Loading...
sr-062811-7cCity Council Meeting: June 28, 2011 Agenda Item: To: Mayor and City Council From: David Martin, Interim Director, Planning and Community Development Subject: Development Agreement Amendment 07DEV-007 to amend the 1998 Development Agreement for Saint John's Health Center located at 1328 22"a Street. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Consider an Addendum to the Saint John's Health Center Final Environmental Impact Report in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 2) Introduce for first reading an ordinance with staff-recommended revisions adopting the First Amendment to the Saint John's Health Center Development Agreement to authorize implementation of a revised parking program in lieu of constructing the previously-approved 442-space North Campus subterranean garage; construction of a Modified Entry Plaza; and implementation of.a parking management plan, a transportation demand management plan, and neighborhood protection measures. Executive Summary The applicant, Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., a Kansas non- profit organization, as sole member of Saint John's Hospital and Health Center ("Saint John's"), proposes to amend its approved Development Agreement with the City of Santa Monica for the Saint John's Hospital and Health Center Project. In lieu of constructing the 442-space on-site parking structure and the Entry Plaza as proposed by the original project approved in 1998, this Amendment would authorize implementation of the following four primary components: • Revised Parking Program -Provide parking to meet the peak parking demand of Saint John's various user groups (visitors, patients, physicians, scientists, and staff) and ensure that parking that is functionally equivalent to the previously- approved North Campus Subterranean Parking Garage is provided at all times. Saint John's would provide approximately 1,528 owned and leased parking 1 spaces on Saint John's property and at off-site facilities, which exceeds the facility's projected 2013 peak parking demand by approximately 222 spaces. The proposed functionally equivalent parking consists of a renewable, minimum ten-year lease of 450 spaces for Saint John's employees at the Yahoo Center with specific requirements for City review and approval of any substitute proposed in the future to replace or modify this lease. The Yahoo Center lease is contingent on City Council approval of the Development Agreement Amendment for the Yahoo Center that was introduced for first reading on June 14, 2011 and will be presented for adoption on June 28, 2011. The revised parking program would also include the operation of afull-service parking valet at the facility's main entrance on Santa Monica Boulevard for patients, visitors, and physiciaris. • Modified Entry Plaza -Construction of a modified Entry Plaza at the hospital's main Santa Monica Boulevard entrance with a signalized u-shaped drive and new landscape/hardscape design. • Parking Management Plan Obligations - Implementation of a parking management plan that requires detailed annual assessment, monitoring, and reporting for Saint John's facility-wide parking program. This parking management plan must demonstrate that parking is provided at all times to meet the facility's peak parking demand and is subject to annual review and approval by the City. In accordance with parking management plan section requirements, Saint John's would be obligated to construct the North Campus Subterranean Parking Garage if the City determines that functionally equivalent parking can no longer be provided as set forth in the proposed Amendment. • Community Benefits -Provision of negotiated community benefits based on staff and community input that include a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management Program to reduce vehicle trips and parking demand associated with the facility and the broader Healthcare District, and implementation of a series of neighborhood protection measures. As discussed more fully in this report, staffs analysis of the Amendment focused oh evaluating the following four key issues: 1. Revised Parking Program -Adequacy of the revised parking program to meet peak demand and provide functional equivalence to the originally-approved subterranean garage; 2. Parking Management Plan -Effectiveness of the monitoring, assessment, and reporting requirements applicable to Saint John's facility-wide parking supply; 3. LUCE Consistency -Project's consistency with Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) principles; 4. Community Benefits -Appropriateness of negotiated community benefits to implement City's Transportation Demand Management Strategy and to address neighborhood impact issues. 2 In summary, based on review of the proposal in light of these key factors, staff recommends approval of the Draft Amendment. More specifically, through shared use of the Yahoo Center garage, the revised parking program provides parking that is functionally equivalent to the previously-approved subterranean garage. The program also provides on- and off-site spaces to accommodate all of Saint John's various user groups. The revised parking program provides more spaces than required to meet peak demand, as demonstrated by a parking demand study submitted by the Applicant. Additionally, the Parking Management Plan would give the City more oversight over Saint John's entire parking supply in comparison to the requirements in the current Development Agreement which only addresses City parking plan review for the period of construction. Furthermore, the Amendment would be consistent with LUCE Transportation Demand Management, shared parking, sustainability, and Healthcare District goals and policies, would provide community benefits that will reduce vehicle trips and associated parking demand in the area, and address concerns expressed by neighbors about Saint John's operations. The City and Saint John's have reached agreement on a majority of the recommended community benefits proposed with the Amendment. However, there are two negotiation points that remain unresolved. The two unresolved issues pertain to the following staff- recommended community benefits that are discussed in greater detail beginning on page 24 of the staff report: 1) Provision of a monetary contribution for Memorial Park Expo Station upgrades 2) Full funding of a Healthcare District Transportation Management Association feasibility study The following is a summary of the key findings for the City Council's discussion:. • The Amendment provides parking that is functionally equivalent to the previously- approved North Campus subterranean parking garage and provides sufficient parking to meet the facility's peak parking demand. • The Project is consistent with Healthcare District policies -and LUCE Transportation Demand Management and shared parking policies. • In addition to ongoing annual Development Agreement compliance review and reporting to Council; the Amendment establishes appropriate periodic monitoring, assessment, and reporting procedures for Saint John's facility-wide parking program both on an annual basis and in conjunction with any proposed changes to the. parking management plan. • The staff-recommended community benefits are appropriate to address the City's goal of reducing vehicle trips and associated parking demand in the area and address neighborhood-impact concerns raised by the community. 3 Background Saint John's Health Center is anon-profit Catholic hospital and healthcare facility that was built in 1942 on Santa Monica Boulevard between 20th and 23~d Streets in the Mid- City neighborhood. After sustaining significant damage in the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, a plan for phased reconstruction and expansion of the hospital's North and South Campuses was authorized in April 1998 with approval of a Development Agreement between the City and Saint John's Health Center. The 55-year term of the Development Agreement would end on July 9, 2053. Phase One of the original project consists of vested rights fora 10-year term, subject to extension, for the construction of a new 475,000 square foot hospital with a total of 468 parking spaces that includes: • Below-grade central plant • Inpatient Center (205,000 SF) • Outpatient /Diagnostic & Treatment Center with Emergency Room (265,000 SF) • North Lawn and Entry Plaza • 442-space North Subterranean Parking Garage • 26 parking spaces located in various areas on site Phase Two of the original project has a '17-year vested rights term, subject to extension, to implement a master plan with sufficient floor area for health care-related uses and parking as outlined in the Agreement. The City retains broad discretion to review future applications for Phase Two buildings. Key components include: • Permits construction of up to 799,000 square feet of hospital and hospital-related development with maximum building heights ranging from 70-95 feet • Requires City approval of a South Campus Master Plan prior to approval of any Phase Two buildings • Requires Development Review Permit to construct Phase Two buildings • Requires CEQA determination/review for Phase Two buildings 4 As part of the original Development Agreement for the project, a number of substantial community benefits were negotiated for inclusion in the project; these include the following: • Community Benefit Program and Annual Plan: program to support the health and well-being of Santa Monica residents and community; annual plan summarizes benefits provided on an annual basis and economic valuation (Calendar Year 2009: equal to $7,847,827 for-the value of benefit activities and cash support). • Santa Monica Community Access Plan: included in the Annual Community Benefit Plan: delineates recipient agencies, dollar value, level of service provided to non-profits and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, charitable medical and mental health service provided, free health education, and preventive health service provided (minimum $732,000 dollar value subject to 1'h% compounded annual adjustment). • Child Care Program: providing a minimum of 49 full-day child care for employees and the community; 21 of these spaces must be infant/toddler care. • North Lawn: 41,000 SF of public open space with landscaping and walkways. • Off-site traffic mitigation improvements: one-time payment of a minimum of $332,000 in fees to the City to construct improvements. • Off-site public works improvements: one-time payment of $641;000 in fees to the City to construct sidewalks, curbs, streetlights, and street paving in the project area. ,~ - -- -~ ~,a -}___ ,i I ~ ~~~ I '.~ ~ ~~ `-, `~ ~ ~"`°`~ Phase I Development ~ I ' ~ ~ r .~ ~ ~ 4 _ _.,. `_ r ,~ a ` ~) i ~L I If~ ~ } yT (~ , , ~~ fpn~ ~U u.•~' ~ .. - ~ ~ ~ zll. .. n. -a__ y y t _ _...~~__- ._ q_" \ Santa Monica Blvd -~ = "~'='"~"""~ o l G ~ I _, ^I ~ ,~„~ ~ ~ t N I ; ~ Phase II Development ( rs°'~, i .: ~ ~ ~ ` ~ .a IIII L - ~L r-,.a '. I. ~. ••••• Phase 11 NOr[h Campus ' ~. it _ . _. - i _ Y' , 1 .. -~ I ~ '~j'+-' ._ i ~. ~ ,. ~ ~ j 1 .... ~'i p~ fSLj.oOUwe~ ~__ __ _._ _._ _.- .. (-, Saint John's Health Center North & South Campuses with Phase One & Phase Two Areas 5 Since the 1998 approval of the Development Agreement, a substantial portion of Phase One .construction has been completed, with the exception of the North Campus subterranean parking garage and the Entry Plaza on Santa Monica Boulevard. In addition, final landscape and hardscape elements in the Healing Garden located adjacent to the in-patient facility and diagnostic and treatment center will be installed by the completion of Phase One construction. Significant construction milestones for Phase One include completion of the in-patient facility in 2005, completion of the diagnostic and treatment center in 2009, and demolition of the south and east wings of the old hospital building in 2010. A two-year extension of the June 9, 2008 vesting deadline for the Phase One project was granted by the City in 2007 in order to complete the diagnostic and treatment facility based on a previous three-year delay in the completion of the in-patient facility that resulted from the original project contractor's default and bankruptcy. The pending Development Agreement Amendment was filed in September 2007 and originally requested afive-year extension of the vesting period to complete the North Campus subterranean garage and Entry Plaza. However, after extensive discussions with the City, Saint John's modified its Amendment application to more clearly account for how parking would be provided by the facility in the future. More specifically, the proposed Amendment seeks authorization to provide off-site parking that serves as the functional equivalent of the originally-approved North Campus subterranean garage in lieu of its construction, provided that functionally equivalent parking is provided at all times along with sufficient parking to meet Saint John's peak demand. Today's North Campus, comprised primarily of the new in-patient suites and diagnostic and treatment center, is smaller in size and the number of licensed beds is less in comparison to the pre-1994 hospital facility: • 1994 hospital pre-earthquake: 662,000 SF and 501 licensed hospital beds • 2011 hospital redeveloped: 475,000 SF and 265 licensed hospital beds 6 As part of the City's ongoing monitoring and annual review of the status of Development Agreement compliance in Mav 2010, September 28. 2010, and January 2011, it was determined that, while compliance with all community benefits previously outlined had been verified, a finding of full compliance would require approval of the subject Development Agreement Amendment application. Project /Site Information Saint John's Health Center is located along Santa Monica Boulevard between 20tH Street and 23`d Street. The facility's North Campus is located between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue and the South Campus is located between Santa Monica Boulevard and Broadway. The property is surrounded by a mix of medical, residential, commercial, and institutional uses. The North Campus is bordered to the north and east primarily by residential uses. McKinley Elementary School and neighborhood commercial uses are located two blocks east, and several health care-related uses and commercial buildings Saint John's Health Center.' Santa Monica Boulevard (upperleR), 23'tl Street (upper right), Arizona Avenue (lower) are located immediately to the north on Arizona Avenue and to the west along 20tH Street. The South Campus. is bordered by a mix of commercial, industrial and residential uses. These. include medical, commercial, and residential uses to the east; commercial and industrial uses to the south; and a hotel, residential uses, and a church to the west. Commercial and Residential Land Uses in the Vicinity of Saint John's Health Center 8 Discussion Project Description and Analysis Saint John's Health Center proposes to amend its 1998 Development Agreement with the City in order to modify a series of requirements and provisions that affect Phase One redevelopment of the hospital facility. This Amendment would authorize implementing the four principal components identified below in lieu of constructing the 442-space North Campus parking structure and the landscaped Entry Plaza as originally approved. However, as discussed more fully in this report, the experience of patients and visitors accessing the facility through its main Santa Monica Boulevard entrance would remain the same as the previously-planned valet for the North Campus subterranean garage due to proposed operational components of Saint John's revised parking program. • Revised Parking Program • Parking Management Plan Obligations • Modified Entry Plaza • Community Benefits In addition, the proposed Amendment includes several other minor revisions and clarifications that address Phase One construction; these include the following: • Revised Phase One vesting deadline to December 31, 2012 in order to complete construction of the modified Entry Plaza. • Modify the maximum allowable square footage of the diagnostic and treatment facility to 285,000 SF, provided that the aggregate construction in Phase One not exceed the limit of 475,000 SF set forth in the original Agreement. • Specify Saint John's responsibility to pay for and install two traffic signals at the points of ingress and egress at the Entry Plaza on Santa Monica Boulevard. • Clarify the number of parking spaces to be provided at the Emergency Department. in order to reflect current safety requirements from the City's Fire Department for six spaces for ambulances; the net remaining eight spaces in this parking area are provided for Emergency Department visitors and patients. • Update standard Development Agreement provisions. 9 Summary of Development Agreement Amendment The following is a brief summary of the 17 articles of the proposed Development Agreement Amendment provided as Attachment B: Article 1 Revised Phase One Extends timeframe to complete third stage of Phase Vesting Deadline One to December 31, 2012 Article 2 Phase One Parking .Describes Parking Management Plan obligations and procedures for City review and approval of the following: material reduction in parking supply, proposed modifications to Parking Management Plan, functionally equivalent parking, a permanent Parking Management Plan, stacked parking on South Campus. Provides clarification on the following: parking structure management plan requirement, treatment of areas 2C and areas 2D/2E, HASP, emergency access parking, treatment of Lot C Article 3 Temporary Access No obligation to provide temporary access as described in Development Agreement Article 4 Transportation Demand Applicant shall maintain and implement TDM plan Management Plan provided as Exhibit M Article 5 Entry Plaza Describes requirements for modified Entry Plaza Article 6 Signalization Describes requirements for provision of two signals at Entry Plaza Article 7 The Diagnostic/Treatment Modifies square footage of Diagnostic/Treatment Center Center Article 8 Pedestrian Link Specifies that pedestrian link does not need to be covered Article 9 Saint John's Reporting Describes annual filing requirement for Parking Schedule Management Plan and Development Agreement Compliance Report Article 10 Neighborhood Protection Describes eight measures to address neighborhood Provisions concerns/impacts Article 11 Enforcement Specifies that City may apply remedies set forth in Chapters 1.09 and 1.10 of the City's Municipal Code Article 12 Limitation on Damages Describes limitation on damages as to the City and as to Saint John's Article 13 City Cost Recovery Specifies that Saint John's shall reimburse City for reasonable cost of annual compliance monitoring Article 14 Continuing Effect of Specifies that except as. provided in First Amendment, Development Agreement all other provisions of Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without modification 10 Article 15 Recordation Article 16 Effective Date Article 17 Entire Agreement Planning Commission Action First Amendment shall be recorded in official County of Los Angeles records Specifies effective date of First Amendment is the same as effective date of ordinance approving First Amendment Statement that this First Amendment represents the entire agreement between the City and Saint John's with respect to the First Amendment The Planning Commission discussed the proposed Amendment at its June 15, 2011 meeting. Twenty-two members of the public spoke at the hearing. Following its discussion of the Amendment and the environmental analysis presented with the staff report, the Commission approved a motion by a vote of 6-0 to recommend .that the Addendum to the Certified EIR is the appropriate CEQA environmental document for project. The Commission also approved a motion by a vote of 5-1 to recommend that the Council approve the Amendment with the additional modifications proposed by the Applicant on the day of the hearing (since incorporated into the proposed Amendment), and the 11 additional measures and modifications detailed below. 1. Require the Applicant .and City to study the proposed valet route to determine whether all or part of 21St Street between Santa Monica Boulevard and Broadway can be converted from aone-way to atwo-way street, or whether it is appropriate to create a curb cut from Parking Lot B onto Santa Monica Boulevard, in order to reduce the length of the valet trips from the South Campus back to the Entry Plaza. o Staff and the Applicant agree on this issue. A provision requiring evaluation of the 21St Street valet route and circulation pattern is included in Amendment Section 10.3. 2. Require trees to be planted in South Campus Parking Lot H, provided that the parking capacity of Lot H is not reduced. o Staff and the Applicant agree on this issue. A provision to address tree planting in parking lot H is provided in Amendment Section 10.4. 3. Require a reduced valet parking rate to apply to those who park at the Entry Plaza for up to 90 minutes, where up to 60 minutes is currently proposed, and .establish that the reduced rate not to exceed an amount based on either a percentage of the daily flat rate or a percentage of the street meter rate. 11 o Staff and the Applicant agree on this issue. Parking Management Plan Section 5.7 requires a reduced rate for valet parking at the Entry Plaza measured in increments not to exceed 20 minutes for up to 90 minutes. The rate for 90 minutes shall not exceed 85% of the maximum daily rate, which is generally consistent with the prevailing rates for parking facilities in the immediate area. 4. Provide clarification that the proposed additional bicycle racks will accommodate parking for 45 bicycles. o Staff and the Applicant agree on this issue. A provision to clarify that there will be bicycle racks provided to accommodate 90 bicycles (45 existing plus 45 new) is provided in TDM Plan Section 3.2.3. 5. Restrict valet operators from parking vehicles at street meters. o Staff and the Applicant agree on this issue. A provision restricting Saint John's valet operators from parking vehicles on public streets, including at parking meters, is provided in Amendment Section 10.3. 6. Define the term "feasible" used in the context of the TDM Plan. o Staff and the Applicant agree on this issue. A provision specifying that the term "feasible" shall have the meaning given to the term in Section 21061.1 of the California Public Resources Code is provided in TDM Plan Section 1.0. 7. Provide parking or transit at no cost to Saint John's employees who are called back to work on the same day after completing a shift. o Staff and the Applicant agree on this issue. Parking Management Plan Section 5.7.3 specifies that any Saint John's employee who is required to return to work after completing a shift on the same day may utilize the valet service without charge, or will be reimbursed for the cost of the employee's use of public transportation or a private taxicab service. 8. Modify the Amendment to provide that Saint John's continued operation of the Memorial Park Expo Station employee shuttle shall be one of the measures that can be imposed by the City if the 1.5 AVR standard set forth in the Amendment is not reached and maintained. o Staff and the Applicant agree on this issue. Notwithstanding the currently-proposed 15-month shuttle operation requirement, Section 2.4 of the TDM Plan acknowledges that in order to achieve and maintain the required AVR standard, continued or re-initiated operation of the Memorial Park Expo Station shuttle may be required. 12 9. Allow the forthcoming Memorial Park Expo Station Shuttle to stop at St. Anne's or the Yahoo Center to pick up Saint John's employees provided that no additional shuttle trips are initiated as a result. o The Applicant does not support this provision. Staff and the Applicant agree on this issue because neighborhood comments pertaining to the revised parking plan have consistently included concerns that shuttles will be running to and from Saint John's off-site parking facilities. Moreover, additional stops may reduce the efficiency of Saint John's Expo. Station shuttle operation and both off-site facilities are in walking distance of the hospital (three blocks). 10. Provide complaint tracking information and contact information for the facility's Ombudsperson on Saint John's website. o The Applicant agrees to provide contact information on Saint John's website but does not support the requirement to provide complaint tracking online. Instead, the Applicant has also agreed to make the record/log of complaints and resolutions available to the. City with its annual Development Agreement compliance report and within five days in response to any City request for the information. o Staff agrees that providing the record/log of complaints and resolutions to the City annually and within five days at the City's request is appropriate and would be more consistent with the City's handling of compliance- related matters. Specifically, complaints that have been filed from members of the public are not available on the City's online permit data system or website: 11. Payment of a one-time $200,000 contribution for the Memorial Park Expo Station enhancements and aone-time payment for full funding of a Healthcare District Transportation Management Association (TMA) feasibility study (up to $35,000). o The Applicant has not agreed to provide a contribution to the Memorial Park Expo Station and has agreed to pay '/z half of the cost of the TMA feasibility study, not to exceed $17,500. o Staff and the Applicant do not agree on this matter. As detailed more fully in the Community Benefits discussion of this report, staff continues to support the $200,000 contribution for the Memorial Park Expo Station upgrades and full funding of the TMA feasibility study. Revised Parking Program Saint John's Proposed Parking Supply Saint John's proposes to provide parking to meet the peak parking demand of its various user groups, including visitors, patients, physicians, scientists, and staff, and 13 ensure that parking that is functionally equivalent to the previously-approved North Subterranean Parking Garage is provided at all times. Approximately 1,528 owned and leased parking spaces would be provided on Saint John's property and at off-site facilities, which exceeds the facility's projected 2013 peak parking demand of 1,306 spaces by approximately 222 spaces. The Applicant proposes to provide parking that is functionally equivalent to the previously-approved 442-space North Campus subterranean garage at all times by maintaining a renewable, minimum ten-year lease of 450 spaces, subject to certain cancellation provisions, for Saint John's employees at the Yahoo Center. The Yahoo Center is located three blocks to the southeast of the health center. As presented in greater detail beginning on page 21 of this report, the provision of functionally equivalent parking would be subject to Parking Management Plan requirements for City review and approval of any substitute that may be proposed in the future to replace or modify this lease. Upon completion of Phase One construction in 2012, Saint John's revised parking program would provide approximately 1,528 parking spaces, which, as noted above, is 222 spaces more than required to meet peak demand, and is also greater than the 1,487 parking spaces previously-proposed in 1998 for the Phase One project. Owned-. NOr[h Campus `A67 157 (NO[e:5ub[emn¢an Gauge 4}2af [atlll Owned South Campus 531 592 Owned Totat 998 749 teased-.North &SOUth Campus 489 234 Held & Koll Buildings (S1HCawfied land) Leasetl-Off-Site o 545 (Nate: Tebl mmprhetl of99p spacesat Yahao Center _ $95 spaces at SC Flnne's UUrtF) Leased-Total 489 779 - Parking Supply-Total 2,487 1,528 14 These 1,528 spaces would be allocated to different user groups and may be reallocated between user groups in the future as need changes, provided that peak parking demand for the facility is maintained. With the proposed Amendment, there would be approximately 268 valet spaces for patients and visitors located on the North and South Campuses and an additional 58 spaces on the North Campus that would be shared for both patient/visitorand physician valet parking. The remaining 1,202 spaces would serve Saint John's physicians, staff, scientists, volunteers, and students and be provided at locations throughout Saint John's parking supply on the North and South Campuses, and at two off-site locations comprised of the Yahoo Center and Saint Anne's Catholic Church. Both of .these off-site facilities are located approximately 1,000 feet (three blocks) from the North Campus and provide 450 and 95 parking spaces for Saint John's staff, respectively. ' ~ w.~nm _--- ~~ _ Santa MOni<a Bivd ...' I~ __ l .._._ __. r= _ ~I ..n„ ''' _-~~~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ I ~ iii v~ i i reot< g~ I 1 it ~ ~ i a a•a _-~1 ~ I~~ i ~ i i 3t 50a m t_. iF + ~ / ~ 1 1 _. 1.., Iii ~ ~ XI 1 ~~ ~ i~ i x z _ ~ I 1 ~ °_ ~ Broadway ~~-~ ~~~ -~ t ,.~ ~r ~[a s~ i ,3?~t~ji.5 ~LS)SPacesl~~?i ~YUitors/Patients ~-p l ~i„ rJ ~, i3Y"~rt!m ~8825Paces iowmi ^I50 Spaces ry.wl RPhysitlans/Staff ~(Vlzitors/Patients ^848paces ryntal '~ppysicians/Staff ~ ' >a...- z.axmac. ara Arizona Avenue _ I( I T ` e FRLH ~~ 'l~\ : I_.Sw a ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~ I U ~ NeIY taGSpa i maw Jar O ' • li ~ / o t1 C .>~ r I ~ :~. ~ I ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ ~°I _ o ~ ro~ ( ~ ~ pi ~ N ~ ~ ~,L °L Ji ~ I ~ j i ~ I -- a'a ~ ~mro:» . y ,7 ~~~~ ~, ~ ~ e ~ 565pam i ~ l ,_, _ L i ~1~- J ~ ~-1 ~ ' Santa Mon ica Blvd "'" e°`°~ ~ ~ ® _ ' - - The revised parking program would also include operation of afull-service parking valet at the facility's main entrance on Santa Monica Boulevard for patients, visitors, and physicians. All visitors and patients arriving at the hospital's main entrance at the Entry Plaza on Santa Monica Boulevard will be valet parked. Attachment C provides a map with the proposed valet route between the Entry Plaza and the South Campus lots. The final valet route would be subject to City review and approval within 60 -days of the Amendment's approval and upon completion of Entry Plaza construction. There are a total of up to 138 spaces available for patient/visitorualet parking at the two surface lots at the Entry -Plaza (West Lot and Lot C). There are also 180 spaces available for the valet service to park additional patient/visitor vehicles in Lot B, located immediately to the south across Santa Monica Boulevard and accessed by 21St Street. Any patientlvisitor vehicles parked on the South Campus would be dropped off and picked up directly at the Entry Plaza. From an operational standpoint, the proposed valet at the Entry Plaza would provide the same experience for patient and visitors who access the health center from the main entrance on Santa Monica Boulevard because Saint John's had previously planned to manage operation of the North Campus subterranean garage with afull-service valet for patients and visitors and not permit self-parking in the garage. Amendment Section 10.3 specifies that Saint John's valet operators would be prohibited from parking vehicles. on public streets, including at public metered spaces. In addition, the vast majority of the residential streets surrounding the facility are protected by Preferential Parking Zones (PPZ) that specifically. limit on-street parking to area residents with a permit. A common Preferential Parking Zone restriction in the immediate area limits street parking daily between the hours of 7:00 AM to 12:00 AM (midnight), except by holders of preferential parking permits. Preferential Parking Zones near Saint John's are indicated in red on the map on the following page. Note that the PPZ does not cover 16 the west side of 23`d Street between Arizona Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard, the south side of Arizona Avenue between 20th and 23`d Street, and the north side of Arizona Avenue between 20th and 22"d Streets. There are parking meters along these sections of the streets. u y g i ~ ~ ~ R+ ? d L g 3 ~ P ~ '°b '~si.w'S~avu~`y"3~. 3 .ry q'NL 2 *3~a ~ ~ F. .+...?..,~,.+ ~~ ~~~ e ~~~~ IG.. ~£ ' :~':4a v- Summary of Saint John's Parking Demand Study Preferential Parking STATUS ~^-d ImPlemenlM ,~ Reappmved ~pelNOn neeCeay Parking DlsVIQ Provided as Attachment E is the February 20, 2009 Saint John's Health Center Parking Supply/Demand Study, ("parking demand study") that was prepared by Walker Parking Consultants and reviewed by staff in conjunction with this Amendment application. This parking demand study analyzes actual parking utilization patterns at the facility in 2008 and projects the peak parking demand for the facility through 2013, a time when it was anticipated that all Phase One construction would be completed. As detailed more fully on page 9 of the parking demand study, an analysis of Saint John's actual parking utilization by location and user group across the facility's entire parking supply was conducted in June 2008. This observation of parking utilization, coupled with additional fieldwork by the consultants and guidance from Saint John's staff, was used to establish the occupancy rates attributable to Saint John's user groups for each parking facility owned and leased by Saint John's, including for the parking facilities that are shared and not solely occupied by Saint John's (for example, the Held and Koll Garages also serve other medical uses). As shown on Table 5 of the parking 17 demand study, 10:00 AM peak parking occupancy was established at 1,186 spaces on the survey day, delineated by location and user group. Survey demand ratios by user group were then formulated to show, for example, that while the number of total staff employed at the time was 1,523, peak demand usage of 929 spaces by staff was calculated. Accordingly, the corresponding demand ratio for Saint John's staff for the survey day is 0.61. Another example would be for patients and visitors: on the observation day in June 2008, there were a total of 779 patient/visitor visits. The peak parking demand for patients and visitors was 198 spaces, resulting in a demand ratio of .25. These demand ratios calculated based on observed parking utilization of Saint John's parking facilities were then applied to a "Design Day", a day that represents the level of activity a parking system is designed to accommodate. As detailed more fully in the parking demand study, consistent with accepted professional practice, the Design Day for hospitals and retailers is identified as the 12th busiest day of the year, in order to avoid a potential parking shortage associated with a parking supply designed for an average day, and a potential over-supply associated with a parking supply designed for the absolute peak or busiest day of the year. The following excerpts from the parking demand study summarize this "Design Day" calculation for Saint John's in 2008 and projected for 2013: wore o: ~urrem uesi n ua rarKin qae uac USER GROUP EFFECTIVE SUPPLY PEAK DEMAND EXCESS SPACES POIi2fY'S/YI<.itors 210 200 1C S:aH 1039 929 11C P wsicians Sc7ea~ss 80 69 11 TOTAL3 7,329 1,798 131 Table 14: Desian Dav Parkins Adeau~rv in 2013 USER GROUP EFFECTIVE SUPPLY PEAK DEMAND EXCESS SPACES Patients/VISIIOrS 3C~6 216 90 Sa ~ 1022 i,021 I Phrysicions/5ciantis~s BG 64 17 TOTALS 1,d08 1,306 102 The Applicant has also augmented the parking demand study with updated peak parking demand data based on actual patient/visitor counts and physician/staff employment data from 2009 and 2010 (Attachment F). This additional information validates the peak demand findings of the 2009 Walker study and also demonstrates 18 that the facility's current parking demand is slightly less than the peak parking demand identified in the 1998 EIR for the original Saint John's Phase One project. The table below summarizes the peak demand analysis set forth in 1998 Certified EIR, the 2009 parking demand study, and the additional analysis prepared using actual 2009 and 2010 data for patients, visitors, and Saint John's employees based on the 12th busiest day of both years. -.~ ~ I n. ~f 3° d 6-wIF{ . F,a ~n ~~3 t-j' ~.,l/aa /1'3fs .°,ii a3 if~'~xBS~J tv f33 ~(~ aYa i'~3 G'1~~ ;, Qtlg3riak ;, , P`RUe16~3YtSEttt, ~ ,.'Agz2an4a~tt',' ," {S99pf ~ 1,263 spaces $A87 spaces ~ 1,52$ spaces +265 spaces ~«-'`.',.; i`, 3~b~ ;'"~~'y iz-t.'.~, l, J ;," ~ ;~~~. ~{~~-~~. ~?j1t~ t7 i i~1 ~.9 r` ;' ~i ly 3'- ~:7 ~~'<3~s % . . .. , , H a ~i ~ . 3,263 1,198 3,185 1,183 '1,196 spaces 3,306 spaces 1,528 spa<es~ +222 spaces: spa<es '. spaces ' spaces spaces •2008 Walker Parking 6ludy: Peak Demand based on 12'^ busiest day of year "" Peak Demand based on actual data of 12'^ busiest day of year utilizing 2008 Walker Study methodology In summary, the peak demand parking analysis prepared for Saint John's demonstrates that based on actual patient, visitor, and employee data for 2008, 2009, and 2010, the current parking supply of 1,448 spaces results in a surplus of more than 250 spaces. Moreover, in conjunction with the proposed Amendment, by the end of 2012, the revised parking program would supply a total of 1,528 spaces, which would result in a surplus of over 220 spaces when compared with the Walker study's 2013 peak parking demand projection of 1,306 spaces. With respect to staff's review of the revised parking program, a primary consideration has been to assess whether Saint John's proposal provides the functional equivalent to 19 the originally-approved North Campus subterranean garage and will meet the facility's peak parking demand at all times going forward. The lease of 450 parking spaces at the Yahoo Center on a renewable, long-term basis serves as the functional equivalent to the previously-approved 442-space north subterranean parking garage because it replaces an equivalent number of parking spaces and will be provided for a minimum 10-year lease term, subject to certain cancellation provisions. Furthermore, staff evaluated the revised parking program to assess how the peak parking demand generated by all of Saint John's user groups would be accommodated. In particular, staff has looked carefully at how patients and visitors would be accommodated by Saint John's revised parking program since it was projected that 75% of the originally-approved North Campus parking garage spaces would be allocated for patient and visitor parking. The lease of 450 spaces at the Yahoo Center for use by Saint John's employees would permit the facility to maintain all of its patient and visitor spaces either at the two surface lots at the Entry Plaza or directly across the street on the South Campus. From an operational standpoint, this would result in a path of travel and patient/visitor experience that would be similar to how the North Campus parking garage would have functioned with a full service valet operation, as Saint John's planned to operate the subterranean garage with a valet service -and not permit patient and visitor self-parking. Although the time for return of a vehicle with the valet may be slightly longer, in either scenario, all visitors and patients would arrive and depart from the Entry Plaza and all vehicle drop- off and pick-up would occur through the Entry Plaza valet service. In summary, coupled with the obligations recommended in the Parking Management Plan discussed in greater detail in the next section of the report, Saint John's revised parking program would provide the following: 20 • The required number of parking spaces to meet the peak demand of all its user groups projected in 2013 and a 200+ parking space surplus; • Along-term, renewable lease of 450 off-site spaces at the Yahoo Center that would serve as the functional equivalent of the previously-approved North Campus subterranean parking garage; • Valet-accessed parking spaces for patients and visitors closest to the main hospital entrance in order to maintain efficient service to those using and visiting the facility; and • A patient/visitor experience that would be functionally the same in comparison to the previously-planned North Campus subterranean garage valet operation. Parking Management Plan Obligations The second key component of the Amendment is the Applicant's obligation to implement a Parking Management Plan that requires detailed annual assessment, monitoring, and reporting for Saint John's facility-wide parking program. The purpose of the Parking Management Plan is to ensure that Saint John's continues to provide parking sufficient to meet the peak demand of its various user groups, and to ensure that Saint John's provides parking that is functionally equivalent to the North Campus subterranean parking garage for the term of the Development Agreement through July 2053. The parking management plan must demonstrate that parking is provided at all times to meet the facility's peak parking demand and is subject to annual review and approval by the City. Annual submittal requirements would include a number of items, including the following: • A comprehensive inventory of its overall parking supply by location, number of spaces, fee/rate structure, and system of management for each parking facility; • Copies of all new or modified parking leases since the prior reporting year; • Updated parking demand data based upon updated population counts for each user group (patients, visitors, staff, etc.); and any changes to the parking management plan proposed by Saint John's. Both the annual parking management plan and any proposed modifications to the plan, as established in the Amendment, would require City review and approval. 21 In accordance with Parking Management Plan procedural requirements, Saint John's would be obligated to construct the North Subterranean Parking Garage within 24 months if the City determines that functionally equivalent parking can no longer be provided by Saint John's. Under this scenario, the Modified Entry Plaza would need to be demolished; the North Campus subterranean garage would then be constructed, followed by reconstruction of the Entry Plaza. Staff's assessment and negotiation of proposed Parking Management Plan provisions centered on how the City could establish greater review authority over Saint John's entire facility-wide parking supply to better ensure that its network of owned and leased/on- and off-site spaces will effectively serve Saint John's user groups. Through the proposed Amendment,. the City would establish more direct control over Saint John's facility-wide parking supply. Reporting requirements -for Saint John's parking supply set forth in the current Development Agreement only address the construction period and not ongoing hospital operations. In contrast, with the proposed Parking Management Plan, requirements for tracking, assessment, and reporting on Saint John's facility-wide parking supply, and the requirement for City approval of the annual plan and any subsequent changes to the plan, would be in effect for the full term of the Development Agreement, subject to City approval of a permanent Parking Management Plan. Modified Entry Plaza The third key component of the pending Amendment is the proposal for a modified Entry Plaza design at the hospital's main Santa Monica Boulevard entrance with a signalized u-shaped drive and new landscape/hardscape design. The Development Agreement specified that a 40,000 SF Entry Plaza would serve as the main entrance to the health center and that several specific design elements such internal circulation for vehicles, paving material that clearly delineates the transitions between pedestrian and vehicle spaces, and a water feature be included in the plaza design: 22 While many of the key landscape and hardscape features and mandatory elements of the original plaza design are incorporated in the preliminary concept plan shown below, the Applicant has, in particular, continued to refine the landscape design and focused on the relationship between the anticipated formal and informal functions the Entry Plaza will accommodate. In addition, the modified design has been updated and no longer incorporates features for. subterranean garage access. A preliminary discussion of the revised concept design for the Entry Plaza was held at the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in October 2010. ARB approval will be required for the landscape and hardscape plan for the Entry Plaza prior to construction. The Applicant is currently refining the landscape and hardscape design along with exploring ways to accommodate additional seating and shade in the plaza. Renderings of the preliminary landscape design are provided below for reference Preliminary Renderings of Modified Entry Plaza for Saint John's Health Center Public Comments and Community Meeting Planning staff hosted a community meeting at the Main Library on April 5, 2011 to present, discuss, and gather public comments on the proposed Amendment. Approximately 31 members of the public attended. In summary, all attendees who spoke at the meeting expressed .opposition to Saint John's proposal to lease parking at the Yahoo Center instead of constructing the 23 originally-approved North Campus subterranean garage. All speakers stated that Saint John's needs to resolve its current parking and traffic problems by building the garage as originally planned. Several speakers expressed concern about how the Development Agreement Amendment process has been handled, and several raised questions pertaining to whether all procedural requirements for the application have been met. Finally, there were a number of concerns raised about operational issues that Saint John's should be required to address. A full summary of all comments from the April 5th community meeting is provided as Attachment G. Staff also met with representatives of Mid-City Neighbors as follow up to the April 5th community meeting. Many of the key points expressed at the community meeting were reiterated; Mid-City Neighbors. also provided thoughts on broader points pertaining to how neighborhood groups could in the future participate with the City in the Development Agreement review and negotiation process. Attachment H provides correspondence that summarizes staff's meeting with representatives of Mid-City Neighbors. Additional correspondence received regarding the pending Amendment is also provided with this Attachment. As detailed more fully in the Community Benefits discussion below, the City used the feedback provided from the April 5th meeting to help guide negotiations on a number of community benefits proposed with this Amendment. Community Benefits During the course of negotiations with the Applicant regarding the scope of community benefits recommended in conjunction with the requested Amendment, the City has taken the position that the revised parking program must be tied to Saint John's concurrent implementation of a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management 24 (TDM) plan to reduce vehicle trips and associated parking demand in the broader Healthcare District. Further, implementation of parking and traffic neighborhood protection measures, which have also been identified in public comments, needed to be integral to the Amendment. While the revised parking program would replace the number of spaces originally required for the North Campus subterranean garage with along-term lease of parking spaces at the Yahoo Center, providing the staff-recommended community benefits would help to further ensure that the proposed parking program operates as effectively as possible and that potential impacts to neighbors are addressed. Transportation Demand Management Plan The staff-recommended Transportation Demand Management Plan consists of a series of measures that are geared toward achieving the City's broader goal of reducing vehicle trips and associated parking demand in the Healthcare District. In particular, the recommended obligations for Saint John's to provide an Expo Station employee shuttle, increase its Average Vehicle Ridership to 1.5 from its current 1.35 A.M. AVR and 1,34 P.M. AVR (2010), fund a Healthcare District Transportation Management Association feasibility study, co-lead the formation of a Healthcare District TMA, and provide a contribution to fund the Memorial Park Expo Station enhancements are substantive requirements that will advance the goals of the City's transportation strategy. Over time, these measures will reduce traffic congestion in the neighborhood as well as demand for parking. The key components summarized below are additional measures Saint John's would be obligated to implement over-and-above the facility's current TDM requirements that apply to all employers in the City with 50+ employees. The full text of the proposed TDM Plan is provided as part of Attachmenf B. • 2.1 Average Vehicle Ridership Standard. Saint John's commits, through its TDM Plan, to achieve a 1.5 average vehicle ridership ("AVR") during peak 25 periods (AM and PM) by November, 2013 ("AVR Standard"). In addition, within twelve (12) months following the date Phase II of the Expo line is complete and operating as currently anticipated, the goal of St. John's TDM Plan will be to achieve a 1.6 AVR. • 3.2.1 Employee Transportation Coordinator. Within 30 days of the First Amendment's Effective Date, an Employee Transportation Coordinator ("ETC") shall be designated by Saint John's. ETC will oversee the development, implementation, and maintenance of all TDM Plan elements. The ETC will possess SCAQMD's Employee Transportation Coordinator Training Certificate or its equivalent and participate in the Healthcare District Transportation Management Association ("TMA)" when it is formed. • 3.2.2 Transportation Management Association. Saint John's shall make a contribution to the City in the amount of $17,500 to study the feasibility of forming a Transportation Demand Management Association in the Healthcare District. Saint John's shall be a co-leader with the City in the creation and operation of a TMA including payment of its fair share of funding for establishment and operation of the TMA. The TMA would provide employees, businesses, visitors, and residents in the Healthcare District with resources to increase the amount of trips taken by transit, walking, bicycling, and ridesharing. Saint John's shall actively participate in the TMA, including attending organizational meetings, providing traffic demand data to the TMA, and making available information to its lessees relative to the services provided by the TMA. • 3.2.3 Bicycle Parking And Showers. Saint John's will provide four additional bicycle racks with capacity for 45 bicycles and provide showers and lockers for employees who ride a bicycle to work. Saint John's will also provide a reasonable amount of space, not. to exceed the amount of square footage required for a regular vehicle parking space, at a reasonable parking area location on site which is compatible with Saint John's operations, for a bicycle sharing program station in conjunction with any bicycle sharing program instituted by the City or another operator. • 3.2.4 Transit Information Center. Saint John's Transit Information Center will augment its services to include the following: o Place Commute Transportation Information Display in the Dining Court and Human Resource Department Offices. The display will show: o Maps, routes and schedules for public transit lines serving the site; o Materials publicizing Internet and telephone numbers for referrals on transportation information; o Promotional materials supplied by Metro, the Big Blue Bus (BBB), and/or other publicly supported transportation organizations; o Bicycle route and facility information; and 26 o A listing of facilities at the site for carpoolers/vanpoolers, transit riders, bicyclist and pedestrians, including .availability of preferential carpool/vanpool parking spaces and the methods for obtaining these spaces. o Create and maintain "How to Get To Saint John's Without Using Your Car" website. A page for employees will also be created and maintained. o Incorporate material from the "How to Get To Saint John's Without Using Your Car" web site into directions for getting to/from Saint John's that are posted on Saint John's website. o Create a printed version of the "How to Get To Saint John's without Using Your Car" website and make it available to all Saint John's users. o Communicate availability of publicly provided financial assistance for transportation services to qualifying populations (e.g., disabled). • 3.2.5 Carpool Program. Saint John's will continue to provide preferentially-located parking spaces for carpool and/or vanpools to meet demand for such spaces and will increase allocation of these spaces as necessary. These spaces will be provided in Saint John's-owned parking facilities. • 3.2.6 Enhanced Financial Incentives. Saint John's will enhance its financial .incentives to promote carpooling and alternative means of commuting as follows: o Offer employees who drive alone an additional $1.00 per day for three months for using transit, carpooling vanpooling, bicycling, and/or walking to work. o Offer employees the opportunity to allocate pre-tax salary for payment of vanpool, transit and parking fees as allowed under IRS Section 132 guidelines. o Offer reduced cost tune-ups to bicyclists semi-annually. This service will be initiated after the opening of the main entrance to the D&T Center. o Offer in-kind financial incentives that meet or exceed the value of cashing out parking fees. • 3.2.7 Telecommuting. Saint John's will explore the feasibility of increasing the number of its administrative staff who work remotely rather than on-site: Saint John's will increase the number of its administrative staff working remotely if and to the extent reasonably feasible. 3.2.8 Light Rail Shuttle. Commencing within 180 days of the Expo light rail being operational in Santa Monica, Saint John's shall operate a shuttle for its employees between Saint John's and the Expo light rail's Memorial Park Station or, at the option of Saint John's, the Bergamot Station. Saint John's will robustly market the shuttle to its employees and operate the shuttle for at least fifteen (15) months. 27 o Saint John's may, in its sole and absolute discretion, allow neighboring employers to use the shuttle for their employees, subject to reasonable compensation and insurance protection. o Saint John's will, after the first fifteen (15) months of operation and in consultation with the City's Planning Director and others, assess the extent of shuttle ridership and evaluate the feasibility of continuing the shuttle service. Whether or not Saint John's continues the shuttle after fifteen (15) months shall be within Saint John's sole and absolute discretion; provided, however, that if Saint John's, the City Planning Director, and other members of the TMA determine ridership justifies continuation of the shuttle service, the shuttle shall thereafter be operated by the TMA and Saint John's shall participate in funding to the extent of its fair share based on respective ridership. • 3.3 Lessees and Subleases. Any Saint John's leases for any portion of the Phase One or Phase Two sites will notify the lessee of the Saint John's TDM Plan and require the lessee to designate a contact person employed by such lessee to assist the ETC with (a) communications concerning the TDM Plan, (b) annual employee travel surveys, (c) campaigns to promote use of commute alternatives, and (d) provide transportation information to the lessee's employees. Any such leases shall also require the same terms to be included in any subleases for any portion of the Phase One or Phase Two sites. Unresolved Negotiation Points As previously noted, there are two negotiation points that- remain unresolved between the City and Applicant. These two issues pertain to Saint John's proposed TDM Plan outlined above. The proposed TDM Plan element 3.2 addresses formation of a Healthcare District Transportation Management Association. Staff recommends Saint John's fully fund a feasibility study for a Healthcare District Transportation Management Association with a cost to Saint John's not to exceed $35,000. Saint John's has agreed to pay only half of this cost, up to $17,500. Formation of a TMA is an important component of the City's Transportation Demand Management Strategy; a feasibility study to evaluate how best to form and operate a TMA in the Healthcare District would provide a benefit to the surrounding area by establishing the foundation for more effectively and efficiently implementing vehicle trip reduction strategies that would draw upon a larger number of employers and employees in the area. zs The second negotiation .point that remains unresolved pertains to the City's recommendation fora $200,000 contribution for the Memorial Park Expo Station upgrades. This light rail station will serve the hospital facility as it will be located approximately '/z mile from Saint John's. The Applicant has not agreed to provide a monetary contribution for this recommended requirement. The estimated cost of $6.9 million for the Memorial Park Expo Station improvements was assumed to be split between resident- and business-serving development. The staff-recommended $200,000 contribution is based on a formula that takes into account Saint John's number of employees as a percentage of the total employee base that the Memorial Park light rail station is anticipated to serve. Neighborhood Protection Measures Through negotiations with the Applicant, staff has identified nine measures that would be required with the proposed Amendment in order to address issues raised by residents at the April 5t" community meeting. Each of these measures, summarized below, addresses operational concerns raised by the neighborhood and are also designed to establish more accountability for how Saint John's responds to neighborhood concerns in the future. In particular, the establishment of an Ombudsperson to address parking and operational issues raised by the neighborhood with requirements to track the follow-up on those concerns will help to promote better communication between Saint John's and the surrounding neighborhood. Other measures, such as the requirement to provide a lighted crosswalk at Arizona Avenue and 215f Street, the plan to relocate overnight staff parking currently adjacent to the .1440 23`d Street residential building, and the requirement to fund an expanded study specifically for the 20t" StreetlArizona Avenue intersection to identify measures that would help to improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety, are a direct result of community feedback. • 10.1 Ambulance Sirens. Section 30 of Exhibit "K" to the Development Agreement requires, among other things, Saint John's to advise ambulance companies in writing of certain restrictions on the route to the emergency 29 department and on the use of sirens. Saint John's agrees to provide this advice, in writing, to any new company providing ambulance service upon commencement of service and to all ambulance companies in writing at least annually. • 10.2 Restrictions on Use of Yahoo Center. Saint John's shall not permit the parking of cars by valet at Yahoo Center and shall not operate shuttle transports to and from Yahoo Center. • 10.3 Valet Route. Saint John's shall submit to the City's Planning Director for review and approval its proposed routes to be used by valet parking and shall not change any of such routes without the prior written approval of the City's Planning Director. All valet routes shall, to the extent reasonably feasible, minimize the use of residential streets. Saint John's shall, upon completion of the Entry Plaza, resubmit such proposed routes for review and approval by the Planning Director. • 10.4 Parking Adjacent to 1440 23rd Street. Saint John's shall (a) implement a noise reduction parking policy under which no vehicles shall be permitted to park within a designated buffer zone adjacent to the residential building located at 1440 23rd Street between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM and (b) submit such parking policy, together with a map indicating the buffer zone, to the Planning Director. • 10.5 Security Escorts. Saint John's shall submit to the City's Planning Director for review and reasonable approval its program for providing security escort services for employees walking to their cars and shall not change such program in any material manner without the prior written approval of the City's Planning Director. • 10.6 Ombudsperson. Saint John's shall designate and maintain at all times an employee to be Saint John's ombudsperson with the responsibility to: o receive questions and complaints from the surrounding neighborhood relating to parking and other operational matters affecting the neighborhood o refer questions or complaints to the appropriate Saint John's employee for a response and/or action o follow up with the Saint John's employee responsible for providing the relevant information or taking the appropriate action o follow up with the community individual who raised the matter to insure that appropriate information has been provided or appropriate action taken to the extent reasonably feasible, and o maintain a written record of all questions and complaints received and a description of any actions taken or information provided and the name of the person responsible for doing so. 30 Saint John's shall also submit to the Planning Director for review and reasonable approval procedures appropriate for the ombudsperson to carry out his or her responsibilities. Following such review and approval, Saint John's shall publicize the name and contact information of the ombudsperson in general announcements to the neighborhood and shall not make any material changes without the prior written approval of the Planning Director. Saint John's shall provide the information described in Section 10.6(a)(v) to the City as a part of Saint John's annual development agreement compliance report. The City shall maintain a record of the ombudsperson's name and contact information and shall provide this information to any member of the public upon request. • 10.7 Special Events Parking. Upon receipt of at least 30 days' advance notice, Saint John's shall make Lot B available up to five times per month for parking of 50 vehicles between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. for special events at McKinley Elementary School or other nearby schools or non-profits, where additional parking may be needed. Saint John's may charge for such parking at then-prevailing market rates and may establish reasonable rules and regulations for the use of and access to and from the parking area. Saint John's may exclude any individuals who do not comply with such rules and regulations. • 10.8 Lighted Crosswalks. Saint John's agrees to pay the reasonable costs, up to a maximum of $30,000, for a single crosswalk at the intersection of Arizona Avenue and 21st Street, including a system for lighting of the street in the crosswalk area and a manual signal on each side which can be used by pedestrians to activate the lights. Saint John's also agrees to pay one-half of the reasonable costs, up to $15,000, for a study regarding other means for promoting vehicle and pedestrian safety near the Project. • 10.9 Employee Parking Notice. Within 60 days following the Effective Date of this First Amendment, Saint John's shall notify all employees in writing that parking on the residential streets in the vicinity of Saint John's is prohibited. All new employees will be provided the same notification during their orientation. • 10.10 Continuing Community Outreach. Saint John's shall hold an annual community meeting at its Campus with residents in the Campus' vicinity. Saint John's shall provide at least 15 days' prior written notice of such meeting by U.S. Mail to the City and residents and property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Campus. The purpose of the meetings will be to identify and address any issues associated with Saint John's compliance under this Agreement. • 5.7.1 Parkina Pricing. The Parking Management Plan contains a provision where Saint John's shall be required to establish a parking rate schedule resulting in charges below the maximum daily rate for its visitors and patients parking for 90 minutes or less. The schedule will utilize up to 20 minute increments and the 90 minute rate shall not exceed eighty-five percent (85%) of the maximum daily rate. 31 Land Use and Circulation Element Consistency Saint John's Health Center is located in the Healthcare District Land Use Designation and within the Hospital Area Specific Plan (HASP). This LUCE land use designation encompasses both Saint John's Health Center and Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and portions of its surrounding commercial and residential neighborhoods between Wilshire Boulevard and Broadway. The LUCE vision for the Healthcare District is focused on district-wide policies and programs to create a cohesive environment that supports the continued vitality of the City's hospitals, responds to the evolving needs of the healthcare community, and improves. the way healthcare facilities relate to surrounding residential areas. LUCE circulation and parking policies place high priorities on implementing Transportation Demand Management Programs to .reduce vehicle trips and associated parking demand and on policies that make the most efficient use of new and existing parking resources. Policies in the Healthcare District and neighboring commercial areas, in particular, support shared parking programs that reduce construction of unnecessary parking and better utilize existing, surplus parking. Other key provisions of the LUCE are centered on implementing coordinated Transportation Demand Management and parking management strategies in the City's districts that actively encourage shared parking and a reduction in vehicle trips. More specifically, the following are the relevant General Plan policies set forth in the LUCE that address the proposed Amendment to the Saint John's Health Center Development Agreement: o "Accommodate the continued operation and planned responsible expansion of Saint John's and SM-UCLA, and associated medical office uses." (LUCE Healthcare District Policy 28.1, p. 2.6-49) 32 • "Allow for the continued improvement of the Healthcare District and ongoing responsible expansion of the Saint John's Health Center and Santa Monica- UCLAMedical Center." (LUCE Healthcare District Goal D28, p. 2.6-49) • "Utilize parking and TDM Districts to facilitate efficient use of parking resources, shared and reduced parking opportunities, and trip reduction goals." (LUCE Citywide Land Use Policy LU4.8, p. 2.1-14) • "Consider allowing developers to meet their minimum parking requirements via shared parking between uses, payment of in-lieu fees, or off-site parking within a reasonable walking distance." (LUCE Circulation Policy T26.7, p. 4.0-73) • "If the owners and operators of properties can demonstrate that they have more parking than is actually necessary to meet the needs of their various users (employees, visitors, etc.), consider developing parking efficiency strategies that include leasing their surplus parking to help alleviate parking shortages and avoid development of unnecessary parking." (LUCE Circulation Policy T26.11, p. 4.0- 73) • "Impose appropriate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements for new development." (LUCE Circulation Policy T19.2, p: 4.0-63) • "Create incentives for existing employers, institutions and residential neighborhoods to reduce their vehicle trips." (LUCE Circulation Policy T19.3, p. 4.0-63) • "Encourage a Transportation Demand Management District at the district level to create '.and manage TDM programs to reduce vehicle trips for employees, patients, and visitors to and within the district." (LUCE Healthcare District Policy D29.6, p. 2.6-50) • "Encourage the development of a comfortable, landscaped pedestrian environment including plazas and usable landscaped open spaces with all major renovations to hospital facilities." (LUCE Healthcare District Policy, D28.9, p.2.6- 49) • "Support the continued vitality of the City's hospitals to meet the healthcare needs of the City and larger region, and implement strategies to reduce vehicle trips." (LUCE Citywide Goal LU7, p.2.1-15) The LUCE goals and policies identified above, and the LUCE vision for the Healthcare District set forth in the City's General Plan, recognizes the value of the City's hospitals and the service they provide to the community, and the need to accommodate their continued operation and responsible expansion. 33 The proposed Amendment would authorize a revised parking program that consists of on- and off-site parking to meets Saint John's peak parking demand. A portion of these spaces are available through the shared use of underutilized spaces at the Yahoo Center parking garage located three blocks from the hospital. This proposal is consistent with LUCE policies that encourage more active management of parking resources through implementation of parking efficiency strategies such sharing of existing, surplus parking between different user groups and/or neighboring uses. The Applicant's proposal to incorporate shared use of the Yahoo Center parking facility as a component of its revised parking program is also an example of LUCE parking efficiency strategy implementation that matches the area's existing supply of underutilized spaces with the parking demand generated by other area users. Finally, the staff-recommended Amendment also includes the requirement to implement an enhanced TDM Program that includes an increase in the facility's Average Vehicle Ridership to 1.5, fund a Healthcare District Transportation Management Association feasibility study, co-lead the formation of a Healthcare District TMA, and provide a contribution to fund the Memorial Park Expo Station enhancements. These requirements are consistent with LUCE Citywide, circulation, and Healthcare District goals and policies that are all focused on reducing vehicle trips, traffic congestion, and associated parking demand in the Healthcare District. Environmental Analysis On March 31, 1998, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment for the Saint John's Health Center Project and on April 1, 1998 adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and approved the project. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the project in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft EIR for the original project was circulated fora 45-day review period from September 3rd to October 20th, 1997. 34 The Final Certified EIR presented analysis of impacts regarding Earth; Noise; Light and Glare/Shade and Shadow; Risk of Upset/Human Health; Socioeconomics; Fire Protection; Police Protection; Schools; Libraries; Water Services; Storm and Sanitary Sewers; Solid Waste; Energy; and Cultural Resources and determined these issue areas to be either less than significant or reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures. In addition., the Certified Final EIR identified several significant unavoidable impacts relating to Air Quality, Land Use, Traffic, Public Facilities/Roads, Recreation, Aesthetics, Neighborhood Effects, and Construction Impacts. In consideration of these significant and unavoidable impacts, a Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted as part of the project approval Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that an Addendum to a previously Certified EIR can be prepared if relatively limited changes or additions to the EIR are necessary and none of the conditions in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requiring preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. This Addendum demonstrates that the. proposed Amendment to the approved Development Agreement with the City and associated changes to the original project, referred to as the "Modified Project," would not result in new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of effects which warrant major revisions to the Certified EIR. Accordingly, further environmental documentation beyond this Addendum to the Certified EIR is not necessary. Therefore, an Addendum to the Certified EIR has been drafted in compliance with CEQA Guideline Section 15164. Conclusion In summary, staff's recommendation is based on the following key factors: • The revised parking program would provide parking that is functionally equivalent to the previously-approved North Campus subterranean parking garage and provide sufficient parking to meet the facility's current and projected peak parking demand. 35 • Through the proposed Parking Management Plan, appropriate periodic monitoring, assessment, and reporting procedures would be established for Saint John's to better ensure that sufficient parking is provided at all times to meet peak demand, and the plan would provide the City with greater review authority over Saint John's facility-wide parking supply. • The staff-recommended Amendment implements the LUCE's Transportation Demand Management. Strategy with the requirement for a TDM plan that will reduce vehicle trips to the site and associated parking demand by enhancing current trip-reduction measures already in place for the facility, assist in the establishment of a Healthcare District TMA, and require operation of a Memorial Park Expo Station shuttle for Saint John's employees. • The scope of the staff-recommended community benefits appropriately implement the City's policies that support a reduction in vehicle trips and associated parking demand in the area, and also implement neighborhood protection measures that address concerns raised by the community and establish more accountability for how Saint John's responds to neighborhood concerns in the future. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions Staff costs for the Development Agreement process are paid from application fees. There are community benefits that the Applicant will be required to provide pursuant to the Development Agreement Amendment negotiations. There are no anticipated financial or budgetary impacts to the City. Prepared by: Roxanne Tanemori, AICP, Senior Planner Approved: David~Mait~in Acting Director, Planning and Community Development Department Forwarded to Council: ~"' Rod Gould City Manager 36 Attachments: A. Draft Ordinance and First Amendment with TDM Plan and Parking Management Plan B. Draft First Amendment Development Agreement Findings C. Proposed Entry Plaza Valet Route D. Aerial Map E. Walker Consultants Parking Supply/Demand Study, February 2009 F. Saint John's Peak Parking Demand 2009-2010, June 2011 G. April 5, 2011 Community Meeting Summary H. Correspondence I. Saint John's Health Center Addendum to 1998 Certified EIR, June 2011 37 ATTACHMENT A Draft Ordinance and First Amendment to the Development Agreement with TDM Plan and Parking Management Plan 38 CA:flatty\muni\laws\barry\Saint John's DA Ordinance 06-28-11 City Council Meeting 06-28-11 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS) (City Council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND SISTERS OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC, A KANSAS NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, AS SOLE CORPORATE MEMBER OF SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER, A CALIFORNIA NON-PROFIT CORPORATION WHEREAS, on or about June 9, 1998, Saint John's and the City entered into a Development Agreement, recorded in the Official Records of the County of Los Angeles, State of California on July 29, 1.998 as Instrument No. 98-1311808 (the "Development Agreement"), pertaining to the construction of certain improvements on certain real property owned by Saint John's in the City; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 2007, Saint John's filed an application to amend the Development Agreement ("First Amendment"); and WHEREAS, the FirstAmendment to the Development Agreement would in-lieu of constructing an on-site parking structure and the Entry Plaza as proposed by the Development Agreement, authorize a modified Entry Plaza and parking program to ensure that the peak parking demand of Saint John Health Center's various user groups is met and to ensure that parking that is functionally equivalent to the previously-approved North Subterranean Parking Garage is provided; and 1 WHEREAS, the modified parking program would consist of the following key components: [1 ]approximately 1,540 parking spaces on Saint John's property and at leased, off-site facilities; [2] provide afull-service parking valet at the hospital's main entrance on Santa Monica Boulevard forvisitors, patients, and physicians; [3J provide a modified Entry Plaza at the hospital's main entrance on Santa Monica Boulevard; and [4] implement a new Transportation Demand Management Program to reduce vehicle trips to the facility, among other modifications; and WHEREAS, the FirstAmendmentto the Development Agreement isconsistent with the General Plan,. as summarized below, and as detailed in the accompanying City Council staff report prepared for this proposed project and the exhibits thereto, including, but not limited to: "Accommodate the continued operation and planned responsible expansion of Saint John's and SM-UCLA, and associated medical office uses." (LUCE Healthcare District Policy 28.1, p. 2.6-49). "A(low for the continued improvement of the Healthcare District and ongoing responsible expansion of the Saint John's Health Center and Santa Monica- UCLA Medical Center." (LUCE Healthcare District Goal D28, p. 2.6-49). 2 "Utilize parking and TDM Districts to facilitate efficient use of parking resources, shared and reduced parking opportunities, and trip reduction goals." (LUCE Citywide Land Use Policy LU4.8, p. 2.1-14). "Consider allowing developers to meettheir minimum parking requirements via shared parking between uses, payment of in-lieu fees, or off-site parking within a reasonable walking distance." (LUCE Circulation Policy T26.7, p. 4.0-73). "If the owners and operators of properties can demonstrate that they have more parking than is actually necessary to meet the needs of their various users (employees, visitors, etc.), consider developing parking efficiency strategies that include leasing their surplus parking to help alleviate parking shortages and avoid development of unnecessary parking." (LUCE Circulation Policy T26.11, p. 4.0-73). "Impose appropriate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements for new development." (LUCE Circulation Policy T19.2, p. 4.0- 63). "Create incentives for existing employers, institutions and residential neighborhoods to reduce theirvehicle trips." (LUCE Circulation Policy T19.3, p. 4.0-63). 3 "Encourage a Transportation Demand Management District at the district level to create and manage TDM programs to reduce vehicle trips for employees, patients, and visitors to and within the district." (LUCE Healthcare District Policy D29.6, p. 2.6-50). "Encourage the development of a comfortable, landscaped pedestrian environment including plazas and usable landscaped open spaces with all major renovations to hospital facilities." (LUCE Healthcare District Policy, D28.9, p.2.6-49). "Support the continued vitality of the City's hospitals to meet the healthcare needs of the City and larger region, and implement strategies to reduce vehicle trips." (LUCE Citywide Goal LU7, p.2.1-15). NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The First Amendment to the Development Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference between the City of Santa Monica, a municipal corporation, and the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System, Inc., a Kansas non-profit corporation, as sole member of Saint John's Hospital and Health Center, a California non-profit corporation is hereby approved. The City Manager is authorized to execute the attached First Amendment to the Development Agreement. 4 SECTION 2. Each and everyterm and condition of the FirstAmendmenttothe Development Agreement approved in Section 1 of this Ordinance shall be and is made a part of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and any appendices thereto. The City Couhcil of the City of Santa Monica finds that public necessity, public convenience, and general welfare require that any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Development Agreement, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, be repealed or modified to that extent necessary to make fully effective the provisions of this Development Agreement. SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto, inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. 