ 17 ~ ; ~ ~ TF~ ; 1 ~ ??1 ~ ?~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ , ~ ~ ~ < < ~ ~ ~ ~ WF ~ EXL ~ 1~ 46 ~ 46 ~ ~ ; TR ~ 1 ~ 14Q t ~ { ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ _~ .~~_ _~ _~ _~ ~ -- , -------- , --- t -~------ ~ --_____ , ~ Tota1 Crxt=c~2 Volume ~ 558 ~ ; ___________~._~._~_..________, _______; ______________ ~ ------------------- , ~ ~ 7 1~~ I ~ i . { ~ i 87 fi ~~ ~ \ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ y -'_"' r s 7 ` ` ~ - T 1 f~8 I F 1 1 1 ' ! ~ 1 f I f ~ r i ~/ ~- ~b i ~ ~ i ~ f 1 F 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .~~~.~_~~...~r~-~- e '-~--"-w-~--~~~--- ~ ~ _~_~~.~~_~r._~~~~.~.~~~r.~~r..~~~~~~...~ ~ ; Maximum Total Critical Vnlu~nes 1 ,_ ~_ ~_ ~ ~ , ------, , __~___ , ______ , -_-_-__ , ~ Level of ~ Two ~ Three ~ Fc~ur ; ;Servi~e ~ FhaSe ~ FhaSe ~ Phase ~ ,_ ~_ _~_ ~ ~ ~ ____~,__ , _____ ~ ___--- ~ _______ ~ ~ ~ < < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ; A ~ 9~~7 ~ 855 E 825 ~ ~ E~ ; 1~75~ ~ 1~?nca ~ 965 t ~ C ~ 1 ~~7~3 ~ 114s7 ~ 1 1 ~-C} ; ; D ~ 1~5~~ ~ 1~~S ~ 1 ~2~ { ; E ~ 15~}i ~; 1425 ; i ti75 ~ ~ F ~ 1VA ~ NA ~ I~A , . ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ , < < • ~ ______- ; ,-____~__,_______,~______, ; _______.~---------------------~__ ~ ~ Critica3 Votume - 5~8 ~ ~ IVo of Cr i t x ca Z Fhas~~ = ~ : ~~eve~ of Serv3 ce - A ~ ~ Vo~um~/Capacity = ~t.37 ; i--_~___________________________ ~ ~l~5 Si gnal Fhas~. ng E/W Sigr~al ~has~ng ~ _ _ ~ w _ ~ _ _ ~ ~ _ __ ~ _____--- ' -------- ' , -__- ---, - ----- ~ ------ ~ ~ ---- - , - ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < < , , ~ , . ~ _ 4 / 1` 1 1 1 1 A ~ 7 1 1 ~ i l ! 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 7 1 4 r~ l 1 1 f ~ ~ t [ 1 ! , ~ ~ 1 1 1 F ' 4 1 1 1 1~~~ 1 1 I [ ' f 1 1 1 I / l 1 j i ` i/ i e i i ~ v i i i t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V i i i ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ..~ ~ ~ ~ : ~. ~ ~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~.~~ i .~.-._~~`.~.~ ~ ~ ~.~«..~r.~ i ~~~~~.r ~~~~.~~ ~ ~ .r~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 Fh~se Signal ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ _ ~ , ____ _ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --------- ; I NfF'AX ~. ~~ ~r a .~ F~nal ysY s cn i''11 cr~COmj]~ ~t s P~C EIVG IN~E~IEVG F~rograrn ~zcens~d To; ~`al~4 Assc~.iates ~~~~_: ~ILSHIRE ~U~`1C~LATiVE ~'LU~ FROJECT Fih1 F'EAF HOUR LEV~LS nF SERVICE 6/ 1/89 REVISED F'~OJEC~' W/COM~'F~OMISED DI5T~TE~UTIQN Irstersec~ian: ~ C~O~}~f~FI~LD °~ SANTA ~1~NICA Lane Cqnf ~ g~.~rati cn an~ T~~rn Vol ~.~mes ~ ~-___~._____________ , _____v_____~._ k I ' ~ ~ 1 l [ 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 ; [ ~ f 1 ~ 1 f ; ---- ~ ~l. 671 F ~f9~ ~___ , ~ . ~ , ~ I ~~'.~ 1 1 1 .~.`~... 3 ~ T i s,~t~~ \ ~ ; ~ -- T ! i71 ~ ~ ; w ; ~ - ~ r > > ; : R ~71 ~ r \ ; ; v ~ 149 ~ 1 1 ! i i 1 1 ~ i i ~~ i ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ i , i i ~ ~i ~ ~ + ~_-,...^_,~_._~---__.~_~ ~ ,~.~,..___r.~_...~~_~»~ ~ _~~-~~_.~,-~,_~~_..., i ~,_~__.,.,.~_~_~,,...,__ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ i~ ~~ ~ ~-~... ~ -.~ -.,._..- e --~_.~ i ~~_.`~r.~~ ~ ~-~...~~ ~ ;ppprl Lane ~No af;Fer Lane~Critical~ ~ ~ Gro~~p f~an~s; Vol um~ i Vg~ LlRYB : ~ ----- ~ --------- ! ------ t ---------- ~ ----_____ ~ ~ NF ; L~ ~ t~ 4~5 ~ 4~5 ; 1 l 1 F I t 1 1 [ 1 1 ! 1 ! f ! } 1 1 1 l 1 1 1 4 1 i 1 t ~ ~ ~ ~ < < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , 1 l 1 i E l 1 1 1 I l ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ k 1 1 ~ 1 E , , , , , . ~ ~ ~ , t f ~ EB ~ TR ~ ~~ fa9~? f fs9G ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , ~ i ~ ~ e i r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ i 1 I 1 I I F i WB ~ EXL ~ 1~ 149 ~ 149 ~ i 1 I I i 1 ~~ / 1 ! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ , ~ , , , 1 ~ i i 1 i ~~~~,,,~~ 1 ~ -- - ~ -------- ~ ----- ~ -------- ~ - - , ~ Tota~ Critxca2 Vc~lur~e ~ l~84 ~ f ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~.~ 1 ~~~~.~..~~~ 1 ~ i -~.~.'~~-~ ~-~~~~~- ~~.-.~~-.'~ ~ -~~~~- ^ ~ i ~ Maximum ~atal Cr it~~al, Vo14~mes ; ~ _ , _____~ ~_ _ , _____ ~_ _ , ___ __ , __ __ ~ _ _ _~ , ! Le~el of 3 ~wo ! Thr-~e ~ Fa~r ~ ~~ervic~ ~ Fhase 7 ~~ase ~ Fhase ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~....~~.~~ 1 ' ~..~~~'~ ~ ` i [ 'r.~~~.~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~....~~~ 1 ~ 1 r 1 ~ A { ; 90~ ~ ~ 855 1 ~ B25 1 ~ : B ; i ~50 f 10~~~ r ~ 965 E ~ C ~ 1 ~Oc~ ; 1140 F 11 ~~ i ~ j L 1 S J.JS~ ~ 1~/~ i 1~~+J i ~ E f~ sc~a ~ 14~s ~ a~~~ : ~ F ~ ~ NA ~ ~ ~IA ~ ; f~A ~ ~ , ~ r~ i ~__~~_~ ~ i ~ ~ _~~_~.~ ~ i r~ ~ r ~ J....~~.... ~ _.._.~._._- i ~ _.. ~ ~_ _ ___ _____ _____~__ ~ , ----~_____ ~_ _ - , ~ Critical Volume = 1~84 ~ : Na of Critical Phases = ~ ~ i~ev~l vf Se+~va ce -- D ~ ~ Vo3 icme/Capaci ~y = <?, Bb ~ ~ 1 ~~~~~~~~~.~~.~~~w~.~~~.r~~~~~~~~'~~~ 1 N/~ Si gnal F'hasi ng ; ______ ; _~.-.----;---------; ~ ~ ~ , k 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ e + ~ a i ~ . f i i e ~ ~ ~ i 1 ~ 1 i 1 1 e e i r + t i i ~ ~ ~ ~.~~.~ ~~ ~ ~. ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ __.... e .~__._._~ ~ i i e ~ ~ ~ i ~ e k , ~/W Si gr~al Pha~i ng ~ -------- ~ ------_--_ ~ __--_---- ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I 1 ~ _~ I i ~ ~ f ~ e i ~ ~ e ~ i -~~ 1/ i i ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ i \ 1 1 ~ I V 1 1 1 ~ ...,..,_...~._ i ~~~~~~__ i ~_,`._._~. ~ ~ 1 1 ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ F'has~ Sx ~nal f f , ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ r~ r~~r.+ ~ - -! - ~ ~ ~ f E k l 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ IMFA~' ~.:'~ Tr-_ 1C 4;lnai•~si~ an "'~icrn~arrrpr, s ~'RC ~~IGI~~EFI!'1G F~rvgr~m ~icensed T~: t a~u F3s5aczate5 ~=~':} :~ELSHi~,E GUMULAT I v~ F'Ll!5 F'~;G~JECT F+h1 F'EA# HO~;F LEV~LS OF SERV I CE 611 / 89 ~~VISED fi~~:pJEGT W /~:~M F'F;CIMI~E~ DIS~~iIE~U7IQf~ intersect~an: b ~ ?R~ °• SANTA f"lO~VICA ~c~l~~ ~ ` ---- ~ CO~'1~ I CJ~f -.__._~_- ~czt i Of'I ? ~][f ~f~lF"li VO~ ~.f~1~5 ------ ; - -- ' -__._~~_-_----- ~ --.- ~ - -----~,-__._~,_~_..._ ~ __.__.___.__..., , _ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ I 1 I r F ~ / ~ 1 1 1 { ~ F I • l ~ ~ f ~ ! i ~ ~C] "~ i i~ i i ` Fti ~?_ ~ ~ _ ' ~~ ~ ~ f ~ i ry ~~~ ~ ~ T 1 ~ t ~: --_-- ; ; ; , ___ T 1 T87 ~ ~ ~ , , • ~ ~ ~ , __ ~ , , ~ F~', x$ v ~ Fi ~b L ~4? ~ ~ ! L 68 ; ~ ~ ~ ~ v ; ~ ; T 4 ~F ; ~ ; ;---- -------- --------~___________---- -- ; ' __T_______________ ~ -------_--~ .__~_____ ~ ~ ~ ~ ----- ~ , -----_ ~ ~ ~ - ~ -_--- ~ ---------' -------- ~ - ~ ~ , _~_~._______~_________~__ ~ ___~____ ~ ~Appr~ Lan~ ~No aflF2r ~ane~~~ft~ca~.~ ~ Maxzmum Total Cr~tical Volur~es ; : ~ Group ~ ~anes ~ Vo1 um~ ~ Wa1. tcme ; ~ --___~__. ; ____--- 7 --------- ~ ------- ~ ~ ; -___ , ______ _ ; ..___ ; _______ ; ________ ; ; Level af ~ Two i Three ; Four ~ < ~ < , , ~ < ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ervice ~ ase ~ 'hase ~ ~ ~ has~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 I ~ ~ ~ _~_ ~ _~_ , ~ --___--_ , -~---- ~ ------ ~ ------- ~ 1 1 1 1 4 ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 [ ~ ~ ; 1 ~ 1 i 1 ~ A ~ 9Q4 t 855 ! k l B25 ~ f S~ ~ L7 ~ 1 ; : ~7 f ~87 ~ i ~ ~ ! t~SC~ ! i c~pp ; 465 . ; ~ EXFe ~ 1 ~ 56 r ~ ~ C ~ l~0~ ~ il4~ ~ ! ~+7~~ : ~ ; ~ ~ ; ; ; D ~ 135~} ; 1 ~7~ ~ i ~~~ ~ ~ ; ~ ; ~ : ~ E ~ 15~3~7 ~ i425 ~ i?~75 ~ ~ E£+ ~ EXL ~ f~ ?~ ; T_•~ ~ ~ F ~ I~IA ~ 1VF~ ~ NA ; i i ~~ i .~'. i cJe ~. i i i i i i i ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ f i ~ ~ i ~ ~ 1 1 i i 1 i.~ ~~ ~~~„ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ t ~~.~~.~~ ~ ~ ~~~.~ 1 ~ WB 1 7 E~L 1 l 1 ~ i f f,8 ~ 1 r ;____________.~-------------------; ; ~ TR ; 2~ 8i~7 ; 81r_s ; ~ Critical Vc~l~~me - l.13~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ I~v af Cr i t ~ ca 1 Fhases - - ~ ; ; ---- ; ------ - ; -____ ; _.~______ { _-__--- - ; 3 Leve i of Servi c e - C ; ~ Total Cri~i~dl Vo~ume ~ 11 ~~ ~ ~ l~olume/Capacr~y = ~},76 ~ ~ ____ __ .~ ~- - -- - --- --_ _ _ _~_~_____ _ ~ ~. __ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _...~_----_------------- ~-- ----~~__ ~ -~ N/ S Signal Phasing E/W Signal PF~asing ~ , ------- ~ ~ ~ ~ --------- ~ -- ~ -------- , - ~ I 7 1 ' ------- ~ ' -_--___ ; , - ~ --------- , - - 1 .\ k F ! I ~ 1 I 1 \ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ F 1 f f 1 ~ \ 1 I f 1 1~ 1• W r f 1 1 I ~ 1 1 ' f ~~ ; 1 ! k 1 i i i i i~~ ~ ~ I e i ~ 1 , , , l I 7 ~ r ~ < i 1 ; ~ 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 l V ! 1 1 I ~~ ~ ~.~~.~~ ~ l ~ ~ l ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~r~~~~ ~ ~~~~J.r ~ e 1 f ! 1 k 1 t 1 4~.~~~~~~ ~~.~.~~~~.+. r.~.-.~~~..~~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 1 ~ [ f 1 l ~ { ~ ; 2 Phase ~ , ~ ~ t 1 1 1 ~ 1 Signa3 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ! 1 ~!'~~~ 1 . ~ ~ 1 ~rrrr~r k 1 1 I MFr~% ~. ~~ Trr ~ ~ ~,nal vsi s on Mi cro~amp~st s ~'~;C EPaGIf~~E~IfVG F'rogr~m L~c~nsed To: ~~aku Assaczates L'=~? WIL~HI~E Cl1~"lU~A7I V~ FLlJ~ F'~t~JE~T f-~M ~Efl-~ HOUFi LEVELS QF SE~V I C~ 6~ f. /89 REV I SED F'~C~J~CT l~/ C~MF~~p~l I SED D I STR I P~1T I Orii ~nter~sect2a+~: 7 ~LOVE~FIELD ?~ CO~OFiADO ~ane Conf~gur~tzan anr~ 'furn ile~l~~me~ , ---- --------- ----__~ , __________ ~ , _______ ~ ________ ~ , , ~ _______ ~ ___' -------- ~ ------ . ------- , ~ , ~ ~,~ ~ ~~< < T ~ ~„ ~ i~L~ ~ ' , . . ~ ; ~ ; << ~ , ~, , ~ ~ , ~ ~ L 4~-? -- ; ! ~ ~ f L ~87 ~ 9~y ~ \ R 59 ~ i ---- ` i V J i ~ '"---"- i F T 4b~ ~-- - ~ ~ ' • `? ~ . ---~ T 47~ ~ I I , 1 ~ ; i f ~ ~ ' 1 l ~ ~ ~ 1 i I ; Ft ~iy~ v ~ R ~~ L 6U ~ \ E ~ ~ / ~ 1 14 ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ , V ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ T w ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~~_ ~_._.~._,_.. , ____ ~ _______- _~~_..._~... ~ ~~_.._~~...__~__~~ ~ -- ~~^~ -_ ~ _______~ ~.-. ~ _____ ______ ~ i k ~~.~~ ~ .-~~'~~...~` ~ ...~~~.~ ~ ~~w~~.~.~~ ~ ~~~~~~~.~ ~ 1 F ~ ~ 1 1 ~Appr~ Lane ~No offP~r LanetCritz~~-1; f ; Grvup ~ l~~nes ; V~1 ~sme ; Vr~l ~~m~ ~ ~ ~~___ ~ ,_____ _~ _ , _,_ --__ , _~___-- ~ _ ~_ r-- - _~ - , ~ NP ~ EXL ~ 1 ; ~87 ; ^87 : < i 1 < rR 1 l ; 1 1 ~ : f 1 b56 ~ 1 7 ; F ~ ~ k ~ SR ~ 1 E ExL ~ 1 ~ f ~ 1 ~ 6~ ~ E E ~ 1 ~ ; ~ ~ ; Tk ~ f ; ; ~ ~ ~ ~ 457 ~ 457 , ~ ~ ~ ~ f 1 ~ EE~ I 1 ~ EKL 1 1 ~ i I 1 S 4t~ ! 1 ~ I [ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ TR < ~ ~ < ~ L ~ ~ ~ 337 ~ 3~7 ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WB ~ ~ EXL ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ , ~ 114 ~ ~ ; 114 ~ , ~ ; ~ TR ~ ? ~ 2b7 t ~ , ~ ~ i , ~ ~ ~ . e ~ i ~ ---- ~ -------- ~ ------ ~ -------- ~ --------- ~ ~ Tatal Critxca l Val~ime ~ 119a i ~ ___ ______ .~_._._____ _--------- 7 _____.~ ; N!S S~ grtal Pha~i ng ~ ~ 1 ~ a r.~ti..~ ~ M. ~~~~». ~ ~~ «. ~ ~ ~~~~ 1 4 1 ~ .~~ i 1 l 1 ~ t i 1 1 ~ 1 ~ f 1 1 ! f ! ~ .< v , : ; ! 1 i ~ r f f f k f 1 1 1 , 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 / i i, i ~ e __~__~_ i__.~~_~_~ i ~~_~~~ i i ~ ~ ~~ i ~ 1 1 1 t 1 ~ ~ . ~ i t ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ wr.~~.~~~~ r 1 -- , ~ ~~.~.'~~~~~~.~.-~..^rr.~r-~.-.-~~~r--~~~- I ~ Maxxmum Tntal Crit~cal Valume~ ~ [ ~~~~~~~ l ~_`~.~ E ~'~.~.~~ I ~ `~~~ '- '- -'-- ' -- ; ; L~v~i s~f i T+~a : Three ~ Fat~r ~ i Servi ce ~~'hase ~ F'ttase ~~t~ase : ~ ~_ _~ ~ ,~ ~ ~.~~~..-.~.~- ! ~~~_~ ~ ~._-~._-_ r -__~_- ~ i ~ ~ ~ i [ f ~ [ ( ~ A ~ 94~ ! 85S ! 825 ~ ~ R ~ 1 ~?5~ ~ 1 ~~~n ~ 9b~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I y+]tl ~ 1~ 4r~ ~ 1 I~?~:y ~ ~ D ~ 1~5~ ~ i~75 ; i~~5 : ~ E ~ f5~1~ ~ i4?5 ; 1375 ~ ~ F ~ NA ~ [~A : N~1 ' ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ , + , --.~_____ , --_._~.__ ~ -------- , ------- ~ '_____________________~-------_- `- 7 Cr~.tical Volume = i195 ~ ~ Nv of CritxGal Phases = ~ ~ t Level cs~ ~ervice - C ' ~ Volume/Capac~ty = ia.8~7 ; ~ ________________.~__~___----------- ~ ~!W Signal ~hasing i~~r.~.~~~~ i ~~.~~~~~~ i~~..,~~~.'~ ~ 1 r'r 1 1 l i ~ i ! i ~l \ 1 1 1 ! L ! ! l ! I ~~-~f = ; ~ _..... ~ ! ~ { 7 i ! i ` ~ t f ~ i V / 1 E ~ ~ ~ .r.~ w ~ ~~~~-~-~ ` ~ ~.-.~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t r ~ ~ ~ 1 i 1 1 1 Y i 1 L PhaSe S~gnal t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e i ~ _"~~~~_ ~ ~ ,~ ~,x _. ~~ Tr~f f L c An<<'_ ysi s~~n ~~1 ~r~O~~fTti~ ~~t~ FF~C ENGI~E~F ~~~a~~ ~rogram ~iCensed Ta: ~aEu A~sociates ^«~_~ wz~sHi~~ ~`Ll~1kJLA7I V~ FLUS P~;DJEC7 F'M FEAI HQEJR L.~UES._S Q~ SERVT G~ f~/ 1 J89 ~'i~V I~~D F'F~QJ~CT' W J CQl'1~FiQl`1 I S~I7 D I STf; I~UT I Ol~i InterSection: 1 ~6TH °~ wILSHIF~E r., ~~~ erposre~ ~1 i fl~~. HY~.tu-es jl ~ne ____ Car~f i g~.irat a o~s ______________ and _;_~ Tur-n VO~ U11}~5 _~_~~______~_ ~__;~__ ______~________; ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~~, ~~~ ` ` ' ~ „ : ; ~ T 1~?~5 , ; ; 1 , ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ , ~ ; L 197 -- ~ /i~ . ~L 14~ F: i7$~ \ R {ib ; ~ ----- ~ vv ; ; - ____ ; ; 7 1764 --__ . ~ ; . ` . ~ --__~ T 1774 ~ , ~ ---~ ` < ~ <, -- • ' '~ ~ ; ~ F~ 179 v ~ R i 19 L ~~:~2 ~ , ~~; ~ / ~ „ ~ L 17T ~ , ~ ; ~ ~ T B~~b ~ ; ~~~ ~ v ~ , ~ , ~,~ , ~ , ~ ; ____-_----____------- ; ~_~_~~------_____- ~ --- ------------------ ; ' ~ _~_ ~~~ _~_ ~ ~~ ~ ___ ~ _____ ~ ___ ~ ---___~ ~ _~_____ ~ ~ Appr ~ Lane 7 Nc~ of ~~eT La~~ ~~r~ t~ ca~, ~ t ~ Group ~~anes~ Valume t Valume ; ~ ___~ ~_ , ___.~ __ _~ , ___ _~_~______~ _ , ~~__-----~ ~ NH ~ EXL ~ 1 ~ f ~4L ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ i TR ~ i 2 ~ I 607 ~ 1 6~7 ! i 1 , , 1 . , 4 ~ , ~ , ~ l , , I , , ; ~E~ ~ EXL ~ 1 ; ~0~ ~ 202 ~ ~ ~ ~R ~ 2 ~ 463 ~ : 1 1 ~ 1 1 ~ k 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ l 1 ~ ~ l ~ E ~ EB ~ : E}CL ~ ~ ~ 1~ 197 ~ ~ ~ 197 ~ ~ ~ ~~ t 2 ~ ~4~ i ; ~ , ; ~ ~1~ ~ , ~ ~ , t"~~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; WP ~ ; EXL ~ ; ~ ! ~ 173 ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ TR i 2+ 995 t 995 ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ __ ~ , --~ _ ----- ~ -~ _ + .~_____ ~ ________ ~ --__ ,_ -~ ~ ~ Total Cr iticat Vo}.~me ~ 2~~]~ ~ ~_ ~ -__ ~ _~____ __ _~____ ~ ~ ________,--------, N/S Signal ~hasing ~_______ , ~ , ~_ _~_ _, --____ , ______ ~ ~ _~ , ~ , ~ ~ /<\ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ f \ ~ . 1 1 l 1 /~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 l 1/ 1 \ 4 I 1 l 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 [ l i ~ E 1 1 ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ` T ~ .~ ~ ~~.«~~~ ~ .~~~~~~ ! ! i { 1 1 { ~ 1 e ~ ~ ~ ~ e r ~ f ~ 5 1 ! / ~ ~~Y~~~~~ ~ ~ -____.,_____~______________~.~__~._ i 7 Ma:cimu~ ~'ota~. Cratica}. Voleames : ,___-- , __~~_~, ______, ___ , ~ ___ • .. ~ .~ ~ ___ _ ~ ~ Level of ~ Twc- r T~ree t Four ~ ; Servi ce ~ Fhase ~ F~~rase ~ Ff~ase ; ~ -------- ~ ------- : ------- ~ ___--_--- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 f 1 ; A ; ~oo ~ 855 ~ ~zs ; ; ~ ; ~oso ; ~ao4 ~ 965 ; ~ C ; 12~70 ~ I 14~ ~ ~.1 ~;? ~ ~ D ~ i~5o ~ 1~75 : 1~~5 ; ~ E ; 15Q4 ; 1425 ~ 1375 ~ ; F : NA ~ tVA ~ NA ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ,_ _~_ ~ . , -------- ~ ----- ~ ------- , _..._____ , ; ---------------~.~_~____.._.~__---- ~ ~ Critical Vtilume = 2~3U1 i ~ No a# Cr i t i cal Pt~as~s = 2 . ; Level af ServYCa = F ~ ~ Valume/Capaczty = i.~~ { ~_ ______________________------- ~ ~ - , E/W Sig~al PF~asing a_ _____~________~ _____.~ ~ , -- ~ ,-- -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; , . ~ 1 /~ , k 1 1 ~ ~ t ~ 1 ~ 1 !' i ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ 4 ~~ ~ ' i ~ ~ 1 ` ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ { , ~~~~~~~i 1 ~~~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 1 1 ~ { ~ i i i 2 F`l-~c~SE $1 C~I~d] ~ ; , . 1 7 S ~ 7 1 ~ r~~r~~~r ~ ~ 1 t~F'AK ;. L~ i r~t #. ~ Rnal ySi s cn Mi crocampi~~E ~'rcrgram i~~censed Toc F.a~.~ Assocxates ~=^i~ WIL.S~iIF~,E < i ~~11.. ~h'i~ ! r•~E~h'. i ~c.~3 CUMU~A~IV~ F'LUS Ff;OJ~CT ~~1 ~EAF i-iOUR LEVELS O~ SERUICE F;~V I SED F'fi~pa ECT W/COMfiFiO~l I SE~ D I~TR I~UT I ON intersection: 6 2_RD °~ SANTA MC~NZCA ~ ~ ~r. ~•~St,~ ~1 i ~t ~ (z +~.• ~C~.utre5 ane Conf i gL~rat i on and T~~rn Vo1 tame~ , _...____~_____~____~~ , ___ __ _ ___ - ~ ~ ~ ----- - - - ' ~ ~ , ~~ ~~ ~ , ~ / ; / ' , ~ i L J~ `` 1 r~~ i ~ ~ i 1 i i ~ 1 J~ / ""` 1 . i V 1 + ~ ~ ~ \ ~ , ~ ~ R 4 r~ ~ ~r ;~ ~ 86 ~ 147 ~ . ~ ; ~ ; T 74 ~ ; ~ _______~___~___ ~ ___ ~ _____________ -~- ____ ~ _______ , ~ _~_ _~_ ~ _~ ~ ~ --- ~ ------- ~ ----. ------- , __...____-- r ~Appr~ ~ane 7[~o af ~Per La~~~Crztical; ; ~ Gr~up :Lanes~ Volume 1 Vnlume ; , __ , __w___, ~___, ~._____ ~ ____- -. ~ , , ~_ -'- - ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ] 1 ! ! 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 I 1 1 l 1 ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ :~P : ~ T ~ 7. ~ -~# ~ ~4 ~ ~ ~ EKR ~ i ~ 8b ~ t ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ . < < < < ~ ~ EE~ ~ EXL ~ f~ ~2 i ~~ ~ ~ ~ TR ~ 2 l 7B4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t , . , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f WH ~ E~L ~ 1; 52 ~ ; ~ ~ ~'R ~ 2 ; 9B6 ~ 986 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ , ~ __~ ~ ______ ~ ____ ~ ..~. ~~ ~ _ _ _ __ ~ , -, --, - ~ --- ~, - - - , ~ Total Crzticai Volume t-#~t9- t ,_ _ ,_ , ~ - ------------------------~ -~Z~ -~ NIS Signal Phas*ng , -_~___ , ______~ , ______ , ~_ _•_ ~_ _, , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ l f . ~ 1 1\ e 1 1 ;C v , ! : ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ < < ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ i i ; ~~__~~__ i __~~~~__ i _~~~~~~_ i ~ i 1 ~ 1 [ [ f 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , , - - - - ~ _.., ,.,._ ~ ~~!1/B~ ________.~_ ; _.....__________~~___ , ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; : R ~7'~ ; ~ r _~~~ J e ~ ------ T 1697 ; ~ ~ ~ __ ~ f ~ J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ , ~ _..._-------- ~ -~_____~_____------ , ~_ , ------ ---------- ------- -------___ ~ ~ i Mdi4IfiU E11 Zatal Crstieai Valumes ~ ~_ _w , _ ~__ _ , ___ ---_ .~_ , ______ ~_ ~_w; w ' ; ~ ~ev~~. r~ f : Twa ; Thre~ ~ ~our ~ ~ Servi ~e t Fh~se ; Phase i~'~1e~5@ ~ ~ _~._ ~ « ...- 1 ~ ~__ ~ _____ ~. ~ ~~ « ~ ~ 1 1 ~ __~__ ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ' 1 S 1 F1 1 1 ~VtiI 1 ~ ~~~ 1 1 v{~ 1 1 ~ P ! i~50 f 1~0~ ~ 9b5 ~ ~ C ; 1~O~ ~ 1 14t~ ; 1 i cir_~ ; ~ D ~ 1350 ~ 1.''.7~ ; 1 ~2~ ~ ; ~ : 15Q~ ~ 14~5 ~ 1375 ~ ~ F . ~ IVA ~ ~ l~A ~ i ~iA , ; ~ ~ ~~ ~ .______ < < ~ ~ _~_ _~_______~____.~__~ ~ ~____ , ~ , , _....________~_---________~~?-~-- ,- . ~ Cr-i ta cai Val ume =-3~ti' : ~ No of Critical Fhases = ^ ~ ~ Level of Serv1 ce = -+E-- ~ ~ ~ Volume/Capacity = ~,~~ , ; ----------------....~___..________ ; ~.~~- E/W Signal Phasxng ~_ ~_ ~ ___~_--; , -__.~___ , _______ , _ ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. \ ~ , ~ 1 \ l 1 ~ 7 I C ---- = f ~ ' -- ? / ' ' ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ' \ v ; ~ ' ~ ~ ~ 7 v f ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~. ~~~~~ ~ ..~~.~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~. ~ Y ' ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 1 1 2 1 f Phase 5ignai ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ __...____ ~ ~ -~ !rlFAX ~. ~~ i~~+r ~ c ~nal ysi s r~r~ Ma crncomp~3t ~ FfiC ET.iG.^~E~FiII~fi F~rogram Licensed To: F:aku Assockates ~=~~~ 1JI~.SHIFiE ~UMULAT I V~ FLl~S F'F~ClJ ~C~ F~M F'EAF, HbUFt LEVELS ~F SE~:V I CE 6I 3: S9 REVISED ~'fiD,JECT W/COMF'ROMIS~D DISTF;IE~UTIDN ~ntersertYan; 1 26TH °r WILSHIRE c,r~ f rv~ ~c ~' h~3'f~c.. Nta,3~a••e s _ane ; __ -- Cqnfiguration ~nd ~urn Val~tmes _____~________ ~ --------_~.__~_____ ~ -~ -~- ~________~__~.___ ~----------- -~ --- -----~ , , , ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ; ~~~ ~ ~ T 6~9 ~ , , , ~ ~ ~; ~ J ~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ 6 7 -~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ L 138 ~ 15~ > ; \ F,' ~5 ~ ~ { < < ~-~~ ~ t V V e ~ _ __ ~ - ~ ~ ; T 1 'a' --- . ~ ; .~r. < < ~ ---- ~ 117' ~ ~ , ~ ~~ ~ i s ~< < , ~ ~ / . -- < f 7 f~ ir?7 v ;R iy4 L 3$4~ ~ i~< < t ~~; ~ ~ 1c7rj ; ~ ; 1 1 ~ ~ ~ O~~ { i v , v 1 1 1 i e t~ ~ i ~ 1 ~«...~_~~~~_~~~'~~~~ k ~~_~~~~r~~r~_~~r~~ 1 ~ I ~~...~~.~~.`~~.~~~.~~~~. [ ~~~~~~~~~~.~ ~.~~.~~~.~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ [ ~ _«»~~. ~ ~.~~.» ~ ~.~~.-._«~ ~ ~~....~~.~....~ t 1 I 1 1 1 ~ ~.~~~~.~~~~~~~.~~...'~~....~~~~r~~~~-~~~.' ~ 1 1 1 Ap~r <~ar~~ ~ fVa af ~~er Lar~~ 7 Cr: t~ cal i ~ Max ~ m~m Total ~ri t: caI Vol umes ~ ~ ~ , GroL~p ~ L.anes ; Vai ume ~ ' ~ Va ume , ' --------_ ~ ------- ~ ~ ______~ ~ , --, ,-------, ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~'~~~ ~.~~.~~.~ 1 1 f ~- ~ ~ ,________,________, 1 1 { ,Level af~ Tw~ = hre~ f I a our , ~ NB ; EXL ~ 1 E 138 ~ 138 ~ ~Service f Fha~e ~ RhaSe ~ Rhase ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ L , ~ ~ , TR ~ , 4Ly5 ~ s ~ ~ < < ~ ~ - --' ------' ------ ' ----- ` ~ -- ------ ~ - . - - ~ - - . , f ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l a 1 ~ A ! 9Q0 ~ 855 e ~ ~ 825 ~ ~ SH ~ E~L ~ i~ 1@4 ! ~ ~ 8 i in50 ; 100~ ; 965 : ~ ~ TR ; ~ ~ 5~~ ~ 503 ~ ~ C : f 2~7Q ~ 1140 ~ 1 10~:~ ~ i i i i i i i iJ i J.~~~+ i iG7J i 1.~..~J + ~ ~ ~ ; ! ; f E ~ f SOQ 3 1425 ~ 1~~75 7 ~ E~ ~ EX~ ~ 1! 87 7 ~ 7 F ~ NA ! NA ~ A~A ; ; ; rd s 2 ; ~Tl .~ae ; 6~~, r ; ; : t ; ~ , , , , ~ , , , , i , 1 7 , , . _~._____ ~ ------ ~ ___.~__ ~ ______ , , --~ -,- , -. , 1 , , , . , I 1 f f ~ ` r~ "' ~ W~ ; ExL ~ Z ~ IOC1 ~ ZOC~ ~ _- ~ . -------~----____._..____---_.l~ ; ; TFt ; ~ ~' 6i4 ~ ~ ~ Gritica~ Volume = -~-4~ ~ , ~ ; ~ , ' ' ~ ~ ~ , ' Na of Critical F~hases ~ = ~ : ~----`-------~---- ' -----_ ~ _Y_~~._ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~- _._ _~ ~ Level of Service . - E ' , ; Total Criti~ai Valume : ~k#fi1'~ ~ # VaZumelC~pacaty = ~~' ~ ;__.~_---------------~________~__~_____; ;------___~----____~.__Y__________~ o ~s ~ ~ . N/S SL grra2 Phasi rtg E/W Si ~r~al Fhas~ r~g i .,.~.~~...~.~.~ ~ ~.~~~~~.~~ i .~~~~.~~~~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ i i ~ t ~...r.~.~~~ ~ ~~~~.~~ '------- '- '- ; ~ n ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 4 1 / ~ 1 1 1 1 f ! t l t 1 f 1 ~ ~ 1 /\ \ 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ k ~ 1 1\ V r / I 1 r 1 , ~~~ 1 1 ~ I~ ~ 1 1 1 1 \ 7 1 1 ~ r~ } ! 1 1 / 1 1 i i 1 1 1 ~ 1 i 4~~ i i i ! ~~ 1/ i i ~ ~ ~ i t ~ i i ~ t f ~ ~ ' i i ~/ ! i i__._~_._...~. i._._~~_~~~ i~~~~_~.r~ i i~~~~___._ i_,_~~_...._ ~_._w~„ _~ i ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ 1 t 1 l / 1 1 1 1 i t ~ 2 Rhas~ Si gnal ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ } ~w.rr~~~~ ~ __ _- _ __ 1 , , ~ ~~~.r~r~ 1 1 - ! { r';FAY ~.~'~ ir?ft2~ An~lysis o~ Mi~r~romp+_~t~ ~ FFC ~NGINEEF;I~JG Fragram Lic~ns~d To: F:aku Ass~ciat~s ~?~c_r wILSHIRE CUMULATiVE FLUS ~'F~QJECT AM FEAE~ HQU~ LEVELS OF SERVICE 6/1/89 R~VESE'~ PROJECT W/C0~1F'~OMISED DIS~F.I~~I~IQN i~t~rs~ctian: b ~~R~ °~ aANTA M~NICR 4+} r"~f~oj.sea~ !H•~a~1~h~ NeaS~reS ane --- Ccsr~f i g~~rat: o~ --------_____~-- ~nd ~TL~rn V~1 ~~me~ ~ -------~.------ „ ; -- , ______________~__ , ______________ ~ , ----- , ~ ~ ~ ; / ~~ ,< < <~ ~ ~ ~ , < , ~ ~ ~ ; ~ , ~ - ; ~ ~ L ~ e ~6 -- , ---- , ; ~ ~ ~ ~J ' ~ , i ~ ~ F; ~'T ~ ~ , ~ ~---- ~ ; T i 1 14' ----` ~ ~ ` ~ '•' ------ 1" 1 ~ 87 ; ` -- ' ~ R \ y8 w ~ ~~i ~h L ~ ?43 ~ ~ , ~ / ~ 68 ~ ~ , ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ v ~ ' ~ ' T 44 ~ ; . ~ ' _ , _ ~ __ ___ _ + _ _____ _~ __ ___~. ___~_ __ _ _ _______---- , --- -- - - - ; - - - - -- ~ ___ _~__ , ~ __ _ ________~ ~ ~ ~ _,_ ~ _ ~ __ ~ ,----~------ . --~ ~ --- ---~- ---~-~~ .Appr~ L~ne ~No of;~er LanetCritscal; i ~ Group 7 Lanes ~ Vol uirse ~ Vol urr~e 1 ~ .~ ~ __ _ ~ ,~___ ~ ______Y ~ _~____„__ ~ ~~~. ~~~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ + t ~ ~ e f ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ r ~ r ~ r ~ t ~ ~ i t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s 1 1 1 ~ !~ 1 f ; SP ~ LT ~ '~r ; ~- ~ -~6~r~ ~ ; ~ EJC~ ~ 1 ~ 56 ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ f 1 1 e 1 e ~ , ~ ~ a ~ ~ < < . ~ r ~ EE~ ~ EXL ~ ! ; 3Es t =6 ~ ~ ; TR ~ ? t 581 d ~ . ~ . . . , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 k 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ WE~ ~ EXL ~ 1 ; 6Q ~ ; ~ ~ 7R ; 2 ; 91~ ~ B~O ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ __ . _~ _~ ~_ ~ . - - ~ -------- . ---- . -------- ~ ------- . ~ Tota~ Critical Va~.~eme 1 1!~-s ; k ~~~r.~~~~.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'~~~~ 1 ~~~~~~~~ 1 ~O N/S Si gnal f'hasi ng ; -~-___~-; -------~------ --~ 1 { ~ 1 f 1 1 1 1 l ~ / 1 1 1 ! 1 l l 1 ~ 1 / i~i v : ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ e i ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~~Y~ 1 ~~~~~~~~ 1 ~.. ~. ~ r 1 1 ^ e s ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1 1 i 1 t i i , f 1 f ~ , ! [ ~ 1 1 i 7 ~ ~~~~~~~_ 1 '- - - - -- -- ` ~ -- -------------- -- -- - ---___ ~ ~ Maximum Tatal Critical Valumes : '---------'--------'-------'-------~ , , ~ ~ , ~ Level of ~ Two ~ Thre~+ ~ Four 7 ~Serv~ce ~ Fhase ~ #~ha~e ~ Phase P + ~r. ~~~ i ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~« + ~~ ~ ~ ~` _ ~~ _ r.~ ~... _ _~~ r r i r r e ~ ~ i ~ i A ~ 900 ; 855 ~ 825 ~ ~ P ~ 145Q t 1 C~00 ~ 9b~ ~ ~ C ~ 1~O~ ; t 14+? : 110~] ~ ~ D ~ 1~SCl ; 1 ~75 f 1225 ~ ~ E ! l544 ~ 1425 ~ 1~75 ~ ~ F ~ 1VA ~ NA ~ ~VA ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -_~..__..,_ , ...___-- , .. - ~ - -- ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ,---- ' -- --' i ~~~~~~~~~~~.r~~~~~~~~.~~~~~ ~v~~~ i E Cr~tical Vvlume = ~?~ ~ i No of Gri t~ cai Phase~ = ~ ~ ~ L~vel of Service = ~ ~ ~ Volume/Cap~city = O.a6 ~ ; w~~w.rr~~r~.~i.~~~~...~rr.....~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I E/W Si gnal f~hasi ng ~ - ' .. --- ~ -_w____ ~ ' rrti~~r.~ ~ ~~~ ~ E ~ 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ T 1 ~ 1 A , 1 1 1 ! 1 ~ ~ f , \ ~~` I ! 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ "~ ~ r ~ a i ~ V i i i i ~/ e i i ~~ +~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ ~...~~-- 1 -- - r 1 1 1 7 ~ 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 Fhase Signal ~ ~ 1 i 1 t 4 1 1 1 ~ ~ar~~~wr ~ .~~' P' - ~~z~ ,s~ . ~ CITY PLANNING DIVISTaN Community ana Ecanomia Development Department M E M O R A N D II M DATE: July 2fi, 1989 To: H5M File FROM: D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner SUBJECT: Second Addendum to EIR for HSM Project at 2320 Wilshiara At~ached are letters from Willdan Associates and Kaku Associates regarding additional traffic impact analysis for the HSM praject at 2320 Wilshire Boulevard. The analysis was performed to carrect a de€iciency in the cumulative traffic impact analysis contained in the draft EIR. This analy~is did nat ~nclude a complete project description for the Colorada P].ace Phase xI project. The draft EXR incZuded the movie theater component of the project, but did not include 450,004 sq. ft. af office space. The results of the new analysis do not change previaus conclusions regarding the impacts of the HSM project. In that no new significant infarmatiQn is presented, an Addendum to the EIR is appropriate. Attachments: July 24, 1989 Willdan letter July 5, 1989 Kaku Letter pc/addon RCV BY;x~rox Tele~o~ier 7~1± : 7-25-88 ~ 9~12 ; 218E85212G; 2'33542~~2;# 2 ~ ~ ;% w~~~QaN aSSC~C~T~S ^ E~G!~v~Ei~s & r~A~it~trs ~~ ; `~.~..~ J ufy 24, 195~ Mr. Kenyan Webst~r Pr~nclpal P~ar~~er City of Sar~t3 Mor~iCa ~5$S Mai~ 5#reet Santa MoniC~, GA 8044t-3Z95 S~Cject: Revl~~nr of H5l~ ~raup Dev~~opm~~t Project-~Traffic Analysis Dear Mr. Wsbster: ~s requested, W(ilaan ASSacfates h~~ ra~ ~ewed tt~s HSM Group Derre,opment Pra~ect-Traffrc Ar.aly~is for the ~ite 1oc~ted at 33~0 Wllsh~r~ BouleWard. The traff±c analysis da#~d .1uly 5, i983, w~s prepare~ by K~k~ A~sac~ates ~~ behalf of the HSM Group. As stated ~r~ aur letter to ynu on lu~e 13, 1~69, Kaku Ass~clates, tha Cfty's Parkfng and Traff~c ~ngir~a~r, and Willdan Assocfate9 agreed upon er~i:~~,aring assumptians rnade with regard to trfp di~tri~aution ~S~igrtm~rt and the star~da, d methodoiogy. '~"he trafflc Impact ar:alysis f~r the H5M Gra~p s~te Is c~nsrdered ade~~a#a w~th regard to th~se ke~ are~s~ The updated traff~c impact a~alys~s cos~slders u50,400 square feet af afflce space not addressed b~r pr~vlous traffic studies far the HSM projec#. The #rlps assacfated with t!~~s ~dd(ttona~ c~mulative pro}~c~ wf~f frrpact tha volume/capacity (VEC) rati~s tn the ~um~lative b~te cond(tlon at the seven it~:ers~ctlans analyzed. This updeted anaiysis identlfted ths san~e twa i~'1t81'S8C~I0~1~~ 28th StreetlWllshire Boul~v~rd anci z3rd StreetlWllshlre Bpulevard, as bsing sig~i~c~ntly ~mpeCted by the revised pr0~ec~ scenario. The same m9tig~tion me~sures recom~ended by (C~ku Assoctates in the Jt~ne B, 1989 traffl~ analysi~ are recammended to mitig~ta th~ I~pacts outlln~c~ in ~he Juty 5. 1989 traffic a~alysls. We agree th~# the rnltlg~tlon measures ~vill redvice the impE~cts of the s*.