5 SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ! ~ i ad' ~ ~ S I ~ 1 a~'ts~e ~~ MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE City Attorney 6 EXHIBIT 1 FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Recording Requested By: City of Santa Monica When Recorded Mail To: City of Santa Monica City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Attention: Senior Land Use Attorney 6/23/11 Space Above Line For Recorders Use No Recording Fee Required Government Code Section 27383 FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT by and between THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a public body, corporate and politic and SISTERS OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., a Kansas non-profit corporation, as sole member of SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER, a California non-profit corporation FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("First Amendment"), dated for reference purposes , 2011, is entered into by and betweeri SISTERS OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., a Kansas non-profit corporation, as sole corporate member of SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER, a California non-profit corporation (``Saint John's"), and THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a municipal corporation organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the State of California and the Charter of the City of Santa Monica ("C~"), with reference to the following facts: The Development Agreement A. Saint John's and City entered into that certain Development Agreement dated June 9, 1998 and recorded in the Official Records of the County of Los Angeles, State of California on July 29, 1998 as Instrument No. 98-1311808 (the "Development Agreement") pertaining to the construction of certain improvements referred to therein as the "Project" on certain real property owned by Saint John's in the City of Santa Monica referred to therein as the "Campus Property." (All capitalized terms not defined in this First Amendment shall have the meanings given those terms in the Development Agreement.) B. Pursuant to the Development Agreement, the Project is to be developed in two phases, with Phase One being developed entirely on the North Campus (i.e. north of Santa Monica Boulevard) and Phase Two on a portion of the North Campus and on the South Campus (i.e. south of Santa Monica Boulevard). C. Phase One of the Project is to be developed in four stages described in Section 2.4 of the Development Agreement as the "preliminary stage," the "first stage," the "second stage," and the "third stage." Saint John's has completed the preliminary stage, the first stage, the second stage, and portions of the third stage. D. On October 24, 2007, the City's Director of Planning and Community Development ("Planning Director") approved an extension of the deadline to complete construction of the second stage of Phase One, which consists primarily of construction of the D&T Center, until July 9, 2010. The D&T Center's construction was completed in August 2009 and occupied in January 2010 in accordance with the above-referenced extension. E. Since completion of the D&T Center, Saint John's has proceeded with demolition of the East Wing, West Wing, South Wing, Existing Plant, the MRI Facility, and the Temporary Connection in accordance with Section 2.4.4(a) and (b) of the Development Agreement. Demolition of these facilities is now complete. F. The post-demolition work consisting of backfilling of the Entry Plaza site and removal of the temporary shoring seismic south wall has been completed. The Entry Plaza and the North Subterranean Parking Structure have not yet been constructed. G. Since 1998, Saint John's has prepared and implemented City-approved interim parking plans to ensure that Saint John's has sufficient parking for its various user groups (including employees, patients, visitors, students, and construction workers) in compliance with that Paragraph 42 of Exhibit "K" to the Development Agreement which is under the heading "PHASE ONE MITIGATIONS AND STANDARD CONDITIONS". Since 2004, the interim parking plans have included the leasing of parking spaces in the development now commonly known as Yahoo! Center. Saint John's is currently implementing the Step Two Construction Period Parking Plan prepared by Kaku Associates in June 2006 (the "Interim Parkins Plan"). The Interim Parking Plan, which was approved by the City on June 30, 2006, addresses the parking needs of Saint John's various user groups. The Interim Parking Plan includes both owned and leased parking resources. The Interim Pazking Plan and its predecessor plans have successfully met Saint John's parking needs on an interim basis during Phase One construction. H. Section 2.3.4(a) of the Development Agreement establishes the Phase One Vesting Deadline often (10) yeazs following the Effective Date of the Development Agreement. Saint John's and the City agree that, until extended by this First Amendment, the Phase One Vesting Deadline was July 9, 2008. The LUCE I. The City's new Land Use and Circulation Element ("LUCE") of its General Plan was adopted in July 2010. The LUCE's new approach to parking is reflected in the following LUCE policies: (1) "Utilize parking and TDM Districts to facilitate efficient use of pazking resources, shared and reduced parking opportunities, and trip reduction goals." (LUCE Citywide Land Use Policy LU4.8, p. 2.1-14) (Z) "The City plans to encourage parking efficiency strategies such as shared parking (including sharing of existing parking), lowered parking requirements, and parking pricing to reduce the demand for parking. Reducing parking demand can also encourage alternatives to auto travel, promoting apedestrian-friendly urban landscape by reducing the amount of urban space dedicated to parking." (LUCE Sustainability and Climate Change p. 3.1- 10) (3) "Employees should not be encouraged to park in prime customer spaces or in residential neighborhoods. Instead, each commercial area should have a tailored employee parking strategy, taking advantage ofless-utilized facilities." (LUCE Circulation p. 4.0-70) (4) "Adjust parking requirements for projects when it can be demonstrated that a lower parking demand is appropriate." (LUCE Circulation Policy T26.4, p. 4.0-73) (5) "Consider allowing developers to meet their minimum parking requirements via shared parking between uses, payment of in-lieu fees, or off-site parking within a reasonable walking distance." (LUCE Circulation Policy T26:7, p. 4.0-73) (6) "If the owners and operators of properties can demonstrate that they have more parking than is actually necessary to meet the needs of their various users (employees, visitors, etc.), consider developing parking efficiency strategies that include leasing their surplus parking to help alleviate parking shortages and avoid development of unnecessary parking." (LUCE Circulation Policy T26.11, p. 4.0-73) J. The LUCE's new approach to parking is also reflected in the following parking policies specifically for the City's Healthcare District in which the Saint John's campus is located: (1) "Encourage a comprehensive parking district approach in order to determine parking needs on a district-wide basis rather than aproject-by-project basis to take advantage of the potential. to share parking (including sharing of existing parking) and reduce the total parking requirement." (LUCE Healthcare Policy D29.1, p. 2.6-50) (2) "A shared parking program (including the sharing of existing surplus parking with neighboring uses), along with a Transportation Demand Management program are detailed in the updated Hospital Area Specific Plan to ensure substantial reduction in automobile trips." (LUCE Land Use Policy And Designations p. 2.1-54) (3) "A key component is the development of a comprehensive parking program to identify shared parking strategies, such as allowing and encouraging properties with existing surplus parking to lease excess parking to neighboring uses." (LUCE Healthcaze p. 2.6- 48) K. The LUCE indicates that the existing Hospital Area Specific Plan ("HASP") will be updated to reflect the LUCE's policies, including those discussing shared parking programs and transportation demand management. Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment Application L. On September 20, 2007, Saint John's filed with the City an application to amend its Development Agreement with the City pursuant to Section 9.48.020 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Saint John's subsequently amended this application ("DA Amendment Application"). M. Saint John's has entered into a Parking License Agreement dated June 10, 2011with Standard Parking Corporation IL, a Delaware corporation (the "Yahoo! Center Parkin¢ Lease") under which Saint John's has the right to use up to 450 parking spaces in the subterranean parking garage constituting a portion of the development commonly known as "Yahoo! Center" (the "Yahoo! Center Parking Garage"). The Yahoo! Center Parking Lease has a term often (10) yeazs ending on June 10, 2021 subject to certain cancellation rights in favor of the parties, as set forth therein. The Yahoo! Center Parking Lease also provides that it will automatically become void and be of no further force or effect if the City fails, by December 31, 2011, to approve a pending amendment to the Development Agreement applicable to Yahoo! Center, or an equivalent to such amendment, under which the owner of Yahoo! Center is given the right to lease spaces in the Yahoo! Center Parking Garage to users who are not occupying space in Yahoo! Center. N. Saint John's DA Amendment Application proposes, among other things, the following changes to the Development Agreement: (1) Extend the Phase One Vesting Deadline to December 31, 2012 to allow for the orderly completion of the Entry Plaza, Pedestrian Link, and the North Lawn and revise the description of the Entry Plaza as set forth in Article 5 of this First Amendment. (2) Supersede provisions in the Development Agreement ielating to parking for Phase One, including construction of the North Subterranean Parking Garage. (3) Ensure that Saint John's will continue to provide sufficient parking to meet peak parking demand for its various user groups, determined by Walker Parking Consultants in a report dated February 20, 2009 (the "Walker Study"), to be 1,196 upon completion of the D&T Center and 1,306 in 2013, by maintaining and implementing a Parking Management Plan ("PMP") that will be subject to ongoing City review and approval and, if necessary, by constructing the North Subterranean Parking Garage as set forth in Section 2.2(b)(5) hereof. (4) Require Saint John's to maintain and implement a transportation demand management plan ("TDM Plan") to reduce automobile trips to and from the Saint John's campus, thus reducing the parking demand associated with such trips. Benefits of the First Amendment to Develonment Agreement O. It is in the best interests of both the City and Saint John's to extend the vesting deadline and modify provisions in the Development Agreement relating to Phase One parking, including construction of the North Subterranean Parking Structure, in order to facilitate anarea- wide approach to Saint John's parking as envisioned in the LUCE and to provide an opportunity to coordinate Saint John's parking for Phases One and Two. Such a coordinated approach is currently prevented by the Development Agreement, which effectively contemplates three separate Saint John's parking structures along the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard, including the North Subterranean Parking Structure and parking structures in Areas 2C and 2D/2E, as identified in the Development Agreement, each with its own vehicular ingress and egress. P. The City and Saint John's agree that modifying provisions in the Development Agreement relating to Phase One parking will also allow the City and Saint John's an opportunity and sufficient time to explore anarea-wide approach to parking in the City's Healthcare District as part of the HASP update process as envisioned in the LUCE. Q. Based upon a study of Saint John's parking supply reflected in the Current Parking Management Plan attached hereto as Exhibit "L" (the "Current PMP") and demand reflected in the Walker Study, the City and Saint John's agree that Saint John's will be able to continue providing sufficient parking for its various user groups (including doctors, employees, patients, visitors and others) in the foreseeable future through a combination of facilities owned by Saint John's and leased by Saint John's, including the Yahoo! Center Pazking Lease, without building the North Subterranean Parking Structure. Saint John's practice of relying upon existing underutilized parking resources, rather than constructing additional pazking, is encouraged by the LUCE's sustainability and shared parking policies. R. As further set forth in Section 2 below, this First Amendment ensures that Saint John's will continue providing sufficient parking to meet its parking needs by (i) providing a functional equivalent of the North Subterranean Parking Structure through the Yahoo! Center Parking Lease, (ii) requiring Saint John's to file an annual Parking Management Plan report with the City demonstrating that Saint John's continues to have sufficient pazking for its various user groups, (iii) requiring Saint John's to modify its PMP to the extent necessary to remedy any parking deficiencies, (iv) authorizing the City to require changes to Saint John's parking supply and operations in the event the City reasonably determines that Saint John's parking is insufficient to meet Saint John's parking needs, and (v) authorizing the City to compel Saint John's to construct the North Subterranean Parking Structure under the terms and conditions set forth in this First Amendment. S. As provided in Section 4 of this First Amendment, Saint John's will maintain and implement a TDM Plan to reduce automobile trips to and from the Saint John's campus, thus reducing the pazking demand associated with such trips. Develonment Agreement Amendment Hearin¢ Process T. The City's Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 15, 2011 with respect to this First Amendment and recommended approval of this First Amendment subject to certain modifications. U. On June 28, 2011, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica held a duly noticed public hearing on this First Amendment. Following completion of the hearing, the City Council took the following actions: (1) [RESERVED] (2) Adopted Ordinance No. (CCS) approving this First Amendment and authorizing its execution by the City Manager. V. In taking such action, the City Council has (a) specifically considered and approved the impacts and benefits of the First Amendment and has concluded that this First Amendment is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare needs of the residents of the City and 4he surrounding region and appropriately promotes the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan including the LUCE, (b) determined that the City has complied with all procedures required by the Development Agreement Statutes with respect to this First Amendment, and (c) duly authorized the City to enter into and perform its obligations under this First Amendment. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, the City and Saint John's hereby agree as follows: 1. Revised Phase One Vesting Deadline. Except as otherwise provided in Section 2 herein with respect to Phase One parking, the Phase One Vesting Deadline, to the extent it relates to the third stage of Phase One, is hereby extended to December 31, 2012 ("Revised Phase One Vestin¢ Deadline"). For any portion of such third stage that is under construction upon expiration of the Revised Phase One Vesting Deadline, the Planning Director may, in his or her sole and absolute discretion, grant one or more extensions of the Revised Phase One Vesting Deadline for up to a maximum of two (2) additional years for completion of construction of such portion upon a showing of good cause by Saint John's and upon such terms and conditions as the Planning Director deems appropriate, provided Saint John's requests such an extension in writing prior to the Revised Phase One Vesting Deadline. 2. Phase One Pazking. 2.1 Modification of Development Agreement. All provisions in the Development Agreement set forth in Section 2.9.1 relating to the North Subterranean Parking Structure, are superseded by this First Amendment and the rights and obligations of Saint John's with respect thereto shall be governed by this First Amendment, anything to the contrary in the Development Agreement notwithstanding. Saint John's shall have no obligation to construct the North Subterranean Parking Garage, or any other underground parking as a part of Phase One, except as set forth in this Section 2. 2.2 Parking Management Plan. The purpose of the PMP, as required in this First Amendment, is to ensure that Saint John's continues throughout the term of the Development Agreement to provide sufficient parking to meet the peak parking demands of its vazious user groups, and to ensure that Saint John's provides parking which is functionally equivalent to the North Subterranean Parking Structure. The PMP is also intended to facilitate a collaborative effort by Saint John's and the City to develop along-term Saint John's parking plan that furthers the LUCE's approach to parking by developing and implementing azea-wide parking solutions, utilizing shared parking, and relying on transportation demand management as a means of reducing Saint John's pazking demand. Except as provided in Section 2.2(b)(6) of this First Amendment, this Section 2 shall continue in effect for the term of the Development Agreement. (a) Current Parking Management Plan. Saint john's shall continue to maintain and implement the Current PMP which is attached hereto as Exhibit "L", subject to the PMP's modification under Section 2.2(b) of this First Amendment. The City and Saint John's agree that the Yahoo! Center Pazking Lease constitutes the functional equivalent of the North Subterranean Pazking Structure during the period that the Yahoo! Center Parking Lease remains in effect and that the PMP includes the following parking locations and spaces not contemplated to remain in the Development Agreement: existing Lot C (58 spaces with valet operation); and the Entry Plaza upon completion and an adjacent surface lot referred to in the PMP as the "West Lot" (approximately 80 spaces). (b) PMP Review Process and Ke~ponents of Plan. (1) Annual PMP Report. On or before February 28 of each year, commencing with 2012, Saint John's shall file a PMP report with the Planning Director. The PMP report shall contain the following information current as of December 31 of the prior year: (i) Saint John's overall parking supply, including a list and map identifying the location of each parking facility and its distance from Saint John's main campus, the number of spaces therein, those spaces available through use of attendant and valet operations, and the system of management for each parking facility; (ii) Copies of all new parking leases or modifications to existing parking leases entered into since the most recent PMP report and an update on the status of the Yahoo! Center Parking Lease; (iii) Parking demand based upon updated population counts in each of its user groups; (iv) Tables setting forth parking demand and parking supply data for each user group; (v) A discussion of overall parking conditions and any deficiencies, and measures Saint John's intends to implement to address these deficiencies; and (vi) Any changes Saint John's proposes to its PMP plan; (vii) A copy of Saint John's most recent PMP. Saint John's annual PMP report shall be processed in accordance with Section 2.2(b)(4) of this First Amendment. (2) Material Reduction In Saint John's Parking Supply. (i) In addition to Saint John's obligation to file its annual PMP report, Saint John's shall also: (A) provide the City, within fifteen (15) business days of receipt, a copy of any notice received from the Parking Operator under the Yahoo! Center Parking Lease (or the other party to any lease for any other facility which is functionally equivalent to the Yahoo! Center Parking Lease) pursuant to which the number of parking spaces available to Saint John's or to any lessee or licensee which is not otherwise a tenant in any of the Yahoo! Center buildings (or such other facility) will be reduced or the Yahoo! Center Parking Lease (or such functionally equivalent lease) will be terminated; (B) provide the City with a copy of any notice given by Saint John's under the Yahoo! Center Parking Lease (or other functionally equivalent lease) of any election by Saint John's to reduce the number of parking spaces leased thereunder or terminate such lease, such copy to be provided to the City concurrently with the sending of such notice to the other party; (C) file a PMP report with the City in the event Saint John's aggregate parking supply has been reduced, or will be reduced, below the parking demand set forth on Saint John's most recent annual PMP report for any reason, including those set forth in subsections (A) and (B) above. Such a PMP report shall be filed by Saint John's (x) within thirty (30) days of receiving a notice described in subsection (A) above, (y) concurrently with the notice referred to in subsection (B) above, or (z) thirty (30) days of otherwise learning that a reducfion in its parking supply has occurred or will occur; and (D) file a PMP report with the City two years and six months before the expiration of the specified term in the Yahoo! Center Parking Lease, or any subsequent functional equivalent, in the absence of an approved Permanent PMP as authorized in Section 2.2(b)(6) below. (ii) A PMP report filed in accordance with Section 2.2(b)(2)(i) shall specify the number and location of the parking spaces lost or anticipated to be lost, propose PMP revisions appropriate to restore such parking spaces so that sufficient spaces to meet peak parking demand are maintained and, if applicable, identify any proposed functional equivalent for any lost spaces in the Yahoo! Center Parking Lease or any previously approved functional equivalent thereof pursuant to Section 2.2(b)(5) below. A PMP report filed in accordance with Section 2.2(b)(2)(i) is not required to include the information required by Sections 2.2(b)(1)(iii), (iv), (v), and (vii) of this First Amendment unless reasonably requested by the Planning Director. (iii) A PMP report filed in accordance with Section 2.2(b)(2)(i) shall be processed in accordance with Section 2.2(b)(4) of this First Amendment: (3) Modifications To Parkin¢ Manaeement Plan. (i) Saint John's Request For Modification. Before making any material change to its PMP under Sections 2.2(b)(1) or (2) above, Saint John's shall file a written request with the Planning Director. Such a written request shall demonstrate that the revised PMP will be equal or superior in its effectiveness at satisfying Saint John's parking needs in comparison to the PMP then in effect or is necessary due to changed conditions beyond Saint John's reasonable control. (ii) Necessarv Planning Approvals. The PMP application shall be accompanied by such planning approval applications as are required by the Santa Monica Municipal Code then in effect. (4) City Review. (i) The Planning Director will promptly review Saint John's PMP report and any modifications proposed to its PMP under Section 2.2(b)(3) above. In the event the Planning Director has objections to the PMP report or proposed PMP modifications, then the Planning Director will notify Saint John's in writing of such objections no later than sixty (60) days after receiving the PMP report; urovided, however, that if the PMP modification being proposed relates to a relocation of parking to a lot or garage owned or operated by a person or entity other than Saint John's or any affiliate of Saint John's, the Planning Director shall notify Saint John's in writing of any objection to the new location no later than thirty (30) days after receiving the PMP report. In acting on a PMP modification request, the Planning Director shall not require Saint John's to provide any more parking than is reasonably necessary to meet its peak parking needs for Phase One taking into consideration Saint John's TDM Plan (Exhibit "M") and all other relevant factors. (ii) Except as provided in Section 2.2(b)(4)(vi) below, if the Planning Director fails to give Saint John's timely written notice of his or her objections to the PMP report in accordance with Section 2.2(b)(4)(i) above, Saint John's may submit a second request for the Planning Director's review of the PMP report which conspicuously states: "THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S FAILURE TO NOTIFY SAINT JOHN'S IN WRITING OF ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE PMP REPORT WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONSTITUTE APPROVAL OF THE PMP REPORT AND ALL MODIFICATIONS SPECIFIED THEREIN" (a "Second PMP Notice"). If the Planning Director fails to give Saint John's timely written notice of his or her objections to the PMP report within fifteen (15) days of receipt of a Second PMP Notice, the Planning Director shall be deemed to have approved such PMP report and the modifications set forth therein. (iii) If the PMP report has not been either approved by the Planning Director or deemed approved under Section 2.2(b)(4)(ii) above and the Planning Director submits written notice to Saint John's of objections thereto, then Saint John's will respond in writing to the City's notice within thirty (30) days of receiving such notice. Such response shall address the Planning Director's concerns including, without limitation, making revisions to its PMP. (iv) If upon reviewing Saint John's written response submitted in accordance with Section 2.2(b)(4)(iii) of this First Amendment, the Planning Director reasonably determines that the parking supply which will be available to Saint John's following implementation of the measures specified in the PMP report, as it maybe amended in Saint John's response under Section 2.2(b)(4)(iii), will be insufficient to satisfy Saint John's parking demand, then within sixty (60) days of receipt of Saint John's written response, the Planning Director shall provide Saint John's with written notice that a parking deficit exists. Except as provided in Section 2.2(b)(4)(vi) below, if the Planning Director fails to provide such notice to Saint John's within such sixty (60) day period, Saint John's shall be entitled to submit a Second PMP Notice and, if the Planning Director fails to give Saint John's timely written notice of his or her objections to the PMP report within fifteen (15) days of receipt of a Second PMP Notice, the Planning Director shall be deemed to have approved such PMP report, as it may have been amended in Saint John's response, and the modifications set forth therein. If the Planning Director provides such written notice in a timely manner, then the City and Saint John's will promptly meet and confer for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days commencing on the date Saint John's receives the Planning Director's notice in an effort to develop a revised PMP that is acceptable to both the Planning Director and Saint John's. (v) Upon-the conclusion of the meet and confer process described in Section 2.2(b)(4)(iv) of this First Amendment, Saint John's shall submit to the City a final revised PMP. If the Planning Director reasonably determines that such revised PMP will not provide §ufficient parking, the Planning Director shall so notify Saint John's in writing specifying the reasons for such determination within thirty (30) days of Saint John's submission of such revised PMP. Except as provided in Section 2.2(b)(4)(vi) below, should the Planning Director fail to provide such written notice within such time; the Planning Director shall be deemed to have approved the revised PMP. If the Planning Director does provide timely written notice and Saint John's shall fail to further revise the PMP in a manner reasonably acceptable to the Planning Director within thirty (30) days of receipt of such notice, such failure shall constitute a Default under the Development Agreement. (vi) To the extent a PMP report includes a substitution in the location of parking for any of the spaces covered by the Yahoo! Center Parking Lease, or any subsequent functional equivalent thereof, the Planning Director shall not be deemed to have approved such substitution or be precluded from raising objections thereafter but Saint John's shall be entitled to enter into a lease, license or other agreement relating to such substitute location pending receipt of a written objection from the Planning Director without resulting in a Default under the Development Agreement. (5) Review of Functional Equivalent of North Subterranean Parkine Structure. (i) If the PMP report submitted by Saint John's to the City under this Section 2.2(b) was submitted because of a cancellation, termination or expiration of the Yahoo! Center Parking Lease, or of an approved functional equivalent, the following procedures shall be applicable instead of those set forth in Secfion 2.2(b)(4)(v): (A) If, upon conclusion of the meet and confer process described in Section 2.2(b)(4)(iv) of this First Amendment and the review of any revised PMP submitted by Saint John's, the Planning Director reasonably determines that Saint John's will be unable to otherwise cure any parking deficit arising from such cancellation, termination or expirafion through a functional equivalent and that construction of North Subterranean Parking Structure is the appropriate means of curing such parking deficit, then the Planning Director shall notify Saint John's, in writing, that it shall be required to construct and operate the North Subterranean Parking Structure within a reasonable time, not to exceed twenty-four months of such determination. (B) If, after such review, the Planning Director reasonably determines that the parking deficit can be cured through development of a subterranean parking structure having fewer than 442 spaces, the Planning Director may permit Saint John's to reduce the number of spaces in the North Subterranean Parking Structure to the number the Planning Director determines to be necessary to cure the parking deficit. (C) Saint John's shall have the right to appeal any decision by the Planning Director under Section 2.2(b)(5)(i)(A) or (B) above to the City Council by written notice to the Planning Director given within fourteen (14) calendar days following Saint John's receipt of notice from the Planning Director thereunder. Other procedures and fees associated with such appeal shall be the same as apply to appeals from decisions of the Planning Commission to the City Council under then-applicable law. Saint John's shall not be obligated to take any action during the time such appeal is pending. The City to Council shall have authority to affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Director. Saint John's agrees that it shall have no claim for damages, other than attorneys' fees, arising from the City Council's decision but shall be limited to seeking injunctive relief or a writ of mandate based on a showing that the City Council decision was arbitrary and capricious. (D) Following the Planning Director's determination, or the City Council's determination on appeal, that the North Subterranean Parking Structure is required to be constructed under the terms and conditions set forth in Sections 2.2(b)(5)(A) or (B), Saint John's shall be obligated to construct the North Subterranean Parking Structure within a reasonable time, not to exceed twenty-four (24) months, designated by the Planning Director or the City Council on appeal (the "Parking Structure Construction Deadline"); and with the number of spaces designated by the Planning Director, or the City Council on appeal, not to exceed 442. (E) The Planning Director may, in his or her sole and absolute discretion, grant one or more extensions of the Parking Structure Construction Deadline for up to a maximum of two (2) additional years for completion of the North Subterranean Parking Structure upon a showing of good- cause by Saint John's and upon such terms and conditions as the Planning Director deems appropriate; provided Saint John's requests such extension(s) in writing prior to the Parking Structure Construction Deadline. If an extension is granted, the Parking Structure Construction Deadline shall be the expiration date of such extension. (F) Saint John's shall have the vested right to construct the North Subterranean Parking Structure fora period commensurate with the duration of the Yahoo! Center Parking Lease, or its approved functional equivalent. If Saint John's is required to construct the North Subterranean Parking Structure under this Section 2.2(b), its vested right to do so shall, if necessary, be extended to the Parking Structure Construction Deadline, as it maybe extended. (ii) If any PMP submitted by Saint John's under this Section 2 identifies a "functional equivalent" for the Yahoo! Center Parking Lease, or any subsequently approved functional equivalent thereto, and such PMP is approved by the Planning Director, or, where applicable, the City Council on appeal, such replacement parking shall be deemed to constitute an "approved functional equivalent" hereunder. (6) Permanent PMP. In the event Saint John's believes thatits proposed PMP will satisfy Saint John's parking needs for the term of the Development Agreement (i.e. through July 9, 2053), then Saint John's written request shall so indicate and the following shall apply in addition to Section 2.2(b)(3): (i) Saint John's shall meet and confer with the Planning Director before filing a written request for approval of the PMP. (ii) Saint John's may in its discretion present a PMP that addresses Phase One parking only, or alternatively, addresses both Phase One parking and parking for one or more Phase Two facilities. 1t (iii) The PMP application shall be accompanied by such parking studies as are requested by the Planning Director. (iv) The City will commence and complete any necessary environmental review of Saint John's PMP modification request in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. (v) The Planning Director may approve, conditionally approve or deny Saint John's request to modify its PMP. The Planning Director will exercise reasonable discretion in rendering his or her decision. (vi) In reviewing such a PMP request, the Planning Director shall determine in writing whether the PMP satisfies Saint John's Phase One parking needs for the term of the Development Agreement. The Planning Director will exercise reasonable discretion in rendering his or her decision. (vii) In the event the Planning Director determines that Saint John's PMP will satisfy Saint John's Phase One parking needs for the term of the Development Agreement, then (i) the Planning Director shall approve the PMP, (ii) Saint John's. will be deemed to have satisfied all of its Phase One parking obligations in accordance with the Development Agreement and this First Amendment, and (iii) Saint John's will be relieved of its obligations under Sections 2.2(a) and (b) of this First Amendment. (7) Scope Of PMP Modifications. Subject to the review process set forth in Section 2.2(b), Saint John's and the City agree that a PMP may be modified with respect to the location, design, number of parking spaces, management and operations, access and other features addressed in the current PMP (Exhibit "L"). The PMP may include, without limitation, construction of additional on-site or off-site parking, the leasing of off-site pazking, or other options reasonably acceptable to the City, provided that adequate parking meeting its peak parking demand is maintained by Saint John's. (8) Stacked Pazkin~ On The South Campus. As part of requested modifications to its PMP, Saint John's may request City approval to install stacked parking on its South Campus by filing a Development Review Permit ("DRP") application in accordance with Section 3.2 of the Development Agreement. The City may approve, conditionally approve or deny this application. In the event Saint John's files such an application, the City will conduct any necessary environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Notwithstanding Section 3.6 of the Development Agreement, Saint John's will not be required to obtain City approval of a South Campus Master Plan prior to filing or obtaining City approval of a DRP application for stacked parking on the South Campus. Stacked parking shall be subject to architectural design review in accordance with Section 8.1 of the Development Agreement. 2.3 North Subterranean Parkin¢ Structure Parking Management Plan. Section 2.9.3 of the Development Agreement shall be amended to delete clause. (a) and to add the following new sentence at the end of the Section in order to be consistent with Section 9 of Exhibit "K": "Prior to issuance of a building permit for the North Subterranean Parking t2 Structure, Saint John's shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a parking management plan as detailed in Section 9 of Exhibit "K"." 2.4 Area 2C And Areas 2D/2E. As part of requested modifications to its PMP, Saint John's may use all or portions of the sites designated as Area 2C and Areas 2D/2E for surface Phase One parking, subject to reasonable approval by the Planning Director of the parking's design, configuration and access. 25 HASP. Saint John's will cooperate in good faith with the City to update the HASP in order to implement the parking policies set forth in the LUCE, including those relating to shared parking programs and transportation demand management. 2.6 Emergency Access Parking. Clause (b) of Section 2.9.1 of the Development Agreement and Condition No. 25 in Exhibit "K" to the Development Agreement under "Neighborhood Effects" are inconsistent with respect to the number of parking spaces to beprovided and both are inconsistent with safety requirements of the City's Fire Department. Therefore, in place of those provisions, which are hereby superseded, the City and Saint John's agree that Saint John's shall provide at least eight (8) spaces (including handicapped spaces) for short-term visitor parking and at least six (6) spaces for ambulances in the Emergency Access and that a parking management plan for the Emergency Access shall be prepared by Saint John's in consultation with the City's Fire Department and submitted for approval to the Planning Director, which shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 2.7 Lot C. St. John's shall have no obligation to demolish and remove Lot C, as currently required under Section 2.4.2(b)(ii) of the Development Agreement. 3. Temporary Access. St. John's shall have no obligation to provide the Temporary Access as described in Section 2.4.2(d) of the Development Agreement. 4. Transportation Demand Management Plan. Saint John's shall maintain and implement its TDM Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "M". The TDM Plan includes all of the program components of its current Employee Transportation Reduction Plan ("ETRP"). Saint John's and the City agree that the TDM Plan will be modified as necessary to incorporate any and all changes made to Saint John's ETRP. The TDM Plan meets or exceeds all the requirements of the Santa Monica Municipal Code in effect as of the date of this First Amendment. In the event of any conflict between the TDM Plan and the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the_ TDM Plan shall prevail. 5. Entry Plaza. 5.1 Saint John's shall construct an Entry Plaza in the area between Santa Monica Boulevard and the D&T Center providing for both vehicular and pedestrian access. The Entry Plaza shall be a minimum of 40,000 square feet in size and shall provide a u-shaped counter-clockwise circulation system, with the ingress and egress driveways located on Santa Monica Boulevard. Vehicles will enter the site along the east side of the Entry Plaza, where they will proceed to the drop-off at the main entry to the D&T Center ("Main Entry"). Pathways will also be included, allowing for pedestrian access to the D&T Center. An internal return roadway will connect the egress driveway to the ingress driveway so that vehicles can return to 13 the ingress driveway without exiting onto Santa Monica Boulevard. The design of the Entry Plaza shall include a water feature at the center of the Entry Plaza surrounded by areas for pedestrians to congregate and enjoy the outdoor environment. The Entry Plaza design shall also include street furniture for seating and informal gathering; ample landscaping to buffer both valets as viewed from Santa Monica Boulevard; paving materials that enhance the aesthetic quality of the Entry Plaza and serve to clearly denote the separation, merging, and/or intersection of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The Entry Plaza shall be subject to architectural design review in accordance with Section 8.1 of the Development Agreement. Construction of the Entry Plaza shall commence within one hundred eighty (180) days of obtaining final City architectural design approval of the Entry Plaza and be complete within twelve (12) months from commencement of construction (the "Entry Plaza Completion Deadline"). If the Entry Plaza remains under construction on the Entry Plaza Completion Deadline, the Planning Director may, in his or her sole and absolute discretion, grant one or more extensions of the Entry Plaza Completion Deadline for up to a maximum of eighteen (18) additional months upon a showing of good cause by Saint John's and upon such terms and conditions as the Planning Director deems appropriate, provided Saint John's requests such an extension in writing prior to the Entry Plaza Completion Deadline. 5.2 In the event Saint John's develops subterranean parking in the area beneath all or any portion of the Entry Plaza (including, without limitation, construction of the North Subterranean Parking Structure) that as a practical matter requires removal of the Entry Plaza, then Saint John's shall concurrently reconstruct the Entry Plaza in a manner consistent with the specifications and procedures set forth in Section 5.1 above, and shall provide ingress and egress driveways to the subterranean parking garage beneath the Entry Plaza directly from the ingress and egress driveways on Santa Monica Boulevard. 5.3 This Section 5 is intended to replace and substitute for all provisions in the Development Agreement that address the Entry Plaza including, without limitation, all such provisions in Article 2 and Exhibit "H". 6. Si¢nalization. Section 3.2 of the Development Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced as follows: As of the Effective Date, there is a traffic signal for the Existing Crosswalk. Upon removal of the Existing Crosswalk, the existing traffic signal will be removed and will be replaced by Saint John's, at Saint John's expense, with two new traffic signals, one located at the ingress driveway of the Entry Plaza (as discussed above in Section 5.1 of the First Amendment) on Santa Monica Boulevard and the other located at the egress driveway of the Entry Plaza aligned with Twenty-First Street on the south side of Santa Monica Boulevard ("New Signals"). Removal of the Existing Crosswalk, removal of the existing traffic signal and installation of the New Signals shall be performed in accordance with the City's requirements by a contractor approved by the City. Saint John's may propose changes to the signalization on Santa Monica Boulevard adjacent to Saint John's in association 14 with construction of the permanent Entry Plaza (as discussed above in Section 5.3 of the First Amendment). The City will process such a request in accordance with its procedures then in effect. The City retains discretion to approve, conditionally approve or deny any such request. In the event that the City approves such request, Saint John's shall pay for the costs associated with such request. 7. The D&T Center. Section 2.3.2(d) of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the D&T Center shall not exceed two hundred eighty-five thousand (285,000) square feet of Floor Area provided, however, that (a) the new aggregate construction in Phase One shall not exceed the original limit provided in Section 2.1 of the Development Agreement of four hundred seventy-five thousand (475,000) square feet and (b) there shall be no change in the restrictions applicable to the D&T Center in Building Height and Above-Grade Stories set forth in Section 2.3.2(d) of the Development Agreement. City agrees that no further review of the D&T Center by the ARB shall be required. 8. Pedestrian Link. Section 2.2.10 of the Development Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the Pedestrian Link need not be covered. Saint John's Reporting Schedule. 9.1 PMP Report. The annual PMP report required by Section 2.2(b)(1) ofthis First Amendment shall be filed no later than February 28 of each year and shall be current as of December 31 of the year prior to filing. 9.2 Development Agreement Compliance Rem. The annual compliance report required by Development Agreement Section 13.2 shall be filed no later than July 1 of each year and shall cover the period from January 1 through December 31 of the year prior to filing. 10. Neighborhood Protection Provisions. In addition to certain provisions in the Development Agreement intended to mitigate the impacts of the Project on the surrounding neighborhood, Saint John's agrees to do all of the following: 10.1 Ambulance Sirens. Section 30 of Exhibit "K" to the Development Agreement requires, among other things, Saint John's to advise ambulance companies in writing of certain restrictions on the route to the emergency department and on the use of sirens. Saint John's agrees to provide this advice, in writing, to any new company providing ambulance service upon commencement of service and to all ambulance companies in writing at least annually. 10.2 Restrictions on Use of Yahoo! Center. Saint John's shall not permit the parking of cars by valet at Yahoo! Center and shall not operate shuttle transports to and from Yahoo! Center. 10.3 Valet Route. Saint John's shall, within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date, as defined in Section 15 below, submit to the City's Planning Director for review and 15 approval its proposed routes to be used by valet parking and shall not change any of such routes without the prior written approval of the City's Planning Director. All valet routes shall, to the extent reasonably feasible, minimize the use of residential streets and there shall be no parking by the valet on public streets including, without limitation, in metered spaces. In preparing the valet routes, Saint John's and the City will consider among other options (a) whether Twenty- First Street can be modified to accommodate two-way traffic and/or (b) whether access to Santa Monica Boulevard directly from Lot B is appropriate. Saint John's shall, upon completion of the Entry Plaza, resubmit such proposed routes for review and approval by the Planning Director. 10.4 Parking Adiacent to 1440 23`d Street. Saint John's shall, within sixty (60) days following the Effective Date (a) implement a noise reduction parking policy under which no vehicles shall be permitted to park within a designated buffer zone adjacent to the residential building located at 1440 23`a Street between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM , (b) submit such parking policy, together with a map indicating the buffer zone, to the Planning Director, and (c) submit to the Planning Director for approval plans for the placement of trees in the buffer zone adjacent to such residential building to screen the surface parking lot. Saint John's shall be obligated to place a reasonable number of trees in such buffer zone to the extent that the parking capacity of the affected lot would not be reduced below 271 spaces. 10.5 Securitv Escorts. Saint John's shall, within sixty (60) days following the Effective Date, submit to the City's Planning Director for review and reasonable approval its program for providing security escort services for employees walking to their cars and- shall not change such program in any material manner without the prior written approval of the City's Planning Director. 10.6 Ombudsperson. (a) Saint John's shall, within sixty (60) days following the Effective Date, designate and maintain at all times an employee to be Saint John's ombudsperson with the responsibility to (i) receive questions and complaints from the surrounding neighborhood relating to parking and other operational matters affecting the neighborhood, (ii) refer questions or complaints to the appropriate Saint John's employee for a response and/or action, (iii) follow up with the Saint John's employee responsible for providing the relevant information or taking the appropriate action, (iv) follow up with the community individual who raised the matter to insure that appropriate information has been provided or appropriate action taken to the extent reasonably feasible, and (v) maintain a written record of all questions and complaints received and a description of any actions taken or information provided and the name of the person responsible for doing so. (b) Saint John's shall, within sixty (60) days following the Effective Date, submit to the Planning Director for review and reasonable approval procedures appropriate for the ombudsperson to carry out his or her responsibilities. Following such review and approval, Saint John's shall publicize the name and contact information of the ombudsperson on Saint John's website and in general announcements to the neighborhood and shall not make any material changes without the prior written approval of the Planning Director. 16 (c) Saint John's shall provide the information described in Section 10.6(a)(v) to the City as a part of Saint John's annual development compliance report and within five (5) days following a request by the City. (d) The City shall maintain a record of the ombudsperson's name and contact information and shall provide this information to any member of the public upon request. 10.7 Special Events Parkine. Upon receipt of at least 30 days' advance notice, Saint John's shall make Lot B available up to 5 times per month for parking of 50 vehicles between the hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. for special events at McKinley Elementary School or other nearby schools or non-profits, where additional parking maybe needed. Saint John's may charge for such parking at then-prevailing market rates and may establish reasonable rules .and regulations for the use of and access to and from the parking area. Saint John's may exclude any individuals who do not comply with such rules and regulations. 10.8 Lighted Crosswalks. Saint John's agrees to pay the reasonable costs, up to a maximum of $30,000, for a single crosswalk at the intersection of Arizona Avenue and 21s` Street, including a system for lighting of the street in the crosswalk area and a manual signal on each side which can be used by pedestrians to trigger implementation of the lights. Saint John's also agrees to pay one-half of the reasonable costs, up to $15,000, for a study regarding other means for promoting pedestrian safety near the Project. 10.9 Employee Parking Notice. Within 60 days following the Effective Date of this First Amendment, Saint John's shall notify all employees in writing that parking on the residential streets in the vicinity of Saint John's is prohibited. All new employees will be provided the same notification during their orientation. 10.10 Continuine Community Outreach. Saint John's shall hold an annual community meeting at its Campus with residents in the Campus' vicinity. Saint John's shall provide at least 15 days' prior written notice of such meeting by U.S. Mail to the City and residents and property owners within a 500-foot radius of the Campus. The purpose of the meetings will be to identify and address any issues associated with Saint John's compliance under this Agreement. 11. Enforcement. The City, at its discretion, shall be entitled to apply the remedies set forth in Chapters 1.09 and 1.10 of the City's Municipal Code, as they maybe amended from time to time. 12. Limitation on Damages. (a) Sections 14.3.4 and 14.3.5 of the Development Agreement are hereby deleted a new Section 14.7 is hereby added to read in its entirety as follows: 14.7. No Damage Relief. 14.7.1 As to City. (a) It is acknowledged by Saint John's that the City would not 17 have entered into this Agreement if the City were to be liable in damages under or with respect to this Agreement or the application thereof. Consequently, and except for the payment of attorneys' fees and court costs, the City shall not be liable in damages to Saint John's or to any Campus Transferee or Parcel Transferee, and Saint John's covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in interest not to sue for or claim any damages: (i) for any Default hereunder; (ii) for the regulatory taking, impairment or restriction of any right or interest conveyed or provided hereunder or pursuant hereto; or (iii) arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding the application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Agreement. (b) The City and Saint John's agree that the provisions of Section 14.7.1(a) do not apply to damages which: (i) do not arise under this Agreement; or (ii) are not with respect to any right or interest conveyed or provided hereunder or pursuant hereto; or (iii) do not arise out of or are not connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding the application, interpretation, or effect of the provisions of this Agreement to or the application of, any City rules, regulations, or official policies. 14.7.2 As to Saint John's. (a) It is acknowledged by the City that Saint John's would not have entered into this Agreement if Saint John's were to be liable in damages in connection with any non-monetary Default under this Agreement. Consequently, and except for the payment of attorneys'. fees and court costs, Saint John's shall not be liable in damages to the City for any non-monetary Default under this Agreement and the City covenants on behalf of itself and its successors in interest not to sue for or claim any damages: (i) for any non-monetary Default; or (ii) arising out of or connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding the application or interpretation or effect of the provisions of this Agreement. t8 (b) The City and Saint John's agree that the provisions of Section 14.7.2(a) do not apply to damages which: (i) are for a monetary Default; or (ii) do not arise out of or are not connected with any dispute, controversy or issue regarding.the application, interpretation, or effect of the provisions of this Agreement to or the application of, any City rules, regulations, or official policies. 13. City Cost Recovery. Following completion of each annual review of the Development Agreement by the City pursuant to Article 13 of the Development Agreement, Saint John's shall reimburse the City for its actual and reasonable costs incurred in connection with such review. 14. Continuing Effect Of Development Agreement. Other than as specifically amended herein, all provisions of the Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect without modification. 15. Recordation. The parties hereto sha1T cause this First Amendment to be recorded in the Official Records of the County of Los Angeles. The cost, if any, of recording shall be borne by Saint John's. 16. Effective Date. This First Amendment's effective date (the "Effective Date") shall be the same as the effective date of the Ordinance approving this First Amendment. [The balance of this page has been intentionally left blank.] 19 17. Entire Agreement. This First Amendment represents the entire agreement of the parties. This First Amendment integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties or their predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this First Amendment as of the day and year first above written. "City" ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Marsha Jones Moutrie City Attorney CITY OF SANTA MONICA, a municipal corporation By: Rod Gould City Manager SISTERS OF CHARITY OF LEAVENWORTH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., a Kansas non-profit corporation By: Name: Title: SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER, a California non-profit corporation By: Name: Title: 20 STATE OF KANSAS COUNTY OF On , 2011, before me, ,Notary Public, personally appeared ,who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) 21 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS. ANGELES On , 2011, before me, ,Notary Public, personally appeared ,who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(sj is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) 22 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On , 2011, before me, ,Notary Public, personally appeared ,who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing pazagraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) 23 Exhibit "L" PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.0 Purpose. Pursuant to Section 2 of the First Amendment, Saint John's PMP is intended to ensure that Saint John's continues to provide throughout the term of the Development Agreement sufficient parking to meet the peak parking demand of its various user groups, and to ensure that Saint John's provides parking which is functionally equivalent to the North Subterranean Parking Structure. The PMP is also intended to facilitate a collaborative effort by Saint John's and the City to develop along-term Saint John's parking plan that furthers the LUCE's approach to parking by developing and implementing area-wide parking solutions, utilizing shared parking, and relying on transportation demand management as a means of reducing Saint John's parking demand. Except as provided in Section 2.2(b)(6) of the First Amendment, this PMP as modified from time to time in accordance with the First Amendment shall continue in effect for the term of the Development Agreement. 2.0 PMP Obiectives. The PMP has been developed to achieve the following objectives: 2.1 Ensure that Saint John's continues to provide throughout the term of the Development Agreement sufficient parking to meet the peak pazking demand of its various user groups, and to ensure that Saint John's provides parking which is functionally equivalent to the North Subterranean Pazking Structure; 2.2 Actively manage Saint John's parking to effectively and efficiently utilize available parking supply to meet campus-related parking demand, as well as minimize the impacts of campus activities on nearby residential and commercial neighbors; 2.3 Effectively utilize Saint John's parking facilities to address parking demand by employees, patients, physicians, students and visitors; 2.4 Reduce employee single-occupant vehicle ridership and associated parking demand; 2.5 Ensure that pazking impacts of hospital operations on nearby residential and commercial properties are minimized; 2.6 Reduce traffic and circulation issues associated with drivers searching for parking; 2.7 Provide the data necessary to adjust parking strategies in order to address parking issues as they may arise; and 2.8 Minimize the need for the construction of new parking facilities in the future by making efficient use of existing parking resources. 2.9 Coordinate Saint John's parking planning with the City's HASP update process and the LUCE's area-wide approach to parking in the Healthcare District. 3.0 Parking Demand. The Walker Parking Study determined peak parking demand for Saint John's various user groups as 1,196 upon completion of the D&T Center and 1,306 in 2013. 4.0 Pazking Supply And Operations. 4.1 Existing Pazkin:r Facilities. A summary of the Saint John's controlled parking spaces, including on-campus and off-campus spaces, is provided in Table 1 below. As indicated in Table 1, a total of 1,341 spaces are controlled by Saint John's including 572 owned spaces and 7691eased spaces. With the addition of parking spaces due to attendant and valet operations (e.g., stacked parking in drive aisles), a total of 1,448 parking spaces are controlled by Saint John's including 669 owned spaces and 7791eased spaces. I. Lot C Owned 46 Sp. 12 Sp. 58 Sp. Valet Visitors/Patients/Physicians (Valet Lot) (drop-of0 2. Lot H Owned 236 Sp. 35 Sp. 271 Sp. Self-Park/ Staff/Scientists (JWCI Lot) Attendant 3. Lot B Owned 150 Sp. 30 Sp. 180 Sp. Valet Visitors/Patients (receiving) 4. Lot I Owned 121 Sp. 20 Sp. 141 Sp. Self-Park/ Staff/Physicians Attendant/Valet (receiving) 5. ER Lot Owned 8 Sp. 8 Sp. _ Valet ER Patients (drop-off) li 6. Loading Owned 11 Sp. 11 Sp. Self-Park Visitors/Staff Dock 7. St, Anne's Leased 85 Sp. 10 Sp. 95 Sp. Self-Park/ Attendant Staff 8. Koll Leased 84 Sp. 84 Sp. Self-Park Staff Struct. 9. Held Leased 150 Sp. 150 Sp. Self-Park Staff/Volunteers Struct. (110 at night) 10. Yahoo ~ Leased ~ 450 Sp. ~ ~ 450 Sp. ~ Self-Park ~ Staff/Students Struct 2 Detailed descriptions of the Saint John's owned and leased parking facilities, including user groups served (i.e., employee, visitor, patient, etc.), number of available spaces, location, vehicular and pedestrian access, and facility operations are provided below. A map is attached as Exhibit "L-1". 4.1.1 Lot C -Valet Lot. (a) User Group. Lot C (also known as the Valet Lot) is used by visitors, patients, and physicians. (b) Available Spaces. Lot C is owned by Saint John's and contains 46 spaces plus an additional 12 vehicles may be parked due to stacked parking with valet operations. The valet parks overflow vehicles at Lot B. (c) Location. Lot C is on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard, adjacent (east) to the Entry Plaza. (d) Access. (i) Vehicular Access. Lot C is accessed from Santa Monica Boulevard and may be entered by vehicles traveling either east or west. (ii) Pedestrian Access. Lot C is located in close proximity to Saint John's new facilities, including the D&T Center (commonly known as the Keck Diagnostic and Treatment Center) and Inpatient Suites (commonly known as the Chan Soon-Shiong Center). (e) Operations. (i) Lot C is valet parking only. days per week. (ii) Lot C is staffed by valet attendants 24-hotirs per day, 7- (iii) Vehicles not-valet parked in Lot C are moved to Lot B located at Twenty-First Street and Santa Monica Boulevard. Access to Lot B by valet staff is by right-turn onto Santa Monica Boulevard, then left-turn onto Twenty-First Street. Access into Lot B is controlled by a valet booth located at the north end of Lot B accessed from Twenty-First Street. Return route for valet vehicles is south onto Twenty-First Street (one-way), right-turn (west) onto Broadway, right-turn onto Twentieth Street (north), right-turn on Santa Monica Boulevard (east) and left-thin into Lot C. 4.1.2 Lot H - JWCI Lot. (a) User Group. Lot H (also known as the JWCI Lot) is reserved for Saint John's staff and scientist parking only. (b) Available Spaces. Lot H is owned by Saint John's and contains 236 spaces plus an additiona135 vehicles may be parked due to stacked parking with attendant operations. Four (4) handicap-accessible spaces are provided. (c) Location. Lot H is located behind (south of) the John Wayne Cancer Institute, .which is on the South Campus fronting on Santa Monica Boulevard. (d) Access. (i) Vehicular Access. Lot H is accessed from two (2) entrances on Twenty-First Street, which are located west of Lot H. The exit is on the east side of Lot H onto Schader Drive which connects to Cloverfield Boulevard and Twenty-Third Street. (ii) Pedestrian Access. Pedestrian access to Saint John's North Campus is provided by the pedestrian crossing on Santa Monica Boulevard (north and south directions) between JWCI and Lot C ("JWCI Crosswalk"). (e) Operations. Lot H contains self pazking but attendants assist with stacked pazking and control the exit from Lot H. 4.13 Lot B. (a) User Group. Lot B is reserved for valet-parked cars only from Lot C and the Emergency Department Lot. Lot B will also be utilized for valet-parked cars from the surface parking lot that will be located to the west of the Interim Entry Plaza ("West Lot") upon completion of the Main Entry. (b) Available Spaces. Lot B is owned by Saint John's and contains 150 spaces. An additiona130 vehicles maybe parked due to stacked parking with valet or attendant operations. (c) Location. Lot B is located on the west side of Twenty-First Street, south of Santa Monica Boulevard. 4.1.4 Lot I. (a) User Group. Lot I is reserved for Saint John's staff parking only. (b) Available spaces: Lot I is owned by Saint John's and contains 121 spaces. An additiona120 vehicles may be parked due to stacked parking with attendant operations: (c) Location. Lot I is located on the west side of Twenty-First Street, south of Santa Monica Boulevard. (d) Access. (i) Vehicular Access. Lot I access and exit is located on Twenty-First Street near Broadway. (ii) Pedestrian Access. Pedestrian access from Lot I to Saint John's is provided at the JWCI Crosswalk across Santa Monica Boulevard. (e) Operations. Lot I is self-park but attendants assist with stacked parking. 4.1.5 Emer~enc~Department Lot. (a) User Group. The Emergency Department Lot is reserved exclusively for vehicles utilizing the emergency room services in the D&T Center. (b) Available spaces. The Emergency Department Lot contains 8 spaces for patients utilizing the emergency room and 6 spaces for ambulances. The valet parks overflow vehicles at Lot B. (c) Location. The Emergency Department Lot is located on the north side of the campus along Arizona Avenue. (d) Access. Vehicular access to and from the Emergency Deparhnent Lot is via Arizona Avenue. (e) Operations. (i) The Emergency Department Lot is valet parking only. (ii) The Emergency Department Lot is staffed by valet attendants 24-hours per day, 7-days per week. (iii) Access to Lot B by valet staff is by left-turn onto Arizona Avenue (west), left-turn onto Twentieth Street (south), left-turn onto Santa Monica Boulevard (east), and right-turn onto Twenty-First Street (south). Access into Lot B is controlled by a valet booth located at the north end of Lot B off Twenty-First Street. The return route for valet vehicles is south onto Twenty-First Street (one-way), right-turn onto Broadway (west), right-turn onto Twentieth Street (north), right-turn onto Arizona Avenue (east) and right-turn into the Emergency Deparhnent Lot. (f) Status. The Emergency Department Lot is owned by Saint John's. 4.1.6 Loading Dock. visitors. (a) User Group. The Loading Dock is used by Saint John's staff and (b) .Available spaces. The Loading Dock contains 11 spaces. (c) Location. The Loading Dock is located on the north side of the campus along Arizona Avenue. Arizona Avenue. (d) Access. Vehicular access to and-from the Loading Dock is via (e) Operations. The Loading Dock is self-parking only. (f) Status. The Loading Dock is owned by Saint John's. 4.1.7 St. Anne's Lot. (a) User Group. St. Anne's Lot is used by Saint John's staff. (b) Available spaces. Saint John's leases 85 spaces at the St. Anne's Lot. An additional 10 vehicles maybe parked due to stacked parking with attendant operations. (c) Location. St. Anne's Lot is located on the east side of Twentieth Street between Colorado Avenue and Broadway. (d) Access. (i) Vehicular Access. St. Anne's Lot access and exit is from Twentieth Street. (ii) Pedestrian Access. St. Anne's Lot is within close proximity to Saint John's North Campus. (e) Operations: St. Anne's Lot is self-park but attendants assist with stacked parking. 4.1.8 Koll Structure. (a) User Group: The Koll Structure spaces are used by Saint John's staff including carpoolers. (b) Available Spaces. Saint John's leases 84 spaces in the Koll Structure. The Koll Structure contains a total of nine (9) handicap-accessible spaces. Saint John's-leased spaces are not designated in any area of the Koll Structure. (c) Location. The Koll Structure is located along the east side of Twentieth Street south of Santa Monica Boulevard. (d) Access. (i) Vehicular Access. Access and exit for the Koll Structure is located on Twentieth Street and Santa Monica Boulevard. (ii) Pedestrian Access. Pedestrian access to Saint John's is located at the Twentieth Street/Santa Monica Boulevard intersection or the JWCI Crosswalk. The Koll Structure is inclose proximity to Saint John's North Campus. (e) Operations. The Koll Structure is self-park only. 4.1.9 Held Structure. (a) User Group. The Held Structure spaces are used by Saint John's staff, volunteers and carpoolers. (b) Available Spaces. Saint John's leases 150 spaces during daytime and 110 spaces at night in the Held Structure. The Held Structure contains a total of 21 handicap-accessible spaces. (c) Location. The Held Structure is located along the east side of Twentieth Street south of Arizona Avenue. (d) Access. (i) Vehicular Access. Access to the Held structure is located on Twentieth Street near Santa Monica Boulevard. Exit from the Held structure is located on Arizona Avenue. (ii) Pedestrian Access. The Held Structure is in close proximity to Saint John's North Campus. Pedestrian access to Saint John's is by walking from the Held structure via Santa Monica Boulevard to the Main Entry or via Arizona Avenue to the Emergency Deparhnent entrance. (e) Operations. The Held Structure is self-park only. 4.1.10 Yahoo! Center Structure. (a) User Groups. Saint John's-leased spaces in the Yahoo! Center Structure are used by Saint John's staff, vendors and students. (b) Available Spaces. Saint John's leases 450 spaces in the Yahoo! Center Structure. A total of 41 handicap-accessible spaces are provided. Saint John's-leased spaces are not designated in any area of the Yahoo! Center Structure. (c) Location. The Yahoo! Center Structure is located at the Yahoo! Center property bounded by Broadway on the north, Cloverfield Boulevard on the west, Colorado on the south and Twenty-Sixth Street on the east. (d) Access: (i) Vehicular Access. Access to and exit from at the Yahoo structure is via Colorado Avenue, Broadway Avenue, Twenty-Sixth Street, or Cloverfield Avenue. (ii) Pedestrian Access. Pedestrian access to Saint John's is provided via walking one (1) block north along Cloverfield Boulevard to Santa Monica Boulevard, and then less than one (1) block west to the North Campus. (e) Operations. The Yahoo! Center Structure is self-park only. 4.2 Future Parking Facilities. Saint John's anticipates it will be able to add the following to its parking supply: 4.2.1 West Lot. Upon completion of the Main Entry, the West Lot will be made available for parking. (a) User Group: The West Lot will be available for Saint John's visitor and patient parking. (b) Available Spaces: The West Lot will be owned by Saint John's and will contain approximately 80 spaces. With attendant parking the capacity of the West Lot can be increased. (c) Location: The West Lot is located adjacent to the Interim Entry Plaza, in close proximity to the Main Entry. Interim Entry Plaza. (i) The West Lot will be valet/attendant parking only. (ii) .Prior to opening of the West Lot, staffing shall be adjusted to accommodate any potential increase in valet parking operations. will be parked in Lot B. (iii) Vehicle parking demand in excess of the West Lot capacity 4.2.2 Main Entry To The D&T Center. Upon completion of the Main Entry, the Main Entry shall provide additional space for staging for an approximately eight (8) to ten (10) vehicles for valet parking. 4.3 MRI Lot. Saint John's may, in its sole discretion, remove the MRI Building and replace it with a surface parking lot containing approximately 50 parking spaces. 5.0 Management Strategies. Saint John's will implement the following management strategies to achieve the goals of the PMP: (d) Access. Access to the West Lot is anticipated to be from the (e) Operations. 5.1 Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. Saint John's will continue to comply with the City's Employer Trip Reduction Program (ETRP -Ordinance 1604) and its TDM Plan (Exhibit "M"). 5.2 Patient and Visitor Parkine Information (Pre-Trip. Valet parking information, including the location and directions to parking facilities, as well as alternative transportation options for patients with pre-scheduled appointments, will be developed and provided to patients. Information will be provided at the time the appointment is made, either in hard copy or alternatively, the patient will be directed to the Saint John's website. 5.3 Staff, Em l~oyee and Volunteer Parking Information. Information on appropriate parking locations will be provided to all employees (i.e., existing and new employees) of Saint John's and other employees on the campus including vendors and service/delivery representatives. This information will include notification of Saint John's policy that staff, employee, volunteer and other employee parking on-street is strongly discouraged. In addition, all communications regarding transportation and parking matters will discourage Saint John's staff, employees and volunteers from parking on-street near the campus. 5.4 Parkine Signage Program. Prior to the opening of the Main Entry, Saint John's shall obtain City approval for and install appropriate signage to guide Saint John's various user .groups to the appropriate parking. 5.5 StaffmQ for Parkine Operations. Saint John's will at all times maintain sufficient staffing to efficiently operate its various parking facilities, including at attendant and valet- operated lots. 5.6 On-Street Parking Monitorine For Patients and Visitors. Saint John's shall work in consultation with the City to monitor on-street parking near the campus and to develop and implement appropriate measures to encourage patients and visitors to park within hospital parking facilities. 5.7 Parkin¢ Pricing. 5.7.1 Saint John's shall establish a parking rate schedule resulting in charges below the maximum daily rate for its visitors and patients parking for ninety (90) minutes or less. Such schedule shall utilize commercially reasonable increments of time (ems., 15-20 minutes in 2011), not to exceed twenty (20) minutes, and take into account parking rates in effect from time to time at other commercial parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of Saint John's to insure that visitors to, or employees in, other businesses do not have an economic incentive to use Saint John's parking facilities. The ninety (90) minute rate shall not exceed eighty-five percent (85%) of the maximum daily rate. 5.7.2 Saint John's parking pricing shall continue to be market-based and adjusted periodically in an effort to ensure parking availability for employees and visitors during peak parking hours. All employees will be required to pay for parking a vehicle on-site. Within 60 days following the Effective Date of this First Amendment, Saint John's shall notify all employees. in writing that parking on the residential streets in the vicinity of Saint John's is prohibited. All new employees will be provided the same notification during their orientation. 5.7.3 Any Saint John's employee required to return to work after completing a shift on the same day may utilize the valet service in Lot C, or following completion of the Entry Plaza the Entry Plaza valet service, without charge. Alternatively, if such employee elects to return to Saint John's through use of public transportation or a private taxicab service, Saint John's shall reimburse such employee for the costs of such transportation. 5.8 No Valet Parking in Metered Spaces. There shall be no parking by the valet on public streets including, without limitation, in metered spaces. 10 Exhibit "M" TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.0 Pur ose. Pursuant to Section 4 of this First Amendment, Saint John's Transportation Demand Management Plan (the "TDM Plan") is intended to ensure that Saint John's reduces to the extent reasonably feasible vehicle trips associated with the operation of its campus, and the parking demand associated with such vehicle trips, in accordance with the City's LUCE. For purposes of the TDM Plan, as set forth in this Exhibit "M," the term "feasible" shall have the meaning given that term in Section 21061.1 of the California Public Resources Code. 2.0 Performance Standard. 2.1 Average Vehicle Ridership Standard. Saint John's commits, through its TDM Plan, to achieve a 1.5 average vehicle ridership ("AVR") during peak periods (AM and PM) by November, 2013 ("AVR Standard"). In addition, within twelve (12) months following the date Phase II of the Expo line is complete and operating as currently anticipated, the goal of St. John's TDM Plan will be to achieve a 1.6 AVR. Saint John's failure to achieve the AVR Standard will not constitute a default within the meaning of the Development Agreement so long as Saint John's is taking all feasible steps to achieve compliance. 2.2 Determination of AVR. Chapter 9.16 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code shall govern how AVR is calculated. 2.3 AVR Monitoring Requirement. As part of the annual periodic review for the term of the Development Agreement, the City shall monitor Saint John's performance in attaining the AVR Standard based on Saint John's annual ETRP. 2.4 Modifications to TDM Plan. If the AVR Standard is not reached and maintained, the Planning Director, after consultation with Saint John's, may require feasible modifications to the TDM Plan's provisions to achieve the AVR Standard. Saint John's agrees that such modifications may require operation of a shuttle of the type described in Section 3.2.8 below, without regard to the time limit set forth therein, to the extent such shuttle is feasible and the Planning Director reasonably determines, after such consultation and consideration of other feasible modifications, that Saint John's will otherwise be unable to achieve the AVR Standard and that operation of the shuttle is appropriate to meet the AVR Standard. Such modification shall be subject to approval as a Minor Modification. 3.0 TDM Plan Program Elements. 3.1 ETRP. Saint John's will continue to implement the trip reduction measures in its Employee Trip Reduction Program ("ETRP"). These measures consist of the following: 3.1.1 Guaranteed/Emergencv Return Triers. Saint John's employees who carpool, vanpool, take transit, walk, or bicycle to work are eligible fora return trip (or up to the point of commute origin), when there is a personal emergency situation, unplanned overtime, inclement weather (for walkers and bicyclists),. or vehicle mechanical problem (return trip only). The return trips are accomplished by utilizing one or more of the following modes or options: a company vehicle, taxi, mass transit, or a supervisor or co-worker. 3.1.2 Rideshare Matching Service. Saint John's provides a rideshare matching service to all employees using RideMatch (www.ridematch.info). Employees are matched during the monthly new hire orientation or on demand. 3.1.3 Preferential Parking. Saint John's provides all eligible employees with preferential parking spaces to park their vehicles. There are 42 preferential parking spaces in Saint John's-owned parking lots. Employees are eligible to receive preferential parking if they participate in a carpool/vanpool in which at least 2 participants are Saint John's employees and there is a minimum of 3 trips per week or 8 trips per month. Saint John's eligible employees' vehicles are identified through a card reader system that allows for continuous monitoring and control. 3.1.4 Personalized commute assistance. Saint John's provides personalized assistance including coordinating the formation of carpools/vanpools, assisting in identifying park & ride lots, assisting in identifying bicycle and pedestrian routes, assisting in providing personalized transit routes and schedule information, and providing personalized follow-up assistance to maintain participation in the commute program. 3.1.5 Transit Information Center. Saint John's provides a transit information center that makes available general transit information. 3.1.6 Mass Transit -Free Passes. Saint John's provides free mass transit passes valued at the price of a Metro EZ-Pass. to all its employees upon request. 3.1.7 Vannool Program. Saint John's provides all employees with a vanpool program that is operated by a third-party. Saint John's provides a cash subsidy to its employees who participate in the vanpool program. Saint John's fully subsidizes vanpool parking. 3.1.8 Direct Cash Subsidy. Saint John's provides all employees who participate in the following alternative transportation methods, with the following cash subsidies: (a) For participation in a 2-6 person carpool, walking, or bicycling, $1.00 per day. These subsidies are disbursed quarterly. (b) For participation in a vanpool, $75.00 per month. 2 (c) For use of mass transit, at least $60.00 per month (for employees .using the Big Blue Bus only), or $75.00 per month (for employees using the MTA only), or $135.00 per month (for employees using both the Big Blue Bus and MTA). 