~dy to insign(f~cant levels, Two addttton~l mltlgatlon measur~s were suggested by Kaku 1~ssociates fn thc June 8, )989 trafffc 2n~fysis, These two me~rsure~ were not specffica!!y sugge~ted fr th~ more re~en# trafflC analysis ~f Juiy 5, 19$9, hut shoufd b~ t~ddressed a~ our .iune Y3, t989 le±tar Endfcates. The first mlttga'~ion maasurs suggasted wss left-turr~ restrlctlnns far ve~ltfes exiting th~ p~O~eCt onto Wllshire Boule-rarcl. Thls me~sure I$ supported by the C~ty's P~rking ~nd Tr~fflc Ertgineer ~nd ~-auld reduce venlcufar confltCts ar- Wtlshlre Boulevard. The seCOnd mitlga~ion measu~'e wes to ~rahibit eastbourrd right turns at the int~rsect~on of Yl+ilshlre Bpt~l~vard and ~~th Stre~t betwean the tlour~ ~f 4 p,m, and fi p.m. Th1s rrfaasur~ wes recommas~ded to r~t~ce prb;eet-ralatad trafflc fmpacts on Z~#~ y290L~ CRGrSS~OAD: ?ARKVYAY 9QUlli • SUITE 200 • INDUST~Y. CAL!FO~if~iA ~746~3A~$ • f2'1316~5~Q561 • FAX ;2y8] ~~i~0 R~V L'y•~OrOX 'e~ec~pie~ 7Gc? ; 7-~~-8~ ;~~~~ + i~~4II~~~~Di 21338~~89~~~ 3 July 24, 1989 Fage 2 Street, Hawever, th~ analysls dae~ ~:0~ ~ddress t~a s~cand~ry ImpaCts that thi~ mea~ure woufd h~ve. T#~e r9g'~t-t~rrn restrictrons wa~ld alsa =mpact +~xlst~ng turn movem~nts. I~4cJmentatlon of tnese impacts wQU1d be ~e~essary !f ±f~ls res#rECtion is put f~~w~rt! as a~r~itig~tion measure, lCak~a Agsvciat~s also ana!Yzecf ~ovr i~t~~sectlor~s not intlucled as part of the ~lR. Sfnce these intersections vr~re not prev~otas~y ana,yzed, we ~anrdt verify or commer~t ~t~ tf~~ accuracy ~f the trsfflc count data ~r 9ntersectian capa~lty analysis. 5hould yau ha~e qu~~tlor~s rega;~ding Qur ev~~uatta~+ of this tr~fflc ar~alysis, p~nase cnr,tact Nls, loanne 1}agak: ~r myse~f ~# (213} 695-0551. Very truly y~urs, W~LL,DAN ASSC~CtATES ~ ~~ ~ Barry ~, ee Sen[or P-~j~Ct M~rtage~ c~~y: Ron F€~~hlwakl, City of Santa Mnr.~c~ Rarlciy ~tiichals, K'illtl~~ Assat~ates 1Cl;mc ~13~'~103~7i0~6 LS 1 lT~~f ~~cunssocanTEs T4: Ron Fuchawaki July 5, 1989 FROM: Dick Kaku SilBJ~CT: H5M Group Development Pro~ect/2320 Wilshire Blvd. Ref: 455 Ir~ order to ensure that the traff~c analysis far t~e HSM pro~ect has fully addressed a11 potential ~ssues, we have been asked ~a re-assess the potent3al tmpact of tC~~ pra,~ect traffic using a carrected version af the c~m~iat~ve projects lis~. The correct~on ~nvalves the additian of a~proxi~nately 450,U00 SF of office space at Co~arado Place for Phase II. As you know, several of the recent traf~'zc studies canducted in Sar~ta Manica have used an incorreet description af the Colorado Place II pro,7ect in its cumulative projects 13st. ~his document up~ates our memorandum to you of June 6, 1989 and addresses the impact of the revised list an the traffic analysis. 7he change in the cumu~ative projects list ~oes not affect the existing canditions or the project traffic ger~eration. It daes affect the traffic forecasts for the Cur~u~ative Base traffic condit~ons. The revised descriptaon far Co~orado Plate TI was us~d to dev~lop new traffic farecasts for the Cumulative Base canditions. Figure 1 iilustrates these revised forecasts. These farecasts were analyze~ and revised volume/capaci~y (Y/C} ratias were prepared. ~able 1 illustrates the revised v/c ratios and associated levels of service (LOS) at the seven intersections that wer~ analyzed in the study for both t~e morning and evening peak hour. Ti~ese traffic forecasts were then -~sed to develop revised farecasts of Cumuiative P~us Project traffic conditions. These are illustrated i~ Figure 2, Tabl e 1 ai so i~ 1 ustrates the v/c rat i os and LOS at the seven i ntersect7 ans duri ng both peak haurs. It can be seen that the same two interseGtians are expected ta be impacted by the project using these revised traf~ic projectians. These are 25th/Wilshire and 23rd/Santa Monsca. No addit~onal locations are affected by t~is change in the traffic generation from cumulative pro~~cts. ~able 2 sc~mmarizes the ef~ects of the pra~osed mit~gation measures at the two impacted i~tersect~ons illustratir~g the reduction of tl~e v/c ratios below levels of significance at both lacati~ns. A similar ar~alys~s was conducted at the ~our additional locatians which were ~dentified in the ~3~ne 5 memo. The results in Table 3 indicate that the revzsed tra~fic forecas~s do nat change resul~s of the impact at these four locatians. If you have any questions or need additional information, please ca71. ~~~~..,, , _ .. :, ~ jd•;'d a~ur: -_ _ - _ _; ~, ~~~ ~='r ~ ~ ~ ll l l:,- ~ L L ~ O N ~ N ~j' cl! ~S~ ( V c~ ~ ~ ~ U O N ~ ~ ~ (V ' ~ ~F '" t...BOI17O „ti$~ L NI4S ~ ~~ VS127 ) ~IlO1~ ! .~ ! ~. ~9~ori6o5 ~175I2B5 ~n2orv:~~ .~ ~ ~. ~-45164 +~ ! i• •-- iiao~i~i;~ ~-16!~l1H'~ ~/I~`,~llfif ~i~Vi'~ 45,~~ -~ 1 r ,~,40~ •i t r ~ ~~~,~,~,~ f •i 1 f` 117."i11695^~ c~t v~ ~ 14501W95 °~ I~u~~ ~OJECT i 1J1~~117115-~ ' " .r,~e'~u~ ~ ~ 1301140 ~ cv r.i p _. SITE GOlTS ^; ~ ~ ~ 1f1011~ f) i i • ~ "^ ~~~i u~`~g ~~ ~ ~ ~ - - -- -- J ~ ~ ik C ~~ ^ ~ ~i ~ 1 ~ ~ L34l40 ~--11U!?15 r•4or3D n~~,i~,~ A~f, ,~4a~ ~ i r 100l315 -~ ~ ~ 130l205 ~ ~ ~ V~u1~ ~ ti CJ ~i -~ .n mON O~ ~`n u~ m ~ 2001270 '^ ° tv J~, -134S17T54 ~ IO1S11 j60 " ~.. ' '~ Mcs~1~c; ~ F%Ivd if~li `~ f 70150 r 15a27s >< r ~5l50..! 10t0l~4~S -. E" ~ ~180l1635-« , m 420139A~ ` 40140 ~ p7 ~` ~ Q C;olor~edo nv«~ pi~. 1.31vd - N ~ ~ o~~ L 5ar3o S8n t 8 Mon~~e fi uNc i+ni ru ~ ~ ~' +-4151650 ~ 115l140 reswa y ~ Leqend ~ 56l50~ -.- '~ ~(` v a' '~ xXxlXXk - AM fwnmg FAOVemeMS7F~M Tummg Movements 465l755-~~ Z~pr2607 ~n nvi K', oi° ~ ~ +~ Ls ~ ' ? Cfl NI Volumes Round~~d Ic~ lhc Ne•nie~,t fwc VE~I}~c~e; ~ ' N m c. ~ (. ) .. ...__ ..._ _..... . __... - cvlc(unSSOClnTES - ~~ Figure 1 CUMULATIVE BASE PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS TABLE 1 CUMULA~IVE PLUS PRO~ECT INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE P eak Morninq H~ur Eveninq Peak I~lour _ _ ____ Cumulat ive C~tmulative Cumula tive Cumulative Rase Plus Pro ~ect increase Base I'lus Pro_7 eCt ~ntre~se Intersection V C tOS Y C LdS in Y C V C I.OS V C LQS ~n v C 1. 2bth St & Wi~shire Blvd. 0.99 E 1.03 F + 0.04 1.35 F 1.3b F + 0.. 2. 23rd St & Wilshire Blvd 0.62 B D.b4 B ~ 0.02 0.84 D 0.85 D ~ d 01 3. 20th St & Wilshire $~vd 1.09 F 1.09 F O.OQ 1.37 F~ 1 31 F 0.00 4. 23rd St & Arizona Ave 0.37 A 0.37 A 0.00 0 54 A 0 57 A + 0.03 5. Cloverfie~d Blvd & Santa ~1an~ca Slvd 0.86 ~ 0.88 D + 0.02 l.ll F 1]2 F { 0 Ol 6. 23rd St & Santa Monica Blvd 0.74 C a.7b C + 0.02 0.92 E 0.95 E ~~O.Q3 7. Cloverfzeld Blvd & Colorado Ave 0.81 D 0.82 Q + 0.01 1.05 F 1.06 F + O.m The BOLD values indicate a significantly impacted intersection TABLE 2 CUMULA7IVE PLUS PRflJECT INTERSECTION LEV~LS 0~ SERViCE WITH MITIGATIO~S Morninq Pea_k _I~I_nur________ Evening Peak Hour__ _ Cumulative Cumu~ative Cumulative C~mulative Plus Project Cumu~ative Cumu~ative Plus Project Base Plus ProieCt w Miti ation Base Plus Prnject w/M~Cigatian Intersection V C LOS V C ~ LOS V C LOS V£ LOS V G LOS 11 C LOS 1. 25t#~ St & 4~ilshire Blvd. 0.99 E 1.03 F 1.00 E 1.35 F 1.36 F 1.3b F 6. 23rd St & Santa Nfon~ca Blvd 0.74 C 0.7b C 0.66 8 0.94 E 0 96 E 0.84 D ~_.....~ ~ L ~ N ~Q ~ N ~ °~ ~ ~801114 '~ t ~ 91511625 ~~- 175l265 4~~~ ~ ~ r 1190l170Q ~ u~ g i30l140 ~ ~ tv a ' R ~ ~ ~rao-a ~'~ ~ f ~orECT 14701 ~895 ~ t Q u~ S 60!)S~ r~~~ SIT~ ~ ~ ~- - _ .. .._. v~ L V N i _ . _~ c:+ t~ V+N ~~i vj~f~ ~ > ,`1, m .~~L ~ L_ ~~ N t,., )~]f~~J ~111~177~ ~ • x~~5n(~s W~1`;h~~re L~lvr:i r~~~r,y~~~ `E f I' f ih5/1~'fi5 ~-• ~~ u3 ~i 1~l1~Q ' { ~~ s_~ ~~~ Nq~ ~~~ L30l60 +~ ~ ~* .._.~ml2n r 45IT0 /1f Vr~~~~t Av~ ,~,40-~ -~ 1 r 100l315°-• 1301205 ~ og o y~ ~, M ~ ~nw~ ~~~ a'~~, ,~ ~ Q t-- 235l275 ~ ° ~v • ~- 139511I50 • --- 101511360 j 4 ~70150 r 1501275 ~l~~iflt~l Mpfll(:i7 E~~V(.~ 35150 ~ IO1GI14i5 --. ~' ~ 118011535-+ 43DI42d "i N 40140 ~ ~° N ~,il~Ofddb AVi~ (}lyrnpic 131vc.i - i~ - ~ . ~ ~ , _ N ~ F ~~„ ~~~ Yk, Sen t o n-- N°'~ t_ 6ar.~o a M~nlc$ p '~ !~' +..-4751650 i"' 115l144 reaw$ y Ls snd J._._ n 'S5150--~ '~ i{' ~ xISXlXXX -~M l~urrnng McwemenlslPM lurmny Movc~mcntc 4651755~ ~, ~,~ ~ b y " ~p~pgp~ ~,~~ ~~ lountled lo Ihe Ncaresl Fwc Veh~r.hes lUl Vulumes f ~o ~m D U . . _._ _..--- cu~ccUnSSOCinTE~ ---- ~ Figure 2 . CUMULAT~VE PLUS PR0.3ECT PEAK HOUR TURNING MOVEMENTS (REVISED PROJECT} ~~> 0 1`~1 N ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ 1Q~45 .~ 1 ~. ~~ 4~160 25 r 7ABLE 3 GUMULATIYE QLUS PROJECT INTERS~GTIflN LEVELS OF SERYICE Marnin4 Peak Nour Intersection 1. 20th St & Santa Monica Blvd. 2. Centinela Ave. & Wi~shire BTvd 3. 26th St & Arizor~a Ave. 4. 2bth St & Santa N{onica 81vd. Cumulative Cumulative Base P~us Pro'ect Increase V C LOS V C LOS in Y C 0.78 C 0.78 E 0.00 0.63 B O,b3 B O.DQ 0.81 D 0.82 D + Q.O1 0.81 D 0.81 D 0 00 Evenin Peak Hour Cumula tive Cumulative Qase Plus Pro,iect Increase V[C LOS V C LOS in V C 1.01 ~ Z.O1 F 0 ~ 0.85 D 0.87 D + O.Q2 0.91 f 0.98 E +001 I~2 F Z.02 F O.DD SL11~Ll+iARY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL E1V'VIROh:~:~1'I'AL iViPACT REPORT FOR T~ HSM GROUP PRQJECT AT 2320 WILSH~RE BOULEVARD SAN'I'A MOlVIC~i, CALIFOR:'~"Lei PROJECT LOCATIO~T The pro~ect site is iocated i.n the northeasterfy sec#ion of the City of Santa ~Ior~ca w Los Angeles County, California. The project site occupFes a one-bloclc area along the sout~ side of Wilsh~re Boulevard, between 23rd and 24th Streets, as shown ~n Figure 1. The pra~ect is currently occupied by a car wash, an automabile repair facil~ty, aad a car rental business. PROJECT DESCRiP'TION The proposed project involves the demalition o€ all existing uses on the site and the development of a~i~e-story com~~rciai of~ce bu~l~~ng with an attac~ed caz wash facility. The floor area rauo (FAR) for t~us praject would be 2.68 and the total floor area wauld am~unt ta 10$,908 square feet. The rooflin~ wou~d reach a heigbt of 66'~", measured from t~e sidewalk along Wilshaxe Boulevard. Figure 2 shows the site plan for the proposed pro~ect. Elevatians of the propased i~uilr~~ng are displayed in Figures 3, 4, and 5. The graund level af the prop~sed structure would include leasable commercial space, an open air buildin.g entry and courryazd, and the entrance to th~ four-Ievel subterranean parl~ng garage on the Wilshire Baulevard frontage. T}~e caz wash would be located in an enc~osed area at the rear of the building and would be entered from the 23rd Street frontage and exited on 24th Streat. The loa~~ng dack, trash storage, a.nd i~nix~rial storage areas would also be loeated at the rear of the structure. ~YC Construction of the proposed project would result in replacement of the vehzcle tn~s associated with the existing ~and use (not including the car was~) rvlth the ~ehicic trips from the proposed project. The net increase ~s substantial: exist~ng dai~y trip5 rn~*n1~eF 13U, proposed n»~her 1,4b3. AM peak trips aze cuxrentiy 15 amd woul~ inrrease to 21b, and PM peak tnps are current~y 20 and w~u.ld increase to 211. The proposed project wouid have a sign;fi~nt impact at five intersections. These are Wilshire Boulevazd/2fith Street, Wilshire Bouie~ard/23rd Street, Wilshire Baulevazd/Yale Stxeet, Clo~erfield Boulevard westbound Santa Monica Freeway off-r~m~, and the Cloverfield Boulevazd eastbound Santa Monica Freeway on-ramp. At Wilshire Boulevard/26th Street, the Leve~s of Service (LOS) at the e~e~~n~ peak penod would eh~nge from "E" to "F," and the volume/capacity (V/Cj wo~iid increase from .99 to lAl, showing an mcrease of 02. At Wilshire Bo~tievard/23rd 5treet, ~he ~ ~ 26th ~ ~j4 ~ d ~ ~2 m ~ ,~~ 4~ y 24th ~ V CLa ERFlELD BLVD 23rd ~ a ~ W ~ ~ Q ~ 4 2oth a ~ N ST HSM GRQUP, INC. SEIR WILLDAN ASS4CIATES V V ENGIMEERS AND PLANNERS ~ 4 ac ~ c~ Figure Specific Location 1 ~`~ _ _ ~ ~ {Z 2 WnuSiN~o A~1P~~rJT r 2~0' o" ~ r'!'~ '24's'-A" r ~~~ t'~ . ~ 0 ~ * t~ •O I ~i E L a ~ ti ~ ~3 ~ U ~{ ti ~~-_ lo10M~d i I ''\ V~ J . I ~` r I it , ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~S ~~ ~ . ~ 'i ~ ~~~ ~,~5~~~~ ~,~.t~~~ ,~~ W ~> cl~ g YI 1 L L ~~ ,~ t ~ U ~ N~ J ~ x.~~~, } ~~ ~~ ~ ,~. ~~ ~ ~ HSIV~ GR~UP, INC. SEIR ~ ~~ F~g u re WILLDAN ASSOC~ATES $ite pia~n Slte Plen View ~ i~ r J ~ 1 ~ ~ EN(i1NEERS AND PLAi~INEfi8 ' ~ .._. . ~, - J ~J ~.~~ _ _ _ _ _ . . . ,~ ~r ~ ~-t...~~+.. .- - a~ Fr~THo,1~ ~ ~ . ~ .. ~~.-- . 11 . . .., GR E.NaR ~~f BrN~s ._._. ~ - ~ .:..•:_~~~-: .-~-.--._.;~ _ LL:_. . , . _-.- ~ - ~~' , ~ r - ~ ~ a~F ~ _. :: - -_ -~ - -~ ~--- --- - ~ t ~ , ~ ~~ .,_. . . .. . . . .-- VLAHf[F. AI i'tXK~[E I ; ~ ~ - ._... . . _ _ ~!,[I..[~ lL~ ~ IL~] ~ li..I~ 11.~.~ I~ 1~..1! ~ _ .. .~~1.~.;- "_ . ~,~~T _._... ~ bT . ~77 ~7- I ~{~7 ( ..._ .. ~ -'- ~7 T I I F 7_ GP[Erl 7i~ITCV 61~55 ~ ,, '! 1, e{ _ II iI I~I`{~~I ~i~~ ~I II i~ LIF'1FST[aN~ ~IL,Li „ ~ ~ ..._ ~ iJ4L ~ , ~ ~ ~ LL.~if ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ LW ~+~f F~JJ LI..U LL..Li ~ LL.~ ~~ `J ~ . _ __ ~ _._._ 1 ; . . ___ . . .. . . ~~ ~ . . ' _ TLr'IItNE~ GLn9i ;~ ~~ ~ 1' ' f. .!. ' Y~ ` I I I L 1 I I,. ' 1 l T~ . i I iHES7UNE • ~I'. C~ i i1L [ i ~ it i. ~ .. i,., ` i I t- f l 1 l I 1' l I I ~ I ~..f~ ~- U 1 f. - l 1 1 L.1 ~'-1}1~, S I I~~I 1 I I I~I 'S}~I~* I~]]]Ir ~1t ~ ~ ?a~O ~ ,_ ~'' J' ,~i. ' ~"'[ ~~ ~ ~',T'2^ M++l•.~ C~ktEF-) GRrNII'wL ~~ • I' ~ f ~' !'.'- 1~ I'f ] f'I 1 L I'~,: I I . I' i:. Irl ~ 61,SP k . J ~ 1 1 : ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~.1' . ! ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ i ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ '_ ~ ~ . ~' 1 ~ i t~ . _ ...~..~_S ~ " --- ?~fh STREET f=,,,i.-J ~., ,,,: ~.,f,, 23rd StRfET wilshire baulevard elevation HSM GROUP, INC. SFJR r ~ `, ~/7 WILLDAN ASSOCiATES \//~/ EN~i1NEERS AMD PLANIiERS Flgure Front Ele~atlon _ 3 . '~ -~ _~:~~u~h ~ ~E~~'n~'SE I r l v - ' ' - - . ..-~°~Y.R ~r L `{% ~y~"~ -. 1 ~-_1 . . - ' '_ r ~ ~OGF • ' I .rJf~Eti ~..F~--~ ~~ r . _ _ _ _ ~ .. ~ ~ KY~~ t"' '-~~ a.~ -.~c~c ~ cJl . ~ _-__' ' _ - " _ - a _ ~.~. ~-J ~' ~ , _- i~ ~ J - __ ~~. a___ ` ~~__ -.-~= r~.- , ~ , . . r I , ~ I ~ 3aA yn 4a~i _ !-e..- _r ~- I++~.~- ~ _ ~~-~-+ ` ~ ~- ~;a-.a~C ~' _ `~. .~ ~y ~~ ~- _.~ ~ y~---7 4 ~.c ~.e 1--~ - •C..-Y ar-E~- ~~'~ ~._~ ~ -, -- ~} ~ ; ~' - _ _ ='~ S ~ _ y :~ y ~ . n - . ~ • .. ~ ~~ k ~ ~E~. . :J~"~. ~~.fGw ~ w=1.~4u ~ •~t ` 24th stree# elevation ~.a~~t =~-wa~r 9t~r + 'st.tl+~ mc.~+. "E. M+~P6 PS~Mt~ ar ~l.~W~LL ^JQYY~--- - _ ~"!£~'c~6 S..'S - _ya!!J. - Y[sO 9~+hi - _ rWpN~ _ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~~ - ~ Y+'Sk - ~- .~t~1+4E U~ ..~I.yl ~ ~ EF+`~" ~_~..~.._f , ~r.--e~x ~ ~ n ~ct~ . r ~ ~ _ ~ r~. us ' ` d = s ~s ~ ~ .i _~ tiC GLQ , S t 4T ~~2 ~ ] Fr.t~ . 23rd street elsvation HSM GRQUP, INC. S8R ~ wu.~AN Assoc~~s El~IGil~flt8 AMD PLAN!!fl18 ~ ~ Side Els~a#lons Flgure 4 . ,~ , _.... KoP ~f M11GHI+J~cPL (+CN1 H(~LM~~ _ a ~ ~ , ~~. W ~. _ . ' ~~ ~ -~ ~ , ~ ~~ . ~ ~ E I ~ Yt-~ ~-f~ a€ ol 3 ~ _ ~ ~ -,.~ ~`~ =z ~'r7`r ,~ Yr,'fa r I ~I l ~ '~ 2r1~ htF.. l *.~ ~ t~r `~' ~' i ~ i~. t.i i i'i r V d ,.. 1 I ~~ ~i ~ i i i t-,~~,~ ~[, S S ~ ~ y Y '~ ` - --, . ~ ~-,~~'.~i' iii~i~~~u: HSM GROUP. INC. SEIR ~ WILLDAN ASS4CIATES .y,. ~ -...::>., .,,-., - . ." • _ . --~j.---.. . _fil . ~~;~ ~~~z i ~~ . ~.,:_..... -~ ~~~iT .., - ---~ - ~. I l I l~ ,,1 I I, I I~[l-[I ~~l ~~~Il ~] I[~I1 [.1.~] I IL~ ~` ~s T~.~~ - , r - ---- _....... __ i \ ~irt66TCi~Ja 5+u.,°~ ~rrrut rr TE4~R~c=G ~ f~ 'I 1 ~ '[ S' t t'~ r[ I S .<< i :i,i.ix ~ :i~i~~yiiii~ ciii ~i~ri~ii~csiiir trii '~rIr~ri iiii~iiiiEi~rr4ici~ir~~iiiii~i ~~ i,i o i r i iy~ i i,l i~7 7 i~7 ~ i,i i o~~ i i i o i~ ~ o,i i i,o i r~t r i~i i i ._ LerrB,~oTqNG ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1"~'I ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ T ~'7'~ ~ k[' i![ I l 1 l 1 f i I I I E I I I 1 I~I 1 I 1 1 I~i I f ~ I E I I I I f S i 1 I I I I I 1 I ~ l..Ll~i~L ,l 1 l I 1 I~1 I l~l I 1~11 I I I~I I I l yI~I l I 1 1 ]~I I I~1 1 I~I l I I i i~ n~~y-''r`~{ ~1 ii f1i ~I~i f~~k+ lii *y l~! ti~ ~J cOUGC~-1 ~ g ,F+.L-~.r ~ :1~~' iTi ~ ~~~. k~~~~:i„~L`.~~J`a;:l.~' :ri ~3~ ~~.'~ ~~ . _~.._.. ~••w~7 M~~vH i3.++KtiK• L.c~ (id+~h'L~- atley elevation ~Flgure Rear Elevatlon 5 ENGINEERS AND PLANNERS " ~ ~ the ever~ng peak hour LpS would chan~e from "D" to "E," and the V/C w~ouid increase from .6~ to 82, s~ow7ng an ~ncrease af 17. At Wilshire Boule~ard j Yale Streec. the evezung peak haur LOS is already "E" and wouid remain at "E" with the proposed pro~ect. The V/C rat~o here wouid increase from 95 to 97, showzng a rise of 0.02 At Cloverfield Boulevard westbound Santa l~Zon~ca Freeway off-ramp, the everung peak hour LOS is "F" and would remain at "F" with the praposed pro~ect The ~'!C rauo would increase from I.Q6 to 109, showing an ~ncrease of 0 03. .~i Cioverfield Boulevard eastbound Santa vioruca Freeway off-rainp, the everung peak hour LOS ~5 "F" and wouid remain at ''F' with the proposed pro~ect. The V/C ratia would increase frorn 1.11 to 1 14, st~owing an fncrease of 0.03 ~-lthough the existing four-way stop at 23rd Street/Arizona Avenue ~s adequate tor the cumulatave base rvith the proposed pro~ect, pro~ected traffic volumes indicate that the eventual installat~or~ af a traffic s~gnal may be wananted here. Parlcing requirements are satisfied by the project in al1 but two respects. The handicap stall rv~dths of the subterranean parking structure do not meet City cade requireme~ts. They must be w~dened by 1' to achiev~ full cons~stency with a rrade- off policy that allows the aisles in the parking str€~cture to be 3' narrower than required, prov~ded that the vv~dth of the ab~tting standard size parking 5paces are inereased by 1'. The hand~cap stall widths have not been thus modif'ied In addiuon, 47 tandem stails are proposed in the pa;rking structur~, which requires approval of a vanance. Mitisa~~un Measur To mitigate the significant tr~c imgacts at Wilshire Soulevard/26t~ Street, Wilshire Boulevard/23rd Street, and Wilshire Boule~ard/Yale Street, a third t~rough lane in both directions of Wilshire Bou~evard dunng the peak ho~rs is recommended Th~s would require peak hour parldng prah~bitians on both sides of Wilshire Boule~ard £rom 150' east of, to 150' west of, each cross street. This measure is recommended in the Admintstrauve Draft of the City of Santa Manica Circulauon and Traffic vl~tigation Study. 'The recommcnded thuud through lane in both directions of Wilshire Boulevard wil~ improve the LOS at the three signifi~antly impacted intersections. Wilshire Boulevard/26th Street is expected to operate at a LOS 'D" and a V/C ratio af 83 during the evenmg peak hour. W~ishire Boulevard /23rd Street ~s e~ected to operate at a LAS "C" and ~ V/C ratio of .72 in thE evening peak hour. Wilshue Boulevard/Ya1e Street is also eacpected to operate at a LOS "C' during the everung peak hour and a V/C ratio of .77. The Cio~erfield Boule~azd west~ound Santa Monica Freeway off-ramp requxres westbound dual rig}~t-tum lanes, a shared right/left-turn lane, and a left-turn iane to e~iminate the sa~~~cant uaffic impacts of the proposed project. This impraves the evening peak haur LOS to "E" and V/C ratio to 1.00. This measure, however, cannot be implemented without the widentng af Clover5el~ Botilevar~ to a siat-lane roadway with ~eft-turn channelization. 'The widening of Cloverfield is recommended in the draft City-wide study. The Cloverfield Boulevard eastbound Santa Vionica Freeway on-ramp requires an additional nortl~bound right-turn lane to e1~m~~ate the si~ni~cant impacts. This unpro~es t~e even~ng peak hour LOS to "E" and V/C rat~o ta 0.93. This nungauon measure also req~res the wzdezung ot Cla~erfieid Boulevard. The Citv o£ Santa '~~omca Pazidng and Traffic Eng~neer has indicated that the desiga af the wldening of Cloverfiekd Boulevard is in grogress. The intersection of Arizona Avenue at 73rd Street s~ou.~d be closely morutored for the installation of a traffic signal. Each of the single handicap pari~ing stal.ls in the proposed pazking structure shall be expanded to 15' wide Each of the double-handicapped stalls shall be expanded to 2~' wide. ?he developer u~ll grovide a'wa.~et-type" operation dur~g ttte hours t~at the offiee building ~s apen for bus~ness ta provide for proper operaEion of che tagdem pari~ng spaces. Level of Si~n~~rcance After ~fiti~auon Mitigat~on measures will reduce i_mpa~ts at the intersections of W~Ishue Boulevar~/26th Street, Wiislvre Bflulevazd/23rd Street, Wi~shire Boulevard/Yale 5treet, Cloverfield Boulevard/westbaund off-Tam~3, and Cloverfield Boulevard/ eastbound aff-ramg to a level of insa~~~cance. Thcre vvill be a loss of parking on Wilshue Boulevard during peak hour5, and a*~~nor increase m tra~~ in the adjacent residential nei~borhood. AESTHETI~$. SHAI30W$, LIGHT. A,~VD GLARE The mass of the proposed five-stary commercial building is mocli~ed by a series of setbacks and terraces incorporated into its facade. As such, tl~e proposed five-story str~cture s~bstantialiy conforms to the C~t~~ buildiag design and streetscape cntena. However, t~e applicant has requested additional height beyond the perautted height l~mit of ~6' and four stories. The proposed building is 66'6" high from the first floor to the roaf, with the mechanieal penthouses ad~~n~ another 15'6" to this figure. This would create a substantiai visual contrast between the proposed bu~ciing and adjacent re5idential developmen~, which is predo*~~n~ntly one and two stories lugh. Thus, the buil~in~ will result in a substantial change in visual conditions, especially when viewed from nearby residenual areas along 23rd and 24th Streets. The pedestrian anentation of the WiLshire facade is in keeping with the polic~es of the Land Use Element. However, one £eature of this eievation which detracts from this pedestnan arientation is the enxrance to the subtenanean pazking garage. This garage entrance breaks the street-Ievei continuity of the facade and would create a negatx~e v~sual and functiona~ feature for the pedes~rzan, $hadows S~nce tbe proposed pr~ject is locate~ on the sauth~rly side of Wilshire B~ulevard, rnost shadows will be cast across the street or onto adjacent c~~+mercial properties. :~djacent residentiai praperties lacated pnmanly to the south of the propased pro~ect would be affected by shadows only in the late afternoon hours dur~ng the Ionger days of the year. Lighr and Glare It is anticipated that ru~httime illumination associated wlth the proposed commercial bu~lding w~ll cons~st of secur~ty lighting near building entries and dri~eways. architectural Iig~ting iilurninating portions of the building facade, and area ii~hting which mav be ut~lized to iliuminate the car wash area at the rear of the site. Such l~ghung could possibiy affect nearby residennal properties. Otherwise, it ~s not expected that the exterior lighting for ihe proposed pro~ect widl su~stant~a~ly aiter the level of mghttime illurrunation in the area. ~(itigation Measures ~ In accordance with existing procedures, the proponent sha11 submit detailed site and architectural plans for review and approval by ihe Cin+'s Architectural Review Board. Pians shall be revised, as needed, pursuant to the General Plan policies for the Wilshue Comdor, and the poucies of the City's Axchitectural Review Design Guidelines. 2. No mirrored Qr darkly tinted glass shall be used in the windows on the graund-floor street frontages of the building. 3. Any exterior lighting shall be direrted away from neazby res~dential areas. I.ighung features shouid onlv direct lzght onto the proJe~t site. A lighting plan shall be submitted to the City for review. 4 Building details shauld be ineluded on the ground-floar facade adjacent to the sidewalk to enhance the pedestrian atmasphere around the bu~lding. 5. Consider reducing the he~ght of the mechanical penthouses in order to reduce total building height and lessen shadow impacts. Le~el flf Sienificance After Miti~ation Potentially significant visual impacts are ~imited to those caused by the size and height of the proposed bui~ding. If it is deterznined that these ~mpacts aze significant enough to warrant additional mitigation, then the praposed building could feasibiy be reduced in size. Some increased visual and shadow impacts wauld inevitably resnlt, ~iawever. WATER AND SEWER The proposed 105,980 square fvot office building would consume an estimated b,592 gallons of water per day and generate 6,(?SS gallons per day of wastewater. Along with the car wash, the proposed project would consume an estimate~ 14,392 gallons of water per day and generate approximately 12,953 gallons per day of wastewater. Th~s figure represents a net reduction of ~,072 gallons of water usage per day and 964 gallans of sewage generation per day, s~nce the current water usage and wastewater generated on site are 15,464 and 13,9i7 gallons per day, respectively :~s such, the total pro~ected wastewater generation for the proposed project fa115 wetl wlth~n thc Cit~ of Santa '~'Ionica's wastewater allocation Iimtts. '~'I~tigat~on ~Teasur~S T1~e proposed ~ro~ect shall comply with the requ~rements ser farth !n the C~tv° of Santa ti'ionica's VVastewater Control Guideiines and Ordinance No. 1451, as well as the City of Santa Monica's Emergenry Water Corjservation Plan, Ord~nance Na 1447 The project shall include the installatian of ultra-flus1~ toilets and urinals per the City's Murucipal Flumbing Code. It shall also adhere to the City's Landscape Water Conservation Guidelines f~r new landscapes installed on commercFal and multiple- res~dential deve~opments. The ~nsta~lation of an an-site water reclamat~on system will be required. The C~ty of Sar~ta ~[onica General Services Department, Water Divis~on, v~nll monitor water consumpuon at the site to deternuae whether the property owner must reuvfit build~ngs to ach~eve zero net flow of water. I,evel of Si~vficance After Mitieation After the mitigat~on measures have been implemeflted, the potential impacts will be reduced to an insignificant ievel. BI~SINESS DISPLACEMENT Develapment af the proposed project would require the demolition af all e~nsting structures, resu~tmg in the displacement of a~ of the existing h~sinesses and theu approximately S3 combined employees. Mitigation Measures There are indications that the company operating the new car wash wiil also operate other car washes in the azea and may be able to relocate some of the al~ car wash employees during pra~ect constr~ction, and then reassign them to the project sue after construcrion. Leve1 of Si~ificance After Miti¢ation The remaval of the three existing businesses is not eonsidered a significant impact to the neighborhood or to the larger community. NEIGHBORHOOD EFFECTS Project coastruction actavities wou~d ca.use temporary, short-term impacts on loca~ parlcing and traffic conditions. These would cake the form of a temporary increase in on•street pazking which could affect ad~acent residential streets. Constr~etion of the praposed project may also require the eliminatioa of sidewalk actess for pe~esmans along each site frontage. In this e~ent, the bus stap oa ~Vilshire Boulevard facing the site could temporanly be relocated east of 24th Street or west of ~rd Street. Construction activiues necessary to develop the proposed pro~ect would produee significant s~ort-term acoustic impacts. Construction wouid also requu'e a substantial amount of excavatioa, which may generate fugit~ve dust which would be notieed at homes and properties adjacent ta the 5ite on a short-term basis. On very acti~e days, constructian equipment emission rates may total se~eral hundred pounds of contam~nants per hour, due to the use af diesel constnicuan equipment. This cou~d contn~ute to the ~~sance caused by dust particies from excavation activiry. After canstruction and occupatian of the praposed pro~ect, there ~ay be so~ne mincr vnpacts on parking a.nd traf&c in the ~mmediate neighbor~ood. A naitigat~on measure for traffic impacts proposes the removal af peak hour parking on portfons of Wi~s~ure Boulevar~. This could induce patrons of nearby Wils~ue Boulevard businesses to seek par~ng on residenual side sueets. There will also be a shght ~ncrease in average daily traf~e vol~~m~s nn neazby residcnt~al streets due to the iucreased traffic genera~:on af the project. The pro~ect's prixnaxy visual unpact upon the neighborhaac~ would be the prominence of the proposed builc~in~ as viewed from nearby reszdential praperue5. The landscaped buffer zane adjacent to the alley, along with the setbacks at Ihe upper floors, would serve to soften the visual impact, and wou.Id also ~elp to a?-~~nimi~~ any loss of pn~acy far the imm~diate neighbors that may be caused by the he~ght o€ the prvpvse~ offtes buiir~~r+g. Mitagauon Measures 1Vi~tigation measures addressing construetion-related neighborhaod impacts ~nclude the follawing• Lane closures on side stree~s rather than Wilshire Boulevard, parking and storage of construction ~quipment, erection of barriers between construction site and pedestrian acu~-iues, ]im~tations on hours and days during which construction may take place, the control of no~se assaciated with canstruction eqlupment, temparary redirection of pedestrian traffic, and separauon of stockpilmg and velucle staging areas fram accupied dwellings. SCAQMD Rule 443, which ensures the clean-up of constn~ction-related dirt on approach routes to the site, wateri.ng techniques for dust particles, the appro~al of a construction impact mitigation plan prior to the start of demol~tion or construction activiti~s, provision of an interim parl~ng plan by the developer, sched»~~~?g procedures to accomadate t.