3.1.9 Compressed Work Week. Saint John's has a written policy regarding eligibility, participation and administration of its compressed work week program. Saint John's employees participate in both 3/36 and 4/40 compressed work week schedules. 3.1.10 Reduced Parkine Charge for Carpools. Saint John's subsidizes fifty percent (50%) of parking fees for employees who carpool. 3.1.11 Incentives. Saint John's provides gift cards/services/awards to all employees who participate in the rideshare program. 3.1.12 Rideshare Bulletin Board. A rideshare bulletin is posted outside the Human Resources department and in the Dining Court and updated on an as needed basis. 3.1.13 Focus Groups. Saint John's holds focus groups and/or rideshare meetings for all employees to determine how to improve the program on an annual basis. 3.1.14 Rideshare Event. A rideshare promotional event is held annually, either separately or as part of amulti-purpose event. 3.2 Additional Measures. 3.2.1 Employee Transportation Coordinator. Within 30 days of the First Amendment's Effective Date, an Employee Transportation Coordinator (``ETC") shall be designated by Saint John's as required by the City's Transportation Management Division in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.16. The ETC shall manage all aspects of this TDM Plan and participate in City-sponsored workshops and information round tables. The ETC shall participate in the Healthcare District area TMA (see Section 3.2.2 of this Exhibit "M") following its formation. The ETC shall be responsible for making available informational materials on options for alternative transportation modes and opportunities. In addition, transit fare media and day/month passes will be available through the ETC to employees and visitors during typical business hours. In accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.16, the ETC will be at the worksite and devote a minimum of fifteen hours per week to managing the TDM Plan and related parking activities. The ETC will oversee the development, implementation, and maintenance of all TDM Plan elements. The ETC will possess SCAQMD's Employee Transportation Coordinator Training Certificate or its equivalent. The ETC will be provided with sufficient work and secure storage space, administrative support, access to a computer/printer, and telephone/fax services to perform his or her duties. 3.2.2 Transportation Management Association. (a) Saint John's shall make a contribution to the City in the amount of $17,500 to study the feasibility of forming a Transportation Demand Management Association ("TMA") in the Healthcare District within 90 days of receiving written notice from the City requesting such contribution. (b) Saint John's shall be a co-leader with the City of Santa Monica in the creation and operation of a TMA including payment. of its fair share of funding for establishment and operation of the TMA. As part of the LUCE Update process, the City has identified that a TMA should be established for the Healthcare District. TMAs would provide employees, businesses, visitors and residents of an area with resources to increase the amount of trips taken by transit, walking, bicycling, and ridesharing. Saint John's (e.g., as represented by its ETC or others) shall actively participate in the TMA, including attending organizational meetings, providing traffic demand data to the TMA, and making available information to its lessees relative to the services provided by the TMA. Saint John's may delegate any of its TDM Plan requirements to the TMA (i.e., offer the required programs through the TMA instead of directly as part of this TDM Plan). Saint John's may seek to modify the requirements in this Section 3.2.2, subject to the reasonable approval of the Planning Director as a Minor Modification under the following circumstances: i. If the TMA assesses dues or other chazges that are not proportional to squaze footage or number of employees; ii. If the TMA charges for services Saint John's is already providing; iii. If the TMA assesses annual dues over the average fee for TMAs in the Los Angeles region; or iv. If the TMA seeks to impose programs that Saint John's believes would adversely affect Saint John's TDM Plan or its ability to achieve the AVR requirement herein. 3.2.3 Bicycle Parking And Showers. Saint John's will: (a) Provide bicycle racks with capacity for 90 bicycles in a reasonably convenient location (or locations) on the North Campus. (b) Provide showers and lockers for use by bicyclists and/or walkers. The showers and lockers aze sited in locations that are convenient for employee use. Access will be controlled to secure use by employees. (c) Provide a reasonable amount of space, not to exceed the amount of square footage required for a regular vehicle parking space, at a reasonable parking area location on site which is compatible with Saint John's operations, for a bicycle sharing program station in conjunction with any bicycle sharing program instituted by the City or another operator. Saint John's shall have no obligation to fund or operate any such program or to keep any space available if no system is implemented by the City or other operator for a period on one year beyond the commencement of operations of Phase 2 of the Exposition light-rail line into Santa Monica. Saint John's shall have the right to relocate the area made available for such bicycle sharing station from time to time so long as the new location continues to be of a similar size and reasonably located given the requirements of the system. 3.2.4 Transit Information Center: Saint John's Transit Information Center will augment its services, as necessary, within six months of the First Amendment's Effective Date to include the following: (a) Place Commute Transportation Information Display in the Dining Court and Human Resource Department Offices. The display will show: Maps, routes and schedules for public transit lines serving the site; ii. Materials publicizing Internet and telephone numbers for referrals on transportation information; iii. Promotional materials supplied by Metro, the Big Blue Bus (BBB), and/or other publicly supported transportation organizations; iv. Bicycle route and facility information, including regional/local bicycle maps, bicycle safety information and information on the availability of free lockers and the methods for obtaining these lockers; and v. A listing of facilities at the site for carpoolers/vanpoolers, transit riders, bicyclist and pedestrians, including information on the availability of preferential carpooUvanpool parking spaces and the methods for obtaining these spaces: (b) Create and maintain "How to Get To Saint John's Without Using Your Car" website. This communication channel will provide transportation information and links to existing transportation resources (e.g, transit information available from Metro and BBB). A page for employees will be created and maintained. (c) Incorporate material from the "How to Get To Saint John's Without Using Your Car" web site into directions for getting to/from Saint John's that are posted on SJHC's website. (d) Create a printed version of the "How to Get To Saint John's without Using Your Car" website and make it available to all Saint John's users. (e) Communicate availability ofpublicly provided financial assistance for transportation services to qualifying populations (e.g., disabled). 3.2:5 Camool Proeram. Saint John's will continue to provide preferentially- locatedparking spaces for carpool and/or vanpools to meet demand for such spaces. These spaces will be provided in Saint John's-owned parking facilities. To the extent the need for preferential parking spaces exceeds the current supply, designation of the additional carpool and vanpool preferential parking spaces, over and above those that exist on the Effective Date of this First Amendment, shall take place no later than one year after the Effective Date of this First Amendment. 3.2.6 Enhanced Financial Incentives. Saint John's will enhance its financial incentives to promote carpooling and alternative means of commuting within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of this First Amendment as follows: (a) Offer employees that drive alone an additional $1.00 per day for three months for using transit, carpooling vanpooling, bicycling, and/or walking to work. Employees must have driven to work in a single occupancy vehicle for a minimum of six months prior to requesting the additional `No Drive' incentive payment. This incentive wi1L be offered on three occasions annually. (b) Offer employees the opportunity to allocate pre-tax salary for payment of vanpool, transit and parking fees as allowed under IRS Section 132 guidelines. (c) Offer reduced cost tune-ups to bicyclists semi-annually. This service will be initiated after the opening of the main entrance to the D&T Center: parking fees. (d) Offer financial incentives that meet or exceed the value of cashing out 3.2.7 Telecommutina. Saint John's will explore the feasibility of increasing the number of its administrative staff who work remotely rather than on-site. Saint John's will increase the number of its administrative staff working remotely if and to the extent reasonably feasible. 3.2.8 Licht Rail Shuttle. (a) Commencing within 180 days of the Expo light rail being operational in Santa Monica, Saint John's shall operate a shuttle for its employees between Saint John's and the Expo light rail's Memorial Park Station or, at the option of Saint John's, the Bergamot Station. Saint John's will robustly market the shuttle to its employees and operate the shuttle for at least fifteen (15) months. (b) Saint John's may, in its sole and absolute discretion, allow neighboring employers to use the shuttle for their employees, subject to reasonable compensation and insurance protection. (c) Saint John's will, after the first fifteen (15) months of operation and in consultation with the City's Planning Director and others, assess the extent of shuttle ridership and evaluate the feasibility of continuing the shuttle service. Whether or not Saint John's continues the shuttle after fifteen (15) months shall, except as provided in Section 2.4 above, be within Saint John's sole and absolute discretion; provided, however, that if Saint John's, the City Planning Director and other members of the TMA determine ridership justifies continuation of the shuttle service, the shuttle shall thereafter be operated by the TM:S and Saint John's shall participate in funding to the extent of its fair share based on respective ridership. (d) In no event shall Saint John's be obligated to operate such a shuttle if either a TMA for the Healthcare District or the City operates a shuttle which would provide duplicative shuttle service for Saint John's employees. 3.3 Lessees and Subleases. Any Saint John's leases for any portion of the Phase One or Phase Two sites will notify the lessee of the Saint John's TDM Plan and require the lessee to designate a contact person employed by such lessee to assist the ETC with (a) communications concerning the TDM Plan, (b) annual employee travel surveys, (c) campaigns to promote use of commute alternatives, and (d) provide transportation information to the lessee's employees. Any such leases shall also require the same terms to be included in any subleases for any portion of the Phase One or Phase Two sites. 4.0 Modifications to the TDM Plan. 4.1 Saint John's-Initiated Chances To TDM Plan. Subject to approval by the Planning Director, Saint John's may modify the TDM Plan provided the TDM Plan, as modified, can be demonstrated to be equal or superior in its effectiveness at mitigating the traffic- generating effects of improvements on the Campus Property. 4.2 City-Initiated Chances To TDM Plan. The City may make modifications to the TDM Plan in accordance with Section 2.3 of this TDM Plan. ATTACHMENT B Draft First Amendment Development Agreement Findings 39 First Amendment to the Development Agreement Findings Development Agreement Findings for Saint John's Health Center 1. As amended, the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the. general plan and any applicable specific plan, in that Saint John's Health Center is anon-profit healthcare facility. located in the Healthcare District. The vision for this land use designation is to create a cohesive environment that supports the continued vitality of the City's hospitals, responds to the evolving needs of the healthcare community, and improves the way healthcare facilities relate to surrounding residential areas. The proposed project would Amendment provisions of the Development Agreement to authorize implementation of a Revised Parking Program, a Parking Management Plan, construction of a Modified Entry Plaza, implementation a Transportation Demand Management Program, and implementation of parking and traffic-related neighborhood protection measures. Consistent with LUCE Circulation Policy T26.7 which supports meeting '...minimum parking requirements via shared parking between uses, payment of in-lieu fees, or off-site parking within a reasonable walking distance", Saint John's is providing parking that is functionally equivalent to the previously-approved North Campus subterranean garage by providing off-site spaces as part of its overall parking supply to accommodate all of Saint John's various user groups. .Specifically, the Applicant is leasing 450 underutilized parking spaces at the Yahoo Center, a business park located three blocks from the health center. This is consistent with LUCE Circulation Policy T26.11 which states that [i]f the owners and operators of properties can demonstrate that they have more parking than is actually necessary to meet the needs of their various users (employees, visitors;. etc.), consider developing parking efficiency strategies that include leasing their surplus- parking to help alleviate parking shortages and avoid development of unnecessary parking." The proposed Modified Entry Plaza design features a landscaped public plaza area for formal and informal gathering; shade and seating amenities are planned for this space. This Entry Plaza design is consistent with LUCE Healthcare District Policy D28.9 which "[e]encourage[s] the development of a comfortable, landscaped pedestrian environment including plazas and usable landscaped open spaces with all major renovations to hospital facilities." Finally, the proposed Amendment requires the Applicant to implement an enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan in order to reduce vehicle trips in the area and reduce associated parking demand at the Saint John's facility. This is consistent with LUCE Circulation Policy T19.2 which calls for the imposition of "appropriate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements for new development." 2. As amended, the proposed Development Agreement is compatible with the uses authorized in the district in which the real property is located, in that the subject property is located in the CP-5 Commercial Professional District and the existing uses on site, including the hospital and associated medical offices and facilities are all permitted uses in the CP-5 District. The proposed Revised Parking Program is compatible with other permitted uses in the district in that sufficient parking is provided to serve all of Saint John's user groups (patients, visitors, physicians, and staff), meet the facility's current and projected peak parking demand in 2013, and provide a surplus of 200+ spaces. Therefore, the proposed Amendment would be compatible with other commercial and residential uses in the district in that it will not create parking impacts in the district. The Amendment would also provide a landscaped Entry Plaza with a plaza and seating area that will serve as a main entrance to the facility and serve as an enhancement to the other commercial and medical uses in the district because it will enhance the streetscape along Santa Monica Boulevard. 3. The proposed Development Agreement Amendment conforms to principles that support the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and support good land. use practices in that implementation of the revised parking program provides sufficient parking at on- and off-site locations to meet the health center's peak parking demand and provides over 200 surplus parking spaces in comparison to the facility's 2013 projected peak parking demand. Therefore; the facility will be able to continue to provide healthcare services to the community while still addressing it parking demand in a way that maintains parking spaces closest to the main hospital for patients and visitors, in support of public necessity and convenience, and general welfare. Furthermore, consistent with good land use practices, by providing a portion of its required parking through shared use of underutilized spaces at the nearby Yahoo Center, the Applicant is implementing LUCE-support parking efficiency strategies. 4. The proposed Development Agreement Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare, in that the Amendment will authorize the Applicant to meet its peak parking demand by providing parking spaces at existing on- and off-site parking facilities in the immediate neighborhood and to implement a parking management plan, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, and a series of parking and traffic-related neighborhood protection measures. This proposed Development Agreement Amendment will be not be detrimental to health, safety, and general welfare because shared use of an existing underutilized parking facility, and implementation of a TDM Plan that would be geared toward reducing vehicle trips in the Healthcare District supports a sustainable community with more effective congestion management and parking resource management. The proposed Amendment's requirement to implement a TDM Plan will help reduce vehicle trips in the area and associated parking demand for both on- and off-street parking spaces in the neighborhood. This proposal to implement a TDM Plan and participate in shared use of an underutilized parking facility represents an integration of land use and transportation policies and utilizes parking policies to achieve related goals including congestion management and air quality goals, both of which support the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. 5. The proposed Development Agreement Amendment will not adversely affect the orderly development. of the property, in that .the Development Agreement Amendment facilitates the more efficient use of existing parking resources on site and in the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover,. the proposed Development Agreement Amendment will not adversely affect the orderly development of the property in that the Revised Parking Program still allows for the hospital's main entrance and Entry Plaza to be development on Santa Monica Boulevard and preserves the Applicant's ability to plan for the Phase Two sites on the North and South Campuses. 6. The proposed Development Agreement will have a positive fiscal impact on the City in that the City will incur no cost associated with the implementation of the Applicant's Transportation Demand Management Plan and the associated community benefit of reduced vehicle trips and parking demand in the area. Moreover, with the staff-recommended public benefits, the Applicant will make a monetary contribution to the Memorial Park Expo Station .upgrades which will help to facilitate optimal use of the forthcoming .light rail infrastructure by the public. The proposed Amendment would also provide for funding for a Transportation Management Association feasibility study in order to assess how best to establish an organization that would draw on the employers and employees of the larger Healthcare District in order to maximize vehicle trip and parking demand reduction measures. ATTACHMENT C Proposed Entry Plaza Valet Route 40 ATTACHMENT C Proposed Entry Plaza Valet Route Patients/visitors would enter the site through the east Entry Plaza driveway; valet staff would take vehicle at top of u-shaped driveway; valets would then drive cars to either the West Lot or Lot C using the internal driveway, or take cars across the street to the South Campus lots by crossing Santa Monica Boulevard at the signalized exit driveway to 21s` Street. Valets would return patient/visitoruehicles by driving south on 21~` Street, turn right on Broadway, turn right on 20`" Street, turn right on Santa Monica Boulevard, and then turn left at the signalized west driveway at the Entry Plaza. ATTACHMENT D Aerial Map 41 ATTACHMENT E Walker Consultants Parking Supply/Demand Study, February 2009 42 ~. ,_ PARKING CONSULTANTS PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS SAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: SAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER E PARKING CONSOLTANTS February 20, 2009 Mr. Shane Miller Saint John's Health Center 1328 22"d Street Santa Monica, CA 90404 Re: Parking Supply/Demand Analysis Saint John's Health Center Santa Monica, California Dear Mr. Miller: 6602 East 75th Sheet Suite 27 0 Indianapolis, IN 46250 Voice: 3 7 7.842.6890 Fax: 317.577.6500 www.walkerparking.com Walker Parking Consultants is pleased to present our parking supply/demand analysis study for Saint John's Health Center (SJHCj. The report analyzes parking utilization patterns on the campus and projects parking demand upon build out and occupancy of the Keck Diagnostic and Treatment Building during Phase One of the planned build-out in 2009 as well as in 2013. It is our conclusion that the ongoing modifications to the SJHC's parking operation combined with the leasing of 100 additional spaces at the Yahoo! Center will enable the SJHC campus to meet the projected parking demand for 2009 and 2013. We look forward to discussing our findings with you and other stakeholders at a suitable time. Sincerely yours, WALKER PARKING CONSULTANTS John W. Dorsett, AICP, CPP Senior Vice President Enclosure SAINT !C-HN'S HEALTH CENTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................ ii INTRODUCTION ..................................................................... 1 CURRENT PARKING SUPPLY AND PARKING USAGE .......... ........2 Current Parking Supply ............................................... ........ 2 Parking Facilities ...................:.............................. ........2 Total SJHC Parking Spaces ...................:................ ........4 Allocation of SJHC Parking Spaces by User Group ..... ........ 5 Effective Supply ....................._......_.................... ........6 Current Parking Usage ................................................ ........ 8 Aggregate Usage ................................................ :....... 8 SJHC Usage ....................................................... ........ 9 Design Day Usage ..................................._..._.._. ...... 12 Conclusion ............................................._................ ...... 14 PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND UPON COMPLETION AND OPENING OF THE KECK BUILDING ........................... ....:........ 15 Changes in Parking Supply ................................... ............ 15 The Yahoo! Center ......................................... ............ 15 Changes in Valet Parking ................................. ............ 16 Changes in the JWCI Lot jArea H) ..................... ............ 16 New ER Parking Spaces .................................. .:.......... 16 Aggregate Changes in Parking Supply ............... ............ 17 Changes in Parking Demand ........__..._..._ ........... ............ 18 Projected Population Changes for 2009 ............. ............ 18 Projected Parking Demand for 2009 .................. ............ 18 Comparison of Design Day Parking Demand to the Effective Supply of Parking Spaces by User Group ........................... ............ 19 Conclusion ............................... _._. ............ 19 PARKING SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN 2013 .............................20 Changes in Parking Supply ............................................... 20 Changes in Parking Demand ............................................. 22 Projected Parking Demand for 201 3 .............................. 22 Comparison of Design Day Parking Demand to the Effective Supply of Parking Spaces by User Group ....................................... 23 Conclusion .................:............................................:...... 23 APPENDIX A -Scope of Services APPENDIX B -Parking Agreement APPENDIX C -Discussion of Valet Parking APPENDIX D -Qualifications TALE OP CONTEIV75 LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES Table A: Current ParkingSupply and Demand Page ii'. Table B: 2009 Parking Adequacy Upon Completion of the Keck Building Page iii Table C: Parking Adequary 2013 Page iii Table 1: Parking Spaces Available to SJBC Page4 Table 2: Allocation of 3JHC Spaces by User Group Page 5 Table 3: Effective Supply by User Group Page 7 Table 4: Total Occupancy of Parking Spaces by Location and Type Page 8 Table 5: SJHC Parking Occupancy 6y User Group on the Survey Day Page 11 Table b: Parking Demand Ratios for June 79, 2008 Page 13 Table 7: Peak Parking Demand on May 31,2008 Page 13 Table 8: Current Design Day Parking Adequary Page 14 Table 9: Effective Supply 6y User Group Upon Completion of t he Keck Building Page 17 Table 10: Peak Parking Demand in 2009 Page 19 Table 11: Parking Adequacy Upon .. Completion of the Keck Building Page 79 Table 12: EHechve Supply by User Group in 2013 Page 21 Table 13: Peak Parking Demand in 2073 Page 22 Table 14: Design Day Parking Adequary in 2013 Page 23 Figure 1: SNdy Area and Inventory of Parking Spaces Page 3 SA61+1T JOHN'S HEALTH CE~JTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS I(E~Y - enerorvG mNSUaavrs FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 Saint John's Health Center ~SJHC~ is completing the build-out of Phase One of its campus pursuant to a Development Agreement entered into with the Ciiy of Santa Monica in 1998. The Development Agreement contemplates, as a part of Phase One, construction of a 442-space underground parking facility. SJHC would prefer not to build this facility as a part of Phase One because it believes it already has sufficient parking to satisfy current demand and additional demand expected to be generated over the next five years and wants to make sure parking is efficiently planned as a part of the Phase Two master plan. SJHC has retained Walker Parking Consultants to perform a parking analysis which assesses the adequacy .of SJHC's current parking supply to satisfy cu«ent parking demand and compares projected increases in parking supply later this year when the Keck Diagnostic and Treatment Center is completed and open, and in 2013. In its examination of the existing parking supply and current parking demand, Walker performed fieldwork by .taking an inventory of parking facilities that serve SJHC and conducting occupancy counts. From an analysis of the data collected, Walker made the following findings: • SJHC draws its parking supply from nine facilities that total 5,247 spaces excluding on-street metered parking. • Of these 5,247 spaces, 1,210 are owned or controlled by SJHC and available to SJHC user groups: patients and visitors; physicians and scientific staff; and other staff. In addition, patients and visitors use approximately 36 additional spaces in one of Iwo parking structures near the SJHC campus for a total of 1,246 off-street parking spaces. • Using a commonly accepted concept of "effective supply,° which measures realistic capacity of a parking facility rather than just the number of striped spaces, these 1,246 spaces expand to 1,329, due primarily. to the use of valet lots for patients and visitors. • On June 19, 2008, the day on which occupancy counts were made, user groups associated with SJHC were using 1,1 86 of these 1,329 spaces and had excess space capacity in all user groups. Even taking into account heavier parking demand on other days of the year, there remain surplus spaces across all EXECUTIVE SUVA i21f 5A1 T !HN'S HEALTH CENTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS t ~ V19ALKER CARpNG CO~SUUAPJ;S FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT ~ 37-8006.00 user groups. See Table A below jwhich is the same as Table 8 in the full report): Table A: Current Parking Supply and Demand USER GROUP .EFFECTIVE SUPPLY PEAK DEMAND EXCESS SPACES Patients/Visitors 210 200 10 Staff 1,039. 929 1 10 Ph sicians/Scientists 80 69 11 TOTALS 1, 329 1,198 131 s When the Keck Building is completed, SJHC will adjust parking by, among other things, increasing valet- parking for patients and visitors by moving some staff parking to Yahoo! Center where additional spaces have been secured. These adjustments mean that 184 excess spaces will exist at the end of 2009 with surpluses in all three user groups. See Table B below jwhich is the same as Table 1 1 in the full reportj: Table B: 2009 Parking Adeauacv Upon Completion of the Keck Building USER GROUP EFFECTIVE SUPPLY PEAK DEMAND EXCESS SPACES Patients/Visitors 290 200 90 Staff 1,021 927 94 Physicians/Scientists 80 69 11 TOTALS 1, 397 1,196 201 ® Taking into account SJHC populatiori growth through 2013 and changes in parking supply over that period jprimarily the loss of 120 staff parking spaces in one of the adjacent garages, by the end of 2013, there will remain an aggregate excess of about 102 spaces with excess spaces in each user group. See Table C below jwhich is the same as Table 14 in the full report: Table C: Parking Ade uacy m 2013 USER GROUP EFFEC7IVE SUPPLY PEAK DEMAND EXCESS SPACES Patients/Visitors 306 216 90 Staff 1,022 1,021 1 Physicians/Scientists 80 69 11 TOTALS ~ 1,408 1,308 102 r.. SAINT JHIV'S HEALTH CENTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS d4LER ea~rNC co~nmNrc FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 Saint John's Health Center (SJHCI is completing the buildout of Phase One of its campus which, upon completion, is planned to consist of approximately 460,000 square feet of inpatient services, diagnostic and treatment facilities, and associated ancillary uses. These new facilities will replace buildings on the campus previously used for similar purposes. The 1998 Development Agreement with the City of Santa Monica described Phase One as including a 442-space underground parking garage anticipated to be built in conjunction with the entry plaza accessed from Santa Monica Boulevard. However, SJHC would prefer not to build this garage as a part of Phase One because it believes that it already has sufficient parking for patients, visitors and staff and will continue to have sufficient parking when the balance of Phase One is completed. furthermore, SJHC is in the process of master planning Phase Two of the campus and wants to make sure that parking facilities required for Phase Two are efficiently designed, constructed and operated. Other than the entry plaza, underground parking structure and North Lawn, the only part of Phase One which has not been completed is the Keck Diagnostic and Treatment Center (referred to in this report as the Keck Building(. Completion of the Keck Building is expected later this year. In 2008, SJHC retained Walker Parking Consultants to conduct a parking demand analysis which would (1( assess the ability of the current off-street parking system to accommodate the current parking demand, (2) assess the ability of the parking system, as modified during 2009, to accommodate parking demand upon completion and opening of the Keck Building, and (3j assess the ability of the parking system, as modified between 2009 and 2013, to accommodate parking demand in 2013. This report contains Walker's conclusions concerning these three subjects. IIV7R0®UC710tJ SAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 The first task of this report is to assess the adequacy of SJHC's current parking supply to satisfij its current parking demand. All calculations and occupancy counts were made in 2008 and, therefore, the "current" figures are for 2008.) In order to do so, it is necessary to dal determine the number of off-street spaces available to SJHC, ~b~ break these spaces down into those which are available to patients and visitors and those available to staff, and ~c) compare these results with SJHC's current parking demand based upon populations in each category. 1. CURRENT PARKING SUPPLY A. PARKING FACILITIES SJHC draws its parking supply from a combination of nine facilities; Figure 1 shows the location of each of these areas. Figure 1 also shows a valet staging area named "Denny Court" on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard which is used for valet staging but has no marked parking spaces. Because this study is designed to assess the adequacy of SfHC's off-street parking, we have not included in that system the metered .street parking spaces along Arizona Avenue between 20th and 23rd Streets and along 23rd Street between Arizona and Santa Monica Boulevard. The table inset in Figure 1 shows, for each of the nine areas, the name of the. area, the operator of the parking spaces, whether the parking area is owned by SJHC or another party, and the total number of striped spaces in the area. A~.ACE F.aeXwc cc~soaarus CURRENT PARKING SUPPLY AN® PARKING USAGE 2 m W= ~. z JE 3= f" W a zN WJ V = Z J Q a ~ W_ N ~ Z T 0 N 1 F ~ Z Z . Y w SAINT .DOHN'S HEA9.TH CENTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS ~ ~:..e:c:NCCOr.:;cnErn~~-.s FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 B. TOTAL SJHC PARKING SPACES Walker determined that 1,210 striped parking spaces were available to SJHC in the nine facilities from information obtained from SJHC and by conducting inventories. Table 1 below shows, for each of the nine facilities, the total number of striped spaces in that facility and the number of such spaces owned, or controlled through leases, by SJHC. Table 7: Parking Spaces Available to SJHC AREA DESCRIPT[ON TOTAL SPACES SJHC SPACES NOTE A Koll Gara e 548 145 1 B MRI Lot 136 136 2 C Valet Lot 46 46 3 D Saint Anne's Lot 85 85 4 G Held Structure 922 120 5 H JWCI 236 236 I Verizon Lot 121 121 6 J Foundation 153 21 7 K Yahoo! Center 3,000 300 8 TOTALS 5,247 1,2 TO 1. Based on a lease which expires in December, 2058. 2. Based on an inventory conducted by SJHC. 3. Parking in Denny Court hos not been included in the count because it contains no marked spaces. However, this area is used as a separate valet lot or as an overflow area for the Valet Lot (Area Cl and can accommodate approximately 10 vehicles. This additional space will be included in the discussion of "effective supply' later in this report. 4. Based on a lease which expires in 2010. SJHC has entered info short- term leases with St Anne's and is confident that these arrangements will continue beyond 20.13. Inventory conducted by SIHC. 5. Based on a lease which expires in November, 2050. 6. Based on an inventory conducted by SJHC. 7. Based on a lease which expires in December, 2014. 8. ~ Based on a lease which existed in 2008. As discussed below, a new Parking License Agreement has recently been entered into which increases thenumber of spaces available to SJHC to 400. 270 passes have been issued by SJHC for this area at this time. SAINT 9®HtV'S HEALTH CE6VTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS F-LKE pNa('.NG CONSJIiANi 5 FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 C. ALLOCATION OF SJHC PARKING SPACES BY USER GROUP Walker then determined the availability of these 1,210 spaces to the following groups of users: ~a) patients and visitors, ~b~ physicians and scientific staff fall of which are reserved spaces, and ~c) other staff. The conclusions were based upon a combination of information from SJHC and Walker inventories and are presented in Table 2: Table 2: Allocation of SJHC Spaces by User Group AREA DESCRIPTION TOTAL SJHC SPACES PATIENYS AND VISITORS PHYSICIANS AND SCIENTIFIC STAFF OTHER STAFF A Koll Garage 145 0 0 145 B MRI Lor 136 136 0 0 C Valet Lot 46 4 42 0 D Saint Anne's 85 0 0 85 G Held Structure 120 0 20 100 H JWCI 236 0 18 218 I Verizon Lot 121 0 0 121 J Foundation 21 0 0 21 K Yahoo! Center 300 0 0 300* TOTALS 1,210 140 80 990 ' 270 permits have been issued by SJHC for this area. D. EFFECTIVE SUPPLY It is generally accepted in the parking industry that a parking system which operates without a valet. cannot operate efficiently if it is designed to operate at full capacity. Some empty spaces should be available at all times to provide for more efficient circulation so that customers are not spending excessive time looking for the last few remaining spaces in a large facility. This results in frustration, a perception of an inhospitable campus and missed appointments. Also, there will inevitably be temporary losses of spaces due to mis-parked vehicles, broken glass or other obstructions, and minor construction. Conversely, parking areas operated through a valet service can efficiently handle more cars than there are parking spaces through the ability to "stack" cars in aisles or move them to locations which are not directly available to motorists, such as Denny Court. Therefore,. in evaluating .the ability of a parking supply to meet demand and in planning the size of future parking facilities, we use the concept SAINT J®FIR3'S FISALTFI CEIVTEI2 PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS E va.es:r~c cor<surra,Nrs FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 of an "effective` supply. The effective supply is the supply that is realistically usable by or for patrons or employees. For lots that do not employ a valet system, the "effective" supply may be less than the actual number of parking spaces with the extent of any reduction depending upon a variety of factors, the most important of which are: • The nature of the user group. Employees know the facilities well and tend to park in more or less the same place each day. They also stay for long periods and, therefore, do not generate as much inand-out traffic as do visitors and do not need as significant a circulation cushion. • The efficiency of the. facility. Facilities that are difficult to navigate require a greater cushion of empty spaces because they cannot be used efficiently. For many lots, particularly. smaller surface lots used only the SJHC staff, such as the Saint Anne's Lot (Area Dj, the "effective supply' will be the same as the number of parking spaces. SJHC uses valet operators, either in whole or in part, in connection with the MRI Lot Area B~, the Valet Lot (Area Cj and the JWCI Lot (Area Hj, thereby permitting an effective supply of parking in excess of the number of striped spaces. Based upon our fieldwork and discussions with SJHC staff, we determined the effective supply factors for each of the parking areas and these results are reflected in Table 3 on the following page. It is these numbers that will then be used to assess the adequacy of the SJHC parking facilities to meet current and future parking demand. 6 SAi9VT JOHN'S 8-fEALTN CET1TEt@ ~~ PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS a:~araccorrsuunrars FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 Table 3: Effective Sup I by User Grou AREA DESCRIPTION USER GROUP ' EFFECTIVE SUPPLY FACTOR TOTAL SPACES EFFECTIVE SUPPLY MOTE A KoII Garage Staff 98 145 142 A Kol Garage Patients/ Visitors 1.0 8 8 1 B MRI Lot Patients/ Visitors 136 150 2 C Valet Lot Patients/ Visitors 4 24 2 C Valet Lot Ph sicians 1.0 42 42 3 D Saint Anne's Staff 1.0 85 85 G Held Structure Patients/ Visitors 1.0 28 28 1 G Held Structure Staff 98 100 98 G Held Structure Ph sicians 1.0 20 20 3 H JWCI Staff ~ 218 279 2 H JWCI Scientific Staff 1 .0 18 18 3 I Verizon Lot Staff 1.0 l 21 121 J Foundation Staff 95 21 20 K Yahoo! Center Staff ~ 98 300 294 Tonal Staff 990 1,039 Total Patients/Visitors 776 210 4 Total Physicians/ Scientific Staff 80 80 Total Parking 1,246 7,329 4 1. Table 2 which showed the number of spaces available fo SJHC under either ownership or leases did not include any patient/visitor spaces in either the Koll Garage or the Held Structure since neither of the applicable leases covers that user group. However, as discussed below, our field work discovered that a certain number of patients/visitors did park in those facilities and, therefore, we have used the number which did park there as the "effective supply' for patients and visitors in those structures. 2. Valetoperated. The effective supply of'ihe Valet Lof (Area CJ includes parking of 10 vehicles in Denny Court which was not included in Table 2 as well as parking of additional vehicles in the aisles. The "effective supply' numbers for. these facilities exceed the number of striped spaces and are based on Walker observations during occupancy counts rather than on the design of the particular lot. Therefore, no design factor was employed to reach the "effective supply' ofparking in these locations. - 3. Reserved spaces. 4. - The number of total spaces and the number of spaces available for patients and visitors has been increased by 36 over the numbers for the same categories in Table 2 through the addition of the 36 spaces used by patients and visitors in the Koll Garage and the Held Structure observed by Walker. 7 SAINT J®FIN°S 1-IEALTFi CENTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS FAFK!NO COrfS:!!raur<_ FEBRUARY 20, 2009 2. CURRENT PARKING USAGE A. AGGREGATE USAGE PROJECT # 37-8006.00 In order to determine current parking usage of the facilities by SJHC, Walker first conducted occupancy counts of all facilities except for Yahoo! Center and the Foundation Lot. Given the difficulty of determining which cars in those lots were attributable to SJHC staff members, we assumed that 90% of the spaces available to SJHC in those facilities were occupied by SJHC staff. The results are shown in Table 4 and will be used in the next section to determine occupancy of available spaces by SJHC user groups. All occupancy counts were conducted on June 19, 2008 at 10:00 A.M. and again at 1 :00 P.M. Table 4: Total Occupancy of Parking Spaces by Location and Type AREA DESCRIP710N SPACE TYPE AVAILABLE 70:00 A.M. i:00 P.M. NOTE PARKING OCCUPANCY OCCUPANCY A Koll Garage ADA 1 1 5 5 1 Patient/Visitor 48 40 42 Unreserved 427 261 270 Reserved 62 23 15 Totals 548 329 332 B MRI Lot Unreserved 150 128 138 2 C Valet Lot Unreserved 24 24 2d 2 Reserved 42 42 35 Totals 66 66 59. D Saint Anne's Reserved 85 49 51 1 G Held Structure ADA 21 19 19 1 Parking Office 6 4 4 Unreserved 584 546 549 Reserved 311 258 260 Totals 922 827 832 H JWCI Unreserved 279 279 254 1,2 Reserved 18 9 11 Totals 297 288 265 I Verizon Lot Unreserved 121 105 1 12 1 J Foundation Lot Reserved 21 19 19 3 K Yahoo! Center Unreserved 300 243 243 3 TOTALS 2,510 2,054 ~ 2,051 Determined through-occupancy counts conducted by Walker. The number of available spaces for these lots is based on the effective supply for those areas as shown in Table 3 rather than the number of striped spaces. For the Valet Lot this includes the 10 vehicles parked in Denny Coun. Estimated by Walker rather than being determined by occupancy counts. 5~,9NT JC91,iN°5 NE~4LTF9 CENTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 B. SIHC USAGE While the occupancy counts reflected in Table 4 determined the actual number of cars parked in specific locations and types of spaces except for Yahoo! Center and the Foundation Loth, the counts alone could not establish to whom the cars belonged .because of the dispersed nature of the parking system. Consequently, Walker relied on guidance from SJHC staff on usage patterns and additional fieldwork to identify the parking demand of the SJHC community. Our discussions with SJHC staff and preliminary visits to the study areas indicated that usage patterns by members of the SJHC community are dynamic. We concluded that while signage in the areas of the Held Structure designate areas for specific user groups, motorists often did not observe these designations when selecting their parking spaces. Because the Koll Medical Office Building is not fully occupied, the Koll Garage is underutilized and presents an attractive option to motorists wishing to avoid congested parking areas or the SJHC valet service. It is also possible that members of the SJHC community utilize some of the on-street metered parking spaces adjacent to the SJHC facilities along Arizona Avenue and 23rd Street. Our discussions with SJHC staff and preliminary observations indicated that it would be difficult to assess the parking demand of SJHC community members in non-SJHC controlled parking areas. Consequently, we designed additional fieldwork consisting of direct observation of the Koll and Held parking structures and a license plate inventory for potential on-street parking, as discussed below. (1) ESTABLISHING SJHC PARKING DEMAND IN THE HELD AND KOLL GARAGES Walker staff conducted direct observation of usage patterns in the Held and. Koll garages: Staff members positioned themselves at key access points between those structures and the SJHC campus to determine if patients and visitors to SJHC were using those two facilities. During the course of their observations, team members determined that during the occupancy counts, eight (8) patient/visitor vehicles parked in the Koll garage and.tweniy-eight X28) parked in the Held garage. While the additional fieldwork resolved some questions about. parking demand in areas not under SJHC control, the efforts to determine the level of staff and physician parking demand in the Held garage and E PARKING CGN~UUANrS 9 SAINT J®Hhi'S HEALTH CENTEE; PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS lCER vaan~nic consyvn:vrs FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT ~ 3~-8006.00. the level of .staff parking demand in the Koll garage proved inconclusive. Consequently, in consultation with SJHC staff, we decided to use the overall occupancy level applicable to the Held garage (90%j to project the level of parking demand for SJHC staff and physicians in the two structures. jSee Table 4, which shows 827 spaces in the Held garage occupied at 10:00 A.M. and 832 at 1:00 P.M. Both equal approximately 90% of the total 922 spaces in that facility.) While this method of projection is less than ideal, we deem it to be appropriate given the similar projected demand in Yahoo! Center ]243 spaces equaling 90% of the 270 issued permits] and in the Foundation Lot jl9 spaces equaling 90% of the 21 existing spaces]. Furthermore, 90% represents a reasonable amount given the overall occupancy of the Held garage. We concluded that irwould not be appropriate to project SJHC demand in the Koll garage at a level equal to the overall occupancy of that structure ]approximately 60%) given the fact that the Koll Medical Office Building is underutilized and, therefore, the overall- demand for spaces in the structure is less than it would be if the building were fully occupied. Finally, we believe an occupancy ratio of 90% represents a reasonable estimate appropriate to this study. (2J LICENSE PLATE INVENTORY To determine the use of on-street parking spaces by the SJHC community, we conducted a license plate inventory of metered spaces along Arizona Avenue between 20th and 23rd Street and along 23rd Street between Arizona and Santa Monica Boulevard. The inventory took place hourly between 7:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on June 19, 2008. In the interest of having a reasonable projection, we assumed that all vehicles parked for longer than five hours consecutively belonged to individuals working at SJHC. (We recognize that some vehicles parked for a shorter period may also have belonged to the SJHC community; however, some of the vehicles parked for a longer period may also have belonged to non-SJHC personnel, so we believe our assumption is reasonable.) In our communications with SJHC staff, we collected information indicating that these vehicles likely belong to construction workers, contractors and consultants working on the current construction. 10 ~A13Vi' 90F9IV'S FIEAL'fF7 CE~7YEi2 PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS ii!-/tli.1ER t',:ax~.NC coNSUU.~u,s FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT ~ 37-8006.00 Of the sixteen vehicles parked for more than five hours in these spaces, all sixteen were parked there at 10:00 A.M. and fourteen were parked there at 1:00 P.M.; these vehicles were added to the parking demand numbers. (3J EFFECT/VE SUPPLY COMPARED TO SJHC OCCUPANCY Table 5 shows the effective supply of SJHC parking in each of the nine facilities Jtaken from Table 3) and the occupancy of those facilities, including the assumed number of on-street parkers, for June 19, 2008, broken down by user group. (June 19, 2008 is referred to in this report as the "survey day.") Table 5: SJHC Parking Occupancy by User Group on the Survey Day AREA DESCRIPTfON GROUP EFFECTIVE 70:00 A.M. 90:00 A.M. 7:00 P.M. 7:00 P.M. NOTE SUPPLY OCCUPANCY EXCESS OCCUPANCY EXCESS SUPPLY SUPPLY A Koll Garage Patients 8 8 0 8 0 1 Visitors Staff 142 128 14 128 14 2 B MRI Lot Patients 150 128 22 138 12 1 Visitors C Valet Lot Patients 24 24 0 24 0 Visitors Physicians 42 42 0 35 7 D Saint Anne's Staff 85 49 36 51 34 G Held Structure Patients 28 28 0 28 0 Visitors Staff 98 90 8 90 8 Ph sicians 20 18 2 18 2 H JWCI Staff 279 279 0 254 25 Scientists 18 9 9 11 7 I Verizon Lot Staff 121 105 16 1 12 9 J Foundation Staff 20 19 1 19 1 K Yahoo! Staff 294 243 51 243 51 On Street Staff 16 <16> 14 <14> 3 Total Patients 210 188 22 198 12 and Visitors Total Staff 1,039 929 110 97 } 128 3 Total 80 69 I1 64 16 Physicians and Scientists Total SJHC 1,329 1,186 143 1,173 156 3 Parking 1 1. Supply and occupancy based on Walker observations. 2. Occupancy based on Walker's estimate of 90% usage of available spaces. 3. The number on-street spaces utilized was subtracted from the excess staff spaces in the parking facilities SA19VF !®FIfV'S F9EALSF9 CEIVTE~ PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS ,:" v PhRK:NG CONSCLrAN75 FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROLECT # 37-8006.00 Table 5 demonstrates that on the "survey day' dune 19, 2008, there were excess spaces available for all user groups based upon the "effective supply' of spaces in the SJHC system. However, because the occupancy counts were taken on a somewhat arbitrary day, these results do not necessarily establish the sufficiency. of the system on days when the parking demand might be heavier. Therefore, the last step in the analysis is to consider the adequacy of the system on what is known as the "design day." C. DESIGN DAY USAGE A "design day' is the day that represents the level of business a parking system is designed to accommodate. For example, retail parking could be designed to meet the demand generated on the weekend before Christmas when one would expect to have the maximum number of shoppers, or it could be designed to meet typical conditions. If it is designed to meet Christmas needs, numerous spaces will sit empty other days of the year. However, if it is designed to the average weekend, there will be shortages many days of the year. Therefore, we generally recommend, for hospitals as well as retailers, that parking be built and assessed as of very busy, but not absolute. peak, conditions. For hospitals, we recommend the 12th busiest day of the year in terms of total patient visits; this day is referred to as the "design day." On the few days when the parking system is busier that the design day, the extra cars should fit within the effective supply cushion. In order to determine whether or not the SJHC parking system would be sufficient on the "design ,day," we need to establish parking demand ratios for the different user groups on the "survey day' based upon the occupancy counts determined through our field work and fundamental assumptions and then apply these ratios to the user group populations on the "design day." (1 J SURVEY DAY PARKING RATIOS We establish parking ratios by tying the number of cars generated by a given user group on the survey day to the population for that same group. For patients and visitors, we correlated the parking demand to the respective number of patient visits for that day. For SJHC staff members and physicians/scientists, we tied the parking demand to the current numbers in each category. Table 6 below shows the populations by user group on the survey day and calculates the related parking demand ratios based on the occupancy counts derived earlier. 12 SAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CEdVTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 These ratios will then be used to determine parking demand on the "design day." Table 6: Parking Demand Ratios for June 19, 2008 USER METRIC UNIT PEAL( DEMAND GRCIUP DEMAND RATIO! Patients/Visitors Emergency 86 Patients/day Inpatient visits 38 Patients/day Outpatient visits 655 Patients/day Total visits 779 Patients/da 198 0.25 Staff Full time 1,194 Current total Part time 196 Current total Contract 38 Current total Volunteers 40 Current total Construction 55 Current total Total Staff 1,523 Current total 929 0.61 Physicians 217 Current total 69 0.32 (2) DESIGN DAY PARKING DEMAND From information provided by SJHC staff, we determined that May 31, 2008 was the 1 2th busiest day of the period between dune 20, 2007 and June 19, 2008. The following Table 7 uses the demand ratios calculated in Table b to determine the peak demand for each user group on May 31, 2008, the "design day." Tnhle 7~ Penk Pnrkinn-0emand onMav 31.2008 USER GR®UP METRIC UNiT DEMAND PEAK RATiCe DEMAND Patients/Visitors Emergency 67 Patients/day Inpatient visits 44 Patients/day Outpatient visits 688 Patients/day Total visits 799 Patients/da 0.25 200 Staff Full time 1,194 Projected Part time 196 Projected Contract 38 Projected Volunteers 40 Projected Construction 55 Projected Total Staff 1,523 Pro ected 0.61 .929 Physicians and 217 Current total 0.32 69 Scientists _ WALKER PAP,KING GOni9JLfgNiS 13 SA9RIT J®F!N'S HEALTH CE9VTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS ®(E 2Y?e!NG W h5l4LYV i < FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 (3) COMPARISON OF DESIGN DAY PARKING DEMAND TO THE EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OF PARKING SPACES BY USER GROUP The final step in the analysis is to use the "design day' peak demand numbers instead of the "survey day' numbers in assessing the adequacy. of the SJHC parking system. Table 8 below demonstrates that on the "design day," there remain excess spaces for each user group when compared to the "effective supply' of parking at the current time. Table 8: Current Design Da Parking Adequacy USER GRCIUP EFFECTIVE PEAK E%CESS SUPPLY DEMAND SPACES Patients/Visitors 210 ~ 200 10 69 1 1 1 TOTALS I 7,3291 1,1981 731 3. CONCLUSION. Based on the foregoing analysis and assumptions, and the results shown in Table 8, it is our opinion that the current off-street parking facilities available to SJHC are sufficient to accommodate the current parking demand generated by each user group. 14 SAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS 0C6R - ;.4Rk~FJG C~Pi50L'APAS FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROLECT # 37-8006.00 PARKING SUPPLY AIVD SJHC contemplates completion and opening of the Keck Building in DEMAND UPON 2009. Using the parking ratios from Table b in combination with COMPLETION AND projected changes in parking supply and in the population of OPENING O~ 7HE KECK various user groups, we can project the resulting design day ~UILDIN~ parking supply and demand. 1. CHANGES IN PARKING SUPPLY The changes in the effective supply of parking in the SJHC parking system during 2009 are: • an increase in the number of spaces leased in the Yahoo! Center structure from 300 to 400 under the new Parking .License Agreement attached as Appendix B; • demolition of Denny Court which will remove 10 spaces from the "effective supply' of the-Valet Lot jLot C~; • the. addition of 6 new parking spaces near the Keck Building for use by emergency room patients and visitors; • reserving 55 striped spaces in the JWCI Lot (Lot Hj for patients and visitors which, in combination with a valet system, will result in an expansion in the effective supply of parking in. that Lot by 35 vehicles for a total effective patient and visitor parking of 90; and • relocation of some staff parking from Lot H to Yahoo! Center which will leave 163 striped spaces for staff parking in that Lot. Walker has assumed that in 2009 there will be no valet or "stacked" parking of staff vehicles in Lot H. This. change means that there will be a loss of staff parking in lot H totaling 116 spaces - 55 -from the loss of striped spaces being reserved for patients and visitors and an additional 61 from the loss of aisle parking by staff. A. THE YAHOO! CENTER We believe it is appropriate to assume that the "effective supply' of spaces in Yahoo! Center will increase from 294 to 392 reflecting the same 0.98 factor applied in Table 3 to determine the "effective supply' of spaces In that facility. Since SJHC has issued only 270 permits for the existing 300 total spaces in this garage and the 294 "effective supply" of spaces, SJHC can easily issue at least an 15 SA!!~!T .lC4Hl~!'S HEALTH CENTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 additional 122 permits. Therefore, the new Parking License Agreement increases the "effective supply' of staff parking spaces by 98 from 1,027 to 1 , l 25 and allows for a shift of at least 1 22 vehicles from other lots to the Yahoo! Center. These spaces will easily accommodate the staff spaces which will be removed from the JWCI Lot (Area H~, as explained below. B. CHANGES IN VALET PARKING The demolition of Denny Court will eliminate 10 spaces from the effective supply available for patients and visitors, but planned changes in the JWCI Lot (Area H~ will increase the number of spaces for patients and visitors by 90, as discussed below. C. CHANGES /N THEJWCI LOT (AREA HJ As outlined in Appendix C, 55 spaces in the JWCI Lot will be reserved for valet parking for patients and visitors. In addition, through the "stacking" of vehicles in the aisles,. the valet operator will be able to add an additional 35 vehicles in the JWCI Lot for patients and visitors thereby adding a total of 90 to the "effective supply' of patient and visitor spaces. When Walker conducted its on-site occupancy counts, it determined that 279 vehicles were actually parked in the JWCI Lot (excluding the spaces reserved for scientific staff) despite the fact. that there were only 218 unreserved striped spaces. This excess of 61 vehicles was due to staff parking in the aisles Converting 55 staff parking spaces into parking for patients and visitors and eliminating the aisle parking means that the "effective supply' of staff parking in the JWCI Lot will be reduced from 279 to 163 - a loss of 55 spaces and 61 aisle parking "spaces." The staff members who previously utilized this parking can be accommodated in Yahoo! Center, as explained above. D. NEW ER PARKING SPACES The new emergency room will be located in the Keck Building and upon completion; there will be six new parking spaces for use by patients and visitors to the ER facility. These spaces will be intended for "drop-off" use and there will be no valet service. However, they do count in the overall patient/visitor supply. PgRK!4G COrfY,!UANrS 16 SAINT JCI~-9N°S F9EALTii CENTER ~y~„~;~ PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS r:,~KNCCOrFSUaaNrs FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 E. AGGREGATE CHANGES IN PARKING SUPPLY Table 9 below (which is similar to Table 3) shows the new "effective supply' of each facility by user group. Table 9: Effective Suppl b User Group Upon Com letion of the Keck Building AREA DESCRIPTION USER GROUP EFFECTIVE SUPPLY FACTOR TOTAL SPACES EFFECTIVE SUPPLY NOTE A Koll Garage Staff 98 145 142 A Koll Garage Patients/ Visitors 1 .0 8 8 B MRI Lot Patients/ Visitors 136 150 C Valet Loi Patients/ Visitors 4 14 1 C Valet Lot Ph sicians 42 42 D Saint Anne's Staff 1.0 85 85 G Held Structure Patients/ Visitors 1.0 28 28 G Held Structure Staff 98 100 98 G Held Structure Ph sicians 1.0 20 20 H . JWCI Staff 1.0 163 163 2 H JWCI Scientific Staff 1 .0 18 18 H JWCI Patients/ Visitors 55 90 3 I Verizon Lot Staff 1.0 121. 121 J Foundation Lot Sta$ 95 21 20 K Yahool Center Staff 98 400 392 4 Keck Building ~ Patients/ Visitors 6 6 5 Total Staff 1,035 7,021 Total Patients/ Visitors 237 296 Total Physicians/ Scientific Staff 80 80 Totals ~ 1,352 1,397 1. As shown in Table 3, the "effective supply' of the Valet Cot (Area C) originally included parking for 10 vehicles in Denny Court. These "spaces" have been deleted in this Table. 2. This number was reduced based upon the reservation of 55 spaces for valet overflow and the shifting of some staff parking to Yahoo! Center. It also assumes that staff will no longer be parking in the aisles in the JWCI Lot but will utilize 163 striped spaces out of the 236 total 3. Increase based upon reserving 55 spaces for overflow parking and the parking of 35 vehicles in the aisles. 4. Increase based upon the new Parking License Agreement. _ - 5. Emergency Room use. 17 SA9fVT JOH9V'S HEALTH CENTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT ~ 37-8006.00 2. CHANGES IN PARKING DEMAND In order to determine the change in parking demand between 2008 and 2009, we received information from SJHC regarding projected changes in thevarious user group populations and applied the parking ratios obtained in Table 7 to determine the new peak parking demand. A. PROJECTED POPULATION CHANGES FOR 2009 SJHC projects that patient population during 2009 will reflect a slight reduction of 0.2% in daily outpatient visits and a slight increase of 3% in daily inpatient visits. When applied to the 2008 population numbers for these user groups shown in Table 7, the reduction in daily outpatient visits offsets the increase in inpatient .visits so that the aggregate number of patient visits remains at 799 per day on the design day. SJHC plans to increase the population of full- and part-time staff, as well as contractors and volunteers, at an annual rate of 2.47%; however, upon completion of the Keck Building, the contractor population will decline to 15. JWCI staff as well as all physicians and scientists. are projected to remain unchanged. B. PROJECTED PARKING DEMAND FOR 2009 Table 10 is the same as Table 7 above except that the demand numbers are calculated based upon the projected population applicable when the Keck Building is completed in 2009. KE ?.:P,KING C9rvSUtC4N?S 18 SAINT JOlil~i'S IiEALTI-1 CE~ITE18 PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS - PA-QKI~GON:a14,'ANiS FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROLECT # 37-8006.00 Table 10: Peak Parking Demand in 2009 USER METRIC UNIT DEMAND PEAK GROUP RATIO DE ND Patients/Visitors Emergency 67 Patients/day Inpatient visits 45 Patients/day Outpatient visits 687 Patients/day Total visits 799 Patients/da 0.25 200 Staff Full time 1,223 Projected Part time 201 Projected Contract 39 Projected Volunteers 41 Projected Construction 15 Projected Total Staff 1,519 Projected 0.61 927 Physicians and 217 Current total 0.32 69 Scientists 3. COMPARISON OF DESIGN DAY PARKING DEMAND TO THE EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OF PARKING SPACES BY USER GROUP As with 2008, the final step in the 2009 analysis is to use the "design day" peak demand for 2009 in assessing the adequacy of the SJHC parking system. Table 11, which is similar to Table 8, demonstrates that on the "design day," there remain excess spaces in 2009 when compared to the "effective supply' of parking at that time given the significant increase in patient/visitor spaces in the JWCI Lot and staff spaces in Yahaol Center. Table 11: Parking Adequac Upon Com letion of fhe Keck Building USER GROUP EFFECTIVE PEAK EXCESS SUPPLY DEMAND SPACES _ Statt ~ 1,021 ( 927 ~ 94 Physicians/Scientists . 80 69 1 1 4. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis and assumptions, and the results shown in Table 1 1, it is our opinion that the effective supply of off-street parking facilities available to SJHC upon completion of the Keck Building will be sufficient to accommodate the parking demand projected to exist at that time. 19 SAINT JOFIN'S FiEALTIrI CENTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 The final task assigned to us by SJHC was to project the adequacy of the parking system in 2013. To do that, we looked at projected changes in the parking supply based on SJHC plans for the existing system (without regard to the building of any new facilities and compared that supply with the projected increase in parking demand based upon projected changes in the .population of the different user groups. Our analysis was based upon information provided by SJHC as to anticipated population growth and does not take into account any additional development or expansion of facilities, such as what might occur as a part of Phase Two during the next five years. Changes in the sizes, mix, timing and other characteristics of land uses on the SJHC campus may have significant implications for parking as would increases in patient, visitor and staff above those projected by SJHC which we relied upon in performing our analysis. CHANGES IN PARKING SUPPLY Based on information supplied- to us by SJHC, the only changes in the projected supply of parking in the SJHC parking system between 2009 and 201 3 are: (aj an increase of 100 spaces for patients and visitors in a new valet lot to be constructed to the west of the current Valet Lot Lot C) an Santa Monica Boulevard; jb) the loss of l 20 parking spaces in the Koll Medical Office Building urider an existing agreement; jcj the reassignment to staff of the 55 striped spaces in the JWCI Lot previously reserved for patients and visitors returning the number of striped spaces in JWCI available for staff to 218; and (d) conversion of the staff parking in the JWCI Lot to a valet system which will add at least 64 additional spaces for an effective supply of staff parking in the JWCI Lot of 300. We have assumed that the new valet lot will increase the "effective supply' of parking for patients and visitors by 100 spaces. This is a conservative estimate because it does not include any extra parking through the stacking of vehicles that can be accomplished by the valet operator. Table 12 contains, by user group, the projected "effective supply' of parking in the SJHC system in 2013. Wd4LiSE PAiKiNG CCNSUUANi 5 PARKING S13I3~LY AIN® ®E ~ IN 273 20 SAINT JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER ~ PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS °'"'"'"c co"°'"`''"'` FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT ~ 37-8006.00 Table 12: Effective Su I b User Group in 2013 AREA DESCRIPTION USER GROUP EFFECTIVE SUPPLY FACTOR TOTAL SPACES EFFECTIVE SUPPLY NOTE A Koll Garage Staff 98 25 24 1 A Kol Gara e Patients/Visitors 1 .0 8 8 B MRI Lot Patients/Visitors 136 150 C Valet Lot Patients/Visitors 704 1 14 2 C Valet Lot Ph sicians 1.0 42 42 D Saint Anne's Staff 1.0 85 85 G Held Structure Patients/Visitors 1 .0 28 28 G Held Structure Staff 98 100 98 G Held Structure Physicians 1.0 20 20 H JWCI Staff 282 282 3 H JWCI Scientific Staff 1.0 18 18 I Verizon Lot Staff 1.0 121 121 J Foundation Staff 95 21 20 K Yahoo! Center Staff 98 400 392 Keck Building Patients/Visitors b b Total Staff 1,034 1,022 1 Total Patients/Visitors 282 306 2 Total Physicians/Scientific Staff 80 80 Totals 1, 396 1,408 1. Reduction in fhe "effective supply' of staff parking in the Koll Garage by 1 18 due to the loss of 120 parking spaces but increase of 1 19 through converting the IWCI Lot to a valet system. 2. Increase of 100 spaces due to construction of new valet lot. Note that no increase in "effective supply' is assumed above the number of new spaces even though the valet operator will presumably be able to "stack" vehicles. 3. Transfer of 55 spaces from valet to staff and conversion to a valet system. 21 Se41NT JOHM'S FiEAiTFi CE(dTER PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS ~:: ~ lfE PR¢KING CONEJRR~d(S FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 2. CHANGES IN PARKING DEMAND In order to determine the change in parking demand between 2009 and 2013, we received information from SJHC regarding projected changes in the various user group populations and applied the parking ratios obtained in Table 7 to determine the new peak parking demand. SJHC projects that patient population will increase annually in all categories between 2009 and 2013 at the rate of 2% and that the staff population jincluding contractors and voluntee~s~ will continue to increase aYan annual rate of 2.47% during that time but that the JWCI staff will remain unchanged. A. PROJECTED PARKING DEMAND fOR 2013 table 13 is the same as Table 7 and Table 10 except that the demand numbers are calculated based upon the projected population applicable in 2013: Table 13: Peak Parking Demand in 2013 USER METRIC UNIT DEMAND PEAK GROUP RATIO DEMA6VD Patients/Visitors Emergency 73 Patients/day Inpatienivisits 49 Patients/day Outpatient visits 743 Patients/day Total visits 865 Patients/da 0.25 216 Sta$ Full time 1,348 Projected Part time 222 Projected Contract 43 Projected Volunteers 45 Projected Construction 15 Projected TotaLStaff 1,673 Pro ected 0.61 1,021 Physicians and 217 Current total 0.32 69 Scientists 22 SA6~oIT JC1H~d'S HEALTH CElVTEl2 PARKING SUPPLY/DEMAND ANALYSIS FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT # 37-8006.00 3, COMPARISON OF DESIGN DAY PARKING DEMAND TO THE EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OF PARKING SPACES BY USER GROUP As with 2008 and 2009, the final step in the 201 3 analysis is to use the "design day' peak demand for 201 3 in assessing the adequacy of the SJHC parking system. These results are reflected on Table 14 below, which is similar to Tables 8 and 1 1. Table 14: Design Da Parking Adequacy in 207 3 USER GROUP EFFECi1VE PEAK EXCESS SUPPLY ®EMAId~ SPACES Patients/Visitors- 306 216 90 Staff 1,022 1,021 1 Ph sicians/Scientists 80 69 1 1 TOTALS ~ 1,408 1,306 102 4. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing analysis and assumptions, and the results shown in Table 14, it is our opinion that the effective supply of off-street parking facilities available to SJHC in 2013 will be sufficient to accommodate the parking demand projected to exist at that time. WALKER o-AKInIG CCnL;VU.IN~'S 23 APPENDIX A SCOPE OF SERVICES SAItdT !®HPJ'S HEALTH CENTER APPENDIX A -SCOPE OF SERVICES iES~ PAPA='JC C9n~UliANi$ FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT NUMBER 37-8006.00 PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS 1.) Meet with Sfiane Miller Company and Saint John's Health Center (Hospital) staff to finalize project parameters and obtain background information. Provide staff with a Hospital Information Form to be completed and returned to Walker. 2.) Review Hospital documents, including previous studies, master plan documentation and site plans. 3.) Confirm and augment as needed the Hospital's parking inventory, noting restrictions where applicable. Any relevant on-street or off-site parking will also be included in the analysis. 4.) Perform occupancy counts of all parking within the Saint John's campus, including any relevant on- street. parking. The counts will be done at 10:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on a typical "high demand" day to be determined by hospital staff. 5.) Conduct license plate inventories of selected parking areas on one weekday. Areas will be determined through discussion with Shane Miller Company and Hospital staff. The inventories will be conducted hourly between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM. 6.) Based on the occupancy counts, license plate inventories and data contained in the "Hospital Information Form", build a parking demand model that estimates. parking demand by user group (employee, patient/visitor) undercurrent design day conditions. 7.) Based on information from Shane Miller Company and the Hospital regarding development plans, use the parking demand model to project future design day parking demand generated by each user group until the projected completion of Phase Two. 8.) Assess the parking demand of the parking garages serving the two medical office buildings (MOBS) located on the northeast corner of 20'" Street and Santa Monica Boulevard (the Held Properties MOBsJ and the MOB located on the southeast corner of 20'h Street and Santa Monica Boulevard (the Koll Building). This assessment will measure the demand at the two garages relative to the parking requirements of the MOBS. 9.) Compare the current and projected parking demand with the number of spaces that the Hospital leases. This comparison will analyze the leased spaces by location, distance to the hospital, duration of lease, and other relevant factors. 10.) Prepare a draft report. 1 1.) Meet with Shane Miller Company and Hospital staff to discuss the draft parking demand study. 12.) Incorporate feedback from the meeting into the report and issue a firial report. A-1 APPENDIX B PARKING AGREEMENT SAINT J®FIN'S FI LTIi CENTER AND F'I®SPBT ER PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS ragKnvG coNSUttaNn X37-$006.00 ~ 27}ANUARY 2009 A~P~N!?IX f3 - PARKlN~ AG~~ER9EIVT P_-1Rh'I.VG LICENSE AGREE1tIE1~'T This PARIsINCi LICENSE AGREEt•SENT {"Agrernrent'} is trade and entered inm as of the first day of Febmuy, 3004. but effective December 1. 2005- b}• and bertc-een STANDARD PART~VG CORPORATION II.. a Delaware corporation ("Palkirlg Operator"7 and ST. JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER a California non-profit public benefit corporation {"Customer'}. RECITALS: A. Farking Operator operates a gttblie parking facility located at Yahoo! Center, 225 Colorado Avenue is Santa Monica, California (`Parking Facility), pursuant to an agreement ("CnderlYVrg Agreement"} wkih.Egttity Office IvIauagement. LLC, a Delaware limited liabilih_• company ('EOM, as anent for the onnea' of the Parking Fanhh• ("Facility Oenxei'): an3 B. Ctutomer desires a license to park wi8vn dre Pazking Facilit-r• and Parking Operator desires to grant suth a license, all upon the teruts and conditions set forth herein. NOlL', THEREFORE. in coasideratiou of the mutual agreements and covenants set forth hereii Pazkvrg Operator and Customer hereby agree as follows: 1. Cana t. Parking Operator hereby grants to Customer a licrnse to use x#00 parking permits t;tithia the ParAzne Facility fvr the parking of Customer's motor vehicles, upon and subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth hereit>_ This &cense iachrdes a noss-exchtsive right to use the common areas aathin the Parking Facility- for the purpose of ingress and egress to and from the licensed parl~ng permit arets and adjacent public rights of tvay. The 400 pazkiag permits are 'must takes -; i.e., Customer must pay for all 400 parking g°nvits. regardless of acrital usa¢e. Howei~-er, at am time drniug the Temr, Customer is entitled fo change the manber of pemtits inured (not to exceed 400 permits in total) effective on the tryst day of any calendaz month by gi~zng Parking Operator rLritten nonce not less than I1 days prior to the start of Bitch caleadaz mouth. If Ctstomer reduces the number of pmnits and later in tke Term requests additional permits. Parking Clperatar shall be obligated to issue such additional permits Dale to the extern asvilable. All pezmits issues h~ettnder {whether the initial 400 permits or later reduced in number) shall be "must takes". ?. Tenn. This Agreement shall be far a tern ("Tmn-~ of seven {;)years, conuurncing December 1. 2005 ("Conunencetuent Date") and expiring ~ Vovettrber 30. 201?. subject to sooner tetmiuahon iu accordance With dye tetuu of this Agreemert. 3- Tenmvatioa This Agreement mac be termivated as follons: (a} By Parking Operator, effective February 1. 2010, by gitiag rat less ahan 60 daps' prior rs~ntten nonce to Customer that the parking sync.-s for which such permits reeve 33!>'CB=6 Le: 4:E9? A-1 SAA9~IT Jt9N'S h3Ed8L7F•8 CE~V3'£~ AiV® ~5~l~L ~ PARKING DEMAND ANAlY51S ~ vazgr.~ mNSwuNn #37-8006.00 27y4NUARY 2009 issnzd arz reasonably nzczssarv feruse b}- occnpwts of Yahoo! Center; (b} If this Agreement has vot barn sooner tennvtatzd, then at any time after March 1. 2010 through the rtad of the Term Parkvag Operator stay terntavate this Agrzement as to not more than 240 of the 400 parking permits. by gnine not kss thaw 60 davs- prior tisritirn notice to Customer that the pazkiag spaces for which such prnvir, +.=;zre issued are reasonably nzcessarv for use by occttpwts of Yahoof Center; (c} If This Agreement has vot been sooner termvtated rhea err any time after March 1. 2010 thrnngh the end of the Tenn. Patkurg Opzrafor ma7 tem4ittate this Agreement as to the balance of the 400 parking germits- bs• giving nat less than 120 days' prior written noticz to Customer that the parking spaces for which such pzmuts were issued aze reasonably nzcessazc• for ttsz by occupants of Yahool Center; (d) B}• Cnstmner. effective November 30, 2012. by eicins raritten notice to Parking Operator no later than September 30, 20L; or (z} In accordance vvatis any defattlt provisions hereof. Temtination or expiration of the Underlying Agrzemens alone shall not temvnate this Agreement. provided Facility Owner or Faalit~~ Owner's agent has signed the `Consent' cL3use beloca; hovvever_ upon remtinarion or expiration of the Underlying Agzeemem, if this Agreement is still in effzct. then {i) this Ageemenrshall be deemed automatically assigned to Facility Ovvau and (ii) Standard Parking Corporation II, shall be deemed ro be released from all further obligations hereunder as of the state of stub assig9tntent. In the event of arm assignment of this Agreement to Facility Ovvner, Facility Oviner shall be free to fiudaer assign this Agreement. or delegate Parking Openfor s dtrties hereunder, to any successor parkine operator. 4. Use. The licznsed parking germits maybe used Duly for the storage and parking of motor vehicles- Vo gortion of the Farknig Facility ut~3~ lie used for auy° milan•fitl gtrrgose err any activity that may create a nuisance. 5. Fees. As considzratiou for the pazking priv7leges granted herein. Customer agrees to pay Farkiag Opz;atar a moutlilv fee {`-Parkin? Fee') according to the following schzdule: (a} Fmm the Commzncement Datz through Noveaibzr 30. 2009: $96.00 per permit per month: (b) From December i, 2009, tluattgFr Novenibzr 30. 2010: $]00.00 per gamut per month:. (c} Fmm December 1, 2410. through November 30. 2011: $]01.00 per penttit per month: (d) Fmm December 1. 2011• tluough November 30. 2012: $103.00 .per germit gar month: Lcc •4_60? SAIN4 JOHN°5 FIEAI.4H CET14E12 dTl® HOSP14d11. `+, VypLKER PARKING DHv1AND ANALYSIS ''" exepnic eoNSUnnNrs #37$006.C0 27 JANUARY 2009 (e} From December L 2012, through Noi-ember 30.2013: $1 L-DO per permit per motarh: (t) Front December 1. ?013, through Notiembet 30, 201-1= $116,00 per pemrit per month: and (a) From December 1. 2014, dtrough FloYember 30. 24]?: $120.Q0 per permit per monda. Iv addition. if arty applicble pazking taxes should increase dtirina the Tenn. or if nee'.- parkiaa taxes should be imposed during dhe Tenn, then the amotmt of such increase or the amount of such nett tax (as applieablel shall be paid b4 C'ustomer The Parking Fee shall be dtte and payable iu adrance, t>a or before the fast day of each month dtaing the Tetra - Ctutomer shall be issued non-transferable access cards or 4ranspoadess for access to the Parking Facility Which must be renuved to Parking Operator upon expiratiov or tenuination of this agreement in good working condition. Customer agrees to pay a replaceatent Y'ee of 520.00 for each access card ar transpondn (as applicable) that is lost. stoieu or damaged. ticket. Hourly pazkirto rates shall be charged for ent*y audor exit ttith apublic-access parking If any payment due hercvnder is not made he Customer within ten (10} days afrer the due date, then Parking Operator shall bare the right to: (i} charge interest at tha highest legal rate pemtittedby Ltw an the unpaid balance from the &~te such paratent became due and payable and (ii} ai its option. immediately reroke Cttstomer's parking pmileges and'or terminate this Agreemem Upon ti'nttea nohGe, w1t110Ui w3R7rlg Qf 1lnliting any of its Legal remedies (including the right ro teco~er attorneys fees and any other expenses incurred} tshich Parking Operator may pursue to collect the amotmt owed 6. Rules and Remdatiotts. Customer as, fees for itself and oa behalf of its ertaployees to abide b}-all posted or published roles and regulations now or hereinafter in effect pertaining to rise of the Parking Facilin• and agrees to reimburse Parking Operator for any expense incuaed as a resttit of any violation therrn£ including towing e.~spense o£ those cehiclrs parked by Customer which obstruct vehicles of other patizrs ixichulirtg rehicles of Parking Operator and' or its employees. 