~uck ua~c, notification of neighboring site awners and users of demolition and times of panicularly heaw construct~on tmpacts, and deve~oper responsibility for dust control. Level of Si~ficance ~er MitiQation Construction-related impacts a€fecting circulation, on-street parking noise, and a~x qualitv are not considered sigrnficant due to their shor#-term nature and tke availab~lity of mitigation measwres to reduce the potenual impacts to an ~ns~gnlficant leve~. The shadow ~rnpacu generate~ by the ereetion of a five-storv off~ce building are not consi~ered signaf~cant from a solar perspective, since neazby residences would only be affected by shadows tn t~e late afternoon hours dunng certain penod5 of the vear. A substannal c~nage in che ~~sual environrnent would result, as would impacts on the pri~acy of nearby res~dents. ~LTERti ATTVES Alternative :~To. 1 Th~s is the "ti'o-Project" scenano, wherein thc car rental agency, the car wash/auto dealer, and the 5ma11 auto repair shop would cantinue ta aperate as they da now, and no demalition ar construction would take place Qn the s~te. There would be no change in aesthetics, shadow, light or giare, no iinpact on wastewater consumpuan and generation, no d~splacement of eausting b~sinesses, and na new neighborhood effects. Alternative Nfl. 2 Alternative :~'o. 2 would be a 101,600 sq~are foot office buiiding, four stanes high, with a FAR of 2 5. There would be no car wash, retail shops, or medica!/dental services. The parktng garage wauld be siirular in size to thac of the proposed pro~ect. T'~ere would be an increase in shadow ~engihs, poss~bly reaching adjacent residenc~s dunng iate summer a.fternoans, but no significant ligttt and glare effects. Water consumption would be 5,690 gallons per day, and wastewater generat~on would be 5,121 gallons per day. In contrast with the prflposed pro~ect, no new car wash jabs would be created to offset those iast as a resuit of the displacement o£ existing on-site b~sinesses. Approximately 303 jabs would be added to the iocal employment base. Pa~ronag~ at local shogs, restaurants, and services wvuld increase as a result of the presence af a large number of new employees. Demand for local housing may increase. Neighborhood effects resulting from Alternative No. 2 wouid include the follow~ng; temporary, constntction-related disruption of on-street pazking and vehicular and pedestrian circulation; some loss of privacy to adjacent residential uses; minor shadow impacts; a su6stantial change in the visual environment; and a minor increase in local tra~c. The btiilding wouid reduce noise from Wilshire Boulevard for some residences, due to its bulk. Alternative ~Vq, ~ Altematrve No. 3 would invalve a 50,000 square foat, three-story, general office bu~lding (~.23 FAR), covering less than half the site azea. There would be no car wash, retai~ shops, ar medical/dental sernices. Parking wauld be accommodated by a smalier gazage. There would bE an insignificant change in the visual environment and no significant shadow or iight and glare effects. Water cansumption wou1~ be 2,800 gallons per day, and wastewater generation would be 2,520 gallons per da_r• ~o new caar wash ~obs would be created to offset those lost as a resuit of the displacement of the e~sting on-site businesses Alternative No 3 would add approaumatel~ 122 }abs to the local employment base There would be a slight increase in patronage at local shaps, restaurants, and serv~ces, and a possible Fncremental increase in demand for locai hausing. '~eighborhood effects resulting from Alterr~ative No. 3 include the fol~ow~zng• temporary, canstructF~n-reiated disruption of on-street paricing and vehicuIar and pedestnan circulation; a rtunor ~suai ~mpact on the neighborhoa~; and a slight potential loss of prrvacy to ad~acent residential uses. There w~ould be no significant shadow impacts. A~ternatrve Develpoment Sit~~ Alt~rn~ttive $ite 'A" Site "A" is lacated nonheast of the proposed project site, an the north side of Wilshire Boule~ard between 26th Street and Pnnceton Street, The surraunding neighborhood inciudes commercial uses or~ Wilshire Boulevard, multi-family apartment bu~ldings, and single-fanuly homes. The site is currently occupied by six businesses which appear ta be thriving. Develapment of this site wauld require the demolition of all the existing buildings and displacement of the existing businesses and their employees. The number of employees ur~lized by these hus2nesses is unknown. The businesses may be able to relocate ta other areas of Santa Morur.a. `Fhe shadaw patterns cast by the proposed structure wauld ~e different from those associated vv~th the original site, due to the fact that the alternative site is lacated on the opposite side of Wilshire BouIevard. Long shadows would be cast onto the mu1t~-famiiy residentaal neighborhoods to the north during the early morning hours. These fmpacts would be greatest durmg the winter solstice and wauld exceed thase associated with the proposed project. Alternative Site "A" would create similaz tnp generation calculations to the proposed site. Further s~te-speci€ic traffic studies would be necessary to evaluate the potenual impacts to the adjaceni intersections. On-sueet parking around Alternative Site "A" is fairly unrestricted. m tiv ° " Alternative Site "B" is located southwest of t~e propased site on the sauth side of Wi~sh~re Boulevard between lSt~ Street and 16th Street. The Santa Manica Hospital is located behind this alternati~e site, and single-family residences exist belund the commercial uses housed in one-story structures across Wilshire Boulevard frorn th~s site. Na addLuonal shadow impacts would occur to exist~ng resic~ential nezghborhoods ti~ne businesses e~st on ti~is sice. In the event of develop~neat, alI of these businesses would be demolished and w-ould be forced ta relocaEe '~Tanv of the ~usinesses are marg~nal and mav close their doors rather chan relocate. ~tternative Site "B" wouid creace sinular tnp ger~eration calcu~atians co the prapased site. Further site-specific traffic studies wauid ~e necessary to e~aluate the potential ~mpacts to the ad}acent intersections. Lamited metered, on-street parking ex~sts on the streets surrounding Alternati~e 5ite "B." Environmentally Sunenor Alternative The "Na-Praject" alternat~ve is environmentally superior to the other alternatrves, including the proposed pro~ect. In the event of the Na-Pro~ect altemative, there w~ould be no ~onstruction-related impacts, no increase in an-site traffic generations, and no negati~e change in the local vasual environment. On the ather hand, this alternative wauld fail to attain the basic ab~ective of the proponent, since it would yield no significant increase zn t~e mcome generating potential of the project site. Other than "No Pro~ect," Alternative No. 3 is the enviro~unentally superior alternative. It would generate the fewest trips since it contains no reta~l uses and is three stories in height, as opposed to the proposed pro~ect's five stories. As such, ~t wc~uld prnduce the most minar visual change and shortest shadow lengths L.ess water would be consumed, and less wastawater would be generated than in the cases of the other alternatives. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACT'S The proposed projert's potentiai for inducing grawth within the general v~cuuty of the City af Santa Moaica ~s >>m~ted. The proposed development would have a direct growth inducing impact on the iocal economy. The construction a£ the pro~ect would provide shart-term employment. On a long-term basis, the completed o~ce project would provide approximately 3$0 jobs, using a generation factor of 3.5 jobs per 1,040 square £eet of office space. The new car wash would employ s~ightly tess than 20 people. These new employees would prabably increase patronage at local shops and restaurants, but it is not anticipated that they would generate a significant increase in local housing demand. RS:mc 02885/04d4/065 plan~misc~mc2~misc36 -~ CQMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS CONCERNING THE DRAFI' SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE HSM GR~UP PROJECT AT 2320 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD (DR 474) APRIL 25, 1990 COMME~TTS ON DRAFT SEIR M ~ L~t~RE`CE ~ H~RD[~G 4 ~ - -=S ~ •- =- _ ~- _~ ~ ~a.r~5 a~ ~arr _ ' _-., -Ea W -ow~ ti„ ~~~~= n ~,HACti_C =~`.e'- ~ _'~~Ea ~=s-~ -_n3m== April 2, 1990 ~~'.1:. ~ e.AroE4 •Ei ti _Z~~ _' ~~_E-- a 5'"ra~. ~~=~`~AV _ =~iCE _ __"'3~- VIA MESSENGER Shar~, Laham Associate Planner Santa Mon~.ca Planning DivisYOn 1685 Ma~n Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, California 90401 Re: Draft Supplementa~ EIR No. 887 DR Nfl. $70 Site Address: 2320 Wilshire Blvd. Appllcant: HSM Group Our File No. 613.1 Dear Ms. Laham: 250 a x-- i'~g~~ _ .. 'E~3 ~ _ 3~~~0. .tC~ ~~ =d.~ r~a+~^a a~ ~. -~__ -~tiE 2'3 353- ~C- 'E_£= :P E~ -2'3' +?A 353 This law firia represents the HSM Graup with respect to their p~nding redeveZop~ent flf the Wi~sh~.re W~st Car Wash at 2320 Wilshire Bou~evard (AR No. 470). We are in receipt of the ~raft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ("Draft SEIR") dated February 1990, concerning this lang-pending project. The purpose of this letter is ta sub~it our written comments to the Draft SEIR pursuant to Public Resources Code Se~tion 21003.1(a). Please incarparate these comments into the Fina~ SEIR for this project. BACKGR~U3VD The develvpment review application for this project has been pending since April 22, 1988. In response to various neighb~rhood meetings and the °Final" Environmental Impact Report dated March 1989 ("FE~R") an this praject, the appl~cant has L~k~REticE & ~~R~[`G Y - a aliir_5~ .- !.~ ~~ ~ •' :h nT-~RNE"5 a..- .1~rr Ms . Laham Apri~ 2, 1990 Page 2 previously agreed to mitigate its original 6-story/118~640 square foot retail and o~fice pro~ect (which alsa included an unenc~osed car wash not counted against the f~oar area ratia ["FAR"] of 3.C permitted with site review), In connection with a package cf m~.tigation measures which it devised, HSM has offered among o~her things to e~iminate the proposed retail uses, to encZose the replacement car wash, to relocate from the rear alley to Wilshire Souievard the driveway access, to reduce the height af the new bui~ding ta fi.ve stories, ta provide substantially greater step backs (part~cularly with relation ta the residential properties to the south), and to reduce the square footage of the project to 1a8,980, which includes the fully-enclased car wash. On August 9, 1989, the Planning Camiaission at its th~rd public hearing on this project, directed Willdan Associates ~o prepaze a supple~aental environmentai analysis nf the project as mitigated. The decision to prepare an SEIR was made as a result of a potentiaiZy significant, but mitigable, adverse traffic impact projected for the intersection ~f W~lshir~ Boulevard/26th Street. In that cannection, the Planning Commi~sion, in unprecedented fashion, elicited detailed suggesticns from all interested members af the puk~lic as ta the scape of any additiana~ i.ssues and alternatives to be reevaluated in the SEIR. As a result, a comprehensive scapinq list far the SEIR was develeped and certified ,L~~+~E!~CE & I~~HDI~G ~ a a ,^,rE5~~~4a~ _.;a°^_4^"~v ~r-oar~EyS •' J4w Ms. Laham Apral 2, 1990 Page 3 by the Planning Comzaission at 1~s September 6, 1989 hearing. That list ~s reproduced within Appendix A of the Draft SEIR. GENERA.L COMMENTS HSM is pleased with the scope and tha findings and canclusions of tt~e Draft SEIR. The SEIR meticulously addresses all aspects of the scoping ~ist prepared by the Planninq Commission and znterested members of the public. It is ciear that no other pra~ect in Santa Monica of thzs size range has ever recezved such exhaustive environmer~tal scrutiny. As expected, the SEIR carefully cancZudes that there wi3.1 be na siqnifieant environ~ental impacts of the revised project that cannat be fully mitigated. In this regard, the SEIR appropriately finds that alZ five of the intersectians where the project might have a potentially significant impact will be fully mitigated by two measures which the City already anticipates perfarming. Those two mitiqation measures are as follows: (a} prohibiting parking along Wilshire Boulevard during peak periods as recommended in the City-wide tralfic study and (b) wideninq Claverfield Boulevard at the Interstate 10 on/off ramps in accardance with the street improvement measures a~ready funded by the Water Garden and Colorado Place projects. . L.~,1~`R E~ C E~r H~R D[~ G ~ , ~ ?G~-cS'~J C.Nt_ =..- _ •- ~Y A"~ P M E"$ 47 J~+M Ms. Laham Apr~l 2, 1990 Page 4 Addit~or.ally, it is important to note ~hat the dev~lopment of a 2.5 FAR a11-affice project~ -- perm~tted as a :natter of right by virtue af the date an which the applicatinn far nhich this pro~ect was deemed complete -- would have no projected significant adverse traffic impact at any intersectian prior to mitigation except in the morning peak perzad at the distant in~.ersection of Cloverfield Baulevard and the westbound Interstate 10 offramp. (See Table 1Z at page 57 af the Traffic and Circu3atzon Ana3ysis [Agp. B vf Draft SEIRj.) Fursuant to Land Use Elemen~ Po~icy Z.6.Z., which gaverns the development standards for this prolect by virtue of its vesting date, HSM has the right ta develop a 2.5 FAR building ~i.e, ~01,608 sguare feet) at this site. We therefore request that an additional table be established and added to the Traffic StudX in the Final SEIR shawing the ~ valume/capacity calculations for the Cumulative-Base-Plus- Alternative-l-With-~Mitigation Scenario. Th~,s new table sho~Id establish that the only projected traffic impact af the 2.5 FAR/all-affice pra~ect which HSM is entitled to construct will be ful~y mitiqated by the widening of Cloverfield Boulevard at the Interstate 1D on/off ramps. As noted above, those strset improvements have already been authorized by the City. ~ This project alternative is variously iisted as Alternative No. Z in 5ection 5.1 of the Draft SEIR and Alternative No. 1 at Table 11 0~ the Traffic Study. , ~L~kRE,CE ~c H~RDf~G ~ aa_:r~5 ~+~w~ =~~a~oi'C4 ATT:JRNE'~$ ~.T LA'N ~1S . Lc~;~13Ti1 Apr~l 2, 1990 Page 5 SPECIFIC COMMENTS As stated above, HSM is pleased with the scope and the findings and concZusions presented in the 17raft SEIR. We provi~e th2 foll.owing comments onZy to improve the thoroughly adequate document. For your convenience, our partic~lar camments are organized by reference to the section numbers and headings utilized in the Draft SEIR. Our camments are as follaws: ~.b E~acutive Summary The figuzes at the top of page 2 do nat match with the Z data contained in Table 5 on page 32 of the ~raft SEIR. The reference to the Architectural Review Board in the m~ddZe calumn at the bottom of page 3 of the Draft SEIR shou].d be clarified. Site review of the propased project wi~l be provided 3 by the Plannina Commissian; architectu~al review will be performed by the Architectural Review Board. Pis noted at page 75 of the Draft SEIR, a new state-of- the-art car wash facility is proposed far tha site. This new facility, which wil~ feature a hand-wash ~peration, will include 4 a partial water reclamation system such as the Hanna Model 50. In addition, the reduced size of the facility wi11 reduce its cust~mer capacity. As a res~lt of these factors of partia~ water , . L_~~yRE~~CE ~c H.~Df ~ G w a _-_~$ .:~V4_ __- =4A" :Y A".^i 4 V E~r S AT ~_?~V4 Ms. Laham Aprll 2, 2990 Page 6 reclamat~on ar~d reducad customer capacity, development of ~~e prcposed pra~ect wiil result in a net decrease of water usage at the site 3~y at least I,07~ gallons per day and a corresponding zet decrease of wastawater gena~atian at the site by at least 964 4 c~allans per day. Therefora, HSM need nat participate in any City- sponsored retrofitting program for existing occupancies to achieve zero ne~ flow. The reference to participation in that program is unnecessary and should accordingly be deleted from paqe 5 of the Draft SEIR. The reference to Yale Straet in the middle of page 6 of `" ' 5 the Draft SEIR should be carrected to Twenty-Third or Twenty-Fourth Straets. 3<3 Proiect DescriDtsan The ~ast two n~~mbers in the notatian af the square footage which will be contained in the praposed praject have been transposed at page 8 of the Draft SEIR. The correct number is 108,9~ square feet. It should be noted that this calculatian S includes all areas af the fuZly enclased car wash, whereas the original proposal of isa,64a square feet correctly did not include any axposed areas of the replacement car wash facility. ~ ~Lak~REtiCE ~ HaEDf!~G ~ ~4.^.fe55 _NA. ~~~~~Sa' Gr. •"ORNE~S w* ~w Ms. Laham April 2, 1990 Page 7 4.1.2 Traff~c Analvsis The Draft SEIR assumes at page 26 that the vehicle trips generated by the existing and propased car wash faciiities will be equal. However, the proposed new car wash will ba a smaller facility rasulting in lower customer capacity than the existing T facil~ty. Therefore, the assumptian regarding the szmilaxity of trip generatzon is canservative. ~ The chart showing vehicle trips for the proposed praject at the top of page 31 is incflnsistent with the data presented at Table 5 on page 32 of the Draft SEIR. 4.1.3 Mitiaation Measures For Traffic Analvsis At page 38 the Draft SEIR refers te the City-wzde tra£fic study and the future widening of Cloverfield Boulevard funded by the Water Garden and Celorada Place projects. The draft City-Wide study shauld be incorporated by reference into the Final SEIR. 8 Additianally, the certified FEIRs and the executed deve3opment ~_,. . agreements for Water Garden and Colcrado Place should also be incorporated by reference ta the Final SEIR. The data provided at Table 8 on page 40 of the Draft SEIR ' 9 is inconsistent with the data contained in Table 7 at page 36. . .~.a~r~E~CE & H~BD[tiC A ~50«551~]4aL :~iP_qa~ vY .4~'ORME"5 A~ I_KW ~s. Laham Ap~zl 2, 199Q Fage $ 5.3 A~ternatives The calculati~ns of vehicle trip generation and required parking for the pra~ect a~ternatives should be inserted at Tab~e 10 12 of the Draft SEIR an page 88, 5.2.3 Env~ronmentallv Suneri~r Alternative The Draft SEIR conc~udes that the '~no-proJec~.~~l a~ternative (Alternat~ve No. 1) is the "environmen~aily superior" alternative, However, it is our contention that the 1~1,6~0 square fvot/all-office building {Alternative Na. 2) is the "environmenta~.ly superior" alternative. RepZacement of the existing car wash, auta repair shap and Budget ren~al car operation with an office building would result in an eliminatian of variaus neighbarhood impacts. Far example, elim;ination of the existing car wash operation with its ~i aut-dated machinery will reduce noise impacts on adjacent resident~. Elimination of the autc repair shop would e~iminate the risk ot the potential inadvertent escape of toxic ar hazardous automot~vs ~ue~s and ],ubrican~s. Elimination of the existinq car wash, auto repair and car rental uses at the site is likely to reduce activity at the location during weekends when nearby residents are mvst likely to be at home. Elimination cf the out- moded car wash facility wil~ result in impartant savings of current L:~`n~R~~CE ~ H ~Df~ G ~ • P4~'iS~ ~V~~ _._~P~nw` ~ A'~C~~.ErS .aY :.:tw 'ris . Laham ~pril 2, 1990 Page 9 sig;~~ficant water usage and wastewater generatzon. Reduct~on cf ~ater-usage and wastewate~ c~eneration is important due ta the ?i:n~ted availabili~y of water resaurces and the current deman3s on the Hyperion wastewater treatment facility. 3mpiementatzon of Alternative Na. 2 wi~l result in an ~~ increase of a wide range of employment oppartunities better than the maintenance of the status quo under Alternative No. 1. In addition, redevelopment of the site wi11 improve the a~sthetic characteristics af the site as it gresently exists. Furthertaore, as can be seen from Tabl,e 12 on page 57 af the Traffic Analysis contained at Appandix B af the Dra~t SEIR, aperation of a 1~1,608 square faot office buildinqz at the si~e ~ ~ would have a potentiaily significant traffic i~npact without mitigation only at the distant intersection of Cloverfield Boulevard and the Interstate 10 off-ramp durinq the morninq geak period. It is our can~ention that this single potential traffic impact1 will be ful].y mitigated by campletion of the street impravements already beinq pursued by the City Qf Santa Monica at that location. Even the 50,004 square foot office building alternative (Alternative No. 3} proposed by some interested parties Z As noted above, the Draft SEIR d~signates the 101~608 office building as Alternative No. 2, while the Tragfic Analysis designates this same sized building as Alternative No. l. ~.:~w`~E~CE ~ H.~D[~G • er.:.=ES_iGYw~ _; -Ca- :~ R'-~atiE~s 4r ~.a.w Ms. Laham Ap~~1 2, I990 Page i0 would potentially have a more immed+ate traffic i~pact on the c~rculatian system.3 Appendix B/Traffzc and Circulatzvn I:~pact Analysis An exhaustive list of eleven intersectiar-s were identified for study in the SEIR. New tra~f~c counts were taken on weekdays last November to document existing conditions at those eleven intersecti~ns. To calcu~ate the Cumulative Base Conditions, the City's most current Cumulative Develapment Projects List dated october 16, I989 was utiZized. That iist contained 68 projects, some of which have been approved or are under canstruction, but several of which have been denied or scaled back and many of which not yet been reviewed and may not be cQnstructed. In addition to this comprehensiye Cumu~ative Deve~opment Projects List, a growth factor af 1.5 percent per year was added to the Existing Conditians to insure an extzeme~y conservative projection of the Cumulative ~ Base Conditions. Table 6 at paqe 34 of the Traf~ic study (and Table 5 at page 32 of the Draft SEIA) fails to provide any credit for the nacessary el.imination of the auto repair shap and Budget 3 Table 12 at page 57 of Appendix B in the Draft SEIR indicates that a 50,o0a square faat office buildinq would have a potential~y siqr~ificant impact at the ad~acent intersection of Wi~shire Bou~evarc3/Twenty-Thiz~d Street with~ut mitigatian. The 50,00o square faot office building is designated Alternative No. 3 in the Draft SEIR at page 87 and Alternative No. 2 at page 55 of the Traffic Ana~ysis. , ~L~~:RE~CE & H:~Df~G a P9Ccr5~ii=-iA~ =~AO^9i":V .ATrOF1NEY5 A~ ~AiV Ms. Laham Apr~l 2, 1990 Page 11 ~ental car facil~ty exist~ng at the pro~ect site. Thus, w~thout ~.his discount, the pro~ected trip generatian for the proposed pro~ect is also an extremely conservative estimate. ~ven given the extremely canservative nature of t.'~is ~'~3 ~raffic analysis, the SEIR properly canclt~d~s that all po~ential~y s~gnificant adverse traffic impacts of the praject may be fully , mitigated by implementatian of the two street improvement measures discussed above. HSM notes that the data in Tab3e 9 at page 42 af the Traffic Study is inconsistent with the data coritained in Table 8 14 . at page 39 of the Traffic Study. HSM wishes to highlight the fact that the mitigatiari measuzes necessar~ to improve proj~cted Cumulative Sase Condi.tions to a level of service of "D" or better are not Iegally the responsibility af the daveloper, as nated at page 43 of the Traffic study, and may nat be imposed as condit~ons to project approval, 15 The applicant also wishes to emphasize that any retai~ uses at th~s site, which the appiicant has agreed t~ delete from the proposad project, wauld result in much greatsr traffic generation than the proposed project. (See paqe 54 of Traffic ~ Study.) The address qiven for EIR Na. 883 at the tap of page 58 - ~ ~s af the Traffic Study is mistaken. The carrect address is Z932, . •L.~~BE`CE ~ n~kaf~~ . ao~-~55 =~.. =-- __.- - wr70arEY5 a- ~.~ Ms. Laham Apr~l 2, 1990 Page 12 not i832. ('FY~~e pra~ect address has since been changed to 192C~ ~6 Santa Monica 3oulevard.) Fina~ly, for purposes of c~arification, the gnrase "before mitigation" should be added after the word "impact" in the first sentence at the top of page S9. A fznal sentence at the bottam of page 59 should be added to state the fa~lawing ~ conclusion: "Zmplementation of the mitigation measures to prohibit parking during peak ho~rs on both sides of Wilshi~e Bonlevard and to widen Clove~field Boulevard at the Int~rstate l0 underpass wiil eliminate all potentially siqnificant impacts atherwise projected far the groposed pra7ect." Please da not hesitate to contact me should yau have any questions cancerning thase comments. very truly yours, ~ . ~ Kenneth L. Kutcher for LAWRENCE & HARDING a Professional Corporation CUC/ i k:ICIC38-P2f.613 cc: Lew Halpert John Montanarv David Hibbert Jack Greenspan Paul Berlant D. Kenyon Webster Ran Fuchiwaki Laurie Lieberman SAVE OUR NEIGHEDRHOOD ~OMMIT~EE 1237 22nd Street, No. 3 Santa Monica, Califarnia 90404 A~,ril 2, ~9y0 ~?n_'+~ '~E=I'i ~RE~ City Plann~ng D~.vzsion io85 Main St~eet, Rm. 212 Santa Mor-~ca, CA 9~7401-3295 Attent~on: Shari Laham Re: Draft Supple:r.ental ~~T~lshire Boulevard Ervironmental Imbac~ Report, 2320 Bear Ms . Laha:i: The foll.owing con~-ents regardinq t.e above-entit3.ed draft SEIR are submitted in accordance with CEQA. For conven~er.ce, we have grouped such com~~nents under appropriate subheadings. I . General Cor,:ments . We do not believe that the cons~ant cross-references to the anitial EIR contained in the SEIR are appropriate. It is our understanding that the intent of C£QA is to insure that the public ~ ultimately wi1~. have a~ailabl.e all necessary irt~'ormation fln a pro~ect in one comprehensive docu~nent. Therefare, ail such cross- references should be ~limina~ed and al~ such information should be incorpozated into the final SEIR. ~I. Traffic. The most striking thing about the draft SEIR is its inherent and substantial incons~stencies: Not only is it interna~ly incansistent, but it also is ma~erial~y inconsistent with the 2 initlal EIR done for this pro~ect and with other EIRs recently prepared for groposed projects in the sa:~e area, inclu~ing some done by the same censultant. Typical of the internal inc~nsistencies in the draft SEIR is a cflmparison of Tables 7 and S. Table 7 purparts to show the cumulative base valume/capacity calculations far cezta~.n intersections impacted by ~he praposed project. Table 8 purparts 3 to show thQSe same figures after mitigation. In Table 7, the "cumulative base plus project" figure for the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and 26th Streets is lis~ed at .85 in the AM peak period and at 1.01 in the PM peak hour period. Yet~ in Table 8 the 1 c~ty F! ar.^,ng ~~v~s~or. ~Nri~ 2, '9y~ ?aye 2 sa^e flqures a±~ 1~s~e~: ;be~or~ :~i~~:,avz~rj at .95 ~:~ tre i~:~ Fe~k~3 ~~r~cd and 1.35 i:~ C`:e ~M pea;s per~od. T`~es~ su~sta:~tiai ~:is~re~a_^.cies are repea~ed for r.u~:e=~us ctrer ~r.t~rsect~cns, s:^~e ~f :~n~ ::: ar~ ~~er.~~~~ed ~~1~:~. '~;~e c~nsul~a::t sZOU~~~ ~e re~s~re~ ~o expla~r. suc'.^. s~g:~~~ican4 errcrs ~n tre =~:,ai SEI~ and ~ust~~y ~hy, iZ v~e~ at sscn i~ac~;~~ac~es, a::y c~edence at all s:~culd ~e given to any of _ts Lraffic calc~.:~aticns and ava3uaticns. ~+e wz~~ re~ei of~en zn these cc;;:~er.~s t~ t~:e c3raft EIR recenC.~y prepared for tY:e pr~pcsed pro~ect aL 22z1 w~lshire Boulevar~ (hereinafter t~e "uadam ~~i~s's ET_R") . ~de ~elie~e that EIR is af particuiar sigr~if~*cance far th~ee cc:^peZlirag reasans: (1) The propasad pro~ect is lacated less than 59 yards ~rom this proposed pro~ect. (2) ~r.e af the a~tewna;.ive sites considered in the Madame Wu's EIR for that pro~ect ;~as the car wash site. Thus, that repart gives a direc~ camparison to the impact of a stibstantially smaller pro~ect (approximately 60,004 square feet) on the same site. (3) The repart was co:~pleted anly one month prior to this draft SEIR. Thus, the figures in the Madam Wu's EIR are equally current. The project proposed at 2221 Wi].shire Boulevard is a 3-story, 61,650 square foot mix~d retazl/office complex. Thus, it is twa storaes s~aalZer than the subject project and artly 56~ as large. Yet, the Madar~e Wu's EIR concludQd that the cumuiative traffic gen~rated at all 14 intersections studied would be at LOS E or F c€uring PM peak. Thus, it decLared '~even w~th mitigation, cumulative growth would cause sign~ficant congestion and gridlack at PM peak." Consequently, the Madame Wu's EIR concluded, ~hat project cauld not be buiit without issc~ance af a"statement af overridinq considerations~~ under Section 15~93 af CEQA. We belie~e that the final SEIR herein shou~.d be revised to inc~ude that same conclusion. SEIR. We turn now to specific interse~tions considered in the draft A. Santa Mortica 81vc~. and 23rd Street. 4 The Madame W~'s EIR also concluded that that proposed groject wouid have a substantial impact on traffic at three intersections, 5 including Santa Monica B~vd. and 23rd Street. If the lacation of that project were chanqed to the car wash site, the report 2 City Planning Divis~cn ~pz~l 2, 1590 Page 3 c~r.cluded, t~at i~~act wcLl~ be ~Ze sa~e. Yet, ln t:e d~a~t SE,~, t~e consultant cozc~udes ~ha~ ~here wculd be no si~nificant increase in traffic from ~~e gr~~csz3 ~rojec~ at Santa Mor.~ ca Blvd. and 23r~ S~~eet desp~te t:7e fac4 4:at this ~ ro~ec~ ~rou?d be a~:~:sC r, do;~ble t~~e s~ze c~ the ~?ada~^e wu's ~rv~ect. Addi~ienally~ the SEIR ccntains no proposed mit~~at~en ::easures f~r t:~at intersectior. despite ~~:e ~act that Tab~e 7 of ':e S~T_R projects . 07 A,~M ~eak and .~Q~ PM peak increases fram praject-generated traf~ic. Tre ccns~a~tant should ~e require~ ~o tully exp~ain t:~ese ma~c~ inc~nsistencies. Mareover, the ~raft SEIR's ana~ysis of that intersection is a~so materiaZly incansistent ~rith the ini~ia2 EIR. That EIR concluded that the cumulative ~asz tor that Zntersectian (without the project} would be .74 L05 at AM peak and .9z LOS at PM peak. 6 The Mada:~e Wu's EIR is relatzvely cansistent with the initial EIR for th3s praject, with cumulative basa fiqures of .77 AM peak and .95 PM peak. Yet~ the draf~ 5£IR~ Wlthqu~. explanation, has significantly reduced those numbers ta .60 AM peak and .73 PM peak. This inconsistency also must be explazned. Additionally, in the initial EIR ~.he pro~ected increasad ~.raffic for this intersection generated by the pro~ect was .08 AM peak and .18 PM peak. In the draft SEIR those projections have been reduced to .07 AM peak and .09 PM peak. Whzle the slight reduction in proposed project size might expiain the .Ql reduction in AM peak, i~ does not possibly explain the unexpla~ned .09 projected reduction (a 50~ drop) zn pro~ected PM peak traffic generated. B. Wilshzre Blvd, and 26th Street. As pointed Qut earl~er, the draft SEIR is materially interna~~y inconsistent in its analysis of this intersection. It also is inconsistent with the ~nitial EIR and with numerous othez recent EIRs examining tha~ same intersection, inciuding some dane by the same consultant. In the initial EIR, the c~mu~ative base for that intersectian was .94 Airi peak and 1.32 PM peak. In the SEIR, as we have noted aba~re, incansis~ent numbers are listed f~r those figures. In the Madame Wu's EIR, ~he cumu~ative base numbers ~or that 7 intersection ar~ 1.02 AM peak and 1.39 PM peak. In an E~R prepared by Wildan Associates faz 2904 Wilshire Blvd. last vear, the cumuiative base numbers far that intersection were 1.22 and 1.65. Again, the consu].tant shouZd be required tv exp~ain and ~ustify these material differences from its current projections. 3 CZty P~ann~r.g DzvZSacn April 2, '_99Q Fage 4 'rie also believe t~e d~sc~ssion of thp ~roFcsed m1t_~a~1cr, measure for this i~tprsec~ior. to ~e tc~a'_~y i„ade~ua~e. F~rst, the proposal f~r a ~h~r~ r•~sn hour throuc~-lane cn Wilshire Blvd. fro~ ~50 feet west of 23r~ S4reQt to 1~0 feet east $ of Yale Street is totally unaccept~~le to tae neig:^.~arhocd. Seccnd, the draft SEIR fails to analyze ho°~ that ~easure waulu zmpact other intersec4zor.s. We all a~e fam~l~ar wit~ the trafflc ~a~s genera~ed by a reduc~ion fro~ trree lanes to t~o. Tr,us, i~ 9 can be antzczpated that the purported ~itigation measure will have significant adverse impacts on the int~rsections directly east and west of the widened area. Yet, the SEI~ fa~ls ta ana~yze tr.e ~~pacts upon, for example, Wilshire and Centine~a and Wilshire and 24th. Third, the S~IR fails to analyze the lost r~venues to the city from the parking which would l~e eli~inated. The report calculates that 4i garking meters wou~d be eliminated. Loss of those meters 10 would result in a significant lcss in revenues ~o the City (as much as $504,000 over a 30-year perivd, based upan ex~sting meter rates). Fourth, the SEIR fails tp analyze the effect of that propose~. mitigat~on measure on exzst~ng businesses a~ong Wiishire Boulevard. Most af thase businesses do not have their own parking, and many of thera are "impulse" stores which rely heavily on drive-by trade. 17 The 1055 of parking could have a substantial adverse ~mpact upan those merchants and, consequently, result in lost sales tax proceeds for the City. Fifth, the SEIR fails ta anal.yze the effect ~f such Zast parking along wilsha.re vn the surrounding, already overcrawded ~2 residential streets, which wi~l be the only potential rema~ning parkzng locations far many of those stores. Sixth, the SEIR fails ta explain how the proposed mitigation ~easure fits the "pedestrian - oriented" scheme for Wilshire B2vd. contained in LUCE. The third ~hrough-lane would eliminate the existing buffer zone between pedestrians and traffic and would make .t3 Wilshire dec~dedly less "pedestrian-friendiy." In s~~m~ary, we be].ieve that the proposed mitigation measure itsel€ requires a new E~R before it can be relie~ upon. 4 C~ty Plannir.q ~iv~sz~n ~ax~l ~, ~99G Page 5 C. Wi~sh~~e B~vd. an~ ~3rd S*~~~~. Agazr, tY:e SE~~ ~s ir~~ea^a_ly _^~co:-:s~ s~ent. I:~ Taple 7, tre c~smulat~v~ ~ase far this ~ntersec~~or: is 1_s~ed at .6~ A:4 oeak ar.~ .87 P:~I ~ea~, ~rh~reas in Tab~e 8~::ose n~::^b~rs are .52 ~.`~1 pea;c ar.d .84 PM pe3;t. Moreaver, in Ta~ale 7, t!:e V/C increase p~~~ectad to be qenerated by t:~e p~o~ect is .17 AM peak and .04 P~I ~eak; ir. Table 8, those t1um3~ers aze reduced (without explana~~on) to .03 A'~ p~ak an~ .07 P*i peak. Maraover, a~l of those projecticns are S1c~ri1f1C3?~Lly Zower than thcse conta~:~ed in the Madame wu~s EI~, xhich snows a cu:lulat~ve base of .75 ~,;~I peak and 1.10 PM peak fcr 14 that intersec~lqn. Add~.tionally, we da nct ~eliev~ t:~at the SEIR der~onstrates that the propased r~itigation ~easure would adeqnately r~itigate traffic at this intersectian. while, arguably, the widenirg of Wilshire Boulevard to tY~ree lanes might slightly improve traffic flaw on Wilshire and nake it easier far cars to turn on~o 23rd Street, that would, if anything, inc~ease ccngestian on that narraw r~sidentia~ street, which already constitutes the main route for cars heading south toward the free*~aay. This issue must be addressed. . D. Cloverfield BouZevard and Santa Monica Baulevard. Again, the SEIR offers no expZanatzon far its dramatic calculated decrease in the eumulative base LOS at this intersection. in the initial EIR, the cumulative base was •84 AM 15 geak and 1.09 PM peak and the project was anticipated ta increase those nur.ibers by .OS AM and .09 PM. In the d~aft SEIR, the cumulative base is reduced, withaut explanati~n, to ,73 AM }aeak and .34 PM peak, while the praject impact is against reduced, without explanation, to .04 AM peak and .05 PM peak. In the Madame Wu's EIR, the cumulative base for that same ~ntersection is .92 AM peak and 1.21 PM peak. The consultant ~s should be required to adequate~y explain a~.l af these material discrepancies and inconsistencies. The mitigation measure propased for this intersection (and other affected intersections along Cloverfield Blvd.) is the widening of Cloverfield Bou~evard. Hawaver, ths SEiR's discussion of that proposaZ mitigation measure is material3y incamp~ete. First, the SEIR again fails ta address the questian of whether the Z7 widening of Cloverfield Baulevard wauld, of ~tse~f, require an EYR. second, it fails ta consider any potential secondary impacts o~' that wic3ening. Third, it fai~s to dascuss the legal reqtairements necessary for such widening to occur, in~luding potential 5 City Planning Divis~an April 2, 1990 Page 6 condemnation proceedings. r~u~~h~ i~ fails to analyze t~e cost o~ such w~dening or cans~der t~e ~espor:s~~~~~ty fLr such an ex~er:se. 17 `~e believe that the public has a rigat ~o all of this informaticn in the firal S~IR. E. Tri~ Ger.eraticn Calculat~ons. The SEIR has failed to include nu~erous pending projects in ~18 its de~er~ination o~ ~ro~~cted Los. Ar,~or,g the pro~ects Zacated in the City in the immediate area of the proposed project which were not included are the follvwing: 837 15th Street; 8S5 15th Street; 104b 18th Street; 1422 19th Street; 1435 20th S~reet; 1Z17 24th Stree~; 1248 24th Street; I447 24th Street; I1~3 25th Street; 1129 Z5th Street; I139 25th Street; 1259 Z5th Street; 1140 26th S~reet; 1404 Claverfie~d/2311 Schradar; 1220 Yale Street; 28II Arizona Ave.; and 2818 Arizona Ave. 6 City Planning ~iv~sior. Ap~~l 2, 1990 Page 7 A~d~tia~all*, the S~~R ~aile~ ~o ir.c'_u~e pro;ec~s laca~ed ~^~19 Lcs Ar,geles •~hicz wi~l impac~ tne retrizryed ;r.~ersections in Sanra Monica. Ta preter.d that t~af~ic ~~ene~ate3 ~y crojec~s d~rec~iy~ across tY:e ~order i:. ~~5 Anr,e~.es w~ll r.oL ~:rFac~ ;.::ese ir~tersect~ons ~s to er.gage i:~ a fantasy. At~ached nereto is a list of the L•os ~ngeies pra~ects ir.ciuded i:~ the ~Ia~ame Tryu's E~R, ai~ of ~:~ich shauld have baen inc~uded i.z t:ze SEIR. F. Miscellar.eous. (1) We ~elieve that the trer;endous inconsi5tencies in t~e S~IR, same of which are discussed abave, mandates that all raw 2 p traffic data on which the consu~tant relied be included in'~~e final report. No other means wi11 give the public an adequate oppartunity to analyae the conclusior.s reached. (2} We alsa believe that tre SEIR wholly inadsquately deals with the cam~arative traffic ~mpacts of ~.he a~ternatives which the consultant was directed to conszder. The consultant treated the 21 alternat~ves as an afterthought; we believe that in the fznal SEIR the alternatives should be discussed as thoraughly as the develogez's propasal. {3) We further be~ieve that the SEIR's analysis of the potential safety hazard far students at McKinley School ~s whol~y inadequate~ explored. In view of her pas~ favorabie comments ~ regarding he proposed project and the developer, it clearly was 2~ inadequate for the SEIR to base a conciusion that the project pases no safety risk to students solely on an interview with the prznczpaZ. At the last hearing, we identified per~ons associated with the school who had expressed concerns about sa~ety. The cansultant shouid be required to cantact them and fairly assess such risks in the SEIR. (4) The draft SEIR does not adequately tie-in to the recent citywide traf~ic analysis in order ta determine to what extent the 23 proposed mitigation measures are either cansistent or ~nconsistant wi~h the recQmm~ndations ~.herein. (5} We again wish to s~ress our objection to a praject receiving credit for mitiga~ion measures which do not reduce traffic generated by that project, but simply reduce traffic flnw 24 in genera3.. We believe that for any intersection not operating at an acceptable LOS, ~nly mitigation measures Which reduce traffic generated bv the tiroiect should be considered. 7 Gity Planni~g Div~s~cn April 2, i990 Page 8 (5) ~~e S~;R faiis ~o a~equ~~elr ~~nsz~~r i~pac~s upon ~~e ^eiga~crr,ood i~ prcpcsed ~r,it,qa~icn -~~_ares e~~^er aren't aF~;ove~ or aren't suc~essful. In par~~cala~ ,~:':e iss::e cf neig~.bc~~ocd Z~j sgil~ frcm traf~~~ una~l~ ~o ut~lzze ~vilsa~ie Bculeva~d ~ecause o~ gridl~ck co:,d~~ions betNe~n 2ot~ St_eet a;~d 26th S~re~t is no:. adequately addressed. (7} We fail to comprehend ho~ Lhe SEIR ean car.c~ude, as it does, ~hat a 4-to 5-stary, 100,000 square foot office buildir.g w3thout a car wash (Alternative Z) wou3d subs~antza~Zy impact only ~ s Cloverfield Boulevard and the Freeway, ~ut a 3-story, 50, fl00 square foot office building without a car wash (Alternative 2) waul~ substarttially impact Wi~shire Boulevard and 23r3 Stree* (when a bu~Iding twice that size wou~d not.) III. P~'o~ect Size. The SEIR material~y mischaracterizes the descrip~~on of the "Wilsh~re Corridor" by referring to it as a"mi.xture of one-and two-story retail buiZdings and four-tp-six-story office buildings". 3n fact, in the entira 18-b].ack area along Wiishire between Lincoln 27 Soulevard and 2bth Street, there are only four structures which exceed three stories and less than six additional structures which are thrae stories high, In that area, Wilshire Baulevar3 zs overwhelmingiy (av~r 90%) made up of one-and two-stQry buildings. This mischaracteri2ation shau~d be carrected. The conclusion that the propased building is "basically 2~ compatible" with the commercia~ deve~opmen~ pattern aiong Wilshire Boulevard is a~so erroneaus. A far mare accurate presentation is cvntained in the Madame Wu's EIR. That EIR acknowledges that the "commercial huild~ngs are mostly ane-~o two-stories, but occasi.ona~ ~aidrises.., are alsa present." That EIR further nntes that its propased three-story Z 9 building would be substantiai~y larger than any buildings in the immediate vicinity, and concludes that a two-story buil.ding would be "more similar to that af tha current surrounding ~and use." That EIR aiso n~tes that reduced size wauld resu3t in less shadowing ~E adjacent residences. IV, A~sthetlcs. Shadows and Wind Patterns. The Land Use Element provides far a pedestrian-or~ented scale to be maintained along Wilshire. The SEIR fails to adequately address the issue of how a 55' high wa11 next to a sidewalk 3 0 passibly car~ be considered pedestrian-friendly. Because the Land Use E~ement requires such pedestrian-oriented features as street 8 Ci~y Plann~ng ~ivis~~r. April 2, 1590 Page 9 fuzniture. arcades, paseos ar.: a-~n~::gs, a cor~rehezsive st~~~y c~~ ~:~e pre;ect"s propcsed c~urtyard ~a~u~d :e ~ncluded ~n t~:e 5~~~ tc 3Q assess its feasibility ar:d ces~~a~,~l~t~ as c~en s_ ace. T:~at analys~s s::oa_3 ir.cl~~de, ~~.:~ r.o~ ~e 1~::~`e3 to, sza~uw s~::.d~.es, ad;acen~ uses, furnisrings, ~ancs~ap~ng an3 .~~nd pattzrns. The draft SEIR fails ta acequa~ely exa:~ir,e t; e im~acc of shadow patterns from tae prapased pro;ect on both ccmmercial and residential properties ncrth of tne s~te. The si~a~ows w~ll directl.y ampact bath the florist shcp acr;ss t~:e street (by reducing light for plants) and the aelicatessen (by makzng sidewalk 31 dining less attractive). Those effects can be mit~gatQd by reduczng ~ro~ect size ar~d massz~g, but that sub~ect is not adequately explored in t:~e SEIR. Further cons~deratian also is rerluired reqarding how ~any c~ays each year those shadow w~~l adversely affect neigh~orir.g properties. The SEIR fails ta include any discussion af wind patterns. The proposed heigr.t and configuration of the pro~ect will al~ost 3 2 certainly affect wind patterns in th~ area, and this impact must l~e exar~ined an evaZuated. Natural light should be introdc~ced in ta the parking garage to ~sake it mare appealzng and reduce ths actua~ or perceived danger ~0 33 potent~ial users. Studies at UCLA have shown that such a design featuze can have a szgnifzcant effect on use of subterranean garages. The SEIR alsa fails ta discuss the fact that the propased drzveway throat will only accammadated a maximum of 5 automcbi~es, thus causing backups onto Wilshire during peak periods. Although an attempt has been made at stepped-back terxaces, they dre fax too small to be utilized or to be perceptibl.e from the street. Thus, they will not achieve the proposed effect of $ 4 mitigating the perceived mass af the building. Greater setbacks, with continuous terracing af no less than 12 feet Qn all sides af the buildinq shauld be recommended in the final SEIR. No discussion is given to the si2e of the mechanical ~ penthouses, which are much larger than necessary, and clear~y are 3 5 designed for £uture conversiar~ to usable space. V. Water and SewaQe Service. A far more co~prehensive analysis of the praposed Hanna reciamatian system is required in the SEIR. Included amanq the 3fi areas which should be examined are restrictions imposed by the 9 City Pla~nin~ b~•r~sion ApriZ 2, 1990 Page 10 Ccunty Health Depar~:~ent. ."r. Carlos R~vera cf that age, c_~ has adv~sed us that ex; er~ence ~r~th t^e grcnosed sys~em zz Las Virge::es and cther areas has revealed t:a~ t`~e s~ell and h~r~ness o£ the reclaimed water -akes it i ess 4::an des~rab' e for car ~,~ash use a::d 36 even less de~irable for u~e in a faun~ain. A far more r~:~orce~s examznation of tYtis sub~ec:. is ca~ _ed f~r. Aca~tzcr:a? ~y, t:.e SyIR should be raquired to assess the water ar~3 sewa~e ~.r~pacts without reclamation and determine if such adveise impacts can ~e adequately mitiga~.ed. VI. Business Displacement. The SEIR faz~s to assess the effect af ~he proposed pro~ect on ex3stzng small, neighborhood-oriented bus2nesses in the area which are largely dependent upon stree~ tra~fic and which would be 3 7 adv~rsely i:~pacted by ~he propased ?oss of pazking. The loss of such busznesses a~so would adversEly impact the neighborhood thraugh the loss of essential neigh3~orhood services. VII. Construction-R~lated Impacts. The acoustical impacts during canstruction are totaliy unacceptable. We nate that the Madame Wu's EIR concluded that the adverse i~ppact of proposed noise levels of 96dS would requize a statement of overxidir-g considerations under CEQA befare that project could be approved. The SEIR, however, fails to adequately 3 g address that issue. Sc~enti.fic StliC31.Q5 hdve determzned that exposure to such noise leve].s for even short periods of ti~e can cause permanent damage to hearing. A more tharough acoustical evaZuatian using CNEL and considering decibeZ combinatian and reflection shou~d be undertaken. Tie backs and pile driving c~uring construction also mus~ be carefully considered since many of the structures adjacent to the project were bui~t prior to code requirements to tie buildings to 3 9 their faundatians. Any earth mavement ccu~d put such structuras in a precarious situatian. Whi1e the SEIR discusses shuttling construction workers to the140 site from other }.ocatians, those lacatians are naC desiqnated. ~ VIII. Housina. At present, the Westside is conservatively at least 7~ behind SCAG's projected hausing requirements. The recen~ cztywide study indicates that the jobs/housinq rati.a in Santa Monic~ is even 4 i worse. The proposed project wauld further adversely impact upon that ratio, but that impact is not considered in the SEIR. We 10 City Plann~ng ~ivision Apr~i 2, 1990 Page 21 aga~n note that the Ma~a:-:e kuts E~R weter~~ned t:~at ~~ wculd create a demand ~or at least 8 adui~i~r.al hous~r.g units. This substanCia31~ larger pr~ject T.~cu13 clear?y c;e~4e even ^^ore o~ a demand. Ij , ,~ti~__,_ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ _- ' . ~ , MICI~AEL BROliRMAN . i ^ A ~ ~ ~~ ~.~f~( ~Vti-~w ~~-- P~TER SCSLOMON~ ~ ' ~ -~Yf f'"~' ~ . - ~ - 9iL~~~' S~l.~ossCr c:\wp\mb\son.ltr ~ ~ , ,,,,, ~i J~w'~' n~...~-, ~. ; t~~.~, ~~y~~~'~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~s- z3~ S~ ~ _ ~ ~riT~/~')~ _ ,Sp6 ,! an~ ~ ~P.~{~ i S.e.~/~iwr~. f.~~hr~ Z 30/ l•/.~J/firr ~ ~'er,~ ~r::].y yours,~ ~ ~'. I h ~'~ 'I I r~N-~.! ~~lM! ~r~,1.~41~Ori M.~'~~arrrE ~soz~o-~a,r( ~, y ~:: 5 ~ ~ M.~NFREq~S CHLOS S ER / ~ ~~~ ~ ~3 7~ e~ /. forn~ i9~ ~O t~ i~.c-C/J.G~~ ~,~ _~ L~~:,S~~~ SG/~t4~sF,2 ~,,,~j . ~ /~ ~A~l`~/~.lt ~ t-lr ~--t rCj [J ( i2 L ZjQ7 GGf.'/i~/Irlt Av~, ~ ~ _ ~!`~ ~Prt-v2. t-c.(~ ~~..c 'i ft~, z~oo ~.,c~...c~ ~~ _ , ~~+ ^ ~ A ~ t~ .,L(~ ~.~ti ~ M ~~2r LL~n 2 ZZ ~ ~ ~!~~Y/1 ~ r`1 1-t/~F'L,~'- S ~n,c,-Z- .~.,~~: ~~.~n. "` ~ ~~ ~•a a3 _ , ~,~~.~.}~ ~~ ~oya~ Trip Ctncrstaon fns Cun~ulativo Psojcds ' ]ady AM Pca3c H~~ur 7npa PM Puk Iluur Tnpa / Propd Locu~oo S~za Tnp~ la Ow Toul In Ow Tutd ~l P~or Coa~r~l Plya trqJro! S~M~ Manw P~er 40,450 d Rc~unnt 3874 20 2 22 l21 54 11S 9.650 rf fiut ~ood 7500 M 36 tl0 lG0 l1 i 301 I.7S0 ~[ Rdad 80 IS 7 22 ~5 47 92 3.900 s( Cafe 7$0 25 20 45 24 2! 4G 27 ~ Thcucr 50 -- - -• 3 1 4 I228U 104 65 i6S- 357 Za5 ay9 ~7 Oft'rca HrJd~~ 2a I 1 P~co 6lv~l 23,024 :f qffu~ 530 ~U ~I 58 ~~ 5(} b0 ii Two Slory IiAutod-U~a 1i44 3rd S~ Pcom 2.350 a( Offw:e lW 7 1 B 1 1 B a,00Q af Rd:~! 14JU ~7 12 39 tl2 11S 167 1534 3J I] 4 7 ~4i 9l I 11 90 Tl~roe Story Mod OfCioa Bld~ 211! Wdah~ra Blvd 33,035 :f 3~lod Offwe 1700 35 27 b2 31 lll l I 18 91 Muted-Uae ~315 Sanls Moorca Mall lb,l l~ s( ~u~J 213Q 4l 18 59 I Itl l2! 241 ~0,000 d Rwaur~nt 200D s l 9 SO 23 71 4170 49 li b7 Ibd l45 3il 44 Ca~doo~rw+s Conplax 4S{ Oc~ao Avo lS du Candu 94 1 6 7 6 3 9 9i QtGce/ltatad 2301 P~co Blyd 37,376 ~r arr~ ]830 80 i I 91 I S SO 43 Su6lahi 19648U 1(}755 30H8 13835 !~li6 134~b 21781 - , . ~ .,r J. _ _ __~, _.___._.- .., ----~--- ~----..~.._._ ~, 4 -. .~ ,._.~ ., ... , . ,,. `e'c~~e~• `~-o-v-• Trip ~3onention for Camulalirs P~ojecta ~ I~ Propc~ Luc~uoa 5~sa (lady Tr~~ Afrf Peri~ Hour Ttipa la ~ Out TaW PM Pwk Hour Yr~p: ln pu1 7dal proJoah Wi1i~ th~a City of l.o~ Ar~Clar , 36449 Reuden~wl 235~-2554 Cent~Mla Ave l0 dr Condo 60 I 4 S 4 2 G 87-BS-24 RaaJ 117G6 Wdihire Blvd ]6i,000 af Ra~d 16G00 270 I IT 3~47 624 ~04 1328 8,-37 Mw~-5hopp~a= Ce~er i t901 Sr~a. Maaca Blvd T3,20Q sf Rsrd ZS00 50 22 72 13i 14A 2S2 Si-~5 RcaHledul Carmcl~na/Id~ho/W~ellnslcy 5I d~ Apt•a 3ZU S 23 28 ~4 I I 35 (curreaUy thera ~nd accup~ui) 30 du SF -3Q4 •7 • 16 -2l l9 -l 1 •l0 2Q -2 7 5 5 0 S SE-b6S Sdf-Storaaa F~cdry 2235•2255 C~rmeluw Ave 163,Z40 ~f 5wraae 420 I] 17 24 2l 2U 41 59-263 lul~~ed-Use 1Z226 Wdshun Bkvd 30,000 af Ru~Jl4ffice 3920 60 9 64 1 I 59 70 12,OOD d Rwe+uraol l I SO l0 I 1 I dU 27 e~ 5070 70 l0 a0 71 6b 157 /9-SS~7D O(fica 2052 S Suady Dr 91.200 dUfC~ca 7100 161 2~ i66 Y9 IS3 la2 /9~T7 Rti~daNial 12230 Moaf~aa Ave 50 du Ca~do 310 S 18 2l !9 9 28 i9-85~96 OfC~ta I 19Q0-f (9~0 dlympic Bl~d 102.7U0 ~lOf~ce 7670 1~! 27 208 33 172 20S s~~ ~i1010 7~i 2A2 990 9N i29Q 22~4 T~ Z31H90 I1503 3322 14~25 91A0 11756 23994 .~ ~J V . ~ v V. ~. ..J I ~a,.~..e_~ ~d_e..e,.~ . ~ :^~~-w_~:'~ F. fie~:^ca=~.~r =~?~' ~~,;~r.~eer:~~: ~~.ree~ ~a~~~. ~~o=.'_~?, CA ~G4~4 ~~r~ 1 ~, 19~~~ ~; ar_ Laram ?iar.r.ing ~:~~~ Zonina' Dep~r~~ren~ S~~ta ~?on:~~a Ci~.y -a11 ~0~5 Main S~reet ~a:~ta :~an~ca, CA 90401 Dear Ms . Lana^~ : P~~ase ~ransmit th~ fal7.owzng co~me~ts or the Dra~t 5~;: p= emer:ta'_ Er.vironmental Imgac~ Repoxt (~`~e "DSEI~" j regarding DR 474 (t:~e ~evelopment praposed f~r the Wiishire west Car Wash site) to ~re envi: or.r~ental ccr.sultants for their use in preparing t^e = L~a~ SuFplemental Environmer.tal Impact Report (the "FSEIR"): 1. The list af planned or approved projects identified i.n F~g,.:Le 4 ar.d Tab1e 3 of Appendix B af the DSEzR is ir:compl~te and mLSt ~e updated if it ~s to serve as an accurate indica~or af ~ c~.:r~ulat~.ve tr~ffic irttpact. The pl.anned o~ approved projec`s ~o be located a~ the folZowing address~s within the City o~ Sa~ta Monica should be included in the FSEIR's traffic analvs~s: (a) 837 (b) 855 (c) ~Q~6 (d) 1422 (e) 1436 ~f) 12~7 (q} 1248 (h) J.447 ~~) 1123 (j) 1129 (k) ~139 (1) 1259 (m) 1140 15th 15th 1$th 19t h 2otn 24th 24th 24th 25th 25th 2 5th 2 5th 2 bth Street; Street; Street; Stre~t ; Street; Street; Street; Street; S~re~t; Street; S~reet; Street; Street; ~~a~_ ~~~a~ •~ ~~~ n ~ ~ J~ J ~ J a ~ . ~ ~~ ~r ' `.., _L[:~ r*-~. i~_1 ~ - r `". G~ _,. ~r~r~J~~~~...-.a%~._~~_ ~~3_._. 5~.. ~Ev; a~'-i_...v`:1~ : iA:...~: ._T--..i~G ..VC"..r..ae. ~.,^..__.~ ..~Y / :_~~.C.l~~~~:a_ :1~ ~u_1 ~d~~=S~ --y~..._°S, ~~_~:~_...~~:J. J Z~'u ~::1~_;_~_..:~5 ~° :_~e•~ ~.. ~r' ~+V t.i:~ i.'_~.?..~~~~. .~'1~~V~~S ~.. ~':° i J' ir j:i.~'i:.:~•.:a .'jC ~~~~_~~ to ~e~_e4t _r.~l~s~or ~f ~ :e a~cfe ~~o~e~ts. 2. ~re _~ st o~ ~i.~r.r~eu cr ap~roved pro ~ec~s ~~:er_~___e^. i._ ~~ c~:;~ ~ ar•d TabZ~ 3 0= A~nen~~x B o~ t:~e DSy~~ ~oes r:c~ -r.c~~ce ar.LL~ pr~~,ec~s '_oca~ec ou~s~de tze ~i~y of ~a~ ta ~Io^ic~ but witzi-~ SL'iilC~er:~ ~~DX'~:lli~V tG ~r:~ ~lt~j SO dS t0 r:~Ve ~:1 _=f;',~]d :~ L:NCI: s~me cf tze ir.~p~ s~ctzons s- sc~ed ~y the ;~5~~~' s~~ ~.; fyc ar.a:~~as~s. w'~e plan::ed or aFU_ove~ ~ r~jec~s to be loc~~ad a~ ~ne Z fcl?ow~ng addresses outsi~e t:~e City or Sar.ta ~?cnica srculd be - ~.~cl:~ded ;n t:~e ~'SEIR' s t~ a`w zc ar:alys~s : (a) 2550-54 Cer=tzr.e? a Aver.ue, (b} i1766 Wil.shire Bou' eva~d, tc) 119C1 ~ar.ta ~ion~ca 3oulevard; (d) Carrnelina/Idaho/%~ellesley (already (e) 2235-55 Carme~ina Aver.ue ~~) i2226 Wilshire Baulevard; (g) 2052 South Bundy Drive; (h) 1223fl ~iontana Avenue; and (i) 1190fl-30 Olympi.c Boulevard. par~;ally oc~~p~ed1; ~duit~ona~iy, al~ tables, f~guxes, caZculations and conclusians _e3cr.ed in or by the traffic analyszs in the FSEIR snould be undated to reflect inclusion of the above projects. In ~he al~ernative, it should be explained why projects ~.ocated ou~side the City but within a reasonab3.e pr~ximity of ti~e City shouZd not have a traffic impact on intersections within the City. 3. The figures in the "Gumulat~ve Base" and "C~mulative Hase Pius Project" ca~.umns of Table 8 of the DSEIR appear to be inconsistent with the figures in tihe identically entitled $ columns of Tables 4 and 7 af the DSEIR. These apparent inconsistencies should be rectified ar explained in the FSEIR. 4. The figures in Tables 1 and 2 of the DSEIR for existin~ ~raffic conditians differ, in some cases markedly, from the 4 S ~: _ ~ Lc.:`:~_^;l ;,4 ' ~ ~an _=~_ , _~ i .?."~A ~ .. ~~'J'?_er:l. l~"~...~AS wZ T~.~_~~ ~'ar~ L Ci.L `.~~ Vr~..J~__i~? ~.~~ ~!'.^'... .'t.'Z',.^ =c~ ~~~ 4-~ (t:~~ "F~I~") , eva:~ ,.~cu,n t:~e _~~~~i~ c~.::~r.s ~~:a~ 4 ~~F_~ ~. ~c~~c~a~.e~ ~n~c ~acsz ta~~ps ~pr~ t3.~EY'i ~n~~~ ~o :-icr~--- a.^.d;_ i::~ C•"Qi? ~?C~::°t. f~~',:r'?5 ~~~~e.:i ~~::°~3~~~ `.C ~? ~~rvZ'_" t:a~-~he Aa_~~e, f~~.:res, ~az_~:~ seems t~ l~ad to tze ~onc>>.:~_.... ~'::~., t~-~~~_~ co::di~ions a_~ ~c~~sal.ly impr~vi:,g i~ San~a :~'o::_~a :1v~W~t :St~I'_~'_.^:C~ ~,=1? Cli~i~?:1~ Wu~Va O~ COIM°T'~:13~ ~u:l.~.. ~2:~^~':1~=~_ ~:pve_c:~:r,p:~t . T:~e _ SE.~R shau~ d~xplawn t: is cc~r.~er_::tsiti~~ ~ 4 resul_. I= the ex~s~in~ ~eve' 4ra~fic co~:r.~s ~a:c~n `cr ~_:e F~;~ a.^. ~~:e ~S~IR are toa i~-za~e~at~ as sarrp' es (_`~om a s`~~~ s~;~~~ s~andpoi:~t) to be _aliable ~nd tr~ae ~.r.dicators cf ex=s~i:~g tr~~__~ volumes, ~h~ ~SE=R snou!d so state. I~ tra~~_c leve's _n Sa*:~a Mcr.ica are so seasonal that t~:e DSE~R tr~ffic study will cnly serve as a nredictor of traff~c condit'_or:s =n fu~ure Nov~m~ers, as oFposed to future year-rou.^,d ~raf`ic condytions, `ze FS~IR snould so state. In any event, explanat?cn should be give~ for the disparat~ results oi~tained ~n the FE~R and DSEIR. 5. T!:e ~igures in t.~e "~ncrease af V/C" calumn of ?'able 4 of t?~~e DSEI~ are rad~cally ir.consistent wit:~ the figu~es in ~he 5 identica'~y entitled column of Table 4 of Appendix B of t::e ~EIR. This appears to ind~cate a conclusion on t?~e part of ~'~e 75EIR that there will be significantly less cc:mulaLive traf~ic ir,lpact fram non-DR 474 development t:~an was predic~ed by the FEIR, yet the cumulative pro~ect list used in the prepasation of the DSEIR dwarfs that used in the preparation of the FEIR. The :S~IR should correct andlor explain this apparent and anomalous ~ncons=st~ncy in the results af the two studies. 6. The figures in the "Curnulative Base" col~unn of Tab~e 4 of t~e ~SEIR are radically inconsisten~ with the fiqures contained ~n, Table 5.2-5 af FEIR 9~& just prepa~ed ~ast ~onth for t:~e s propased project at 2221 Wilshire Boulevard. The FSEIR should correct and/or explain this gross disparity in future tra~fic predictions between two contemporaneous environmental ~impact reports. ~t the metnoaology or personnel employed in one o~'the two reports was superior to those employed in the other, the FSEIR should so state. ~f traffic analysis is too imprecise a science to allow for even a s~ight degree of consistency in future t~affic projections, the FSEIR should contain a statement to this effect. In short, if there is any doubt that t~e FSEI~ will sexve as a reliable prediction of future traffic impacts in cra=_ ~a~a~ ~ =z1 ~, 1~°~. .r ., ra~e 4 ,.....: r=:. uI~'.^_C?~ =t:? _ J~_L: S::CL:_~ ~X~,,.~cC' ~r 5~:~ ~::•^~_~~~°, ^C"~...5? ~ ~e ~.a: ~_~c ~s e:~~_*_-~ed ~.. ~~ ~~are cf ~::c:~ a ia~~ . ~ . ~i_ t~l~"r~r .._ _~ 2 _:]CCI:~~~~~:":~l°_S pCl~~zu v~..~ 1: ~3r~~~ =^'~S ~-.. a: cve, =^e -~~.I~ s~.c~~1u ~orita_r; a~~ r.:N da~.~ a::d ..~r~~u}a*__~rs 7 ~:~~:~ ~r~.... ~~s ~~~~~1 ~~~~r.s ,:.. to traf=~.. ~re ~ase :, 3s ~e~.~ ~,. a . _~~:ple 2XF~-dr:3t~cr. ia _a~j~:-iar:'s }zr:~;s as ~~~ i.~w ~ ~e tra=f=c ..ai~u~~~~~r:5 ar~ Fer=o~rtea. T'~is not cr_;~r wili _~ci'_~ta~~ ;-ax=:*~um oub~iv ~art~~_Fati~n ~n t^e ~nv~_or.r~e:~4~1 r~~r_P•~ ~rc~Pss ~y c,~ri:~g r;e~`~~ers o~ tr~ pu'~lic an c: gortsn~~~/ tc ver~=1 ~. :e ~cc~~racy o~ ~he tra~fzc s~u~y's pr~para~.~on and ~:e~'~oac=~gv, ~~~~ also will i~c_ease p?:~1_~ c~n;~de.^.ce in t::e FSEIR's co:~c=asior.~ ra~ard~^u ~xisti~g and fsture ~raff;c ccnd't~cns. 