7. Na Bailment. No bailtuens is created b}-this Agreement. Parking Operator shall not be responsible for any damage to. or loss o£ Customc~s s•ehicles of any component parts thereof or personal propem~ iv such ~•ehicles, other than damage or loss directly caused by Puking Operator s ertiplayees. i.'EFIIC.LES OF CUSTOMER SHALL BE LOCKED :~VD PARKLVG OPERATOR SHALL I<OT BE RESPOltiSIBLE FOR ANY' THEFT OF THE L~HICLE OR ITS COIQTEDTS OR ANY- LOSS OR DAbL'3GE RESULTING FROM LEA~TiVG KEYS LV THE VEHICLE. ibis policy may not be mcinded nor modified by any Pazking .Operator employee, and Ctstomer acknowledges rl><1t Parking Operator ettayloyzes are not authorized to accept responsrbtlih° for storing ar safeguardivg any rehieles or personal properly located therein. Customer shall be =u5.rca-6 ~ Lm axes; ' SAi9V~' l~HPI`S H TH CENTER Ald® H~St~IT -: `v ~ PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS PARKING CONSULTANTS #37-&006.C0 27 JANUARY 2009 responsible far guy damage io the Parking Facility and for damage to aw v;ehicles or propem of third parties using the Padiug Facility caused b}° the tug thereof by Cuutomer and'or any of Ctuto~rs employees. 8. No Refunds. No refiwds. credits or allon~ances will be srauted to Cuutomer fur absence.acation or oth.~r non-tue of the Pazking Facility under this Agreement unless othernise agreed to iu noting b}- Parkutg Operator in zach instance, Leith stub agreement to be bindrng upon Parking Operator oul;• if ex,~cuted b}° as officer of Parking Operator. 9. Assisnanent and Sttblettuts. Customer may not assigst, sublet, sublicense or extend its parking pritileges hereunder. Parkins Operator may assign this Agreement to Owrtzr or EO_v1 or a successor parking operator and thereupon Parking Operator slntll be released of all further li<16ilih• herewder 10. Brokers. Parking Operator and Customer hereby Warrant to each other that they hate had no dealings widx any broker. agent or 5nder in conaecvov n=iih the proctuement or rreffotiatiou of this Agreement except that Customer has utilized the services of Ciaz}- L. Ioffe of Creatiti-e Fazking Soluioas, Inc. {"CPS'), antt that they know of no other broker. agent or finder n-ho is entitled to commission in connection ttith this Agreement. Customer hereby aclmonledges and agrees that it shall pay for all commissions. fmder'a fees and egnicalent comperrsation payable to CPS in connecnon With this Agreement ptusttant to a separate Written agreement between Customer and CPS. In addition, Customer agrees to indenutify. hold harmless and defend Farking Operator from and against any liabi]ity vv-hatsoev-er for any payment to CPS iu eotrnection Leith this Agreement. Each party hereto agrees to indemnif:,• and defend the other party against and hold the other park- hammless from any and all ctaiws_ demands. losses, liabilities. lawsnits. jtuigments- costs and expenses (including. ;tithout limitation reasonable attomecs' fees) With respect to any commission of egnit alant coarpensation alleged to be oning on accaiwt of ang~ dealings pith any broker. agent or finder other than CPS accturing by, through, or trnd°r the niderttnifyiug part}•. 11. Notices. A~• notices or other contmtraicarions required to be git-en b5• the parties Iteretmder shall be deemed given ugou deposit in the U.S. rllails, certified mail return recerpt requested or upon deposit With au overnight deli.en service such as Federal Express. or upon receipt if personally delivered, and shall b< sent to the following addresses: Standud Parkin? Corporation Il, Attu: Jeffrey S. Okyle, Vice Pres., $usiuess Development 70?tlR'ilshireBoulevazd 3~`~Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 St John's health Center Attn: Matua tiriuesburs. Vice President Transition Plannins 1328 "? ~ Street _ v Sant•t Monica CA 40401 1=. Attomevs fees. In the event that either park-hereto should {i) retain leaaI counsel and: or institute any snit against the other for ~ iolation of this Agreement or to enforce an}° of the 43.5?CAE ~ 8-4 Lee 3:fJi SAlN'0' 3H8H'S HEALTH tE9YTER AP] H®SP9TA1 ,_ v Vy PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS vaxswc consuuavts #37-8006.00 271ANUARY 2009 coceuams or conditions herein. or (ii) ititerceue in anc suit in r3-luclt the other is a party to enforce or prorect irs inreresr or rights hereunder, the peecailing parry in any such suit shall be entitled to all of its costs- expenses and reasonable fees of its attorney{s) nY cotinectiou thereryith. The rights aad obligations of this Section ,Ftall snn-ic•e the termittation or expiration of Otis Agreement- Iii t ~i3TVESS ~GTIEREOF- the p~uries hereto execute this Parl:iug Agreem~tt effzchrz as of the data fast abor-e rtniten. Smut John's Health Center Standard Parl;mtg Corparatian Ii. By _ (Name) {Title} _ Taxpacrr I.D. Na. Facilify Owner's Consent: B~• Dacz Kilfoyle Senior Vrce President The rtndersigned, as duly authorized agent for the Facility Os;•ner. agrees that, in the zrent the Uirderl}iug Agrzetuent expires, is trnuinated or cancelled or ce<ZSes to 6e in effect for any reason, thrs Agreemen# shall be deemed automaticall}• assigned to Facilih~ Oribrr. Standard Parking Cotporatiov II. shall be released of all further liabilih' hetetittdet; aad Facility Ot;ner (and its agents) shall recoy~ize and honor Custourer s rights render the foregoing parking License Agreement. 2009 Facility Orrver: Bp: Equity Office Drlauagemeut. LLC a Delarcare limited liability- company. Rs Duly-Authorized Agent By- Yame: Title: 3ii3C&-6 Lcc. -F=67i APPENDIX C DISCUSSION OF VALET PARKING SAINT JOI-Ilel'S HEALTkI CEB~TE APPENDIX C -DISCUSSION OF VALET PARKING E P:vxsar`iG COhSJUANi S FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT NUMBER 37-8006.00 Saint John's Hospital & Health Center Valet Operating Procedures MISSION: Saint John's parking operations strive to efficiently and safely provide parking services to its visitors, patients and families, volunteers, employees and physicians by providing valet and self-parking. 2009 Operations: Patient/Visitor Parking: Valet parking will be provided for patient, family and visitors from Lot C with vehicles parked and secured first in Lot B with overflow vehicles for valet parking in Lot H (John Wayne Cancer Institute). To expedite the valet parking process, arriving customers will be met in Lot C by a parking. attendant. Vehicles will then be driven to Lot B for parking unless Lot B is full, in which case, they will be driven to Lot H. Departing customers will provide their parking receipt to an attendant in Lot C who will then contact the valet attendant via radio in Lot B for delivery of the customer's vehicle to Lot C. (Vehicles parked in Lot H can be retrieved by valet attendants in Lot B.) This process should insure timely and efficient service to the customer. Emoloyee Parking: Employees of St. John's and John Wayne Cancer Institute will self- park in Lots A (the Koll Garage), D (the St. Anne's Lot), G (the Held Garage), H (181 of the 236 striped spaces) I (the Verizon Lot), J (the Foundation Lot) and K (Yahoo! Center). Physician and scientific staff will have a total of 80 spaces in Lots C, G and H. Specific Configurations and Operations: LOT A (KOLL GARAGE) There are 548 spaces in the Koll Garage, 145 of which are available to St. John's under an existing agreement, and are utilized by employees who self-park. The observations discussed in the Walker report determined that on the day the survey was taken, 8 spaces were used by patients or visitors to St. John's in this garage. LOT B (MRI LOT BETWEEN SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD AND BROADWAYI There are 136 striped spaces in Lot B but, as described above, the lot is used for valet parking for patients and visitors dropping their vehicles off in Lot C. As described in the Walker report, use of a valet system increases the capacity of this Lot to 150. c-~ SAISVT JOHB+O'S HEALTH CEiVTER V{/ K~ APPENDIX C -DISCUSSION OP VALET PARKING ~a°e:N000rs~~raNrs FEBRUARY 20, 2009 PROJECT NUMBER 37-8006.00 LOT C (EAST ENTRY TO ST. JOHN'S) There are 46 marked parking spaces in Lot C, 42 of which are designated for physician use with vehicles being either self-parked or parked by valet; the remaining 4 spaces are for short- term visitor valet parking. LOT D (ST. ANNE'S SURFACE LOT) There are 85 striped spaces which are used by employees who will self-park.. LOT G (HELD GARAGE) There are 922 spaces in the Held Garage, 120 of which are available to St. John's under an existing agreement. 100 of these are assigned to St. John's staff and 20 are reserved spaces for physicians. All vehicles are self-parked. LOTH (JOHN WAYNE CANCER INSTITUTE LOT) There are 236 striped spaces in Lot H. As of April 1, 2009, 55 will be reserved for use as overFlow valet parking for patients and visitors, 18 are reserved for scientific staff and 163 will be used by other staff; all staff will self-park. Through use of the valet system, Walker estimated that an additional 35 vehicles could be parked for a total of 90 being available to the valet for patients and visitors. LOT I (VERIZON LOT) There are 115 striped spaces in the Verizon Lot, all of which are assigned to staff who self- park. LOT J (FOUNDATION LOT) There are 153 spaces in Lot J, 21 of which are utilized by St. John's staff who self-park. LOT K (YAHOO! CENTER) Until the. beginning of 2009, St. John's leased 300 spaces in Yahoo! Center and had issued 270 permits to staff for self-parking. Under the new Parking License Agreement, St. John's expanded the number of available spaces to 400. This expansion will permit the reassignment of some staff parking from Lot Fi to accommodate the overflow valet parking described above. c-2 5~.1~1T JOFlId'S HEALTIN CEN'fE~ APPENDIX C -DISCUSSION OF VALET PARKING IE 2aeK:w~ ccNSU~r,~wrs FEBRUARY 20, 2009 2013 ®t~erations: PROJECT NUMBER 37-8006.00 Patient/Visitor Parkihg: Anew 100-space valet lot will be opened some time prior to 2013 and will be used for patient and visitor parking. This new lot will allow St. John's to remove patient and visitor parking from Lot H and convert those spaces for staff parking; Lot B will continue to be used by the valet operator for patients and visitors. Emolovee Parkino. Most of the employee parking described above will remain unchanged. However, there will be two significant changes. First, St. John's will lose 120 of the 145 spaces it currently has available to it for staff parking, reducing that number to 25, all of whom will be self-parked. Second, Lot H will be converted to full staff with a valet operator enabling Lot H to accommodate approximately 300 vehicles. C-3 APPENDIX D QUALIFICATIONS C ~~,6VY P~P9LE ALKER AC,K~NG CanSVtrANrc Parking used to be a straightforvvard consideration. Now, it requires a specialist. When one considers the cost, time and knowledge necessary to ensure success, working with a single resource for a totally integrated parking solution is the only practical option. With our comprehensive knowledge of the parking industry and over 40 years of experience, we are confident to call ourselves the leading parking consulting company in the nation. To us, it's not. just about concrete and steel. We have constant access to our internal experts with respect to operations, management, security, parking equipment, traffic flow, maintenance, restoration, and more. Our extensive knowledge base provides us .with a better understanding of the needs and requirements of our clients. Parking is not just a design exercise; it is our passion and chief concern. Our goal is to apply this passion towards providing each and every client with the most user- friendly, costeffective parking solutions. As testimony to our expertise, five members of our staff authored a textbook entitled PARKING STRUCTURES: Planning, Design, Construction, Maintenance and Repair. Now in its third ediiion, many industry experts consider this book the single best source of information on parking facilities. Ai Walker Parking Consultants, we are in the business of identifying problems and recommending solutions for all parking issues. Our full range of consulting services runs the gamut from initial feasibility studies through final design. A staff of more than 275 professionals, many with international experience, enables us to begin adding value immediately. Local codes and customs and the knowledge of locally manufactured products are not "learning curve" issues for us. Walker currently uses a host of technologies to help aid in the area of project delivery among its clients and partners. These technologies include Web- based project communication software for the development and design of projects all the way through construction. Communication tools such as these allow the entire project team to work better, collaborate, and help each other meet schedules by staying up to date and resolving issues quickly when the need arises. Walker Parking Consultants' history with sustainable design is rooted in thirty years of design experience, providing structures that require less maintenance and are more durable, ultimately. using less future material and resources. Staff members are LEED certified. Walker Parking Consultants is the only Parking Consultant in Engineering News Record's Top Design Firms Iwe ranked 212 out of 500 and Building Design and Construction's Giants 300 ~we ranked 18 out of 50 in the Engineer/Architects categoryl. VI51®P! 5'P~SEBJ9~fdT "We envision Walker Parking Consultants as the consultant of choice in all the services we offer. As the premier parking and restoration consultant, we will provide qualify service, establish industry practices, and add value for our clients." John K. Bushman, CEO/President, Walker Parking Consultants, 2007 When you have questions about which road to take for your parking needs, let Walker Parking Consultants steer you in the right direction. JOHN dV. DORSETT, d~9CP, CPP - ' SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR OF CONSULTING RESOURCES PazKinc covv~unts s Senior Vice President and Director of Consulting Resources, John guides Representative Experience: a parking consulting and study services group responsible for leadership in PRACTICE LEAD airport landside planning and design, functional design, operations Led the delivery of 2,500+ parking consulting, planning and financial studies, and parking access and revenue and transportation engagements. control systems consulting and design. He provides leadership and the necessary resources to successfully deliver 250+ engagements annually. FINANCIAL Conducted financial studies As a working manager, a planner certified by the American Institute of supporting over $1 billion in project financing/construction. Certified Planners ("AICP"l, and a member of the National Parking Associations' Parking Consultants Council, John also from timeto-time consults Conducted due diligence studies on complex parking and transportation consulting projects requiring including one for the sale of Allright specialized expertise. John's leadership and project consultation is based on Parking, a $216M revenue/year firm his involvement with hundreds of parking and transportation study in 1998. engagements for architects, airports, hospitals, municipalities, real estate developers, and universities located in all 50 U.S. states and several foreign Conducted financial study for a countries. The scope of these engagements has included parking supply and 10,000-space garage fo serve North ' demand modeling, parking planning and concept design, market and America s largest proposed convention facility, the 2.6M s.f. financial anal sis, shared arkin arkin mana ement, arkin access and Y P 9, P 9 9 P 9 World Expo Center. revenue control, and traffic and transportation studies. PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT In 1992, John was promoted to Department Head of the Parking Consulting Performed 35+ private development and Study Services Group. In 1996, he was promoted to Director of Study projects featuring mixed-uses such as Services and made a Principal of the firm. In 2000, he was promoted to entertainment, convention/meeting Vice President. In 2006, he was promoted to his current position. He room space, lodging, residential, and maintains a significant ownership interest in the firm. office. Prior to 'oinin Walker in 1990, John was em to ed with a national trade I g P Y Conducted shared parking studies for Arizona Center, Denver Place, association and a national real estate developer. There, he successfully Atlanta's Colony Square, and Seattle's completed consulting assignments involving market, demographic, economic, Niketown. financial feasibility, and site location studies for retail and residential housing developments. He is experienced in the planning, management, and Conducted parking Master Plan for administration of market surveys, including field data collection, direct mail, Universal Ciry Hollywood. telephone, and personal interviews, as well as statistical analyses. HOSPITAL Education: Performed 35+ hospital studies - including those for Detroit Medical Master of Business Administration, Butler University, 1991 Center, Methodist Hospital, and Bachelor of Science, Indiana University Kelley School of Business, 1985 Baptist Memorial Hospital, the largest medical centers in Michigan, Indiana, professional Af#iiiations: and Tennessee, respectively. American Institute of Certified Planners NPA's Parking Consultants Council MUNICIPAL American Planning Association Society of College and Univ. Planning Performed 35+ municipal studies International Parking Institute ACEC's Senior Executive Institute including those for the cities of National Parking Association The Urban Land Institute Cincinnati, Detroit, Kansas City, and Pittsburgh. presentations and publications: UNIVERSITY John has delivered presentations and been published extensively. .His work Performed 25+universitysrudies has appeared in the following periodicals: Urban Land, The Parking including those for the Universities of Professional, Parking, Today's Facility Manager, Shopping Center Business, Florida, Georgia and Florida State Health Facilities Management, and the Indianapolis Business Journal. A list of and California State IFullertonl contributions has been or can be made available under separate cover. Universities. - yli KER JCiH~ o ®®RSE'9T, ~,ICP, CPP ~aae~~Na causu~rrvrs SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR OF CONSULTING RESOURCES Presentations and PulslicaYionsc "Parking Requirements for Medical Office Buildings," ITEJournal, August 2007. 2. "Parking Districts - A Technique for Addressing Parking Issues," The Parking Professional, November 2006. 3. "Firm Calculates Parking Demand," RSV, Revenues from Sports Venues, December 20, 2006. 4. "Operating Costs: How Do You Measure Up?" Parking, July 2006. 5. "TDM Strategies," Speaker, Carolinas Parking. Association Spring 2006 Conference, Clemson, South Carolina, April 20, 2006. 6. "Guest Speaker: Develop Solid Teaming Arrangements," the Zweig A/E Marketing Lefler, March 7, 2005, pp. 2 8. 7. "Parking Management -The Nezt Level," Chapter 1 1, "Parking Facility Economics and Approaches to Financing," International Parking Institute, 2004, pp. 140-171 . 8. "Parking Requirements for Health Clubs," The Parking Professional, April 2004, pp. 50-52. 9. "Effective Community Parking Standards," Co Presenter, American Planning Association, 2001. 10. Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers, Co Author,lhe Urban Land Institute and International Council of Shopping Centers, 1999. 1 1 . "The Price Tag of Parking," Urban Land, May 1998, pp. 60-70. 12. "The Parking Crunch Myth -The Reconfigured Office is Affecting Parking Issues, But is it as Bad as Everyone Believes?" Co-Author, Today's FaciliryManager, May 1998, pp. 50-52. 13. "Price Tag of Parking," Today's Facility Manager, February 1998, pp. 1 and 21 . 14. "Operating Costs for Parking Structures Vary Significantly," Co Author, Parking, May/June 1997, pp. 1 8 20. 15. "Parking a Priority for Landing Tenants, Clients;" Indianapolis Business Journal, August 5, 1996, p. 21 A. 16. "When the Movies Go to the Mall" Shopping Center Business, May 1996, pp. 92 96. J®H9V W. DORSET(, AlCP, CPP SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR OF CONSULTING RESOURCES 17 'Predicting Parking Demand for Hospitals' The Parking Professional, October 1995, pp. 32-37: 1 8. "Finding a Parking Space' Health Facilities Management, July 1995, pp. 28-34. 19. "Predicting Parking Demand for Universities" The Parking Professional, October 1993, pp. 28-33. 20. "Annual Operating Cosi -Can it Really be Determined?" The Parking Professional, September 1993, pp. 28-32. -•' ~ W14LICEa3 FIPKINv CONSllt7APII5 • ~, 3Fi 1A/• ClRSETP, ~,ICP, CPP aasK~nccosscr=stirs SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR OF CONSULTING RESOURCES Seleeted pr®ject Experiences Hospital Studies • Alliant Medical Center, Louisville, KY • Athens Regional Medical Center, Athens, GA • Baltimore-Washington Mediml Center, Glen Burnie, MD • Bapfisf Memorial Hospital, Memphis, TN • Bon Secours St. Mary's Hospital, Richmond, VA • California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, CA • Christus Santa Rosa Healthcare, San Antonio, TX e Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH • Detroit Medical Center, Detroit, MI • Doctor's Hospital, Phoenix, AZ • Exempla Lutheran Mediml Center, Wheat Ridge, CO • Florida Hospital, Orlando, FL • Good Samaritan Hospital, Dayton, OH • Grant/Riverside Medical Center, Columbus, OH • Holy Cross Hospital, Silver Spring, MD • Memorial Hospital of Martinsville and Henry County, Martinsville, VA • Memorial Regional Medical Center, Mechaniaburg, VA • Mercy Medical Center, Baltimore, MD • Methodist Hospital Central, Memphis, TN • Methodist Hospital of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN • Providence Memorial Hospital, EI Paso, TX • Riverside Mediml Center, Kankakee, IL • St. Alphonsus Medical Center, Boise, ID • St. John's Mercy Medical Center, Creve Coeur, MO • St. Joseph Hospital, Reading, PA • St. Joseph Mediml Center, Towson, MD • St. Joseph's Medical Center, South Bend, IN • St. Vincent Hospital, Indianapolis, IN • St. Vincent Medical Center, Jacksonville, FL • Swedish Medical Center, Englewood, CO • The MED, Memphis, TN • University of Tennessee Cancer Institute, Memphis, TN • Virginia Baptist Hospital, Lynchburg, VA • University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD Municipal Studies • Allegheny Conference on Community Development • Birmingham Parking Authority • Borough of Red Lion, Pennsylvania • Buncombe County, Asheville, NC • Centre City Development Corporation, San Diego • Chicago Parks District • Cincinnati Center City Development Corporation City of Aurora, Illinois • City of Calabasas, California • City of Cheyenne, Wyoming • City of Cincinnati, Ohio • City of Columbus, Ohio-Mid-0hio Regional Planning Commission • City of Detroit, Michigan • City of Grand Junction, Colorado • City of Hermosa Beach, California •- City of Houston, Houston Convention Center • City of Huntington, West Virginia J®FlPf Aal/. D®~tSETT, A~CP, C~~ LKE SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR OF CONSULTING RESOURCES =nzK;rdo covsur;.N~s • Ciy of Kansas Ciy, Missouri • Ciy of Lafayette, Indiana • Ciy of Lansing, Michigan • City of Lima, Ohio • Ciy of Lincoln, Nebraska • Ciy of Martinsburg, WV • Ciy of Mesa, Arizona • Ciy of Norfolk, Virginia • Ciy of Normal, Illinois • Ciy of Pueblo, Colorado • Ciy of Rockville, Maryland • Ciy of San Jose, California • Ciy of South Bend, Indiana • Ciy of Topeka, Kansas • Clifton Heights Communiy Urban Redevelopment Corporation • County of San Diego • Hartford Parking Authoriy • Lancaster Parking Authoriy • OKI Regional Council of Governments • Philadelphia Parking Authoriy • Public Parking Authoriy of Pittsburgh • Reading Parking Authoriy • Town of Easton, Maryland • Tulsa Parking Authoriy • Universiy Circle, Cleveland, Ohio Private Development • 1525 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA • 9'" and Cary, Richmond., VA • Ahwatukee Foothills Towne-Censer, Phoenix, AZ • Allison Plaza, Woodland Hills, CA • Arizona Censer, Phoenix, AZ. • Bakery Square, Pittsburgh, PA • Bal Harbour Shops, Bal Harbour, FL • 8irminghamJefferson Convention Complex, Birmingham, AL • Catalyst One, Lincoln, NE • Children's Museum, Indianapolis, IN • Cincinnati Art Museum, Cincinnati, OH • Circle Centre Mall, Indianapolis, IN • Cleveland Botanical Garden, Cleveland, OH • Colony Square, Atlanta, GA • Deer Valley Towne Square, Phoenix, AZ • Denver Place, Denver, CO • Downtown Parking Financial Strategy Formulation, Columbus, OH • Fiesta Mall, Mesa, AZ • Fountain Square, Cincinnati, OH • Los Arcos, Phoenix, AZ • Mills Building, San Diego, CA • Moorestown Mall, Moorestown, NJ • Music Hall, Cincinnati, OH • Neev Bay Ciy, Elizabeth, NJ • New Orleans Centre, New Orleans, LA • Niketown, Seattle, WA • North Shore Live!, Pittsburgh, PA e Orlando Ciy Center, Orlando, FL • Osceola Trace World Expo Center, Osceola Count', FL v l~l.!(~ 9Finl . ®®RSE'C'~, lCP, CPP ave~:rvc co~sur:;,rvrs SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, DIRECTOR OF CONSULTING RESOURCES • Peabody Place, Memphis, TN • Phipps Conservatory, Pittsburgh, PA • Pittsburgh Arena Redevelopment, Pitsburgh, PA • Ritz-Carlton.Harbor Island Hotel, San Diego, CA • Sunset Station, San Antonio, TX • The Marquis, Yorktown, VA • The Piedmont Driving Club, Atlanta, GA • The Resort at Grayhawk, Scottsdale, AZ • Union Park, Las Vegas, NV • Union Station Gateway, Los Angeles, CA • Universal Studios, Los Angeles, CA • Will Rogers/Cultural District, Ft. Worth, TX • Wabash Landing, Lafayene, IN • Washington Nationals Ballpark District, Washington, DC University Studies • Boise State University, Boise, ID • Clemson University, Clemson, SC • California State University, Fullerton, CA • DePauw University, Greencastle, IN • Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL • Georgia Southern-University, Statesboro, GA • Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN " • Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA • Southern Mississippi University, HaGiesburg, MS • University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL • Universiy of Colorado at Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs, CO- • University of Denver, Denver, CO • Universiy of Florida, Gainesville, FL • University of Georgia, Athens, GA • University of Missouri at Kansas City, Kansas City, MO • Universih~ of Notre Dame, South Bend, IN • University of South Florida, Tampa, FL • University of Texas, Austin, TX • Utah State University, Logan, UT • Wichita State UniversiP~, Wichita, KS .,, v E "~ ~ PARKiNri CONSULTAMS ATTACHMENT F Saint John's Peak Parking Demand 2009-2010, June 2011 43 ~ d~~~ crag Oavner's Represeaata$ive May 26, 2011 Roxanne Tanemori, Senior Planner City of Sari#a Monica- 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA'90441 Re: Saint3ohn's peak Parking Demand Dear Ms. Tanemori, Per your request,;enclosed. is the updated peakparking demandJnformation for Saint John's Health Center.. The enclosed :information was. prepared based on the following: 1. The parking supply and demand analysisprepared by Walker $arking Consu}tents dated February 20, 2009.{°WalkerParking Study'}, Z. Data from SainiJohn's Human Resources Departmentabouttke actual number of sfaff members and physicians ahd cientists in 2009 grid 2010; and 3. Data from SaintJOhn°s Director of Accounting about the number of patientsfvisitors ort Saint John's 12~' busiest day. The 12v' busiest day data is utilized because the Walkerparking Study utilizes the 12`" busiest day as he "design day' an which peak parking,demand is calculated. After compiling this information, we uGiized the Walker Parking Study methodology.{See Tabfe 7 on page 13 of the Walker Parking Studyj to compute Saint John's peak,parking demand foc 2009 and 2010. As you. will notice, the peak parking demand for 2009 based on actual data is slightlytess than. predicted by the Walker Parking Study. _trraddition, the peak parking demandfar 2010 is else slightly less than predicted by the Walker parkingStudy far 2009 and slightly Less than the peak parking demand far 2009 based on actual data Most. importantly; a comparison of Saint John's peak parking demand based on actual data for2009s and 2010 with Saint John's current supply (1.;448 as of May 1, 2011 }.reveals that SaintJohn's has a surplus of more than 250 parking. spaces. Please let me know if you'have any questions about the. peak parking demand information. Sincerely,. Shane A. Miller„President Shane Mi1lerGompany, 11.C wwwshanem illercomoanv.com Owner's Representative for ; ` _ Saint John's Health Center ` TeL (310)829-8757 CeiL• {858) 349-6546 Fax:. {31U) 315-6186 Email: shane,millerCa~stiohns:ord P:O. Box 181679 Cororiado, GA 92178 Tel: {858}.349-6646 'Pro"eetec[2Q(19xFealc Q User Grouo Metric ar~:n ~De~1 d~rr Unit i IfI~aI. er1~+a~rcm Demand Ratio Stud Peak Demand~~~ ~~ Patients/Visitors 799 Patients/da .25 200 Staff 1,519 Projected .61 927 Physicians and Scientists 217 Current total .32 69 TOTAL 1,1196: , . '': k Table Two data from Walker Parking Consultants Parking Supply/Demand Analysis dated February 20, 2009 ("Walker Parking Study"). ~ 'd"~ " tixc De-t tanFc~ -n`=2069 Bas ed on Actual: Data. ', ,~ .., . User Group Metric Unit Demand Ratio Peak Demand Patients/Visitors 871 Patients/da .25 218 Staff 1,476 Projected .61 901 Physicians and Scientists 205 Current total " .32 66 £OTAL, ~. k ~ .1,1:$5:: Table Three patients/visitors, staff, and physicians and scientists data provided by Saint John's. Per the Walker Parking Study methodology, the patients/visitor data utilized is the 12"' busiest day. The demand ratios are the same ratios utilized in the Walker Parking Study. a _ls ~,~t~Parti'rn ` De~r -an~ -n 201af~ased:in~Acttiat"Data " User Grou Metric Unit Demand Ratio Peak Demand Patients/Visitors 827 Patients/da .25 207 Staff 1,487 Projected .61 908 Physicians and 211 Current total .32 68 Scientists ,..R ~T;OIpI~~ ~~ t'~k~~~~z1;1° 83 ` ~ , , . ...; Table Four patients/visitors, staff, and physicians and scientists data provided by Saint John's. Per the Walker Parking Study methodology, the patients/visitor data utilized is the 12'" busiest day. The demand ratios are the same ratios utilized in the Walker Parking Study. SAINT JOHN'S PEAK PARKING DEMAND ATTACHMENT G Summary of April 5, 2011 Community Meeting 44 ATTACHMENT G Summary of April 5, 2011 Community Meeting Comments Saint John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment Procedures & Communication/Information • City has not processed the Amendment application in accordance with State law governing Development Agreements. • Sufficient information has not been presented to the neighborhood about the Amendment since the application was filed in 2007. • City should host additional community meetings and postpone hearings to give neighbors more time to identify issues. • City should impose punitive damages on Applicant for not building garage. • More information about the Yahoo Center application and Saint John's parking study should be presented to the neighborhood before hearings. • Inquiry regarding whether garage construction is an obligation or a right. • There is a Zack of trust in the Development Agreement process. • Does not feel Saint John's is a good-faith negotiator as the institution has violated other terms of its Agreement, including those. pertaining to ambulance routes, the design of the North Lawn, and lighting. • Negotiations with the Applicant should not occur until community allows .staff to proceed; public benefits should be negotiated by and for the community, not by staff. Parking Garage, Parking in Neighborhood, Pedestrians, and Traffic • Subterranean garage is an obligation and needs to be built as originally approved. • Proposal to not build garage is a financial issue for Saint John's; for the neighborhood it is a quality of life issue. • Leased parking is not a substitute for the subterranean garage. • There is not enough parking in the neighborhood- for residents; there is not enough metered parking for commercial uses. • What is functionally equivalent parking? It depends on who you ask. • Traffic is very difficult in area and there will be more traffic in the future associated with Phase Two development of the South Campus. • Jay-walking along Santa Monica Boulevard is a problem; there should be consolidated entrances to the Saint John's facility on Santa Monica Boulevard. • Traffic on Arizona Avenue at 20th and 21"d Streets is difficult every afternoon; left turns onto Arizona Avenue are difficult and unsafe from medical buildings. • Many disabled placards appear to be used by Saint John's employees to park free of charge in surrounding Preferential Parking Zone neighborhoods and at meters. This issue is a significant problem that is not documented. • Saint John's current parking plan should work better; LUCE policies regarding shared parking don't work; shared parking is not effective and tantamount to `stealing'. Terms ofAmendment. Public Benefits, and Operational Issues • Other public benefits should be provided such as workforce housing. • Parking Management Plan terms are inadequate. • Parking fee charged for employees is too expensive. • Parking at Woodland Hills hospital is free; there are over 2,000 spaces provided specifically for visitors and additional spaces for employees. • Saint John's should provide free parking. • South Campus parking lots are over-used, especially those adjacent to condominium building located at 1440 23rd Street.. Employees who park during overnight hours adjacent to residential building are too loud (car alarms, etc.). • Security officers at Saint John's do not adequately respond to calls about noise disturbances in the South Campus parking lots at night. • Saint John's should provide more parking information to its visitors and patients. • City and/or Saint John's needs to address vehicle gridlock at 20th/Arizona intersection; study signal modifications; lane re-striping, and removing meters on north side of Arizona Avenue near intersection. • A crosswalk at 21St Street/Arizona Avenue would be beneficial to pedestrians. • Some Saint John's employees do not feel safe walking to South Campus parking Tots at night. • Sometimes South Campus parking lots are full when staff arrive later in the day. • Valet parking fee should be affordable. ATTACHMENT H Correspondence 45 April 22, 2011 Dear Roxanne Tanemori & Amanda Schachter, Ellen Brennan and I appreciated your inviting unto meet with you to discuss the St. John's Development Agreement. Your openness and receptivity made this a most productive meeting. Except for the last two points made about problems resulting from St. John's request for off-site parking, these notes reflect our recollections from the meeting. Please let us know if our recollections match yours. Essehtially, two matters were discussed: (1) our response to St. John's request to an addendtun to their development agreement and (2) policies and procedures related to City Planning. Regarding St. John's, we understand that St. John's has the right to request a change in their Development Agreement..- While the city has the ability to fine developers for failure to comply with development agreements, this process has not reached that point. We see the problems with St. John's Health Center to be like the problems that attend many development proposals: They are driven by the desire to maximize financial returns on investments without taking responsibility for their impact. This driving force to maximize financial returns may work against the interests of the city, of its residents, of other businesses, and even of the applicants, themselves. Because of this, the city needs clear policies and procedures to inhibit abuses. Because of pressure from developers, without such policies and procedures, the citymay fmd; by entering into certain agreements, that it is, in effect, condoning behavior that is unacceptable to the community, causing' loss of faith in city staff and in city government. First, the drive for financial return without responsibility has put St. John's at risk: • It puts St. John's out of alignment with its own Mission Statement: "We will, in the Spirit of the Sisters of Chanty, reveal God's healing love by improving the health of individuals and the communities we serve, especially those who are poor and vulnerable." • Paying low wages to nurses and asking them to bear the cost of their own parking creates an unhappy staff, causes increased turn-over, encourages more highly qualified nurses to seek work elsewhere, and may compromise the level of care that patients receive. • Not accepting Medi-Cal discriminates against the poor and compromises St. John's image. • By not providing reasonable on-site parking, but charging $13 for valet parking even for brief visits, St John's is adding stress to already stressed families. • Costly parking also means fewer visitors for patients, which diminishes the care they receive from their loved ones. • Costly parking also puts an unfair burden on those relatives who find the hospital has become their second home during a health crisis. This drive for financial return without responsibility also puts the neighborhood at risk: • Not providing on-site parking results in many-staff, patients, and visitors-to seek parking in the neighborhood, increasing the flow of traffic, reducing the quality of the air, taking up parking spaces that used to be available for people using other services in the neighborhood, and stealing spaces that businesses have set aside for their own customers and clients. • Shared parking, as described in St. John's proposal to change its Development Agreement, also results in increased trips, more strangers walking through neighborhoods, increased pedestrian risks, and greater congestion in areas not prepared for such traffic. As well, this drive for financial rehirn without responsibility puts our city at risk: • Though the LUCE is a conscious attempt by the city to inhibit actions by developers that would work against the interests of the city, each request for variances threatens to create unwanted precedents for policies and procedures that have not yet been put in place. • Because processes are driven by developers' interests, agencies are pressured to make decisions before giving matters due consideration. • Because processes are driven by developers' interests, developers have greater access to defining terms in ways that benefit them at the expense of the community. Consider this example: To those building residences, the city says that providing adequate parking is a requirement; however, to those developing huge projects, the city defines providing adequate parking as a community benefit. The city finds itself operating with double standards. Knowing that in times of financial stress, developers and businesses are more likely to request variances on agreements they have made with the city, community leaders in neighborhood associations recommend that new procedures and policies be developed and put in place to create a balance that would protect residents, neighborhoods, commercial interests, and the city, itself. Here are some of the suggestions we made to you at this meeting: • Place reasonable time limits on any variances passed in order to maintain the integrity of the original agreement and place conditions on these variances that require parties to fulfill their original agreements. • Conduct unbiased studies to measure and project usage, traffic flow, and other environmental consequences related to upcoming decisions before allowing proposals to be voted upon. • Create a matrix to predict parking behaviors when handling terms like "shared parking" so their appearance and consequences might be better understood operationally. • Provide neighborhood associations with a place at the table in order to level the playing field with developers, who have more resources-manpower, legal, and financial-so they might have an active role in determining appropriate and meaningful community benefits. • Use neighborhood associations as both a sounding board and a conduit of information for those in their areas so that they might help the city address resident issues and concerns. • Create pathways for participation so that members of neighborhood associations see that they can access those serving the city just as developers and representatives of special interests often do. Again, we thank you for what we believe was a most productive meeting. We hope these notes serve you well and that you will get back to us on any revisions you think are called for. On the behalf of Ellen Brennan and the leaders of various neighborhood associations, I offer our best regards. Most sincerely, Gregg Heacock President of Mid-City Neighbors Neig~~~ Committed To Helping Neighiaors Improve Their Neighborhood Apri119, 2011 Dear Roxanne Tanemori & Amanda Schachter, We are pleased to be invited to discussed how we might help one of our neighbors, St. John's Health Center, improve-our neighborhood. While neighbors own their own actions and Boara of ~irectnrc not those of their neighbors, they do strive to be at one with each other. People who attended Saturday's Neighborhood Association meeting found it easy to be at one with St. John's Mission Gregg Heacock Statement, given below. President xowara Meinaen We will, in the Spirit of the Sisters of Charity, reveal God's healing love by improving the health ice-President of individuals and the communities we serve, especially those who are poor and vulnerable. Euea xannan _ But the overwhelming consensus at this meeting was that St. John's Health Center has not zreasnrer been living up to the intent expressed by its founders. Instead, the decisions of those adminstering Maryaaae Solomon St. John's seem at odds with serving their mission. Here are some specifics: secretary 1. By harrassing nurses who seek to organize themselves into a union, specifically the California Nurses Association, the hospital has managed to keep their wages about 10% lower than the catnerine Elariage prevailing wage for nurses in our area. This has resulted in a greater turn-over of staff with a PNA Llafsbn disproportionate number being new to the profession. In effect, this anti-union stance lowers the quality of nursing, which is at odds with "improving the health of indviduals and the community we serve." 2. St. John's, for many years now, has declined Medical: 11us is inconsistent with serving "especially those who aze poor and vulnerable." 3. St. John's, in not providing on-site parking, has triggered extra trips for each caz that must be parked elsewhere, thus lowering the air quality of the area, increasing the traffic congestion, and encouraging people to take pazking that belongs to residents and businesses in the neighborhood. This is inconsistent with "improving the health of individuals and the communities we serve." 4. St. John's proposal for shared parking threatens to change the definition of shared parking. Valet parking is not shared parking. It creates a new business that invades the residential areas of Santa Monica, creating a constant stream of traffic near certain homes. This does not "improve the health of individuals and the community." Plus, charging $13 for people to come to visit sick relatives adds insult to injury It hardly serves "those who are poor and wlnerable." What makes this problem worse is this: By asking the City of Santa Monica to join into an agreement with them, St. John's Health Center is, in effect, asking our city to Condon behavior that is unacceptable. We appreciate the opportunity you have given us to see what neighborhood associations might do to encourage St. John's Health Center to align itself with the mission intended by its founders. We hope to join you to help this neighbor to improve the neighborhood we share. We thank you for this opportunity to be of service. Most sincerely, !~ ~~ Gregg Heacock Contact Phone Mailing Address Email Website 310-625-0946 1528 Yale Street#4 infodnidciTyneighbors.org htfp://www.mideiTyneighbors.org/ Santa Monica, Ca 90404 It®~E~T SPAS c~t;;r :~~ ~ ~,~~ ~ ,; ~,~ s ~, ,~ ~ ~~E~,~]EA A~l~'E, Nom. ~ C(TY r ~ ~'`i p'C; ~~ ~, ~ ,. i1 -6 P4:09 June 2, 2011 Roxanne Tanemori, AICP,_Senior Planner Re: Saint John's Health Center City Planning Division 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Ms. Tanemori: I believe the changes St. John's wishes to institute are a breach of good faith on its part. During the approval process, St. John's made much of how it would provide .adequate on-site .parking. Now they want to have off-site parking which will disturb traffic patterns, increase pedestrian traffic and concomitant accidents, and probably most importantly, increase parking revenue. It seems to me that all they want is to reduce the construction costs and maximize the parking income. They should be held to the promises they made.. Thank you. Sn~ereily, Jr j n J ~ / ~ , PLOBERT ~SPI~S fr i Roxanne Tanemors From: Gregg Heacock <Iogicconexpa roadrunner.com> Sent: Thursday, April 07, 20114:38 PM To: Roxanne Tanemori; Jing Yeo; Rod Gould; Kevin McKeown Fwd Subject: Seeking clarification re: St. John's DA Attachments: Chris Harding file.pdf; ATTOOOOl.htm Dear Representatives of Santa Monica, The following letter came to Mid-City Neighbors from Kenny Mack at my request. The Board Members of Mid-City Neighbors are interested in knowing about whether there were any irregularities in the process followed by St. John's in getting to the point where we are now. But, more than that, we are interested in the City of Santa Monica conducting a study of the usage of the St. John's Health Center facility by staff, patients, visitors, acid others and how that might correlate with the amount of spaces needed by any parking structure that might be built at this point. We know that a study was conducted many years ago, but we suspect the usage of that facility has increased. If we are going to review and modify past agreements, we should surely have on hand the information needed to make an informed decision. I know that I am writing to only a few of the interested parties. This email is an informal inquiry. But, given the nature of the conflict and how it has registered within our community, we feel we should make this informal inquiry now. Very best regards, Gregg Heacock, President of Mid-City Neighbors Here is Kenny Mack's letter to us, followed by Chris Harding's communication Chris Harding is correct in that notices to publicize hearings or meetings at the Planning Dept. are to be published/sent out at least ten days prior; but he ignores the fact that there have been some three or four meetings scheduled since the pending amendment was filed in 2007, and there is no evidence of the required notice of those meetings being published or sent out: Currently, there is a hearing scheduled for April 27th; meaning notices of that hearing are legally required to be sent out/published in a newspaper of general circulation within the next ten days. He also ignores the fact that the pending amendment asks for an extension of the "Phase One Vesting Deadline in order to provide additional time to commence and complete construction of the third stage of Phase One," meaning the current negotiations with city staff have taken place outside of the scope of the application and that the application clearly indicates an intent to construct the North Subterranean Parking Structure, which is part of the third stage of Phase One. Lastly, he ignores the fact that the extension itself has not been agreed to by the City Council, so these negotiations have taken place outside of the scope of any legal authority: Begin forwarded message: From: "Chris Harding" <hardingta'~hlkklaw.com> Date: April 7, 2011 9:25:33 AM PDT To: "Chris Harding" <harding o~hlkklaw.com> Subject: Noticing Requirements for Amending a Development Agreement Dear Community Member, During Tuesday night's community meeting about Saint John's pending application to amend its development agreement, Mr. Mack and Mr. Epstein argued that the City had a legal obligation to notify the public when Saint John's filed its application to amend its development agreement in 2007. In response, I indicated that I thought Mr. Mack and Mr. Epstein are mistaken on this point, but that our firm would take a further look at the issue. As promised, we have reviewed the State law (and City law) and prepared the attached memorandum. As you will see in the memorandum, the assertions made by Mr. Mack and Mr. Epstein have no legal merit. In accordance with State and City law, the City will be required to notice the Planning Commission and City Council meetings related to Saint John's development agreement amendment application at least 10 days prior to holding such meetings. The law does not require that the City. provide notice (either though a newspaper of general circulation or individual notices through the mail) when a DA application is fled, including when Saint John's filed its DA amendment application in 2007. As a courtesy, we wanted to ensure that each member of the public who was in attendance at the community meeting and provided his or her email address received a copy of the attached memorandum. Sincerely, Chris Harding Roxanne Tanemori From: Ellen Brennan <ellenbren@roadrunner.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 05;-2011 1:15 AM To: Roxanne Tanemori Cc: 'Eileen; Rod Gould Subject: Hospital requests permission to default on agreement Dear Ms. Tanemori, I am unable to attend the hearing, but want my comments to be part of the record. The request by the Administration of St.lohn's Hospital to delay building the required parking for 10 years has only one possible response-N0. The discussion should start with NO and end with NO, and in between there should be a time table that they have to meet to avoid incurring fines. And those fines need to be significant and escalating. When hospital administrators negotiated a Development Agreement with the City of Santa Monica, they received large development benefits in return for providing a public benefit. The public benefit is not optional. It's a requirement to which they've agreed. If they continue to refuse to abide by their agreement, they should be subject to court action and sued for the amount of the cost of the parking they're not providing plus court cosfis. This is not negotiable. Any slippage would mean the city is not doing its duty. When zoning laws are passed, they're approved by the City Council with input from the residents of Santa Monica. In order to grant an exception to the zoning laws, the city requires a public benefit that makes the exception worthwhile for the residents. Any slippage in enforcing development agreements will weaken the convention of development agreements and cause a serious loss of trust in our city government. The outrageous chutzpah of the administrators of St. John's hospital in trying to slime their way out of their agreement makes it difficult to find words to express the disgust residents feel. The lack of honor, the lack of good will, the lack of intent to fulfill their bargain, the slimy twisting of facts in service of their attempt to weasel is an insult to residents and to St. John of biblical origin, whose name they use. I hold the city accountable for enforcing development agreements and suggest you tell them they've got a certain amount'of time to submit plans for the parking they're obliged to provide, or fines will be levied. Development agreements are not slippery. In present day Santa Monica, the~/re firm. Cordially, EIIen Brennan 1659 Ocean Front Walk #102 Santa Monica, Ca. 90401 Roxanne Tanernori From: gayle cooper <gmcoop1007@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 9:43 PM To: Roxanne Tanemori Subject: ST JOHN'S St. John's is .supposed to be a site for healing. Let them begin by healing our community, our neighborhood by doing the humane thing and keeping all their promises to St. Monica. You can ask for. and receive more. Do it. Gayle Cooper Mid City Neighbors Member Roxanne Tanemori From: Cutewestsidelady@aoLcom Sent: Monday, April 04, 2011 3:11 PM To: Roxanne Tanemori Cc: TarfRadio@aol.com; info@midcityneighbors.org; logicconex@roadrunner.com Subject: ST JOHNS PARKING/ GOVERNEMENT FAILURE AT ITS WORST ROXANNE I BOUGHT A TRIPLEX IN SANTA MONICA IN 1994 AND IF I FAIL TO OBEYA STATUTE LIKE THE HEIGHT OF THE VENT FOR A WATER HEATER I GOT IN TROUBLE WITH THE CITY OF SM. MR. JERRY TUCKER OF THE SM CODE COMPLIANCE NOTED THIS DURING AN INSPECTION I REQUESTED IN 2007 HOPING TO ENLIST HIS AID IN HELPING ME DOCUMENT ASECTION-8 TENANT/SHE WAS A REAL LIFE HOARDER LIVING IN MY REAR UNIT. SHA HAD STUFFED ALL THIS CRAP IN MY SMALL 450 SQ-FT (100 YR-OLD) COTTAGE. APPARENTLY SHE DROVE THROUGH THE LOCAL ALLEYS AND COLLECTED CRAP LIKE DISCARDED COMPUTERS & CRT MONITORS FROM THE 1990'5 (MUST HAVE BEEN OVER 20 OF EACH IN THERE), ASST. SMALL FURNITURE, KNICK-KNACKS, STEP LADDERS, CRUTCHES/BROKEN CRACKED CROCKERY SHE'D REPAIR WITH GLUE .PLUS SHE TOOK IN 4 FERAL KITTENS AND USED AN OLD DISCARDED OIL PAN AS THEIR LITTER BOX. I HAD "OPTED OUT" OF THE SECTION-8 PROGRAM MONTHS BEFORE AND WAS IN THE PROCESS OF EVICTION BUT SHE REFUSED TO LEAVE. THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS THAT I HAD TO PAY THE PERMIT FEE OF $250 FOR 2 WATER HEATERS WHICH I HAD REPLACED SHORTLY AFTER I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. NOW IT WAS 2007 (13 YEARS LATER) AND I WAS STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR GETTING EVERYTHING INSPECTED PLUS PAYING THE PERMIT FEE AND FIXING THE HEIGHT OF THE VENT. 50 HOW DOES ST. JOHN'S GET AWAY WITH THIS OBVIOUS LEGAL DERELICTION OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT AND GET A FREE PA55 BY THE CITY ??? I WANT TO KNOW KNOW THAT. MADELYN TARFMAN Roxaa~ne Tanemori From: Paula Mayeda <mayeda@hlkklaw.com> Sent: Monday, April 04, 20111:58 PM To: Roxanne Tanemori Subject: FW: Santa Monica-St. John's Confronts Public at Library Tomorrow FYI From: Gregg Heacock <logicconex@roadrunner.com> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 201111:29:23 -0700 To: <info@midcityneighbors.org> ReplyTo: info@midcityneighbors:org Subject: Santa Monica-St. John's Confronts Public at Library Tomorrow Dear Friends & Neighbors, For years of neighbors, nurses, and community leaders have been beating their drums, declaring that St. John's Hospitals has fouled the streets of Santa. Monica with sewage, with traffic, and with unwarranted parking; yet, for all their outrage, they have failed to get the monster to step foot out of its cave to confront those charges. Until now, it has felt like. sound and fury signifying nothing. Tomorrow, promises to be different. The officials of St. John's Hospital will come before the City Staff and the general public in an attempt to change their parking agreement with the city that they have violated ever since making it back in 1998. This meeting is being held Tuesday, April 5th, at 7 p.m. in the Multi-Purpose Room on the 2nd Floorof the Main Branch of the Santa Monica Public Library. The article below, which comes from the Santa Monica Dispatch, gives some idea as to what St. John's proposal will be. It appears that the monster wants permission to continue to foul our neighborhood. If so, be a good neighbor and protect your fellow neighbors from further abuse. Either, come to the meeting or contact Roxanne Tanemori of Santa Monica's City Planning Division at 310-458-8341 or <Roxanne.TanemoriCa~smgov.net> to let her know your thoughts on this. Thank you for your help, Gregg'Heacock St. John°s ~.pparently Forgot to Build 440+ Parking Spaces "., 1 by Peggv Clifford „= I=, . "-,.~:~ ~_ ' ! 4 ~ Leave a Comment At its January 25, 2011 meeting, the City Council heard the staffs annual review on development agreement (DA) compliance. Obviously, when developers do not fulfill all the conditions of their development agreements with the City, not only are the agreements rendered pointless, but irreparable damage is often done - to the town and its residents. On Tuesday, April 5, at 7 p.m., City staff and St. John's Hospital officials will hold a community meeting in the Main Library to discuss the 440-plus underground parking spaces that St. John's development agreement with the City required it to build. The new hospital, which is much too large for its site and has wreaked havoc in the once relatively serene neighborhood, is up and functioning, but the 440+ underground parking spaces have yet to be built. Either the City didn't notice the absence of the parking spaces, or forgot about them, when it inspected the new building and issued a certificate of occupancy. Though the Council voted at the January 25 to enlarge the perimeter and thus increase the number of people who must be informed by the of such meetings, only people who live within 500 feet of the new hospital have been informed of this meeting. Apparently, St. John's wants the City to amend the agreement to allow it to delay building any parking for 10 years and, in the meantime, permit it to use other lots in the city. Naturally, St. John's neighbors, who repeatedly asked the City not to grant the hospital's demands for more and more latitude during the DA negotiations and were ignored, and who have suffered through the extended construction disruption and enlarging parking problems, want the City to require St. John's to fulfill the conditions of the DA and build the 440+ parking spaces now. One neighbor said, "The City now sets a new standard for development agreements -forget about it." The meeting will be held in the library, rather than Council Chambers, because the Council will meet in closed session Tuesday to evaluate the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk. Roxanne Tanemori. Prom: Barbara Filet <barbarafilet@earthlink.net> Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2011 12:35 PM To: Roxanne Tanemori Subject: Saint John's DA Saint John Health Center is trying to get out of a Developer Agreement which included the building of 442 underground parking spaces. It is probably a good thing to have less parking at this site, because more parking means more traffic. The ongoing negotiations about the Developer Agreement Compliance could be an opportunity to improve the area of the hospital for bicycling, which is, in-its current state, is very "inhospitable" to bicycling. The size of the block (after the city has apparently given up 21 st and 22nd Street) makes pedestrian and bicycle traffic difficult, the parking entrances and exits are full of conflicts, and SM boulevard is not welcoming at all for pedestrians and/or bicyclists. In addition, there are daily conflicts with McKinley school traffic because shift ends and school schedules coincide. I don't like idea of the added underground parking, because it will create more traffic, and is outrageously expensive. I wonder if instead of the parking, the hospital could instead create a bike path through the grounds, and promise better transportation management for its employees; including an active campaign to spur bicycling amongst the employees. Saint Johns, despite it being in the health care field, has never reached out to the bike community or supported more active transportation as a means to help battle obesity and its related effects in the community. They could become an ally of ours. Ldon't know the area well enough to know if a bike path is feasible or if any employees bicycle to work. The hospital is a huge obstacle to bike circulation. Roxanne, the LUCE (T9.9) calls for bike access every 300 feet in new development. Can this goal be imposed on Saint John's instead of building the car parking? Barbara ~toxanne Tanemori From: David Cole <Radcliffel@aoLcom> Sent: Friday, June 18, 2010 11:18 AM To: Roxanne Tanemori Subject: Re: Your inquiry about Saint John's Roxanne, Thank you so much for the update. As one can imagine the local residents are upset that the city is even considering allowing them to sub out short term off-site parking in exchange for not building long term on-site parking. Already the permit zone is overloaded with employee's using handicap placards and zone 4 permits from friends to park let alone the visitors using handicap permits as well. I understand they have the right to ask for consideration but the place they were going to build the underground parking is gone -anew building is on top of the space now. We just do not understand how that could happen. Here is myaddress and thank you for including me on the mailing list. David Cole 1303 23rd Street Santa Monica, Ca 90404 Thanks, David Cole Sent from a mobile device. On tun 18, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Roxanne Tanemori <Roxanne.TanemoriCcJSMGOV.NET > wrote: > David: > Saint John's application to amend their Development Agreement to > provide parking spaces off-site in lieu of building the subterranean > garage is still pending. We do not have definitive dates for public > hearings scheduled yet; the required analysis of their request is not > completed. > However, we anticipate hearings to occur in the Fall. There will be > notices mailed for any hearings. Pleases feel free to send me your > mailing address and I'll make sure you are on the list to receive > notices. We will also include the applicable neighborhood group(s) in > those mailings. > Let me know if you have other questions. > Thanks, > Roxanne Tanemori Roxanne Tanemori From: Planning Bldg Senti Thursday, June 17, 2010 2:42 PM To: Amanda Schachter; Roxanne Tanemori. Gc: David Martin Subject: PW: St. John's Lynn Wolken-Gonzales, Sr. Analyst Planning and Community Development City of Santa Monica (310) 458-2275, ext. 5071 (310) 576-4755 (fax) From: Radcliffel@aol.com [mailto:Radcliffel@aol.com] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 9:23 PM To: Planning Bldg Subject: St. John's I am the former President of the Mid-City Neighbors Community Group have been involved in the entire development process and final agreement by the community on the terms of the Development Agreement related to the current project. Over the past year an item has been on the calendar that would allow St. John's to seek to amend the agreement to not build the projects on-site underground parking structure (300+ spaces). It no longer appears on the calendar and the local community is concerned that the hearing has disappeared from the City web site. Please assist us in determining the status of St. John's request to amend and when (and if) a hearing is now scheduled. We have dozens of people who wish to address the issue publicly. Thank You, David Cole, 310-383-6051 HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP ATTORN eYS AT LAW ~^1 F,1-ER'i DIRECT DIF,L 12iC SIXT:i STREET, SUITE '.OC bV F.ITE R'i E-MAI_ ADDRESS SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIh 90401-1 602 (310) 451-2968 rELEPHCNE ;:lo> 's93-toe? hording@hlkklaw.com fAC SINi.LE 1310j 392.353? June 3. 2011 VIA E-MAIL & MESSENGER DELIVERY Santa Monica Planning Commission 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Saint John's DA Amendment Application Hearing Date: June 15, 2011 Our Fife No. 20440.001 Dear Commission: Saint John's DA amendment application is scheduled for your June 15th meeting. In advance of this meeting, we have prepared an information packet about Saint John's and its proposed DA amendment. We have enclosed this information packet for your review. The packet includes the following documents: A. A summary of Saint John's parking, including current parking supply, the increased parking supply if the DA amendment is approved, peak and average parking demand data, and a comparison of Saint John's parking supply and demand if the DA amendment is approved with that projected in the EIR; B. A map showing the location of each parking facili#y and the capacity at each facility; C. A site plan; D. A summary of the community benefits that are provided under Saint John's current Development Agreement; and E. A summary of the additional community benefits that are included in Saint John's proposed DA amendment. We have attempted to include all the information you may need to make an informed decision on Saint John's proposed DA amendment. If upon review of this HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LA4V Santa Monica Planning Commission June 3, 2011 Page 2 information you have further questions, please let us know so that we can gather any other information you may need. Sincerely, ~°~ Christopher M. Harding cc: Eileen P. Fogarty Amanda Schachter Roxanne Tanemori Alan Seltzer Barry Rosenbaum Shane Miller 20440/Cor/Comm ission.1003.CM H ®®cument Index Exhibit A Saint John's Parking Exhibit B Parking Plan Exhibit C Site Plan Exhibit D Community Benefits under Saint John's Development Agreement Exhibit E Additional Community Benefits under Saint John's Proposed DA Amendment SAINT JOHN'S PARKING A. PARKING SUPPLY AND PARKING DEMAND Supply As of Peak Parking Surplus -Peak Surplus Peak Surplus May 1, 2011 Demand: Parking Parking {with 2009 Walker Demand: Demand: valet/attendant) Projected 2009 Based 2010 Based on Actual on Actual 1,448 1,196 +252 ` 1,185 +263''. 1,183 `+265;' For details about supply information see Table 5. For details about peak parking demand see Walker Parking Consultants Parking Supply/Demand Analysis dated Febniary 20, 2009 ("Walker Pazking Shidy") and Tables 7, 8 and 10. Supply As of May 1, 2011 (with valet/attendant) 2009 Average Surplus Parking Demand 2010 Average Parking Demand Surplus ~ 1,448 ~ 1,106 For details about parking supply information see Table and l 1. DA Amendment (with valet/attendant) 1,528 1.112 average pai see Tables 9 Per 1998 EIR 1,438 Peak Demand 1,306 1,263 (Projected by Walker for 2013) Surplus +222 +175 Parking supply if DA amendment is approved is based oa the existing sttpply (Table 5) plus an additional 80 spaces due to a new surface pazking lot that will be added adjacent to the Entry Plaza ("West Lot"). Peak parking demand projection for 2013 is from the Walker Parking Study. 1 B. PAd2KING SUPPLY s ° 11 111 1 11 1998 EIR May 1, 2011 (with valet/attendant) DA Amendment (with valet/attendant) North 440 69 149 Campus (NSPS) (58 at Lot C+ 11 at Loading Dock) (58 at Lot C+ 11 at Loading Dock + 80 at West Lot) South 448 592 592 Campus (271atJWCI+180atLotB+141 at (271atJWCI+180atLotB+141 at Lot I) Lot I) Leased 492 779. 779 (Held/Koll) (84 at Koll + 150 at Held + 95 at Saint (84 at Koll + 150 at Held + 95 at Saint Anne's + 450 at Yahoo! Center) Anne's + 450 at Yahoo! Center) ER 18 8 8 Total 1,438 1,448 (+10 above EIR) 1,528 (+90 above EIR) 1998 EIR parking supply data is from Saint John's Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 97011022) ("EIR"). For details about the May I, 201 I parking supply please see Table 5. Parking supply if DA amendment is approved is based on the existing supply in Table 5 plus 80 spaces due to the addition of the West Lot adjacent to the Entry Plaza. C. PARKING I)EVIAND Patients/Visitors 799 Patients/da .25 200. Staff 1,519 Projected .61 927 Physicians and 217 Current total .32 69 Scientists TOTAL 1,196 Table 7 data is from the Walker Parking Study. Patients/Visitors 871 Patients/day .25 218 Staff 1,476 Projected .61 901 Physicians and 205 Current total .32 66 ~ TOTAL x:1,185 Table 8 patients/visitors, staff; and physicians and scientists data provided by Saint John's. Per the Walker Parking Study methodology, the patients/visitor data utilized is the 12`h busiest day. The demand ratios are the same ratios uffiized in the Walker Parking Study. Patients/Visitors 554 Patients/day .25 139 Staff 1,476 Projected .61 901 Physicians and 205 Current total .32 66 J V 1G11L1J W TOTAL 1,106 Table 9 patients/visitors, staff, and physicians and scientists data provided by Saint John's. The patients/visitor data utilized is the arithmetical average using 365 calendar days. The demand ratios are the same ratios utilized in the Wallcer Parking Study. 3 Walker Parking Study. For details about the 2009 and 2010 parking demand based on acriial data please see Tables 8-11 below. Patients/Visitors 827 Patients/day .25 207 Staff 1,487 Projected .61 908 Physicians and 211 Current total .32 68 Scientists Table 10 patients/visitors, staff, and physicians and scientists data provided by Saint John's. Per the Walker Parking Shady methodology, the patients/visitor data utilized is the J2"' busiest day. The demand ratios aze the same ratios utilized in the Walker Parking Shady. Patients/Visitors 545 Patients/day .25 136 Staff 1,487 Projected .61 908 Physicians and 211- Current total 32 - 68 Scientists ~ TOTAL ~ 1,112 Table 11 patients/visitors, staff, and physicians and scientists data provided by Saint John's. The patients/visitor data utilized is the arithmetical average using 365 calendar days. The demand ratios are the same ratios utilized in the Walker Parking Study. 4 odnc l9 JpaCes .~. LANT ~. M.O.B. O~-Iti»6a '. - 200t/2021 O O ~ H~~ GARAGE 0 ~' ~~j DFiT Held vvop ~~ BULDING 150SpaCeS EODOOKOGY - °~ zoos M.O.B. Santa Monica Blvd. KOLL BUILDING 2020 GARAGE KOI S 84 Spaces { West Lot 80 Spaces 2ozi M.O.B. _ Lot B 180 Spaces illlllllllllll IIIII11111 r 11 IIIIIIINII I~ _ -Q- ~ -ti Lotl - 141 Spaces e II C m v M N Bf08dW8y 4nne's Church :olorado Ave. Yahoo Center ~ !r ~~ V N C \ ~ ~ ~INPATIE Y~ 'CENTER- /~\"\ - ~ D C II ~~~ Lot C ~ '' ,I 58 Spaces ~ j BANK -% o C J E , _w:a;.rrm:z EF. x ~'~ - ~~ SAINT JOHN'S COMt1~lUNITY BENEFITS PUI2SITANT TO ITS IDA A. Community Benefits Program, including the Santa Monica Community Access Plan In compliance with its DA, Saint John's maintains and implements an annual Community Benefits Program that the City's Director of Community and Cultural Services must approve. For 2010, the Community Benefits Program demo-nstrates that Saint John's has maintained an estimated $8,145,814 of community benefits. The amount of community benefits is an annual, not cumulative, amount. .Saint John's Commumity Benefits Program includes a Santa Monica Community Access Plan ("CAP"). The CAP is intended to ensure that a portion of the benefits are focused in the Santa Monica area. The DA requires the CAP to have a 2010 dollar value of $875,193. In 2010, Saint John's provided $5,259,235 based on the five categories identified in the CAP. These include: • Cash support to the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District ($152,500), including grants to child development, school nursing programs and at risk youth. • Charitable medical and mental health services to patients that are students and directly referred by the Santa Monica Monica-Malibu Unified School District ($122,929). • Cash and in-kind support to local non-profit organizations ($2,687,545), including: • Free imaging, laboratory and cardiology services provided to 2,213 patients referred by the Venice Family Clinic and '790 patients referred by Westside Family Health Center; • .Support for the Venice Family Clinic Nurse Practitioner Program; • Grant to provide OPCC's Daybreak Shelter and Access Center; • Grant for homeless service center, Bread & Roses cafe, and food service job training program at St. Joseph Center; • Grant to provide school nursing services for Saint Anne's School; and • Grant for a Student Resource Coordinator at Pico Youth & Family Center. Charitable medical and mental health services to patients referred from local non-profit organizations ($1,774,160), including outpatient mental health services for children and families, persons who are deaf and/or hard of hearing, persons with developmental disabilities, and individuals and families impacted by child abuse. This amount also includes charity hospital care provided at Saint John's to Santa Monica residents and homeless persons. • Community service available to the general Santa Monica community that promote health education and preventive health services ($522,101), including health education classes, the portionof Saint John's newsletter that is attributed to community benefits, and education of health professionals at Santa Monica College and trade schools. B. Childcare Program The DA requires Saint John's to provide full-day childcare, including infant/toddler care, for its employees and the community. The DA further requires Saint John's to provide tuition subsidies for lower-income families on an annual basis. In 2010, Saint John's childcare program Early Childhood Directions included the following: • 69 total children served, including 52 children of Saint John's employees and workforce and 6 children with special needs; and • 29 children received ttiition subsidies. Although not required by the DA, Saint John's also operates a mental health intensive day treatment program for preschoolers, the Therapeutic Preschool, which is a Department of Mental Health program. SAINT JOIIN'S DA AMENI9M~NT: ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS 1. Sustainability/Shared Parking: Implementation of the City's sustainability and shared parking policies, which are in the City's LUCE. These include: • "While it is important to have sufficient parking, building too much parking is wasteful." (LUCE Circulation p. 4.0-67) "The City plans to encourage parking efficiency strategies such as shared parking (including sharing of existing parking), lowered parking requirements, and parking pricing to reduce the demand for parking. Reducing parking demand can also encourage alternatives to auto travel, promoting apedestrian-friendly urban landscape by reducing the amount of urban space dedicated to parking." (LUCE Sustainability and Climate Change p. 3.1-10) • "Consider allowing developers to meet their minimum parking requirements via shared parking between uses, payment of in-lieu fees, or off-site parking within a reasonable walking distance." (LUCE Circulation Policy T26.7, p. 4.0-73) "If the owners and operators of properties can demonstrate that they have more parking than is actually necessary to meet the needs of their various users (employees, visitors, etc.), consider developing parking efficiency strategies that include leasing their surplus parking to help alleviate parking shortages and avoid development of unnecessary parking." (LUCE Circulation Policy T26.11, p. 4.0- 73 • "Utilize parking and TDM Districts to facilitate efficient use of parking resources, shared and reduced parking opporhrhities, and trip reduction goals." (LUCE Citywide Land Use Policy LU4.8, p. 2.1-14) 2. TDM: Implementation and maintenance of an aggressive TDM Program. 1.5 AVR with a step-up to 1.6 AVR after the light rail arrives. This would result in a significant increase in Saint John's current AVR, which is 1.37 in AM and 1.36 PM. • If Saint John's. doesn't achieve its AVR performance standard, Saint John's must modify its TDM Plan in order to achieve compliance. 3. Neialtborhood Protection Plan: Implementation of neighborhood protection measures that were developed in response to input at the commuunty meeting and other informal input from community members. These include: Annual noticing to ambulance companies of DA restrictions on use of ambulance sirens. • Prohibition on Saint John's valeting cars to the Yahoo! Center. • Prohibition on Saint John's operating a shuttle to and from Yahoo! Center. • City approval of valet routes requirement, with additional requirement that all valet routes minimize the use of residential streets. • Noise reduction parking policy under which no vehicles shall be permitted to park immediately adjacent to the residential building located at 1440 23rd Street at night. • Security escort services for employees walking to their cars. • Providing an ombudsperson, whose contact information is available to the public, to manage questions and neighborhood complaints relating to parking and other operational matters. The ombudsperson will be responsible for determining the. appropriate Saint John's employee to address these questions/complaints and following up with the employee. The ombudsperson will be required to keep a record of these questions/complains and report them to the Ciry annually. • Providing parking for special events at McKinley Elementary school during the evening, up to 5 times per month. • Paying up to $30,000 for a lighted crosswalk at the intersection of Arizona Avenue and 21st Street. • Paying one-half of the costs, up to $15,000, for a study regarding the implementation ofadditional lighted crosswalks in other locations near Saint John's. 4. Neighborhood Preferential Parking: Support for a preferential parking zone that includes the west side of 23`d Street between Santa Monica Boulevard and Arizona Avenue and the south side of Arizona Avenue between 20th Street and 23`a Street. 5. Subterranean Parking Garage: Clear obligation for Saint John's to build the subterranean parking structure if the City determines it is necessary to meet Saint John's peak parking demand. 6. Saint John's as a Community Benefit: Preservation of Saint John's as a viable non-profit community hospital, including the substantial Community Benefits Program it provides under the current DA. [See Saint John's Community Benefits Program Handout.] 2 S'I' IleTS'I'E `I' S, l®TC. 1112 7`~ Street Santa Monica, California 90403 June 14; 2011 Santa Monica Planning Commission 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Saint John's Proposed Amendment to its Development Agreement Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Board of Directors of Westminster Towers, Inc., anot-for-profit organization that owns two a#fordable senior housing projects in Santa Monica, Westminster Towers and Geneva Plaza. Westminster Towers and Geneva Plaza are home to more than 400 low-income senior residents. We believe we are the largest source of low income senior housing in Santa Monica. . Geneva Plaza is located at 1441 21s` Street (between Broadway and Santa Monica Boulevard}, which is less than one block south of Saint John's new hospital facilities, and is adjacent to the Saint John'slJohn Wayne Cancer Institute parking Iota We have been Saint John's neighbor for about 30 years. As Saint John's neighbor, and as the home of approximately 130 seniors who benefit from the health care services Saint John's provides, our Board of Directors has unanimously voted to support Saint John's proposed amendment to its development agreement with the City. We ask the Planning Commission to recommend its approval at your upcoming June 15"' hearing. We recognize that Saint John's is an important community institution. For nearly 70 years, Santa Monica residents have benefited greatly from Saint John's health care services and contributions to the community.. We are persuaded that Saint John's alternative parking arrangement will meet their parking needs without harm to Geneva Plaza or others in the neighborhood. Approving the DA amendment is a responsible step towards helping Saint John's fulfill its health care mission and continue as a viable health care provider in the years ahead. Sincerely, //] s _~Y * a~ Vice President Chief Executive Officer Westminster Towers, a California Corporation Kyle Ferstead From: Ted Winterer <tedwinterer@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 12:51 PM To: Kyle Ferstead Subject: Fwd: Summary of AVRs for Large Employers Attachments: Summary of Recent ETRP Reports.xls ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Paula Mayeda <mayeda(n~hlkklaw.com> Date: Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:29 AM Subject: Summary of AVRs for Large Employers To: Ted Winterer <tedwinterer(?izrnail.com> Cc: Chris Harding <harding~a hlkklaw.com> Ted, Chris asked me to send you the attached chart which we prepared last year. The chart summarizes the AVRs for many of the City's large employers. We haven't had an opporhznity to update this chart with 2010 data, but we are in the process of requesting the reports for each of the entities from the City so that we can do so. Please note that we prepared this document for our internal informational purposes and as such did not look into some of the details which I've noted on the bottom of the chart (i.e. why Lions Gate's report seems to show that they paid more per employee than the others). The chart reflects that many of the City's large employers are not meeting the 1.5 AVR target and have quite a way to go. In addition, the chart shows that the fees imposed by the Ordinance are seemingly insignificant for most large employers. Please let us know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Paula Paula J. Mayeda Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP 1250 6th Street, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 t: ,{310) 656-4311 f: 1310) 392-3537 NOTICE OI+' I)ISTIZIBUTION: This e-mail message contains information that maybe confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive messages for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose this message (or any information contained in it) to anyone. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Nothing in this message should be interpreted as a digital or electronic signature that can be used to authenticate a contract or other legal document. ' * o ~ ~ o o o o o o ~ ° o - i N ~ 0 N ' V M ~O M W O O) d) t0 i~ .O - ~ O N V t0 N O * O (O N O N M * O N O * ~ Uf y N (O M d O N ~ 1~ O V O W O ~ N CO [h D1 V (p M V_; - ~ d. O t!J ~ t0 N W r N r r O M M M M LL? M ~ N ~ CO ~ EH ~ I~ (Op fA N W n M M M ~ (F} O N ~{} fR K3 EA 64 H} 64 fPr £4 V3 ~. ~. fPr ~ K3 ~v j M, O Efl O fPr ~` f%k -_m -~m• -- M O tf) M O V O N O O ~ M N V p d' O d' r N O Q: ~~ O V of d' (D N 61 r M N N r N d- V r tC1 M N M ~ 1~ O O M ~ M N O N 'd' O ~ Q N r r r r "E ' ; ;wl ~ * t . O OJ W Q) W O) W O) d) d7 O) d) W OJ ~ 61 W O d) d) d) d O 4 O N O ~ O N O V O d O d O N O ( O N O N O O O V O ~ W O O ~ 0 V 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 ; ' 7 ' ' t 7 ~ ' r ++ -:tQa. O co N u~ O i0 N u~ r m r m r m 0 o 0 co N i`n N ~ N rn N ~ O m I r 0 r m r m r rn N m r i0 N m _ ., . o o~ o o~ o o~ o o~ o o~ o o~ o o~ c- o~ o m o o~ o m o o~ o o~ 0 co r 0 m 0 m 0 m 0 o~ 0 o~ 0 m y ~. 0 0 ~ 0 r 0 ~ 0 O 0 O 0 O 0. ~ 0 ~ 0 o? 0 ~ 0 0 O 0 N ~ ~ o 0 O 0 ' 0 0 0 - r O r O r r r r N O r r ~ N O M ~ d ~ ~ { ~' - (O 47 (O tfJ W ~ W 01 (D t(1 t(7 01 1~ M ~ GD ~ W ~ (O W , ~_. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 =s .~ ~ ~ t0 O r r M (O r I~ N O N ~ V r M (p M 1~ M M .. ~ _ ~ C ~ C ~ ~ ~ C C (Q ~ , r ~ ~ r ~ a„ b , ,a ~ .T ~. V O r M r I~ V c0 d) t0 O N t0 V W V N 1~ O N ~ P .t~Q+ O r r N N M N M M d' V M u7 LL~ LO l0 O N C M Va` ~ r ~ . i";'Q' tL <., x, ~~ ? Q~ i~ O O r V t0 r N M N V' N 47 N V N (O M c{ (O M O M O N l0 O O l0 of t0 V (D O C' W ~ C1 ~ s~~~. m' r r r r r C r ~ r r C T' '0.: ~. ' J`-1~ Q°°: O O r d' t0 O r N V' N 1~ N O) N CD M N M OJ M o] M W M N LO M i(1 M t0 N t0 N CO o~ V O CD Nf: r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r' + + + L ~ 3 y ~ m U = °~ U c m N fd U a ~> `~ :z ~ 'm N ~ R l0 c: .-~+ ~ Q J V 'c U 'c ~~~ m ~ E U ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ O 3- ~ 2 y ~ ~ OC Q R N Q f0 v a~. M d O ~ ~ ~ U N Z ~ ~ ~ m C c ~ ~ E 0 (~ O` ~ L y •n 0 d fA ~ d .r C d ~ ~ L: 0 . . r U ' ' f U U U' ~ U' ' J G 2 ~ Q d (n LL } (n [n ~ n U U Q; O N (6 d (6 O CQ1 U 0 N w m L F Q 0 d N O N N L ~ T C ~ >. O a~i > w j U -O U N C C O O ~ U N ~ N ~ 0 -6 ~ ~ d °-ro` °° o U N ~ N ~ N .O. O 47 d ~ 'L" N r Oj ~ N ~ O ~ ~ O N O ~O .Q ~ O r ~ (4 r ~ ~~ ~ ~ ° _ ~ U L ~ ~ > N O ¢ U O U [6 N ~ W ~ m ~ ~ m o v a°i E ~ Q m ~ m O U a ~ ~ w 'O "- ~ N U E ~ N m ~ E'c o °o ~ c U o ~ o c ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ U A ~ N O ~ w E E o ~ ~ ~ a (6 D_Q'~ O_N O O O O ~ a ~ w ,~ O O N ~ o I~ N U C 4-J ~ m l0 O I- ~ L N U O r °a m a w C U N O E E O U O O V O N 06/14/2011 14:30 3105661510 57 MDNICA CHURCH PAGE 03/03 ~~ ~' S~. MOr11C~. Ca~hOLiC COTTI.ZT1LlZlltt~ June 1a, zo11 City of Santa Monica Planning Commission City Hali 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, California 90401 Dear Planning Commissioners, 1 would like to be a volts of support for the proposed development agreement amendment by St. John's Hospital. I understand how complex Issues can be related to development and the well being of a community. I do believe, however, that St John's has taken a thoughtful and reasonable approach to its parking needs in the interest of its employees, patlerits as well as 'the neighborhood. I am impressed by tfie concrete alternatives proposed by St.lohn's hospital such as the lease of existing nearby parking, which !s a much more sustainable approach, and a more aggressive. transportatlorlmanagsment plan, which will have a more long term benefit in encouraging behavioral and cultural changes related to transportation. Finally, since studies demonstrate that St. John's has and will continue to have a surplus n# parking spaces, then I feel the proposed amendment should be seriously considered. St. John's Hospita! is one of our finest Institutions in Santa Monica and has always been committed to servingthe community, especially those who are poor and vulnerable. i v(slt parishioners frequently at the hospital and witness the dedicated care provided. I see the need to avoid costly and unnecessary construction and I urge you to support their request. Sincerely, Msgr. LloydTorgerson Pastor St, Manisa Catholic Cammun{ty aurm4~lon To form loving disciyies who will transform the world :uee~ T25 California Avenue, Santa Monica, CA 90403 panne (310) 566-1500 r~: (310) 566-1510 ,nn am www_stmontca.net Kyle Ferstead From: Ted Winterer <otedo@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 8:52 AM To: Kyle Ferstead Subject: 1990 Transportation Management Ordinance Kyle, Please forward this link to a summary of our 1990 TMO to the Commission: www.smaov.net/uoloadedFiles/Deoartments/TransportatioNGoihq Places/TMP%20ORDINANCE%2016.0.4%20SUMMAR Y.pdf Thanks Ted The City of Santa Monica Transportation Management Ordinance 1604 -Summary The City of Santa Monica's Transportation Management Ordinance #1604 was enacted by the City in 1990 in an effort to reduce traffic congestion and improve airquality. The Ordinance affects employers with ten employees or more and focuses on reducing the number of employee commute trips generated by Santa Monica employers. Employer Requirements: Employers are required to submit annual transportation plans to the City. ,Employers are notified by mail each year before their plan due date and provided with all necessary plan forms. Employers of 10 - 49 employees are required to attend aCity-sponsored workshop and submit a worksite Transportation Plan (WTP) to the City each year. The WTP outlines how the employer will provide all employees with ridesharing information. Employers of 50 employees or more are required to designate a certified Employee Transportation Coordinator (ETG) and submit an annual Emission Reduction Plan which implements one of the following options: Emolovee Trip Reduction Plan This option is an incentive-based plan which focuses on reducing employee trips to and from the worksite. Employers must survey their employees to establish commute patterns for the morning 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.) and for the evening (3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m:). A 75% employee response rate is required. After surveying and establishing an Average Vehicle Ridership (the number of employees per car that arrives at the worksite), employers choose the incentives and marketing strategies that will encourage their employees to rideshare to and from work rather than drive alone. Employers must submit a plan that they believe will result in an AVR of 1.5 employees per vehicle. Emission Reduction Plan (ERP) Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits(MSERC) Employers may purchase Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits from a certified Broker in lieu of an ETRP. Employers may survey employees to determine their Average Vehicle Ridership- (AVR) and purchase MSERCs to bridge the shortfall between their AVR and their target AVR of 1.5 or not survey and purchase MSERCs for an AVR of 1.0 Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR): AVR is a measure of persons per vehicle calculated by dividing the number of employees arriving or departing the worksite by the number of vehicles used to commute to and from the worksite. AVR is calculated using information about employee commute patterns collected over cone-week survey period. The AVR attainment goal is 1.5 persons per vehicle for the morning commute period (6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.) And the evening commute period (3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.) Certified Training Requirements Employers of 10 to 49 employees will be notified by mail to attend aCity-sponsored training workshop. Each employer must attend one initial training workshop. Employers of 50 to 249 employees must designate an employee to attend a workshop provided by a City-certified trainer. Employers of 250 or more employees must receive certification by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Training dates and registration information is available at: http://www.agmd.gov/traps/traing.html Consultants: Employers may hire aCity-approved consultant to act as the Employee Transportation Coordinator. Contact the City's Transportation Management OfFce for a list of City-approved consultants. Annual Transportation Impact Fees: Employers are required to pay a per employee fee. For purposes of calculating fees, the following employees are considered exempt: Part-time employees working fewer than 4 hours per week Temporary employees . Contract employees Seasonal employees Employees who are based in Santa Monica but report to other worksites outside of the City Employers of 10-49 employees pay a specific fee per employee. Employers of 50 or more employees fees: Employers who meet and maintain an AVR of 1.50 for the morning and evening windows receive a fee discount of 40 to 60 percent. , Employers of 50 or more employees filing an MSERC plan pay a specific fee. Multi-site Employers:. Employers with more than one worksite located within the City of Santa Monica may file one multi-site Emission Reduction Plan or Worksite Transportation Plan. Employers of 250 or more with one worksite in the City of Santa Monica and one or more worksites of over 250 employees located outside of Santa Monica but within the South Coast Air Basin may choose to comply with the City's Ordinance 1604 or the South Coast Air Quality Management District's Rule 2202. Employers choosing to comply with Rule 2202 must file an exemption with the City. Parking Cash Out Employers who fall under the purview of A62109 (Parking Cash Out), must implement a parking cash out plan as part of their Emission Reduction Plan. Employers who fail to do so will have their Emission Reduction Plan disapproved. Enforcement Employers who do not comply with the requirements of the Transportation Management Ordinance will be subject to the following enforcement: The first violatioh of a plan year will result in a warning notice. Each subsequent violation in a plan year will result in a violation notice. A violation notice carries a fine of $5.00 per employee per day and possible revocation of a City of Santa Monica business license. For More Information: If you have questions, or would like more detailed information about the City of Santa Monica Transportation Management Ordinance 1604, please contact Transportation Management Coordinator, Jacquilyne Brooks de Camarillo 310.458.8956, Transportation Management Specialists, Luis Morris 310.458.8957 or the TM0 web page at: http://www. smgov. net/tmoplans 6(yje Ferstead From: J Kennedy <kennedyrcb@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:37 AM To: Kyle Ferstead Subject: Fwd: Saint John's Disclosure document! St. John's. Yesterday I met with Chris Harding for an hour / hr and 1/2 and he verbally summarized the documents he submitted regarding St. John's. At the end of his presentation I asked a question about the status of the HASP. His response is below. I would like to have more information from staff about the HASP status at the meeting if possible. Thanks! -Jenn -----Original Message----- From: Chris Harding <harding@hlkklaw.com> To: jnkn26 <jnkn26@aol.com>; kennedyrcb <kennedyrcb@aol.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 15, 2011 3:55 am Subject: Saint John's Jennifer, thanks for meeting with us yesterday. After our meeting, I gave further thought to our conversation about the HASP. I suggest that Saint John's should coordinate its future parking planning with the City's HASP update process. We don't think it makes sense for Saint John's to build the subterranean parking garage per the 1998 DA until the HASP is updated and we know what it envisions for Healthcare District parking, unless it becomes necessary (i.e. Saint John's loses its lease at Yahoo! and can't find replacement parking). That is the approach taken in the proposed DA amendment. However, the recitals are not as clear on this point as they could be. If you would like us to (since you are the Commissioner who raised the HASP point), we can add a recital to the DA amendment clearly spelling this out. Please let me know what you think about this. Again, thanks for meeting. I will see you tonight. Chris Roxanne Tanemori From: Kyle Ferstead Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:05 PM To: Roxanne Tanemori; Amanda Schachter; Barry Rosenbaum Subject: FW: St. John's lease of Yahoo Parking From: Jason Parry [mailto:parryj@gte.net] _ Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 1:30 PM To: Kyle Ferstead Subject: FW: St. John's Lease of Yahoo Parking For the record.:.. From: Nicole Kolhoff [mailto:nhkolhoff@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 1:19 PM To: HKoning@KEArch.com; TedSMPlan@gmail.com; GNewbold@gmail.com; Jim_Ries@hotmail.com; parry]@gte.net; Kennedyrcb@aol.com Cc: nhkolhoff@yahoo.com Subject: St. John's Lease of Yahoo Parking Dear Planning Commission - I am a Sunset Park resident and our kids attend Santa Monica public schools. I don't have any particular dog in this fight, but I find it extremely frustrating when the City doesn't use the leverage it has to enforce development agreements and extract concessions from developers. These are huge missed opportunities. I urge you to oppose the St. John's Development Agreement Amendment. First, I strongly oppose any decision to not require developers to comply with their contractual obligations under a development agreement. The City makes concessions with the promise of "community benefits" whether it be parking, open space or otherwise. If developers are not held to these requirements, then the development agreements become toothless and you can assume that any future outlay of money by a developer will not be complied with. As many new development agreements will be entered into in connection with the LUCE, the City needs to show that it will enforce those development agreements. Second, the City needs more parking, not less. Our kids attended day care in Yahoo Center and there is already not enough parking (and it's too expensive). Also, more parking will be needed in that area when the train comes through. When I attended one of the Bergamot planiring meetings, the City appeared to have NO park- and-ride parking (which is necessary in order for residents like me to get any benefit out of the train). Rather the City said it would rely on shared parking arrangements with new business and existing businesses like Yahoo Center and Water Garden. Clearly letting St. John's lease from Yahoo Center would have a detrimental impact on parking for the train and the Bergamot development and would require the City and other developers to build more parking later. St. John's already agreed to build its parking and it should have to do so. For the sake of good faith and fair dealing, a waiver should not be granted. For the sake of the community, the problem should not be pushed onto other locations, thereby exacerbating the parking problems at future developments, including the train. Thank you for your consideration Roxanne Tanemori From: Kyle Ferstead Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 2:09 PM To: Roxanne Tanemori; Amanda Schachter; Barry Rosenbaum Subject: FW: St John's Development -Agenda item 9-A -----Original Message----- From: Liv Estrup [mailto:liv@livestrup.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 20111:21 PM To: HKoning@KEArch.com; TedSMPlan@gmail:com; GNewbold@gmail.com; Jim_Ries@hotmail.com; parry]@gte.net; Kennedyrcb@aol.com; Kyle Ferstead Subject: St John's Development -Agenda item 9-A Please help stop the absurdity of traffic in Santa Monica. I oppose the proposed St John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment. Let us have our neighborhoods back! Sincerely, Liv Estrup Santa Monica resident for 37 years a. i~ d f.'R~~~I ~,Cfl~frl` t.ou Lazatir !'r~~irient an ~ i lia2i l.x~~utive ~ 7PIir_a~r Jtine 7, 201 I Santa Monica Plamung Commission 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Saint John's DA Amendment Application Dear Commissioners: f 4_ ..~ r ~, f' F nett ~ ~ ~'~~~ 1~ Ail ;(;~ 1 am writing as the Chief Executive Us` cer of Saint John's Health Center ("Saint John's') to ask for your support of our proposed Development Agreement {"DA") amendment. Our proposed DA amendment will align Saint John's parking sG•ategy with the new LUCE's shared parking and sustainability philosophy, facilitate consharction of onr new Entry Plaza, and corcect some floor area discrepancies in our DA. It will also provide the City with a mechanism to monitor Saint John's parking supply and demand going forward and add community benefits {including a TDM Plan and additional neighborhood proteetiou) to the substantial community benefits that Saint John's currently provides. As you review the Staff Report, this letter and the information paoket Chat was sent to you on Friday, June 3`d from our legal counsel Narding Larmore Dutcher & Kozel, please keep in mind that Saint John's is a not-for-profit community heahh care center. Our key shategic goal is to ensure our resources are focused on our mission -- improving the health of the individuals and cormnunities we serve, especially those who are poor or vulnerable. Saint John's looks forward to continuing our cooperative relationship with the City. Saint John's remains committed to being a good neighbor. And Saint John's wants to ensure that we pursue our health care mission in a way that is compatible with the best interests of the Santa Monica community. Our counsel will address in g•eater detail our proposed DA amendment and the Staff Report h3 separate correspondence. Isuggest that you contact either Shane Miller (Owner's Representative for conshuction, (310) 829-8757), or Clu is Harding ((310) 451-2968). if you have any questions. Sincerely, !~' Lou~az~ati~ President and CEO cc: Rod Gould Eileen P, Fogarty Amanda Schachter Roxanne Tanemori Barry Rosenbaum Alan Selzer David Martin Shane Miller Chris Harding 3a8T, e~ ~ Icd k _nia N , 9( ~ ,..,_ 3 i ~ ,29557 fi ~~ Santa onica Malibu Schools [~+.oardmory Pob~l< FdaaY.an June 9, 2010 Olympic High School 72J Orenn Prrtk Bonlermrl • SavtrrAlonirn, Cft 90405 (390) 392-2494 •-%ax (390J 392-9749 frrnie ]5rgarhi Gates, Prini pnl Santa Monica City Council City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear City Council Members, St, John's Child and Family Development Center has provided group and individual counseling for Olympic High School students for over fifteen years, through funds provided by the City of Santa Monica. They have been, and continue to be, an integral part of our school community, conferring with staff about specific students and participating in Student Study Team discussions. Our entire school community is grateful to the City, for these funds that provide us with such excellent mental health services on campus. We have seen the positive impact St John's has had on our students and their families. Every one of St. John's. dedicated staff are committed to the youth of our community and they each continue to demonstrate their remarkable effectiveness in improving the lives of the youth they service. I truly appreciate the services of St. John's staff and thank you for funding a program designed to improve student's overall mental health and well being, that gives them a head start on a productive and successful life. Sincerely, Janie Yuguchi Ga s, Principal What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate -Santa Monica, CA Patch Page 1 of 2 Xi ~~ Sian OO Loa fn Chance Towns ?"` :> 600 Edifor Kurl O2eck: ~-M1blaa pmducxr ALaursZiskin Bias In ASantaMOnica-. hNO:Iltcol05cNa0w- -e Tweefetl 1 Hour ago Get the Patch Newsletter Local Voices ~. Greaa Heacock Gregg Heacock, teacher, writer, and community activist, is a long-time resident of Santa ~~. Monica. What We Have. Here Is A Failure To Communicate Posted on June 13. 2011 at 8:47am If you believe that your autonomy is related to your automobile antl that having to pay for parking restricts your personal freetlom, you might want to travel to Palm Springs where all parking is free or, better yet, move to Rancho Mirage, where all residents get free valet parking paitl for by local merchants because it's good for their business. Despite complaints from Santa Monica residents, workers, and businesses that gridlock and lack of adequate parking threaten our quality of life, many predict that the Santa Monica Planning Commission and the City Council will vote to excuse Yahoo! Center and St. Joan's Health Center for increasing their profits by violating their Development Agreements with our city-even though this would reduce parking and increase its cost. For those readers oltl enough to remember Paul Newman as the rebellious Cool Hand Luke, cutting off the heads of parking meters and ending up on a chain gang, this situation may best be described by that film's famous line, "What we have here is a failure to communicate!" Bad decisions by decent people are usually made according to high-minded principles. Here the principle is Traffc Demand Management (TDMrthe standard of city planning that says traffc must be retlucetl to increase air quality, lower green house gases, antl aid the circulation of people and products around the city. One advantage of gaining TDM points is that it can lead to a city offered grants, like the $652,000 grant Santa Monica just won todevelop its Bergamot Station industrial area. You can see why our city's Planning Division is hot to advance our TDM rep. But they are easy pickin' for laevyers who are adept at building arguments on the foundation providetl by their opponents. Residents were concerned wiih Traffic Demand Management when Yahoo! Center was frst built; only neither had that name back then. Gridlock was the villain when "Coloratlo Place" was frst proposed. The first of many giant business complexes to invade the Mid-City neighborhood, it started converting our quiet boulevard into the ever-expanding "Colorado Corridor" that crowds our community with cars. Equity Offce, in purchasing the Yahoo! Center, agreed to follow the rules of the Development Agreement for "Coloratlo Place," which required that free parking be provided to all workers. Owners might charge $2.50 for each 10 minutes to anyone foolish enough to pay it. But, the D A. protectetl residents by guaranteeing 3-hour validated parking for business visitors, customers, and members, along with free event parking for up l0 500 people, and visitor parking on weekends. Equity Office's agreement to set-aside parking spaces was labeled: "Current Measures Implemented to Reduce Neighborhood Spillover." But that agreement was violated when owners started leasing out space to off-site parties. This violation, which Yahoo! Centers lawyers have renametl "a Tong-standing practice" (in that ithad started even before they bought the place) has increased over the years. Wth one-third of Yahoo! Center's office space being unoccupied, one-thlrtl of its parking space has been leased to off-site parties-in particular, to store cars for auto dealerships and to allow nurses to park until Saint John's Health Center builds its promised parking garage. Though Standard Parking, which keeps records of earnings, has not distinguished what Equity Offce has earned in breach of its agreement from what it was allowed to collect, of the recorded $30 million received over the last five years, perhaps as much as $10 million was ill-gotten gain. Though Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney for our city, told Yahoo! CenteYS lawyer at the Planning Commission meeting on May 25th that his client was indeed in violation of its Development Agreement, the City Council is expected to approve an amendment that would allow Equity Offce to keep all of that money and gain other benefts as well. Neighbors throw up their hands in disbelief as they realize that what we have here is a failure to communicate. it is important to understand how this failure happens. Communication breaks down when we can't relate words and numbers we use to the reality they are supposed to represent. Consitler: Though this agreement calls for setting aside spaces for parking, there are no actual spaces are set aside except reservetl usually by non-tenants. Employees and health club members are given plastic cartls to gain access to the garage. Others have their parking slips validated. That is why with 3,086 spaces available, there is not a problem when "approximately 3,010 have been leased out to existing tenants" and "approximately 1,053 unassigned parking spaces were leased out to non-tenants.° Even though Equity Office is paid for nearly 1,000 more spaces than it has, when demand for parking was measured in December one-fourth of the spaces were available even at peak hours. Of course, that was when one- third of its office space was vacant. Though one-fourth of the spaces were not being occupietl when one-third of the office space was unoccupied, Equity Office does not hesitate to ask the city to legalize leasing out one-third of its presently assigned spaces to off-site parties. While the numbers mentioned may not justify this, with so many numbers, for most people these figures cease to make sense: But the numbers over the last fve years that show Equity Office has given the City of Santa Monica parking tax payments at amount to $3,074,184.23 make both tlollars and sense. That's how Equity Office makes a silk purse out of the sow's ear. it puts money in it Besides, Equity Office's promises advance the city's Traffic Demantl Management (TDM) plan by releasing its tenants from their requirement to give free parking to their employees. Making employees share some of the parking expense (which Standard Parking spaces can go for $183 a month) shbultl http://santamonica.patch.com/blog~osts/what-we-have-here-is-a-failure-to-communicate 06/13/2011 What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate -Santa Monica, CA Patch Page 2 of 2 make some think twice before driving their cars to Santa Monica. In fact, most workers I spoke to said they couldn't afford to work here at all at those prices. This same TDM logic is being used to justify relieving Saint John's of its obligation to tiuild the parking garage for all the new cars expelled to come to their expanded Health Center. This gives our city another "frst"-the first city in L.A. County to have a hospital without on-site parking for its staff, patients, and those visiting loved ones. By the standards of TDM logiq that's something to be proudof. The irony is that St. John's asked to be relieved of its obligation to build a parking lot because it would cost too much money. Now the city planners, who would released St. John's from that responsibility of taking on the cost of parking are pleased to place it on people who use cars to drop someone off at the hospital or visit a sick friend. These folks must pay a 373 charge for valet or nearby garage parking providing St. John's with even more money while the lots that receive their cars are obliged to pay the parking tax that Saint John's would pay if it used the garage it promised to build. SL John's gets a double benefit thanks to TDNi logic! By the way, I like to think of "TDM" as standing for the Totalitarian Deterministic Mantra:'Anylhing is good if it reduces the emission of green house gases in ourcity as much as possible, as soon as possible." At least then, the letters explain the decisions many of our planners are making. This explains why they are such patsies for lawyers for developments. When lawyers construct arguments out of the ideals that are the planks of our own platforms, they can create from them a box that keeps us from seeing the real world. That's why I called the Randal Bvnder, the Director of Community Development for Rancho Mirage: He lives outside the Santa Monica box. After talking over our differences-he's from a touristy desert destination city in the middle of nowhere and I am from a touristy destination city on the crowded coastline of California-we talked about what we had in common-developers who could get planning staff get sucked into thinking their way. I asked him why that happened. Randy explained, "The problem is that staff tends to develop relationships with developers before they meet with the community." That sounded a lot like Santa Monica. But, when i asked him how Rancho Mirage avoids this problem, he described a process that didn't remind me at all of Santa Monica, "Wehave developers bring their projects to the home owner associations before our planning department ever gets involved. Only when the developers come to some agreement with those who live in the community tlo we help them with their plans." That's what keeps communication straight. That's how Rancho Mirage realizes its vision for community benefits: It requires that the community be involved in the decision-making process. Unfortunately, in Santa Monica, the vision of involving the community in its decisions seems only a mirage. Atltl vour own photos or videos Leave a comment eubmrt~ f~t:~Y29'~ISe Advertise on Patch and reach potential customers in your backyard and beyond. Click here for more information. Learn more n }/fl~f117$e°Y If you want to help local causes, or your cause needs local help, your neat click should be right here. Leam more» 1.n f~, ft tPl Ti?t$e • Send us news tios • Put an event on the calendar • Announce something to everyone Patch Info Get in Touch About US Helo Jobs Contac[Us Advertise Patch Bloa Terms of Use Privacy Policy Copyright ©2077 Patch. All RigMS Reserved. Patch initiatives Goodies PatchU Newsletters Pa[ch.ora Wi~ets esrk http://santamonica.pateh.com/blog~osts/what-we-have-here-is-a-failure-to-communicate 06/13/2011 HARD LNG LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW - ~BiTE R'S DIRECT CIAL - 1210 SIXTH STREET, SUITE 200 `NRITEft'S E-MAIL ADDR=SS 310 451-2968 SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90'101 1602 hardin TELEPHONE (310) 393-tom g@hlkklaw.com FACSIMILE (310) 3923537 June 13, 2011 VIA E-MAIL Santa Monica Plahning Commission 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Saint John's DA Amendment Application Hearing Date: June 15, 2011 Agenda Item No. 9-A Our File No. 20440.001 Dear Commissioners: I am writing as counsel for Saint John's Health Center with respect to Saint John's application to amend its Development Agreement ("DA"). Because the proposed DA amendment will bring Saint John's parking into alignment with the new LUCE, the Commission should recommend its approval to the City Council. Saint John's DA amendment will: • Ensure Saint John's always has sufficient parking to satisfy its peak parking demand including for all of its various user groups {patients, visitors, physicians, scientists and staff); • Implement the new LUCE's sustainability and shared parking policies by making efficient use of existing parking and requiring the construction of new parking only if necessary; Provide the City with the legal authority to monitor Saint John's entire parking supply and demand going forward, authority that is missing from the current DA; Provide the City with clear authority to compel Saint John's to construct the subterranean parking garage if the City reasonably determines the garage to be necessary to meet Saint John's parking needs; • Facilitate construction of Saint John's Entry Plaza, which is essential for the convenience of Saint John's patients, staff and visitors; HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Page 2 Provide Saint John's patients and visitors with convenient, easily accessible parking through avalet/attendant program with vehicle drop-off/pick-up in the entry plaza adjacent to Saint John's front door; and • Add community benefits, including a TDM Plan, a contribution for a Transportation Management Association ("TMA") feasibility study, a contribution for a lighted crosswalk at the intersection of Arizona Avenue and 215 Street, and additional neighborhood protection. I. BACKGROUND A. Brief History Saint John's is anot-for-profit Catholic healthcare institution that has provided hospital and other healthcare services in Santa Monica since 1942. Prior to the Northridge Earthquake, Saint John's was much larger than it is currently. At its peak, Saint John's had approximately 662,000 square feet of floor area and was licensed for 501 beds. Saint John's sustained extensive damage in the Northridge Earthquake. The earthquake forced Saint John's to close for about nine months. After making temporary seismic-related repairs, Saint John's reopened and simultaneously began planning for a phased redevelopment of its healthcare facilities with state-of-the-art seismic engineering. In 1996, Saint John's filed a DA application with the City. -The City Council approved Saint John's DA in 1998. In accordance with Saint John's DA, Saint John's project is divided into two phases. Phase One approved the redevelopment of Saint John's core hospital facilities in multiple stages, to allow Saint John's to remain open during Phase One's construction. The DA approved specific buildings as part of Phase One, with no further discretionary approvals required (other than ARB approval). Phase Two involves the South Campus (i.e., south of Santa Monica Boulevard) and three sites on the North Campus (including the two sites adjacent to the planned Entry Plaza). It contemplates an expanded array HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Page 3 of healthcare uses, the potential expansion of Saint John's core hospital facilities, residential uses, and limited ancillary uses. Each Phase Two building will require a development review permit. And no development can occur on the South Campus until Saint John's obtains City Council approval of a South Campus Master Plan. Since 1998, Saint John's has proceeded with Phase One development in stages, as contemplated in the DA. Saint John's has essentially completed Phase One reconstruction, except for the Entry Plaza and subterranean parking. As reconstructed, Saint John's has approximately 475,000 square feet of floor area and 265 licensed hospital beds. Thus, Saint John's care hospital facilities are substantially smaller today than prior to the Northridge Earthquake. B. Parking 1. Parking During Construction Since construction of Phase One facilities commenced in 1998, Saint John's has remained open and able to satisfy its parking needs. Throughout this nearly 13 year period, Saint John's has maintained and implemented an interim parking plan. This has included parking for Saint John's various healthcare user groups (healthcare providers, support staff, visitors, volunteers, etc.) and a large construction crew. This plan has worked well, including while Saint John's had an extensive construction crew that needed parking. Saint John's has met its parking needs through a combination of parking resources. Saint John's parking has included both parking owned by Saint John's and parking leased from its neighbors. Saint John's has leased parking at Yahoo! Center since 2002. Saint John's parking strategy has worked effectively. Today, Saint John's controls more parking than is necessary to meet the needs of its various user groups. Saint John's DA amendment will further expand its parking supply while Saint John's, the City and others work collaboratively to implement the new LUCE's approach to parking. Notably, Saint John's DA amendment provides for annual reporting and City monitoring of Saint John's entire parking supply as well as parking demand going forward.- This is not the case under the current DA, which provides that Saint John's will no longer be subject to City monitoring of its parking upon completion of Phase One. HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAbV Santa Monica Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Page 4 2. Saint John's Existing Parking Supply and Demand Currently, Saint John's has parking capacity for approximately 1,448 vehicles with valet/attendant operations. An independent study by the Walker firm, with the parking supply data updated by Shane Miller (owner's representative for Saint John's), confirms that Saint John's parking supply is sufficient to meet Saint John's parking needs in the foreseeable future. The Walker Parking Study determined peak parking demand for Saint John's various user groups as 1,196 upon completion of the D&T Center. Thus, Saint John's has a parking surplus in excess of 200 parking spaces. Further, Saint John's peak parking demand for 2009 and 2010 based on actual data about the number of employees, visitors, patients, physicians and scientists Saint John's had in 2009 and 2010 was 1,185 and 1,183 respectively. Thus, Saint John's peak parking demand has remained relatively flat for the last several years and is slightly less than projected by Walker. As a practical matter, Saint John's needs sufficient parking for its staff, physicians, patients, students, and visitors. And, as a legal matter, Saint John's will be required by its proposed DA amendment to provide sufficient parking to meet its peak parking demand by maintaining and implementing a Parking Management Plan ("PMP") that will be subject to ongoing City review and approval. If necessary to meet its parking needs, the City may require Saint John's to build the subterranean parking garage beneath its Entry Plaza. 3. The LUCE approach To Parking Saint John's was an active participant and supporter of the City's process to comprehensively update its Land Use and Circulation Element (the "LUCE"), culminating in the City Council's adoption of the LUCE in July 2010. The LUCE encourages "a comprehensive parking district approach in order to determine parking needs on a district-wide basis rather than aproject-by-project basis to take advantage of the potential to share parking (including sharing of existing parking) and reduce the total parking requirement." LUCE p. 2.6-50, Policy D 29.1. The LUCE also encourages "parking efficiency strategies such as shared parking (including ' Upon completion of the Entry Plaza, Saint John's will have an additional 80 parking spaces in the new West Lot for a total parking supply of 1,528. If the parking demand for 2013 increases as projected by the Walker Study, Saint John's will continue to have a surplus of more than 200 parking spaces. HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER& KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS A7 LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Page 5 sharing of existing parking}, lowered parking requirements, and parking pricing to reduce the demand for parking." LUCE p. 3.1-10. The LUCE specifically contemplates the sharing of parking within the Healthcare District such as Saint John's practice of leasing parking from its neighbors. The LUCE states:. "A key component is the development of a comprehensive parking program to identify shared parking strategies, such as allowing and encouraging properties with existing surplus parking to (ease excess parking to neighboring uses." LUCE p. 2.6-48. C. Communitv Benefits Under the DA Saint John's provides significant benefits to the community under the terms of ifs DA. Saint John's Community Benefits Plan and Child Care Program are indicative of Saint John's commitment to the Santa Monica community. 1. Community Benefits Plan Saint John's provides and financially supports community programs and regularly .assesses such programs to ensure they are responsive to community needs. In compliance with the DA, Saint John's maintains and implemehts an annual Community Benefits Plan. For 2010, the Community Benefits Plan demonstrates that Saint John's has maintained an estimated 8 145 814 of community benefits. The amount of community benefits is an annual, not cumulative, amount. Saint John's Community Benefits Plan includes a Santa Monica Community Access Plan which is intended to ensure that a portion of Saint John's benefits are focused in the Santa Monica area. The DA requires the Community Access Plan to have a 2010 dollar value of at least 875 193. In 2010, the Santa Monica Community Access Plan was valued at 5 259 235, much more than the DA requires. The Community Access Plan included: • Cash support to the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District ($152,500), including grants to child development, school nursing programs and at risk youth. • Charitable medical and mental health services to patients that are students and directly referred by the Santa Monica Monica-Malibu Unified School District ($122,929). • Cash and in-kind support to local non-profit organizations ($2,687,545), including: HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER& KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Page 6 -. Free imaging, laboratory and cardiology services provided to 2,213 patients referred by the Venice Family Clinic and 790 patients referred by Westside Family Health Center; -. Support for the Venice Family Clinic Nurse Practitioner Program; -~ A grant for OPCC's Daybreak Shelter and Access Center; -~ Financial support for St. Joseph Center's homeless service center, Bread & Roses cafe, and food service job training program; -. A grant to provide school nursing services for Saint Anne's School; and -. Funding for a Student Resource Coordinator at the Pico Youth & Family Center. Charitable medical and mental health services to patients referred from local non-profit organizations ($1,774,160), including outpatient mental health services for children and families, persons who are deaf and/or hard of hearing, persons with developmental disabilities, and individuals and families impacted by child abuse. This amount also includes charity hospital care provided at Saint John's to Santa Monica residents and homeless persons. • Community services available to the general Santa Monica community that promote health education and preventive health services ($522,101). 2. Child Care Program Saint John's has gone above and beyond the child care requirement contained in its DA. Saint John's child care program, entitled Early Childhood Directions ("ECD"), has become a model for others looking to provide infant/toddler services and for early childhood educators doing professional growth and development. ECD also serves as a mentor site for Santa Monica College students who are working on their child development practicum classes. In 2010, 69 children were served, including 52 children of Saint John's workforce and 6 children with special needs. Saint John's provided 29 of these children with tuition subsidies. Saint John's also conducts ongoing outreach to ensure that Saint John's employees and the community are aware of ECD and maintains a waiting list for those interested in enrolling their children in ECD. HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Page 7 In addition to the ECD program, Saint John's operates a Therapeutic Preschool, which is a mental health intensive day treatment that is a Department of Mental Health program. IL SAINT JOHN'S PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT A. The First Amendment Saint John's filed its DA amendment application in September 2007, primarily to address the DA's parking provisions. As subsequently modified, Saint John's DA amendment contains the following key features: 1. With respect to parking: • The DA amendment includes 450 leased parking spaces at Yahoo! Center as the functional equivalent of the 442-space subterranean parking garage. • The DA amendment requires Saint John's to provide parking capacity .for approximately 138 vehicles adjacent to the Entry Plaza, parking that is not required by the current DA. • The DA amendment requires Saint John's to report to the City annually concerning its parking supply and demand, and make changes to its parking as reasonably requested by the City for the term of the DA (i.e. until 2053). The current DA does not provide for such annual Saint John's reporting or City monitoring after completion of Phase One. • The DA amendment will provide Saint John's, its neighbors and the City with an opportunity to identify and implement an area-wide, shared .approach to parking as envisioned in the LUCE's parking policies for the Healthcare District. • The DA amendment provides that the City may require Saint John's to build the subterranean parking structure if it loses its Yahoo! Center parking, the City reasonably determines that Saint John's will be unable to otherwise cure any parking deficit, and the City reasonably determines that the appropriate means of curing the parking deficit is construction of the subterranean parking structure. HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER& KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Page 8 2. The DA amendment will require Saint John's to enhance its employee trip reduction efforts by implementing a new Transportation Demand Management ("TDM"} Plan. As the Commission requested of Yahoo! Center, the TDM Plan has atwo-tier performance standard - a 1.5 AVR prior to completion of light rail and a 1.6 AVR thereafter. The TDM Plan will further reduce vehicle trips to Saint John's as well as parking demand. 3. The DA amendment will require Saint John's to implement neighborhood protection measures that were developed in response to neighborhood input, including at the City's community meeting on April 5th. These measures include: An ombudsperson, whose contact information is available to the public, to address neighborhood questions and complaints relating to parking and other operational matters. The ombudsperson will be responsible for determining the appropriate Saint John's employee to address these questions(complaints and following up with the employee. The ombudsperson will be required to keep a record of these questionsJcomplaints and report them to the City annually. • Prohibition against Saint John's valeting cars to Yahoo! Center. • Prohibition against Saint John's operating a shuttle to and from Yahoo! Center. • City approval of Saint John's valet routes, with an additional requirement that all valet routes minimize the use of residential streets. • A noise reduc#ion parking policy which prohibits vehicle .parking immediately adjacent to the residential building located at 1440 23`d Street at night. • Annual noticing to ambulance companies of the DA's restrictions on use of ambulance sirens. • Security escort services for employees walking to their cars. • Parking for special events at McKinley Elementary school during the evening, up to 5 times per month. • Paying up to $30,000 for a lighted crosswalk at the intersection of Arizona Avenue and 21St Street. HARDI[~IG LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT tAW Santa Monica Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Page 9 Paying one-half of the costs, up to $15,000, for a study regarding the implementation of additional lighted crosswalks in other locations near Saint John's. • Paying $17,500 to help fund a Transportation Management Association ("TMA") feasibility study. 4. The DA amendment will allow Saint John's to construct its Entry Plaza connecting the front entrance to Santa Monica Boulevard, which is essential for the safety, security and convenience of Saint John's patients and their families as well as Saint John's physicians, staff, volunteers and visitors. It will also improve Saint John's overall parking operations and accommodate an expansion of convenient parking through the addition of the West Lot (parking capacity for 80 vehicles) and preservation of Lot C (parking capacity for 58 vehicles). B. Saint John's DA amendment makes sense for of least ten reasons: 1. Saint John's existing parking supply is sufficient to meet its parking needs in the foreseeable future. Thus, building the subterranean parking garage at this time would be contrary to the LUCE's sustainability policy of building no more parking than is necessary and the LUCE's policy of encouraging shared parking within the Healthcare District. (LUCE pp. 2.6-48, 3.1-10:) 2. In particular, Saint John's use of the 450 leased parking spaces at Yahoo! Center is preferable from a sustainability perspective to building additional parking. And it is more in keeping with the LUCE's area-wide and shared approaches to parking. 3. The DA amendment calls for Saint John's to include parking capacity for approximately 138 vehicles adjacent to the Entry Plaza, thus expanding Saint John's parking supply. This parking is not required by Saint John's current DA.Z 4. Under the DA amendment, Saint John's will be subject to City monitoring of ifs entire parking supply as well as parking demand for the term of the DA (which is not part of the current DA). This addresses a_weakness ih Saint John's current DA, which does not provide a mechanism for the City to monitor Saint John's entire parking supply z 58 of these spaces (Lot C} currently exist but are to be removed under the current DA. HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP ATTO ftN EYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Page 10 and ensure it continues to meet Saint John's peak parking demand after completion of Phase One. 5. Deferring construction of the subterranean parking garage will allow Saint John's to explore Tong-term parking. strategies with the City and its neighbors in the Healthcare District-(including as part of the HASP update process), in furtherance of the LUCE's area-wide and shared parking policies. 6. In retrospect, building aself-contained parking garage beneath the new Entry Plaza is less than ideal. If Saint John's ultimately builds subterranean parking in this area, a better approach would be to build a parking garage beneath Phase Two areas 2C and 2D/2E (which are adjacent to the Entry Plaza) as well as the Entry Plaza. This would result in a single, integrated parking garage rather than three separate parking garages, with multiple entrances and exits along Santa Monica Boulevard. 7. Deferring the subterranean parking garage will allow Saint John's to proceed much more expeditiously with construction of the Entry Plaza, which is essential to ensure safe and convenient access to Saint John's for patients and their families. 8. Building the subterranean parking garage now at an approximate cost of $25- 30 million, when it is not needed, would not be economically prudent or sustainable. Saint John's resources are better utilized for health care services and community benefits. 9. Under the DA amendment, the City may require Saint John's to build the subterranean parking if it becomes necessary to meet its parking needs. 10. The City and the community will continue to receive the additional benefits of the DA amendment, including the TDM and neighborhood protection provisions, even if Saint John's is required to build the subterranean garage in the future. Saint John's is committed to working cooperatively with the City to address its parking needs on a district-wide basis as envisioned in the LUCE. Saint John's proposed DA amendment creates a framework for such cooperation: If approved, the DA amendment will incentivize Saint John's to continue working with the City and its neighbors including Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center & Orthopedic Hospital in addressing area parking needs. As reflected in the DA amendment, Saint John's objective is to find an alternative, more sustainable approach to parking in furtherance of the new LUCE. HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Page 11 III. OPEN ISSUES WITH CITY STAFF Saint John's disagrees with City Staffs recommendations on two issues: the proposed light rail station capital contribution of $200,000 and the proposal that Saint John's pay the entire amount of the Healthcare District TMA feasibility study. A. Light Rail Station Contribution Saint John's does not believe it is fair or appropriate that it be required to make a major capital contribution to the light rail station for several reasons: 1. There is no nexus between Saint John's DA amendment's impacts and the Expo light rail line. Saint John's DA amendment, insofar as it replaces parking in the planned subterranean garage with leased parking at Yahoo! Center, will not generate any additional demand for light rail use. 2. Agensys was required to pay a much more modest light rail contribution -- $70,350 -- based upon its net increase in square footage. Saint John's DA amendment allows no increase in its square footage. Thus, no contribution is warranted. 3. Saint John's DA amendment is designed to align Saint John's parking with the new LUCE's shared parking and sustainability policies. Saint John's should be encouraged to comply with the new LUCE, not subjected to a substantial financial penalty for doing so. 4. Saint John's DA amendment, unlike most DA matters, does not trigger any unmitigatable environmental impacts that must be counterbalanced by overriding considerations. In fact, the DA amendment is environmentally beneficial -- by relying on existing parking resources rather than building new parking and by reducing vehicle trips. 5. Saint John's is ahot-for-profit community hospital and health center, not a for-profit developer. It would be especially inappropriate to divert Saint John's resources away from its healthcare mission when the requested contribution is unrelated to any impacts of Saint John's DA amendment. HARDING LARMORE KUTCHER & KOZAL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission June 13, 2011 Page 12 B. TMA Feasibility Study Saint John's has agreed to pay for one-half of City Staff's estimated $35,000 TMA feasibility study for the entire Healthcare District -- substantially more than its proportionate share. Saint John's has also agreed to be a co-leader with the City in , establishing a TMA and to actively participate. There is no justification for requiring Saint John's to pay the entire cast of the TMA feasibility study as Staff is proposing. We are confident that others in the Healthcare District will be willing to contribute and participate. IV. CONCLUSION Based upon the foregoing, we respectfully request that the Commission recommend approval of Saint John's DA amendment to the City Council. Sincerely, ~~o~~,.~.. u~ Christopher M. Harding cc: Rod Gould Eileen P. Fogarty Amanda Schachter Roxanne Tanemori David Martin Barry Rosenbaum Alan Seltzer Lou Lazatin Shane Miller F:1W PDATA120440\Cor\Commission.1004a.CMH.docx June 16, 2011 To: Planning Commission From: Connie O'Neill Re: Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment - 6/15/11 -agenda item 9- I oppose the proposed Saint John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment because the 998 Development Agreement obligated St. John's to build an on-site 442-space parking garage. 1. I do not view leasing 450 spaces at the Yahoo Center as "functionally equivalent" to building a parking garage on-site because Yahoo is one third mile away from St. John's. 2. St. John's cannot guarantee that it will have permanent access to parking at the Yahoo Center. One half of the office space at the Yahoo Center was vacant as of December 2010, so it makes no sense to assume that the Yahoo Center can permanently lease one third of its parking spaces to St. John's. The Blackstone Group -- htto://www.blackstone.com/cps/rde/xchg/bxcom/hs/firm historv.htm -- which owns the Yahoo Center and Santa Monica Business Park, along with billions of dollars worth of other real estate holdings on four continents, has no obligation to provide parking for St. John's on a permanent basis. Current Yahoo tenant eHarmony requested that the City Council deny Yahoo's Development Agreement Amendment to allow Yahoo to legally lease out 1,000 parking spaces. This was based on difficulty eHarmony employees have in finding parking spaces right now. Many eHarmony employees are commuting from the company's previous location in Pasadena, and a new tenant is relocating from . Burbank, so walking, biking, and busing to work are not a practical solution for their employees at this time. 3. The true "Community Benefit" would be for St. John's to build the on-site parking it agreed to 13 years ac~o in its Development Agreement with the City of Santa Monica. Then, nearby residents would be able to use on-street parking near their homes and not have to continue watching hospital employees and construction workers use handicapped placards to take over all the on-street parking in their neighborhood. The $394 million North Pavilion of St. John's opened in December 2004. The $499 million St. John's replacement hospital, the Howard Keck Center, opened in July 2009. It's time for St. John's to provide parking for those facilities. Thank you Roxanne Tanemori From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kyle Ferstead Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:40 PM 'sabine schlosser' Roxanne Tanemori RE: Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment - 6/15/11 -agenda item 9- Thank you for your e-mail. The Planning Commission made their recommendation to City Council last night (June 16]. Your correspondence will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration on June 28, 2011. Kyle Ferstead Planning Commission Secretary City of Santa Monica Prom: sabine schlosser [mailto:johnandsabine@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:06 PM To: HKoning@KEArch.com; TedSMPlan@gmail.com; GNewbold@gmail.com; Jim_Ries@hotmail.com; parry]@gte.net; Kennedyrcb@aoLcom Cc: Kyle Ferstead Subject: Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment - 6/15/11 -agenda item 9- June 16, 2011 To: Planning Commission Rrdm: Sabine Schlosser (SM resident 46 yrs) & John Cobus (SM resident 21 yrs) Re: Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment - 6/15/11 -agenda item 9- I oppose the proposed Saint John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment because the 998 Development Agreement obligated St. John's to build an on-site 442-space parking garage. 1. I do not view leasing 450 spaces at the Yahoo Center as "functionally equivalent" to building a parking garage on-site because Yahoo is one third mile away from St. John's. 2. St. John's cannot guarantee that it will have permanent access to parking at the Yahoo Center. One half of the office space at the Yahoo Center was vacant as of December 2010, so it makes no sense to assume that the Yahoo Center can permanently lease one third of its parking spaces to St. John's. The Blackstone Group -- http://www.blackstone.com/cps/rde/xche/bxcom/hs/firm history.htm -- which owns the Yahoo Center and Santa Monica Business Park, along with billions of dollars worth of other real estate holdings on four continents, has no obligation to provide parking for St. John's on a permanent basis. Current Yahoo tenant eHarmony requested that the City Council deny Yahoo's Development Agreement Amendment to allow Yahoo to legally lease out 1,000 parking spaces. This was based on difficulty eHarmony employees have in finding parking spaces right now. Many eHarmony employees are commuting from the company's previous location in Pasadena, and a new tenant is relocating from Burbank, so walking, biking, and busing to work are not a practical solution for their employees at this time. 3. The true "Community Benefit" would be for St. John's to build the on-site parking it agreed to 13 yeazs ago in its Development Agreement with the City of Santa Monica. Then, nearby residents would be able to use on-street pazking near their homes and not have to continue watching hospital employees and construction workers use handicapped placards to take over all the on-street parking in their neighborhood. The $394 million North Pavilion of St. John's opened in December 2004. The $499 million St. John's replacement hospital, the Howard Keck Center, opened in July 2009. It's time for St. John's to provide pazking for those facilities. Thank you. Roxanne Tanemori From: Kyle Ferstead Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:17 AM To: Roxanne Tanemori Subject: FW: St. John's development agreement From: Bruce Weiller [mailto:bruce_weiller@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 4:09 PM To: HKoning@KEArch.com; TedSMPlan@gmail.com; GNewbold@gmail.com; Jim_Ries@hotmail.com; parry]@gte.net; Kennedyrcb@aoLcom Cc: Kyle Ferstead Subject: St. John's development agreement Deaz Santa Monica Planning Commission: I have been a resident of Santa Monica for 17 yeazs and currently live in the 900 block of 23`d Street. I urge you not to approve the proposed amendment to the St. John's development agreement. The changes will have a substanfial negative effect on parking and residential quality of life. The only benefit is a substantial one to St. John's. 1. The proposed leasing of 450 spaces at the Yahoo Center is not "functionally equivalent" to building a 442-space parking garage on-site because Yahoo is one third mile away from St. John's and shuttle buses are required. While St. Johns' may currently be doing this, there aze current impacts on traffic that were not the intended by the development agreement. Shared parking may be a goal of the LUCE, but this distance falls outside of the desired walking distance for shared parking 2. St. John's cannot guarantee that it will have permanent access to parking at the Yahoo Center. One half of the office space at the Yahoo Center was vacant as of December 2010, so it makes no sense to assume that the Yahoo Center can permanently lease one third of its parking spaces to St. John's. The owners of Yahoo Center (Equity Office Properties and The Blackstone Group) have no obligation to provide parking for St. John's on a permanent basis. In fact according to testimony given by EOP's attorney Dale Goldsmith at City Council Tuesday June 12, 2011, EOP is in the business of leasing office space and not parking. Their main goal is to keep their tenants happy. Yahoo Center was 40% vacant in December 2010; when the economy recovers and the vacancy rate reaches their goal of 95%, there won't be any~azking spaces available to be leased to non-tenants. When this occurs the neighborhoods and the residents will bear the brunt of this parking deficit. 3. Nearby residents need to be able to use on-street parking near their homes. The real public benefit would be for St. John's to build the on-site pazking it agreed to 13 ,, ergo in its Development Agreement with the City of Santa Monica. Hospital employees and construction workers currently use handicapped placards to use on-street parking on adjacent streets even with permit pazking. We have seen firsthand on my street that employees of nearby businesses park on our non-permitted street and then carpool with colleagues to their jobs. When leased parking is not available for St. John's, what will be the situation then? When residents build homes they are always required to build appropriate parking and not allowed to use offsite parking instead. Isn't there a double standazd here? 4. If you do choose to endorse the amendment to the development agreement against my wishes and much of the public; it is incumbent upon you to ensure that the citizens of Santa Monica get a good deal. This is a substantial financial benefit to St. John's; estimates aze $40,000 per space for a total of about $18 million dollars. They have already agreed to this and now want to renegotiate. You must make sure that the public receives something substantial in return. I implore you not to endorse this amendment. This will negatively impact the quality of life for Santa Monica residents and does not provide any clear benefit except to maximize the profits for St. John's. Sincerely, Bruce H. Weiner Roxanne Tanemori From: Kyle Ferstead Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:16 AM To: Roxanne Tanemori Subject: FW: Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment - 6/1S/11 -agenda item 9- fyi From: Linda Velonis [mailto:LVelonis@roadrunner.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:10 PM To: HKoning@KEArch.com; TedSMPlan@gmail.com; GNewbold@gmail.com; Jim_Ries@hotmail.com; Kennedyrcb@aoLcom Cc: Kyle Ferstead Subject: Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment - 6/15/11 -agenda item 9- June 15, 2011 To: Planning Commission From: Re: Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment - 6/15/11 -agenda item 9- parry]@gte.net; I oppose the proposed Saint John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment because the 998 Development Agreement obligated St. John's to build an on-site 442-space parking garage. 1. I do not view leasing 450 spaces at the Yahoo Center as "functionally equivalent" to building a parking garage on-site because Yahoo is one third mile away from St. John's. 2. St. John's cannot guarantee that it will have permanent access to parking at the Yahoo Center. One half of the office space at the Yahoo Center was vacant as of December 2010, so it makes no sense to assume that the Yahoo Center can permanently lease one third of its parking spaces to St: John's. The Blackstone Group -- http://www.blackstone.com/cps/rde/xcho/bxcom/hs/firm historv.htm --which owns the Yahoo Center and Santa Monica Business Park, along with billions of dollars worth of other real estate holdings on four continents, has no obligation to provide parking for St. John's on a permanent basis. Current Yahoo tenant eHarmony requested that the City Council deny Yahoo's Development Agreement Amendment to allow Yahoo to legally lease out 1,000 parking spaces. This was based on difficulty eHarmony employees have in finding parking spaces right now. Many eHarmony employees are commuting from the company's previous location in Pasadena, and a new tenant is relocating from Burbank, so walking, biking, and busing to work are not a practical solution fortheir employees at this time. 3. The true "Community Benefit" would be for St. John's to build the on-site parking it agreed to 13 years ago in its Development Agreement with the City of Santa Monica. Then, nearby residents would be able to use on-street parking near their homes and not have to continue watching hospital employees and construction workers use handicapped placards to take over all the on-street parking in their neighborhood. The $394 million North Pavilion of St. John's opened in December 2004. The $499 million St. John's replacement hospital, the Howard Keck Center, opened in July 2009. It's time for St. John's to provide parking for those facilities. 4.. I live on 26'" St. north of Wilshire and have seen the reduded number of available parking spots. Our area does not have restricted parking. Many days of the week, we the homeowner must park over a block away-when you are carrying grocery or children, it is a burden. We need to have parking for the homeowners, not the employees of St. Johns or Yahoo Center. Roxanne Tanemori From: Kyle Ferstead Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:15 AM To: Roxanne Tanemori Subject: FW: St. John's Lease of Yahoo Parking FYI From: J Kennedy [mailto:kennedyrcb@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:19 PM To: Kyle Ferstead Subject: Fwd: St. John's Lease of Yahoo Parking -----Original Message----- From: Nicole Kolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com> To: HKoning <HKoning@KEArch.com>; TedSMPlan <TedSMPlan@gmail.com>; GNewbold <GNewbold@gmail.com>; Jim_Ries <Jim Ries@hotmail.com>; parryj <parryj@gte.net>; Kennedyrcb <Kennedyrcb@aol.com> Cc: nhkolhoff <nhkolhoff@yahoo.com> Sent: Wed, Jun 15, 2011 9:19 am Subject: St. John's Lease of Yahoo Parking Dear Planning Commission - I am a Sunset Park resident and our kids attend Santa Monica public schools. I don't have any particular dog in this fight, but I find it extremely frustrating when the City doesn't use the leverage it has to enforce development agreements and extract concessions from developers. These are huge missed opportunities. I urge you to oppose the St. John's Development Agreement Amendment. First, I strongly oppose any decision to not require developers to comply with their contractual obligations under a development agreement. The City makes concessions with the promise of "community benefits" whether it be parking, open space or otherwise. If developers are not held to these requirements, then the development agreements become toothless and you can assume that any future outlay of money by a developer will not be complied with. As many new development agreements will be entered into in connection with the LUCE, the City needs to show that it will enforce those development agreements. Second, the City needs more parking, not less. Our kids attended day care in Yahoo Center and there is already not enough parking (and it's too expensive). Also, more parking will be needed in that area when the train comes through. When I attended one of the Bergamot planning meetings, the City appeared to have NO park- and-ride parking (which is necessary in order for residents like me to get any benefit out of the train). Rather the City said it would rely on shared parking arrangements with new business and existing businesses like Yahoo Center and Water Garden. Clearly letting St. John's lease from Yahoo Center would have a detrimental impact on parking for the train and the Bergamot development and would require the City and other developers to build more parking later. St. John's already agreed to build its parking and it should have to do so. For the sake of good faith and fair dealing, a waiver should not be granted. For the sake of the community, the problem should not be pushed onto other locations, thereby exacerbating the parking problems at future developments, including the train. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Nikki Kolhoff Roxanne Tanemori From: Kyle Ferstead Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:15 AM To: Roxanne Tanemori Subject: FW: (no subject) FYI From: Pjakle@aoLcom [mailto:Pjakle@aoLcom] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:00 PM To: Kyle Ferstead; HKoning@KEArch.com; TedSMPlan@gmail.com; GNewbold@gmail.com; Jim_Ries@hotmail.com; parry]@gte.net; Kennedyrcb@aoLcom Subject: (no subject) June 15, 2011 To: Planning Commissioners From: Pat and John Jakle, Yale Street Residents Re: Agenda item #9, 6/15/11: Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment I oppose the proposed Saint John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment. The initial Development Agreement obligated St. John's to build an on-site 442-space parking garage. St. John's cannot guarantee that it will have permanent access to parking at the Yahoo Center. One half of the office space at the Yahoo Center was vacant as of December 2010, and logically, when the economy recovers and tenants are found, these parking spaces will be needed for on site tenants and disappear for St. John's usage. Now that construction for the new hospital is complete, and very welcome in our community, it is St. John's obligation to provide on site parking as agreed to from the outset of their development agreement. Thank you for your consideration and for your valued public service to our community. Pat and John Jakle 901 Yale Street Santa Monica, CA 90403 Roxanne Tanemori From: Kyle Ferstead Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:12 AM To: Roxanne Tanemori Subjeet: FW: Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment - 6/15/11 - FYI Frgm: Aimee R Flynn [mailto:chaosla@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 9:11 PM To: Kyle Ferstead Subject: Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment - 6/15/11 - June 15, 2011 To: Planning Commission From: Re: Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment - 6/15/11 -agenda item 9- I oppose the proposed Saint John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment because the 998 Development Agreement obligated St. John's to build an on-site 442-space parking garage. 1. I do not view leasing 450 spaces at the Yahoo Center as "functionally equivalent" to building a parking garage on-site because Yahoo is one third mile away from St. John's. 2. St. John's cannot guarantee that it will have permanent access to parking at the Yahoo Center. One half of the office space at the Yahoo Center was vacant as of December 2010, so it makes no sense to assume that the Yahoo Center can permanently lease one third of its parking spaces to St. John's. The Blackstone Group -- htto://www.blackstone.com/cps/rde/xcho/bxcom/hs/firm historv.htm -- which owns the Yahoo Center and Santa Monica Business Park, along with billions of dollars worth of other real estate holdings on four continents, has no obligation to provide parking for St. John's on a permanent basis. Current Yahoo tenant eHarmony requested that the City Council deny Yahoo's Development Agreement Amendment to allow Yahoo to legally lease out 1,000 parking spaces. This was based on difficulty eHarmony employees have in finding parking spaces right now. Many eHarmony employees are commuting from the company's previous location in Pasadena, and a new tenant is relocating from Burbank, so walking, biking, and busing to work are not a practical solution for their employees at this time. 3. The true "Community Benefit" would be for St. John's to build the on-site parking it agreed to 13 years aoo in its Development Agreement with the City of Santa Monica. Then, nearby residents would be able to use on-street parking near their homes and not have to continue watching hospital employees and construction workers use handicapped placards to take over all the on-street parking in their neighborhood. The $394 million North Pavilion of St. John's opened in December 2004. The $499 million St. John's replacement hospital, the Howard Keck Center, opened in July 2009. It's time for St. John's to provide parking for those facilities. Thank you The Flynn Family 324 16th St SM CA 90402 Roxanne Tanemori From: Kyle Ferstead Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 10:11 AM To: Roxarine Tanemori Subject: FW: Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment - 6/15/11 -agenda item 9 FYI From: betafishmusic@gmail.com [mailto:betafishmusic@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Jed Smith Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:47 AM To: HKoning@KEArch.com; TedSMPlan@gmail.com; GNewbold@gmail.com; Jim_Ries@hotmail.com; parry]@gte.net; Kennedyrcb@aol.com; Kyle Ferstead Cc: Liesel Schlosser Subject: Saint John's Development Agreement Amendment - 6/15/11 -agenda item 9 I oppose the proposed Saint John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment because the 998 Development Agreement obligated St. John's to build an on-site 442-space parking garage. 1. I do not view leasing 450 spaces at the Yahoo Center as "functionally equivalent" to building a parking garage on-site because Yahoo is one third mile away from St. John's. 2. St. John's cannot guarantee that it will have permanent access to parking at the Yahoo Center. One half of the office space at the Yahoo Center was vacant as of December 2010, so it makes no sense to assume that the Yahoo Center can permanently lease one third of its parking spaces to St. John's. The Blackstone Group -- htto://www.Blackstone.com/coslyde/xchg/bxcom/hs/firm history htm --which owns the Yahoo Center and Santa Monica Business Park, along with billions of dollars worth of other real estate holdings on four continents, has no obligation to provide parking for St. John's on a permanent basis. Current Yahoo tenant eHarmony requested that the City Council deny Yahoo's Development Agreement Amendment to allow Yahoo to legally lease out 1,000 parking spaces. This was based on difficulty eHarmony employees have in finding parking spaces right now. Many eHarmony employees are commuting from the company's previous location in Pasadena, and a new tenant is relocating from Burbank, so walking, biking, and busing to work are not a practical solution for their employees at this time. 3. The true "Community Benefit" would be for St. John's to build the on-site parking it agreed to 13 years ago in its Development Agreement with the City of Santa Monica. Then, nearby residents would be able to use on-street parking near their homes and not have to continue watching hospital employees and construction workers use handicapped placards to take over all the on-street parking in their neighborhood. The $394 million North Pavilion of St. John's opened in December 2004. The $499 million St. John's replacement hospital, the Howard Keck Center, opened in July 2009. It's time for St. John's to provide parking for those facilities. Thank you Jed Smith 1802 20th st_ste_a santa_monica California 90404 ATTACHMENTI Saint John's Health Center Addendum to 1998 Certified EIR, June 2011 46 ADDENDUM TO THE 1998 CERTIFIED FINAL EIR FOR SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CENTER PROJECT 1. SiIMMARY Saint John's Health Center, (the "Applicant" or "SJHC"), is proposing to amend its approved Development Agreement with the City of Santa Monica for the Saint john's Hospital and Health Center Project ("original project"). In lieu of constructing an on-site parking structure and the Entry Plaza as proposed by the original project, the Amendment would authorize a modified Entry Plaza and parking program to meet the peak pazking demand of SJHC's various user groups, and ensure that parking that is functionally equivalent to the previously-approved North Subterranean Parking Garage is provided. The proposed project also includes a potential scenario where SJHC would demolish the modified Entry Plaza, construct the North Subterranean Parking Gazage, and re-build an Entry Plaza in the future following operation of the parking program outlined more fully below. The environmental impacts associated with the original project were addressed in a Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (SCH No. 97011022) that was certified on April 3, 1998, hereafter referred to as the "Certified EIR." This Addendum demonstrates that the proposed amendment to the approved Development Agreement with the City and associated changes to the original project, referred to hereafter as the "Modified Project," would not result in new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of effects which warrant major revisions to the Certified EIR. Accordingly, further environmental documentation beyond this Addendum to the Certified EIR is not necessary. It is also important to note that the Certified EIR included analysis (i.e., an Environmental Assessment) to satisfy Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). However, as NEPA clearance was only required in order to allow for federal funding for facility repairs as part of Phase I of the original project (to address structural damage following the 1994 Northridge earthquake) that have already occurred, and no funding or federal permitting is necessary for the Modified Project, this Addendum does not address the previous NEPA analysis. 2. BACKGROUND Following the 1994 Northridge earthquake, SJHC proposed the Saint John's Hospital and Health Center Project, which included phased expansion of the hospital and related facilities on the Saint John's Health Center property ("project site"). The original project required: (1) a Development Agreement; (2) an Amended Hospital Area Specific Plan ("Amended HASP"}; City of Santa Monica St John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Service Cocpomtion/SCH No. 970110?? Iune 2011 Page 1 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR and, (3) related amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Elements ("LUCE") of the City's General Plan, including modifications to the General Plan Land Use Element Policy Map. As discussed above, the approval process for the original project included the preparation of an EIR in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Draft EIR for the original project was circulated fora 45-day review period from September 3`d to October 20th, 1997. Impacts regarding Earth; Noise; Light and Glare/Shade and Shadow; Risk of UpseUHuman Health; Socioeconomics; Fire Protection; Police Protection; Schools; Libraries; Water Services; Storm and Sanitary Sewers; Solid Waste; Energy; and Cultural Resources were determined to be either less than sibtrnificant or reduced'to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures. In addition, the Draft EIR identified several significant unavoidable impacts relating to Air Quality, Land Use, Traffic, Public Facilities/Roads, Recreation, Aesthetics, Neighborhood Effects, and Construction Impacts. On Mazch 31; 1998, the Santa Monica City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and on April 1, 1998 adopted a Statement of Ovemding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring Plan, and approved the project. 