'r~i~{z `:~~s ;r: rtyr.d, tre foilo~ring should ~e incladed ir, ~:e ~'SEIR: 7a (a) T~,e peak heux tarr.ir.g :novement cc~:nts t~;~en o: Nover:be~ _4, 29, and 30, 1989, whi.ch page 8 of Appendix B of the DSEIR s~ates "are inc'uded in ~he Apnendix", but whic:: ir~ fact are Ilot ; (b) For e~ch pianned or approved project i~ ~h~ camula~_v~ prajects list, a trip d~stribution ar.d assignment FigL;e ec~u_valent to that appearing (~or ~R 470) as Figur~ S of 7~ AppEnci~x B of the DSEIR, so tha~ ~he gublic wil~ ~e able ~c ver~fy the conclasion appearing on page 29 of Appendix 8 that mos~ of the cumulative project trips wiii have r~o i:npact or: 4he 11 critical intersections; (c) Interse~tion Capacity Calcuiation charts such as appearl in Appendix B to FEIR 916 for the 2221 Wilshire Boulevard t project, and such as appeared in the two Kaku Associates/Willdan "addenda" released last spring on DR 470, for each study ir.tersection in bath AM and PM peak haurs with respect to eac2~ o£ the fallowing: {1) existing conditians; (2) existing cond~tions plus cumulative base; (3) existi:~g conditions nlus 7G cumulative base plus proposed projec~; (4} existing condit~ons plus cumulative base plus proposed project (DR 470) pJ.us proposed mitigation measures; t5? existing conditians plus cumul.ative base plus propvsed mitigation measures but without propased project ~DR 470); and (6} versions of the tables outlined as {3} and (4) above for each of the eight alternative projects identif~.ed on page 48 af the DSEIR as we~1. as for eacr alternative project site consid~red in the DSEIR; and ~ ~:.~r~ ~~...~. tl.~..~__ ~~ ,~ ~'~ F~~e ~ ~',`.±.5 .. .JJ...~.. .~ -% 1.. ~ :~r'~- ~ J t~~ ~ ., va r:.~ X'.i~~=1~_ i ............._ ~.:}-=--~.~ _r. __~. ~~~Y~.3*~_~r. ~~s~~_~ : ~:.~~~.~lar ~1?, ;~;~_~=: ~a, ._ ~~UG=='r_ : .r'i~'~_. ~--w~'ivJ~~_a~ l._~ ~.~.~...~....v~ -I=...r ...i~ ~~..ri~ `~~' ~~ y..~.~_...~~ ~.__ ~.:~a ~ v_ _vs ~,~.~e::u~x 3, ~Lt +~:~~~~._ ___..~~.~ .;e ..~~ -~----- _-. ~~e ~ ~=I~ _~se;; ~or ~: e ~: r_~~~ :~=z~e ~~ ..= e .:'~1~... ~ . -i P v3 ' v ..~~• A i ^C^ '~"~' ~~: } - rs_ n o~ ~~_~ o t: e JvJ~R a~~e~ .g ~r. ~~e _ 5~=~ t~-v'.+-~~ vv..Y-.'wl~ 4~TiAlO ~La~+1~lt~~'~L~a'~ ~..~V, 4~laJ r]~ 11L j lv~ ~1 v,~tr L.IJ'~ ~~ ~ ~•~ ~ r,,._c ^~ e~ch ir:t~rsecL~c~ du~ ir. ~ bct n Fea'.~ ~e_ io~~ wi ~; ~_. c-.~-~u~a~~~~e cas~ ar.d :nit~lat~cn bu~ w_-~cL= ~ ~e tra=~i : a~~~~r~~ 8 ~~_.~_ ~:r _~~ ~~^~~c=ec ~r~~p4t (~R 47~) . Th=s is ~ecessaYy ~a eva~~~av~ t~e ex~~r.~ ~o TNz~~h v~~ ~1"01~05EC: mi~igation r~~e~suy~s wosid a~taai~y -ry~_ya~e ~R 470 ~roJec~ traffic (as opposed ~~ m~~_gat_r:c ~^e t~af~_c genera~ed by ot~er land uses). 9. The ~5~~~ ~~ves ~.:Z~u~liCl~T.ZL considera~ion to, and rLovi.:.:es over~y sket~~y da~a for, each of the a~ter~ative p=~~ec~s anc ~ro~ec~ sitps. ihe summar_es cor,tained in Tables 9 ar:d i0 c= t~e ~S~~R ar? not er.ough; ~ather, tre aralysis for thE a~~e_*~at~ve projeczs should be reported in tr.e sarne deta~? as 9 t':e aza,ys;s of t^e praposed project . For each alt~rr.a~~.v~ r~rojec4 ~3e~t_~_ed cn page 4$ of the DSEIR, as well as for ~a~h al~ernatzve 5_te censid~red, the FSEI~ shou?d therefore c~r~~a~r. the equivale::~~ a= Tabl~s ~, ~, 7 and 8 ap~earing ~.n the DSE,R, so `~at the pubiic will have the oppartuni~y to cqnsidey ~u''y *he :r.erits ard disadvantages of each potential al~err,ative to tre present proposal. iG. ~Iy qt:estion, appearing on page 53 of the ~SEIR, has not been ans~aered. The question instead is dodged by the DSEIR simply sta4ing that the proposed peak-hour parking restricti~n :~itigati4n measure wi~l render the question moot. In the FS~IR, the question should be answered as if the proposed peak-hour narking zestriction never comes to pass. In other wordsr the ciuestion should be answered as if it reads "What wil~ happen to the vehicu~ar traffic attempting to use the intersection of 10 Wilsh~re Bou3evard and 25th Street duriny the evening ~aeak nouxs if the praject is bui3t and the cumulative buildout occurs but na peak-hour parking rest~ictiosn are implemented?" ?~.. Bus stops located on Wilshire Boulevard at the intersect~ons of 26th Street and 20tn Street, as well as ~ossibly at some of, 11 the othez Wiishire Boulevard study intersections, will offset ~~ai~ -dr3T. : :'_~_ ~~ _~Gi. ya~e o G_ re ~_ ~re v~:r~ c_ ~~~-;x ;er_~~_~~u_ ~==G~,.s v_ _ ~w:4-~~:~~_ ~GY~{~. , ,~~~.,~ c~_~r.s as ~ -r,~~c=~_..:~ ~ ea~~~=~. _:~ ~~'.:~r ~;~_~~, :,T~_;~ ? ~;-~~ ~~ ~~c~~Ed _.. ~:~a ~ar~c_~~~ ~~^~. ~::_ ~ ~~o ;a:-eC ~±= ~:~_~ u~ ~.~~;~A.. %ti~_~ ~A ~.~ai~a~~~. 3V ~~~CSEQ ~~ _::Y t: re~ _az~s '~1 ~~"r~~_..:.~d y t::e CSE_~ L:~~ t: e ~~CSE^ ,_~_•~'a~~~:l "~"~.'..3:.=e. -~:e FS~I~ s::ou? d d~v~~^~ a-:.... ~x~~a~r. a:-~e~zo~cT~ur f..r _~:c~~~~ _..- ; co::s,derat,on t^_s ~~-r~d=:~zr.~ to =::e ^-cver.;er.t c~ ~:.Y~a~~~ _~a~~ic. ?~r exa:mp~e, f=•~a_as o= current bss ~~~~.:~r:cy ar_d a7t_ci~a~e~ fu~~sre : ~a5 de~ar:d ~~ul~ ; e c~.~a~.~~ : __o:~ ~ :e ~C~~ : a^d ~~L u~r~r:g pea;c ~Lu~ ~er~ods, tr~ ~u~:^e= ct ar.~~.._~~t~~ bus t~ ips ~as ~ each s ~cp cou~d ~~ comgared w'_}:~ ~re :? ~mber c= ~~;na~ 1~~^~ cyc~es cn .:n ^cL~ly bas_s ~ur~~g ~ea~c ncu~s, a~_d t^e ~i/~ ana_ysis c~ul3 ~e pe~ fG=T~C. as ~f t:ze ~r.tzrsection w~Y~ ~unc~ic~i::g as a two-t'.:rc~:g:~ ? ane int~rs~c~icn durir.g a certaiz ~e_ce^tage of eacz peak hour and as a~~_,~~-t:~roLg:^. iar.e ;r:=ersect~an during the _ema,ni::g per~entage oL ~acn p~a~c 'r_o~~ . yr. t:~~s manner, t~e FSEIR snculd calculate `re trLe V/C ratio ~hat wou?d be obtained by implementation of the prcpcsed ~eak- ~our parxing restricticn ~n view of the fact tha~ buses wi~~ be ~~ocki~:g the ex~ra trrcugr~ lane during a significant percer.4age a° ~he time. 12. ~n au~orna~ic te3ler machine located ~ust east of 26tr Stree~ on the east~ound side aF wilshire Boulevard shou~d alsa be ta~en into Corsideration in determining whether el~minatior: of peak-hou~ park~ng •~riii actsal~.y provide a ful'y usable thi~d f2 thrcugr~ ~ane in the eastbound direction. Rec~nt experience i:~ Sar.ta Man~ca ind~cates ar. alarmir.gly higz incyder:ce oi veh;c;es par~ced iliegally in red zones in front of automatic teller ma~hines. Such occurrences at the ahove-described automatic teller machine would vffset any "benefits" obtained by pWohobiting peak-hour parking at that location on Wi.lshire. ?3. The DSEIR contains insufficient data on the proposed tra€fic mitigation measures to enab~.e the public to determine whether the public benefit derived from approval of DR 470, if any, offsets the price ta the public of the mitigation measures the project wil~ entail or the environmental. impacts it will ~3 impose. The Claverfield Boulevard widening project mentioned on page 38 af the DSEIR should be disc~ssed in detail in the FSEIR. That discussion should not involve reference to the draft City- wide traffic study, so that the pub~ic can obtain all the environmental data required to analyze DR 470 from a sa.ngle ~r3~~ ~~~~~ e;: _~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ace ; .+~'~~..~-.CC~::~ 1-1~G.r~e~'/~ ~.~~ -~CL~i~. . __'_4~ _..,~.~~ CZ~'..,... ~~ :t~ _~.~".. C~i~v~~ ~ ~~7 ~+ r ~ ~I4._.C~- .wti..~.~ 1`_.v~±1ti~J YY~~'~? ...:P hl~.~~-~1~_ ~~N~~~ vC.~....~~ JY1_.""_.~"...~ _--~ ~.._ 'I W_1~ I_~u'i~ ~.C dC~'.s~~c _.^_I''._'~i _:1 ~.;.wEi ..J _:"L'i_'~:?l?:71.. __a._ :+i~u°:-~~."~~ ,h°`:~t ~--'~ 4~+'~~ ~_ : ,..~1. ~~:Zu :i'~_, ~C~ l..'.". ~. ~ lr~r~i~ ivr:.:._. t.~"_~ ~~St. Cr v_^.° ~v~~~:l~^~ ~" ~pC~ =v^ ~:7~ ~-yt_J ~~T,~ _ ~2, +JI:°~~A~ the exe~„_se ~~ ~'~:e FCw~?' ;,~ e:~_^er_~. do:ra_:: w~~l ~~ r~c~:i~~ :, ~rat a11 ~:z= s~:c~ ..- ar.d yong-~e~^: ~:r:~ac~s a£ ~uch a~+.~..A:.~..1'~ wz 11 ~~e t~-~c~Ld~r.g t`:e gr~~r __ _rcLCi.^.g _~_ ac ~ s), wna= ~p~= ~ ~.~_ s a~e ne~ess~ry =_~m whi~:: C~ty and/a~ c~~e= gcverr.mer.~~3i ~==~ cia~s a^d ~cdies i:~ or:;~~r t~ Froceed ;a~~h tze N;de~~ ::g n_o~e~t, ar.~ wh~c:~ of t~:ose approva~s :~ave ~e* ~o be obc~._::e~. '~it~x respe=~ ~o t^e Leak-~o~_ pa~Ki~g p~oh~bi~ior. ~n N~.1sa~r~ m_tigation meas::re, tze FSEI~ sr.ou~d (1? ccm~ut6 t^e antic~pa~e~ #3~~~ los~ reve::~:e _o t~e Ci~y ~rom ~ze lcss af ~~:e pa~k~ac mEter ~ reve*:~e o~er tre an~~~~~a~=c ~~~~t~:r~e c~ ~R 4?~, E2) c~m~u~e ~~e , an~icipa~ed last sales ~ax ~evenue ro tre CiLy ~rom }r~ loss of '~~2 ~usiness to smail bus~aesses on wils:~ire Louleva~d t~a~ deFenci on surface ~ar~cing for rusn-:^.our patronage, ~3? anaiyze in detail w~th r~ur~erical caicu' ations t;~e amaunt of~ nei9h~aonc~od traffic spill t?~at will occur from rush-hour patrons o~ s~r,all 13{3~ bus~nesses on Wilshire Bou~evard szarching for park=zg spaces ~:: t'~e r.eighborhoods ~ecause none are availab~.e on Wilshire, (4? ana~yze in detail wi~h numerical calculations t~e numoer ~~ Parking spaces an r~sidential streets that will be ~os~ to a~ea ~3~4 residents by Wilshire business patrons parking on resident_a~ s~reets due to the unava~lability of su~faee paricing on Wilsnire, (5) anal.yze t~e grawth--znducing impacts whic:~ will resul~ from the closure oz small business tenants on Wilshire '~3(5) w:~o are unable to survive the loss of their rush-hour surface parking, and (6) discuss what approva~s are necessary f~om wric:~ ~ ~ i3~6) governm~ntal officials and bodies in order to y and/or other Ci authorize elimination of peak-hour parkzng on Wilshire. I~ the FSEIR consultants have any questions regarding any of tze suggestions set forth above, please invi.te them to contact me by telephone at (213) 82~-2075. Thank yQU. Very Cordial~y Y s, , , , ~ ~~/j . .~ ~I ~ ~ C William F. Weingarden ~ xESPONSES To con~lv*rs CITY STAFF Com~nent No. 1 The approvai af FEIR No. 916, for the "Madam Wu" project, occurred on Apri14, 1990. This FEIl2 recammended an izistallation of an eastbound and wes#bound right- turn-only lane on Wilshire Boulevazd at 23rd Street and 26th Street. In addition, a left-tum, througl~, and ri~ht-tum lane in the nort~baund and southbound directions of 23rd Street at Wilshi.re Boulevard was recomTn~nded. These reco~nr~-«nded measure co~flict with the recomm~nded mitigation measures in tl~is SEIR. City staff requests an a.nalysis to determine if ane or the other recommended m~asures will mitigate the traffic impacts of both pro~ects at these two mtersections. Resnonse ta Commen# Np. I The initial step of this a.nalysis is determinin~ the project r~lated traffic of FEIR ~Io. 916. This is found in Figure 5.2.-7 and 5.2.-5 of the FEIR. The project related tra~~ at Wilshire Boulevard/23zd Street and Wilshire Boulevard~26t~ Street was then added to t~e cumulahve base plus prolect volumes of this SEIR. It should be noted that the Madam Wu project is i~cluded in the cum~lative project list of the SEIR With these traffic vo]»m~s totaled, the a.nalysis of the mitigation measures was compieted. The analy5is sheets are included on the following pages. Table A then summarizes this analysis. As seen in Table A, the recomn-~nded measures in this SEIR mitigate both intersectiozis to belaw cumulat~ve base levels. The FEIR No. 916 measures mitigate Wilshire Boulevard/23rd Street to acceptable Levels of Service. The intersectior~ of Wilshire Boulevard/2bth Street is mit~gated to below cum.ulative base levels. With this analysis, it apgeaz that erther measure, presented in this SEIR or FEIR No. 916, will mitigate the tra~c unpacts of both pro~ects at Waishire Boulevard/23rd Street and W~ishire Boulevard~Zbth Street. -1- IMF~AX -~.~~ Tra#f~c Ar»~ysas nn ~icrocornp~.~ters F'fiE ENG~N~E~IP}~ _ _ , . ,~ F~rogr'~m ~iceRSed To: Willcfan Associates BRt~~TA MafJ I~R - N~fvk ~ I~ CE~E~LILAT I UE E~AS~ 1+J I T~-! P~:~J EC~ A!"1 F~ER~. HEJ~1F; Intersectior~; 5~ WILSHI~~ F~ 2~~lD ST (}-l~.g~, Critatal ~J' C)+~ ~ r-E-t '~'j "'F`JC7 Y` M~~I ~ Cd l E 5 LaRe Cr~nfigura~i~n ~nd T~Ern Valum~3 1'~/~8f89 Volume Estisn~te) , _ , _--__ --_----------~- - ~ ---------- ' --------- ~ -- ~ ~~~ ~ --_._.__.~_~_____--_ ~ -----~------- ---------' , ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~ , ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ; , ~~ , T ~~~?f-C~= ; ~ ; ~ , ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > >~ ~ , ~ , t~Z9 ~ : ~ L ~w+3= ~ I ~ ~ ~ % :~ ~i~-~41= F~ C~'~47j '' R;,~~''y~ ; ~ ----~ ~ {, v ~ 6 ! ~ `f'7 ~ ~ ~~ ' ; T 7~i~3 =~~~ \ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ , --- T i5~4~~ ~ , ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ F; {~~t-a ~ ~ ; R ~ ~~}AEa= ~.a } 4i ~ ~ \ ~ t 7 v L ~~41= ; ~ I~! ~`1'Z ; t ; ; ; ; 4 j f ; 7 T i"~ ~. _ ~ _ ~ ,~~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~------------------ I I ____ 1 __ -- ~---------T F __~_____~__~_~__ ~ ~~__-______ ~ _~____~~ t { .` ~~~ 4 ~~~~~~-. , ~~~~~. ~ ~~~....^~~~ 1 _~~~~_~~ i 1 ~~~~_~~~~~~.~~~~_~~~~~~~~ _~~~~~~_ 1 ~ Rppr- ~ L.ane ; N~ af Ff'er Lane ~ Cri~~c~l t ~ Ma>:im~.im Total Cr~tic~k Vcl~~mes f 1 ~ 1 ~ k~ 1 1 1 tiIrG~EF+ i ~.c~fiBS ~ VD 1 LIiZB ~ VDILil1SE ~ ~_~~~ 1 ~~~_ 1 1 ~ --- ~-'~ i-~,~•--~ ~•••--•~•'--•~ i ;-- ----~ -------~----- ~--------~--------~ ~L2ve1 of~ Ta~a ~ ThreE ~ C]Llt' i ~ 1VB i ~XL ~ 1 i n~~ft ~ ~ F~~~"vlC~ ~ F'ha=_e 1 F~-~~se ~ F Ft~S~ ] ; ~ ; , ~~ > 3~- ;.~ ~ ~ ~49I -~ : , , , ; --------- ~ --------- ~ --,---- , ~ ; ------- ; , , ~ > ~ ; ~ < < , 1 ~ ; ~ , ; I fi, ~ St~7si ~ S~~ . , ~ ~: ~ ~ ~ SE+ ~ EJCL ~ 3. ~ 4~ ~ , 42 ~ t ~ Et ; 1L75i ~ ; lt~t~~i % ~ 9bC~ ; ~ ~ TR ~ 3.~' ~371 ~~'ra ~ ; ~ C ~ 1~C~C~ ~ 114~:: ; il{~F~~ ~ ~ ' , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ ~_~t~ : 1275 ~ t 1~~'~, ; i , ~ ~ i ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ],~i~r'~ i .~4}5 ~ , ~ 1?~~ ~ ~ i E~ ~ 1 LTFi ~ 1 I ~ lb7~thRS' ~ 167 ~''~ ~ I 1 1 ; F ~ iVA ; ~1~i 1 i i ; C1r=~ ~ 1 4 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 f 1 4 4 1 f 1 1 1 ~ f_ 1 1 - 1 --~~`-- !~~---'- 1-"---~ 1 1 ~ I I--~~-~- 1 1 . ~ f W~ ~ 1 LTR i S ~ 1 ! ~ 37~tsiti+ :325-~t'~' ; ~ ----------------------_._ ~ ro~ -' ~ ~ ~ ~ ; 3 ~ Crx~ical Valume = ~ : 7 ; ] : ; iVn nf ~ritica] F'ha~e~ J : - ~ , '_ , ___' ~ __ ----- ~ ------ ; --___------ ~ --------- ~ ~ ~eve i o f Service - ~ ~ ' Total CrYt~ca l Valum~ : -~~~; ~ - ; Voi~~rr~~l~apae~ty - ~:~'?° ~ • . ~ ~ 4~ 4 ~ _ ~ ..._---_____~______ _________ ________ 1 ~Q+~ 1 V ______________~_~--~-__- i - , - --- N/S S~.gnal Rhasar~g E/W Sign~l F'~a~zng - - _ f -..~...~~--...~ ~ ~~~-..~.~~~~ 1 '~~~+...~.~~ ~ ~ ~~~s~~~ F ~~..-._~~._ ~ ~~__ 4 1 1 1 ' 1 ~~~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 l 1 ~5 1 ~j 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 ] i f ~\ 1 1 I i h \ k 1 ~~ V ~ 1 1 ! i / ~~~ 1 1 1 ~ ~~ ~ i t i } --{ ~ ~ i 1 i 7 1 i 7 1 1 1 1 ~ v 1 1 i 1 1 1 t 1 V 4 1 ~__~~~_- ...^__~--_ __~_ 1___-__~~ ~ ~-~~.~~.-.~ ~~~..-.~~~~.-. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ , - ~ _ ~ • , ~ ~ ^ .=~ _ ~ '. '~-_ _ _ ~ ~ _' - ~-.~i.ay'=J ,.".~-ry~- ' -. ~..:.i .y = .« . ~~ ~ 1 ' - _ s _1 • - ~ ;~ - ~. ~ s - -- ~,hase Signal ~ - ~ ` - -- '~'~ ' _ - - , - ~ ~, _ -~`2 ... _ . ~ ~. ~ . _ . _-~_ ~ :~i ~ _ --~: _ _ _ _ ~ _ -- `~'-, + - ~ ' - - ' _ • ' Js_ 1 _ _ _ _ - - r~- .y i ` ~ _ ^ _ - f = / - ~ ' _.. - - •~ - ~ ~ y ~ _ -~ _ •• ~ ^ ' _ " - / - ' ' j ^ J ` C ~ _ 1 __~..~~..'.' ~ i ....'_~~~ ~ 1 1 f f ~ 1 I 1 ~~... ~ __ _ _. _ 'y~ ~~~•.~_•'~ : :f3 _ -_ ` `- _ , _~rl 4 - - ~.= I~;IF'RX ?.22 Tra#fac Analysis on i~~.crocomp~tters - ~ s~...~_ . ,_ _ " -a '_ d " '~~RTs~~A Prngrarn Licen~ed Tc; Willdan AssaCa.~t~s ' uSRIVTA MDIVICF - H~M EI~ ~ CUMUL..AT I V~ ~ASE W I TH F E~~~ECT ~' ~'!"1 F EA~, HGUF: Int~rsec~ion: ~3 G~FLSHIF~~ & ~~RD ST (High Critic~I Lank? ~c,r~figur~,tion ~ ------------~---__--_ ~ ~ ; ,. ~ ~ ~~~~=11~ f ~ ~ ~~~-2Z =~~~ ; v ; r~ ~,~ +~Z- 95 ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ----~---- ~ --------- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-f i ~ ~- ~ l~a ~G~ ~~. t:~Yti ~~ c° and ~~irr~ Val~~m~+s FRC EN~IIV~EFcI1V6 ~~~iais~ i1ol~~me Est~.m~te 1 ~_. ; ___..----------------- i ---------------------' ------_ ___-.___------' ~ ~~1 ~ ~168`~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T 3E,~9 ~['~_ ; ; , , „ ~ ,. ~ ~ , , E~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ : v t l~ ~ ~7+34= F ~ 41= ._ 7f ~4/ ~ \ Rc+1?~,>= ' ~ ~ ~ ~ • t~~ ,• ~~~ ' T 1Zt 9~ = ~ ' `~ ~ ; {L ' ; ; ~ {" j i F~ `~ ~~}-F7~~ L ~i ~}~~ ~ i i~ i 'J ` ~~tZl~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ I r i ~ ~ ~ ~ i; ~ +! t T i~i~5-d ISoS ` ~;; f ~ ' ; ' -- ~ --- ------------ --- -~--- k -------- ------- ~ ------_ ___---_--___--- ~ ~ ---- ~ -------- '--------'--------' ~ ~ ------ ~ , ~ ~~ppr ~ Lar,~ ~ 1Vo nf ; Fer L~ne ; Crit~cal ~ ~ ~ Gro~.ip ~ L~nes ~ Vc 1 ume ~ Vcs I Girr~e ~ ' ---- ~ ~ ~ ------ , , ---------- - , -----~-- ~ ' ---------' ~ ~ ± NE~ ~ ~XL ~ i ~ ~~ ~- ; ; ~ 1 Y ; TFi { 1 ~ 3~ ~57~ ~i6~ k 1 F 1 ~~7~ $~- ~ 1 I 1 1 ! , ~ SE~ I , ~ EX~. ! 1 , , ~ 1: 43~ / i ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ t T~ ~ ~ ~ 3~ ~ ~~s- , ~ , ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ EE~ ~ , 1 , ~ ~ ~ T~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ ; i ~ ~4 ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 7 , ~ ~ t ~9 #~ t ~ ~ . E I 1 i 1 1 : WE~ ~ ~ 1 I 1 ; LT~ ~ ~ ! 1 I 1 1 1 ~ i ~ 34$ ~fs~ ~ ~ , ~ 1 1 [ 1 ! 1 ~3Q$ ~ W ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i---" i"'"_-~-~- i--~'_- i-_'~_~._~- ; ~ i.__--~._~_ i ~ Tot~l Critic~l Volt{Ri~ ; -~~9 ; , ~ --------------------___,-__...__ ; ~ , -~i Z37 ^- , ~ --~.____..______---_-----_~____.._~._ ~ ~ hlas:a~n~{m T~tal Cr~t~cai Vt73 L1iTi~~ ~ ~ _ __ _~ __~ ,--------~-------~- -- . -- , t~evel af ~ Two l T~~ree ~~a~ir ~ ~ ~~~^vie~ ~ Rhase ; ~l~ase ~ Fl~ase E ' ---------; _~_____ ; ____---' -------' f I F I ] 4 4 ~ 4 5 ; a ~ 9cf~~ ; s~~~ ; a~G ; 4 ~ 4 ll}v.~~~ 1 1~~}{.~i~ f ~4~~ ! ; C t 1if~C~ ~ 114#3 ~ ~lf;c_s ; ' U ~ i~ cf ~~ 3~~; ~~ 3~'-.C , .~ .. ~ ~ ~ , 15':~~3 ~ 1~~~~ ~ 1?75 ~ ; ~' ~ i'J~ ~ iVF', ; I~i~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~~~~~~..~ ~ .~~..~~~.-..~ ~ .-.~~___~ ~ __`_~~.~ 4 , ~ .._________ t Grat~.cal ~ No of Cr ; Level af ~~ _____._._______-_-I Z37~~ ' Volume = 1~:~^ ~ itzc~l ~'t-~ases = ~ ~ Service = ,~D ~ ; VQIumelCapaCity - ~}:Y~ ~ k __ __ ___ ~._________-- Q~~--~ ; k __ __ _ h~/S Szgnal Fhasxng E/k~ ~ignal Phasarig '- ~ --~____~___---__~_~__~.___t ~ , ~ _ . ~________~______ - ~ ~ __~___--- ~ --' ~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a '~ 1 r h r r 4 i 1 ~ ! / i` 1 1 7 } ~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ ,~ V f ~ f f f ~ ~~- f i I 1 1 V 1, 1 1 1 ~ / 4 1 1 1~, 4 7 ~/ 1 ~ i 1 1 ! 1 ~ - ~ ~ ~ , - -~ .~ -- ;~~= } \~1 , , ., .. ' ~ ~ v ~ i ; ~ ~ , , ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ . ~ __~____ ----_------ --------- ~ . _ , t i - , --- . ~ ~ -__--__... ----- F ~_ _- ~ -_--_- 1 ~ -- ~ I t - - 1 1 - 7 1 ~ 1 ' 3"1 'iss rv.._ _ J' ' '.-w ~ ":~~"~sn~s'~~~~~ ~ t ~y~ - .. ' ` ~ 's- .}a~j~ ~~~_ L ~ 4~ "" ~ ~+ ~kf~r-J~ ~71~~C~1 ' - ; - , ; __' ' ~ ` ' ~~ r~~~ = ~ _ _ Y ~ -. - _ ~ ~~_-` ~.~t , r - , = - . _ ; Y -- - _ ~-_ ~ , ~ - - ~ - "=`zt=~:.~=:J _ -- - - ~ - _3~ -- ~ - - - ~ . - - ~ _ - ' _ - _ '~~ _ - - - _ - ~ 3 ~ }.._ - ' _ _ ~ _. ~ ~~~ _ _ ~ ' ~ _ ~ -- .~ _ ;~~.~, _ ~ -------- ~ -fs_ } , ____- -- ~ - - TMPAX ~.i~ ~ ~r~ffac A~aly~is o~ Mzcroca~~p~~ters F~C ~~GI~E~~ING ..._ ,~s -~ - - - _ - . • -+,- - _ - - - ~'ragram Licensed ~'o: 4~~.lldan Assoc~.ates SA~iTA MON I CR - F-~SM E I F ClJ1"IULAT~ V~ E~RSE ~+lI7H F'~l7JECT ~2/18189 - RM FEA#~, H~UFi int~~^sectiar-~: ?5 t+JI LSHI~:E & 26Ti-{ 5~' ~~1~ ~ ~ ~- E ~a ~ i c~r~ ~~~G SU ~~ ~ Lane Configur~tzon and T~.~rn Valu~~~ , --- ~ ----------------- ~ ---- ----- ~ ---- -.___._ _._ , ,,, , --_--------__...----' -------- ~ , - ------------ ~ ~ i '~ , ~~~ ~ i i i e i ~ 1 ~.Jii }~= i ; i 'r 1 ItSZ i i i \ ~ ~ 131 ~ • i ~ ~ L 15~ *b= i ~; ` E L b1+or Fi 6 ~ 8 t~~ \ F:D~1 ~ 1 _~ r ~~~ 1 ~ ~f ~ ~ -~ ~ I G~ i LJO { 4 2~ ~_~~ ~ iI r~ T ~ j ; T - ~ 744}~' f t ; . .. .~ . ~•. ~ . ---- T .~'i+~~4 ~} = ~ ] ~ Ft \ 1iG+-0=~I~D v I 1 ;~ 7~Os L o~,9~ ~ S~ 1 1 ! '~ \~; ~ 1 ) ~ 31}7~ = 1 ~ 14 ; ; ~ I8 ; ~ ; ; v /p5 , 1 i f ~~~ 1~~ ~ ~i~ ~ 1 k 1 4 1 i i l ...~~~~ti~~~~~J..~~~_~~~ ~ _......~~~~~~~-~~.~.`._.4~~ ~ ..~~ ~~..~.~~ ~ .~~-_.~~.t- .~..~tiJ...~~.~_~~.-.. 1 ~~~-_~~....~_~ ~ I ~~~~~~~ ~ 1 ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~J..~~~~ ~ !~--- 1 1----- 1 1 1 ~ Appr; La~re ~ h!a af ~ F'er Lane ~ C~itical k ~ ~ Gr~t~p I Lanes t V~1 ~.tme ; Vc~2 ~srroe ; ~ ____ ~ -~____~~ ~ ~ ~~-__~__ ~ _~.___-.~~- E 1 I ]-~~"' 1 i 1 i ~~ i ExL i ~ i ~1~ i i ; : ~~ ; 3 ~ ;~-6 ~~^v ~46~ ~s ; 1 i 1 1 ~ i J I ! I 1 i 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ SH ~ EXL 9 1 l BS~~ ~ 89 f~ ; F T~ 7 3$ ; 3`~7 ~+'?-? ~ t i ~ ~ ~ i ~ r ~ 1 1 1 I I 1 1 f i < < ~ ~ ~ ~ EE{ ~ EX~ ; 1~ 1~~~ ~ 3-~+-~ i : ; ~F' ; 2 ; 4~7~ ; 4Z~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ 1 i 1 1 1 4 ~ Wb : E!(L : i: 105 ~4- ~ r~ ~ ~ ~ T~ t 2 ; 359~ ~ -~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F ! 1 f 1 1 1 ~----~-------~-----~--------~--------i ~ ' ~'cstal Crxtical Volume ~ 3~' ~ ' -.---------------....___--------- ~ ~ ~ ~ - 1~~-- ~ F --____~`__~.~__...~~~-~.~«~~..~~~.~~.~-~... ~ ~ E''1~,>:zmum Total Crati~al Vc~1u,n~~ ; ~ --------- ~ ------- ~ -------- ~ ------- ~ ~ LEVel o~F ~ Tw~ ~ Thr~~ i F~OLLC- i ;~er-vi~~ ; Pf-~ase ~ F'~tase ~ F'~~ase ; 1~.~.-._~~.~~ ~~Rt..~~`_ 1~.^__~-_ i_____r._ 1 1 ! i 1 1 1 / ! 1 i ; A ; 9GC- ~ d~5 ~ ~~5 ~ ~ E~ ~ i4~5Cf ~ lt}iri- f ~r&°~ 7 ~ C ~ 1?C~~ -~ 114s 5 3 k 1~~C~ ; ; ~ i ~J=f 1 i 1 ~~°~ i j.~}i~ i i ~ i ~~5~1r1 i ~4i~ i j.?7c~ i ~ F ~ 1~l~ ~ fJh ; P~R ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ , , ~ ; --------~ p _______ ; ______~; _~____~ ; ~ _ _... __ __ ___ ; ~ --------------- --- - -o~ ' Cra.t~cal Vol~~me - ~ ; l~1o af Crxtacal F'~~ase= = ~ ~ ~ Lev~I c~f S~~vi~e - ,~C ~ { Vd1i~m~1C~~a~Yty = E~:~+ ~ ~ -------~--__--_--_--__--------_~ Z~--- ~ ~V/S 5agnal ~hasing _ . - ' ---_~__-' ----.----- ~ ,____~__ ~ ~ ___ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ 1 3 1 I ` 1 1 ' 1 1 1 t ~ 1 h 1 1 1 1 1 ~ 1 1\ ~/ / 1 1 1 / 1 1 /4 1 } 1 1 ~ , 4 ~ ~ , ~ ~ -~ ~ \;/ ~ ' ~ ! _ ; \ ~ ~ ~ . ~ < i ; ~ v `--------'--------~~K.~_____~ ~ . ~ . . ~--- , t ~ ~ , , - ' 3 ; _ : ~ x~ _~-x; - : - ~ ." ~~ .. ,, .. - _ _ -{'==L~ ~ - t - ~_-' " ~-= ~`~' - -.'~.~L:~ ~~~1`Phase~ Signal `' _ A~ -. - ~ - ~ -~ ~ ~}-~~'}:~•_ ;'. _.- --~-_ ~ - _- . _-~- ` - _ ~ _ .-_ __ _ '__- __ _ . ~-__~_~__~ , - - ~/W Sigr,al F'hasing ~ ___.~ ~ __+-.__~~ ~' ~~ ~~ ~ _ ~ E __~ ~ I l~ f \ ~ 1 ~ 1 I ~ ~-~ 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 , ~ v t ~ ~ ~ ~ -• - f ~ ~ r ----- ~ ------- - 9 -___-- ___ ; ~ , , ~ ~ , ~ ~ s~ ~ . _ ~ ~ - . . '•_-- F _ L _ _~Ki ~ -j - ` j sr ~~ t• ~~ ~ ~ : - ~ ~ , ~ _ ' ,. _--_,, _ _,. ~ .,~ , _~` _ ' , ~ _ ~ ~ - _ - ~- _~ . ; -------- ~ - ' - ` ,~ ~~ - ~~ IM~AX ~.22 Tra#fic Analysa~ an ~acrpcomputers F'FC EN67NEERING F'rogram Licensed To: W~lldan Rssoc~ates SAhdTA MO~ICA - HSM EI~ CU~ULATIUE ~ASE ~1I~H F'fiDJECT l~/18/8~ F'M F'EAF: !-IOLlR Interseetaon: ~~ I-lILSi-fiRE 8t ~6TH ~T 1~ '~ ~ ~~ r~~~ ~ p/1 ~!Easc.~ f e. Lane Carfifl~iratiQr-~ and Turn Vol~tm ~ ------- ~ ------- -------- ~ ------------------ F 1 1 1 ~ ___ 1 ________--_- ---~- ~ ---------- 1 --- , --__--__' ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 . , ~ 1 1! ~ ~ ~ >>~ 1 ~ ~ 1 -~ ~3= ~ i ~ ~ i ~ ; ; ~ ~ ~ 1is ; r, 4~ ; l L ii~~~,~ ~ ~~ ; ~ ; f : ~. i~q*~ = ~,s6t1~~~~ \ ~ ~~1 i~ = ; ; ; ~~. ; ~ -~ j ~~6 ~ c <:---- ~ , ~ T 448 +~O ~~- . ; i ,f~ ; <---- T et 8b7 = ~ ~ \ ~ ; <: ~ ; ~ --- ~ ~ ~: IC>9~o =~~d9 v iF{ ~~7~-D= LDr1~1~; 3 \ ~ ~ ~ / ~~1?~ LZ7+~ ; ~ ~ ~ ;5,~ ~~ ~ , ~ ~~~ F ~ ~ ~ v . ~~Z ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ j."F~}C ~~ 1/1!3 IT ! i 1 1 k I .`~~~~ ~~~~.« ~~-~~.._~~~ ~ ~~......«~«.-~~..--.-~~~..- 4 ~.~'.~~~~.^~~.~~w~.~~.-.~. ' .~..'~~~~~..~~~ ~.~.«~.~~.~- 1 I ` -- - 1 ~~~~_~ ~ ~ ~~--~ ~ ~.--.~.~~-..~ ~ .'-...~..~.-~.~ 1 i ~ 1 1 1 ! ..~~`~~~`_~~M~~...~~~.._...~~~J.~ ~~~.~..`~~~~ 1 ~Rppr~ ~ane ~l~io of tF'er Lar,e~Criti~~l ~ ~ k"1a.:am~t~r~ T~tal Crati~al VDILlfiiE'~ i ~ ~ G~aup i t_anes ~ Va 1 ~tme ~ Vo 1 ~iin~ ~ ~ ....__----- , --------- ~ -------- - ~ -------- ~ ~ ~ , ----- ~ --____ ____ ~ ___---- ~ _...~- ~ ~ ,_ '____ ~ , ~ ~ Leve~ of ~ ~"wa ~ Triree ~ ~ F~ur- , , ; NE{ ; EXL ~ 1 ~ 129~ ; ; ; SErv~ce ~ F~~-,~se ; F'hase ~ ~'h~s~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~: ~ 3'B, ~571 ~? ~57 ~ -0?-'7`- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t __--___--_ ~ ____--- 9 ------ ~ ~ -- ~ ------- ~ ~ ~ ~ ; < < ~ ; ~ f ~ ; ~ ~ ~ A ~ 9U~~ t 8~~ ~ ; 8~5 ~ ; ~ S~ f E7(L ~ S; iC~~" ; 1U~ ~ ~ P ~ fi,~5u 3 1L~t~~~ ~ S'o`~ ~ ~ ~ TFti ~ 3$ ;5L'.~~~Y i ; ; C ~ f~Cl~i ~ 11~4C~ i ~i~~C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D ~ fti5C~ ~ 1s7~ , i 1~~~ ; t ~ ~ ~ ; ; ~ E ; fSi~C> ; ~4~` ~ ~ ~?~ i ~ EH ~ EX~ ~ f~ S~f~~~ ~ i~~c~ ~ ~ ; F ~ tJ~ ~ iV~, ; ~~~~ ; ~ , TFi ~ 2 ~ ~79 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ , ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ I F 1 1 , -------_-~ ; _____--_ , ------ ~ ~.; _____-- ~ 1 1 1 ~L~ f ~A~ f 4 1 1 / ~ 1~(~~{ 1~ 1 1 ____~~_________....~ 1------ ~r. +.' - 1 ~ ~ 7R ~ 2 ~ 490~- ; 49Ct~ ~ : Cratic~l Valume = ~~ ~ i ; ~ ~ ~ ; ~ No af Crxt~cal ~'hases = ~ I '----~ ~ ~ ------ ~ ~__ ~ -- ~------- ~ ------ ~-------- ~ ~ ~ Leve I o f Se rv x ~ e _ - D ~ ~ ~ `f~atal Erztical il[aittme ; ~~ < < Valitme/C~pacity _ - ~~ ~~~ ' ~ ~ ------ ----_ - ---------- ~ --------- 1 _______ , ~z.64 ---- f ---------____--_---__-- _ _ _ -- , N1S Signal ~ha~~.ng _ EtIrJ S~gnal F'hasing -- ~ ---- ; -----_-~-- ; ----- ~ ~ --- ~ - _ - . - , ----- ~ ---- ~ -___ ~ __.~_ , ____ ~ ~ ~ i : ~ ~ ~ . ~. ~ ~ ,, ~ ~ r;~ r ~ ; ; ^ ~ ; ; ~ C v~ ~ ~ ; ~~ _;--; : ~ ~ ~` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --~ / ~ ~ 1 \ 1~ i 1 f 1 ~ V 1 i ~ 1 1 1 1 1 V l 1 ~ ~~~_`... __~~__-~ ~ ~ 1 ~_~__ 1~ 1 1 ~~- ~ 1 ~ __~.__~__ ~ ~ `~_~. f 1~~~~-~~- 1 1 f 1 i 1 1 ( I 1 I I t ! 1 , _ r 1 f - _` ` ~'ya " ` ' . ~ .. 4~.tI, ' ` -` " ~"~ Y'.-/.l~- ~ 2. " - - 1 1 1 - • _ - 1 { 1 -, _ '- c - ~ ~ ~ - -... " ' ' "~ _ _ 2 _' ~ Fhas~ Signal ' ' - ~ • e ` -" _ _ : r - _ i 1 ~ ' ~ - - -_ sj - _ _ _ ~ ~ ° _ ' -y ' - - . -~~ r i ' _ ~ - ' ~ _' _ ~ ~ ~r '~ - _ ~ - ~...~,. ~ ~ ----~ ~ r~ ~ .___ ~ '~ ~.~~- i ~ , , ; ~ 1 1 1 . _ _ ti = i~i _ _ w. _ .~... - - 1 ~ }* - _ `n~_ ~ I;iFAX ~_~~ Traf-fl~ Ar,~lyszs on Microcom{~ttters F'~C ENGIf~EERIhJG ` _ - _ __ -z-. _ - " ~ F~r~gram La.cens~d 7a; Wi~ld~n Associates r'aANTA MDN i CR - H51*1 E i~ CUf"tULATIVE BASE WI7H ~'ROJ~CF AM ~ EAF, HC1UF: Inters~ctzcsn: $~j:+ 4JIL81-fIF.~ & 2~~i~ ST (H~. h Crit~eai ` ~ I ,C J'L1(.: ~ ~ ~ 't''~ ° ~ ` ~J~ T i v 1"' r'1 ~Q ~ L1 ( ~c~"' ~: ~.ane Gonti,~~:r~tivn and T~tr-n Vnl~tme~ 1?f18/89 Volum~ ~stimat~) ;~___ ___--------~__~ _~__ ______~__ _______~__ __~____--- ' T •-• I 1 4 1 1! 1 1 1 1 1 ! 1 LJ.. V if .i~ i ' 1 1 ' 1 ~ 1 ~ f ,~ ` ~ 1 ~~ y f TC~J ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ L Y~ 5? }~ -`~J Y 4 ; I 1 1 1 ~ ~ f ; 1 1 s ; ~ ! 1 ~iy-~ 4 I = F: o t47~ . ; -- --- r ; , ~~t ~ 6 ~ I~ ~ ~ ; T ~ ~ 74i3 ~ ; ; , ; .---- ~ ! ~ ~ V ri~`~~ l i 1 Ifl ~t~}~- y k 1 ~~+'YLI ~ 1 ~ !J ~ i 1 I ~ ` 1~ 1 y ; L~ v i yY- ' ~ 4 ~ 1 1 1 1 1 ~ i 7 7' ^. 1 i 1 } ~ ~ 1~ 1 I ~ ~ ~ 4 ' ~ ~~~..- ~. -~~.'~~~~..~~~_._.~Y. ; ~.~~~J.~~.~ ~~~~ ~ '~ 1 ~~~.~~-~~~~.-~~w~~ 1 ~..~~~.~~~ 1 I...~~~~ ~~~~~_~~ i~~~~~ i~~~~~~~~ 1 ~~~~~`~~... 1 ~ Rppr ~ L~ne ~ hdv ar ~ F°er Lane ~ Griticai ~ 1 ~ Crcu~, ~~.~r,~si VQ~LtfiB t Volum~ 1 --- ~ ; ---- ~ ~ ~ ~ -_ , _~.___ , w_.~_____ , __------- , > NE~ ; ExL ~ 1 ; 61 ~Cl ~ ~ ~ ; TF~ ~ ~ ~~14?~.~ ~~14 ~ ~ ; ~ , 1 1 ~x~z . , 1 , , ~~ , i , ~ , , 1 1 1 1 ~ SP ~ EiC~ 1 ~ i i ~ 4i~ 1 1 ~ 42•' ~ ; ~ T6r ~ 2 ~5Z~ ~:?;" ~ ; , , > > i ~ Ex2 ; i y , 60 ~ : , ~ ~ i ~ ~~~+ ~ L~ i l i ~ ~ C D~$ ~ i f 3-~3- ~ ; ~ T t - ~ ~? ; 7~ ; ; ; , R ; , ~ ; ~ . ; ~ , ~ ; , ~(+J R ~ L~t , { i , ~ 4- ~~ti , , t ?*~E+ f ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; R ; ~ ~ ; azq ; azq ; ; __--_ ~ ~ - --_-- ; --------- i ~------- ~ ~ 7otni Gr~ tical Volt~me ; ~~~ ~ 1 ----~------ ---- ---____--___--_- ~ --------- ~ lG~ 2 ____~__~__i 1 f i L~~~ ~ F :+~ ? ~'~ _ : ~~ ; T ~5~-4~~ = ; I ~ U~4f = t i i.~~ ' 1 ~____r 1 ~ ~~~~~r~`~~~~~-_J.~.-_~.~.~~~~.«~ ~ i 1"In„1i77L1R3 Total Ci'3tICc'tl Vo1~~mes i ~ ~ ~ ~~ _.~-- e "'---- ~.r ~ _~ _~~ ~ _.r ~.~- i 4 ~ ~L~vel of ~ Taao ~ Thr~e ; Fa~~r ~ ; 5erv~.ce ~ F'ha~e ~ ~ ~ase ~ F'h~c~e ~ ~----- ---~- ~ ------ , , -------, ~ ~.______ ~ , ; ; ~ A , ; 9~~C~ , 1 , 85°~ ~ 8i~ ; ~ ~ ; ~r~~c,~ ~ i ~~~=~~.- , Sbc ~ i ~ i ~~~~~,~ i ~~~~_~ i ~~~~E~ e ; D ~ 1~5[a ; lis°~ ~ 1:~~ ; i ~ i i °~t_1t.J i ~ `'i.~ ~ a ~ ~ +' ~ i ~ F , ~ , P1A ~ , A~~=, ~ ' ~ !`ar~ ~ t , ~ ; -------- : --------- ~ ~ ; --_----_ ~ ------- ~ ~-------~--------~-----------------' rabZ ~ ~ Cr'it~.~al Volume - ~.~~~ ~ ~ ~'dcr v'f Eri'~ical F'has~s = i ~ ; Level of Serwice - ~e- ~ , _ ~, ~. ~ , Volt~rri~/C~pdcity - t-~..1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --------------~.____-------~? L___ ; NfS Signal Phaszng - - . ; --___-----; ----------~ --------; -' ; -__ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ r ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i~. V ~' i i i i ~ i ~ " ~1 i i i i"-~i ; ~tr i - ; ; ; ` ~ i i i i i \/ 1 I ~.~~....~.~~~ ~ ~~~~..~~~~ ~ ~ ~_~ 1 -'--'~~~ f ~ 1 ! 1 1 1 1 1 1 --r ' _ _ _' _ ' ~ ~3 _ y~••~v 1 _ ~- _.~i~.-~~ . '... ~ ~ ' _ ~ ~ - _ ~ , --- _~~~ + _,,.'- _-r.2 .F,h~se 5~gr~al. +r ~SC.Cia-_C- _ _ ~ , -_ _ . ~. _ ~ ~ -- ~y-" - ~ ' r - ~ ~ _- ! ` ' ~ ' , .,- _ ^ y r _ _ - -~ ~ , ' , ~ ~..~..-~~..... ~ EfW Sig~al. F'h~~ing ' -- ~ ---- ~ -- --- - - ---' - , _ .~. ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ` : ' ~ ~ ~__~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s / ~ f ~ l i 1 ~ " Y i r i i ~ i i ~~ ~ 1 '~.. - ~ ~ 1 ~ .... i ~~~_ .