3. PURPOSE OF ADDENDUM AND CEQA REQUIREMENTS This Addendum to the Certified EIR for the Saint John's Hospital and Health Center Project evaluates potential environmenfal effects associated with proposed changes to the original project set forth in the proposed Development Agreement amendment which would authorize a modified Entry Plaza and parking program to meet the peak parking demand of SJHC's various user groups, and ensure that parking that is functionally equivalent to the previously-approved North Subterranean Parking Gazage is provided ("Modified Project"). Furthermore, the Modified Project includes a scenario where SJHC may be required, in the future, to demolish the modified Entry Plaza, construct the Phase I North Subterranean Parking Garage, and re-build the Entry Plaza. The Certified EIR included all statutory sections required by CEQA, comments received on the Draft EIR, responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and supporting technical appendices. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines provides that an Addendum to a previously Certified EIR can be prepared if relatively limited changes or additions to the EIR are necessary and none of the conditions in Secfion 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines requiring prepazation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred, as described below. The CEQA Cnsidelines, Section 15164, provides that an addendum to a previously Certified EIR be prepared if changes or additions to the EIR are necessary and none of the conditions in Section 15162 of the CEQA Cneidelines requiring preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. In order to give a degree of fmality to EIR documentation, Section 15162 requires that a Subsequent EIR need only be prepared under the following circumstances: (1.)Substantial changes are proposed in the project rovhich will regasire major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of nerov significant City of San[a Monica St 3ohn's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services CorporatiodSCH No. 970110?2 Tune 2011 Page 2 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified sign cant effects, (2.)Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, which will redzzire major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a szbstantial increase in the severity ofpreviozzsZy identified significant effects; (3.)New information of substantial importance, which was not known and cozdd not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete shows any of the following: a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration, b. Sign cant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more sign cant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigafion measure or alternative, or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. The purpose of this Addendum is to make minor technical changes and additions to the Certified EIR, where warranted, in order to ensure that the environmental effects of the Modified Project have been adequately evaluated and addressed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. The analysis is focused on whether the Modified Project or changes in environmental and regulatory conditions would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of impacts previously identified in the Certified EIR. 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4.1 Project Location The project site is located in the western portion of Los Angeles County, in the City of Santa Monica. The project azea is accessible from the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10) from both the east and west via Cloverfield Boulevard and 20th Street. The SJHC campus site consists of approximately 902,550 squaze feet of land area. The campus is divided into two segments by Santa Monica Boulevard. The North Campus (north of Santa Monica Boulevard) consists of approximately 589,750 square feet of land azea and includes all of the land bounded by Arizona City of Santa Monica St John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corpmadon/SCH No. 97011022 lone 201 t Page 3 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR Avenue on the north, Santa Monica Boulevard on the south, 20th Street on the west, and 23`a Street on the east. The South Campus (south of Santa Monica Boulevard) consists of approximately 312,800 square feet of land area and includes the property owned by SJHC (or related entities) between Santa Monica Boulevard on the north, Broadway Avenue on the south, 20a' Street on the west, and 23`a Street on the east. 4.2 Environmental Setting The SJHC campus site is located in an area with a mix of land uses. The North Campus is bordered to the north and east prtmarily by residential uses. McKinley Elementary School is also located in close proximity (one block east) and several health care-related uses and commercial buildings are also located immediately to the north on Arizona Avenue and to the west along 20`h Street. The South Campus is bordered by a mix of commercial, industrial and residential uses and art gallerieslarkist studios. These include medical, commercial and residential uses to the east; commercial; art galleries and industrial uses to the south; and hotels, residential uses, and a church to the west. 4.3 Descripfion of Project Addressed in Certified EIR As discussed in detail in the Certified EIR, the original project was anticipated to occur in two phases involving both the North and South campuses of the hospital. Plans consisted of the demolition of existing medical facilities and the construction of new medical and non-medical facilities, subject to the provisions of a Development Agreement between the project applicant and the City of Santa Monica. The two phases of the original project are described as follows: Phase I: Phase I would occupy a substantial portion of the North Campus, and involve the demolition of approximately 535,722 square feet of existing floor area, to be replaced by a maximum of 475,000 square feet of floor area, consisting of a maximum of 200,000 square feet of inpatient suites, and 275,000 square feet for the diagnostic and treatment center, including a women's health services resource center, clinical aspects of the John Wayne Cancer Institute, various therapy services, and related operations support space. In addition, a 32,000-square-foot subterranean central plant would be constructed. While Saint John's was licensed for 317 beds at the time the Saint John's Hospital and Health Center Project was proposed, the proposed new Inpatient Suites were to be licensed for and contain approximately 150 adult acute care beds (prior to the damage sustained during the Northridge Earthquake, Saint John's had been licensed for 501 beds). Phase 1 would involve the construction of a minimum of 440 new parking spaces in a subterranean parking structure, in addition to approximately 26 surface parking spaces for the emergency room parking azea and the loading dock and service pazking area. Phase II: Phase II included the entire South Campus and portions of the North Campus. The Development Agreement provisions addressing Phase II established specialized City of Santa Monica St John's Hralth Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services CorporationlSCH No. 97011022 - June 2011 Page 4 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR development standards for Phase ff and its various designated areas, which regulate the height, floor area,,location, and use of buildings to be constructed in Phase II. There is a broad spectrum of Phase II development scenarios that could be developed consistent with the terms of the Development Agreement. It was anticipated that the development of Phase II would occur in four stages. Phase II would consist of the demolition of 109,220 squaze feet of-floor area of existing improvements, and the construction of new improvements not to exceed an aggregate of 916,500 square feet of floor area {in addition to Phase I). Proposed new buildings and uses would consist of a health and wellness center, which would offer clinically-based rehabilitation services and prevention-oriented health and fitness services, and may incorporate features of a health club, indoor athletic facilities, exercise/dance studios and outdoor athletic court facilities; hospitaUhealth care uses; meeting rooms; congregate care facilities; senior housing and senior group housing; overnight visitor accommodations (to a maximum of 100 rooms); day care facilities, banks and other financial institutions; restaurants, retail and inazket establishments; art galleries and studios; a broadcast studio; and parking structures. To date, SJHC has completed all of the Phase I improvements with the exception of the proposed 440-space on-site subterranean parking structure and Entry Plaza. SJHC is now seeking an amendment to its Development Agreement that would authorize a modified Entry Plaza and parking program that meets the peak demand of its various user groups and provides pazking that is the functional equivalent of Phase I North Subterranean Parking Garage. In addition, the proposed Amendment includes provisions for clarification of the square footage of the D&T Center, implementation of neighborhood protection provisions, and clarification of the number of parking spaces at the.Emergency Department. However, none of these proposed amendments would have any potential for generating environmental impacts and therefore are not analyzed further in this Addendum. The Modified Project applies only to Phase I development, and is described in detail below under the Modified Project. 4.4 Modified Project As noted above, subsequent to the approval of the Saint John's Hospital and Health Center Project, SJIIC filed an amendment to its Development Agreement which would authorize a parking program to meet the peak parking demand of SJHC's various user groups, ensure that parking that is functionally equivalent to the previously-approved North Subterranean Pazking Garage is provided, and authorize the construction of a modified Entry Plaza at the facility's main entrance on Santa Monica Boulevazd. To accommodate parking demand, SJHC proposes to provide parking to meet the peak demand at a series of on- and off-site locations (see Figure 1, Location of SHJC Parking Facilities, below) comprised of both SJHC-owned and leased parking facilities City of Santa bIonica St. Johds Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 97011022 Sune 201 I Page 5 rya ,~ 2d ~ a P `SF c ~o c~' 5~ ,a ma , °a °c` ~ y~ 26.F c 9a P °ca SF A Ga~~ - 'ce F . t o ONa 23 4 C5 use a `SF 2 `SF 9 rc `e \ S~ K1 /K2 D F O Y 2~ ~' S F C G E NSF Q`e o `SF B/ e P,~ Fi o 'q a a°c A I P` A 0 °~~ ~ Asa pJa S ~a O aA ° ~` LEGEND P,~ ~, __ ~~ ~ Pro]ect Site aAO s `sF Analyzed Intersection ~o G° Parking Lots (Spaces) A Koll (84) B MRI (789) ~j C Valet (56) F5s ° D Arizona (0) E Interim Entry Plaza (80) F 23rd St (0} - . G Held (750) ® . H JWCI (300) ~ ~ Pa Verizon (127) ° < Ki Keck Emergency (74} FF " \a3a K2 Keck Loading Dock (11) 'st O~ 5 St. Anne's (85) Y Yahoo 450 -~m~-} Location of St John's Health Center Parking Facilities FIGURE ~/ Not to scale ' q St John's HealthCenter Development AgreementAmeridment L Source: Shane Miller Company, LLC, lone 30, 2010. PCR Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR The leased parking facilities are currently, and would continue to be, under lease agreements with the respective property owners. The Modified Project also includes construction of a modified Entry Plaza to serve as the main entrance to the facility and its on-site valet parking operation. This modified Entry Plaza would operate much like the previously- approved Entry Plaza without inclusion of driveways for access to a subterranean parking garage; however, the modified Entry Plaza would be aesthetically similar to the original design. It should be noted that given the lack of construction activities associated with providing off-site parking, the duration and intensity of construction for the modified Entry Plaza would be considerably less than that assumed for the originally-approved Entry Plaza and parking garage in the Certified EIR. As such, while the Modified Project would change the operational characteristics of the original Phase I parking program through implementation of an off-site parking program and valet service, it would not result in any additional development for Phase I uses beyond that contemplated in the Certified EIR. Other than providing parking off-site and constructing a modified Entry Plaza, the Modified Project would not alter the overall development proposal reflected in the current Hospital Area Specific Plan. (A component of the Modified Project also includes the potential future constrmction of the North Subterranean Parking Garage and reconstruction of Entry Plaza, that is discussed more fully on page 9 of this document.) Implementation of the proposed pazking program would result in 297 fewer on-site spaces provided at the completion of Phase I construction than was originally identified in the Certified EIR (i.e., 458 on-site spaces out of a total supply of 1,438 spaces).` To address this potential shortfall, SJHC has made changes to the number and location of parking spaces under its control since the 1998 EIR was certified. Under the Modified Project, with implementation of the parking program comprised of both an on- and off-site parking program and valet operation, SJHC is planning to provide a total of approximately 1,540 spaces in 2011 when the completion of Phase I is anticipated, including 161 spaces provided on site at its North Campus. A comparison of parking supply from (1) what was available in 1997, to (2) the Certified EIR projected supply in 2005, to (3) the anticipated actual supply in 2011 is shown below in Table 1, SJHC Phase I Parking Szzpply Comparison. As indicated in Table 1, key components of the proposed parking program are the provision of 450 pazking spaces off-site at the Yahoo Center that would serve as the functional equivalent of the North Subterranean Parking Garage, and the operation of afull-service pazking valet for SJHC patients, visitors, and physicians at the on-site 1 The SJHC DevelopmentAo Bement specifies that a total of 468 on-site parla'ng spaces to be provided for Phase I development; this number is slightly greater than the 438 on-site spaces identified in the Cerdfzed EIR. City olSanta Monica St John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corporztion/SCH No. 97011022 June 2011 Page 7 Addendum to the 1998 Certified E1R Table 1 SJHC Phase I Parking Supply Comparison Panting Location Actual 1996 EIR/EA 2005 Estimated 2011 Proposed On-Site Parking North Campus Entry Plaza and Loading Dock Area 240 440 147 -Emergency Department - 0 - 18 14 South Campus 491 488 610 Held/Koll 489 489 234 Off-Site Parking Other Sites Yahoo Center 0 0 450 St. Anne's Church 0 0 85 TOTALS 1,220 1,435 1,540 Source: Environmental Science Associates, 1997, and Saint John's Health Center, 2010. Entry Plaza. The Yahoo Center is located approximately 1,000 feet from the S7HC North Campus (approximately three blocks to the southeast)? As noted previously, the project analyzed in the Certified EIR included a new 440-space gazage in the North parking area to accommodate both an increase in trips and a loss of surface pazking in lots D and F due to hospital expansion. The proposal to institute an off-site parking program and on-site valet operation would shift some trips away from the immediate site to remote lots, with an increase in localized trips due to the valet operation. The 440-space garage was projected to provide on-site parking of 332 spaces for visitors and patients, 52 spaces for staff, and 56 spaces for physicians. The Certified EIR also projected an additional 18 emergency visitor surface spaces. Under the Modified Project, the North Campus parking facilities are now planned to provide 161 spaces, including 56 physician spaces, 94 patient and visitor spaces, and 11 staff The analysis in this Addendum of fuhzre parking supply (Table 1) and parking program trip end changes (Table 3) utilizes parking data provided by Saint John's in June 2010. After the traffic impact analysis was completed (Appendix A), Saint John's provided the City with minor refnements to this parking data. See Saint John's June 3, 2011 letter fo the Santa tYlonica Planning Commission. For instance, the total supply ofparking spaces was reduced by twelve from 1,540 to 1,528. The anticipated zzser groups of speck parking facilities were also slightly madded. This reined informafion has been reviewed to assess whether the traffc impact analysis (Appendix A) should be ream. It has been concluded that the revised parking data does not require new analysis. These revisions do not change theparking szzpply being shifted to the Yahoo Center and the trafftc patterns associated rovith that change. Yi'hile the parking stpply at St. Anne's would increase by 10 spaces from 85 to 95 spaces and thereby reszzlt in an increase of 2 peak period traps, that Increase would not be sufficient to trigger new impacts at nearby intersections. Finally, the majority of other changes in parking stpply are at lots owned by Saint John's, with the greatest changes occurring at Lots Hand I. These lots are next to each other so the trip assignment wozdd remain essenfrally the same. Based on the conckrsion that these revisions wozdd not generate any new impacts, they have not been expressly incorporated into this Addendum. A table showing the changes in the parking supply and parking utilization is attached to this Addendum as Appendic C. City of Santa N%onica St.John's Health Center Development AgreementAmendment PCR Services CorporatiodSCH No. 97011022 Sune2011 Page 8 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR spaces. The main patient/visitor and physician lots would be accessed via the U-shaped Entry Plaza, which would contain signalized entry and exit points on Santa Monica Boulevard between 20rv Street and 23rd Street. All visitor and patient parking would be valet-parked, with about 75 percent of the approximately 356 spaces designated visitor/patient spaces located south of Santa Monica Boulevard in lots B and H, which are owned and currently utilized by SJHC. The use of these visitor spaces would involve extra valet trips from the modified Entry Plaza to and from lots B and H. Likewise, a small number of staff using Lot H and all staff using the St. Anne's lot will drive directly to-the St. Anne's facility and also be valet parked. Valets would travel from the Entry Plaza across Santa Monica Boulevard at a signalized intersection and use one-way 215` Street to access the parking lots. For the return-trip, the valets are expected to travel back to SJHC by making a series of right turns from 215` Street to Broadway, 20`h Street; and Santa Monica Boulevazd. The increase in visitor parking in the lots south of Santa Monica Boulevard reduces the amount of staff parking in this area by approximately 139 spaces. These will primarily be replaced by self-pazking at the Yahoo Center. This parking is accessed from 26d' Street between Colorado Avenue and Broadway, and leads to an increased number of vehicle trips in the immediate vicinity. As outlined above, SJHC would operate the off-site parking program utilizing SJHC- owned and leased parking facilities, as well as construct the modified Entry Plaza for patient pick-up/drop-off and valet pazking activities. However, if at some point in the future, SJHC can no longer provide parking that serves as the functional equivalent to the previously-approved North Subterranean Parking Gazage, SJIIC will be required to commence construction of the North Subterranean Parking Garage. Under this potential scenario of the Modified Project, it is anticipated that an additional 10 months of construction activities would be necessary beyond what was previously evaluated in the Certified EIR for the previously-approved construction of the Phase I North Subterranean Gazage and Entry Plaza. Specifically, under this scenario S7HC would demolish the modified Entry Plaza being utilized as the main entrance to the facility, remove the demolition material from the Entry Plaza (approximately 17,500 cubic yards), remove existing backfilled demolition materials left over from construction of other Phase I structures (approximately 35,500 cubic yards), construct the Phase I parking garage, and re-build the Entry Plaza (including relocation of crosswalk and traffic signal on Santa Monica Boulevard), and remove Valet Lot "C". With respect to the potential scenario where SJHC would be required to build the Phase I parking garage sometime in the future, while the Certified EIR assumed construction of the Entry Plaza in association with the constnction of the Phase I parking garage, it did not evaluate impacts associated with the demolition and reconstruction of the 40,000-square-foot modified Entry Plaza that is anticipated, for the purposes of the following analysis, to be built in 2011. Although construction of the City of Santa Monica St John's HealN Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corpomtion/SCH No.97011022 Tune 2011 Page 9 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR project may not occur for several yeazs, if at all, the analysis ofproject-related impacts is based. on a more conservative 2011 build-out. This assumption is considered more conservative due to the fact that, for example, air pollutant emission factors gradually decrease with time given ongoing improvements in fuel efficiency and air pollutant control technologies, and therefore utilizing a 2011 timeframe provides aworst-case evaluation of air quality impacts. Further, this timeframe is of particular importance as construction emissions are directly related to the intensity of construction activities. A compressed construction schedule would result in increased construction intensity and emissions. However, construction activities for the additional work would be carried out in the same manner as was assumed in the Certified EIR (i.e, using similar equipment mix; the same construction hours, similar construction techniques, and utilizing the same truck haul routes and time restrictions for truck haul trips), and therefore the construction and demolition of the modified Entry Plaza would simply represent additional duration of the construction impacts associated with Phase I improvements. Furthermore, once constructed, the parking garage and re-built Entry Plaza would operate in the same manner and intensity as was evaluated in the Certified EIR, and therefore no changes relative to operational impacts would result from implementation of the Modified Project scenario associated with North Subterranean Parking Garage construction and re-construction of the Entry Plaza. As such, the additional 10 months of construction activities anticipated for this scenario is the subject of the environmental analysis focused on potential, future North Subterranean Parking Garage constmction, which is a component of the Modified Project. 5. APPLICATION OF PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIl2ONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION TO AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This section compares the impacts of the Modified Project with the impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR for the Saint John's Hospital and Health Center Project. Only those environmental topics addressed by the previously certified environmental documentation that are potentially affected by the Modified Project are addressed below, which include Air Quality, Noise, Land Use, Transportation and Circulation, Neighborhood Effects, and Construction Impacts. All mitigation measures recommended by the Certified EIR that are applicable to the Modified Project are incorporated by reference herein and would also be implemented under the amended Development Agreement, except where a recommended mitigation measure is detemvned to be inappropriate. In addition, although not analyzed in the Certified EIR, an analysis of greenhouse gas/global climate change impacts of the Modified Project is included in this Addendum to the Certified EIR, as recent changes to the CEQA Guidelines require evaluafion of potential impacts in this regard. As such, this issue is addressed in Section 5.7, Global Climate Change, below. S.1 Air Quality The discussion of operational air quality impacts of the original project is provided in Section 5.2, Air Qatality, of the Certified EIR. The following describes the relevant operational vehicular (mobile-source) air quality effects associated with the original SJHC project (as City ofSanta Monica St John's Health Center Development AgreementAmendment PCR Services Corpotation/SCH No. 9701102? Sune?Ol I Page 10 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR described in the Certified EIR), followed by a discussion of operational vehicular air quality impacts of the Modified Project due to the change in localized traffic patterns associated with the off=site parking program. -Given that the construction associated with the component of the Modified Project that implements the revised parking program was fully analyzed in the Certified EIR, an evaluation of construction-related air quality effects is not provided in this Addendum. Similarly, as the operational analysis only relates to mobile-source air quality effects associated with changes in vehicle distribution pattems under the off-site parking program, stationary-source emissions are also not addressed in the following discussion. Original Project. In the Certified EIR prepared for the original project (STHC Phase I), the increases in air pollutant emissions due to construction and operation were calculated and compared to mass emission thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and used by the City as significance criteria under CEQA. Regional mass emissions for all criteria and precursor pollutants studied (volatile organic compounds, VOC, oxides of nitrogen, NOx, carbon monoxide, CO, sulfur dioxide, SOy and particulate matter with diameters of 10 microns or less, PM10) were below the applicable thresholds with mitigation, and no significant impacts to regional air quality were expected to occur as a result of the project. With regard to potential localized impacts, i.e., the creation or worsening of a carbon monoxide. (CO) hotspot, the analyses for the Certified EIR included modeling of CO concentrations from project-related traffic at four intersections under Phase I conditions. The original project would not cause an exceedance of the one-hour or eight-hour average CO standard. As such, localized impacts were concluded to be less than significant. Furthermore, the Certified EIR concluded that Phase I of the original project would not result in conflicts with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), since it would not exceed established emissions thresholds for criteria pollutants. Modified Project. The Modified Project primarily involves implementation of an off- site parking program and on-site valet program that would result in less construction activity than was previously analyzed for Phase I of the S7HC project. T'he proposed parking program would make use of currently-available off-site,parking spaces and include operation of a parking valet, and construction of a modified Entry Plaza. The original Entry Plaza was analyzed in the Certified EIR, but the Modified Project would require slight modifications such as lane restriping and other aesthetic changes to the landscape design to create the modified Entry Plaza currently proposed. Thus, regional construction impacts (worst-case daily emissions) resulting from the Modified Project are not expected to be greater than the less-than-significant regional construction impacts projected for the original project in the Certified EIR. Since the completion of the Certified EIR, new air quality standards have been adopted for pollutants such as particulate matter with diameters of 2.5 microns or less (PM2,;), and impacts were not analyzed in the Certified EIR. However, because PM2s er~ssions are a subset CiTy of Santa Modica SL John's Health Ce¢ter Developme¢t AgreementAmendment PCR Services Corpoation/SCH No. 97011022 Sune 2011 Page 11 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR of PMIO emissions', PM2,; emission levels can be extrapolated from the original analysis and compared to the applicable significance criteria (see Air Quality/Global Climate Change Technical Appendix for SJIIC, Appendix B of this Addendum). The SCAQMD methodology to calculate PM2.; emissions is based on the California Emissions Inventory Data and Reporting System (CEIDARS) developed by CARB. Using the CEIDARS database, the SCAQMD has developed a PM2,; fraction of PMIO. The PM2.; fraction of PMIO from dust generating source is 21 percent and for combustion sources the fraction is 99 percent. Upon review, it was determined that the Modified Project would not result in significant regional impacts from PM2s emissions. Since the adoption of the FEII2, the SCAQMD has established criteria and methodology to assess potential localized impacts from construction activities, which consider only the on-site emissions, the ambient air quality in the vicinity of the site, and the distance between the nearest off-site sensitive receptor and the site. The potential construction acfrvities expected under the Modified Project, such as paving, striping, and erection of signage and lighting, are not expected to generate levels of emissions which would exceed even the most stringent applicable localized significance thresholds (details provided in Appendix B). Thus, due to the minimal nature of construction activities required for the Modified Project, localized emissions are unlikely to cause a new impact. Thus, construction impacts resulting from the revised project are found to be less than significant The Modified Project would not change the amount of occupied space and number of visitors to the hospital from what was analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Traffic Study Memorandum prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants (included as Appendix A of this Addendum) demonstrates that the Average Daily Trips (ADT) would remain the same. Thus, regional impacts resulting from the amended project are expected to be equal to those impacts projected from the original project, and found to be less than significant. Though ADT aze expected to remain the same, and no additional development is proposed in conjunction with implementation of the proposed parking program, this component of the Modified Project will result in a shift of trips away from the immediate site to remote lots and a minimal increase in localized trips due to an expanded valet operation. Due to the diversion of traffic trips and the increase in localized trips, the SCAQMD recommends ahot-spot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts when vehicle-to-capacity (V/C) ratios are increased by two percent or more at intersections with a level of service (LOS) of D or worse. According to the Traffic Study, using 2005 projected traffic conditions as a baseline, six of the study intersections would meet this criterion. However, as discussed more fully in Section 5.4 of this document, this impact analysis does not represent a new signifcant impact or an increase in the severity of an impact previously identified in the Certified E1R for the Original Project. The Traffic Study also determined that had the currently-proposed S7HC pazking program been studied in the 1998 EIIt/EA, there would have been significant impacts identified at the intersections of 26`h Street & 3 http://w~wv.agmd.gov/cega/handbook/PNl3_5/PM2_S.html City of Santa itifonica st John's Health Center Development Ae Bement Amendment PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 97011022 June 2011 Page 12 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR Wilshire Boulevard, 26a' Street & Broadway, and 26c' Street & Colorado Boulevard. However, the measures that would have been required to mitigate these impacts have already been implemented since project approval in 1998. These measures include modifications to lane geometry and signal changes that are active at all three intersections. Given implementation of these measures, there are no new significant impacts. Thus, no additional analysis of this issue is necessary, and it is concluded that the proposed project would not cause any new or exacerbate any existing CO hotspots. Accordingly, impacts related to localized mobile-source CO emissions would be less than significant. Once construction activities for demolition of the modified Entry Plaza, construction of the North Subterranean Parking Garage, and re-construction of the Entry Plaza are completed, operational air quality impacts of the Modified Project scenario focused on potential North Subterranean Parking Garage construction and Entry Plaza re-construction would be identical to those evaluated in the Certified EIR. This is because the provision of the Entry Plaza and Phase I parking gazage would complete the Phase I improvements described in the Certified EIR, and would not result in additional sources of on- or off=site air pollutant emissions. Therefore, operational air quality impacts related to this. component of the Modified Project are within the scope of impacts evaluated in the Certified EIR. The proposed changes of the new parking program will not result in any new, unavoidable significant air quality impacts. As changes in the project are not expected to generate additional trips due to the lack of additional Phase I development beyond what was assumed in the Certified EIR, the amended project is not expected to create additional impacts and construction and operational impacts are less than significant. With respect to operational odors, the proposed project does not have a high potential to generate substantial odor impacts. Any related project that may. have a potential to generate objectionable odors would be required by SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to implement Best Available Control Technology to limit potential objectionable odor impacts to a less .than significant level. Also, SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and solvents, which lowers the emissions of odorous compounds. Thus, potential odor impacts from the proposed project are anticipated to be cumulatively less than significant. Cumulative Impacts For purposes of the cumulative air quality analysis with respect to CEQA Gcsidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the project's incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts is deteumined based on compliance with the SCAQMD's adopted 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing and employment assumptions which were used in the development of the AQMP. The 2007 AQMP, the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates SCAG's RTP City of Santa Nfonica St John's Health Center Development AgreementAmendment PCR Services Coipamfion/SCH No. 97011022 Sune 2011 Page 13 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population and employment growth. Because the Modified Project would not alter development proposed under the current HASP, it is supportive of the City's growth projections. Thus, the proposed amended project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and air quality impacts would be less than significant. Therefore, overall, cumulative and project-related operational air quality impacts related to the Modified Project are within the scope of impacts evaluated in the Certified EIR. 5.2 Noise The discussion of the original project's operational noise impacts is provided in Section 5.3, Noise, of the Certified EIR. The following describes the operational vehicular (mobile- source) noise effects associated with Phase I of the original SJHC project (as described in the Certified EIR), followed by a discussion of operational vehicular noise impacts of the Modified Project due to the change in localized traffic patterns associated with the off-site parking program. Given the reduced construction activity associated with the Modified Project (i.e., no construction of an on-site parking structure under Phase I development), an evaluation of construction-related noise effects is nob provided in this Addendum, since construction-related noise impacts would be substantially reduced relative to the original project. Additionally, the Modified Project would not change emergency vehicle traffic pattems, such that an increase in emergency vehicle or siren-related noise would occur; as such, a discussion of emergency vehicle noise is not provided in the following discussion. Orib nal Project. As discussed in Section 5.3, Noise, of the Certified EIR, most of the noise generated by the implementation of the project would primarily be traffic-generated noise (the project would contribute to an increase in local traffic volumes resulting in higher noise levels along local roadways). Using the Federal Highway Administration Traffic Noise Prediction Model, traffic noise levels were analyzed for several roadway segments that would be affected by project-generated motor vehicle trips in order to provide a consistent basis of analysis directly related to peak hour and daily traffic volume changes that would result from the proposed project. Traffic noise was estimated for a number of scenarios, including existing (1997) conditions and future (2005 and 2027) conditions both with and without the original project. In general, noise increases of less than three dBA are not noticeable, while athree-dBA difference in noise levels is discernible due to the logarithmic nature of the acoustical scale; however, a 10-dBA increase is perceived as a doubling of loudness. As shown in Table 5.3-1 in Section 5.3 of the Certified EIR, noise levels in the year 2005 were expected to increase in the site vicinity as a result of ambient growth and the corresponding increase in project traffic. However, these increases were estimated to be no greater than 0.2 dBA, which would not be perceptible and would not be considered significant. Noise levels would remain within the normally acceptable to conditionally acceptable range for sensitive uses City of5anta Monica st John's Health Center Development AereementAmendment PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 97011022 June 2011 Page 14 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR located at least 15 meters away from local roadways in the project vicinity under Phase I conditions. 11'Iodified Project. As noted above, the increase in noise due to construction and operation were calculated in the Certified EIR and compared to thresholds established by the Noise Element of the General Plan, and the City's Noise Ordinance and Land Use Compatiblity Guidelines which are used by the City as significance criteria under CEQA. Traffic noise impacts for all scenarios were determined to be less than sioanificant and no mitigation measures were necessary. Implementation of the proposed parking program would result in less construction activity than assumed ih the Certified EIR under Phase I, but would provide an equal amount of occupied space and equal number of visitors to the hospital when operational. Thus, traffic noise impacts resulting from the newly-proposed 2011 parking program would be expected to be equal to or less than those impacts identified in 5.3, Noise, of the Certified EIR, since the volume of traffic would not measurably change the and modified traffic distribution patterns associated with pazking program implementation would not notably change noise levels in the project azea. As such, noise impacts associated with this component of the project would be less than significant, and therefore no new significant impacts would occur. With respect to the Modified Project scenario focused on potential North Subterranean Parking Gazage construction and Entry Plaza re-constmction, once constmction activities for demolition of the modified Entry Plaza, construction of the North Subterranean Parking Gazage, and re-construction of the Entry Plaza aze completed, operational noise impacts of the Modified Project would be identical to those evaluated in the Certified EIR. This. is because the provision of the Entry Plaza and Phase I parking garage would complete the Phase I improvements previously described in the Certified EIR, and would not result in additional sources of on- or off-site noise. Therefore, operational noise impacts related to this scenario are within the scope of impacts evaluated in the Certified EIR. 5.3 Land Use Section 5.7, Land Use, of the Certified EIR discusses the original project's impacts related to land use compatibility and consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations affecting the project site. While the Modified Project would not require an amendment to the City's General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) or Hospital Area Specific Plan (HASP), as was the case for the original project, SJHC is requesting an amendment to the approved Development Agreement between SJHC and the City. As such, the requested amendment is the only land use entitlement approval being sought by the applicant. Additionally, while the original project's potential impacts with regard to parking were discussed in Secfion 5.8, Transportation and Circuation, of the Certified EIR, the State CEQA Cnaidelines have been amended such that effects related to parking supply. are no longer addressed in the Traffic/Transportation section of the CEQA Initial Study Checklist, as parking City of Santa bronica St John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 97011022 - Jme 2011 Page 15 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR supply/availability is, pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, not an environmental impact. Accordingly, discussion of the Modified Project and associated parking program's potential parking-related impacts are presented in the-Land Use section below. More specifically, the Modified Project has been evaluated for consistency with parking-related General Plan policies presented in the City's 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element. Original Project. Regarding the requested approvals for the original project, as discussed in Section 5.7, Land Use, the Certified EIR concluded that impacts associated with the revision of LUCE Policy 1.6.2, the proposed new. Policy 1.13.4, and the proposed HASP Objectives 11A through 11E, which would establish new standards for development within the HASP area and the SJHC property, would remain significant at a local level per CEQA if adopted as proposed. In addition, Phase I impacts associated with the revision of HASP Objectives 30 and 36, which protect housing within the hospital area, as well as the proposed Objectives 15B and 74A allowing the construction of up to two pedestrian bridges above Santa Monica Boulevard, would remain significant at a local level per CEQA. As originally discussed in detail in Section 5.8, Transportation and Circulation, of the Certified EIR, a peak parking demand of 1,263 spaces was forecast for Phase I of the proposed project, compared to the proposed SJHC pazking supply of 1,438 spaces. Based on the total number of parking spaces in all of SJHC's owned and leased pazking facilities, a surplus of 175 spaces would be expected during the peak hours. In the Certified EIR, the projected vacancy rates indicate that the garages and lots will be close to full at the peak hour and visitors may have to circulate throughout the garage searching for a vacant space, but it was not anticipated that they would need to look elsewhere for parking (i.e, off-campus on surrounding neighborhood streets). In order to ensure that this would not occur, mitigafion measures for Phase I development included a requirement for SJHC to prepare a parking management plan to assist visitors in finding vacant available spaces in the garage. A contingency plan was also required that would dictate how the applicant would provide parking during peak demand time periods if the garage were to become full (e.g, valet operators would be available to stack cars in aisles, or visitors would be turned away by a "Garage Full" sign). The management plan was also required to include plans to encourage staff/employee pazking to be located in the most remote spaces in the garage or lots, so as to maximize the availability of convenient visitor parking. Modified Project. With regazd to the adequacy of parking supply to meet SJHC parking demand, the off-site parking program and valet operation included as part of the Modified Project was evaluated to detemune whether the proposed program would meet the projected SJHC's Phase I parking demand. Several parking analyses were conducted as part of the environmental review process for the original SJHC project to identify. the actual parking demand generated by SJHC. Using this data, the Certified EIR detemuned that the peak project parking demand for Phase I facilities would be 1,263 spaces. The Certified EIR also determined that there would be a parking surplus at the completion of Phase I. The Modified Project includes an on- and off-site parking program that will provide approximately 1,540 spaces, City of Santa Monica st Johds Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corpamtion/SCH No. 97011022 Lune 201 I Page 16 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR including 450 spaces xt the Yahoo Center parking structure and 85 spaces at St. Anne's Church surface lot. Therefore, the Modified Project provides approximately 1,540 parking spaces at on- and off-site locations and this supply exceeds the number of parking spaces necessary to meet the peak demand for Phase I uses identified in the Certified EIR (1,263 spaces). With respect to determining consistency with applicable Land Use Plans and Policies to determine if there is a potential Land Use Impact, the follotiving are the relevant General Plan policies set forth in the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE): (1.) "Utilize parking and TDM Districts to facilitate efficient use of parking resources, shared and reduced pazking opportunities, and trip reduction goals." (LUCE Citywide Land Use Policy LU4.8, p. 2.1-14) (2.) "Adjust parking requirements for projects when it can be demonstrated that a lower parking demand is appropriate." (LUCE Circulation Policy T26.4, p. 4.0- 73) (3.) "Consider allowing developers to meet their minimum pazking requirements via shared parking between uses, payment of in-lieu fees, or off-site parking within a reasonable walking distance." (LUCE Circulation Policy T26.7, p. 4.0-73) (4.) "If the owners and operators of properties can demonstrate that they have more parking-than is actually necessary to meet the needs of their various users (employees, visitors, etc.), consider developing pazking efficiency strategies that include leasing their surplus parking to help alleviate parking shortages and avoid development of unnecessary parking." (LUCE Circulation Policy T26.11, p. 4.0- 73) (5.) "Encourage a comprehensive pazking district approach in order to determine parking needs on a district-wide basis rather than aproject-by-project basis to take advantage of the potential to share parking (including sharing of existing parking) and reduce the total pazking requirement." (LUCE Healthcare Policy D29.1, p. 2.6-50) These policies set forth in the City's General Plan encourage parking efficiency strategies such as shared parking, including sharing of existing pazking, lowered pazling requirements, and parking pricing to reduce the demand for parking. These General Plan policies promote shared parking programs that include the sharing of existing surplus parking with neighboring uses, along with implementation of Transportation Demand Management programs to ensure substantial reduction in automobile trips. The Modified Project proposes the use of on-site parking spaces and a valet program and off-site parking spaces at a facility within walking. distance of the SJHC campus, in lieu of City of Santa Monica - St John's Health Center Development AgreementAmendment PCR Services Coipoia[ion/SCH No. 97011022 June 2011 Page 17 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR constructing the 440-space North Subterranean Parking Garage that was part of the original project. Based on the LUCE policies presented above, the Modified Project is consistent with Land Use Policies and Plan that address provision of parking in the Healthcare District and the City's commercial districts. With respect to the Modified Project scenario focused on potential North Subterranean Parking Garage construction and Entry Plaza re-construction, once construction activities for demolition of the modified Entry Plaza, construction of the North Subterranean Parking Garage, and re-construcfion of the Entry Plaza are completed, operational Land Use impacts of this scenario would be identical to those evaluated in the Certified E1R. This is because the provision of the Entry Plaza and Phase I parking garage would complete the Phase I improvements described in the Certified E1R, and would provide adequate on-site parking for Phase I uses. 5.4 Transportation and Circulation Section 5.8, Transportation and Circulation, of the Certified EIR evaluated the potential impacts of the original SJHC project, including impacts related to local intersections, Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) facilities, emergency vehicle (ambulance) traffic, and parking capacity. Based on the nature of the Modified Project and anticipated ftmction of the off-site parting program, the following analysis focuses on impacts associated with the expected change in vehicle trip distribution in the project area, which is limited to intersection impacts. No CMP facilities would be notably affected by the Modified Project, and no changes to emergency vehicle traffic levels or patterns are anticipated to occur with the proposed off-site parting program. As discussed previously, parking-related impacts are addressed above under Section 5.3, Land Use, of this Addendum. Original Project. The consulting fum Meyer, Mohaddes Associates (N1NIA) conducted a traffic impact analysis for the project in 1997 which became the basis for the impact analysis contained in the Certified E1R. Existing conditions were based on 1995 counts and traffic impacts were analyzed under future year 2005 conditions. Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment Project trip generation included new development activity at the site, elimination of various existing land uses, and modification of other uses. The MMA traffic study used the assumptions from a 1996 trip generation and parking demand study (Parking and Circulation Study for the Saint John's Hospital and Health Center Replacement Project Phase 1, Kaku Associates, December 1996) for the project trip generation, distribution, and assignment. The 1996 study was based on empirical data collection efforts conducted on site, including traffic counts at driveways, surveys of employees and visitors to understand travel patterns, parking counts and utilization studies, and discussions with personnel staff regarding employee counts City of Santa Monica St. John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 97011022 June 2011 Page 18 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR and shift change patterns. Trip generation used in the traffic study and established in the 1998 EIR/EA is shown below in Table 2, Project Trip Generation from 1998 Cerfified EIR. Table 2 Project Trip Generafion From 1998 Certified EIR A.br. Peak Hour Land Use Trips P.M. Peak Hoar Trips In Out Total In Out Total TotaIPhaseI 541 118 659 83 - 473 520 Existing (407) (87) (494) (56) (339) (395) Net Total 134 21 165 27 98 125 Source: Fehr and Peers Traffic Consultants, 2011 Projected 2005 Traffic Conditions Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow, ranging from excellent, neazly free-flow traffic conditions at LOS A to overloaded, stop- and-go conditions at LOS F. In the 1997 traffic study the "Operational Analysis" method from Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board, 1994) was used to determine the average vehicular delay and corresponding LOS for signalized intersecfions. Table 5 in the traffic study (Appendix A) shows the LOS for the 2005 (then) future base and with project conditions as projected in the 1998 Certified EIR. Traffic Impact Analysis The significance of project-related impacts on future operating conditions is determined by the application of a set of significance criteria established by the City of Santa Monica. These criteria are based on specific levels of increased average vehicle delay or increased volume-to- capacity {V/C) ratios at intersecfions. The traffic study included in the 1998 Certified EIR for the original project found that the project was forecasted to significantly impact nine intersections, including six during the A.M. peak hour and seven during the P.M. peak hour: • 20th Street & Wilshire Boulevard (P.M.) • 20th Street & Colorado Avenue {A.M., P.ivi.) • 23rd Street & Ocean Park Boulevard (P.M.) CiTy of Santa Monica St John's Health Cen[er Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corpotation/SCH No. 97011022 Smme 201 l Page 19 Addendum to the 1998 Certified E1R • Clove~eld Boulevard & Colorado Avenue (A.M.) • Clove~eld Boulevard & I-10 westbound off-ramp (A.M., P.M.) • Cloverfield Boulevard & Virginia Avenue (A.M.) • Cloverfield Boulevard & Ocean Park Boulevard (A.M., P.M.) 0 26`h Street & Santa Monica Boulevard (A.M, P.M.) • Centinela Avenue (east) & Wilshire Boulevazd (P.M.) The Certified EIR determined that with implementation of Phase I mitigation measures related to traffic and circulafion, Phase I would still significantly impact the following three intersections: 26`h Street & Santa Monica Boulevard (A.M. Peak); Cloverfield Boulevazd/Ocean Park Boulevard (P.M. Peak); and Cloverfield B1vdQ-10 westbound off-ramp (A.M. & P:vi. Peak). In addition, proposed mitigation for the intersection at Cloverfield Boulevard & Virginia Avenue (A.i9t. Peak) was determined by the City to be infeasible. Therefore, in conjunction with the original project analysis, a total of four intersections were identified to be significantly impacted after mitigation. Modified Project. The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the proposed changes to the SJHC Phase I parking program would create new significant traffic impacts not identified in the Certified EIR. The Certified EIR evaluated the potential for traffic impacts at 47 intersections during the weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hours. For this analysis, the complete set of 47 intersections was selected for analysis: 1. 14`h Street & Wilshire Boulevard 2. 14th Street & Arizona Avenue 3. 14th Street & Santa Monica Boulevard 4. 14th Street & Broadway 5. 17th Street & Montana Avenue 6. 17th Street & Wilshire Boulevard 7. 17th Street & Arizona Avenue 8. 17th Street & Santa Monica Boulevard 9. 17th Street & Broadway City of Santa bYonica St Sohn's Hnlth Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Coiporation/SCH No. 9701102? Sune 2011 Page 20 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR 10. 20th Street (East) & Montana Avenue 11. 20`h Street (West) & Montana Avenue 12. 20`h Street & Wilshire Boulevard 13. 20`h Street & Arizona Avenue 14. 20th Street & Santa Monica Boulevard 15. 20th Street & Broadway 16. 20th Street & Colorado Avenue 17. 20`h Street & Olympic Boulevard 18. 20`h Street & I-10 eastbound off-ramp 19. 20`h Street & Delaware Avenue 20. 20th Street & Pico Boulevard 21. 23`d Street & Wilshire Boulevard 22. 23`d Street & Arizona Avenue 23. 23`d Street & Santa Monica Boulevard 24. 23`d Street & Pico Boulevard 25. 23`d Street & Ocean Park Boulevard 26. 24th Street & Montana Avenue 27. Cloverfield Boulevard & Santa Monica Boulevard 28. Cloverfield Boulevard & Broadway 24. Cloverfield Boulevard & Colorado Avenue 30. Cloverfield Boulevard & Olympic Boulevard 31. Cloverfield Boulevard & Michigan Avenue 32. Cloverlield Boulevard & I-10 westbound off-ramp 33. Clove~eld Boulevard & I-10 eastbound on-ramp City afSanta Monica St. dohn'sHealth Center Development AereementAmeadment PCR Services Corporntion/SCH No. 9701102 June 201 I Page 21 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR 34. Cloverfield Boulevazd & Virginia Avenue 35. Cloverfield Boulevard & Pico Boulevard 36. Cloverfield Boulevard & Ocean Park Boulevard 37. 26th Street & Montana Avenue 38. 26`n Street & Wilshire Boulevard 39. 26`h Street & Arizona Avenue 40. 26`n Street & Santa Monica Boulevard 41.26`h Street & Broadway 42. 26`s Street & Colorado Avenue 43. Yale Street & Wilshire Boulevard 44. Yale Street & Santa Monica Boulevard 45. Berkeley Street & Wilshire Boulevard 46. Centinela Avenue (east) & Wilshire Boulevard 47. Centinela Avenue & Santa Monica Boulevard The change in pazking locations between what was analyzed in the 1997 traffic study and the Modified Project will result in different project trip distribution and assignment, even though project trip generation does not change (as there is no change in land use from what was previously assumed for Phase I). The traffic impact analysis conducted forthis memo uses the same 2005 future base conditions to provide the baseline for assessment of impacts. The use of 2005 future base conditions ensures consistency with the 1998 Certified EIR and provides a uniform baseline from which potential impacts associated with the Modified Project can be compared. Parking Location Changes The original project analyzed in the Certified EIR included a new 440-space, subterranean garage on the North Campus to accommodate both an increase in trips and a loss of surface parking in lots D and F due to hospital expansion. The proposal to provide both on- and off-site parking to meet SJHC's peak parking demand would result in a shift of some trips away from the immediate site to remote lots, and an increase in localized trips due to the valet operation. City of Santa Monica St John's Health Center Development AgreementAmendment PCR Services Corporarion/SCH No. 97011022 June 201 I Page 22 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR The 440-space North Subterranean Parking Garage was projected to provide on-site parking of 332 spaces for visitors and patients, 52 spaces for staff, and 56 spaces for physicians. The Certified EIR also projected an additional 18 emergency visitor surface spaces. Under the Modified Project, the North Campus parking facilities at the Entry Plaza would provide 56 physician spaces, 94 patient and visitor spaces, and 11 staff spaces. The patienUvisitor and physician lots will be accessed via the U-shaped, modified Entry Plaza, which will contain signalized entry and exit points on Santa Monica Boulevard between 20`h Street and 23rd Street: To accommodate this net loss of 297 on-site, North Campus parking spaces, and an additional decrease of 255 leased spaces in the nearby Held and Koll facilities, St. John's is proposing to increase the number of spaces available to hospital staff, visitors, patients, and physicians in surface lots immediately across the street south of Santa Monica Boulevard, and in remote lots at the Yahoo Center and St. Anne's Church. All visitor and patient parking will be valet-parked from the modified Entry Plaza, with approximately 25% of visitor spaces provided at the main facility entrance on the North Campus; the remaining 75% of the spaces provided for visitor parking will be located south of Santa Monica Boulevard in lots B and H, directly across the street from SJHC's North Campus. The use of these South Campus visitor spaces will involve extra valet trips from the modified Entry Plaza to and from lots B and H. Likewise a small number of staff using Lot H will also be valet parked. Finally, all staff parking at St. Anne's Church will drive directly to the valet-managed lot on 20`h Street. Valets operating from the Entry Plaza will travel from the Entry Plaza across Santa Monica Boulevard at a signalized intersection and use one-way 2151 Street to access the parking lots. For the tetum trip, the valets are expected to travel back to SJHC by malting a series of right turns from 2151 Street to Broadway, 20`h Street, and Santa Monica Boulevard. The increase in visitor parking provided in the area south of Santa Monica Boulevard reduces the amount of staff parking in this area by approximately 139 spaces. These will primarily be replaced by the provision of self-parking at the Yahoo Center (450 spaces). This parking is accessed from 26`h Street between Colorado Avenue and Broadway, and leads to an increased number of trips in the immediate vicinity. Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment Trip generafion used in this traffic impact analysis is identical to what was used in the 1997 traffic study and approved in the 1998 Certified EIR. However, based on the new parking location scheme, the trip generation for each project parking destination was recalculated. The new trip rates by parking lot are shown below in Table 3, 2011 Parking Program Trip End Changes From Certified EIR 2005 Facture Year Analysis. Overall project flip distribution was designed to match what was used in the 1997 traffic study. Localized distribution and assignment was adapted to the new parking location scheme. City ofSanta iVIonica St. Sohn's Health Center Development Agreement Ame¢dme¢t PCR Services Corparntion/SCH No. 97011022 Lune 201 l Page 23 x W cc `o U w N F O+ G b N Q d F .~ d N L W O N W d i V w` N W U c W a F R b0 b0 a a 0 N R 0 ~?~~ °~MVrn~^o a Y O O O M .-~ O '~ V N V '~ N ~. ti Q M O m~~ M V .N~r O m VJ Q ~ Vii F O Nt O N O O~~ N N t~~1 M R R ti H O ~ dN~' n ti N N oho ~~ M O M~ z U o cSz- N OJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ay .a '~ '~ ¢ s y ~ ~ 5 O c' m 'C '? a> .C ti ¢ m ~ z ~ = F ~ h r `,,~ ~ "o yo v a~ ~ ~ N aJ O N L' '^ .y ~ , ~yLsszxo»~~ o p a~ a> a~ ~ c ~ ~ o z~,xxx~_'s o C ~ ~~ W 54.. W W W `n ,- ~ N y m m z m mT. .T. '~ ~~ ~~ F `4 h j -~ h 0 ~ ~ F h O r o N U °o ~ s m 0. ~ U L N O N U y ~ G 0. O ~ ~ O fi ~ 4 U 0 0 m " y ~ C m C ~ O Q ~ ~ ~ Y d ~ V ~' y ti m C o ~ R 'C C ~ d v C °: ~ ~ R y ~ s C Q ~ O 5 s~ q y s C y yl N ~ v .`C w 1 m Y Q ~ m ~ C ~ ~^ ' o ' c G C 0., ~ d m ~ ` N 5 m y . y C ~ . y .4 ` = . , ~ a G o > 4 ~ .~ ~ O ~ ^ M 'C ea'r -~ d ~- R e m y x goo` x ~y ~ o y v ~~ W i v v m .~. N C C i v i ~i 5 m d .4 U ~ ° ' d ~ 3 " y. ''a da r c ~ 'a 'G ~ i ~, ~ m 0. °.' S 5L ~ ~ o ~ a ~~ fi ,~ a C O O S ,S Q b ~ ~ ~.~' d ~ 0.0..0 2 c y ',° i ~~~ 0 `~ W W m 5 ° ~ C q o o 4 o a `o C C Q °~ ' a 5 ~ d~ :. ~+ ~+ m o ~ ~ a ~ o r0 e ' ~ q o ~ e fi o c, ~ S 5 ' fi o os R i ^ s ± ~ o`er "~ 5 0, ~ w ~, , o ~ U U O C O C ~ ~' 'Y^_ ~. q Y ,l `h Q «O ~ N~ +~ d t~~ ~ m ti ~ 5 C~ ~ U d' ~ os o e 0 ~ ~ N y Q $ 5 m d m .4. ~ s y ~ ~ ~' °~' '~' C~CCr C~h c i 5 r.~ c ~ Wh c a o .. ~ .~ a c _. N 0 rn z U Z 0 o c a O ~U .. e, m Z `oH ~~ V CU. N a Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR Modifzed Trafj rc Forecasts Revised 2005 traffic conditions for the 47 intersections analyzed in 1998 Certified EIR were developed for the cumulative base and cumulative with project scenarios. Table 8 in the traffic study (Appendix A) shows LOS for the 2005 "future base" and "future with project" conditions with the 2011 parking program assumed. Detailed LOS calculations aze included as an attachment to the traffic study. It should be noted that slight future base LOS differences exist for specific intersections, which is a result of using different versions of the TRAFFLY software. TRAFFIX Version 6.8 was used for the 1997 traffic study and TRAFFIX Version 7.7 was used for the current traffic impact analysis for the Modified Project. TRAFFD~ version 6.8 is a Microsoft DOS version of TRAFFIX and is no longer available for use. Lane configurations, signal timings, traffic volumes, and analysis methodology, however, are identical. The differences are nominal and do not affect the traffic impact analysis because only TRAFFD~ Version 7.7 was used by Fehr & Peers. Traffic Impact Analysis The traffic impact analysis found that the Modified Project is expected to significantly impact six intersections using the projected 2005 volumes from the Certified EIR, including seven during the A.M. peak hour and five during the P.M. peak hour, as shown in detail in Table 8 of the traffic study (Appendix A), and summarized as follows: • 20th Street & Wilshire Boulevazd (P.M.) • 20th Street & Colorado Avenue (A.M., P.M.) • Cloverfield Boulevard & I-10 westbound off-ramp (A.M, P.M.) • Clove~eld Boulevazd & Virginia Avenue (A.M.) • Cloverfield Boulevard & Ocean Pazk Boulevazd (A.M.) • 26th Street & Santa Monica Boulevard (A.M.) 1997 to 20II Impact Comparison Table 4, Impact Comparison Summary, below, compares the impacts projected to be generated by the project in the 1998 Certified EIR to ,the impacts resulting from the current traffic impact analysis for the Modified Project. The intersections italicized in the table were impacted in the 1998 Certified EIR but not in the current traffic impact analysis. Of the six impacted intersections associated with the Modified Project, all six of these intersections were previously-identified as being impacted in the 1998 Certified EIR. City ofsanta Monica St John's Health Center Development A~eement Amendment PCR Services Corporarion/SCH No. 97011022 - June 2011 Page 25 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR The Traffic Study also determined that had the currently-proposed SJHC parking program been studied in the 1998 Certified EIl2/EA, there would have been sib~nificant impacts identified at the intersections of 26th Street & Wilshire Boulevard, 26th Street & Broadway, and 26th Street & Colorado Boulevard. However, the measures that would have been required to Table 4 Impact Comparison Summary Intersection 20 Street & Wilshire Boulevazd 20th Street & Colorado Avenue 23'd Street & Ocean Park Boulevard Clove>feld Botdevard & Colorado Avenue Cloverfield Boulevard & I-10 westbound off- ramp Cloverfield Boulevard & Virginia Avenue Cloverfield Boulevard & Ocean Pazk Boulevard 26`h Street & Santa Monica Boulevard Centinela Avenzee (east) & Wilshire Boulevard 1997 Traffic New Parlang Study/EIR Program A.M. P.M. A.bi. P.M. ' No Yes No - Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No Source: Environmental Science Associates, 1997, and Sainf,lohn's Health Center, 2010 mitigate these impacts have already been implemented since the analysis was conducted in 1997. These measures include adding right-turn lanes and protected/permitted left turns that are active at all three intersections and described below in greater detail. Given implementation of these measures, there are no new significant impacts. Thus, no additional analysis of this issue is necessary, and it is concluded that the Modified Project would not exacerbate any previously- identified significant impacts or result in any new, unavoidable significant impacts. • 26th Street & Wilshire Boulevard -Subsequent to the original EIR, the City of Santa Monica approved a measure at this location that involved changing the signal phasing from a permitted to a protected/permitted phasing for all left-turn movements. Right-turn lanes were added at the northbound and southbound approaches to Wilshire Boulevazd on 26th Street and on the westbound approach from Wilshire Boulevard. With these measures in place, the intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS, and the project impact would be avoided. • 26th Street & Broadway -Subsequent to the original EIR, the City of Santa Monica approved a measure at this location that added right-tum lanes on all four approaches. With these measures in place,-the intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS, and the project impact would be avoided. City of Santa Monica St.Sohn's Health Center Development AereementAmendment PCR Services Corporatlon/SCH i Io. 97011022 Sune 2011 Page 26 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR 0 26th Street & Colorado -Subsequent to the original EIR, the City of Santa Monica approved a measure at this location that added right-turn lanes on the northbound, southbound, and eastbound approaches. With the addifion of these lanes, the intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS, and the project impact would be avoided. As noted previously, the Modified Project includes a potential scenario focused on demolition of the modified Entry Plaza, construction of the Phase I North Subterranean Parking Garage, and re-construction of the Entry Plaza. Following construction of these improvements, the Entry Plaza and pazking structure would function as anticipated in the Certified'EIR. As such, operational traffic impacts would not be different than those presented in the Certified EIR and no further analysis is required for this scenario. Refer to Section 5.7, Construction Impacts, below, for a discussion of construction-related traffic impacts associated with this component bf the Modified Project. Traffic Study Conclusions The traffic study was undertaken to determine whether proposed changes to the previously-approved S7HC Phase I parking program could create new traffic impacts not identified in the 1998 Certified EIR. These changes will result in a shift of trips away from the immediate site to remote lots and an increase in localized trips due to an expanded valet operation. The study determined that SJHC parking program changes would not create new impacts beyond those previously identified in the -1998 Certified EIR. Therefore, the new parking program associated with the Modified Project will not result in any new, unavoidable significant impacts. 5.5 Neighborhood Effects The Certified EIR for the original project addresses localized effects of the proposed development on the surrounding community. Specifically, Section 5.12, Neighborhood Effects, of the Certified EIR addresses community impacts related to air quality, noise, traffic, pazking, emergency room activities (azound-the-clock patient and ambulance traffic and siren noise), and aesthetics. As noted previously, no construction activities or additional development would result from the implementation of the off-site pazking program and valet operation associated with the Modified Project, and therefore impacts related to construction air quality and noise effects are not addressed below; however, operational vehicle-related (mobile-source) air quality and noise impacts aze addressed above in Section 5.1, Air Quality, and Section 5.2, Noise, respectively, of this Addendum. Parking-related impacts are addressed above in Section 5.3, Land Use. However, as the Modified Project would not result in any notable variation in physical development on- or off-site, or result in any changes to SJHC operations (aside from off-site pazking), aesthetics, shade/shadow, and ambulance and emergency vehicle-related impacts are not addressed in the following discussion regarding the Modified Project. City of Santa Monica St dolm's Health Center Development AgreementAmendment PCR Services Corporntioo/SCH No. 9701 lOZ Sune 2011 Page 27 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR Original ProjeM. As discussed in Section 5.12, Neighborhood Effects, of the Certified E1R, sensitive receptors in the project vicinity, including residential neighborhoods, would be affected by vehicular (mobile-source) pollutant emissions generated by the original project. Operational emissions for Phase I are not anticipated to result in significant impacts: Development of Phase I of the original project would result in increased traffic on local roadways. Phase I would generate an increase of approximately 33 percent more trips during the A.M. peak hour and 32 percent more trips during the P.M. peak hour, and would significantly impact up to nine intersections in either the A.M. or P.M. peak hour. This would be considered a significant impact under City of Santa Monica and CEQA standards of significance. The parking demands generated by Phase I of the project may approach or exceed the capacity of the Phase I parking facilities. This would be a significant, localized impact under CEQA and City of Santa Monica standards. However, with implementation of applicable mitigation measures, Phase I parking impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Modified Project. As discussed above in Section 5.1, Air Quality, and Section 5.2, Noise, the change in traffic distribution in the project area associated with the proposed on- and off-site parking program would not result in new or increased impacts related to mobIle-source operational air pollutant emissions, as the shift in trip distribution would be negligible in the context of the overall traffic patterns in the area. As discussed above in Section 5.4, Transportation and Circulation, the Modified Project would not exacerbate any previously- identified significant impacts or result in any new, unavoidable sib~nificant impacts. Additionally, as discussed above in Section 5.3, Land Use, the projected parking demand at Phase I completion (i.e., 1,263 spaces) would be far exceeded by the available supply under the proposed parking program (1,540 spaces), and the Modified Project is consistent with a number of General Plan policies related to provision of parking in the City's healthcare and commercial districts. Therefore, no adverse Land Use impacts would occur with implementation of the Modified Project. With respect to the potential scenario where STHC would be required to build the Phase I parking garage sometime in the future, an additional 10 months of construction activities would be necessary beyond what was previously evaluated in the Certified EIR for the previously- approved construction of the Phase I North Subterranean Garage and Entry Plaza. However, once completed, the parking garage and Entry Plaza would operate in the same manner as was evaluated in the Certified EIR, and therefore no additional operational air quality impacts would occur. However, demolition and construction activities associated with the modified Entry Plaza would result in additional air pollutant emissions, the impacts of which are discussed below in Section 5.-6, Construction Impacts. City of Santa Monica St John's Health Center Development AgreementAmendment PCR Services Corpamtion/SCH No. 97011022 June 2011 Page 28 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR 5.6 Construction Impacts The Certified EIR for the original project addresses construction-related effects of the proposed development on the surrounding community. Specifically, Section 5.14, Constmction Impacts, of the Certified EIR addresses the impacts of the proposed project during the construction period, including the generation of dust and air pollutants, noise impacts, aesthetic impacts, and traffic-related impacts. These issues are discussed below with respect to the proposed Modified Project scenarios. Original Project. As discussed in Section 5.14, Constnuction Impacts, of the Certified EIR, the proposed project will require a significant amount of demolition, excavation,. and construction, and therefore will create temporary traffic impacts to the adjacent street system during construction. Demolition and construction activities would take place in stages. The Preliminary Stage would consist of site preparation and construction of the Central Plant. The First Stage would include the demolition of the Ross Building, followed by construction of the new inpatient facility. Demolition activities would take approximately four to six weeks.. Under the Second Stage, the Main Wing would be demolished over atwo-month period, followed by construction of the new Diagnostic and Treatment Center. The Third Stage would consist of the demolition of the East, South and West Wings, along with the existing plant and MRI facility, requiring approximately three months, followed by the construction of the new Entry Plaza and subterranean parking adjacent to Santa Monica Boulevard. Original Project -Construction Traffic Construction traffic is anticipated to travel from the Santa Monica Freeway on Cloverfield Boulevard north to either Broadway or Colorado Avenue. Trucks would then turn left and proceed west to 20a' Street, where they would turn left and proceed north to Arizona Avenue. At Arizona, trucks would turn right and proceed east, entering the site at one of two locations along Arizona. Leaving the project site, vehicles would exit the site onto Arizona, turn left and proceed west to 20s' Street. The return to the freeway would be the reverse from the route discussed above. In addition to construction traffic, the Fourth Stage of construction would require the closure of two lanes on the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard to allow for a construction crane and loaders to remove demolition debris. This street closure would last for approximately three months. The sidewalk along the south side of Arizona Avenue along the entire project site would be closed during this period, and a 12-foot-high construction fence would be erected along the existing curb, and the existing parking lane would be converted into a covered walkway. Likewise, the sidewalk along the west side of 23rd Street from Arizona to the Santa Monica Bank building would be closed and a 12-foot-high fence. Finally, the sidewalk along the north side of Santa Monica Boulevard would be closed during the three-month demolition portion of City of Santa Monica St Sohn's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corporation/SCA No. 97011022 7une20ll Page 29 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR the Fourth Stage; after demolition is completed, a covered temporary sidewalk would be constructed in the first traffic lane. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR would mitigate the temporary traffic impacts relative to the safety of the motorist and construction personnel at the work site. In terms of traffic generation, the construction activities would generate less traffic than the estimated operational traffic generation of the proposed project. Original Project -Construction Parking When construction begins on the First Stage, the existing surface pazking lots on the North Campus will be displaced to accommodate construction areas of the new Inpatients Suites building. This would displace up to 240 parking spaces in Lots C, D and F, which are currently primarily used by hospital patients and visitors. In order to minimize any impacts associated with the displacement of existing visitor parking during the construction period, Saint John's should develop an interim parking plan which reallocates existing available spaces on other lots and in nearby garages to provide room for visitor parking. The re-designation of the existing facilities to alternate users in a more efficient manner should allow the visitor parking to be shifted to the current employee parking area south of Santa Monica Boulevard during the construction period and avoid any spillover impacts onto adjacent residential streets. Shifting the 224 visitor spaces to the other available lots will bring the parking occupahcy in the available lots to $3% at peak times during construction period, still leaving about 400 spaces unutilized. The number of construction workers who will need to park in the azea during the construction period is not precisely known. As required by applicable mitigation measures, off- site and off-street parking would be provided for workers on the proposed project. To minimize worker travel and parking impacts in the project area, workers would be bused from a remote lot to the job site and back. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce temporary construction-related pazking impacts to less than significant. Original Project- Construe&on Air Quality Under the original project, 535,722 square feet of existing floor azea would be demolished, to be replaced by a maximum of 475,000 square feet of floor area, consisting of a maximum of 200,000 square feet of inpatient suites, and 275,000 square feet for the diagnostic and treatment center, including a women's health services resource center, clinical aspects of the John Wayne Cancer Institute, various therapy services, and related operations support space. City of Santa trIonica SL John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 97011822 lane 2011 Page 30 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR Demolition activities would result in the emission of approximately 4,500 pounds of PMIO over a period totaling 65 weeks or 324 days. A daily average of approximately 4.43 pounds of PMIo would be emitted during demolition of the Ross Center; a daily average of approximately 8.95' pounds of PM1o would be emitted during demolition of the Main Wing; a daily average of approximately 47.37 pounds of PM1o would be emitted during demolition of the West, South, East Wings; and a daily average of approximately 1.19 pounds of PMIo would be emitted during demolition of the MRl facility and other structures for the construction of Phase I. These daily averages of PM1o emissions would be below the threshold of significance of 150 pounds per day. Additionally, development of the proposed project would result in exhaust emissions that would be below SCAQMD's thresholds of significance, with the exception of NOx. The threshold limit for NOx emissions, which is 100 pounds per day or 2.5 tons per quarter during construction, would be exceeded throughout the construction period by an average of approximately 108.68 pounds pei day or 4.34 tons per quarter. This would affect sensitive receptors in the project area, particularly those residences, other medical facilities, convalescent homes, day care centers, and schools in the immediate vicinity of the project site. As a result, this would result in a short-term significant impact, which would cease at the completion of construction activities for Phase I development. 