- 1 F ~ ~~`- i ~ ' ` +'~ J ~ ~ ~ ~~ . i ' ' 1 ~ - - . ~ . ~ ~i ~ t ) - - ~ F ~ A . t+d'~fi ~~~'~~~~ 1 f r t - - - - ~~~ 1 / ~ '_ s _ ' L~e t~-+~4 ]'W 1 __~~~._~~ 1 _ -K- - -_ ~, ~ IMF~AX ~2.22 Trayf~~c Analysis on i'~licraco~~~~ters F~R~ El~fGINE~~,ING .~-_f--• ,;-~~. Frogram Licensed To: Willdan Associates SR~lTR !"EC?h1I~A - ~S~`~'t EI~' GlSMl1Lfi,TIVE L-~ASE WI~H FF;fl,,7~CT 1L/18/~9 - = F'ty! F'~A~, H~fLfR Ir~~ersectian: ~3 WI~SHI~~ 8~ ~3RD ST iH~gh Cr-itic~l Vol~irr~~ Es~ima~teJ ~= E 1 k~o. ~ f~ ~ t~, c~~~- ~~n ,~' ~asu,. ~~ Lane Car~fig~.sration and T~irn Va]umes , --------------------- ~ ------------------ ~ ------------_-~_____-- , ~ ~ _--_--_--------------- ~ , , , , , ~ ~~~Sq , , ~~„ ~ ; ; ~ ; t ; ~ ~ T kb~9~D= ~ ; j f` 1 ~ 1 7 ` 1 ~ ~~ j ~ ~ ~~~-bc-1- ~ r; ; ~ ~~ ;~-~a-= ~: + 4~.~ ~ ~~+~~s,~= ~ ; --a ~ < vv ; 7~ ~¢l ; ~ ~ ; _1~ i ~ L~~ Z~ '~,l,\ i i ' i .---„' T 1~'i ~~ = ~ i V i i r. i i! i ~ ~ ; ~ ~~ ~z~5 ,~ _~- ~ o~~~; ~. ; ;~ ; ~~ ~.o}~i;= , , , ~ ; ~ , ~ , fct7 i 1 f F] i 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1C[~T`I~ ~~~ Ql, 1 1 ~ ~ 1 1 i 1 ~..-~.~~~...~-.~~~~~~.~...-- • ~.~~-~~~~~~.~~.~«-......~' .«~~.~~.-~..~.~~...~_~~.»~~ ~ 1 _..~....-__-~~_-__~~~.~~.`~ ! 1 1_~__ ~__~____ ~~-.--_~ 1 ~~_~~~__ 1.^-___~-_ I ~ Ap~,r ; Lnr~~ „V~ of ; F'~r L~n~ F Critx~al ; ~ ~ Grc.~iip 3 Lanes i VG~llffl~ ~ tiolume ~ 1_~_.._ ~~w_._«.t F-____ 1__~'____ !~___~.___ i 1 fML~ f ~AL 1 ~ ~ !! CTT 1 f ~ ~ T~ ; ~ ~er.5 ~ ~ ~F5 ~ ~ ~ ; EX~ ~ ~ ~ ¢~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ , , , ~ SE{ ~ EXL ; f; 4~ ~' i 4:~ ~ ; ; T~ ; ~ ;'~53 ~70 ~ ; ~ ~ ~7~ ~2 ; i ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 1 ~ ~ 1 ] ~ ~~ ; ~~' ~ ~ ; rr4 ~~- ; r ~¢ ~-~ ; ~ ~ -~- , ' F ~ ~ ~ ! 1 1 1 1 1 ; , ~ , ~ , q~ , ~ , , , , , , , , , , 1 1 3 1 I 1 i W L~ i ~ T7l i 1 i j t~ ~O i ~~ ~ i i i { ; ~ ; ff 1 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ i t ~ ~ , , , , ~ , ;----~---------~-----~--------t--------1 t To~al Criti~al Valu~rie ~ i~~ ~ i ------------~_~.~__~~.~.~.-~-"'-- i ~r.~.Y---- e faZZ ~ ~-.___J..~.~.-'--~~~~.._~~~..___~.~.~~-~~M~..~-.~_ ] t M~:;i,n~.im Tatal C`r~tz~al 'vvl~.s~~ses ~ ; -------- ~ --------- ; ----__ , __--_w , ~ ~eve~ of ; Tvra ; Thr-ee ~ Faifr ~ ~~~rvaee t F'~a~e ~ F'F~ase ~ F'F-Ease ~ ; ---- ---- ; -------- ; -- ~ ------ ; - ~ ____--_ ; ~ ; ~ ~ < < ; ~f~~a ~ < eti°, ; ~ ~~~ ~ E Es t 1C~5i> ; lfft;fr ; ~b5 ~ i ~ i ~..~'.~i{_3 i ~~.~<_3 i ~.~5-;(_I ; ~ i~ ~ 1~ ~t~ ~ 1~7° ~ lw~~~ , ~ E ~ 15~>f~ ~ f~r~5 ~ i~7~~ ~ ~ ~ i I ;---- ; r~i~ ; ~ ~ I ! ----;-------;-- r~Fi ; 3 1 ------;_ t~~ ~ 1 1 __----; ~ ________~____~~__~_~_~~_~~_~____ i ' ~Z ; Crit~cal V~luR~e = ~~.~.:'- ~ ; Na o# ~r~.tacal F'hases = 2 1 ~ Level afi 5ervlce = ~C, ' ; Val«rr3e/C~pacaty = ~~ ~ ~ -------------_-.__-._-~____.-_-~. 7~r" __... ~ N/S Sigr~al F`3~a~a~g ' --- , ~ -------' ---__---' _-------- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' , ~ ~ ' - ~--- - ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~ < ~. ~ i~. V i' i i ~ i ~ i ~'~ f i i ' i i--f 1 ` 1 / } _ ' _ _1 _1 • v 1 1 I ` 1 1 1 ! ~ 1 ~ V i-_' ----~"' i_'-~--r""- i-~~-~~~- i 1 1 ' i""-- 3 1 - ~td , e - A "' ' ~ ~'_4 _T`: ~_+~yadxTlY' ti.l~ = ~ _ - ' ` ' _ -~ _;~ - =~:y:. n; _. _ ` ~ Fhase S~gn~el - ' - - ~ ~- -- --~ _ ~ ~~ . _ = i ~ , . . - - - " ~ ="~ ~ - -7- ~ _ _ _ . --- ~ ~`~ _ , _ > , > ~ _ ~-~-. -_ ~ ~ -- ~ ~~~~ _' ~ ~~4 I ____ 1 a - _ ~ E/E+~ S~gnal Phaszr~g ._---i--------;-_______; .. ~ y ~ ~ , ~ \ ~ ~ ~ {, _ ~ ~ ~ , - ~ ~ i 1 i ~ f f f ~ ~ ~ V 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ `__~_ i __~.__~~~ i ~..~______ i i i 1 1 1 I 1 / f ~ _ . ~ - - "; _ '~~~;~ ~ _ ~ ~ ,. _ s~~ -~,~~~ ~ 1 __...~~._'~ 1 • " _ IMPAX ~.~~ _ 7~af~ic An~lys~s on Mz~rocn~~p~ttErs ~. , . , Program Lacensed To: 4~lilld~n Assnc~~te~ 5A1~JTR MCI~I I CA - F-IaE~ E I F~ ~'~C EN~INEEFING CU!'~1ULATIVE E~~E 1+JITN f'~O~EC'F ~ RM f'EAk, HQLfF, Ir~ter51~,etion: ~5 WIL5HI~E & 26TH 5T ~~i ~ +~~'• ~r~ r~~i~i~Gt`r'i~:/1 I`7~GtSC.~1 ~`~ Lane Cor~fizguratzan ~nd T~trn Vol~.im~s ~-------------------~______--_.~________~________________~_;------- ~ , „ ~ ~ , l 1 1 I 1 4 3 ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T i}~l.~+Z~ ; F i i i ~ i i~ 1J1 F , ~ L i5i+-n-~152. ~ F ~; ~ ~L 6fi-oc F. 6+8~~~ \ ~ - r ~ _: vt~ ~ ~ i. ---- ; ~ ~~~~~=~~~~- -. ~ ~ f61f _ _ . ~ .---- ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ! ;;/ ~ ~ R 11 t~ ~p ~~~ 10 v ; F; 7+D: L i~~i \~~ ~ ~ ; ,~~ ; , ~ ~~~ ~ ~ T ~~1I'~G=r~~~ ; ~ ~ t ; ---------------------~ -------------------' -__--____----_______.... ~ ___ ! v f?l1813~ ~ ; ~ lJ.~ ~-+~ ~ FD+1~°.~ ; i~ ° ~:.r~~~v~= ; ~31};4= ; lp5 ~ ~ ~---- ~ ----- --~------`-------- ~ -_--_----1 ; ' ;Ap~r ~ L~t~e ~h~o of i~er Lar,e ; Cr3t3c~1 ~ ~ f"1~;.im~.art~ Tafial Cri~~~~~ ~,'oE~.:m~= ~ ! ~ ~ ~ C7`]~OLI ~ i~ttfl~5~ WCJ~lti71E ~ ~O~~.t;T3E} i ~ -"- ~ --~----- i ------ ` ---~-..-~ ~ - ~ ---'-"`-- . ~ i~"'-- ~ --~-- --i-T~--~-~------ i ---~----i W~7 i ~t'Ir~E' ~~GV~~ G'Fi i ~ i OLfr' ~ E hl~ ; EXL ~ 1 t 61~ f ~ ;SerwiCe 3 Fhasc ~ F'f~~~e t Fhase f ~ ~ T.F~ ~ 2 ~l~~ ~ 7b5~ f~~; L ~ f ---_____ ; - - ; ______ ------ ~ ~ _ , ~ ------ ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~X r~ ~ 1 ~ j~6 1 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ 4 1 1 ~ ~ I k ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 4 i ~ i ~~}rf i 4~~ ~ i L~t~.~• i ~ S~ ~ EXL ; 1 ~ ~9~ ~ 69 ~ ~ ~ ; I~~~~> ~ 1rti~-f~ ; 9~~ ; ; ~ ~'Gi` ~ 2 ~.56D .~~?- ~ ~ ; C ~ ii{f=f ; li~~:~ ; ~.ly~~y ~ ~ ; ~xR ; ! ~ ~Z ; ~ . D ; 1'~~~ ; 1~7~~ : 1~: ~: ; ~ ~ ; ~ ; ~ ~ E l 1~t~C; ~ ~4~°~ ; 1'7°~ t ~ ~& ~ E X ~, ~ 1 t ~ 5 ~ ~- ~ ~-°~ ~ ~ F ~ iV i=~ ; ~3A ~ i~J r`~ ~ i ! ~~. 1 L 1 Yi~~ 3 ~~~ 7 i I ! ! ~ I i 1 i ] 1 I ! ~ 1 1 1 F 1 i 1 1 1 f 1 I`~~~~~ i---~~`-- 1~~`-~J~ 1 y~l ~~~~,,,R~,,,~ ~ ~ 1 1 : w~ 1 ~ ExL 1 1 : ~ ~ ,05 ~r f ~ 1 l~r ~ ; ------------------------ -- ti i~ -- ; ~ ~ ] ~"R ~ ~ i ~58'~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ Crs.tical Voi-.~me ~ - ~ ~ + ~ > ; i ; ~ No ~f Cr~.t~cai FFtasES ~ r 9 :---- ~ -----_ __~-----~-~------- ~ - ~ ; Level of S~~vi~e = D y ~ ~ Tatal Crztical Vol~tme ~ ~~+ ; ~ Vcslt~me/Capaczty -- Ei~S : Q. 8~ i--"'-- - ----- ----^-----~~.,..~---- i i --1 Z ~8-- ----^--------------~-~ i ~~.~ -- i N !S S~.c~n~] Fh~~ang _ E!W 5ignal F'ha=ir~g ~ ~ ~__-- ~ --- t -------- ~ ---- ~ , - --- ~ ~ - ~ - ~- ~ -------•- ~ ---___--__ ~ __------- ~ , , ~ ~f , ~ ~ ~ /F\ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ '' 1 ~ 7 . ~ 1 \ V ~ i 1 i 1 ~ ~-~ i f ~ ~ ~ h ~ J 7 7 i~~~ J 1 1 ~ . 1 4 7 ~ 1 ! ~ f ` ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ 1 : ~ ; v ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ----- --- ~ --~~_._.-- ~ ~ ~ ----- r r ~ ~ - --- ~ ~ , ___------' ---------' ---------' ~ , ~ ~ . + ~ ~ -~~w~ .t..t -~ '` - ~ ~ r ~ r 4 i ' r _~ nT ^~t'` - - _ ; ~ - ~ `~ €c. ~ ~ ' ~' h -_ ~ ~ ~ 1 1 _ ~ r ~ _ 1 -. ~ _ _ ~ .r - ~ ~~ _ ' ~ ~~'l~A~ Y~ ~ Y_ ~ - - . _ -= - - -~ - _ - _ ; - _ " - =2 Phaa~ - ~ ~ ~~gn~~ _ ; ~ _ ' ' .. ` =.~- "~ - ,. - - - - - _ 4 - ~ .. _ ,_ ~ _ - _ _ ~ ` " ~ - :~.. *}_ - -_; "i ` - - _- _ =, ~ = - " - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- - - - - - - - : ~ . •m_"FL ~ - - '" ~~~_ -• ' V ~ ~ _ , --_ - - - = ~ - - __ -- - - - `~'~ _ _ ~ , ~ ---.._...,-- ~ , , , ~ _.~~----- i - _ - ~ - - - IMFAX ~.~2 Traf#ic An2lysss on Macr~com~~~ters , F'~~ ENGINEE~ING Frogr~m Licensed To: Willda~ Associates SAk~7TA MOi'J I CA - HSM E I F~ CUt~'Il.1LAT~VE ~ASE Er~ITH F'f,DJECT iLli8l89 FM F'ERk; HOLlR Inter-sectiar~: ~~ !r#I~SHifiE 84 ~bTH ST "`~ 1~7 JuC] ~~~ ~`-'l r~`i C~ ~ i Q i''f ~~ i~Ct `a t.t i~ ~ b Lane C~nfio~~ratia~ ar~d T~~r-n Vol~Emzs ---,_____--_.____ , ___________------- ; ~ -----~-------------- ~ -------------------- ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ „ ~ ~~~ ~ , , t ~ ` ~ ~ E ; ; -~ ~~~,,~~ _ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ \ ; 1i5 ~ t~ ~ ~ _ ~ L i~~~~rto ~'~ t ~ f f ~ L 1~~+;. = ~db*1~t~~ ~ fi~~S 1~ =; i 1i ~ . i i. VV i } ^ , c~~~~- '_~vt~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~$+{7 =4 -, i i . , .-.~~.... ^ i 'r c~ ~ i 1 i i t. 1 f 1 i ; ~ c-q i d 1109 ~ ;~ ; ~ ~ ~~~ o = ~ b* ~ ~}?~ ~ c ; ; ~ ~ ~~-i ~~~ ~ ~ ~ . 1 `~ ~~ ~ ;~~ ~ v ~iZ 1 ~ ~ , T 14s ~~ ~ , ~ ~$ ~4t3 ~ ~ ~ , , . ~ , ~ ~ --_-- I - ---------- ----~---_~_________---- -_ ' 1 l _________ ~ ~~~___~ 4_~..~~~-..~~~._ -~...~..._~_~v F ~ ~ -~~~ ~ f 1 ~.~_~~~.~ ~ ~~ 1 ~~...... ~ ~~..'~-~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ 1 1 1 ~ ~~~.'~~~~.^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1 ~~~~~~~_~ ~ 1 ;~,~pr: Lar~e ;P~la af~F'er Lar,e;~riti~ci~ ; Ma.:ZR1LiiTi l'c~t~i Gr~t~cal Vclun~~ ; ~ , ~ 6ro~ip , L~ ~ r~E+~ , Us31 ~amra ~ ~ ~ Q~ Li~JYB i ------ ------' ------ i-- i- i- - ------ ~"~ i ; -___ ; ~____.__. ~ -- ---- ~ --____._ ; __..__....___ ~ ~ ~evel af ; Two ~ Thr~~ ~ Fuu~ ; ~ hIB ~ EKL ; 1 ~ i29'' ~ ~ ~ 5erv~~e ~ ~hase ~ ~~~ase ~ F~hase ; ~ ~ T~i ~ ~j ~~,' ; 2 ~~73~-7 ; 77 t ~_______ ~ _____.,_.; ______ _ ~ ------- ~ ~ ~ CXR ; , i ; !h~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 , : ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ i i 4 ~ /5 ~ /']e ,r ~ 85=~ 1 1"I / 7` v} 4 ; ~~~ ~ # 5~ ; EXL t 1 t ~t~:;~ ~ ~~_~~ ~ ~ E~ , iC~S~a F iCiCFr'~ ~ 9~4~ ~ ~~ i ~ i7Q~ ~~ i i i ~ i ~~~Y~f i ~.~~11 ~ ~ i i){3 ; i i f~/~R i ~ i {S~ i i i ~ i ~ti til~ i li~~~ i l.~i~ i t ~ ~ ~ t ; ~ E ~ f~~i~C~ ; i~~5 ~ 1;7~ , ~ E~ ; EXi.. ~ ~. ~ lt3t>~- ~ li_~t~~ t ~ ~ 1 Nt~ ~ ~`dfl ~ h!~ ` i i ~Fl i i i ~7~'~ i i i i i i i > i ~ > i i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i --~~---^ ~ ---~^~-- ~ ----'- ~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~~~~~_~ ~ ~ t i ~~ ~ i ~ ~x~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ i~~`7 i~%i i i i~..-.~___~~_~t. -.^- ---- _~-- i --+ ~~ ~ f TR ~ 2~ 490~ ~ 49~~' ~ ; Crz~ical Valurne - - ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ; ~ ~ h1u a-F Cratical F'has~s = ~ ~ _ ; ----; _______; _~ _--~ ---------~ .~_____--~ : ~evel ~f Servzce ~ ~E t i ~D'td~ ~Jrl~ 1C~Y VO~Lifie i ~~3 i i ~pZLkfiiAl~c~Fic"~G2~}I -~:'r~ i ~S i -«_ _ ~~,-~.....__~~,---~"---~~~ ~ ~~__~.r~- i 1466 --________.~--------__~__ i ~f~~ .--- ~ N!5 Szgnal Phas,~ng Ef4rJ Signal F'h~sir~g ; ~ ___----- ~ - ~ . - -------- ~ -------- ~ - ; _...___~.__ ; ~_______ ~ ________ ; ``' S t~ ~ ~ t r;` ~ ~ ~ o : ~ ; ^ ~ ~ ; ~ ; ~ ~ ~ : > ; : ~ ~--; : > ~ ~ ^ >; ; : :--> ~ ~ ~ ~ i ` i~ i ~ ' i i 1 V i i ~ i i i i i i Y i i ~ ~ ~ 1 ~-._.~_--- "" f 1 1 1 1 "---~..'- ~~~--^~- 1 1 1 ~ ~ i~„ 1~„ f 1 ~___~~` 1 ~~~.~~~.-. ~..~~-~__~.~ 1 i 1 1 7 ; - _ $~ _' 1 1 _ 1 1 1 _ . _ - ~ _ ' _ ' _ _} _' ~ ~ 1 1 l y + ' ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ _ ~` ~~ __ ~ . s - hase Signa] ~ _ _ - 2 P ~ _ ' _ - ~ _ --- ~~~~~ _ _ _ _ ~ __- ~ - _- ___- _~ _ . _ -_ , _ , ~ ~ , ~ - ; "~~~~ ~ - _ ~ _~ ~_ `_ -- -- ~ , -- , ~~,:s.~ -- - t , _ _ _ ~ . - - _ , - s - ~ - --_°r~ { ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~__.-..^_ 1 ~ ~ ~ i . ~ ~.~_~~~~ ~ - - 'v~ ,. __ .~'~~ ~ CumulaGvc ~3~ise (~rnulaUve Base plus 1'ro~ect (SI;IR) pluti 1~'F^.lil F'rei~ccl I N O I Pealt ~'rcirn SHIR EfR Miti ~ tion' I?L;~t N~, ~)[(,i Mtcigfilii~n~ n ~4 ~ ~~ V (' 1~C)5 V/~' Wilshire Boulev~rd/ AM B U 65 B U f-tS C l) 7 f 23rc! Street YM D () 87 fl (1 Fi2 C f175 WilShirc i3~~ul~vt~rd/ AM D 086 (' 073 17 OtSS 2f~lh Street PM !~? 0 99 D 0 ti4 L 11 ~1H ~ Mitig~tion = P.atithuuncl and Westhounel Third Thruugy7 C.auc un Wilshire Roule~ard .~t 23rd Strcet ~-i-il 2(~117 Street Z Mttigatton = F?astbour~d ~trrc! We~ttx~~nd f2lght-71~rn [~nly I.:~ae c~n Wilshire I3oulevard at 2.3rc1 Slreel ancl 21~tl~ Slreet Also, nnrtl3b~~-~n~l ,inil tisiu~hhi~un~i lcl~~- tuni, tl~rough, and r~ght-turn lanes c~ii 23rd Slreet at W~lshire kiovlevard LAWRENCE AND HARDING ResAOnse to Cv~~nent No. 1 The cornmentator's request £or an additional table is noted. However, CEQA does ~ot require t~e analysis of alternatives with respect to recommended miti~at~on ineasures in an environmental ~mpact repart. Resnonse to Comment No. 2 The proposed project will generate 1,355 new daily trips, mcluding 198 trigs during the A,M peak period and 194 tnps dunng the PM peak period. The number of tnps generated by the proposed car wash i~ assumed to be the same as the exist~ng car wash (414 daily trips). Res~onse to Camment NQ. 3 So nated. Site review of the praposed proJect will be provYded by tke P1ari,~ir~g Com~jssian and architectural review wili be performed by the Architectural Review Board. Resnonse to Comment ?~Fo. 4 So noted. The applicant would anly need to participate in the retrofitting program if there is a net increase in water usage at the site. We suggest that the rrutigation measure remain i~ the EIR in case there is any change in the type of car wash system which is used, which might not achieve a decrease ui water usage. The mitigation measure would only be triggered if a net inerease in water usage accurred for some reason. ,, . ~ ~ So nated. Anv lane closures resulting from construction activities will occur on 23rd or 24th Street rather than Wilshire Boulevard. ResAanse to Camm~nt No. 6 Sa noted. The total flaor area of the propased project is 108,980 square £eet. This includes the area devoted to the enclosed car wash. The total flaor area of the original HS~+I proposaf far ihis site (11$,640 squarE feet) did not inciude the exposed areas Qf the car wash fac~lity. -1~- Resnonse to Comment No. 7 1'he trip generation of the car wash facility was based on t~e similarity of the existing and proposed facilities. This is a conservative analysis. The chart on page 31 is u~correct. Table 5 an page 32 is correct. The chart on page 3I rn the Fina1 SEIR is revised as follows (Final SEIR = FSEIR, Draft SEIR =DSEIRj: Pronosed E~stine Increase/Decrease Time Period DSEIR FSEIR DSEIR FSEIR D$EIR F$EIR Daily Trips 1,463 1,355 130 13Q + 1,333 + 1,225 AM Peak Tnps 216 198 15 15 + 201 + 183 PM Peak Trips 211 194 20 20 + 191 + 174 Resnon~e ta Gpmment No. $ The reference to the Draft City-wide Study is re£erenced in the complete traffic, c~rculation, and parl~ng impact analysis in Appendix B. The certified FEIRs far the Water Garden and Colorado Place were not directly used for reference m this analysis. Discuss~ons with the Cit}~s Parking and Traffic Engineer indicated that the future widening of Cloverfield Boulevard is in progress. Interested partaes can obtain copies a£ a.ny of the~e documents through the City, if so desired. Resr~onse tv Comrnent No. 9 Table 7 indicates the conect LOS and V/C ratios. The only correctians in Table 8 are for Wilsh~re Boulevard/26th Street and Wilshire Boulevard/23rd Street. These errors are typographical. The remainder of Table S is correct. The analysis is based on Table 7. The two incorr~ct intersectlons of Table $ in the Final SEIR are revised as shown on Table B. Resno~se ~p Comment No. 10 Table 12 is noted in the FSEIR to clarify the trip generation and required parldng as follaws: Notes: 1. Trip generation fram Appendix B, Table 11. -12- f. ~" 6 I ~ W I ~~11711I~.tlIVL' ~S<l5~' ._ ._ , m~d• rv. . .e -.. .._ __ _. t'l~ F'r~~J. _ _ _.. _~. ~'eak LUS V E C 1.,c_)S V/(` Pcrtud ~~ I~.t FS1:11Z ~I~.2 ~$ U,"~F.1~ FSH:IIt U51;IIZ 1~5!?,iR W~Ishcre 13c~i~levardJ AM I3 I) 04A 0 86 ~, C) U~15 q ~i(i ?bth Street PM l~ [? 1 32 i19y 1~ 1~ l~5 I ill W~lshire R~ulevard f AM F3 F3 [1(i2 U G5 B U U bS IY ti? Z3rd Street YM ^ 1) (184 l} 87 (? F p~11 t~ y ~ V/C; Cncrcase w~th Nr~~]ect ,._ . _ Wi1~,Mit~gatic~ - --~ Aeak ~g ~~~, 1'er~~,~! [)' ' E~S~ F.,~R ~ EIR DSksIR ~l;1lt W ELshire Buulevard/ AM 0 U] 0 UO C C U 7l p 7 I ?6Eh 5treet I'M Ci 03 (1 t?2 ll ll U&~ 0 ti j Wilshire Boulevard/ AM OO;i 017 B B [.lti6 U6fi 23rd Street P~1r1 (? 07 U 04 C C.. (172 (l 72 2. Required parking based an the City of Santa Monica's code requirements. Resnonse to Comment No. 11 The commentor's points regaxding the environmentally superior alternauve are noted. Different interpretations of the significance of various impacts can resuit in differing opinions as to the choice of the enviromnaentally superior alternative. Due to lesser traffic, visual, and water usage impacts, we still contend that Alternative 3 is the environm~ntaliy superior alternative. ReSVOnse to Comment No. 12 CQmment so noted. Re~por~.se to Camment No. 13 COmm~I2t 50 AO~eC~. However, the number of peak bour tnps associated with the auta repaar shop and Budget rental car fac2lity is relat~vely minor. As seen on t1~e chart on page 40 of the Traffic Study, t3~ese two facilit~es generate 15 AM peak hour trips and 20 PM peak hour tnps. Resnonse to Ca~rnent No. 14 Table S indicates the correct LOS a.nd V/C ratias. Wilshire Boulevard/26~h Street and Wilshire Boulevard f 23rd Street are the only intersections tha~ need correction in Table 9. The remainder of Table 9 i~ conect. T~e twa intersections m Table 9 in the Final SEIR are zevised as shawn on Table C. Res~anse ta Camment Na 15 Comment so noted. Resnonse to Comment No. 16 Comm~nt so noted. The address for EIR No. 883 an page 58 is now "1932 Santa Momca Boulevard" in the Final SEIR. Respqnse to C~mment IVo. 17 Comr-~+~nt so noted. The first sentence of page 59 in the Final SEIR is: "'The cumulat~ve traf~~ volumes, including the pro~ect-generated traffic, would have a significant tr~ffi~ impact, before mit~~ation, at 5 of the 11 cr~tical intersect~ons analyzed." A concluding statement is added ta page 59 and is as follows: -14- TABL~; C I F-' i!~ l Wrltihire 8uulevarcl/ 26th Street W~lsh~re B~lev.~rd/ 23rd Stree~ Wilshire Bouiev~irc~/ 2tith Strect W~ishire Boulev~rd/ l3rd Street Peak P ri A11R PM AM PM Peak ~l14~ AM PM AM PM '~ n~ul ~v [3~ • I.C1S V/(~ DST~IR H '~ 'L:Ck ~R L' D 0 44 0 86 F' E I'i2 D 99 ~ I! U fi2 D 65 U U 0 84 () g7 V/C Increase u+~#h Pro~e ct ~ .LS3~IIt ~Ol f SP[R UUU U.03 U 02 0 A3 (} 17 0 07 0 04 ('umul~t~ve B~itie _............ ... . ..._..__... k'1~.1'r~,~~~t L(1S v~(. D~lft 1'S~:ik~ USLiI{ I~:SI:112 E D (?')5 U tiG 1' ~ 1~5 1 U l B 3) 1165 DH2 r: L U')1 U 9 I With Mrtii~non L.OS V/(~' DSEI R FSF.IR ~~Fi R F~F Iit _ _ _, C: C U71 071 ll ll A 83 U ~i3 R B 0 6b 0 hn C C' (172 i172 "T'he recammended ~ut~gation measures, i.e. the peak hour parking prohibitions on both sides of Wilshire Boulevard and the widening of Cioverfield Saulevard at the Santa. Monica Freeway interchange, will eliminate t~e significant traffic impacts of the proposed project." -16- SAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMl'ITEE Re$nanse to Comm~nt No. 1 The EIR prepa.rers attempted to minimize references ta the original EIR, but there was also an attempt to avoid unnecessary duplication between the supplemental EIR and the originai EIR. The CEQA Guidelines state that the "supplement to the EIR need cantain only the informat~on necessary to make the pre~ious EIR adequate for the pro~ect as re~ed" and that it "may be circulated by itself without recirculatmg the prev~ous draft of final EiR." Res~on~e to Comrnent No. 2 The initia~ EIR for this project was ~ampleted in March 1989. At that time, the Cit~s Traffic and Parking Impact Analysis Guidelines did not speci~y analysis at t~e year of project occupancy. Analysis was, therefore, done to a 20.~ear horizon year (2008). The supplemental EIR was campleted under the analysis guidelines dated September 13, 1989, which specified anaiysis at project occupancy. The supplemental EiR, therefore, analyzed this project at 1993. With these ~~~~rent horizon years, there aare different results between the initial EIR and the supplemental EIR. Resnonse to Comment No. 3 Table 7 indicates the cozrect LOS and V/C ratias. The only corrections in Table 8 are for Wilshire Boulevazd/26th Street and Wilshire Boulevard/23rd Street. These errors are typographical. The rema~nder of Table 8 is correct. The analysis ~s based on Table 7. The two incarrect intersec#ions of Table 8 in the Final SEIR are shown on Table D. Resr~anse to Coznment No. 4 'Ihe references to "Madam Wu's EIR" are so no~ec~. The Madam Wu EIR, however, was nat provided by City staff for review during the preparat~on af this supplemental EIR. Resnonse ~p Comment No. 5 There are two points in which thLS SEIR differs with the Madam Wu EIR. First, the distribution of traffic related to the cumulative projects ~s different between the two reports. Second, even though the tatal square footage of thzs proposed praject (~p$,98U sq. ft.) is larger than the Madam Wu project (approximately 60,000 sq. ft.), the trip generat~on associated wzth the Madam Wu pro3ect is lazger than t~s proposed pro~ect. The hi~her number of tr~ips is pr~marily due to the retail land use -17- 'l'Al3f.E U i ~ ~ i Wilshire Bo«levarc~/ 26th Slreet Wdsh~re ~~ule~ard/ 23rd Street W~lshire F3oulevare~/ 26th Street " ni S4Yg..Rase Peak C..()S V /C Period €l$ElK rSEllt f3SEIR FSN[R AM ~ D U 44 U SG PM F F? 1 32 f~ 99 AM li li ~M U ll V/C increase with us~;iit E 1, U G2 U 65 Li (} 84 [187 L: ('.u~riul.ttwc 13dse -- . .... f'I~ f'ruic~~t _.._ I ,C)5 V /( ' ~r-;iri. [~SF~it H~HiEt I) 0 ~15 ll K4.i H I35 lO1 f) 0 !i5 U H? I; 0 91 0 9l ~7ith M~n~~t~un Wilshire Qcwlevard/ 23rd Street Frn~e ct Peak P ri DSEIR FSl :l R AM U(] 1 U UU PM U U3 0 U2 AM 0 03 () i7 YM 0 07 0 ll4 LC)S V / C' y~~.ik ~[l~ ~.~'eii~ H~si:ix C.' C (! 71 (17 I 'n D UH3 Utii 13 B 0 f~fi El 61r C C U 72 U 72 (14,SOD sQ, ft.) in the Madam Wu project. In addition, the Madame V~u EIR assumed the inclusiaa of retail in the HSM project, which is no longer part of the project. The deletion of the retail resulted in a reduction in trip generation. As defined in the Cit~s traffic impact analysis guidelines, a sign3~~ant traffic impact occurs when t}~e addition of pra~ect tra.ffic ~ncreases the V/C ratio by 0.02 ar greater, and the intersection operates at a LOS of "E" or "F" either before or after the adcution af project traffic. This analysis concluded that Santa ~Vlonica Boulevard/ 23rd Street did not meet this definiuon of a sign~ficant traf~ic impact. There would be a V/C ratio increase greater than OA2, but the intersection would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service o£ "D" or better. T~e V/C ratio increase calculated in this SEIR analysis was 0.07 in the AM and 0.09 in the PM at Santa Monica Boulevard/23rd Street. This is a higher increase tl~an calculated in the Madam Wu a,nalys~s. The ~itigation measures approved ~n the Madam Wu EIR will be implemented at Santa Manica Boulevard f 23rd Street. This will iznprove the V/C ratia as calculated iu this SEIR to 0.6b(B} in the AM peak and 0.79(C) in the PM peak. Res~onse to Comment Np. 6 See resgonse to comm~nt No. 2. Res~anse to Comment No. 7 See respa~e to camment No. 2. The EIR prepareci for 29p0 Wilshire Boulevard analyzed the cumulat~ve base year at 200$. This supplemental EIR analyzes the cumulative base year at 1993. In addrtio~, the list of cumulative prqjects analyzed was different between the twa ELRs. ResAanse to Comment No. 8 Comment so noted. Resnonse to Comment Na. 9 As identified in the SETR, the intersection of Wilsh~e Boulevard/20th Street was not si~uficantly impacted per City guidelines. The intersec~ion of W~lsh~re Boulevard/Centinela A~enue is outside of the study area of this SETR. The mid-~lock reduction, from three lanes to two laz~es, should have no impacts on the level of service o£ the ~ud-block section. This ca.n be aided with proper mer~ing distances, as recomme~ded in this SEIR, being implemented. -19- An intersection ~nterrupts through traffic. At an intersection, tune is shaxed w~th the cross stre~t. 'I'his restricts the flow of traffic on either street. This restriction, in man~+ cases, accounts for widenings and extra lanes at an intersection. The mid-block sections af these streets, hawever, are not direct~y affected bv the intersect~on restrietion. Resvor~se to Cornn~ent No. 10 Carr~ment so noted. A loss of parlang meter revenue would result. The scope of this SEIR, however, does not include an analysis af lost revenues associated rvith the loss of parking meters. Resnonse to Comment No, 11 Comment so noted. The loss of paxl~ng could have an impact on the existing businesses fronting W~Ishire Boulevard. However, it is not possible to deter~une the specific financial iznpacts to the existing businesses at this time, and it is possible that no significant a~verse effects ~vould result. Resnonse to Comment No. ~2 Some parking in#rusion into residential areas nught occur, absent action by the Crty. However, the City is considering the establishment of a preferential parl~g zone in the area bounded by 20th Street, 26th Street, Wilshire Boulevard, and Broadway. Non-resident parktng would be prahibited from 7 a.m. to 12 a.m. An EZR is currentiy being prepared for this progosal. Res~onse to Coinment No. 13 Comment so noted. The third through lane would elirn,nate the on-street pariaing, "buffer zpne," on Wilslure Bou~evard. The City's decision-makers will determine whether this confLicts with the desired "pedestxian-oriented" scheme an Wilsh~re Boulevard. The intent of the tra.ffic ana,lysis of the SEIR is to present mitigauon measures to elimin~te the signtficant traffic impacts of the progosed project. Resvonsa to Cc~m~nent No. 14 See response to Cc~mment No.'s 3 and 5. 'I'he recammended third through lane an W~lshue Boulevazd will not require any physical w~demng of the roadway. The third throug~ lane would involve a restripin.g af WiZsh~re Boulevard Hawever, it zs nc~t anticipated to result in additional uaffiic on 23rd Street -20- Resnonse to Comment No. 15 See response to co~m~nt No. 2. Resnonse t~ Comment No. 16 See response to co~m~nt No. 5. Resnonse to Cpmment No. 17 There is no mitigation measure recommended for the intersect~on a£ Cloverfield Boule~ard~Santa Monica Boulevard. Mitigatfon measures were recpmmended on Gloverfield Boulevard at the westbound off-ramp and eastbound on-ramp to the Santa Momca Freeway. The wid~~~n~ of Cloverfield Boulevard is a reca~mended near-term impravement in the Draft City-wide Study. Any pub~ic improvement project, such as the Claverfield Boulevard wide~ing, is su~ject to CEQA review. The City wrll determine whether an EIR is required if and when the pro3ect is proposed. Resnanse to Coznment No. 1$ The cumulative projects analyzed in this SEIR were based on the C~mulative Development Projects List dated October 16, 1989 and reeeived from the Planlung Division. The pro~ects listed in this Cnmmerit were nat a part of that Iist and, therefore, not a.nalyzed. A number of the prajects listed fall below the size threshold for inclusion as significant projects on the cumulative prajects list. Other projects may have been submitted subsequent to tha preparation of the cumulati~e pro~ects hst. In addit~on, at least one project on the list, the S3U,0~0 sq. ft. Airport project, was rescinded, and the analysis in this SEIR is therefore overstated to at least that extent. Resvonse to Co~nent Na, 19 The pro~ects locatad in the City of Los Angeles were znciuded in the analysis of the SEIR. They were mistakenly left out of the list of cumulative proaects identzfied. Table 3 and Figure 4 of Appendix B in the Final SEIR includes the pro~ects and trip generation of Table E and Figure 4 revised. Resnonse to Comment No. 20 The complete draft traffic a.nd circuIation un.pact analysis £or t~e HSM Group Project Supp~emental EIR including all traffi~ counts and analysis sheets were provided to the C:ity's Parl~ng and Traffic En~in~er. This mformation is available for pubhc review. -21- 7'ABI.E w 'Trip DAI[.Y TRi!'S AM PLAIC Ei(:llJit NM PLAK Il()lJl2 Land Use Generation 'i'utal in Out lu (lut 1.~~~ d U~e S~ze/Clntts ~~~l~r~____„_ itatc; Total - -Rate .. .Tot~d._ Ratc l 'otal T'r ~l. R,itc Tnt~il,---„ R~ue..__ ...7i~~.. . Tnt~ 75 3U00 3rd Stre~;t - C`.ondonunium - Code. 23U 28 unus DU 5 9 ]b4 U U7 2 (13ti 11 13 U 38 11 ll !8 5 !6 7b 1223 2ULh Strect - A~artments - C'ode 220 l$ uniEti Ul1 6 l 114 0 t 1 2 U 3r, {i R 0 i2 r~ l) l7 i H 77 l237 - 1245 2ilth iv Street - j' Apartmeots - Code 22U 23 units D[j b I 141 [I 11 3 I13h !i 11 (132 / [) 17 4 1 I 1 tllIl ~1 ~l 100 2235-2255 Carmelina Ave - Stc~rage - C«de 151 163,20U S~ l,UUO SF 2 6 42~F A(~i 14 U Oti 14 2H ll l3 2l !1 13 2! 42 !01 Carmel~na Ave / Icidho Ave / Wellesley Ave Apdrtments - Code - 23U 52 umts DL~ fi I ;i]7 U l I 6 O:ib 19 25 ~13Z i7 0 17 9 2G ~'able ~; (Cuni.} 'Crip DA1LY l'itl~'5 AM PFAK ~CULlR PM PHAK II()lJl~ Land Lfse GeneraE~on 1'uial In Out Cn Ou~ Laif d Use ~iz~/_1Jtuts _E~S~ Ital~ .._~1_~ t2a~ -- •Rate Tof.~l Fiate "L'ota.i- .-~C' 2.L;~--..._ ..Rd.tg.. . _ .1~ot~-1 Italc I'ut~~~ I c-~al l02 2550-2554 Ceuunela Ave - Condorninmm - Cucle 23Q lU wi~ts DU 5 9 59 () 07 I 0 38 4 5 0 3H 4 0 18 Z (3 lU3 2052 Bundyflnve Oftlcc - C:U(~e 71U 91,2{10 Si~' 1,l)l!O ST~ 14 0 1,2.8f1 1 77 1G1 42b 24 IHS {l32 l9 I Gti i5 3 ltiz ` lU4 1223U Mont~na Ave n.~ G~ndo~ruruum - i C:ode 230 50 units UU 5 9 l95 0[I7 4 U 3R 19 23 0 i8 f 9 Il IS ~} 2tt 105 119U1 Sant3 Momca Blvd - ReEail - Code $2U 23,20Q SH I,UUEI St~ l23 9 2,875 Z 20 51 {).)5 22 73 (i lf- 143 6 3H 14tS 2~11 i(Jfi [ 19fJ0- I 193a Olympic Blvd - Office Code 71U LU2,700 3F i,0Ui1 SH' 13 6 1,39~} 1'73 178 [I 26 27 2195 (13(~ 37 I 88 1~) 3 2 3i) li)7 1176fi Wdshire xCt~~ - Cade - 82U 365,Q(f(1 5H 1,OOQ SP 44 5 16,252 (173 26G 0 31 114 380 l 7i1 622 1 92 7U l 1,323 '1'al~le ~: ([:ont.) 7'np llP-jI..Y TRIPS ~M FF',AIC 1-10[JR PM PI;AK HlllJfz l,~nd Usc [ieneration 'l'utal In Out Ln Out iJ lFnitc Fa~ ors Ratc 7'c~~~l Total Rate 'i'ot~~l Lta~e -- - 'I'~~~~1 It~ite... l t~t~l lt~ c - _'f~~ il._.. `1'ntai se __..._ u ize/ ,-- - ,.._._ -- , , ._. _ 102i ]2226 Wilsl~ire lioulevard - ttet~ul - Cudc 820 311,(x1U 5F 1,ODQ SF 113 2 3,397 2 00 (i0 0 83 25 85 5 43 i fi3 5 b7 k 7(1 3 i 3 Restaur~int - Code 831 12,W0 SF 1,(100 SF 95 6 ],147 () 83 10 0 OS l l I 5(1l1 6U 2 25 '7 K7 • Nu tnp rate aud/or breakdown ava~laUle ~ ~ No~es ~ 1 Niunber~ c~~rrespc~nd tu eumulauve development prcyJec~s list dated Uctober I6, 1989 l'1'ri}~ gei~er~t~on retes uht.~~ned f'rc~rn'L'ri~ Ce~ierau~n, Fourth Fdit~can, fnstitule oF'I'ra.r~sportalion 1?rigineers, 19R7, <<s c~iluil,Etc~l hy i~(icncr~i~iuri, a ~Eri~~pu~cr progra~n by Micnatrans 3 Goiurnunity C`enter a5~urned lu gciicrate ~ s~nuiac number uf tnps as u library as duecied by C'~ty pl<uining staffi I i 4 Youth hoste! ~usumed ~o gener~te a yim~lar nuniber of trips as a bus~ness hotel ~~.5 directed hy (:ily pk~ining titaff . ~ ~~ • .~~ ~..~.,~ - ~~ i~ ~ -~:;~ ~~• ~ ~~..~ ti~~,-•~,i ,---;;r-~- , ~~ '~ ~'`i~'~~ ~~~~~`~"""~. 5 '*~'~.r,~ ~I ,?ct~ iy'~~' . 'r y~~r-_--~ ~~~'~_ ~~ !a'`, ~'~ .~ "~ ~ `~ ~ F r~~ } ~~ ~-~~- ~-`~'~~`-i ~•~ .~~.~~I ~~~ ,.s:. I ~ ~~! ' :i k~ ~i ~ ;~ -~ nr ~~ ~- ~ ~'.~--~I~, ~ ,~ ~ il .ti ~ • r +t i~'~. ~ ~ ji ~1 k !~ Y' ~ I y~ 1 ~~~~ ~~~_~ :~ + .~-. ~~~I ~ ~ ~~ I 'ifl ' ~ ~ 1 ~~.~r~'~'r.s ~'~~ ~~T I " t ,,.~ ~ ~ ~ ''i ~~j~~i ~ ~~~~~ 'r ~ 1 ~ I~ 6 ii`~~-'. ~!~~~ i :f ~~~'--~:~ J~i I .j ~r ~~-L'' i h . ~ i ~~~. ~ ~ ~ R ~ ~-- ~~~ I Ir~~ ~ i :r- ;.~ . ~ ~ , T, ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ,~;--~~_~_,~, ~ ~ ° ~ , I ,I - ~,,. ~~~ ~~ p n ~ ~'~ 1 ~I~ ~I~~'~~ I t~~ ~+ ±I ~~~~ ~I !~~, ' ~~~-~~~,'' ` K' I' ~~ ~~~j'~k,,,1~~. -~;~' 2 s' ~. - ! ~~ ~I r-~~~ -i ~i i' r,lr~~. ~'~ ' ~ •`@' ~, '~~ -•~ ~ ~I ~i :~, L ~ :i` '-• a `ay `~ \ ~ ''- •'~ ^~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ f~ ~ - s,~-J L' .u , ~`~,~~L.I-~,__=_r- .~~ ~~~~ r~+ r~.~' J~;~~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ u ~~~ ~ ~`'~. ~ii~L'~~~ ~--~r ~ _~~~-1- ~~,~.r...~~~~ ~ ~'~.~~-~~--.~--_.r_~~ ~.~~;L~,.~:L'~'~~.,= ~ ~ ~~~~-; ~ ~ '1'~~~ ~ ' ~~~C ~ ,~~ ~ +, ~ ~~~ . ; :~ ~'_~.~ ~V -. ~ ~ , ' , I ~ , ~~~.'~~~G; : :.2~: ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~; - ~ ) ~~~ ~ ii rir r;r , a y ';'y ~~._~~ ~l ~ ~'w~ ,~--~ -L~~~~ ~ - r~~ ;~~ ,~~~ _ ; ~~~ ~~ ~ ~, ~ ~ i g ~I~~ ~ ,~ ~-! '- ~~, ~ ~ - ~!~ ~~ :, i s.. ~iw -'~P ~ _ ~~~~ ~~~~~ 'S°°~_-"l _fCL='=~L~ L i 3~+_~:- ' ~. w.. ~~T~~~ i~.[~ ~ ~~ ~~~1':~~i~Z`~;~~~T~~~~T~i~~~! ", ~~~~ : ' .~,~,..~ ~~~~~~lil.~;!~.~ ~~.~.~~~~~~'~1~~~:~~'~°~~.~~,~"~"~~'. ' ~ s~ ~ ~:~rmrrn ~rrmr-n~: , • ~~°.~~I~~~~~ ° ~'~i'~ ~o~ECr srrE~t:~~~'~~1;.~r~~~' ' , ;~ •~= ~~.~~~~u[~~~1,~'~''I~ ' , ~l~~~l~~~~~~1~:~~~~1 ; , a„. ,,.~.. ,,~j- ~~1 _ ~ ~-- j r~ r_--:~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~` ~ ~ ~,i ~~f I~=~~,'~~;,~~~~~~;~~!~~i~!~~~:~~'l~~;C~! '' ~~~I~l%'' ! I ;~ I ~_ r_ -a---- ; : U ' 1J~ ~ ~ ~ !( '~ 'r '~ 4~~ ? ; ~t I' ,f ii r ~ <<'; ~ ~ ~ ,~ ;~L ; ~~:~~~~[11~I~~~:~[~~~~~Z~t : ~~~~~; ~ ~ ;~ ~-,~ i~ - ~. ;~ + ' ~~ !~~1~~.1.~~T~~'~I~~[~'~~~~~1~'~~~2'` ~~[1~~~~~~ ! 6 , 5~j ~ _.~ --i~ ~.I ~ ~~ ~ I, 1 I i I n ..~ ~ ~ ~~ 7 ~ F ~ s ~ I a I ~,-~~~~_.~~~1~1~~1~L~L,L~I~C~~~I~~~C~~ ~~T~ .~ .....~ _ ,~ ~ ~ ~~~.:.~~~~~;~~~~d~~, - ~~~~~~ ~~~ , ; -~ --~ ,~{ iLu ~~;. i r~i ~J!~~~ I? rLf ~LI fL~~L1~ I~JLUI~+j~~~ f~~y~' 'y~s ~ ~? ' 1! [.~~:(~~I~ I~Ir+~III~ '~- ~ ~~''~, ~ ~d ~~G~~~!~~~~ ~C~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~- - - ~;~~..,~~t~. `. g ~[~;~[ ;i J[~ ~; ' ~ i; ~-~~ }~ ~~ ~~~., ~`1l, I1 ~ ~[l.~ ~~ , ;, ~; ~ ::~~ ~~~ . 3 i ,~b ~~L, r~ ~~,~ ++Q~` I !~F' ~ ' ~~ ~~ ~ ~, ~` , ~ ~ OO GUMUl.Al1VE ~~~~~o~~~ i PRO.IEGT ~~r--~ ~ ~_ LOCA17Qi~IS ( HSM GROUP, INC. SEiF~ ~ F~gure l Cumula#i~e Trafflc Project Sites 4 ~ r1~.f.Dltl1 ASSQCUt'rE8 REVISED a+a~s +wo a~ra -25~- Resnonse to Comment No. 21 Tlie a,nalysis of the alternatives was completed per CEQA requirements. The analysis completed in the SEIR went beyond CEQA requirements, as requested by the City'S Plannin~ St3.ff an(~ the P1~1ri~ COmm~SS10A. Resnanse to Comment No. 22 The SEiR analysis determined that the intersections close to the McKinley School would not be significantly impacted by tra.f~c associated u~th this pro~ect. The City cauld laak further into the impacts of this project, but this falls beyond the scope of th~s SEIR. Resnonse ta Comment No. 23 The SEIR identified rec~m~~ncied mitigation measure~ that al~o appear in the Dra£t City-wide Study. As identified in Section 4.1.6., all recommended mitigation measures are also part of the recommendations ~n the Drift Ciry-wide Study. Resnonse to Comrnent No. 24 Comment so noted. ReSnonse to Caznznent No. 25 As seen m Table 7, page 36 of the SEIR, the intersect~on of Wi~shire Baulevard/26th Street will operate at a LOS of "F' durmg the PM peak penod at the ~~m~~lative base-plus-project, without ~utigation. This represents "ja.mm~d" conditions at the intersection. Backups on the cross street res~nct movement of vehicles through the intersection. Iu contrasr, a LOS af "D" in the PM peak occurs with the recom~nended mitigation measure. This means cars are sometunes required to wait more than 60 seconds dunng short peaks to get throu~h the intersection. There are no lang-standing traffic jams. Resvonse to ~omment Na. 26 Comm~nt so noted. Review of the analysis af Alternative 2 identified a typagraplucal error in Table 10 of Sectzon 4.1.5, and Table 12 of Appendix B. The intersectivn of Wilshue Boulevard/26th Street is revased as follows: -26- C~mulati~e Base w/.Alternative 2 Peak LOS V/C Periqd DSEIR FSEIR DSETR FSEIR Wilshire B~vc~/ AM C C 0.70 0.70 23rd Street PM E D 0.91 0.89 . The comrnentor's description of the Wi~shire Corridor as predo~~nantly characterized by ane- and two-stary builc~iags is valid. While some buildings in the generai vicinity are three stories or more in height, the m~,]Ority of commerCial buildings are rivo stones or less, Resaonse to Comment Na. 28 As stated in the draft SfiIR, the propased pro~ect is compatible with cornmercial Iand uses along Wilshire Boulevard, but is not necessarily compatible in terms of building size and design. Resnonse to Comment Vo. 29 The commentor's descnptions of statements form the Madame Wu's EIR seem generally applicable to the proposed pro~ect as well and a.re consistent with the comment~ made in the draft SEIR for thls project. The draft SEIR acknowledges that it is a City policy to create a pedestrian-oriented sidewalk environ~~nt along W~lshire Bou~evard and that ~he proposed building should be designed to achieve this objective. As shown in Figure 16 of the draft SEIR, the front faeade of the proposed build~ng does not fuIly conform with the building envelope poiicies of the La,nd Use Element. Tlie design of the bwlding and the courtyard will be re~ewed by the Architectural Review Board far conformance with the City's existang policies regarciing building design. Resnans~ ta Cqmment Na. 31 The draft SEIR pra~des an adequate de5cription of how shadows wi11 affect neighbori~g properties during cnicial times of the day and year. (See Fig~es 17a, 17b, and ~.7c, as well as Table 11). The corr~m~ntoz's descriptions of how s~adows -27- might affect the florist and delicatessen across the street are noted. No further analysis is needed to adequately describe shadow impacts. Resnonse to Comm~nt No. 32 Discussion of wi.nd patterns was not part of the scope of this EIR. A five-story structure is ~~nlikely to result in substantial wind effects. Further analysis of this isst~e is up to the discretion of City officials, if they find that is poten~ially s~gnificant. Resnonse to Comment No. 33 Parking structure safety was not part of the scape of this EIR. Numerous underground garages have been constxucted in Santa Monica and e~sewhere a,nd have not res~lted m sigiuficant safety impacts. The EIR preparers are not familiar wi.th the UCLA studies whieh are cited and, therefore, can provide no further comment. ResAOnse ta Comrnent No. 34 The comm~ntor's opimons regarding the size o£ the buildmg tenaces are noted. Resnonse to Camm~nt Np. 35 The heights of the mechanical penthouses are described on page 59 of the draft SEIlt and ui Fi~ure 13, 14, and 15. The dzaft SEIR also recam,nends eonsideration of reducing the penthouse heights. Although the mecba.ni~a1 pentl~ouses are c~wite large, there is no indication that they will be converted to usab~e floor space in the future. Resnonse ta Co~m~nt No. 36 It is o~r understand.ing that the proposed car wash will recycle some af the water used in washing cars, then rnrx 1t with fresh water to wash addit~onal cars. The reclaimed water will not be used for drinl~ng water. It should be clarified that the reclauned water to be used in the car wash is not derived from any type of large, area-wide water reelamatiaz~ system which captures and treats general wastewater for reuse. Such water is typically only used for irrigation a.nd o~her purposes which do not require clean fresh water. Resvonse ~o C~mment No 37 It is quite likely that the loss of parl~ng, wh~ch would occur during peak traffic periods only, could have an adverse effect on small businesses a.lang W~lshire which ca~not supply theu own parlcing. The removal of parldng on Wi~shire Boulevard is propased in the City-wide traffic study and the secandary effects of such an action -28- should be examined in more detail m conjunction with that study. The adverse imipacts assaciated with the loss of parinng will need to be weighed against the benefits of improved traffic circulation which will result from this actian. This is a policy decision which will need to be made by the City. Resaonse to Comment No. 38 T~e noise which would be generated by constnaction of the praposed b~zi~dmg wauld be no greater than norma.~y anticipated for t~s type of projeci a.~d, because they are of a short-~erm nat~e, they have not been cansidered ta be significant impa~ts. However, construction activities can generate very loud and reoccurring noise events and, because o£ this, the SEIR propases some noise mitigataon measures to be instituted during the construction period. If #he City pre£ers, these z~oise impacts can be cansrdered signifiGant and adverse, and stncter mitigat~on can be imposed. A statement of overriding considerations would need to be adopted if the project is approved and noise i.mpacts are deternxined to be significantly adverse a.nd cannot be adequately mitigated. Res~onse to Camment Na. 34 The commentor's conceras regarding canstruction vibration impacts are noted and will be given consideration. City building officials can detern,i~e ~f any spec~al measures need to be taken tfl preven~ neighboring structures from being damaged. Res~anse to Comm~nt Na. 40 Locations for shuttling construction workers ta the pro~ect site will be determined prior to eonstructio~ and will be subject to approaal by the City Res~on~e to Comm~nt No. 41 An analys~s of housing needs was not withzn tl~e scope of this EIR, since the City has adopted a Housing and Parks Mitigation program for new office development. The SEIR does state that the of~ice buiiding would probably employ about 380 people and the car wash would employ less than 2d people. Tl~s employment would generate a s~nall increase in demand for local housing. The City's mitigat~on progr~m requires that either affordable housing be developed, or that the developer pav an, in-Iieu fee to the City of $2 87 per square feet for the first 15,000 square feet and $6.37 per square feet for area above 15,~00 square feet. _2g_ WILLIAM F. WEINGARDEN Resnonse to Comment No. 1 The cumulative projects analyzed in this SEIR were based ~n the C~mulative Development Pro~ects List dated October 16, 1989 and received from the Planning Division. The pro~ects listed in this comment were not a part of that list and, therefore, not analyzed. A number of the projects listed fall below the size threshold for inclusion as si~ficant pro~ects on the cumulat2ve projects ~ist. Other grojects may ha~e been submitted subsequent to the preparation of tlie ~~mulative projects list. In addition, at least ane pro~ect on the list, the 83U,000 sq, ft. Airport project, was rescinded, and the analysis in this SEIR is therefore overstated to at least that extent. Resnonse to Cornment No. 2 The projects located in the City of Los Angeles were included in the a.nalys~s of this SEIR. They were mistakenly left out of the list af c~m~ilative projects ldentified. Table 3 and Figure 4 of Appenci~ B in the final SEIR includes the pro~ects and trip generation vf Table F and Figure 4 revised. Resnonse to Cnmment No. 3 Table 7 indicates the carrect LOS and V/C ratios. The only conections in Tabl~ 8 are for Wi~s~ire Bo~e~ard/26th Street and W~shire Boulevard/23rd Street. These errors are typographical. The remainder of Table 8 is correct. The analysi5 is based on Table 7. The two incorrect in~ersect~ons o£ Table 8 in the Final SEIR are revised as shown on Table G. Resvonse to Comment No. 4 Dauly tra~c aolumes at any location varies from day to day and month ta month Expenence within Los Angales County suggests that traffic coun~s taken at different dates that are within five to ten percent are more than reasonable Th~s c1t~Ference in traffic voiumes accounts for the difference in Tables 1 and 2 of the SEIR and EIR No. 8$7. Resnonse to Comment NQ. ~ The uutial EIR for this project was completed in Marc~ 19$9. At that time, the City's Traffic and Parking Impact Analysis Gu~delines did not spec~y analysis at the year of project accupancy. Anal.ysis was therefore done ta a 20-year honzon year (2008). The supplemental EIR was campleted under the analysis guidelines dated September 13,1989 which specified analysis at project occupancy. The supplemental -30- ~,~-KC.t. F W ti ~ Tnp DAfLY TRI!'S AM Yl~.AK HUUIt 1'M Pk:AK 11()CJIt Land iJse Ge~~erat~on 7'o tal In Uut In Ckit I,an(~ Use -- ~~X~ils ~~t~ts--- Rate 1'ul ..~ lt~ T~ e,_ 'l'~tal__ '1'c~tal R~ue 'Cntal k~itc _ 1'Eit~il,. 'l'utal 75 3000 3rd Slreet- Cond~~mrmurn - Code 230 28 unrts DU 5 9 1(~4 (f U7 2 0 38 I I 13 l) 38 I 1 0 18 5 1(i 76 1223 20th Street - Aparlments - Cude 22[} 18 un3ts UU fi Y L LU U 1 I 2 U 36 b 8 0'i2 6 q I 1 i ~l 77 1237 - 1245 2Uth Street - AparUnants - Code 220 23 units D[J 6 I 14l 0 k 1 3 U 36 t3 1 l t) 3l 7 il 17 4 I l With n the ~;itY_4f I.cfs A~~ 100 2235-2255 Cxrmelutia Ave - Storage - Cude IS 1 163,20(1 SF 1,(Hl~ S~' 2 6 424 0 U8 14 0 08 i4 zti U 13 21 (3 13 21 4Z i01 Carmelmu Ave / 1~laho Ave / Wellctiley Ave Apartments - Code 2;i(} S2 uiuts DU b I 317 U I I b (13b 19 25 O i2 17 l? i7 ~1 2{~ '1'able F (Coni.) '1'r~p UAILY 'T'R[PS AM PE:AK I iOUlt YM l"L'A1S f iUl.lli Land lJse General~ un '1'ot~l In Out la~ Oui l.~ald l~se Size/[lnit~ F~r~.._ _~2~~te _'1'~.~I__. Itate Tcrtal Rate Tc~tal 'T~~t~~ .__ ._It~te„ ___.i'~ji.~il ..._ Kalc_ , . .,I'c~t~il._. _ 1'ait,i~ I (Tl 2550-2554 Cent~iie;la Ave Cand<~nunimum - Ccx1e 230 lU umts UlJ 5~) 59 0{)7 1 038 4 S 1138 4 U 1}i 2 h 103 2052 ~iimdy Ilr~ve Office - Cudc 710 91,200 SF I,IXH) SH 14 I) 1,2R(1 1 77 1G1 U 2G 24 185 D 32 2~) I f~R k 5 i IH2 i W ~ l{}4 1223U Monten~ Ave C;~ndouiuuum - L'ade 230 50 ui~its 1]U 5 9 295 () f17 4 0 3R 19 23 (] 38 1~l Q l!i '1 2H lOS 11901 S.~nta Mo~uca Blvd - Retail - Code 820 23,2AQ SH' l,(1(xl 5i' 123 9 2,k~75 2 2U 5 i 0 95 22 73 G I fi l4 ~ n 3ti 148 ZN I t 06 1190(}~ 11930 Olymp~c Blr+d - Uffice - Code 710 102,700 S~ I,fxlf} SF 1'i G 1,399 1 73 178 () 2h 27 2()5 U 36 37 l t3ti 1~13 ? 3ll lU7 1176fi WiL~liire Reta~l - C'ade - A2U 365,(K1U S~' 1,UOQ SN' 44 5 1h,252 U 73 266 U 3] l l4 380 ] 70 (i?2 1~12 7U l 1,3?.3 T:~blc !~ (Cnnt.) 'Tr~p DAILY 'f'RIPS AM PF.AK HO[.11t k'M }`LiAlC I[c)l] R land Use Generatwn 3'otal In Out In Uut ~i~ Use .. S~ze/Clmts ~'~ctors Rate Tota9 Rate , Total Rate 'Ca~~„I_.,~1~ 12ate l'r-iai __..~t ~S~ .._ Tni<-I 1 ut~il lUli 1222~1i W~ltihire Rnulcvarcl - Retail - L:c~de 82U 30,000 S~ 1,004 Si~ 113 2 i,397 2 UU fi0 (1 F33 25 R5 5 43 1G3 5 fi7 1711 333 Kesiaur~li~f - Code 831 12,4D0 S~ 1,0(10 SF 95 6 l, l47 U~3 1(l 0 U8 1 l i 5~fl 6Q 2 25 2! ti7 w ' No tnp rate and/or breakdown ava~lable w i Notcs I Numbers curretipcmd tu curnufative developiuent pro~ects l~st daEed C)ctnber ]6, ]989 2 Tnp generauui~ rutes c~htained from'1'r~ Generat~on, l~ourth L-~diuon, institute of'I'ratLtiportation Eng~neers, 19~37, as c~leiil~~led hy Tri ~ C7cner.iuun, Si CUIllk1LIlCl' progr.tm by Microtrany 3[,'ummui~ly Ce~lter a.tisumed tn gcuerate a similar number of trips as ~i lihrary as c~jrectec~ by City pianiu~ig ~t~iFf 4 Youth hutitel assumed to gener~itc a 5~milar nunaber of tnpy a~s a lyutiir~ess hotel as d~r~cted by City plaonulb st~ff L HSM GROUP~ INC. SEiR ] ~ ~~ ~$~~,~$ Cumuiatl~e Trafflc Pro~ect Sites ~~~ ~~gure 4 ~~ns~a -~4- '1'A I,F, G CLii~l at~ve Sase __ ._ Peak LAS V/(' P r~ DSEIIZ ~'SEfK 1)SF.I N~SEIft Wdthyre I3oulevard/ AM L~ 1) (144 U.R(i 26th Street PM r ~: l 32 0)~ Wilsh~re Baulevard/ AM [i li 062 f365 23rd Street PM 1) D U$4 U 87 ~ w ~ ~ V/C lncreasc wlth -- Prc~~ect ._~ ['eale PeriQCl ll~'~ t~SLllt W~Ish~re Boulevard/ AM 0 U1 0 01! 2hth Street PM Il U3 (i Ol Wtlshire Buulevard/ AM 0 03 U 17 23rd Street PM 0 07 (1 lW C'umulatEV~ I3~ise . P~us Yre~ ~c ,,,_ .__ . . .._ L(aS V/(:, f)S~llt T;SF1R UtiLllt F'Si?iK ii I1 0{)5 U tib f~ f~ l j5 1 U l H n a cfti i~ x? E 1; U~ll !)41 Witki Mit~,~~ii L~S V/C' DSF IK l~ '~ R L~Lllt F?SF:I R C (. O71 (}7i n U oK~ crs.; ~3 B 0 6G U 6h C C E172 (172 EIR, therefore, analyzed tlus pro~ect at 1993. With these different horizon years, there are different results between the initial EIR and supplemental EIR. Resnanse ta Comment No. b This SEIR differs from FEIR No. 916 in the "C~mulative Base" coh~~~ primarily becau5e two different traffic distribution patterns were used. To review and compare the traffic distribution of these two reports in deta~l is beyond the scope of this SEIR. Resvonse to Comment No. 7 The compleEe draft tra~~ and circulation unpact a.nalysis far HSM Group Property Supplennental EIR inclu~ing all traf~ic counts and analysis sheets were provided to the Ci#~s Parl~ng and Traffic Engineer. This information is available for public review. The level of information provided in tlus SEIR meets CEQA requirements. The impacts af the proposed project and methadology in determ~ning the traffic impacts are fully disclosed. The methodology is cleaxly footnoted and approved by the City's Parking and Tra~~ Enguieer. Resnonse to Com~~nt No. 7(a) Yes, the peak hour turning movements were not i.ncluded "in the Appe~dix" of Append2x B because this increased the b~k of the doeument ~~nneC~55aT1~.}+. However, as stated iz~ response to Comment No. 7, a complete draft of the tra€fic ana.ly5is, including the turning movement counts, was prov~ded to the City Parlang an.d Traffic Engineer an.d ava~lable ~or public review. Res~onse to Cazz~naent No. 7(b~ T'he percent distributian af the ~~m,~lative projects was based on the City's Land Use and Circulatian Element and other EIR's. This distribution was also reviewed and approved ~y the City Parldng and Traffic Engineer, Resvonse to Comment No. 7(cl The City's Traffic and Pazldng Impaet A.nalysis Guidelines dated September 13,1489, were used for this SEIR. 'These Guideli.~es identifiied the C~ty's requirements for impact analyses a.nd was foliowed throughaut the prepazat~on of the SEIR. The intersect~on level of sezvice ealculat~ons were provided to the City Parlcing and Traffic Engineer as stated previously This information meets CEQA requ~rements -36- Resnonse to Comment No. 7(d~ Comment so noted, However, it is not within the scope of this EIR ra provi~e a copy or s»mmary of the methadology used in this analysis. The Transportation Research Board Circular 212 is recognized as one industry sta.ndard for the ana.lysis of intersect~on level of service. It is also an approved methodology by the City Parking and Traffic Engineer. Res~onse to Comment Nc~. S The data contai_ned in Tab~e $ provides all the information requested in the Cit~s analysis guidelines and CEQA requirements. R~sppnse to Camment No, 9 A compazat~ve analysis of alternarive projects and project sites is required by CEQA. The traf6ic analysis of the alternatives presented i~n the SEIR is adequately detailed. The same level of detai3 as presented for the proposed project is not required by CEQA. Resnonse No. 10 As seen in Table 7, page 3b of the SEIR, the intersection o£ Wilshire Boulevard/26th Street w~ll operate at a L45 of "F' during the PM peak period at the cumuiative base plus pro~ect vv~thout znitigatian, This represents "jammet~" canc~it~ons at the intersection. Backups on the cross street restrict movement of vehicles through the ~ntersection. In contrast, a LOS of "D" in t~e PM peak occurs with the recommended maitigatian measure. This means cars arE someti.mes required to wa.it rnore than 60 seconds during short peaks to get through the uitersectian. There are no long-stanr~in~ tTaffi~ ~amc_ Resnanse to Comment No. 11 The planning methodology of Transportation Research Board Circular 212 takes mto account buses and trucks using the intersection. Resvonse ta Co~nent No. 12 Vehicles parked illegally during the recornmended peak hour par~cing prohibition would reduce the effectiveness of the third through Iane. An enforcement effort would reduce the frequency of such illegal acts. These act~vities axe unrelated to the proposed project, however, and need to be addressed independent of the praject. -37- : Resvonse to Ca~rn~nt Na. 13 The v~ndening of Cloverfield Boulevard is recommended in ~he Draft City-wide Study. It is beyand the scope of this SEIR to determine the imgact5 af this uridening. Any public improvement project, such as the Cloverfield Boulevard widening is sub~ect to CEQA review. The City will deternune whether an EIR is required if and when the project is propased. Resnonse to Comrnent No 13f 1) A lass of revenue would result. The scope of tlus SEiR, however, does not include an analysis of Iast revenues associated with the loss of parking meters. Resnonse ta ~ornrnQnt No. 1362) The loss af parl~ng could have a.n impact on the existing busine5ses fronting Wilsk~ire Boulevazd. It is not possible to determine the specific €inancial impacts to the existing businesses, at this #ime. Resnonse to Comm~nt 1~To. 13t3~ Some parking intrusion inta residentia.l areas might occur absent action by the City. However, the Gity is considering the establishment of a preferential parI~ng zone in the area bounded by 20th Street, 2bth Street, W~lshire Bau~evard, and Broadway. Non-resident parking would be prohibited fram 7 a.m. to 12 a.m. An EIR is currently being prepazed for this proposal. Resnonse ta Comment No. 13(4) See response to Com~~nt No. 13(3). Res~on5e to Comm~nt No. 13f51 Comment is ~3~+cult to understand. How wou.kd closure of a few small business tenants resul# in a growth inducing impact? Res~anse ta Cam~~nt No. 13(b) The Cit~s Pa.rkin~ and Tra.ffi~ Engineer has the authority to implement parkmg res~rictions. In cases where there is an extensive arnount of restrictions implemented, the City Parking and Traffic Enguieer would seek the City Council's appro~al. This response is based on discussions with the Cxtr~ Parking and Tra.ffic Engineer. ~CI:ld 02885/0404/065 wldn~rpt~rt57c -38- C/ED:PB:DKW:SL PC/MEMOHSM Council Mtg: October 16, 1990 TOs Mayor and Ci.ty Council FROM: City Staff ~~Ir; ~ ~{ ~ ~ ~ ~ ti"`-~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ OCT ~ g ~99~ Santa Moni.ca, California SUBJECT: Supplem~nt to Council Item Regarding Appeal of a Planning Commission Certification o~ an Enviranmental Impact Report, EIA 887 and Approval af Develap~ent Review, DR 470 and Variance, ZA 5368-Y to allow construction of a].02,608 squar~-Foot, 2.5 FAR, five-stary~ 66'-6" tall, all--office development with dri~eway access on 23rd and 24th Streets and sub'terranean parking, located at 2320 Wilshire Baulevard. Applicant: HSM Group/Kennedy--Wilson Appellants: Mid-City Neighbars and Save our Neighbo~hood This report is a supplement ta the staff report for the abave project. The following are two corrections to the s~aff report. l. Page six, paragraph twa, of the staff repart should read as follaws (changes in i~talics): "Add3tianal environmenta3 analyszs c~nc~ud~d that with further reductions in project size to 2.5 FAR and 101,6~8 square feet, only the int~rsection of Cloverfield Soulevard and th~ westbaund aff-ramp will be significantZy impacted. This impact can be mitigated by modifyang an existing Ieft-turn Iane to a shared righ~ and left-turn Iane at this intersection. This measure could be ~nstalZed pending the near-term improvement o~ the Cloverfield Baulevard raidening recommended by the Ca.ty-wide tra~fic study." O~ ~ /~~~ _~_ ,-~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ 2. Page 20, paragraph two of condition 41, of the staff report should read as follows (changes in italics): "The mitigation measures is as follows: The Claverfield/westbound off-ramp can be mitigated by striping the s~cand westbound left-turn lane as a shared right and leftT~ur~ lane. This shared lane, howevex, cannot be implemented until Cloverfield Boulevard is widened to a six-lane raadway with left- turn channelization. This widening is recommended as a near-~arm improvement ~n the draft City-wide traffic study." Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director o£ Planning D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner Shari Laham, Acting Sanior Planner Planning Division Land Use and Transpoxtation Management Depaztment PB:DKW:SL PC/MEMOHSM 10/12/90 - 2 - Cr-'~~S'OP-ER M ~,3SR~1~3 iIG-AR~ A _'J'7JR=NCE K_N~Ic-^ _ K:~T~H~R KR SY N -U6?:.RG ~GNNP = WAR~EN KEVIN V KC2A_ SFERNA\ _ STACf" ~~r cc~n=_c_ ^ - _ r - __ ~ . ~~ i ~s ` _ ~ - w `_ ' f J 4 \ s ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ L~~V~'REh C E& H~RDI~ G ~~~~~~ i~~~ A ~ROFESS~OM4v CO~°JRP-ON OTTORNEYS AT _4W Z50 5-x-t; S-RE=T SU'7E 3~~ ~6~1-P MpNIC~'. C.4LIFOPM'q 9~~~~1 T=LEPr~~.E '213~ 353-IO~:7 'E_ECCPIE~ '2 3' ~SB- a~~ october 15, 199a VIA MESSENGER Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street, Room 200 Santa Monica, California 90401-3295 Re: DR No. 470; EIR No. 887 Address: 2320 Wilshire Boulevard Applicant: Kennedy-Wilson/HSM Group Our File No. G13.1 Dear Councilmembers: Enclosed please find a copy of a memorandum which we have prepared describing the legal l~mits on the discretion which the Council can exercise in its review of Development Review Permit No. 470. AttaChed ta the memorandum is a partial transcript af the Council's pzoceedings on the adoption of Ordinance Na. 1321(CCS). You have previausly received a tape recording fram us of the transcribed testimony. Because the application for this project was deemed substantially complete by April 29, 1988, it is not subject to ~he develapment standards established in Ordinance Nos. 1441 and 1449(CCS) and codified in the New Zoning Ordinance adapted in August of 1988. Rather, this project is to be reviewed under the Land Use and Circulation Element {"LUCE"), as incorporated ir-to ~rdinance No. 1321. Therefore, this project is to be evaluated under ~.he following standards: As a matter of right: four stories/2.5 floor area ratio ~'~ F~" ) With site review approval: six stories/3.0 FAR (LUCE Policy 1.6.1) Because the Planning Cvmmission did not appr~ve a density bonus for this site and becausE the deve~oper has not challenged that decisi~n, the 2.5 FAR approved for this project is deemed to be compatible with its surroundings. The Council does not have any d~.scretion to contravert such a finding. This limitation is analyzed in detail in the attached memorandum. ~O~ '~ 1c~ -~I~ ~~ ~ ~ R~~ _ , 'y • / L~~~~73E\ CE & H ~RDI\ G A ~RCFES$IpMALCCRPORAT'ON ATTORIVEYS AT LAW Councilmembers ~ctober 15, 1990 Page 2 Th~ Council, however, does have discretion ta affirm or disapprove the fifth floor gxanted as a site revi~w bonus by the P~anning Commission. The Council also has discretion over the physical placement and distribution of the 2.5 FAR guaranteed as a matter of right far this site. Additionally, the Council has discretian over the foll.owing aspects of the pr~ject: entrances, driveways, compatiba.lity of uses, balconies, fenestration, screening, fencing, signage, trash storage, landscaping areas, lighting, health and safety features, the acc~mmodation of utility services, pr~ject- related services, and the process of construction activities. City Staff has recommended that the Cauncil take the following actians: (1) certify the EIR for this project (as amended and supplemented)~ (2) affirm DR Permit No. 470 for development of 2.5 FAR, (3) partially grant the appeals by denying site review approval for the fifth flaor, and (4) affirm the variance necessary merely for compact parking at the ratio permitted under the code. The applicant concurs with the Staff Report, although we sugges~ that the site review bonus for height, as granted by the Planning Commissi~n, would permit greater flexibility in building design. The applicant has acquiesced to a11 reasonable requests to further mitigate this project. The 2.5 FAR/all-offiee/4-story project, as mitigated, will have no significant adverse environmental impacts, as confirmed by the City's extensive environmental studies, Based upon the factual record far this praject and the applicable ~egal standards, the Councii wiZl be unable to adopt legally defensible findings if it fails to affirm a 2.5 FAR and 4- stories for this all-office project. We contend, for the reasons stated in the attach~d memorandum, that the Council has no discretion to withho~d appraval of a 2.5 FAR/4-story/ail-~ffice building on the site. I.