'T`his impact would be considered significant and unmitigable under the City of Santa Monica and CEQA standards of significance. Development of Phase I of the proposed project under this alternative would have a significant adverse effect on NOx concentration levels during project constmction for the duration of construction activities. PMIO levels would be increased but not above significant levels. Constmction of the proposed project would have ashort-term significant unavoidable impact on air quality, particularly on NOx, concentration levels. As a result, this would result in a short-term significant impact, which would cease at the completion of construction activities for Phase I development. This impact would be considered significant and unmitigable under the City of Santa Monica and CEQA standards of significance. Original Project -Construction Noise Construction of the original project would generate high noise levels intermittently during construction on and adjacent to the site. Noise levels would fluctuate depending on the construction phase, equipment type and duration of use,. distance between noise source and receptor, and presence or absence of -barriers between noise source and receptor. Construction- related noise levels would decrease by approximately six dBA with each doubling of distance from the construction site (e.g., noise levels from excavation would be approximately 8,3 dBA at 100 feet from the site, and about 77 dBA at 200 feet from the site). Interior noise levels would be approximately 10 dBA (open windows) to 20 dBA (closed windows) less than exterior noise levels. City of Sania Monica St Jahn's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 9701102? June 2011 Page 31 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR Noise from construction activities {assuming the loudest activity and .the loudest equipment anticipated to be used) would affect sensitive receptors in the project vicinity, including the residences across from the project site to the north, east, and west, as well as McKinley School to the east. Construction of Phase I uses would increase noise levels in the project vicinity to unacceptable levels intermittently, depending on the construction activity and the types of equipment used. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce noise levels in the project vicinity, but not to acceptable levels for residential uses, particulazly those adjacent to the project site. Therefore, construction noise would be a short- term significant impact, which would cease after completion ofproject construction. However, this impact may be considered significant and unmitigable under the City of Santa Monica and CEQA standards of significance. Original Project -Construction Water Quality Construction activities associated with implementation of Phase I of the proposed project may result in stormwater pollution from construction materials and earthmoving activities. Consiruction materials containing pollutants include adhesives, cleaning agents, landscaping, plumbing, painting, heating/cooling, and masonry materials, floor and wall coverings, demolifion debris, and construction equipment, vehicles, and maintenance supplies. Routine safety precautions for handling and storing toxic and hazardous materials may effectively mitigate the potential pollution of stormwater by these materials. These same types of procedures can be extended to non-hazazdous stormwater pollutants such as sawdust and other solid wastes. In addition, grading and clearing activities could result in increased water and wind erosion, increasing sediment pollution of stormwater runoff.. To mitigate erosion, the amount of exposed soil should be limited, and exposed areas should be watered or tarped. Trenching or grading activities should be phased so that trepches are backfilled and graded areas are landscaped as quickly as possible. To minimise fugitive dust emissions, vehicles exiting the site should be washed, and all loads should be covered with tarps. As necessary, roadways should be swept or washed, and sediment filters should be constructed at or near the entrances to the storm drain system. Modified Project. As discussed previously, the Modified Project would involve the operation of the on- and off-site parking program and construction of the modified Entry Plaza (the construction of which was evaluated in the Certified EIR, as the analysis included construction of an Entry Plaza, which is functionally the same in comparison to the proposed modified Entry Plaza). As such, no additional construction effects beyond that analyzed in the Certified EIR would occur as a result of this component of the Modified Project and therefore no further analysis is necessary. With respect to the scenario of the Modified Project focused on the demolition of the modified Entry Plaza, construction of the Phase I North Subterranean Parking Garage, and re- City of Santa Monica St. John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corporarion/SCH No. 970ll022 ~ June 2011 Page 32 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR construction of the Entry Plaza, noted above, the construction of the parking garage and Entry Plaza was included in the analysis of Phase I impacts in the Certified EIR. Therefore, only the demolition of the modified Entry Plaza and're-construction of the Entry Plaza would be beyond the construcfion activities previously-evaluated in the Certified EIR. Given the similarities between the modified Entry Plaza and previously-approved Entry Plaza, they aze considered equivalent in terms of construction intensity, and as such the scope of environmental impacts provided in the analysis of this Modified Project scenario is focused on the construction and demolition of the modified Entry Plaza, as the other components of this scenario were previously analyzed in the Certified EIR. tYlodified Project- Construction Traffic As discussed above regazding construction traffic under the original project, worker vehicle trip§, truck trips for construction deliveries, and truck haul trips for off-site disposal of excavated materials and demolition debris. would occur throughout construction activities. Similarly, the construction and demolition activities associated with the modified Entry Plaza would result in comparable traffic impacts on a day-to-day basis as those identified in the Certified EIR, but would occur for an incrementally greater number of construction days, for a total duration of approximately 10 additional months. Worker vehicle and truck traffic in the area, as well as the potential for lane closures, sidewalk closures, and installation of temporary fencing, would occur as necessary throughout demolition and construction activities, similar to the original project. Temporary construction traffic associated with the additional demolition and construction activities, including off-site truck haul trips, would result in similar impacts to those evaluated in the Certified-EIR, though the overall duration of these activities would be extended relative to the proposed project. Additionally, all applicable mitigation measures included in the Certified EIR with regard to construction traffic impacts would also be implemented, as appropriate for the proposed additional demolition and construction. As such, although construction-related traffic impacts would occur for a longer overall duration that was anticipated for the original project, the impacts associated with construction traffic would not be notably different under this scenario of the Modified Project, and therefore the effects of the additional construction are within the scope of impacts analyzed in the Certified EIR. Modifzed Project -Construction Parking As noted above for construction-related traffic impacts associated with Modified Project, temporary effects related to parking during construction activities would be comparable to those anticipated under the original project, but would occur for a longer duration than was assumed in the Certified EIR. Additionally, mitigation measures provided in the Certified EIR would also be implemented, as .appropriate, to address construction-related parking effects during the demolition and construction activities proposed as part of the Modified Project scenario focused on demolition of the modified Entry Plaza, construction of the North Subterranean Parking Garage, and re-construction of the Entry Plaza. Therefore, short-term parking impacts during construction activities would be within the scope of impacts evaluated in the Certified EIR. City orSanta Monica st John's Heatth Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corpomtion/SCH No. 97011022 June 2011 Page 33 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR Modified Project -Construction Air Quality Under the scenario focused on demolition of the modified Entry Plaza, construction of the North Subterranean Parking Garage, and re-construction of the Entry Plaza, SJHC would demolish the modified Entry Plaza, remove the demolition material (approximately 17,500 cubic yards), remove existing backfilled demolition materials left over from construction of other Phase I structures (approximately 35,500 cubic yazds), construct the Phase I parking garage and re-build the Entry Plaza. The construction of the Entry Plaza in this scenario is substantially similar to the construction of the Entry Plaza previously-approved with the original project. Therefore, its impacts were analyzed in the certified EIR and the effects are considered to be the same. With respect to the potential scenario where SJHC would be required to build the Phase I Parkmg garage sometime in the future, an additional 10 months of construction activities would be necessary beyond what was previously evaluated in the Certified EIR for the previously- approved construction of the Phase I North Subterranean Garage and Entry Plaza. Although construction may not occur for several years, if at all, for purposes of this analysis, construction is assumed to begin in 2011 and occur for a duration of ten months, as discussed previously. Completion in 2012 represents aworst-case basis for analysis because exhaust emission standards improve (become more stringent for new equipment) over time and short-term impacts are based on the intensity of daily or hourly activity, not on the number of days of activity. Construction activities are permitted to occur Monday through Friday, 10 hours per day, and Saturday, 8 hours per day. In order to accommodate the Phase I parking garage and reconstruction of the Entry Plaza, up to 14,500 net cubic yazds of demolition debris and soil would be excavated and exported off-site, which would require up to approximately 2,000 total truck trips for hauling and off-site disposal of excavated materials. While a total of 55,000 cubic yards of demolition debris would result from demolition of the modified Entry Plaza and excavation of the subterranean parking garage, only the additional 19,500 cubic yards of material associated with the demolition of the modified Entry Plaza would be additional in comparison to what was evaluated in the 1998 Certified EIR. Regional construction emissions for all criteria and precursor pollutants studied (VOC, CO, 5O2, NOx, PMIo and PM2.;) under the certified EIR were below the applicable thresholds with mitigation, thus less than significant impacts to regional air quality were expected to occur as a result of the original project. Air Quality emissions resulting from the demolition of the modified Entry Plaza and reconstruction of the Entry Plaza would generate relatively minor and temporary emissions over the ten-month period. As hospital improvements are spread out in phases, demolition of the modified Entry Plaza and re-construction of the Entry Plaza would not occur simultaneously and no other hospital construction improvements would likely occur at that time. Therefore, regional construction impacts (worst-case daily emissions) resulting from the scenario of the Modified Project focused on potential Phase I parking garage construction are expected to be equal to or less than those regional construction impacts analyzed in the certified EIR for the original project, would not generate additional significant impacts, and thus, are found to be less than significant. City of Santa Monica St. John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services CorpomtionlSCH No. 97011022 Tune 20ll Page 34 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR Since the completion of the certified EIR, new air quality standards have been adopted. for pollutants such as particulate matter with diameters of 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), and impacts were not analyzed in the certified EIR. However, because PM2.5 emissions are a subset of PMto emissions', PM2,5 emission levels can be extrapolated from the original analysis and compared to the applicable siaanificance criteria .(see Air Quality/Global Climate Change Technical Appendix for S7HC, Appendix B). The SCAQMD methodology to calculate PMzs emissions is based on the California Emissions Inventory Data and Reporting System (CEIDARS) developed by CARB. Using the CEIDARS database, the SCAQMD has developed a PM2.5 fraction of PMto. The PM2s fraction of PMto from dust generating source is 21 percent and for combustion sources the fraction is 99 percent. Upon review, it was deternuned that the Modified Project scenario focused on potential Phase I parking garage construction and associated demolition and re-construction of the Entry Plaza would not result in significant regional impacts from PM2.5 emissions. Since the adoption of the Final EIR for the original SJHC project, the SCAQMD has established criteria and methodology to assess potential localized impacts from construction activities, which consider only the on-site emissions, the ambient air quality in the vicinity of the site, and the distance between the nearest off-site sensitive receptor and the site. The potential construction activities expected under the Modified Project scenario which includes demolition and re-construction of the modified Entry Plaza are not expected to generate levels of emissions which would exceed even the most stringent applicable localized significance thresholds (details provided in Appendix B). Thus, due to the short-term nature of construction activities required for this component of the Modified Project, localized emissions are unlikely to cause a new impact. Thus, construction impacts resulting from Modified Project are found to be less than significant. During operation of on- and off-site parking program and associated parking valet service, the project will result in an equal amount of occupied space and equal number of visitors. to the hospital as the original project analyzed in the Certified EIR. The Traffic Study Memorandum prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants demonstrates that the Average Daily Trips (ADT) would remain the same. In addition, in the event that the North Subterranean Parking Garage is constructed in the future, operation of the parking garage and reconstructed modified Entry Plaza would occur in the same manner as was evaluated in the Certified EIR, and no changes relative to operational impacts would result from implementation of this potential component of the Modified Project. Regional impacts resulting from the Modified Project are expected to be equal to those impacts projected from the original project, and found to be less than significant. Thus, no additional analysis of this issue is necessary, and it is concluded that the proposed project would not cause any new or exacerbate any existing CO ° http:!/www.agmdgov/cega/handbook/PM2_5/Ptld2_S.html s Traffic Study Memorandum, Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, May 2011. City of Santa Monica St dohn's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Coipomtion/SCH No. 9701102 Sune 2011 Page 35 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR hotspots with mitigation. Accordingly, impacts related to localized mobile-source CO emissions would be less than significant. With respect to construction-related odors, the Modified Project does not have a high potential to generate substantial odor impacts e Any related projects in the area that may have a potential to generate objectionable odors would be required by SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) to implement Best Available Control Technology to limit potential objectionable odor impacts to a less than significant level. Also, SCAQMD Rule 1113 limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and solvents, which lowers the emissions of odorous compounds. Thus, potential odor impacts from construction of the proposed project are anticipated to be cumulatively less than significant. Modified Project -Cumulative Emissions For purposes of the cumulative air quality analysis with respect to CEQA Gztidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the project's incremental contribution to cumulative air quality impacts is detemuned based on compliance with the SCAQMD's adopted 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing and employment assumptions which were used in the development of the AQMP. The 2007 AQMP, the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates SCAG's RTP socioeconomic forecastprojections of regional population and employment growth. Because the proposed project is consistent with the land use designations for the site in the City's General Plan, it would not result in an exceedance of the City's growth projections. Thus, Modified Project under the proposed amended project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan and air quality impacts would be less than significant. As a component of the Modified Project, SJHC is proposing potential construction and demolition of the modified Entry Plaza in conjunction with potential Phase I North Subterranean Parking Garage construction. Overall impacts associated with this component of the Modified Project would be equal to or less than the worst-case scenario analyzed in the Certified EIR, and therefore will not create an additional cumulative, incremental increase in impacts. As such, even though temporary construction air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, these impacts are within the scope of impacts evaluated in the Certified EIR. Modified Project- Caustrzzction Noise In the Certified EIR, as noted above, the increase in noise due to construction and operation of Phase I uses was calculated and compared to thresholds established by the Noise e According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Qzzality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typicaZZy include agriczzltural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. City arSanta Monica - St. John's Health Center Development AgreementAmendment PCR Services Corpaation/SCH No. 97011022 Sune 2011 Page 36 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR Element of the City's General Plan, Noise Ordinance, and Land Use Compatibility Guidelines used by the City as significance criteria under CEQA. As noted previously, the Modified Project includes a scenario where demolition of the 40,000-square-foot modified Entry Plaza and re-construction of the Entry Plaza, thereby adding additional construction days to the construction effort analyzed in the Certified EIR. The effects of the demolition of the modified Entry Plaza and re-construction of the Entry Plaza are the subject of this noise analysis. As summarized above, however, even with implementation of mifigation measures contained in the Certified EIR, construction noise impacts would be considered ashort-term significant impact, which would cease after completion of project construction under the certified EIR. Similarly, this component of the Modified Project will require a longer construction period than anticipated for Phase I development in the Certified EIR; however, daily construction equipment usage and the daily number of truck trips would not be increased relafive to that assumed in for the original project. This means that peak construction activity and truck trips associated with the Modified Project on any given construction day would not exceed that assumed for the worst-case construction day in the Certified EIR, but such activity would simply occur for an additional number of days. Therefore, construction noise impacts resulting from this component of the Modified Project are not expected to exceed the construction noise impacts projected from the original project, and mitigation measures provided in the Certified EIR would still be required for the additional construction activities. As such, even though temporary construction noise impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, these impacts are within the scope of impacts evaluated in the Certified EIR. Modified Project - Constuction bVater Quality As is the case for the overall Phase I development, the additional construction activities associated with the additional construction required for the Modified Project scenario focused on potential demolition of the modified Entry Plaza, construction of the Phase I parking garage, and re-construction of the Entry Plaza would have the potential to result in adverse impacts to water quality due to the introduction ofpollutants into stormwater flows leaving the project site. While such impacts would have the potential to occur during the proposed demolition and construction activities if not properly addressed, adverse water quality effects are not anticipated to occur given compliance with standard stormwater management regulations. Specifically, like the original project, the proposed additional construction activities must comply with the conditions of the General Construction Permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which requires the preparation of a site- and project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Adherence to permit requirements and subsequent implementaflon of the SWPPP throughout construction activities would preclude the potential for significant adverse water quality impacts, as is the case for the original project. As such, since the Modified Project would not result in a measurable increase in water quality impacts relative to the original project, these impacts are considered to be within the scope of impacts previously-evaluated in the Certified EIR. City of Santa Monica St. John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services CorpomNoo/SCH No. 97011022 Sune 2011 Page 37 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIlZ 5.7 Global Climate Change The evaluation of impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change is a requirement of CEQA pursuant to recent amendments to the CEQA Cnlidelines. Accordingly, while the Certified EIR was not required to address impacts in this regard, given the changes in the CEQA Cnridelines, an assessment of greenhouse gases and global climate change associated with Modified Project is provided below. Original Project. The Certified EIR was prepared in the mid-1990s and certified in early 1997, at which time no regulations related to greenhouse gases and global climate change were in effect. As such, the Certified EIR did not address this specific issue. Modified Project. The purpose of the following analysis is to determine whether the changes to the SJHC Phase I pazking program and construction of a modified Entry Plaza would create new significant impacts not identified in the Certified EIR with regard to greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change. Although the changes to the parking program are not expected to create new impacts with regard to greenhouse gas emissions, some analysis is required under CEQA. In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), into law. AB 32 commits the State to achieving GHG specific reduction goals. An additional bill related to AB32, SB 97 was adopted in August 2007 requires the California Office of Planning and Reseazch (OPR) to prepare, develop, and transmit to the Resources Agency guidelines for the feasible mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions, as required by CEQA, including but not limited to, effects associated with transportation or energy consumption. Amendments to the California Code of Regulations regarding analysis of GHG emissions in CEQA documents were adopted on February 16, 2010 and became effective on March 18, 2010. The GHG amendments encourage lead agencies to consider many factors in performing a CEQA analysis, but preserve the discretion granted by CEQA to lead agencies in making their own determinations based on substantial evidence. The amendments augmented Appendix G. of the CEQA Cneidelines, the environmental checklist form, to include a section on greenhouse gas emissions. The amendments require the following checklist questions to be included in all CEQA documents: Would the project: a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance? City ofSanta Monica - St. John's Health Center Development AereementAmendment PCR Services Corpaation/SCH No. 97011022 June 2011 Page 38 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Global Climate Change Analysis Section 15064:7 of the CEQA Gctidelines defines a threshold of significance as an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particular environmental effect, . non-compliance with which means the effect will normally be determined to be siaffnificant by the agency, and compliance with which means the effect normally will be determined to be less than significant. CEQA gives wide latitude to lead agencies in determining what impacts are significant and does not prescribe thresholds of significance, analytical methodologies, or specific mitigation measures. CEQA leaves the determination of significance to the reasonable discretion of the lead agency and encourages lead agencies to develop and publish thresholds of significance to use in determining the significance of environmental effects. Daring the certification of the original EIR, a Global Climate Change analysis was not required, nor were any greenhouse gas regulations set forth during that time, as the topic was still evolving. Therefore the certified EIR did not contain analysis or quantification of project related GHG emissions and therefore did not identify GHG impacts. The City of Santa Monica has selected a dual threshold methodology that considers the 10,000 metric tons C02e/year threshold (the second lowest non-zero threshold) as a quantitative benchmark for significance and qualitative consideration of the California Environmental Protec$on Agency's (CalEPA) GHG emissions reduction strategies. Consistency with applicable measures contained within various regulations, policies and guidance will be evaluated. This will include the CalEPA GHG emissions reduction strategies prepared by CalEPA's Climate Action Team (CAT) for projects below 10,000 metric tons C02e/year. The CAT strategies are recommended to reduce GHG emissions at a statewide level to meet the goals of the Executive Order 5-3-05. Further the project analysis will measure consistency with the California Attorney Generals, Global Warming Measures (2008) and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) and OPR's released white paper, CEQA and Climate Change (2008), providing greenhouse gas reduction measures which aim to curb the generation of emissions through suggestions pertaining to land use, transportation, renewable energy, energy efficiency, eta The analysis provided in this section is based on recently amended CEQA Initial Study checklist questions. Consistency with this CAT strategies criterion will be discussed under checklist question "b" below. In addition, the analysis will identify whether the Modified Project is consistent with the City of Santa Monica's Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) goals for reducing GHG emissions as well as aproject-specific emissions inventory developed for the proposed project. The required Initial Study checklist questions are addressed as follows: CiTyofSantaMonica StJohn'sHealthCenterDevelopmentAgreementAmendment PCR Services CorporatioNSCH No. 9701102 Tune 2011 Page 39 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant fimpact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of signi5cance? Determining how a proposed project might contribute to climate change, and what the overall effect of an individual project would be based on that contribution is still being debated at this time. Quantification of GHG emissions resulting from the Modified Project were assessed for the small incremental increase from changes to the Project. The Certified EIR did not contain analysis or quantification of project-related GHG emissions and therefore did not identify GHG impacts. A comparison of GHG emissions between the Modified Project and the original project would not be possible. As a result, there are no known impacts with which to provide a comparison of potential effects. Construction. The Modified Project primarily involves implementation of an on- and off-site parking program and would require only minimal construcfion activities of limited duration. This parking program would make use of currently available and underutilized off-site pazking spaces and construction of a modified Entry Plaza. The modified Entry Plaza will require minor landscape/hardscape design changes. Since preparation of the Certified EIR, the CARB has established rules to limit idling of commercial vehicles and the State and federal governments have promulgated rules to increase the energy efficiency of vehicles, all of which results in a reduction in fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions, consistent with the goals of AB 32 and CAT Strategies. Because .construction activities aze expected to be relatively minor and of short duration, and will be subject to applicable rules enacted to lower GHG emissions, construction of the modified Entry Plaza and implementation of the new parking program is not expected to generate a substantial amount of construction GHG emissions. Operations. With regard to operation of the Modified Project, GHG emissions are typically generated through vehicle trips to the site, on-site stationary equipment (generators, boilers) and energy consumption (electricity, natural gas). According to the Traffic Study Memorandum prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants, the Modified Project would not generate additional average daily project trips compazed to what was analyzed in the Certified EIR.' In addition, energy consumption (electricity, natural gas) from stationary sources is not expected to increase as a result of the off-site parking program. Vehicle use patterns would be altered slightly with the implementation of the Modified Project. Specifically, the minor changes in local traffic patterns and idling times associated with operation of the Modified Project would result in an incremental increase of approximately 32 tons of GHG emissions annually, which is well below the City's adopted threshold of 10,000 tons per year. ~ Traffc ShedytYlemorandt~m, Fehr and Peers Transportation Conszdtants, Apri12011. CiTy of Santa Monica - - StJohn's Health Center Development AereementAmendment PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 97011022 Sune 2011 Page 40 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIlZ Due to the complex physical, chemical, and atmospheric mechanisms involved in global climate change, it is not possible to predict the specific impact, if any, on global climate change from one project's relatively small incremental increase in emissions. The construction activities resulting from the Modified Project are relatively minor and temporary, and subject to applicable strategies to lower fuel consumption, and no notable change in operational emissions are expected; thus, impacts related to the Modified Project are within the scope of impacts evaluated in the Certified EIR. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? There exist a number of plans and policies designed to reduce GHG emissions potentially applicable to the proposed project. AB 32 commits the State to achieving 2000 GHG emission levels by 2010, which represents an approximately 11 percent reduction from business as usual (BAU), 1990 levels by 2020, approximately 30 percent below BAU, and 80 percent carbon emission reductions by 2050 across all sectors of the economy. California Senate Bill 375 (SB375), which was signed by the Governor on September 30, 2008, links regional planning for housing and transportation with the greenhouse gas reduction goals outlined in AB 32. Under the bill, each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is required to adopt a sustainable community strategy to encourage compact development so that the region will meet a target, created by CARB, for reducing GHG emissions. The CAT strategies are recommended to reduce GHG emissions at a statewide level to meet the goals of the Executive Order S-3-OS, whereby emissions targets are set for the State through the year 2050, a date beyond AB 32's mandates. The CAT published its report in March 2006, which includes voluntary recommendations and strategies such as diesel anti-idling regulations, GHG Vehicle Standards (AB 1493), zero waste/high recycling programs, appliance efficiency standards, as well as Green Building initiatives. All of which aze currently being implemented by local jurisdictions to reach the targets established in the executive order. a The City has established consistency with the CAT recommendations as a part of the dual threshold for determining siaonificance of impacts under CEQA: In addition, consistency with other potenfially applicable measures, such as those contained in the Global Warming Measures (2008) and the CAPCOA and OPR's released white paper, CEQA and Climate Change (2008) will be assessed. Therefore, if a project is consistent with applicable local and State policies and. regulations aimed at reducing GHG emissions, its impacts will be less than sibonificant. As discussed above, construction from minor landscape and hardscape improvements would result in a temporary increase in GHG emissions. Post-construction operation would have a minimal increase, however is not expected to result in any sizeable change in operations as a http://www.climatechanee.ca pov/naiblications/factsheets/2005-06 GIIG STRATEGIES FSPDF City of Santa Monica SL John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corpomtion/SCH No. 97011022 June 2011 Page 41 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR compared to current use. Therefore, the policies and regulations listed on Table 5, Project Consistency with Applicable Policies and Regztlations, aze applicable primarily to construction activities. If a policy or regulation is not listed, it was determined not to apply. Table 5 Project Consistency with Applicable Policies and Regutafions Strategies for Reducing GHG Emissions Project Conformance CAT Recommendations - Diesel Anfi-Idling Reduce GAG emissions from diesel-fueled commercial momr vehicle idling, by reducing idling times and electdfyirig tmek stops. All heavy duty on-road construction vehicles would be prohibited from idling in excess of five minutes, both on- and off-site as required by State Law9. Achieve 50 percent Statewide Recycling Goal Achieve California's 50 percent waste diversion mandate (AB 939, The project would divert at least 50 percent of Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989) to reduce GHG constmction waste from disposal. emissions associated with virgin. material extraction. AB 939 required each city or counTy plan to include an implementation schedule that showed 50 percent diversion of all solid waste by January 1, 2000, through source reduction, recycling, and composting. 1. CAT Report htaD://www.climatechanea.ca.eov/nerblications/cat/index html Source: PCR Services CorporaKon, 2011. As shown on Table 5, constmction equipment used for the project would comply with the CAT recommendation to limit idling of diesel-fueled vehicles and would divert at least 50 percent of construcfion waste from disposal. Construction equipment must comply with the GARB-established rules to limit idling of diesel-fueled vehicles which is consistent with the goals of AB 32 and CAT Strategies. Structural improvements and upgrades provide for efficiency and durability over time, thus decreasing need for maintenance and repairs, thereby reducing GHG emissions resulting from municipal maintenance operations. In addition, the City has recently adopted the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) which contains policies of achieving GHG reduction goals contained consistent with AB 32. The Circulation Element of the LUCE includes a strong focus on transit-related GHG reduction measures including alternative modes of transportation and promotion of pedestrian friendly features. The circulation element also contains parking related strategies in order to ensure sufficient parking but at the same time, reduce vehicle trips and congestion within the city, 9 htto://www.orb.ca.eov/msnroe/tneck-idline/mrck-idling City of Santa bloniea St dohn's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 97011022 Tune 2011 Page 42 Addendum to the 1998 Certified E1R thereby reducing mobile source GHG emissions. Parking policies and goals of the LUCE applicable to the Modified Project include: • LUCE Goal T24.5 -Encourage all new commercial pazking to be shared and designed so that it is interconnected with adjacent parking facilities. • LUCE Goal T25.1 -Require adequate on-site loading aeeas for child care centers, healthcare offices and other uses with intensive passenger drop-off demands, and work with schools to encourage provision of adequate loading areas. • LUCE Goal T26.7 - Considerallowing developers to meet their minimum parking requirements via shared parking between uses,, payment of in-lieu fees; or off-site parking within a reasonable walking distance. The main goal of the on- and off-site pazlcing program and valet operation associated with the Modified Project is to meet parking requirements through provision of off-site parking, consistent with LUCE Goal T26.7 and T24.5. Construction of the modified Entry Plaza would provide for an efficient on-site drop-off and loading area for patients, consistent with LUCE Goal T25.1. Since the Modified Project focused on implementation of the on- and off-site parting program and valet operation would not conflict with CAT strategies and the goals of the LUCE, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. Thus, impacts associated with this component ofthe Modified Project are within the scope of impacts evaluated in the Certified EIR. The following analysis will identify whether the Modified Project focused on the additional construction activity associated with potential Phase I North Subterranean Garage construction is consistent with the City of Santa Monica's Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) goals for reducing GHG emissions as well as aproject-specific emissions inventory developed for the proposed scenario. The required Initial Study checklist questions are addressed as follows: a) Generate greenhouse. gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance? Determining how a proposed project might contribute to climate change, and what the overall effect of an individual project would be based on that contribution is still being debated at this time. As Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a threshold of significance as an identifiable quantitative, qualitative or performance level of a particulaz environmental effect, quantification of GHG emissions resulting from the this component of the Modified Project may not be practical for a number of reasons. Quantification of GHG emissions resulting from the Modified Project were only assessed for constmction, the operations analyzed in the Certified EIR did not change. As of March 2011, the City determined a dual threshold methodology that City of Santa Monica St Sohn's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 97011022 June 2011 Page 43 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR considers the 10,000 metric tons CO2e/yeaz threshold (the second lowest non-zero threshold) as a quantitative benchmark for determining the significance of a project's potential cumulative contribution to global climate change in CEQA documents; in accordance with methodologies under the California Air Resources Board (CARS), SCAQMD, and CAPCOA. The certified EIR did not contain analysis or quantification of project related GHG emissions and therefore did not identify GHG impacts. A comparison of GHG emissions between the Modified Project and the overall, original S7IIC project were quanitified for the additional construction activity necessary for potential, future construction of the modified Entry Plaza. It should be noted that the modification of is part of the larger project and duect and indirect GHG emissions from the proposed changes in parking would be difficult to isolate from the emissions resulting from the entire previously- approved project. However, under this addendum, a quantification of the incremental change of construction GHG emissions for the modified Entry Plaza was analyzed. Demolition and construction of the modified Entry Plaza would result in an increase in short-term emissions; however, the Modified Project would not be expected to result. in a notable increase of GHG emissions compared to existing conditions. Construction. The Modified Project focused on potential Phase I pazking gazage construction would require SJHC to demolish the modified Entry Plaza being utilized as the main entrance to the facIlity, remove the demolition material from the Entry Plaza (approximately 19,500 cubic yards), remove existing backfilled demolition materials left over from construction of other Phase I structures (approximately 35,500 cubic yards), construct the Phase I parking gazage, and re-build the Entry Plaza (including relocation of crosswalk and traffic signal on Santa Monica Boulevard), and remove Valet Lot "C". Because the construction of the originally-approved Entry Plaza and Phase I parking garage was addressed in the certified EIR, only the effects of the demolition of the modified Entry Plaza and re-construction of the Entry Plaza are the subject of this quantitative analysis. For the purposes of this GHG analysis, construction was assumed to occur for seven days a week during the ten months of demolition and construction of the modified Entry Plaza. This assumption is conservative as it represents the maximum timeframe anticipated for construction stages within the project's overall development period. GHG emissions resulting from the construction and demolition of the Entry Plaza would generate relatively minor and temporary emissions over the assumed ten-month period. Construction of the project is estimated to emit a total of 440 tons of CO2e over the ten months of construction and demolition of the modified Entry Plaza. No further emissions would be attributable to this aspect of the Modified Project. As GHG emissions are analyzed annually and hospital improvements are spread out in phases, demolition of the modified Entry Plaza and re-construction of the Entry Plaza would not occur simultaneously and no other hospital construction improvements would occur at that time. Results of this analysis aze presented below in Table 6, Conshz~ction Greenhozese Gas City of Santa l3anica St.John's Health Cen[er Development.AgreementAmendment PCR Services Corpomtion/SCH No. 9 1011022 Lune 201 I Page 44 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR Emissions. Annual emissions are less than the 10,000 metric ton threshold established by the City of Santa Monica. Since the time of the certified EIR, the CARB has established rules to limit idling of commercial vehicles-and the State and federal governments have promulgated rules to increase the energy efficiency of vehicles, all of which results in a reduction in fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions, consistent with the goals of AB 32. Because the additional construction activities associated with the Modified Project are expected to be relatively minor, and will be subject to applicable rules enacted to lower GHG emissions, the incremental amount of emissions estimated for this scenario is not expected to generatz a substantial amount of construction GHG emissions. Thus, impacts (annual emissions) resulting from this scenario of the Modified Project are expected to be less than significant. Table 6 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions Emission Source COZe (Metric Tons) Demolition and Reconstruction of Modified Entry Plaza Calendaz Year 2011 348 Calendaz Year 2012 92 Consimction Total (aanual) 440 . Exceeds 10,000 tons/year COZe Threshold? - No Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2011. Due to the complex physical, chemical, and atmospheric mechanisms involved in global climate change, it is not possible to predict the specific impact, if any, on global climate change from one project's relatively small incremental increase in emissions. While it is difficult at this time to quantify the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions anticipated from the project, as discussed above, the lack of applicable numeric mass emission thresholds for GHG emissions resulting from the project and the difficulty in isolating emissions related to the proposed changes in the parking program from the entire project make quantification impractical and unnecessary to determine significance. The GHG emissions of the project alone cannot cause a direct physical change in the environment. The construction activities resulting from this component of the Modified Project are relatively minor and temporary, and subject to applicable strategies to lower fuel consumption, and no change in operational emissions are expected. Therefore, due to the incremental amount of GHG emissions estimated for the additional construction activity required for the Modified Project scenario focused on potential construction of the modified Entry Plaza, and the lack of any evidence for concluding that the project's GHG emissions could cause any measurable increase in global GHG emissions necessary to force City of Santa Monica St. John's Health Center Development Aareemen[Amendment PCR Services Coxpomtion/SCH No. 970110?2 June 2011 Page 45 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR global climate change; this component of the Modified Project is expected to result in a less than significant impact with regard to GHG emissions. b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? There exist a number of plans and policies designed to reduce GHG emissions potentially applicable to the proposed project. AB 32 commits the State to achieving 2000 GHG emission levels by 2010, which represents an approximately 11 percent reduction from business as usual (BALI), 1990 levels by 2020, approximately 30 percent below BAU, and 80 percent carbon emission reductions by 2050 across all sectors of the economy. California Senate Bill 375 (SB375), which was signed by the Governor on September 30, 2008, links regional planning for housing and transportation with the greenhouse gas reduction goals outlined in AB 32. Under the bill, each Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is required to adopt a sustainable community strategy to encourage compact development so that the region will meet a target, created by CARB, for reducing GHG emissions. The CAT strategies are recommended to reduce GHG emissions at a statewide level to meet the goals of the Executive Order S-3-O5, whereby emissions targets are set for the State through the year 2050, a date. beyond AB 32's mandates. The CAT published its report in March 2006, which includes voluntary recommendations and strategies such as diesel anti-idling regulations, GHG Vehicle Standards (AB 1493), zero waste/high recycling programs, appliance efficiency standards, as well as Green Building initiatives. All of which aze currently being implemented by local jurisdictions to reach the targets established in the executive order. 10 The City has established consistency with the CAT recommendations as a part of the dual threshold for determining significance of impacts under CEQA. In addition, consistency with other potentially applicable. measures, such as those contained in the Global Warming Measaeres (2008) and the CAPCOA and OPR's released white paper, CEQA and Climate Change {2008) will be assessed. Therefore, if a project is consistent with applicable local and State policies and regulations aimed at reducing GHG emissions, its impacts will be less than significant. As shown on Table 6 above, construction results in a temporary increase in GHG emissions. However, post-construction operation is not expected to result in .any practical change in operations as compared to current use. Therefore, the policies and regulations listed on Table 7, Project Consistency with Applicable Policies and Regzddtions, are applicable primarily to construction activities. If a policy or regulation is not listed, it was determined not to apply. to http.//wtvw.climatechanee.ca. aov/ateblicafions/factsheets/2005-06 GHG STRATEGIES FS PDF City of Santa Monica St John's Health Cen[er Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corporntlon/SCH No. 9701 1022 Sune 2011 Page 46 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR Table 7 Project Consistency with Applicable Policies and Regulations Strategies for Reducing GHG Emissions Project Conformance CAT ReeommendaHons - - Diesel Anti-Idling Reduce GHG emissions from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicle idling, by reducing idling times and electtifying truck stops. All heavy duty on-road consnuction vehicles would be prohibited from idling in excess of five minutes, both on- and off-site as required by State Laws ~. Achieve 50 percent Statewide Recycling Goal Achieve California's 50 percent waste diversion mandate (AB 939, Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989) to reduce GHG emissions associated with vugin material extraction. AB 939 required each city or county plan to include an implementafion schedule that showed 50 percent diversion of all solid waste by January 1, 2000, through source reducfion, recycling and composting. The project would divert at least 50 percent of construction waste from disposal. 1. CAT Report: hti~://www.climatechan2e.ca.¢ov/oa~blications/catrndexh[m1 2. Santa tLlonica Land Use and CirczdaSon Element (LUCE); Chapter 3.1 Satstainabi[ity and Climate Change, 2010 Soterce: PCR Services Corpora Son, 2011. As shown on Table 7, construction equipment used for the project would comply with the CAT recommendation to limit idling of diesel-fueled vehicles and would divert at least 50 percent of construction waste from disposal. Structural improvements and upgrades provide for efficiency and durability over time, thus decreasing need for maintenance and repairs, thereby reducing GHG emissions resulting from municipal maintenance operations. In addition, the City has recently adopted the Land Use Circulation Element (LUCE) which contains policies of achieving GHG reduction goals contained consistent with AB 32. The Circulation Element of the LUCE includes a strong focus on transit-related GHG reduction measures including alternative modes of transportation and promotion of pedestrian friendly features. The circulation element also contains parking related strategies in order to ensure sufficient parking but at the same time, reduce vehicle trips and congestion within the city, thereby reducing mobile source GHG emissions. Parking policies and goals of the LUCE applicable to the Modified Project focused on potential, future Phase I parking gazage construction: • LUCE Goal T24.5 -Encourage all new commercial parking to be shared and designed so that it is interconnected with adjacent parking facilities. u http:/hvww.arb.ca.eov/msproe/tntck-idline/truck-idline.htm CiTy of Santa Monica ~ St. John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 970110?2 Iune 2017 Page 47 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR • LUCE Goal T25.1 -Require adequate on-site loading areas for child care centers, healthcare offices and other uses with intensive passenger drop-off demands, and work with schools to encourage provision of adequate loading areas • LUCE Goal T26.7 -Consider allowing developers to meet their minimum parking requirements via shared parking between uses, payment of in-lieu fees, or off-site parking within a reasonable walking distance. The main goal of the Modified Project is to meet parking requirements consistent with LUCE Goal T26.7 and T24.5. Construction of the modified Entry Plaza, provision of an on- and off-site parking program, and operation of a valet service would be provided to meet minimum parking requirements in between phases of.projecUhospital improvements. Construcfion of the modified Entry Plaza would provide for an efficient drop-off and loading area for patients and visitors, consistent with LUCE Goal T25.1. Due to the incremental amount of GHG emissions estimated for Modified Project, and the fact that the project incorporates design features to reduce potential GHG emissions that are consistent with the CAT Strategies goals of AB32 and the Santa Monica LUCE, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are necessary. Because SJHC is proposing the relatively minor construction and demolition of the modified Entry Plaza, overall impacts would potentially be equal to or less than the worst-case scenario analyzed in the Certified EIR for aworst-case construction day, and therefore will not create an additional incremental increase cumulatively. As such, even though temporary construction air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, these impacts are within the scope of impacts evaluated in the Certified EIR. 6. CONCLUSION As demonstrated by the comparative analysis above, the Modified Project, including the component focused on providing an on- and off-site parking program and valet operation and the additional demolition and. construction activities associated with the scenario focused on potential, future Phase I North Subterranean Parking Garage construction and Entry Plaza re- construction, would not result in any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of any impacts previously identified in the Certified EIR. Rather, all impacts are well within the scope of impacts identified within the Certified EIR for the original SJHC project. 7. LIST OF PREPARERS CEQA Consultant PCR Services Corporation 233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 130 Santa Monica, California 90401 • David A. Crook, AICP, Principal Planner City orsanta Monica SLJohn's Health Center Development AgreementAmendment PCR Services Corporarion/SCA No. 97011022 Lune 2011 PageA8 Addendum to the 1998 Certified EIR ® Jay Ziff, PrincipaUDirector of Environmental Planning & Documentation ® Heidi Rous, CPP, PrincipaUDirector of Air Quality, Climate Change & Acoustics ® Kyle Kim, Ph.D., Senior Acoustic Engineer • Everest Yan, P.E., Senior Air Quality Engineer • Bethmarie Lascano, Assistant Air Quality Planner Traffic and Parking Consultant Fehr & Peers Transportation Consultants 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 500 Santa Monica, CA 90401 • Thomas P. Gaul, Principal • Steve Crosley, P.E., Senior Traffic Engineer CiTy of San[a Monica St John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Corporation/SCH No. 97011022 June 201 I Page 49 APPENDIX A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CiTy of Santa Monica St Johds Health Center Development Agreement Amendment PCR Services Coxpomrion/SCH No. 97011022 June 2011 Page A-1 FEHR~PEERS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: May 24, 2011 To: David Grook, PCR Services Corporation From: Steve Crosley and Jonathan Williams Subject: Saint John's Health Center Development Agreement Amendment SM010-2430 Fehr & Peers conducted a traffic impact assessment by for a proposed Amendment to the Development Agreement (DA) for the St. John's Hospital and Health Center (SJHC) using City of Santa Monica traffic analysis guidelines. The SJHC is located at 1328 22"d Street in the City of Santa Monica. The Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA)t for the SJHC project was certified on April 3, 1998, and the projects Vaffic study (Saint John's Hospital Traffic Study, Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, September 1997) assumed a detailed parking program that resulted in specific project trip distribution and assignment. SJHC is proposing to amend its approved DA with the City of Santa Monica for the Saint John's Hospital and Health Center Project ("Original Project"). In lieu of constructing an on-site parking structure and the Entry Plaza as proposed by the original project, the Amendment would authorize a modified Entry Plaza and parking program to meet the peak parking demand of SJHC's various user groups, and ensure that parking that is functionally equivalent to the previously-approved North Subterranean Parking Garage is provided. The parking layout changes from what was analyzed in the Original Project to what is being proposed for completion in 2011- ("Mod'rfied Project") would affect project trip distribution and assignment. This has the potential to affect intersection operating conditions and could result in new, previously unidentified impacts. Following reviews of the project's background and the 1997 EIR traffic study, a new traffic impact analysis was conducted that uses the newly proposed 2011 parking program, which informs a new project trip distribution and assignment. The study determined that the proposed SJHC Phase I parking program changes would not create new impacts beyond those previously identified in the 1997 Cert'rfied EIR. Therefore, the proposed Phase I parking program associated with the Mod"rfied Project will not result in any new, unavoidable significant impacts. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Saint John's Hospital and Health Center project was to be constructed in two phases and was subject to a Development Agreement with the City, which stipulated that all stages of Phase I must be completed before Phase II construction could begin. According to the EIR/EA, Phase I was to include the demolition of 535,722 square feet (sf) of floor area and the construction of 475,000 sf of new floor area including a 275,000 sf diagnostic treatment/outpatient center and 200,000 sf of inpatient suites, a new central plant, loading docks, and a new entry plaza with a 442 space subterranean garage. Phase II would demolish 109,220 sf of floor area and construct 916,500 of new floor area consisting of a wellness center, hospital, research facilities, education center, child study center, retail, market, restaurant, tiank, gallery, broadcast studio, and visitor accommodations. SJHC has completed stages I and II of Phase I ' Frnal Environmental Impact RepwtlEnvironmerrta/Assessment Saint John's Hospital and Health Center, Environmental Sciences Associates, December 2007. 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 500 SantaMonica, CA 90401 (310) 455-9915 Fax (310) 394-7663 www.fehrandpeers.com Mr. David Crook PCR Services Corporation May 24, 2011 - Page 2 and are now seeking an Amendment to its Development Agreement. In lieu of constructing an on-site parking structure and the Entry Plaza as proposed by the original project,-the Amendment would authorize a modified Entry Plaza and parking program to meet the peak parking demand of SJHC's various user groups, and ensure that parking that is functionally equivalent to the previously-approved North Subterranean Parking Garage is provided: The proposed project also includes a potential scenario where SJHC would demolish the mod'rfied Entry Plaza, construct the North Subterranean Parking Garage, and rebuild the Entry Plaza. Implementation of the proposed Phase I parking program associated with the Modified Project would result in 442 fewer on-site spaces than was identified in the 1997 EIR/EA (1,435): SJHC has made a number of changes to the number and location of parking spaces under its control since the EIR/EA was certified. SJHC is planning to have 1,540 spaces available in 2011 when the completion of Phase I is anticipated. A comparison of parking supply from what was available in 1997 to the EIR/EA projected supply in 2005 to the anticipated actual supply in 2011 is shown in Table 1. STUDY APPROACH The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the proposed changes to the SJHC Phase I parking program would create new significant traffic impacts not identirfied in the SJHC EIR/EA. The approach taken was to recreate the 2005 cumulative base conditions (from the EIP/EA) and shift project traffic from what was proposed ih 1997 to the current parking configuration being proposed today. The traffic impact analysis conducted for this memo uses the same 2005 future base conditions to provide the baseline for assessment of impacts. The use of 2005 future base conditions ensures consistency with the 1997 Certified EIR and provides a uniform baseline from which potential impacts associated with the Modified Project can be compared. The SJHC EIR/EA evaluated the potential for traffic impacts at 47 intersections (shown in Figure 1) during the weekday AM and PM peak hours. For this analysis, the complete set of 47 intersections was selected for analysis: 1. 14`h Street & Wilshire Boulevard 2. 14`h Street & Arizona Avenue 3. 14'h Street & Santa Monica Boulevard 4. 14`h Street & Broadway 5. 17th Street & Montana Avenue 6. 17th Street & Wilshire Boulevard 7. 17'h Street & Arizona Avenue 8. 17th Street & Santa Monica Boulevard 9. .17th Street & Broadway 10. 20th Street (East} & Montana Avenue 11. 20th Street (West} & Montana Avenue 12. 20th Street & Wilshire Boulevard 13. 20th Street & Arizona Avenue 14. 20`h Street & Santa Monica Boulevard 15. 20'h Street & Broadway 16. 20th Street & Colorado Avenue 17. 20`" Street & Olympic Boulevard 18. 20th Street & I-10 eastbound off-ramp 19. 20'h Street & Delaware Avenue 20. 20th Street & Pico Boulevard 21. 23`d Street & Wilshire Boulevard 22. 23rd Street & Arizona Avenue 23. 23`d Street & Santa Monica Boulevard 24. 23`d Street & Pico Boulevard Mr. David Crook PCR Services Corporation May 24, 2011 Page 3 25. 23" Street & Ocean Park Boulevard 26. 24th Street & Montana Avenue 27. Clovertield Boulevard & Santa Monica Boulevard 28. Cloverfield Boulevard & Broadway 29. Cloverfield Boulevard & Colorado Avenue 30. Cloverfield Boulevard & Olympic Boulevard 31. Cloverfield Boulevard & Michigan Avenue 32. .Cloverfield Boulevard & I-10 westbound off-ramp 33. Cloverfield Boulevard & I-10 eastbound on-ramp 34. Clovertield Boulevard & Virginia Avenue 35. Cloverfield Boulevard & Pico Boulevard 36. Cloverfield Boulevard & Ocean Park Boulevard 37. 26th Street & Montana Avenue 38. 26th Street & Wilshire Boulevard 39. 26th Street & Arizona Avenue 40. 26'6 Street & Santa Monica Boulevard 41. 26'6 Street & Broadway 42. 26'h Street & Colorado Avenue 43. Yale Street & Wilshire Boulevard 44. Yale Street & Santa Monica Boulevard 45. Berkeley Street & Wilshire Boulevard 46. Gentinela Avenue (east) & Wilshire Boulevard 47. Gentinela Avenue & Santa Monica Boulevard 1997 TRAFFIC STUDY The consulting firm Meyer, Mohaddes Associates (MMA) conducted a traffic impact analysis for the project in 1997, which became the basis for the impact analysis contained in the EIR/EA. Existing conditions were based on 1995 counts and traffic impacts were analyzed under future year 2005 conditions. Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment Project trip generation included new development activity at the site, elimination of various existing land uses, and mod'rfication of other uses. The MMA traffic study used the assumptions from a 1996 trip generation and parking demand study (Parking and Circulation Study for the Saint John's Hospital and Hea/fh Center Replacement Project Phase 1, Kaku Associates, December 1996) for the project trip generation, distribution and assignment. The 1996 study was based on empirical data collection efforts conducted on site, including traffic dounts at driveways, surveys of employees and visitors to understand travel patterns, parking counts and utilization studies, and discussions with personnel staff regarding employee counts and shift change pattems. Trip generation used in the traffic study and established in the 1997 is shown in Table 2. Projected 2005 Traffic Conditions Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow, ranging from excellent, nearly free-flow-traffic conditions ai LOS A to overloaded, stop-and-go conditions at LOS F. In the 1997 traffic study the "Operational Analysis" method from Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) (Transportation Research Board, 1994) was used to determine the average vehicular. delay and corresponding LOS fdr signalized intersections. LOS definitions for signalized intersections are provided in Table 3. Table 4 provides LOS definitions for stop-controlled intersections using the HCM methodology. Table 5 shows the LOS for the 2005 future base and with project conditions as projected in the 1997 EIR/EA. Mr. David Crook PCR Services Corporation May 24, 2011 - Page 4 Traffic impact Analysis The significance of project-related impacts. on future operating conditions is determined by the application of a set of sign'rficance criteria established by the City of Santa Monica. For reference, the City's significance criteria are displayed in Table 6. These criteria are based on specific levels of increased average vehicle delay or increased volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios at intersections. The 1997 EIR traffic study for the Original Project found that the project was forecasted to significantly impact nine intersections, including six during the AM peak hour and seven during the PM peak hour: • 20th Street & Wilshire Boulevard (PM) • 20~h Street & Colorado Avenue (AM, PM) • 23`d Street & Ocean Park Boulevard (PM) • Cloverfield Boulevard & Colorado Avenue (AM) • Cloverfield Boulevard & I-10 westbound off-ramp (AM, PM) • Cloverfield Boulevard & Virginia Avenue (AM) • Cloverfield Boulevard & Ocean Park Boulevard (AM, PM) • 26'h Street & Santa Monica Boulevard (AM, PM) • Centinela Avenue (east) & Wilshire Boulevard (PM) The Certified EIR determined that with implementation of Phase I mitigation measures related to traffic and circulation, Phase I would still sign'rficantiy impact three intersections: 26`h Street & Santa Monica Boulevard (AM); Cloverfield Boulevard & Ocean Park Boulevard (PM); and Cloverfield Boulevard & I-10 westbound off-ramp (AM, PM). In addition, proposed mitigation for the intersection at Cloverfield Boulevard & Virginia Avenue (AM) was determined by the City to be infeasible. Therefore, in conjunction with the original project analysis, a total of Pour intersections were identified to be signficantly impacted after mitigation. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WITH NEW PARKING PROGRAM The proposed parking program for 2011 with the number of spaces per lot is shown in Figure 2. The change in parking locations between what was analyzed in the 1997 traffic study and the Modified Project will result in different project trip distribution and assignment, even though project trip generation does not change (as there is no change in land use from what was previously assumed for Phase I). The traffic impact analysis conducted for this memo uses the same 2005 future base conditions to provide the baseline for assessment of impacts. The use of 2005 future base conditions ensures consistency with the 1997 EIR/EA and provides a uniform baseline from which potential impacts associated with the Modified Project can be compared. Parking Location Changes The Original Project analyzed in the EIR/EA included a new 440-space subterranean garage on the North Campus to accommodate both an increase in trips and a loss of surface parking in lots D and F due to hospital expansion. The proposal to provide both on- and off-site parking to meet SJHC's peak parking demand would result in a shift of some trips away from the immediate site to remote lots and an increase in localized trips due to the valet operation. The 440-space North Subterranean Parking Garage was projected to provide on-site parking of 332 spaces for visitors and patients, 52 spaces for staff, and 56 spaces for physicians. The EIR/EA also projected an additional 18 emergency visitor surface spaces. Under the Modified Project,-the North Campus parking facilities at the Entry Plaza would provide 56 physician spaces, 94 patient and visitor spaces, and 11 staff spaces, all in valet surface lots. These lots will be accessed via the U-shaped Mr. David Crook PCR Services Corporation May 24, 2011 Page 5 modified Entry Plaza, which will contain signalized entry and exit points on Santa Monica Boulevard between 20'" Street and 23rd Street. To accommodate this net loss of 297 North Campus on-site parking spaces, and an additional decrease of 255 leased spaces in the nearby Held and Koll facilities, St. John's is proposing to increase the number of spaces available to hospital staff, visitors, patients, and physicians in surface lots immediately across the street south of Santa Monica Boulevard and in remote lots at the Yahoo Center and St. Anne's Church. All visitor and patient parking will be valet-parked from the modified Entry Plaza, with approximately 25% of visitor spaces provided at the main facility entrance on the North Campus; the remaining 75% of the spaces provided for visitor parking will be located south of Santa Monica Boulevard in lots B and H, directly across the street from SJHC's North Campus. The use of these South Campus visitor spaces will involve extra valet trips from the modified Entry Plaza to and from lots B and H. Likewise a small number of staff using Lot H will also be valet harked. Finally, all staff parking at St. Anne's Church will drive directly to the valet-managed lot on 26' Street. Valets operating from the Entry Plaza will travel from the Entry Plaza across Santa Monica Boulevard at a signalized intersection and use one-way 21~' Street to access the parking lots. For the return trip, the valets are expected to travel back to SJHG by making a series of right turns from 21s' Street to Broadway, 20'h Street, and Santa Monica Boulevard. The increase in visitor parking provided in the area south of Santa Monica Boulevard reduces the amount of staff parking in this area by approximately 139 spaces. Displaced staff parking will be replaced primarily by the provision of self-parking at the Yahoo Center (450 spaces). This parking (monthly) is accessed from 26'" Street between Colorado Avenue and Broadway, and leads to an increased number of trips in the immediate vicinity. Trip Generation, Distribution and Assignment Trip generation used in this traffic impact analysis is identical to what was used in the 1997 traffic study and approved in the 1997 EIFUEA. However, based on the new parking location scheme, the trip generation for each project parking destination was recalculated. The new trip rates by parking lot are shown in Table 7. Overall project trip distribution was designed to match what was used in the 1997 traffic study. Localized distribution and assignment was adapted to the new parking location scheme. Modified Traffic Forecasts Revised 2005 traffic conditions for the 47 intersections analyzed in 1997 EIR/EA were developed for the cumulative base and cumulative with project scenarios. Table 8 shows LOS for the 2005 "future base" and "future with project" conditions with the 2011 Phase I parking program assumed. Figure 3 displays revised 2005 no projedt traffic volumes at the analyzed intersections, Figure 4 displays project only traffic volumes, and Figure 5 displays 2005 with project traffic volumes. Detailed LOS calculations are included as an attachment. The reader will notice slight future base LOS differences for specrfic intersections between Tables 5 and 8. This is an effect of using different versions of the TRAFFIX software. TRAFFIX Version 6.8 was used for the 1997 traffic study and TRAFFIX Version 7.7 was used for the current traffic impact analysis. TRAFFIX version 6.8 is a MSDOS version of TRAFFIX and is no longer available for use. Lane configurations, signal timings, traffic volumes, and analysis methodology were duplicated in order to provide consistency with the original impact analysis. The differences are nominal and do not affect the traffic impact analysis because only TRAFFIX Version 7.7 was used by Fehr & Peers. Mr. David Crook PCR Services Corporation May 24, 2011 Page 6 Traffic Impact Anatysis The traffic impact analysis found that the Modified Project is expected to significantly impact six intersections using the projected 2005 volumes from the EIPJEA, including five during the AM peak hour and three during the PM peak hour, as shown in Table 8: • 20`h Street & Wilshire Boulevard (PM) • 20th Street & Colorado Avenue (AM, PM) • Cloverfield Boulevard & I-10 westbound off-ramp (AM, PM) • Cloverfield Boulevard & Virginia Avenue (AM) • Cloverfield Boulevard & Ocean Park Boulevard (AM) • 26`h Street & Santa Monica Boulevard (AM) ]997 to 2011 Impact Comparison Table 9 compares the impacts projected to be generated by the project in the 1997 EIR/EA to the impacts resulting from the current traffic impact analysis. Of the six impacted intersections under the Modified Project, all were previously identified as being impacted in the 1997 Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed Phase I parking program associated with the Modified Project will not result in any new, unavoidable significant impacts. Intersection Changes 1997-2011 The traffic study also determined that had the currently proposed SJHC parking program been studied in the 1997 EIR/EA, there would have been significant impacts identified at the intersections of 26`h Street & Wilshire Boulevard, 26th Street & Broadway, and 26th Street & Colorado Boulevard (shown in Table 8). However, the measures that would have been required to mitigate these impacts have been implemented subsequent to the 1997 analysis. The following lane geometry and signal changes were made to those intersections: 26`h Street & Wilshire Boulevard -Modified the signal phasing from a permitted to a protected/permitted phasing for all left-turn movements. Right-turn lanes were added at the northbound and southbound approaches to Wilshire Boulevard on 26`h Street. • 26th Street & Broadwav -Added right-turn lanes on all four approaches. • 26th Street & Colorado -Added right-turn lanes on the northbound, southbound, and eastbound approaches, Given implementation of these measures, it is concluded that the Modified Project would not exacerbate any previously ident'rfied significant impacts or resuR in any new, unavoidable significant impacts. MODIFIED PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The Mod'rfied Project includes a potential scenario focused on demolition of the modified Entry Plaza, construction of the Phase I North Subterranean Parking Garage; and re-construction of the Entry Plaza. Following construction of these improvements, the Entry Plaza and parking structure would function as anticipated in the Certified EIR. As such, operational traffic impacts ,would not be different than those presented in the Certified EIR and no further analysis is required for this scenario. CONCLUSIONS This study was undertaken to determine whether proposed changes to the previously-approved SJHC Phase I parking program could create new traffic impacts not identified in the 1997 Certified EIR. These Mc David Crook PCR Services Corporation May 24,2011 Page 7 proposed changes will result in a shift of trips away from the immediate site to remote lots and an increase in localized trips due to an expanded valet operation. The study determined that SJHG Phase I parking program changes would not create new impacts beyond those previously identffied in the 1997 Certified EIR. Therefore, the proposed Phase I parking program associated with the Modified Project will not result in any new, unavoidable significant impacts. LEGEND ® Project Site Q Analyzed Intersection PROJECT SITE AND F E H R sz PEERS ANALYZED INTERSECTIONS TRANSPO RiAiION CON50 LiANiS a~ zz zoia ~s ~ FIGURE Y x:\donz4u~wc\zwm\zao - Ami dandy\~rwn~u\nrao\z>~ easem.q a pS ~ 0 J~ P Not to Scale ~c cc y yya JA , 0 G' °c` ~ PJ~ 26,E ~,a hoc ~a SF '° ~a`~0 ~`e to •~ Ch o S~ Na 2~v Q esP a I cr' `5E 9, ~\q(~ e K1/K2 D F Y O za Ehs G E ;~ E /' '. . a~ ~. o ~~ \ j u o~ S~ e Z / PJ LC ~C ~ v°°a A ~`, 0~,a ~ °~ ~ ~ yac S O 3m~ . aU ° ~c LEGEND QJ~ ~, ~:_~~ Project Site (aa° sESF Analyzed Intersection ° ~° Parking Lots (Spaces) A Koll (84) B MRI (789) i~ C Valet (56) °hS `~ D Arizona (0) E Interim Eniry Plaza (80) F 23rtl St (O) _ ~ G Held (750) ~D H JWCI (300) - ar I Verizon (727) e y K7 Keck Emergency (14) k FE h ~ ~a°a oz K2 Kec Loading Dack (77) sz, S ~ St. Anne's {85) Y Yahoo 450 Source: Shane Miller Company, LLC, J una 30, 2070 F E H R SZ PEERS PROJEC(T~/SITE,nANALYZEID pIN/~TERJSE~CI~TpIONTSV, TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS ~ AND \' EAR 2®~ 1~ PARIClNra Atl A~uYL~~Lj 1 1 an zs. zoic vs FIGURE 2 k\Jabs\LCfive\x4005\x4:0 - Soinl JoM1n's\c,~yws\u>o\x4;a_co,M~giaismg t. t4ttf St& ~ Z`t4tfl St$. 3. 14th St8 - 4. }4tEi St& -Wilsf7ae BCvd ArizonaAve Santa Monica BNd Broadvrey H ~ o ~ ~ 65170) ^'„"^°', ~ 26(85) ~, ~ m ~ "041775) o` m m~ 43(192) " = i- 955(1,309} -'r -~ `-' F 79(162) ' ~ ~ <- 573(1,775) g ~ `-' ~- 263(438) 6] ~. L ~ 61186) ~ ,~ 0j ~ 27(19) L2 ~. L yr 51(54) ~ ~. L r 17151) WilsM1ire 6Ntl primne AVe Santa Monies 6lW fimatl 53146) a • rl 1 ~ 19(15) a p Yl 1 ~ 3W53) ~ p Yl I (~ 291341 .a '1 I (~ 1,259(1,390) ->• 0](170) -> m 6]0(1,9351 '~ m 2ll(216) ~ ]1199) ~ - 63(115) y -" 4703) ~ - 26(45) ~ - 5. }7th SC& -- 6. 47th St& ~ T. ''.77th St& B.~ t7tF St& Montana Ave , Washington Ave :'Arizona Ave `. Santa Monica Blvtl?~ y m tC 19(32) - V m~ ~ ]0(56) o m ~ 34(00) --- 1~ 90(9fi) g 62 ~. ~ F 44fi(fi631 r 26(38) ~ ~. L <- 1,032(1,5181 r 58(58) ~" ~ y L E 160(2051 r 20(35) "~ L] .j ~a E 747(1,223) r 2n(58) Mo~ttana AVe WazM1in Wn AVe grlxona AVe Santa Monies 6rva 30(17) ~ ~ t ~ 231501 ~ ~ ~ /~ 18(21) ~ ~} ~' jr 53(58) ~ ~ ~' r 5]t(fi361 ~ a 1,246(1,557) ~ % ~ m 101(178) ~ m = 74111,194) ~ ,,, 63105) ~ --_ fi0(05) ~ - 80(1]5) ~ -"' 4fi1fi8) y '~ - s. t7tri st & ta. zath st a s6 0 Broadway Montana Ave (West} ,,~ _ °s~ ~" :. s~ h F 261(369) 2fi 44 '-~ °i I L ~ 14115) F 445(fi961 3 6'P,. > p ; ~ v ( ) ~ I ` ~ ~ e 6maEVa Monhna AVe ,. 74(19) ~ p ~ I /> 9117) ~ _ z ~?~ Py 2`A(4591 -> ' 8301831) -> Y~ ?" a~ ' 31 (651 y - ~~ Pa ~"~ h~ e ~P F~ ' ;,. ` t}.2o-thsta tz.zahsta ~ ~ a ~ ° ~ =futontarlaAve (East} . W1lshve 8[vd ~ a~" a^ .. - - D' ~ °' ~59(t26) v' e c ~ <- 459(711) tOfi(87) e ~I g L3 ~ F 1,16911,391) 1501188 , '9'~ o`~ Gfi r MonlanaAVe W WIISM1Ve 6htl ) r i ~ k 672(682) ~ r1 ~ 35(115) ~ ~' r ~ - 166(150) ~ 7,272(1,327) ~ - 159(712) 1 ~aa _ g9 ___ 'R"s 'D a ~ d ~ a LEGEND ® Project Site 4 ~"s ® Analyzed Intersection i X(X) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic V o lumes ~ Turn Lane "°"O $C°~° FEHR t~ PEERS CUMULATIVE BASE CON®ITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES 6a 29. rot6 as FIGURE 3 x\JeesWer a\29Gps\29A1 - Sam1 JaM1n s\Cmph@5\.1G9\2i3o_Bosedwg .43. 20th St& 44-20ttt St&- 15:20th St& 46-20tIti 5t F< Wilshire Blvd _ Santa Monica Blvd ' Broadway Colorado BWd s m N y o gym, m R 37(84) - 9L 24912251 1G. 121(194) - m ` ° ~' yR 764(153) F i W(167) === F- 868(1,256) = ~ g <- 30fi(3fi3) - ' ~- 623(762) L7 y ~ yr 87(1911 a7~ ~ ~ 1381135) L2 ,~ L yr 46(89) ~ ~. 