~~~l~~i\CE & H:~RDI\G F PaG~ES51CNAl COR~OPa~~G'~. ATTORlVEYS AT LAW Councilmemb~rs October ~~, 1990 Page 3 Because of the nature af these praceedings, we hereby request that the applicant be provi.ded w~.th an opportunity to address the Cauncil for not less than 30 minutes ta adequately explain the pertinen~ facts and laws which gavern your decision on the merits of this project, irrespective af the testimony on the procedural aspects af which standards to appZy. It shouZd be noted that this project has been pending for 2~ years, yet this is the only instance the Cauncil has ev~r considered the project. By way of cantrast, the PZanning Co~amzssion ha~ held at ~east five hearings on this pro~ ect (August 2, 1989 ; August 9, 1989 ; September 16, Z983; May 2, ~99Q and May i6, 1994). At the canc~usian of thase hear~ngs, the Plann~~g C~mmzssion was able to reach an informed anci unbiased decision on the project, and the project was approved. We cantend that principles of fairness and due process dictate that the applicant be presented with a ful~ and complete de novo hearing 4n the appea~s af this project. Very truly yours, `~;~-.~-''~ ~~ ._ Ken~eth L. Kut~her for LAWR~NC~ & HARDrNG a Professional Corporata.on cc: L~w Halpert David Hiblaert John Jaiili Robert M. Myers Paul B~rlant D. Kenyon Webster Shar~ Laham KLK/~k:lL2bw15.bt3 P ~ _ ~ ~,.a`"'~ ~~ M E M O R A N D U M T0: Santa Monica Gity Council FROM: Christopher M. Harding Kenneth L. Kutcher LAWRENCE & HARDING DATE: October 14, ~990 RE: DR No. 470; EIA No. 887 Address: 2320 Wilshire Boulevard Applicant: Kennedy-Wilson/HSM Graup Our File No. 6I3,1 This law firm represents Kennedy-Wilson and the HSM Group (joint~y "Kennedy-Wilson"}. On April 22, 1988, Kennedy-Wilson filed the above--referenced project application. P~anning Staff deemed the application substantially complete on April 29, 1988. The project is therefore vested under 4rdinance No. 1321(CCS) and is exempt from the cornmercial downzoning of Ordinance Nos. 1441 and ~448(CCS). An environmentaZ s~udy ("EIR") of this project was canducted by Willdan Associates. The EIR consists of the Final EIR dated March 1989, th~ First Addendum dated June 6, 1989, the Second Addendum dated July 5~ 1989, the Supplemental EIR dated February 1990, and Responses to Comments dated April 25, 1990. The Suppl~m~ntal EIR confirms that an all-office project at a 2.5 flaor area ratio ("FAR"} will have no significant traffic impact on any intersection in the vicinity of this site. An all-office project at 2.5 FAR will have a significant traffic impact without mitigation only at the intersection ot Cloverfield Boulevard/Intersta~e 10 westbQUnd afframp. That potential~y significant impact will be fully mitigated by restriping the freeway offramp so long as Cloverfield Baulevard is widenad as planned. (See Table 12, Alternative No. 1 af Traffic St~dy in the S~gpZEmenta~ EIR,) On May 1~, 1990, the Planning Commission approved an a~l- office project of 2.5 FAR as-af-right and granted a site review bonus of f ive stories at this site fol~owing extensive pe~b~ic hearings, staf€ ana~ysis and environmental study. On May 29, 1990, Mid-City Neighbors and Save 4ur Neighborhood each appeaZed this determination. This project is vested under Ordinance No. 1321 pursuant to Section 2(e) of Ordinance Nv. 1441, S~ction 1 af Ordinance No. 1449, and Section 9002.2(d) af the New Zaning Ordinance. This appZication will be th~ last project to b~ considered under Ordinance No. 1321. The purpose of this memorandum is ta analyze the reasons why the Council has na discretion to withhold approval of a 2.5 FAR/4-story/all-office project at this site. As will be discussed belvw, Kennedy-W~lson is entitled to a 2.5 FAR/4-story build~ng as a matter of right under Ordinance No. 1321 pursuant to the standards it incorporates from the City's Land Use and Circulation Element ("LUCE").~ K~nnedy-Wilsan has designed four and five-story versions of the project at 2.5 FAR (which is approximately 17,p00 square feet less than the size for t~rhieh they applied). Kennedy- Wilson has agreed, at the behest of the immediate neighbors, not to pursue replacement ~f the car wash facility at this site. Kennedy- ~ Site r~view approval of five stories will permit an enhanced building design not possible within the faur-stories supparted by Staff as a matter af right. _ 2 ~ Wi3son is no langer proposing any retail use af the sita for this same reason. In the course of this process, Kennedy-Wilsan also proposed or conceded numerous other items far the benefit of the surrounding neighbarhood. I. BACKGROUND A. Origina~ Pro~ect. On April 22, 1988, HSM/Kennedy-Wilson filed an application for development review/site review to construct a six- story/2.92 FAR office and retai~ project. This appl~ication was deemed substantialiy complete on April 29, 1988. Therefore, pursuant to the golicy determination made by tha City Council in adopting Ordinance Nos. 1441 and ~449 and affirmed in its adoption of the New Zoning Ordinance, this particuiar proj ect appiication is to be reviewed under Ordinance Na. 1321 and is governed by ~he development standards contained in the LUCE and the former Zoning Code. See City Staff Report dated Oc'~ober 1b, 1990. Undar the LUCE, the permitted height and density for this pro~ect are as follows: As a matter of riqht: faur stories/2.5 FAR With site review approval: six stories/3.o FAR The equitab~e principles of fairness and reliability 1ed the City Council ta determine on three oecasions,z that the significant 2 The Council ves~ed pending projects when it separate~y adap~ed each of the following ordinances: Ordinance Na. 1441, Ordinance No. 1449 and the New Zoning ~rdinance. _ ~ ~ reductions in height and density first made under Ordinance No. 1441 should not be applied retroactively to grojects such as this one. This policy decisian was proper because the initial planning and d~sign ot this and other projects were cammenced long before the applicable cutoff date. Furthermare, the purchase price subseq~ent~y paid by HSM/Kennedy-Wilson for this site was based upon the develapment standards established by the LUC~. It is impartant to note that HSM/Kennedy-Wilson did not purchase this prop~rty until after the City Council rendered its decision to vest pending development applicatians under the standards af the LUCE.3 When it closed the escrow to purchase this site, Kennedy-Wilson acted in re~iance upon the Council's determination that this app~ication would be evaZuated under the develapment standards incorporated into Ordinance No. 1321. The purchase price for the praperty was based upon those FAR thresholds for site review bonus and as-of-right set forth in the LUCE and incorparated into Orda.nance No. 1321. B. Neiqhborhood Participation. Kennedy-Wilson has committed substantial resourc~s to eJ.i,cit the views and recommendations of tha neighbors to the propos~d project. The neighborhood has had a major impact on the evoi~tion of t~is pra3ect. The first neighborhaod ~eetir~g ~+ras hosted by Mid-City Neighbars on March 22, 1989. The second meeting was hosted by Kennedy-Wilsan at Douglas Park on April 14, i989. A 3 HSM closed its escrow ta purchase this property in October of 1988. _ 4 _ third meeting was hosted by Kennedy-Wilson on Apri1 26, 1989 at McKinley School to present a r~vised project to the neighbors. At this thi~d meeting, various leaders of Mid-City Neighbors indicated it was the afficia~ positian of Mid-City Neighbors that the project shou~d consist of no more than two stories in height. AlternativeZy, representatives of Mid-City Neighlaors have raquested that this project comply with the New Zoning Ordinance.4 a pasition considered and reject~d by the City Council in adopting Ordinance Nos. 1441 and 1449 and the New Zoning Ordinance. (See Section ~A aY~ove. ) On May 9, 1989, Kennedy-Wi~son hosted an informationaZ meeting fo~ commercial neighbors in the vicinity of the project. Nearly ali attendees of that meeting expressed support for the project. Dn June 13, 1989, Kennedy-Wilson attended a meeting ~f Coneerned Homeowners of Santa Monica ("CHOSM") to discuss this project. At the conclusion of that meeting, CHOSM elected to support a variation of the pro j ect cans isting of 2. 5 FAR and na car wash. Fallowing several public heaxings in August 1989, the Planning Commission referred the praject back for further en~ironmental analysis of all scoping issues which were raised. E?nce the BuppZemental EIR was rEleased in Fehruary 199~, Kennedy- Wilson renewed its efforts to meet with Mid-City Neighbars. They declined to meet until an independent coalitian of varzous leaders 4 S~er e.C(. ~ June 19, 1989. letter fram Tom Kingsley, et al., dated - 5 - agreed to meet on April 27, 1990. Further meetings with neighborhood spokespersons were held on May 1, May 2 and May 11. The appellants have expressed no interest in further meetings on the p~oject since the Planning Commission decision. C. Planninq Commission Action. The project approved by the Planning Cominission differs fxom the original application in the following principle respQCts: • Eli~ination of over 17,000 square feet of office and al~ gro~nd floor retail space (a floor area reduction af a~most 15~) • Reduction af the FAR fram 2.92 with site review bonus (plus an outdoor car wash facility) to 2.5 as a matter of right • A greater than 70~ traffic reduction in projected evening peak hour trips and neaxly 80~ traffic reduction in projected daily trips • Eliminatian of the praposed replacement car wash • Addition of a second driveway on Twenty-Third Street to disperse traffic flow to and from the project with forced exit turns toward Wilshire Bou~evard • Elimination of all retail and bank~ng uses • Reduction from six stories to five storzes • Creation of additiona~ stepbacks and terraces • Additianal landscaping • Mandatory free ~isitor and employee parking pending the creation of a preferential parking zone • Relocating the garage ventilatian system away from neighboring residences • Relocating the loading docks and trash areas away from neighboring residences - 6 - IT. ANALYSIS OF ENTITLEMENT TO 2.5 FAR/4 STORIES UNDER THE LUCE AND ORDINANCE NO. 1321 A. The Council's Decision On This Appeal Must Be Supported By Sufficient Evidence In The Record And By Findinqs Consistent With The Leqal Standards Far Review Of The Pro~ect. The proceedings on the appeal of this project are quasi- judicia~ in nature. See City of Coronada v. California Caastal Zone Conservation Camm'n, 59 Cal. App. 3d 570, 574, 138 Cal. Rptr. 241 (1977). The CounciZ must app3y the pertinent development standards of Oxdznance No. ~321 and the LUCE to the facts in evidence concerning this particular project. Id. Written findings are required to be made, and they must be legally sufficient. The findings must justify the Council's decision following the public testimony. Topanga Ass'n For A Scenic Communitv v. Caunty o~ Los Anqeles, 11 Cal. 3d 506, 513-18, 113 Cal. Rptr. 836 {1974). The principles of administrative ~aw require that the Council's decision must be supported by tha findings and the findings must be supported by the evidence. Id. The Council may not act arbitrarily and may not disregax~d either the applicable de~elopment s~andards or the evidence presented for its consideration. Id. If the Councii were to act arbitrarily and fails ta comply with the app~.icable development standards in its review of this project, then the Council wi11 have abused its discretion and that decision inay be overturned in court. - 7 - B. The Council Has Na Discretion To Further ReducE The FAR ~f This Pro~ect. Section 4 af Ordinance No. 132I sets forth the standards and procedures for approving, canditionally approving or disapproving this proj ect. Subsection ( c) ( 5 j of Sectivn 4 requires that any such proposed development be consistent with the Genera~ Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the farmer Zoning Ordinance. Thus, Pol~cy 1.6.1 of th~ LUCE controls the permitted height and density of the proposed project. Policy 1.6.1 authoriz~s d~velopinent of the subject property at four stories/2.5 FAR as a matter of right and up to six stories/3.0 FAR by si.te review. As noted nn page 11 of the LUCE, one of the four fundamental purposes for adopting the LUCE was to "re-estab~ish a measure of long-term predictability about land use policies and standards.~~ (Emphasis added.) Therefore, "[t]he LUCE includes specific developanent standards which state the appzopriate development densities and intensities for all land use districts." (LUCE at p.12.) The LUCE daes not grant any discretian for denying projects which cvmply with the as-of-right development standards. In fact, Policy 3.1.1 of the LUCE pravides to the contrary: "Minimize the impact of th~ perceived mass of structures, attenuate wind accelerativn, and protect the solar access of majar public space by establishing a building volume 'enve~ape.' said 'enveZope~ shall be consistent with t~e allowable development patentia~ far a district as defined by floor area ratio.~~ (E~phasis added.) -- g _ The as-af-right development standards established by the LUCE are entitlements which the Counci~ is laga~ly obiiged to honor in its decision on this project. Similaxly, the second required finding under Ordinance No. 1321 for approval of a develapment review agplicatian addresses the legal entit~ements set forth in the LUCE as a matter of right. The test of whether a project is cQmpatible with and relates har~oniousZy ta surrounding sites and neighborhoads may not, under Ordinance Na. 1321, be utilized to reduce the height ar FAR quaranteed as a matter of riqht under the LUCE. The compatibility of height and FAR for the proposed project may b~ considered only in determining whe~her to grant extra height or density above the as-of-right threshoids and up to the ~aximu~ ~eveZs permitted by site review, Specifically, subsection{c)(2) ~f Section 4 of Ordinance Nv. 1321 provides as fol~ows: "In approving, canditionally approving, or disapproving of an application. the Planning Co~issian, or City Council upon appea~ for review, shall make written findings of fact that . . . [t]he physical location, placement of proposed structures on the site, and where site review is required by the Land Use and Circu3atien EZe~ents, the size of the strnctures are aampatible with and relate harmoniously to surrcundinq sites and neigbborhoods.~' (Emphasis added.) Furtherm~re, a revie~r of the tape vf the City Couneil hearing of December 4, 1984 concerning the adoption of Ordinance 1321 confirms that the underlined language was added to Secta.on 4{c)(2) for the expressed purpose of removing all discretion from the Council to atherwise withhold appraval for the size of a - 9 - project which does not exceed the as-of-right thresholds for height and FAR. A transcript o~ that hearing is attached. You wall note the caineidental, but directZy on point, exampZe zn t~a~ tes~imony concerning a theoretical b~ilding nn Wilshire Bouievard af 4- stories and 2.5 FAR. This principle was confirmed dur~ng the Council's approv~l of 2.5 FAR and 4 sto~i~s on Wilshire Boulevard in DR Na. 467 ($00 Wilshire). This policy was a~so confirmed by the City Counci2 when it adopted the New Zoning Ordinance. In Subchapter 1oG af the New Zoning Ordinance, which discusses development ~eview permits, Section 9115.4 provides in pertinent paxt as fol~aws: "The Cammission, or City Council on appeal, shall approve or conditional~y approve a Development Review P~rmi~ application in whole ar in part if all of the following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner: (a) The physical location, size, massing, and placement af proposed structures on the site and the location of proposed uses w~thin the project are compatible with and relate harmaniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods. The size of the projeat shaiZ be dee~ed ca~patibZe with and relate barmaniously to surraundinq sites and neighborhoads provided the project is consistent with ~he heiqht and density standards se~ forth in the Land IIse Element of the General Plan, except in those cases where the Land Use Element allo~rs far the exercise of discretion in relatian to the height and density of a proposed praject.~• (Emphasis added.) This section, although not applicable to this project because of the timing of the davelopment application, confirans that the Counci]. has no discretion to find a projec~ incompatible with the surrounding neighborhaod except ta tha extent it may exceed the as-of-right thresholds. -- 10 - Finally, it is important to nota that Section 21004 of the California Environ~ental Quality Act ("CEQA") restricts th~ Council from exercising any greater discretion under its environmental review process than might b~ otherwise exercised under local law. Therefore, the fact that a~ environmental impact report has been prepared for this project does not grant th~ Council any discre~ion to reduce this praject below four stories and 2.5 FAR. C. Th~ Council Has Discretion Over Issues Of Heiqht Above Fo~r Stories~ Desian, and MasSinct Not Relat~d To Size. As notEd above, the Cauncil in adopting the LUCE and Ordinance No. 1321, c~nclusively deemed the as-of-right heiqht and densi.ty thresholds ta be compatibZe with surrounding sites. Therefore, this proj ect is entitled to approval of 2. 5 FAR and four stories as a matter of right under LUCE Polzcy 1.6.1. Hawever, the Councii does have discretian und~r Ordinance No. 1321 over other lssues pertaining to this project. For example, the Council has discretion to affirm or disapprove the site review bon~s of five stori.as granted by the Planning Commission. The Council also has discretion over the placement and da.stribution of the 2.5 FAR on the site (i.e., step backs, setbacks, s~reet facades, courtyards, and other envelope/massing issues}. The Council additionally has discretion over entrances, dr~.veways, compatibility of uses, balconies, fenestration, screening, fencing, signage, trash storagef landscaping areas, lighting, health and safety features, the accommodation of - 11 - utilizing services, project-related street impravements, and the process a~ canstruction activities, These aspects of design, massing and the site review banus for a fifth f~oar are items over whzch the Council has discretion on this appeal. Hawever, since the Planning Commission has appraved a project which does nat exceed the 2.5 FAR guaranteed as a matter af right under the LUCE, the Council has no further discretion over the FAR of '~h~ project. (Kennedy-Wz,~san cou~.d have appealed that aspect of the Planning Commission's decisian and could have sought the Council's discretion of approve additional floor area as a site review bonus. Tf such an appea~ had b~en filed, the Council wau].d have exercis~d discretion aniy ov~r that portion of ~loor area saught in excess of 2.5 FAR. However, because Kennedy-Wilson does not seek any flaor area in ~xcess of the 2.5 FAR guarant~ed as of right, there are no FAR issues presented for the Counci].'s consideration under this project.} III. CONCLUSION. For the faregoing reasons, DR No. 470 should be approved at no less than four stories and 2.5 FAR pursuant 1321 and the development rights granted under the for the Wilshire Corridor. The City cannot make 1E findings to support deniai of the size of a building on this site because that size is deemed with the neighborhood as a matter of law. to Ordinance No. Land Use Element agaily defensabZe 2.5 FAR/4-story ta be compatible - 12 - L~w ~alp~x~ ~~ ; D~~ ~d ~~~~~rt 3 Q~~,~ ~~ l~g~ers Paul ~2x~a~ela5~~x' ~, Ke~~an Sh~X ~- ~~am ~~;~~:~~u.,13 613 ~,tta~hmen~ _ 1~ ' CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY OF SANTA MONICA December 4, 1984 Testi~ony at Public Hearinq on Adoptaon of Ordinanc~ No. 1321 SCCS) Reed: Thank you Mr. Nelso7lr .._ Mr. Harding? Harding: Good evening, My name is Chris Harding. My address is 919 Santa Monica Boulevard. First of all, 2 would mention that the ordinance has not been available for that long and I think it would b~ helpful to the public if you would have a second public hearing on this prior ta the time you actually adopt it~ even upon first reading. I believe the current ordinance expires on January 23rd, or approximately that date, and you could probably still adopt an ordinance~ perhaps, by emergency measure. But you can still adopt an ardinance replacing that one, and yet accamm~date the public, and ga.ve tham another opportunity to appear. I want to focus my camments upon several particular sections af the ordinance. Most i~nportantly, sectian 4(c)t2). Section 4 sets forth the findings that must be made to approve a development permit and, in particular, 4(c}(2) provides that there must be a finding that the... I.et me find the language... Reed: Mr. Epstein says it's an page 11 of the ordinance. Harding: ...that the physical location, size and placement af proposed struct~res on the site, and the locatian of the proposed us~s in ~he project are compatib~e wi~h and relate harmaniously ta surrounding sites and n~ighbarhoads . I focus pour attention on use o~ the Word +~size~~. My concern is tt-at, if, far exainple, an applicant were ta seek ~,pproval of a four stary, 2.5 FAR buildinq nn Wilshire Boulevard that is allowed as a matter of right by the Land Dse E~ement, this would still allow a finding by the Planninq Comznission, or the Counci~ an appeal, that the sise was excessive for the neighborhoad. Y think yau need ta tailor the ianguage ta preciude the CCmml&siol! or ~ourselves fram dv~ng that because it wauld underYaine the kind af predictahility that you all supported whea you adopted the Land IIse Element. I've talked to staff, and I have some praposed lang~age which I think may be acceptable to them. I did this not too long ago, so it's a Zitt~e ra~xgh, but I wauld suggest you take it and word it as follows: ATTACHMENT ~~A'~ Page - i - CITY COUNCIL MEETING Dec~mber 4, 1984 "The physical lacation, placement, and where site review is required by thE Land Use and Circulation Elements, the size of proposed structures..." and then traek the language fram there. The reason being that it ~ s appropriate tn loak at si ze where you bave site review called out for ia the Land Use Elemen~. Size is an appropriate consideration when you~re in that area of discretion as to whether you shauld apprave, for example, a five or six stary buildinq on ~ilshire. And you cer~ainly shnuld consider neighborhood cancerns and Campat~bility in that Con~kext, but the Land Use Elem~nt prvvides that yau sho~ld not do so in areas where there is deve~opment as a matter o€ riqht, beca~tse, in fact, yau have made that judgment in the context of adaptinq the Land IIse Element itseif. Second~y, if you look at section 2(gl. This deals with an exemption for certain condominium conversions that have final traet maps approved prior to a date in Octaber which I believe tracks eithe~ the in~ratoriua~ or the ending of the moratarium... {At the conclusian of the public testimony...] Reed: The matter is now before the Councilmembers. Epstein: Madam Mayar, I wauld move to cios~ the pub~zc hearing. Reed: OK. It's been moved to close the public hearing... Councilmember: Second, Reed: ...and seconded. All those in favor of c~osing the public hearing say "Aye." Councilmembers: Aye! Reed: Opposed? The hearing is closed. Mr. Epstein? Epstein: Yes, I would like to ~nove the introduction for first reading af the ordinance with a couple af mad~fications for discussion purposes. And z'll try to tx~ack them by page. On page 9, I would add a subsectian o. Thesa are ones that are exempted from discretionary review. This ATTACHMENT ~~A~~ Pag~ - 2 - CITY COUNCIL MEETTNG December 4, 1984 would be "demolitions approved by the Planning Director and the Building Director as necessaxy for the protection of p~lic safety.~~ This would cover things like burned- out buildings. Councilmember: Approved by who, the Planning Director? Epstein: Planning Directar and Building Director. SecQnd~y... Reed: Building O~ficer ~ think is the proper teran. Epstein: OK. Whatever it is. Page II, twa... I+d Zike to inCOrparate the languaqe proposed by Mr. Hardinq which is ~~The physical locatian, placement of the proposed structures on the si.te, and where site reviev~t is requ~red by t~e Land IIse and Circulatioa EZement, the size af the struatures are compatible with and relate to the surraundinq neiqhborhoad.~~ Finally, on page ~2, the inconsistant pravisions, I would put "City Council Resolution No. 6385 is hereby repealed." With those changes I would move the introduction for first reading. Reed: Alright, that is the motion to introduce. Is thera a second ta the motion? Zane: Second. Reed: And it has been seconded, and Mr. Epsein is asking to address it first. Then I will take Mr. Zane and Mr, Jer~nings . Epstein: Basica].ly, what we're doing is what everybody who's been involved in the process has realized is a necessary and good thing to do, We are moving in the direction of greater predictability in the planning process. We are also maving in the direction of focus~.ng the discretionary review where it b~longs: on the largest and most signi~icant projects. By identifying thase that the Lar~d Use Element has identified as creating the mos~ px-oblems, such as 24-hour Food establishmen~s, by using esentiaZly t3ie CEQA, the Environmental Quali~y Act, standards as the threshold size o~ pro~ect which actually goes befqre the Planning Commission, we'~e ailowing smaller projects to ga through on administrati.ve d3scretion and since the others require various kinds of more complex and more expensive environmenta~ review in any case, we are limiting the review to things that are more important ~ram a public policy point of view and ATTACHMENT +~A~~ Page - 3 - CITY COUNCIL MEETING December 4, 1984 wh~re state l.aw basically impases policy review on the development industry in any case. So I think the thrust of this ordinance is a good one. The Planning Commission is goi.ng to be paying its attention to bigger, more problemati.cal projects; peop~e who want to deve~op property are going to have more predictability. r believe that the few changes that I propose add clarity and/or prot~ct public safety and basically, simp].y track the Land Use and Circulation Element and I would urge the Counci~ to support the vrdinance. Reed: Thank you. Mr. Zane? Zane: I concur with Mr. Epstein~s judqment and his additions in this aase. However I have one possi.bly other addition to consider ~vhich was the iss~ze raised earlier about the passible appeal pracess from a Zoning Administrator or the Planning Director's decisions, in same cases... [A~ter more discussion a vote was taken...] Reed: We have before us the ardinance with Mr. Epsein's three suggested little amendments....Yes, Mr. Myers? Myers: The only further point was the qutestion of this appeal procedure from decisions of the Planning Director and the request as to how lang it would take to come back with something, and basically, I think there's two choices the Council could make. If you want to defer this, maybe an haur fro~ now, I might be able to have something written by then that you cau~d read into the record or I could return next week with an ordinance. It's up to the Council. I'm in the proc~ss of tryinq to write something now. Reed: Next week. I think next week will probably be fine so we' 11 deal with that in a moment. Thank you, Bob. We do appreciate that. (Inaudible remark and laughtEr...) Reed: If the Councilmembers are ready to vote, we'1~ have a roll ca~l an this ordinance with Mr, Epstein's changes. Clerk: Councilmember Conn. ATTACHMENT "A" Page - 4 - CiTY COUNCYL MEETING Decamb~r 4, 3984 Conn: Aye. Clerk: Edwards. Edwards: Aye. Clerk: Epstein. Epstein: Yes. Clerk: Jennings. ~ennings: Yes. Clerk: Katz. Katz: Y~s. Clerk: Zane. Zane: Yes. Clerk: Reed: Cl~rk: Reed: Mayor R~ed. Yes. The motion passes. Thank you. I'm happy to rescind 5385, I must say. ATTACHMENT ~~Af ~ Page - 5 -