4. Y 129(268) vnsma exn sans Monicae amama cemraao elM 143(21) ~ R '~ r 61173) ~ ~ ~' r 37(36) .A ~ '~ j/ 76(37) ~ R ~` r A8(144J ~ ~ 6X(1,127) ~ ~ 269(3331 ~ -- m 7241996) -> m 153(185) ~y - 111(143) ~ m ° 671111) ~ ° ~ N 181(1A6) ~ ~ ~ m 17.20[hSt & t8.20th`St S. t9 20th Sf & 20.20th 3t & Wilshire Blvd f-40 EB Off-Ramp ~'Oefaware Ave: Pico Blvd s - ' 'r ~ 166(336) ~ - ' ~ 3(5) m ~ 40(29) --- = = ~ ~ 3321282) ~ ~ f 826(1,196) _ ~ = <- 0(0) ~ ~ <- 16(22) F 1,22211,263) L7 ~. ~ ~ 1971397) ~ y ~ y 5(8) L7 ~. L r 13(13) ~ y y Y 189(195) WJSM1Ire BIM M10 EB OttAam Delaware Am Pico 9Nd 116(92) ~ rj '~ r 780(238) ~ R '!' ~ 32(39) ~ R (' rT 130(162) ~ ~ ~' r ]51(973) -> > _ 0(8) -> c _ 27((1) ~ .., 894(1,278) -~ 3fi11161 ~ - - 187(1]6) ~ - 77175) ~ - - 58(189) ~ _ - 2Y. 23rtl St & 22.23rd St & ~ ~w Wilshire Blvd Arizona Ave s r'° "~~ Lyg a o ~, s a a m c m s ;z s P P' '`~ ~ 5 ° ° m ~ = tG. 6(28) m - ' = iC 21(43) ` ~ ~ e `.~:I 23 ~ 7 F 99311,655) 7 \ ~- 14(1411 `$ F f o d ~. y WISM1Ve BIM yr 3A(49) 6 ~. A Nhona AVe y~ 24(22) ,r~ C ~ 26(23) ~ ~ ~' jI 5(20) ~ p rj I !~ ; X r e`~z 9 o 969(1,179) -> m N 551226} -> O ~ ~P, 96(81) 7r =a^= ~. SA(191) ~ ~ ° ?` - a 3.! s ~~ ~ elr e ~ ~ 23.23rd St 8a , 24- 23rd Sf & ' ~~1 "°" aloe D`a""ew& r''~P .' Santa Monica B&d 'Pico Blvd: mr° oeu„rz^" ., ,r, ~ - ;. n P m„~a a e N m S ~q 5. h ey v °a a p 233(2fi6) 0 0 o d~ 118) ~Pe e "ems 10 ~ s '' F 7,439(1,638) o o m F 864(1,3W) ~ (,~ r` ~~ \j sarrra MOnlw9 ~' 50(28) I~ .~ L PICO BIM r 991328) - ~~ d t°`~ fo ~ a 2 Q 4 38136} a ri T r 616) ~ ~ ~ ~ ° 9:~ r` 976(1,468) -~ o-- 796(1,482) -> - NPU ~ ~sa~ 3212"0 ~ --- 6fi118A)'>4 0-- ~y 3° ` a° w LEGEND ~ 4 ~~ ® Project Sfle a 4 ® Analyzed Intersection / ~ X(X) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic V elumes a ~ ` -~ ~ Turn Lane nlorro Scala FEHR ~ PEERS CUMULATIVE BASE CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES talc as - FIGURE 3 (CONT.) lxc~<\zawa\zam - smm dervds\crapna\AaD\zrb easea.q _ y N ~~ i __~ - :~_ -°„ , = ~ iZ(12) ~ N ~ 13(141 F 1,158(1,218) m ~' ~ 75(1 2) ' o= E- A45(1,030) ' ' E- 550(/fib) 261(254) L2 ~ 31(99) 6J ~, \j ~ 138(298) Montana Are ~ y ~ 0(2) ~ emaawa ~ r onia Are ocran Park BIM Santa Monies 91W >1 p 41(21) ~ Bfi611,2]B) -~ rl /~ 35(53) ~ rj ~ r7 OIOi r1 I !~ -s 274(3281 ~1 Via. n, 97(T171 -> 1,09511,020) ~ 895(823) _ 18fi(367) ~ - e1(262) ~ -- _ _ -- o ° ~ '° V °' n1t 24(116) vm m v ~1~.4%(145) ~ m ~"„ v z~ 90145) ° ~ urG. 2,10317826) "m'-°= y J ~ 644(933) ]9(195) ~'~"' Il y ~ ~ 620(1,298) ~ 365(625) ~ ~ L ~. (i) ~ 801126) • 061(572) ~ I-io Ea an-aam ,~ L ~ 0 moic 6Ntl MICM1i an A Io AUe 1 • fi4 ~ 45 p ~ ~ 90(8fi) ~ ~ 1 r 141fi6) J ~ rj I /9 ) { 498(7]0) -> I v . 16(23) -> - 44211,615) 109(699) ~ ~ 284(318) ~ tOfi(306) ~ _ ~~~ H1 6(36) -> ~ !~ 38(75) ~ LEGEND ® Project Site Q Analyzed intersection X(X) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ~ Turn Lane . FEHR & PEERS CUMULATIVE BASE CONDITIONS PEAK ti0U14 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Odn29.'2010 ~~'^ d5 ~~ k\JO~s~AC6ve~2W0a~3930 - Solnl JoM1n s~Gmpnia~arA9\2430_6oae.dxg ,3T_26th:St& 38.26th St g':'' ~ 39.-26th St& ktrizonaAve 4f}.26tF[SE& Santa Monica Bfvd:. ~MOntana Ave Wiishire B[vd - ~ ~ NR 2a(7x) m-- NR 44(12x) - m ~ ~ m NR 29189) V O ~ am ' ^1~ 1141fi0) I "' 67 W \A F 3441548) ~ 105(91) - ~ N c-, ~ ~ `a F 1,]1411,705) yr 209(181) nrrzona nve ~ ~ y F 9211531 r 48168) J , Santa MOn¢a el~ ~ a- 9]9(1,245) ~ 02h:A) Montana PVe wismreen,a a ,6 5a a ~ R r B21s~ a ~? r n„43, a i r e3u6]) ~ t r ) ( ~ 550(5031 ~ - 1,OID11,4x3) -> 041149) ~ 71(54) ~ - ]31(1,251) 40(124) ~ - 151(116) ~ fix186) ~ - _ 4t,•26th St & ~ ~ ` ~ 42. 26th St 8 ''' 43.'.Yale 81vd & ~ Wilsfi've Blvd, 44. Yate Ave &' Santa Mdnica Blvd ' Broadway(Ohio Ave ,'Colorado AVe m `-' = e fi gem - ~ m m m R. 32(41) u °' - ~ ~ ~ fi9I159) a m m a ~ 32(2fi) v 'm N ~ 3]l62) I 9 W L f 522(415} r 122(109) '~' ~" ~' ~ ~ y <- 69217fi0) r 71(fi8) - '" 6ire erva~ ~ y Wll i- 1.413(1,686) ~ fiilill) y" sans Monica arvd y F 1,083(1,441) r x(58) Btoadva ahia nve caioaea av s 45(115) ~ ~ ~ jr 17](2fi0) ~ • rj i (7 21(36) ~ /, ~ I (ti 19164) ~ -> rj I /~ 267(538) ~ u - 350(1,013) -> - 1,44611,]981 ~ 42140) ~ ~ ]64(1,342) 3011 ~ m - ]1(109) 71 1201225) ~ - _.J... 45. Berkeley St& 46_CeMinefa Rve& d F~ Wilshire BPod Wilshire Olvd ~~ m m ~~ ~~a --- m m~ ° ~ Z9(59) - N^ N S ~ 2(87) ~ "2,~ p¢~ -1~ M~~a6~aaNe`~ \j F 1.37411,645) ~ 271,44) 1M~hl,aaN6~ y y F tA00(1,999) 29 ^a) r g P° • ° s` 40(65) J1 rl I (1 2(30) ~ ~ I /7 - ` a,. ° 1,38B(1,884) ~ t,61t(L9921 '> -- 2 ~ '~ $ A c° 281130) ~ - -- 108(itfi) ~ - `,~ o~ s 5~ ~ a~~6 s", ~ " g ~' ~a"' ~ ~ i t, 47_Cet$inefa Rve& - ~~ ~6 s Santa Monica Bfvd ~a a s ^ ~ e,~ , a '{- f ~ -- nR. 49(75) m 3~ u m ~ <- 1,10](90.91 3 Santa MOnlca6 221fix11t •S T lr ._f. ea P y~.,n 9 836(1.298) -~ - d as' p+~ ~ 49148) ~i - ° - m ppa " ~ Po _ ~„ Gw n 4a z a 10 ~Pa ~ . /4 ~ LEGEND ~ 9~ Pa ~~ ~ ~ ® Project Sfte ~' a ~~~ ~ ' p Anatyzed Intersection s r v JV `~ e X(X) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ~ -' _ No[to Scale - Turn Lane FEHR & PEERS Oct 29. 2010 JS M\JObs~Pt6oe\NOOS\2U0 - Svinl Jahn s\Gmpliia\dGN\R4]0_Em'etlxg CUMULATIVE BASE CO6VDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 3 (CONT.) v o o ~ p(o) o 0 o aaa R olo) a o o t~ of°) r tplza) ~ ° °' --- R. °(°) F o(o) ~ ~ L i-a(p) r p(p) ~ ~ ~ E1(3) ~ p(p, J, eiud L ra ~ p(0) ~ 4 emaa..a ~ 0(0) 6' w0snire elvtl a;ronaave ca sarta Ma a pip, a ~ 4 r °(°) ~ ~ t r ~o; ~ ~ 4 r p(m ~ f r - , - olo) ~ o(pl ~ U ~ 17tH SI& 6 .6_ 17th St&„~~ Z: ~Rh 3t& ~ ~ e. 17th 5t& Santa Monica eCvd ' ,, Montana Ave '° ` Washington Ave Arizona Ave, o v o ~ olol o 0 o ~ ° y R plp) a°a° o N~ atol a- 1(3) - o 0 0 ~ ofol a- 11 (2`v) 0 I0 0 ' y ~ Z(p) 6 p(U) _ ~ ~ y s- 3(0) r °(0) ~ ~ y A r U(p) J, sang M1fonic aNd y ~ p(0) { A Washin nAVe ve Mzana Ve Montana ~ r ~ ~ p(p) a p Tl I (~ plp) ~ p ~ I f 3 ~9~ ~ rl I p(p) 7tp) -~ / l - 10(0) ~ a - _ 4(1) p(p) ~I '_~ 0 p(pl ~i _ - U(U) ~ o l f pI°' C ~ F ZI6) y r °t0) MOa~ana AVe B plo) .a R T rT plo) a plpl -y __ ~ °(°) r p(o) d y L ~ ocp) Mondna AVe WIISMre Blvtl 1p(2) ~ y LEGEND ® Project Sfte p Analyzed Intersection X(x) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ~ Turn Lane FEHR & PEERS Oet M. 2010 JS N\JaOS\JaOve\24005\2410 - Soinl Jvnn''s\Crapni6\FGO\2410_Base.tlwg PROJECT ONLY CONDITIONS PFAIC FIOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES FIGURE 4 t3:2atst& ta.2rnnsts` tszrnhsta 1s.2ansta Wilshrze Bfvd Santa Mainca Bfvd ~ '.6roadway Gobradc Bfvd $ ° `i - s o ~ a ' g o o n o o ~' o _ F 1(i) _ ., t 78(38} F °(°) F °(°) 61 ~ ti ~ ~3(5) Il~ ~ y~ 9(2) Il .~ 1A ~ °(°) a~ .~ L r 0(°) wuanne aNa sanm Monica el eroaaa-e cmereao ena 17.20tt{ St & t8.20th SL &' ~ 19.`20th SC & ~ , 20.20jh St & . Wilsfiire Blvd F70 EB Off-Ramp -Delaware Ave. Pico Blvd '' -° R o(a) o= o t~ ol°) o a m o k. a(°i e a ° ~ a(°) F- o(o) F of°) F °(°) ~ F to(3) WilsNira 9Ntl 1-00 EB OR-Bam OeWware AVe PIw 9NE °(a) a ri T r" ta(4) a R T P of°I A R T 7r °(°> a ri T ~' 21. 23rd St& 22.23rd St&: °~s -.' VVlshire Bivd Anzona Ave .~ ~a o a a o. d'a . e , g, ~~ : o ~ m ~ e y l f a(2) r (i ~ ` d f B(2) r () ~ 0 D E u W15Eile9NE ~ A' na AVe R < ~I ;I ~ p(°) ~ ___ 15(1) 71 __~ ~` .~_~ ~~ ~~ Q~Pu P "~ e 23. 23rd Sf& 24.23rd St&- 6 p~gvd T ~° ~'"' a+inPy e ` `Santa Monica BNd . -Pico Blvd: aP „„.a~='"` Pc n+ 'a ~~ c n ~c m.aoa a ar s i /~. m Pa a , to ~~ \ m-33114) __ a° o o ~ °(o) s ~ ~ ; a `t ~~ L F tss(41) ~ ~ F of°) 3 5 - . cR ~ c ~ ~ • Sanla Monlm 0 r °(°) 1 Plm 9M ( ) r ,, ~^ e';.:v q k~ yo a t r1 T !" ° ~ ~ T T e ~ P ~ ar` ( ~ ro~j a9 e e a) ° -s pc ~~°' f 1 N~ r; >~ o n ~ LEGEND ,~ ® Project Site 4s p Analyzed Intersection ( P X(X) AM(PM) Peak Heur Traffic V olumes i ~ Turn Lane Npomsca~e PROJECT ONLY CONDITIONS FEHR ~z PEERS Gppi~pp LJ p ppia ~J pM IRA NS PO RTATION CONBULTA NiS PLMri HOUR TRAFFIC YOLUItl1ES oil ig. xalo as FIGURE 4 (CONT.) N:\JObs\Atlive\29tltls\24]0 - Smnf Johns\GapM1irs\AGA\YUO_BOSe tlng 25 23rd St & - Z6.24th St 8 2Z-,C[ovefiefd BNd & - 26. Cladefiefd BNd & Oceaa Park BCvd .Montana Ave Santa Monica BCvd ' Bcoadway _ ~ 3 _ R 9(0) _ ° ° .~ a(91 - a ' ~ a °R, aryl F 9to) - r o(o) F a:(1o1 _ Vic- o o ,1 y y r a(s) ~ L r olo) r ,(o) d j ~, r ii Ocean Park 01M Mont .a AVe $a111d MOniGt BIW 0padwd Ohlo Av¢ 0(0) ~ • ~ I /~ 0(0) ~ 12130) ~ ~ ~ 0(01 ~ • ~ I !~ 0(01 ~ _ 0(0) ~ 1914fi) y qm o 0(O) s 3(A) ~ -_ - 0(0) 1 - 29- Ctavefield BNd & is 30. Cfoverefd Blvd & 3l Ctovefiefd BNd & ~ 32. Cloverfield BNd & Colorado Ave '':Olympic BNd; ~ ~ "'Michigan Ave'` ' It(SVJB Off-Ramp ! - S 3 o _ ~ °3 o - - o = N m ~ 3(1) - - o ~ o m ~ 0(0) - o ~ o m ~ 9(O) ~ _ ~ 1 . ~ 1 L °<-- 0(0) r 9(a) d y L ~ U(U) r fi(fi) ~ d L °~-- 0(0) r fi(91 ~ 3 ~ 41110) r 9(9) Cabrndo gve O m is 91W Mlchl an Aue HOER OIfAam 9,9, a ~ R r filfi) a R T r ocfi) a ~ t~ T ' 33. Ctovefiefd BNd & i; ! 34. Ctovefiefd Blvd & '[-t6 EB On-Ramp S Sarrta Monica Blvd 'Fy e i 3 ~ Qo ' °,u e o n 1C 0(0) sq ~ ~o r " F ~ ~ 23"v Oeleware AVe HOE$OmHam $ama ManLaB > ~ ~ 9(fi) ~ ~ ~ fi(o) ~ R .9 1 ~ 1 S~ o fi n.; > 7a ~ e~z„ a ~ 35 Clavefield eNd & - 36-Ctovefiefd BNd & a'P a+~` ar~"~ ~o~+a'0"a - ~: Picd BNd' Ocean Patk BNd , °` +r" °~,,,,.~q'~ ~~ ° ~ ~ rn. ~; ~ ~ Jrc iy~ m m ~pV 10 ~ ?.J ~ PP ' d i d r 9to) d L F o101 '4 `a' ~'° ,~"' Plce BNd Oeaan Park BNtl ~ py `F . 7(0) a ~ T r Utz) a ~ ~~" ~ ~ ~ '~5 LEGEND ® Project She * P 0 Analyzed Intersection ~ X(X) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic V olumes e Jl Turn Lane "°"°a`°'a , FEHR ~ PEERS PROJECT ONLY CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES al is. solo as FIGURE 4 (CONT.) kW¢hsVelNe\2400s\Z<'A - Saini Jann's\Greph~es\nG0\3430 Bose d.g 37. Z6th St $ : 38.'26Fh Bt $ 3326th St & 4Q. 2sth St $ Mc~fana. Ave 'Wilshire 8(vd 'Ar¢oriaKve : SantaMonicaBWd- 000 aoo o0 o 00o L Montana Ave F6(O) ~ 9tp) r .~ ~ Wilshire BNO ~T(~) r' 0161 I ~ W ~ gemna AVe e-E(21 r p(9) 6~ ~ SanRMOnica BN~ F35(11) yr p(p) U(U) a R I t~ Z'S) ~ rl I !~ 3ls) ~ rl I !~ p(p) a 6 6) ( ~ - ~ _ _ _ () 12(29) ->• _ p(pl ~ ~`. ptU) ~ -- 6(01 7t °-,. 9(6) ~ -- 4l. 26tttSt & ' 42.26th SI & 43: Yale BNd $ 44. Yale Ave $ Broadway/Ohio Ave ~ Colorado Ave -Wilshire 81vd ~ Santa Monica Blvd m m _ ~ m 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0 o v o o 6~ y ~ i-- 4t~) ~ 0(B) 6~ y ~ F P(p) ~ 6tp) L~ yr ~ F B(2) r 6(p) yl ~ L i- 35(11) ~( 4(p) Bmadwav Ohia AVe Loloratlo AVe Wilshire BNd Sant Manaa 9N o(o) a R T~ n(o) a ~ T A 6(0l a ei T Ir plp) A R T l' t(3) ->• 1(1) -> _ _ 2(5) -> _ 13(29) -~ _ _ _ p(p) ~ -"" 6(0) ~ -- 610) ~ --- o(pl 7t --- 45. Berkeley St$ 46: CentinetaAVe$ f n ~ YVitshire Blvd ~ WifshireBfvd ~ ~~ ? P~ s~ `~ ° ° _°°" `-' ~ 9(97 ° 00 ~ tt p(p) ~ "sq s ~ ~ y y (1 ram) 0 ~ y ~ l) r oto) Wikhire ONtl Wilshire BlM pv p(6l ~ • rl I ~ oipl A ,t, r1 I (~ ~ 21~ ~ 3(~ ~ 3' °s ~~ a~ y aa~ ~ 0 f. v 9 ? ~+,. 47. Ceniihefa Ave $ • - - ~ a3 `~, ~ ~ ~ Santa Monica Blvd r'. ~ f ~a _ ~ ~ 2 ~~ a fi b V P e~ / y ° m °'. p(61 F- 36(11) / ie 0 *"~ / ~ SSS d~ L y Ste) i a'> s_ Sams Monlca B Q; p?° o°° ~~ / x. ~ ~e°°` ae° ~f ~~ LEGEND ~/ Pia ~ ~ 10 ~ ' ~- ` ® Pro]ect Site c c~ P * ~ p Analyzed Intersection ~ '~ '~s~ ,~° X(X) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic V olumes i ~' "'~ sv e .1 ~ Turn Lane Mato saga a F E H R & PEERS PROJECT ONLY CONDITIONS TRANSPORTATION caesuuANrs PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES al zs. zcla as x\anes\a=r a\zaN1a\zuo - smm emd,\craPma~xnp\zuo_e~a.e,y ~ PlGUHE 4 {CONT.) t. i4thSt& '' . 2. t4th St &- 3. '44th Sf € 4.. t4th St & Wilshire Bfvd Arizona Rve -Santa Monica Blud Broadway U ti a o R sspa) ~ ~ ~ R'2s(es) N ~? L s4(tis) N~ q mR 4aryo21 ~ " <- 955(1,389) 9 -"' F ]1(165) - ~ ~ F 583(1,199) °' ~ `-' F 263(438) L7 ~. ~ y~ 611861 A7 .I. ~ r 2](]91 a7~ L ~ 51(54) a7 ,~ L r 1]151) 1M151sM1i~e BNd ArizonaAVe Sant M°nira 0l 0r°aNVa 5310 ~ ~ T r 19(15) Jr • rj I r 3A(53) ~ • Y1 I r P9(34) ~ /, rl I r 1,259(1,3981 ~ N 91(172) ~ m ]06(1,644) ~ e 213(125} -> ~, 71(99)'y 63(115) ~ ^_ ~N- 4](]3) ~ _ - - 261451 ~ - - ~m - 5..pRfiBt& -6. 47th St&' 7. ~j7ti1 St8 8.' f7th`$LR Mohfana Ave Washingfon AVe Arizona Ave Santa Monica Blvd N m ~ R 19(32) = ~ 'o ~.. ]0(56) ~ o ~ ^R 34(80) ~ u , IL 96(96) " N" ~ y <- 448(669) r 26(38) ~ '-r- ~ ~ L F 1,035(1,52fi) ~ pe(59) ~"" ~ ~ ~ ~- 101(208) r 20135) ~ `J-J",,- L e E- ]58(1,248) r Z7(5n) Montana Aux wasmn n A6mnanve sane Monia rvd 3011]) -~ ~ I r 23(50) ~ rj I r 1fi(21) 11 ~ I r 53(58) ~ Pj T r 578(636) ~ a v ~ i,2s8(1,560) ~ g ~ m _ 105(1]9) ~ m ' P1i1,203J -> ", 63(B5J ~ .J 50(85) ~ -" 80(t]5)'~1 -' 4fi168) ~ _- s. nirista ~ '4a.zau3st& '`~, ~ ' ~ Broadway Montana AVe (West} ' °s, '~ ^ R 58(52) m 264 ` .ham ~ e-- 2611369) N = R 14(15) 22 '~~ ~ y L ~ zsi44) ~ y F 44]no2) ~ ~' email Mentana AVe - a ~ a a~ 14n9, ~ T r aun pi 250(459) ~ 845(833) -> ke ~~, ` 31(65) ~ ~S ~ pu eo° ~ ~:. ru ae ~ r: ~ F ~~ a P 0' x. tY. Zath St& t 'M a A E 1220th Sf&. `Wil hi Blv ~ .. 3 ,°" ~ "O Ih- ve ( onf na as } s re d ~ a- ;; m - ~'" ~ m R 59(1261 i e i- 459(]11) ° °- ' ° F- 1,169(1,3911 y ~~ -s yr 106(87) M°ntdna AVe ~ ,~ ~j WIIsMre Blvp ~ 150(188) a ~ ~s 6]2(fi82) ~ ~ r 35(115) ~ p ~ I r ~ 'S 172(152) ~ 1,2]2(1,327) -> o ~u ^ 16911141 ~ - '- ` - i - -- N k2 Q6~' o w 6 `S LEGEND Si ® P u rajeM te '~ g ® Analyzed Intersection i~ X(X) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic V o lumes ~^ Turn lane "°"°sale FEHR & PEERS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES as z9. zolo vs FIGURE 5 M\Jabs\nema\zaaae\za3a - wm aebds\enonia\arno\zua eeua.y `T3_20th.St& -- T4.20Ih St& - i520Ih.St& ~ 46.20th St& ' ~Ishite Blvd _ Sania Mdnlca BNd :8read4vay Cofomdo Blvd a N o ~ 33(92) -- m 1~ 263(258) > ~ 121(104) m' m P., 164(153) y ~ F 706(166) r B4(196) =' ~~ tj F 824(1,294) r 147(137) ~~ a7 y ~a <- 3061363) r 46109) L7 y ~a F 623(762) r' 129(268) WiISM1ire BIM Sanla Mania R Bmadwa C°iorzE° BNtl 143(21) ~ rj 'I' r 56(75) ~ ~ ~` r 37130) 11 ~ ~` 8T 76(37) ~ ~ ~ rs 78(144) ~ 7Z111,135} --> ~ 269(333) ~ 724(996) -> a 1601187) ~ - 112(143) ~1 - 87(111) ~ 181(18fi) 7 T720tk St 8. - T8.20th S[&' 19120th St& - '20.20th Std WitsEte BNd t-t0 EB 0if-`-tamp 'Delaware Ave Pico`BNd - o a. >L ifi6(330) - - c m = ~ 315) ~ - m Vi m' ~ 981Z9) m R 332(262) '0 L7 y ~ F 820(1,190) y~ 197(397) y7 y y •- 010) ~ 5i0) ' a7 y S1 F 16122) r 13113) ~ ~ ~ ~ y y <- 1,232(1,20fi) e( 184(145) Wik6ire BIM HO EO OR-Ram Delaware PVa Pim ONa 116(92) ~ Tj 'I' r 716(240) ~ p ~ I lr 32(39) ~ rj 'I' ~ 1381,62) ~ • M4 I r 751(973) -> 0(0) ~ 0 27(71) -> u 898(1,286) -> .u 36(116) ~ . m. -_ 187(176) ~j -° ~ ~ 77175)'y 581109) ~ ~~- 2T, 23rd'St & I , 22.23rd Si &- ' a ~° ~' ''" iNtifshire 81vd Aiizona:Ave "~ ~ o°" ~ ~ a % _ 'e,a e. rs ry°'r e N-g, u 1G. 6(20) u u m 1G. 21(43) a ,g ~a c r e ~ ~~ ~ " .} tea'' e - ~ y ~ - i- 993(1,655) ,-4415,) """" .r y ~. F 74(141) r 32124) ~ ~ d'a ` wleno-e ema anz°nane y+ q 26(23).71 q rl I /~ 51281 p ~ I (~ y 6s e°w T' 969(1,179) -> v 55(226) ~ m c~ pc gJ A6(81) ~ 73(198) ~ .q( ~ - z ;i ~ sa" pia ~ c e P 4 ~ .23. 23rd St& ~ '24.23rd St 8" ~ - Bv 4 p."`' ~~' ~R oH"TC ., ~"'°"~ P ° Santa Monica Blvd Pico 0ivd- 4 n o ar -.a ..~.. oam a Se n q,r ,"a a. ~ £ 6 F tt N c c ~ 269(266) 0 0 0 c~ 1(9) 2 W ,0 F>~ .:~ .oeG v~ '- ~j <- 1,564(1,6]9) r 50(28) o 0 o ~ y to F 80411,304) ' 1011334) ~ ~ -< \pR . r° xi\'`e a ^ Santa M°nIa BW Plc°91M r ~ N b6 7~' °° ~ ~ B p.. `e 26(431 ~ ~ t r ~ ~"r .J aP ,.625,,.575, ' 796(,.<aZi e~ ~ ,yq~ 321271 y --- 79(1ss) ~ _-_ d` g N - s a~ r'a a - ~d' a, °' ~ LEGEND s ~` ,t ® Project She s ® Analyzed Intersection a X(X) AM(PM) Peak Haur Traffic V o lumes , P s,.~ ~1 Turn Lane - Notto SC~° FEHR & PEERS CUIYIULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUiVIES as z9, mio as - FIGURE 5 (CONT.) et~JOmlanNe~z4c9s~za;o - sa~m .landsiraeM1iza~ew~za3o_Baza.e.q I 2623rdSt& ' 26-24th St6: ~ 27. Gtavefield B[V3& 26. Claverfiefd BNd& Ooean Park Blvd - -MOmana~,ve 3arrfa Mamca.'BCvd Broadway C ' R 12ryz1 = = 1~ 13(1al ~ ~ N m R 1613a) = - ~ e- e4s(to36) -y = a- s560ss1 F 1,193(1,zze) = =-' ~ 7511n1 Ll ,~ \A y~ 141(303) L7 L r 0(2) r' 2621254) 67 .~ ~ r 31(99) Ocean Park BIW M°ntana AVe Senla MVnia BNN ema Ohiv Are 010) i p Y\ I /7 41(21) ~ 8]811,309) ~ ej /~ 35(53) ~ p vl I (~ 1,095(1,020)-> 895(8231 '~ 293(3]41 ~I °-°' °+ 912]])'> ,., 84(210) ~ 186(367) ~ - 29. Cfovefietd Bfvd & - ' 30. CloverfieFd Blvd & 37: Clovefield Blvd & _ 32. Cloverfield BNd & e - Colgada AVe ~ Olympic BNd "Michigan Ave 1-70 WB Off-Ramp 3 F a u m _~ 2](117) m m m ~ ~ R. 401(195) m ~ u _ m~ 90(45) ~ ~'~° - ~~~ X644(933) "=~ ~a-620(1,298) m" ° -[-6(171 a1G. 2,224(1,636) L7 y L ColvaCV AVe r ]9(1951 L7 .~ y Ol mvic BNtl V 365(625) L7 y ~ MkOI an AVe r 80(126) ,~ r 881(5]2) 41o E8 pR-Pam 14(66) a p Yl I /~ 45(64) -~ p ~ 1 f ~ I86) ~ • R i /~ • I Ml2(1,015) -> ' u _ _ 49B(/]0) -> ., _ 1fi(23) -fi• 3 .., m ~ ° ^° ~ 109(fi99) y 284(31A) ~ 10fi( 06) ~ m , _ 33. Ctoverfietd BNd & ~ - --34. Cloverfiefd e(vd & - F7 Q EB On-Ramp ,. ~ Santa Mdrnca Bfvd '~ ~ a7`r Gee _ vim m~71 (49) e r~ Frsy ,° a ` v L7 ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ L °<- 122(39) ~ 38(16( 'T' '+ ys - ~ 6~ .Ly .t, w p z,° oalawareA.re woPa oe-Pamo saa~a monies en ~ a° 6(3fi) ~ '~ ~ 34(44) ~ p T1 I f gad` ,B ~ 36051 ~ eHd4) ~ _ <.~°« ~~; -r, "'" . _ 72(4x) ~ , 'M1 35. Cloverfiefd Btvd & '- Pi BNd 36. Cfavefieid Blvd &, O Park Bl d ~g'~ ~°' ~ on^°"~ o-w~`""a"d w° co . cean v .3 a °e„y" " rK ~ . "/~ ~ ~ ry a .~^., ~ 3 m ~ 707]1471 -. ~ ~^., S - m ,~u ' a 1 10 d° ~tg .}~n a ~_' I ~ t ~- 220(870) = = ~ u~ 1671131) .e c o ' "'d E t L7 W PiC°Blvtl yr 11fi(48) ~ j Ocean PatkfivC <-- 04](1,054) >rss fye °~ Q _ 75(415) ~ ~ '~ ~ 322(165) ~ P P ~` 833(1,101) ~ 1,20d(975) -~ '~ a° P 11](18) ~ --" $ °a' s~ ` ~ `~ s, LEGEND ® Project Stte 4 P ' ® Analyzed Intersection ~ X(X) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic V olumes ~' ~ Turn Lane "°"°seata FEHR & PEERS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES N~JO~~~r.\24C05\4910 - Stinl JaM1ns\e,P,~;a\w»\z++o_ea,e.a., F9GURE 5 (CONT.) 37: 2fithSt A< - : 38. Z6Ch St& - 33.'26Ih St& 40.2fith:St& Mon4anaAve WilsF1¢e Blvd ~ ~ :Ar¢onaAve'-_ Santa Monica Blud : - m- o' ` = t z4p61 o' ~ ` +~ aa(7z6) - = m ° R 29(69) _ y1~ n4(sa) - ~. ~ F- 344(548) ~ 105(91) ~ 1 ~ Y L F 1,121(1,70]) r 209(1811 m ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ 7001155) y 48166) -`-'~- ~ ~ ~ F 1A14(1,56) r 02(134) Montana Ave WikM1ire 0M1A Aazone Ave Bents M1lonira BN x(,43) a 550(5031 "~ i r 83(,67! a 1,01211,488) ~ ~ T r 0 ,6(59) a 87(755) ~ ~ T r ~ 62(97) a ]43(1,200) ~ ~ f r ,,, 151(116) ~ - fi8(06) ~ -- 7x(54) ~ - 48(124) y - - 44. 26tti'St & i 42.26th St & " 43.: Yale Bivd & _ 44. Yate Ave & Broadway(Dhio AVe .. Colorado AVe .. Wilshire BWd Santa Monica Blvd m m = m < fl -- ~ o P 1tr 32(41) -- ~ ~ ~ ><69(159) -m- ~ m a~32126) ~ ~= a~3](62) L~ ~ ~ ~ - 528(417) y~ 122(169) Il ~, L E fi94(l80) r ]1(fi8J ~ - L~ .~ ~ ~-- 1,419(1,680) y~ 61(111) ' ' ' y/ l \j F- 7,11811,452) r 57(58). Bmadwa ONa AVe- Lola~aao AVe WIISM1Ve BIVd Band Monica 9lVd 45(115) ~ ~ ~' ~ 117(260) ~ ~ ~' ~ 21(36) ~ ~ ~' ~ 19(fi4) ~ ~ ~'.~ 268(541) -'• ,,, 351(1,014) -~ m g m 1,M8(1,803) -> _, 111(1,3711 ~ n a „ o 7111091 ~ - - 1201225) ~ - 42140) 'y ___ 30(48) ~ ggmm 45. Berkeley 5[ & - 46. Cemineta Ave R~ f c ~ Wilshire Bfvd Wilsfiire Blvd s° ~ a '' m o a f `-' ~ 29(59) ° ~ a m ~ R. 2(ez) s ~'',,•L ,s ~, ,,,~' ~' ~ y ~ F 1.38011,fi47) ,~ 2](,44) =~~ ,r d y F 1,40612,000) r 94(29, J ~ qc waai,na eNa uw:ni~a atVa '` 98(65)' • ~ I T 213 ~ rl ~ (~ r ~ s60 1,390(1,889) -s 1,fi14(1,907) ~ ~ "'~ .~ ^v~ i 20(130) ~ 100(11fi) ~ _ 2`5 ° ~ e>o a 1 y n u_ ~ 0~' ~ 47. Centinela Ave& v a3 'F6 ° 9• ~ ' Santa Monica Bfvd'` ~ °s ~,a ° , ~ _ s u~ e `>a a o ~ =" m R 491]5) ~,.+°'~ .r i F1,14319201 J _ a g 61 ~ Band Monica 9NC r 86(58) _ - Q% Pje ~ 221651 ~c 1 ~ ~ 3 Po 0Fd 848(1,327} -~ ,.~ LM^P` ~ °~ °n 49(48) ~ - 0P od ay - _ Y r'` ~ ~ LEGEND z ry to /c° .~p _, ~ ® Project Site \'~ .q~ Pt G` 9' " - p Analyzed Intersection 4 a ~ 6 ~ ~ X(X) AM(PM) Peak Haur Traffic V olumes ~ P,a a> ` -~ ~ ~ Turn Lane rvmm saata .<' FEHR St PEERS CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES on 29, zoio 4s FIGURE 5 (CONT.) N:\Jabs\KLV!\24005\IP]0 - ?aiN !oM's\CmPN6\efgD\14b Bnsedwg Z Q a 0 U J a a ~~ J N [D 2 Q . ~ Y a W y Q 2 a U S a d N O C r " o ~ V u] ~ d ~ N ~ N h a 0 N' a Y R N ~ O of ~ ~ (.~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ O ~- N ~ w a W m m ~ N ~ ~ N V d' V ~ V Q N d C N U C ~ Q j e.' Y d ~ J L Y o C 0 ~ a Q Z o (q N ~ ~ ~-. O Y = m ~ N a ~ w w TABLE 2 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION FROM 1997 EIR/EA Land Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Tri s In Out Total In Out Total Total Phase I Existing 541 118 659 (407) (87) (494) 83 473 520 56) (339) 395) NET TOTAL 134 2i 165 27 98 125 source: uran tnvvonmenta~ impact hieporutnvironmentai Assessment saint John's Hospital and Health Center (Environmental Sciences Associates, September 2007). TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 1994 HCM OPERATIONAL METHODOLOGY - Level of Service Average Stopped Delay Definition per Vehicle (seconds) A <10 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light and no approach phase is fully used B >10 and a20 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C >20 and <35 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D >35 and <55 FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups. E >55 and <80 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F >80 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches.. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue lengths Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 1994. TABLE 4 LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service - Average Control Delay (secondsNehicle) A < 10.0 B > 10.0 and < 75.0 C > 15.0 and < 25.0 D > 25.0 and < 35.0 E > 35.0 and < 50.0 F > 50.0 Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, 1994. N N q Q ' U 2 ~? a~ wx~ Upp 6 1% j N = L w3' OmE y) J j m w > a Jw6 a pa~ F 9 V C L O N ~ ~ 6 _ q ~>N 2 ~ o q O n C= 2 mU WO W r ~ O ZZ O O ZZ O ZZ 0 0 ZZ 0 0 ZZ 0 0 ZZ 0 2Z ZZ ZZ Z2 O 22 O m Z q Z} ZZ O ZZ m d O O ZZ O ZZ ZZ O ZZ ZZ 2'Z ZZ ZZ p m Z ° ~ mE y yy y W p m m T of I~ O O (~ ~ g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O N O N r I~ O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O p j 0 V O G p O R1 [~ m6'1 fL (~ m W mm mm mm m V1 mm mm m6 ~LL UO DU mw LLLL LLLL Um ¢m LLLL m!A ¢U 6¢ mm W LL y J of w _ f. q n r (O O n I~ 0 N 0~ 0 n W N O r h 1~ V n• O N N N 0 m Yl d' N t0 1~ Z Z C C O 6 m O ~ O U U Y tO ~ 1~ O) N O N ~< O N h N N O m m f~ t0 O YI N 1~ t0 m^ t0 N N f0 N O N^ N r N ty O N 0 O N - C m om < N aO ^ O n 0 ~O r ~O O m N W t n (O b~ O N _ m N I~ ~ f n < <O O r t0 n a0 O O r O < N O N n h O O O 0 n O N b A O m N n 0 O O ( 0 m N '( l O d' ~- 0 O h O O _ tO O O O O O C O O O O O O O O G r ~- O O Cl N N C O C O r O O O O O e- O 0] [~ 0 (D W QI m t- Ql rz] m m m m m W 6] m m m m¢ O LL U O Ol W m m LL IL LL LL U m 6 m LL LL m m 6 0 0 0 m W W LL W J ~ n 6 ci J p 1~ r (O O r n 0 N t~ 0 0 I~ Ol r 0 0 ~ I~ r C m• N t0 N << - t O w ~ N 4 O i ~O r Q Q < V ~O t0 N 10 a C r ~ Z Z J m U U h 1[Ol d m 0 0 0< I~ N (O N g m ~ y f00 ~ 0 C V n m O N N O~ N N m O N < h 1~ T b O O h r O r ~ S 0 m N ~0 0~ 0 0 N m ~ f~ n d' (O b (O O O tO 0 O n N O h 0 O V VI O N r O O O n a) h 0 n N N T O a <O N <O m O Cl n e0 n VI m O r N O O O G O O O O O O C O C O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 +- O r r N N O r G p C G C O O G r ¢~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ E~ E~ ~~ ~~ ~~ g~ ~~ ~~' ~~ ~~ ~~ ~E ~~ ~E ~~ ~~ w0 ¢a ¢o. ¢W 6n ¢n ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢LL ¢a ¢n ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢n ¢a ¢a ¢n ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢a az a m j N~ a > e! m oY m N m a m> N m a o M 3 ~ m W; m M m a W i e! m a M~ U m W m a W> n M~ m H o xf R a W i _ „ ~ 3 a m e! - ~~ p m ~ Z O 'mj 'm y mm 'm .- - mmo T .. ~ m ~ 'm? m _m `.m ~ ~ °-' mQ '" ' mm _? d& mmm and ~ m m F m N m Q N v l/1 !~ m 3 VI m m Q to m d m VI m m a N ~ y ~ m 3 l0 N u d N m m f%l m lA m m Q tq N m U y d 3 U1 0 m¢ (/1 ~ c 41 m m t N m v ¢ (n m d~ N m (/1 0 m l/ ~ m N ~ m_ 41 m l0 q W 0 N m a Q ° S o - =a r ~ 5 0 t 3 m a a a° m a a W C N V~ V m ^ O ' t 1~ N 1C ~ n m N N N 5 N N N N~ N m O O . N w N O o o p O _ ry L H Q N~ N U n N _ N ~ T N- t n ° ~ N 4l ~ ~ (/l O f/1 O 6 Z _ d. N a7 YI b I~ 0 N N N p m N q Q ~ !~. zmx aq. W % > U Z ~ mf'9 N ~ i LL ~y Om~ J ~ m W j JW m. m-~mC rz da a FA= U t ~ ° N ^~ ~ m - W Z T W N ~ q O N N C m qU 6 Q r LN O° m O m O O O m O O m O O O O O O O O ~ ZZ ZZ ZZ jZ ZZ ZZ }} ZZ }°Z ZZ jj ZZ ZZ ZZ ~j ZZ ZZ Z2 ZZ ZZ Zj Z2 q E N Qq° (j d g O O p p ~ O O o O N O O N O ~ oc O O O O c O O c O P O 0 0 0 P 0 « p O C O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 jOV N O ¢¢ m m m U LL It m p m m LL LL (il m LL m LL U LL W V LL LL LL m LL LL LL IL W LL LL m U m 0 ¢ m m W m m y J a wv , Y W O N P N a d' N r 0 n ' 10 a H i N N E i • m • ~ p N n' O^ q~ q p J 6 ~ ma O U U am m N ~ N em g m mp p N Nm 0 O ~nq m O q m ev mp rym Q a N C NN ~~ Np N m n N ~m +- C ~O N ~ m nO c~ ~ O N~ ~ ~ gm m q mN 0 ~ n O O n O m~ [~ O ~m NN ~0 N0 rN m n Oth ~° m O N N~ m 1 ° I O O W m O O O O O N O ~- O N O ~ O N '- O ~ ~ ~ C ~ 0 0 0 ~ O ~- O J ¢¢ m m m U LL LL m O m m LL LL m m LL m LL U LL W U LL tL LL m LL LL LL LL W LL LL m V m m ¢ m m W (L m O ~ 6rv J'am' . d' N N O~ n N i' P m N p i ~ m n ~ m N i Y N' ~ y) ~O N n ~ ~O ~ O1 y q O ~ N O mm U U C N A ~ t00 0 N N n Y01 ~ ~ N N m mm p m O m nm ~ p ~ W m C 0m N 9 < m V g Q ~ V V 0 1° m ~ 0 ~ 0 m C m ~~ j on tOn mO t7m m0 1 N O O Nm N O O N E <Ob *~ q O N o m 0 0 n 0 ~ mO OO r 1 ~ •a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~g ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ g~ ~~ E~ ~~ ~~ w0 ¢a ¢a ¢m ¢m ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢LL ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢n ¢a ¢a ¢o_ ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢a ni mE m w m .a m m m m mE m m ~ v ~ a~ m m a A a m m a a `m ` a m `m a `m E m a m m a m a m m> m m m a 'v ~ a ` m a w ` ~~ m Z °~' m m ~ ' m m >> ~ m m m E ~ m a m m m W'c W m m~ m ' m of m m of m m- ' m m m ~ 5 O ffi m 6 m ' 3 ' m - m Q m j ' m ' ¢ m ' ? Q m ' ' - ' ? m m m m a m_ m~ ' o m m 3 m > m ~ o m m_ m m 9 c ~ m f d o m m ° ° ma o m ° o mm o m e o mO c m O o ¢ m o ~ m ° m y N iO m m m ~ ¢ ~ ~ m ~ m ~ ¢ o o m N ` m N >,m ~ mm ¢ t0 w m m c s: a 'c m a o m m a m o a o m'- v m m.°' a m m 3 m w _ m~ m o d d r= - r '° - N ~ L m ~ m t a o m 2 ~ ~ s s m m t m 5 W N° 'C ~ Y 'C - t E 'C U 0 0 y O m~ ~ L R N O N x '- N N O N N p T ui T N m ~n ~ ~ > ° ' e~ > ~ a o° ~ ¢ -" ~ 3 ' m = ~ i - o U y a U ° U o b U U o- U o- U ° V o O U V 3 pmj (n 3 3 J q m Z N N °1 t0+1 N m m ~ ~ m Y O Y O < < C Y TABLE 6 CITY OF SANTA MONICA SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA ARTERIAL AND COLLECTOR INTERSECTIONS CUMULATIVE BASE SCENARIO CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT SCENARIO IF LOS . A, B, OR C SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IF: __> and is a collector street Average vehicle delay increase is > 15 seconds intersection ar LOS becomes D, E, or F __> and is an arterial Average vehicle delay increase is > 15 seconds intersection or LOS becomes E or F IF LOS = D SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IF: __> and is a collector street Any net increase in average seconds of delay per vehicle intersection __> and is an arterial Average vehicle delay increase is > 15 seconds intersection or LOS becomes E or F IF LOS = E SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IF: __> and is a collector or Any net increase in average seconds of delay per vehicle arterial intersection IF LOS . F SIGNIFICANT IMPACT IF: __> and is a collector or HCM V(C ratio net increase is > 0.005 arterial intersection _~ J Q Z Q Q W } W r LL O N Q W CW G 0 n ~ W LL J N a W ~'. Q_ U Z W a a O ,aR V ~. Y Q a T O N p O V PO') ~ N O ~ n ~ M 7 N M N F r r a0 ° v m co ~ ° ~ ~ v rn M O V Ot°i 0 0 0 0 M ~ O *' d- 7 T N C1 N N O S R O O d. 7 N M N 7 M f"J to O F M ~O r r r C") 7 .T- O W O e} Cp ~ [O T Q ~~ ~ ° 7 N O O V ~ N 7 N ^ ['] M ep C' r ~- M O _ O O u7 N d' e 1~ d' r V N 0 N 0 M 0 N 0 ~ M O I~ ~ ~ i M r L 0 t Z ~ ~ ~ U `o Z _ `J ~ ~ ~ I~ a ~ ~ m ~ o a ~ ~ > > Q Y (6 C N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 U O Y m . N w ~ Z U > ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ O O ~ ; O O- tC 9 O Y N O m o o Z N 2 ~ ~ w 'y ~ , m p Y Y ~ 'p E E C c 0 > > V C ~ ~ O O N N N N ttl Z \ .- ~vJ ~m D O N ~ ~ N ~ m m m m rn `m s s ~+ m ia E ~° ~rs 0~ ~ ~n in in ci~ in a a > a a w ~n a ~ . 'm N N > d o C ~ Q ~ N ~ m ~ j N y `m m 5 m O U ~ o a L T c m J m 3 °, m o ~ eo a ~ m ~ o ~ a c m 3 U 9 O T Y m m y d > O_ 6 ` d Y m m $,a c 3 fl-o a ~ o O. R ~ y a r m ~ Q .L_ m R O ¢¢ ry ~ `m s'°-~ac i c - N m m n -. °- r } «°-a m~ ~ ami `o mas >`o ~' o m m N 5~ Q T c Q¢ d. m o- ,., E '" c ~ a x 6 d a m E N E N Q ' c T -O O C T fJ OI .` _ m Q m N C m O O O_ m o J~ (y N N N Q ~ A N a W O. d m m 3 E m m m m « ~.c E m V N ~ m~ C V N m N? a m 0 U ,O a m `1 4 U O• J R C O_ « m 'n N (O ~ ~ m N N _N O~ ~ p_ C~ 0 0 N ~O O m .O O Y ~ p N 0- 6 0~ m C a N N N Q m m m Y~~] m W W~ o U O R N N m a a J m °' " m ami ~ ~ as m m oa.mc 'm c w m v m at0i =° n m 9, o f O D U m (9 d N m N a m °m' ~~ m °' y ~ o o ... C C m Q~ ~41 E 9 y p ... 0 O ~U ~U p N~ Q p. Of C '~ N L O N i m a w °n a a E~ Z o y E m a n m m o e o m N r~ C c N m ~' ~ -O ao d c E m ~ ~ y O L U E L w~ O V fJ U .~ N m E N m '^ ~ J m N m y O m N rA m L2~HN ~¢Q a¢F a ~ ~ ~ ° N N N ri Jni x< a ~' WFj V 7 ~ 'i wE' H~] LL O o: m W 6 . j W C. m J i ~pa~ ~ a' wz, N~• W 3' $ ~ i N ?• O C N Q W A 6 A ~` U U W aE _ N ~ m O C U mt _ ~~U W U m O Z 2~ • ZN Q 1~ N L U m O W m w U , 2 _ ~ v' 2 2 Z Z Z 2 Z 2 2 Z Z Z Z Z j} Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 ~ 2 Z 2 2 2 Z Z Z Z 2 2 Z Z 2 Z j rn E N am O p C O O O O O O ~ O O O '° N p O O O O no O ° o O O O O O O° O O O O O O U O O O O O O O O O O O O O, O, »~U ~ m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Q O LL 0 0 0 U N m ~- LL LL LL U m Q m LL LL m m Q m Q Q m m W LL O J (11 J m J > " n F u W~ n n m o n n m N m~ m m n O n m m° N n n V m m m N O m m ~ m m < m m n < °^ « m O~ O ~_ F O d ^ ~ Q O v ~o. U n 0 m ° n N OQ bN ~O NC Om 0 m~ mOa m~ mm ~ no mmm c Cl O] nm OHO m ~~ a mC Nd n ~H ~c< `m mm QQ z ~ ton `O Ymlb N(m0 O U ~ f)t nn ( O vm uem mm nm 0 nm 0 v~ ~~ 0 ~~ 9m ry is OO y ~N NN 00 00 , .o o° o > 7 p0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 00 x'0 0 E N m O m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m 6 O LL U O m m m m LL LL LL LL U m 6 m LL LL m m Q U 6 Q m m W LL ~ O J m m m O W ~_ ~j N ~ <N ~ J n n m° n n m N m m m m m ~ m ° m r ~ n n< m mm .- N va ~- mm ; ~ nm am : mn o^ ~nm mm ~° ~N Q G = m U U ~°n~ mn om °o< n~ °iO r~ mm ~ ~~°n mn °m < Sm am m~ no Nm N o O~ om = ~ m nm 7 amyl m C1'O mm m mN n 0O ~ O Z r ml~ O M ~ nn O O <t0 G O mm O O mm O OO nm 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 O O mn O O O OO O O ^ O OO .-N NCI OO OO .~~ O O OG OO ~ a ¢a ¢a ¢a aa ¢a ¢a aa ¢a a ~ aa ¢a sa aa ¢a ¢a sn aa ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢a aa ¢d aa a a . wo . ai A aQ OO aQ OO OO QQ po ¢Q OO OO OO Qa po aa op QQ Qa oo oo Qa ¢Q OO aQ aQ aQ U m ° '" _ E a 1O m m ° ~ ° a ° m m m ~ m m ~ 3 m a1 j m ' W~ M ca c Nf i m as c a m o m= m 3 m~ M A M Z y '>° •d ~ m ' ca ~ W m c m m M> ~ M ~ m m M 'm m NI M ' m m m' u~ C v m> m m 3 d m 3 d m m m. m o m~ a m m m m m O F m~ , m m mQ m m m m ~a mQ o m mQ mm m; a m ~; m; m Q .. m N y ~ ` N ~ Q a i m N s O i/] m vJ _ 'o Ul inm m ~ m~ am h~ U !n m !q n U h- Ul m vJ m !A N m 41 !' c !/1 o N Q N Q N m N m S t c s m q .Q c t H m ~ m a° a m a `o o E a W m = ' N ' ° m t m = " m ~ H ` _ 5 n m ~ m $ m t S= o _ '~ N o m o o N j W N O o m N '" $ N ~ N m > N m~ N N N < ~ a « < f n tn n_ n~ ' N~ N m '~ ~ - O N N p , 0 a ~ J ~ • cmi ~' ~ y m ~ ~ m a O N m d' n N N N p N a Z } m a n m N N N r J n aK< ~F~ W F V L f ~ C Q R S w E < O o' J y` i m W JW C' Q J Y f ~ 6 i U d I W ~: NL~• f 3 i ? N < W~~ OC' Na: Q N ` Y > 6 ti ~A . ' =z ~= , zZ m E N N R A N O N ~ ^ ~ O o 4' C U' ~ Cl 0 0 00 at ~~ ~ U W N . LL tL • ' m V m LL ' Z Q 6 U ` _ N ZN ~r' R d ' « V m O W N V w U ~ ter' m mm `"~°n Z j G C o u ~ R Z Z y Z Z Z y Z Z Z j Z Z Z j Z y j Z~ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z mE Z Z Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z y j N oq°' O O m O ^o O O no O p O O ~- O O O m O O O O .n°o O O O N ~N O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 I V Q L . O O O ~ O O r o 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 ~ U ~ N Q a¢ m m m U W LL m m m m LL LL m m LL m LL U W m U LL LL LL m LL LL IL LL W Il LL m U m m ¢ m m LL m ~ m 1 ~ IJ ;6f J W f O # A C N a) O O N ~ ~~ ~ (O i Ci n (D N < O N ~ N r N O ~JS 6 ~ j ~ i~ O N O O S CI < O O N O O YI O] 0 GI [7 O 1D Y N T N C W NN <O 0 t0 N N O Oa M ~ m b O N b ~ m ~ t7 r O N m Y] d' O U U C N O I~ Oi Y] h o ~ t0 ~ N m N m PN O OI d' C) t7 m Q m h Q ) m O t7 e0 N m N N N N r n O N O O r f { 0 t0 J ~ O O O N OO o O O NO r G ~ 0 ~ ~' N ~' O O i o N U a¢ m m m U W LL m m m m LL 4 m m LL m LL-U W m U LL LL LL m IL LL LL LL W LL !1 m U m m ¢ m m LL m m ~ ~ W ~j N ~QN J • R VN TT I~N ~' ' t0 Nip r mn C N t00 Q~ <a N• ON rr ~ 0~~ ~ N ¢ O ~ U m V m n t7 N a m OI ~ On O m m O N N C m N N m O N m N N ' O~ o m O 0 O ~[I C OOi N N m N N N N~ ~ <~ t? m ~p I~ O ~ m 00 t7 ~ 0 N ~ N N O h 0 O ~ OO 0 b r 0 0 0 O 0 ~ CI ~ Cl W O O ~ ~ OO l r ~' W C O NO r OO ~ r ~ N ~ OO r ~' 0 0 0 ~ O O ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` `L ~ ~ °L `2 ~ °G `2 ~ `G `2 ~ °G ~ ~ `L ~ `2 ~ `L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °G ~ ~ 2` ~ `2 ~ ~ °C ~ `2 a wo G ~ ¢LL aa ¢a C ¢a ¢a ¢n. aa aa ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢a ¢a aa ¢a ¢o. aLL aLL aa ¢w ¢a ni m oo aa ¢a aa ¢¢ a¢ a¢ ¢a a¢ a¢ ¢a oo a¢ oo aa oo aa aa ¢¢ aa aa aa U a ~ m° m m w m m w ei w m a i ° m - "° m ' m a~ m a m v m a a ~ a i m a m E m E v a m a m a m~ m m m a ro_ m ~ w~ m ~ ro m m> m o m° m ' m w m _ Z `~ - ' m~ - m 5 ~ m ~ m ~ m m m o m > m m m 3 ¢ m° m m m m~ o m m O v> d¢ m 'o '^ ' 3 00¢ " ° ° ¢' ° ° oQ m ° ° o m ° m a o @ m m ~¢ m v ~O d ° v o m a m°° ¢ o m m m$ m~ m m m m O m m O m m m ~ m m w m m in ~ y m in o y m- m. m `-° 'c y rc mc d° mo °-O VZ m3 mw m mo. . 'ac t m ' = ~N 'm C " E tm fO 'm o my m~° it nP _~° ¢ < 'E ~ z m t- E E = e o :E o :E o m e c m N a N N N .~ c N V } ' A m ~W.. N vG m N > U Q Q >~ > O >~ >> LL m ~ 3 a i 3 ~ C 3 ~ ~ U U V U U V U U U V O m N U m m O Z eD N 1~ N m ~ ~ ~ C d' < C Y C < C TABLE 9 IMPACT COMPARISON Intersection 7997 Traffic Stud /EIR New Parking Pro ram AM PM AM PM 2 to tre t Wilshire Boulevard No Yes No Yes 2 `" reet olorado Avenue Yes Yes Yes Yes 23 `~ Street & Ocean Park Boulevard No Yes No No Cloverfield Boulevard & Colorado Avenue Yes No No No Cloverfield Boulevard & I-10 westbound off-ramp Yes Yes Yes Yes Cloverfield Boulevard & Virginia Avenue Yes No Yes No Cloverfield Boulevard & Ocean Park Boulevard Yes Yes Yes No 2 '" reet anta Monica Boulevard Yes Yes Yes No Centinela Avenue east & Wilshire Boulevard No Yes No No ATTa4CHMENT: LOS W®RKSHEETS 2005 IVO Pf2®JECT AM Default Scenario Man Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 82-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *****x**x***x*****z*x****x*xx**~***********************:***x**:**x*****:******** Intersection #81 FOURTEENTH STREET/WILSHIRE BOULEVARD Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.754 Loss Time (sec): 5 {Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.2 Optimal Cycle: 42 Level Ofi Service: B *x*i:******x*****i:**xf:*****i:***:tx**xx*****x**x***xx*****.*.*****:****x *:tx:*x**«** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L- T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include- Include Include Include Niin. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 55 253 77 148 318 56 53 1259 71 61 955 65 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 55 253 77 148 318 56 53 1259 71 61 955 65 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 55 253 77 148 318 56 53 1259 71 61 955 65 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 60 278 85 163 349 62 58 1384 59 67 1049 54 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 278 85 163 349 62 58 1384 59 67 1049 54 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00-1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 60 278 85 163 349 62 58 1453 61 67 1102 56 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.24 0.93 0.67 0.38 1.00 0.85 0.11 0.85 0.88 0.11 0.85 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.92 0.08 1.00 1.91 0.09 Final Sat.: 461 1773 1282 722 1900 1615 202 3119 132 202.3094 158 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.16 0.07 0.23 0.18 0.04 0.29 0.47 0.47 0.33 0.36 0.36 Crit Moves: **** """ Green7Cycle: 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 Volume/Cap: 0.44 0.52 0.22 0.75 0.62 0.13 0.47 0.75 0.75 0.54 0.58 0.58 Unifiorm De1:.12.9 13.3 12.0 14.5 13.7 11.7 4.7 6.2 6.2 5.0 5.2 5.2 IncremntDel: 0.7 0.4 0.0 5.1 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.8 0.2 0.2 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 DelaylVeh: 11.7 11.7 10.2 17.4 12.4 9.9 5.0 5.9 5.9 6.0 4.6 4.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 11.7 11,.7 10.2 17.4 12.4 9.9 5.0 5.9 5.9 6.0.4.6 4.6 Design0ueue: 1 7 2 4 9 1 1 21 1 1 15 1 ***x****x******x**************xxx*:**x****x****x***:*:***************x***:**.*** Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 83-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCN1 Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) **x**x*x**~**********xx***x***~******:x:e****xxx**x:***x.**x*:e*zxex*:**z********x Intersection #82 FOURTEENTH STREET/ARIZONA AVENUE x**:e*:xx*************xx*x**************x*ax:e*****x******x****xx*********x**z*.:* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0..467 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec)-Average Delay {sec/veh): 6.0 Optimal Cycle: 23 Level Of Service: B ***********x***x*********:****x******x*x************************x*************** Approach:North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L- T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 39 288 67 16 386 14 19 87 63 27 70 26 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 39 288 67 16 386 14 19 87 63 27- 70 26 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 39 288 67 16 386 14 19 ~ 87 63 27 70 26 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.84 0.84 0'.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 PHF Volume: 46 343 60 19 460 13 23 104 56 32 83 23 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 46 343 60 19 460 13 23 104 56 32 83 23 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NILF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00-1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 46 343 60 19 460 13 23 104 56 32 83 23 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.24 0.86 0.78 0.32 0.88 0.80 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.63 0.63 0.63 Lanes: 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 0.97 0.03 0.12 0.57 0.31 0.23 0.60 0.17 Final Sat.: 459 1375 240 606 1623 44 156 712 387 276 715 199 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat:. 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.12 -Grit Moves: **** '*** Green/Cycle: 0,61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap: 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.05 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.37 0.37 0.37 Uniform Del: 3.9 4.7 4.7 3.7 4.9 4.9 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.2 12.2 12.2 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.3 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 3.4 4.2 4.2 3.1 4.5 4.5 11.4 11.4. 11.4 10.7 10.7 10.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 3.4 4.2 4.2 3.1 4.5 4.5 11.4 11.4 11.4 10.7 10.7 10.7 Design0ueue: 1 5 1 0 6 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 84-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCN1 Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) :*******::*****z****x*****zx:ex*xz**z********************:a*******xx****x*****xx* Intersection #83 FOURTEENTH STREET/SANTA N10NICA BOULEVARD •:**************:**************x******x*********x:*******~**:**::*::*:*x**:***:* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.509 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.2 Optimal Cycle: 24 Level Ofi Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L- T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 58 331 80' 88 377 31 34 670 47 51 573 64 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 58 331 80 88 377 31 34 670 47 51 573 64 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 58 331 80 88 377 31 34 670 47 51 573 64 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.$9 0.89 PHF Volume: 65 372 90. 99 424 35 38 753 53 57 644 72 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 372 90 99 424 35 38 753 53 57 644 72 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 65 372 90 99 424 35 38 790 55 57 676 76 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.21 1.03 0.68 0.28 1.03 0.68 0.20 0.88 0.95 0.21 0.89 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 1.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 403 1965 1290 531 1965 1290 379 3148 221 398 3050 341 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.19 0.07 0.19 0.22 0.03 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.14 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: ***` **** Green/Cycle: 0.420.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 - 0.49 Volume/Cap: 0.38-0.45 0.16 0..44 0.51 0.06 0.20 0.51 0.51 0.29 0.45 0.45 Uniform Del: 9.0 9.3 8.1 9.3 9.7 7.8 6.5 7.8 7.8 6.8 7.5 7.5 IncremntDel: 0.5 0.2 ~ 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 0:85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 DelaylVeh: 8.2 8.1 6.9 S.6 8.5 6.6 5.6 6.8 6.8 6.0 6.5 6.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 8.2 .8.1 6.9 8.6 S.5 6.6 5.6 6.8 6.8 6.0 6.5 6.5 Design0ueue: 1 8 2 2 9 1 1 14 1 1 12 1 ::<******x*****x***x*******x****x****x***xxxx*******::***:~***:***************** Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 85-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #84 FOURTEENTH STREET/BROADWAY *x************:**::****::*********:*:******************:<.:*.******.**:********* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. {X): 0.604 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay {sec/veh): 8.0 Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Znclude Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol:~ 36 396 35 53 422 48 29 213 26 17 263 43 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 36 396 35 53 422. 48 29 .213 26 17 263 43 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial.Fut: 36 396 35 53 422 48 29 213 26 17 263 43 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 40 435 29 58 464 40 32 234 29 19 289 47 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 435 29 58 464 40 32 234 29 19 289 47 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N1LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 40 435. 29 58 464 40 32 234 29 19 289 47 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.17 0.87 0.79 0.21 0:87 0.79 0.39 0.73 0.78 0.43 0.71 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 0.93 0.07 1.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 0.90 0.10 1.00 0.87 0.13 Final Sat.: 325 1543 102 393 1513 129 741 1248 152 817 1169 191 Capacity Analysis Module: Val/Sat: 0.12 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.02 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 Volume/Cap:. 0.24 0.56 0.56 0.29 0.60 0.60 0.11 0.46 0.46 0.06 0.60 0.60 Uniform Del: 6.3 7.7 7:7 6.5 8.0 8.0 8.3 9.8 9.8 8.1 10.6 10.6 IncremntDel: 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.7 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 5.5 7.2 7.2 5.S 7.7 7.7 7.1 8.7 8.7 6.9 9.7 9.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh` 5.5 7.2 7:2 5.8 7.7 7.7 7.1 8.7 8.7 6.9 9.7 9.7 Design0ueue: 1 8 1 1 8 1 1 5 1 0 6 1 ******************xx***x****:*****~*****:****x****::*******+***************xx*z* Defiault Scenario Man Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 93-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative} ****xx********x**x**********i********x******x***x*x*«**x**i:x****:****z*x**x**:.* Intersection #92 SEVENTEENTH STREET/MONTANA AVENUE ****x*:t*~:**xx*x********•~*:*xx**:x***x**x:t**x*******«*.*x*x*:****xx*xz**x****** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.771 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.0 Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Ofi Service: B •~x**xxf**x*xx~*****x*:x***x***x*xxx******:t**xx**+«x*x*z+*x*x*xx*x*x:***xx*****: Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights:. Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 48 62 34 31 107 22 30 571 63 26 446 19 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 48 62 34 31 107 22 30 571 63 26 446 19 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 48 62 34 31 107 22 30 571 63 26 446 19 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 PHF Volume: 60 78 32 39 134 28 38 714 59 33 558 18 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 78 32 39 134 28 38 ,714 59 33 558 18 PGE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Val.: 60 78 32 39 134 28 38 714 59 33 558 18 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900.1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.54 0.59 0.54 0.65 0.71 0.65 0.23 0.74 .0.79 0.10 0.74 0.79 Lanes: 0.37 0.43 0.20 0.20 0.65 0.15 1.00 0.93 0.07. 1.00 0.97 0.03 Final Sat.: 37fi 486 200 254 876 180 437 1304 108 190 1367 44 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.16 0.16 .0,15 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.55 0.55 0.17 0.41 0.41 Crit Moves: **** "*" Green/Cycle: 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 Volume/Cap: 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.74 0-.74. 0.74. 0.12 0.77 0.77 0.24 0.57 0.57 Uniform Del: 17.1 17.1 17.1 16.9 16.9 16.9 2.1 4.2 4.2 2.3 3.2 3.2 IncremntDel: 10.3 10.3 10.3 6.9 6.9 6.9 0.0 1.3. 1.3 0.1 0.5 0.5 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: ~ 24.9 24.9 24.9 21.3 21.3 21.3 1.8 4.9 4.9 2.1 3.2 3.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 24.9 24.9 24.9 21.3 21.3 21.3 1.8 4.9 4.9 2.1 3.2 3.2 Design0ueue: 2 2 1 1 4 1 0 8 1 0 6 0 *:******x*x:x*:xxx****x***x***x******:x~x*z*:*xx,a*:***x*:*x:***x**xx«***x**:x**+ Default Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 94-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ::*****xx*xx*****:t*x****t*:*t:x*+x****x*x****~**x****xz**:e~::x:x***xx*********** Intersection #93 SEVENTEENTH STREET/NIILSHIRE BOULEVARD x+***x*x*::ex*************x**x+***x****:.******:~**********xxx:************x*z:x* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.759 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.1 Optimal Cycle: 43 Level-Ofi Service: B **x*x***x*********x*x*xxxx**..::.*******:txxxx****:***x*+:.x *x**x**:**********xi** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0' VolumeModule: Base Vol: 44 170 66 t51 315 79 23 1248 50 58 1032 70 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 44 170 66 151 315 79 23 1248 50 58 1032 70 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 44 170 66 151 315 79 23 1248 50 58 1032 70 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.-00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 48 185 54 164 342 64 25 1357 41 63 1122 57 Reduct Val: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 48 185 54 164 342 64 25 1357 41 63 1122 57 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 48 185 54 164 342 64 25 1424 43 63 1178 60 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment:. 0.19 0.85 0.78 0.41 0.86 0.78 0.11 0.87 0.90 0.11 0.86 0.89 Lanes: ~ 1.00 0.76 0.24 1.00 0.83 0.17 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 1.91 0.09 Final Sat.: 355 1228 358 780 1358 255 209 3213 97 209 3120 159 Capacity Analysis Module: - Vol/Sat: 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.12 0.44 0.44 0.30 0.38 0.35 Crit Moves: **** ~**~ Green/Cycle: 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Volume/Cap: 0.41 0.45 0.45 0.63 0.76 0.76. 0.20 0.76 0.76 0.52 0.65 0.65 Unifiorm Del: 11.7 12.0 12.0 12.9 13.6 13.6 4.5 7.1 7.1 5.6 6.3 6.3 IncremntDel: 1.3 0.4 0.4 3.5 4.3 4.3 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.6 0.3 0.3 Delay Adj-: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 11.3 10.6 10.6 14.4 15.8 15.8 3.9 7.0 7.0 6.4 5.7 5.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 11.3 10.6 10.6 14.4 15.8 15.8 3.9 7.0 7.0 6.4 5.7 5.7 DesignOueue: 1 4 1 4 8 2 0 22 1 1 13 1 *:«~x~***:*x**x**x:xx:*x*****~**********xx~******<**************x*xx***x**+<:xx* Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 95-1 Level Of Service Computation .Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *:x*~*~***:**:**:************x*****isx~*******x***x*::x*xx:****x**********x*:***. Intersection #94 SEVENTEENTH STREET/ARIZONA AVENUE ********x*xx********x**x****xx***********:x***x*****:*xx***xxxz***~***:********* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.490 Lass Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.7 Optimal Cycle: 24 Level Ofi Service: B x~**x***:t*****:t*x*******x***xxx*x**:x**xx*****x:tx***x:***x*:*~x*****x***x******* Approach: North Bound Scuth Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: ~ L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted .Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include N1in. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 68 240 37 20 351 31 16 101 80 20 100 34 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 68 240 37 20 351 31 16 101 80 - 20 100 34 Added Val: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.. PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 68 240 37 20 351 31~ 16 101 80 20 100 34 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 PHF Volume: 82 289 33 24 423 28 19 122 72 24 120 31 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 82 289 33 24 423 28 19 122 72 24 120 31 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1.00 Final Vol.: 82 289 33 24 423 28 19 122 72 24 120 31 Saturation Flom Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0,24 0.87 0.79 0.37 0.87 0.79 0.65 0.63 0.65 0.65 0.63 0.65 Lanes: 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 0.93 0.07 0.09 0.58 0.33 0.13 0.70 0.17 Final Sat.: 461 1469 170 709 1543 102 110 694 412 167 835 213 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.27 0.27 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Volume/Cap: 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.49 0.49. 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.40 0.40 Uniform Del: 5.4 5.5 5.5 4.6 6.1 6.1 11.4 11.4 11.4 11.0 11.0 11.0 IncremntDel: 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.3 0.3 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 4.8 4.8 4.8 3.9 5:5 5.5 10.4 10.4 10.4 9.7 9.7 9.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh: 4.8 4.8 4.8 3'.9 5.5 5.5 10.4 10.4 10.4 9.7 9.7 9.7 Design0ueue: 1 4 1 0 7 0 0 3 2 1 3 1 Default Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 96-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) - *x****:t***x*****x*:t**x**:t******x****xx*xx:e******xxxx*x:e***x*xx:xxx*x************ Intersection #95 SEVENTEENTH STREET/SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD , **:**:t*~.t*x***x**xx*x***xi:***x*****x****x*:**x***x*xe*x*******************xx**xx* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.538 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay(sec/veh): 6.9 Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Ofi Service: B *.***********r:****:t*x*x*****xx:***xx:e**xx*****x.:*»*****x**xx***x:********x«x*x* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T -. R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 57 203 34 78 298 42 53 741 46 24 747 90 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 57 203 34 78 298 42 53 741 46 24 747 90 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVO1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 57 203 34 78 298 42 53 741 46 24 747 90 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 63 223 28 86 327 35 58 814 51 26 821 99 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Val: 63 223 28 86 327 35 58 814 51 26 821 99 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 63 223 28 86 327 35 58 855 53 26 862 104 Saturation Flow Module: SatlLane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0:31 0.92 0.84 0.46 0.93 0.85 0.13 0.89 0.95 0.17 0.88 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 0.88 0.12 1.00 0.90 0:10 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 1.80 0.20 Final Sat.: 588 1540 193 865 1587 168 247 3196 198 323 3009 363 Capacity Analysis Module: Val/Sat: 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.29 0.29 Crit Ntoves: **** *'** Green/Cycle: 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Volume/Cap: 0.28 0.38 0.38 0.26 0.54 0.54. 0.44 0.50 0.50 0.15 0.54 0.54 Uniform Del:. 9.7 10.1 10.1 9.6 10.9 10.9 6.5 6.8 6.8 5.4 7.0 7.0 IncremntDel: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 8.4 8.8 8.8 8.2 9.8 9.8 6.7 5.9 5.9 4.6 6.1 6.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel(Veh: 8.4 5.8 8.8 8.2 9.8 9.8 6.7 5.9 5.9 4.6 6.1 6.1 Design0ueue: 1 5 1 2 7 1 1 14 1 0 14 2 ***xxx**t**x*x******xx******x***isx*x****xx***********:t*x*******::*****::::****x* Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 ~ Page 97-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***x***xx~~**:***:*xi:~**zx***e*:e***x*i:*xx**:t***xx***::*x*.***~*f: ****xz**:txxxxt** Intersection #96 SENVENTEENTH STREET/BROADWAY ******~**:*xx***xx*xx*~****************x**x*****x:t**********:********:***::*::*x Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.568 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.7 Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Ofi Service: B ~**:*********x******xa****x**x*****a**xx******:**~*****x~******:***.**xxx:****** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 '1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 42 251 27 43 341 46 14 250 31 26 261 58 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 42 251 27 43 341 46 14 250 31 26 261 58 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 42 251 27 43 341 46 14 250 31 26 261 58 UserAdj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 O.SS 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 48 2S5 23 49 38S 39 16 2S4 35 30 297 66 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 48 285 23 49 388 39 16 284 35 30 297 66 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 48 285 23 49 388 39 16 284 35 30 297 66 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900.1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.29 0.87 0.79 0.38 0.87 0.79 0.38 0.73 0.78 0.35 0.72 0.78 Lanes: 1..00 0.92 0.08 1.00 0.90 0.10 1.00 0.90 0.10 1.00 0.83 0.17 Final Sat.: 550 1520 123 716 1490 151 722 1246 155 665 1140 253 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.19 0.19 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.02 0.23. 0.23 0.04 0.26 0.26 Crit Nioves: **** *"" Green/Cycle: 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46. 0.46 0.460.46 0.46 Volume/Cap: 0.19 0.41 0.41 0.15 0.57 0.57 0.05 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.57 0.57 Uniform Del; 7.3 8.2 8.2 7.2 9.0 9.0 6.8 8.7 8.7 7.0 9.0 9.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.5 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 6.3 7.2 7.2 6.1 8.1 8.1 5.8 7.8 7.8 6.0 8.1 8.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 6.3 7.2 7.2 6.1 8.1 8.1 5.8 7.8 7.8 6.0 8.1 8.1 Design0ueue: 1 5 0 1 7 1 0 5 1 1 6 1 *****~*:*:**:~**:****x:t**:*xx*z~*******x*x*x*e**xx*~****:x~******:*:*******«*~** Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 103-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCNI Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *************x*xx*x****x*x***xxxx*xxx*x*****xx*********.****xx**:*.*,*********** Intersection #102 T6VENTIETH STREET (EAST)/MONTANA AVENUE {171) xe***x****i:***xx***.********:t******i:****:*****x***:**xx******:*****************:* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.980 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R= 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.6 Optimal Cycle: 128 Level Of Service: B ::****:**************x:xx*x**x**:***:**:e*****x**x*****x****x*****~************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Volume Nfodule: Base Vol: 147 0 78 0- 0 0 0 672 166 106 459 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: '147 0 78 0 0 0 0 672 166 106 459 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 147 0 78 0 0 0 0 672 166 106 459 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 169 0 90 0 0 0 0 772 191 122 528 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 169 0 90 0 0 0 0 772 191 122 52S 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 169 0 90 0 0 0 0 772 191 122 528 _ 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85 0.08 0.75 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1745 0 1378 0 0 0 0 1900 1615 152 1419 0 Capacity AnalysisModule: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.12 0.80 0.37 0.00 C~it Moves: **** - ***' Green/Cycle: 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.98 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.50 0.14 0.98 0.45 0.00 Uniform Del: 20.5 0.0 19.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.9 3.8 1.2 0.0 IhcremntDel: 46.9 0.0 7.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 38.6 0.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 Delay/Veh: 64.3 0.0 24.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 41.8 1.1 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 64.3 0.0 24.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 41.8 1.1 0.0 DesignOueue: 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 3 0 :***x*:t**:****:t*x**xxx:x*,exx:***x**:x*************************i*:**:::*********. Defiault Scenario Nlon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 104-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Ntethod (Future Volume Alternative) x~x;txz~:~~xxxzxx~x~xx~x~~:t~**:xxx~zxxx~axx x:t~xxxxx•x~txxxxx~~xxxx~x~:t+xxxx~x~~~• Intersection #103 TWENTIETH STREET/WILSHIRE BOULEVARD :xx~xxxx~~~xz~xxxt~:xxz~z~:t~+xxxxxs xxx~xxzxxzz~~~+~~wxxx:txxx+:::xi:xxo-~x~xz~x~:t~xx Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.217 Loss Time {sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): ~ 34.7 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Ofi Service: D :~xxi:e~xx~~:~x«t~~xxxx xi:xxxxxxzz~x~x~xxxx~+«e«xxxz~~+++**~~************,xx~x:• Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 133 297 125 167 535 32 35 1272 159 150 1169 59 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1-. 00 Initial Bse: 133 297 125 167 535 32 35 1272 159 150 1169 59 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 133 297 125 167 535 32 35 1272 159 150 1169 59 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 137 306 129 172 552 33 36 1311 123 155 1205 46 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 137 306 - 129 172 552 33 36 1311 123 155 1205 46 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N1LF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00.1.00 ].00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 137 321 129 172 552 33 36 1377 129 155 1265 43 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.26 0.93 0.85 0.43 1.02 0.99 0.10 0.85 0.88 0.10 0.86 0.89 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0..94 .0.06 1.00 1.83 0.17 1.00 1.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 496 3547 1615 808 1831 109 190 2977 279 190 3145 119 Capacity Analysis Module: - Vo1(Sat: 0.28 0.09 0.08 0.21 0.30, 0.30 0.19 0.46 0.46 0.81 0.40 0.40 xxxx xzxx Crit Moves: Green/Cycle: 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Volume/Cap-: 1.12 0.37 0.32 0.86 1.22 1.22 0.28 0.69 0.69 1.22 0.60 0.60 Unifiorm Del: 17.2 14.2 14.0 16.4 17.2 17.2 3.1 4.6 4.6 7.5 4.2 4.2 ZncremntDel:111.1 0.1 0.2 20.1 131 131.2 0.3 0.5 0.5 158.4 0.3 0.3 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 125.7 12.2 12.1 34.1 146 145.7 2.9 4.5 4.5 164.8 3.8 3.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 125.7 12.2 12.1 34.1 146 145.7 2.9 4.5 4.5 164.8 3.8 3.8 DesignOueue: 4 8 3 4 15 1 0 17 2 2 15 1 xxt+~~xxz~~x::«:e~:xx~~~xx~x~x~~~xx~xxxx~~xx~xx:e~x:~xx~xaxx:z~~~~~~zx:x.x~:~x~:x~ Default Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 105-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *:«x**x*******x*x**x*isx***xx**xxx*****x****x*****m******:**x*****************x** Intersection #104 TWENTIETH STREET/ARIZONA AVENUE Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.922 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (seclveh): 15:7 Optimal Cycle: 84 Level Ofi Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: - L - T _- R L - T - R L. - T - R L - T- R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 101 560 96 26 892 34 143 80 153 87 107 37 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 101 560 96 26 892 34 143 80 153 87 107 37 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 Initial Fut: 101 560 96 26 892 34 143 80 153 87 107 37 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume-: 115 636 109 30 1014 39 163 91 130 99 122 32 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 115 636 109 30 1014 39 163 91 130 99 122 32 PCE Adj: 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-. 00 1.00 N1LF Adj: 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 121 668 115 31 1064 41 163 91 130 99 122 32 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.58 0.54 0.58 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.49 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.49 0.50 Lanes: 0.25 1.51 0.24 0.05 1.88 0.07 0.42 0.24 0.34 0.39 0.49 0.12 Final Sat.: 278 1540 264 893043 116 395 221 317 370 455 118 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.27 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: ***' "*** Green/Cycle: 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Volume/Cap: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.60 0.60 0.60 Unifiorm Del: 11.3 11.3 11.3_ 9.8 9.8 9.8 11.9 11.9 11.9 9.5 9.5 9.5 IncremntDel: 10.0 10.0 10.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 18.6 18.6 18.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 19.6 19:6 19.6 9.8 9.8 9.8 28.7 28.7 28.7 9.0 9.0 9.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 19.6 19.6 19.6 9.8 9.8 9.8 28.7 28.7 28.7 9.0 9.0 9.0 DesignOUeue: 2 13 2 1 20 1 3 2 3 2 2 1 ***:**xx***x*****x*xxxx:ex***a*****x«xx:***=x:«x*:x«:****::x:xx**x*******:x:«*x:e* Default Scenario Pnon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 106-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #105 TWENTIETH STREET/SANTA MONICA-BOULEVARD ****:******x**x***:x***********xx******x******x****::***:*x*xx****:xxx***x:***** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.103 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.8 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Ofi Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R .Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include .Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 100 618 140 134 702 - 42 61 677 111 138 808 249 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 100 618 140 134 702 42 61 677 111 138 808 249 Added Val: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 100 618 140 134 702 42 61 677 111 138 808 249 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 112 694 157 151 789 47 69 761 125 155 90S 280 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 112 694 157 151 789 47 69 761 125 155 908 280 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 112 729 165 151 828 50 69 799 131 155 953 294 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: - 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.17 1.00 1.04 0.17 0.89 0.95 0.16 1.05 1.05 0.15 1.03 1.03 Lanes: 1.00 1.64 0.36 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 1.72 0.28 1.00 1,53 0.47 Final Sat.: 329 3128 709 323 3202 192 305 3423 561 285 2984 920 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.34 0.23 0.23 0.47 0.26 0.26 0.22 0.23 0.23 0.54 0.32 0.32 Crit Moves: **** - **** Green/Cycle: 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Volume/Cap: 0.81 0.55 0.55 1.10 0.61 0.61. 0.46 0.47 0.47 1.10 0.65 0.65 Unifiorm Del: 11.5 9.9 9.9 13.2 10.2 10.2 7.5 7.6 7.6 11.5 8.6 8.6 IncremntDel: 10.8 0.2 0.2 79.7 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.1 0.1 78.9 0.3 0.3 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 20.6 8.6 8.6 90.8 9.0 9.0 7.2 6.6 6.6 58.7 7.6 7.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 20.6 8.6 8.6 90.8 9.0 9.0 7.2 6.6 6.6 88.7 7.6 7.6 DesignOueue: 2 15 3 3 17 1 1 14 2 3 18 5 :*:***::*:**x***x*****x****:*x*xx*******************x****************x::******** Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 107-1 --------------------- - ------------ Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *****************x***x**x***xx*x*****x*xx*******a******:************:*:********* Intersection #106 TWENTIETH STREET/BROADWAY Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.719 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) AverageDelay (sec/veh): 7.5 Optimal Cycle: 38 Level Of Service: ~ B **'k**********:k***************'k***k`k***X************:k*"k *'k'k'k k'k *'k ************#****R Approach: North Bound South.BOUnd East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 110 884 96 75 798 48 37 269 67 46 -306 121 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 110 884 96 75 798 48 37 269 67 46 306 121 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 110 884 96 75 798 48 37 269 67 46 306 121 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 117 940 102 80 849 51 39 286 71 49 326 97 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 117 940 102 80 849 51 39 286 71 49 326 97 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 117 987 107 80 891 54 39 286 71 49 326 97 Saturation Flow Module: SatlLane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.14 0.99 1.06 0.12 0.98 1.06 0.22 0.80 0.83 0.25 0.97 1.04 Lanes: 1.00 1.82 0.18 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 0.81 0.19 1.00 0.78 0.22 Final Sat.: 274 3411 370 220 3543 213 427 1229 306 474 1442 428 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.43 0.29 0.29 0.36 0.25 0.25 0.09 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 Volume/Cap: 0.72 0.49 0.49 0.61 0.42 0.42. 0.28 0.72 0.72 0.32 0.70 0.70 Uniform Del: 6:6 5.3 5.3 5.9 5.0 5.0 11.5 13.6 13.6 11.6 13.5 13.5 IncremntDel: 5.1 0.1 0.1 5.7 0.1 0.1 0.3 3.5 3.5 0.3 1.9 1.9 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85- Delay/Veh: 10.7 4.6 4.6 10.7 4.4 4.4 10.1 15.0 15.0 10.2 13.3 13.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 10.7 4.6 4.6 10.7. 4.4 4.4 10.1 15.0 15.0 10.2 13.3 13.3 Design0ueue: 2 14 2 1 13 1 1 7 2 1 8 2 Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page -108-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) **********x*x*******x*x****************x*******x**x*x*****x******~**********xxx* Intersection #107 TWENTIETH STREET/COLORADO AVENUE *******~:exz*x**za*:::*****:***:*****:***::~**xx:*****z~~*xxx*~**:*:**x**~x*.xax* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.308 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 77.6 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Ofi Service: F *.**.**~*******::**********************:x*x******:.**~..***~*~..****::**.~~***.* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound 1Vest Bound Movement: ~ L - T -. R L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R Control: - Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include N1in. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: - 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 87 954 328 214 743 52 76 724 181 129 623 164 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial ese: 87 954 328 214 743 52 76 724 181 129 623 164 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 87 954 328 214 743 52 76 724 181 129 623 164 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: .0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 94 1026 353 230 799 56 82 778 195 139 670 176 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 94 1026 353 230 799 56 82 778 195 139 670 176 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 94 1077 353 230 839 59 82 817 195 139 703 185 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.19 1.03 0.91 0.13 0.89 0.95 0.37 1.00 0.91 0.38 1.00 1.04 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 2.00 1.00 1..00 1,59 0.41 Final Sat.: 361 3930 1728 238 3174 222 695 3795 1728 721 3039 800 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.26 0.27 0.20 0.97 0.26 0.26 0.12 0.22 0.11 0.19 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.74 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Volume/Cap: 0.35 0.37 0.28 1.31 0.36 0.36 0.66 1.22 0.64 1.09 1.31 1.31 Unifiorm Del: 2.1 2.1 1.9 5.9 2.1 2.1 17.5 18.8 17.4 18.8 18.8 18.8 IncremntDel: 0.2 0.0 0.0 218.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 119 1.6 85.6 193 192.7 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 .0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 1.9 1.8 1.7 223.0 1.8 1.8 19.4 135 16.4 101.5 209 208.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 1.9 1.8 1.7 223.0 1.8 1.8 19.4 135 16.4 101.5 209 208.6 Design0ueue: 1 10 3 2 8 1 2 24 5 4 21 5 **:x*,e*e~~***x*x**************xix*:***x:x:**xx********:*******:*****::*x****x**• Default Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 109-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *******x*x***x~*::*:***********:**************~**x*****:****:*x**********xx***** Intersection #108 TWENTIETH STREET/OLYMPIC BOULEVARD ***********xxx**z*****:*****x*:*****x****x***************************:x********* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 2.463 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 1128.2 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F x:x**x******e****:xz**********x***x*x**x*x*x***************************::::x**** Approach: North Bound SouthBound - East Bountl West Bound Movement: L T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 173 1134 313 303 565 164 116 751 36 197 820 166 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 173 1134 313 303 565 164 116 751 36 197 820 166 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 173 1134 313 303 565 164 116 751 36 197 820 166 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 .0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 178 1169 323 312 582 127 120 774 28 203 845 171 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 178 1169 323 312 582 127 120 774 28 203 845 171 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.001.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 178 1228 339 312 612 133. 120 813 29 203 888 180 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: ~ 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.24 1.04 .1.04 0.08 0.93 0.93 0.63 1.00 0.96 0.65 1.04 1.04 Lanes: 1.00.1.57 0.43 1.00 1.64 0.36 1.00 1.93 0.07 1.00 1.66 0.34 Final Sat.: 452 3091 853 157 2903 632 1199 3646 131 1239 3280 664 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.39 0.40 0.40 1.99 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.81 -0.81 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Volume/Cap: 0.49 0.49 0.49 2.46 0.26 0.26 0.91 2.03 2.03 1.49 2.46 2.46 Unificrm Del: 1.4 1.4 1.4 4.4 1.1 1.1 20.1 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 20.3 IncremntDel:- 0.4 0.1 0.1 3124 0.0 0.0 35.9 1493 1493 437.2 3102 3102 Delay. Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0:85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 1.6 1.3 1.3 3128 0.9 0.9 52.9 1510 1510 454.4 3119 3119 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 1.6 1.3 1.3 3128 0.9 0.9 52.9 1510 1510 454.4 3119 3119 DesignOueue: 1 9 2 2 4 1 4 26 1 6 28 6 **********************a**~**:*:**::********x*x***********:**********:****xx****« Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 110-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #109 TWENTIETH ST/I-10 EB OFF-RAMP Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.935 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R= 4,sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 16.5 Optimal Cycle: 91 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement`. L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R L - T r R Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 A 1 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1346 22 3 569 0 700 0 187 5 0 3 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1346 22 3 569 0 700 0 187 5 0 3 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1346 22 3 569 0 700 0 187 5 0 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 O.S6 0.86 PHF Volume: 0 1565 26 3 662 0 814 0 217 6 0 3 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1565 26 3 662 0 814 0 217 6 0 3 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1643 27 4 695 0 814 0 217 6 0 3 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900.1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.83 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.82 1.00 0.82 Lanes: 0.00 1.96 0.04 0.01 1.99 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.62 0.00 0.38 Final Sat.: 0 4106 67 18 3449 0 1805 0 1615 979 0 587 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 Crit Nloves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.43 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.48 0.01 0.00 0.01 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.94 0.94 0.47 0.47 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.28 0.94 0.00 0.94 Uniform Del: 0.0 12.4 12.4 9.3 9.3 0.0 11.1 0.0 7.1 22.6 0.0 22.6 IncremntDel: 0.0 7.1 7.1 0.2 0.2 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.1 175.9 0.0 175.9 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.85 Delay/Veh: 0.0 17.7 17.7 8.1 .5.1 0.0 21.8 0.0 6.1 195.2 0.0 195.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 17.7 17.7 8.1 8.1 0.0 21.8 0.0 6.1 195.2 O.0 195.2 DesignOueue: 0 35 1 0 14 0 16 0 4 0 0 0 *:**::**:*****::**x*****xx****:x*xx******xxx**x******:*:***********«*:********:* Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 111-1 - Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #110 TWENTIETH. STREET/DELANlARE AVENUE ******:*************xx*******x*z*x****xxxe******x**:**************:*****:,***:t*x Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.531 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh):~~ 3.6 Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Ofi Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East-Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 32 1024 27 17 663 38 32 27 77 13 16 48 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 32 1024 27 17 663 38 32 27 ,77 13 16 48 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 32 1024 27 17 663 38 32 27 77 13 16 48 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0,91 0.97 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 35 1125 30 19 729 31 35 30 63 14 18 40 Reduct Val: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 35 1125 30 19 729 31 35 30 63 14 18 40 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 35 1182 31 19 765 33 35 30 63 14 18 40 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane:. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.21 0.84 0.90 0.08 0.83 0.89 0.62 0.68 0.62 0.62 0.68 0.62 Lanes: 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.92 0.08 0.28 0.21 0.51 0.20 0.23 0.57 Final Sat.: 393 3115 82 154 3038 131 328 277 593 240 295 665 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Volume/Cap: 0.13 0.53 0.53 0.17 0.35 0.35 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.29 0.29 0.29 Unifiorm Del: 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.1 2.5 2.5 16.3 16.3 16.3 15.4 15.4 15.4 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 '0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 1.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85. 0.85 Delay/Veh: 1.7 2.7 2.7 1.9 2.1 2.1 15.6 15.6 15.6 13.3 13.3 13.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 1.7 2.7 2.7 1.9 2.1 2.1 15.6 15.6 15.6 13.3 13.3 13.3 DesignOueue: 0 12 0 0 8 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 ***x**:***:******:e*:*********x***x***:::*:xx*x**********:****:****:******:****+. Default Scenario - N1on Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 112-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *******x***x********~*x************z*xx*****z**********x*************:*x:******* Intersection #111 TWENTIETH STREET/PICO BOULEVARD *x***:t**xx*x*x***x*x*tx:t***xxx::xx***********x**:t**********:e****xx*:x********x*. Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.667 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R.= 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): - 126.1 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T ,- R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 46 523 78 285 285 183 138 894 58- 184 1222 332 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 46 523 78 285 285 183 138 894 58 184 1222 332 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 46 523 78 285 285 183 138 894 58 184 1222 332 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.Q0 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 51 581 87 317 317 203 153 993 ~ 64 204 1358 369 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 51 581 87 317 317 203 153 993 64 204 1358 369 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 51 610 91 317 317 203 153 1043 68 204 1426 387 Saturation Flow Module: - Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.36 0.91 0.98 0.23 1.07 0.91 0.13 1.02 0.99 0.14 0.84 0.87 Lanes: 1.00 1.76 0.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.87 0.13 1.00 1.58 0.42 Final Sat.: 680 3051 455 432 2027 1723 239 3629 235 257 2530 687 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.20 0.20 0.73 0.16 0.12 0.64 0.29 0.29 0.80 0.56 0.56 Crit Moves: ~ **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 .0.48 Volume/Gap: 0.17 0.45 0.45 1.67 0.36 0.27. 1..34 0.60 0.60 1.67 1.18 1.18 Uniform Del: 7.7 8.9 8.9 12.8 8.5 8.1 11.9 8.8 8.8 11.9 11.9 11.9 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.2 0.2 688.7 0.1 0.0 265.8 0.3 0.3 695.8 93.6 93.6 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85. 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 6.6 7.8 7.8 699.6 7.3 6.9 275.9 7.8 7.8 705.9 104 103.7 User DelAdj.: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 6.6 7.6 7.8 699.6 7.3 6.9 275.9 7.8 7.8 705.9 104 103.7 Design0ueue: 1 12 2 6 6 4 3 20 1 4 28 8 **********:*xx*xxx:*********x***s****x*xx*x******x*:*x*x*:xxx*:::*:****x**x**x** Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 116-1 Level Ofi Service Computaticn Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) :*****x*x*x****x**xx**x**x***~~*.**:t«**:*****::****+x*****x,t~*~xx:******~*:x:*x* Intersection #115 TWENTY-THIRD STREET/WILSHIRE BOULEVARD ~****xx:*****x*x::xxx*x***x*******xx*~*********:**:*******::****:******xx******. Cycle (sec).: 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.659 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 5.7 Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Ofi Service: B ***x**x:x*******x*x:e***.x~~*x**~**********x****x************x:***:**~**~***:*:*x Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 77 37 32 30 78 16- 26 969 96 38 993 6 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 77 37 32 30 78 16 26 969 96 38 993 6 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 77 37 32 30 78 16 26 969 96 38 993 6 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.77 PHF Volume: 100 48 42 39 101 21 34 1258 125 49 1290 8 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 100 48 42 39 101 21 34 1258 125 49 1290 8 PCE Adj: 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N1LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 100 48 42 39 101 21 34 1321 131 49 1354 8 Saturation Flow Module: - - Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.51 0.56 0.51 0.63 0.70 0.63. 0.11 0.96 0.99 0.11 0.87 0.90 Lanes: 0.54 0.24 0.22 0.26 0.60 0.14 1.00 1.83 0.17 1.00 1.99 0.01 Final Sat.: 521 250 217 309 803 165 202 3319 329 202 3287 20 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.17 0.40 0:40 0.24 0.41 0.41 Crit Moves: **** **'* Green/Cycle: 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.29 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 Volume/Cap: 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.43 0.43 0.43. 0.27 0.64 0.64 0.39 0.66 0.66- Uniform Del: 14.2 14.2 14.2 13.1 13.1 13.1 3.8 5.3 5.3 4.2 5.4 5.4 IncremntDel: 1.9 1.9 1.9- 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.3 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 14.0 14.0 14.0 11.4 11.4 11.4 3.4 4.7 4.7 4.1 4.9 4.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh:, 14.0 14.0 14.0 11.4 11.4 11.4 3.4 4.7 4.7 4.1 4.9 4.9 Design0ueue: 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 iS 2 1 19 0 **************xx****xxx*x:****z*****x:******x**x****:***************:***::*:**:* Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 117-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (FutureVolume Alternative) - ****x*******z:*x**xx*****x*****xxx*xx***:******x***:***********************x**** Intersection #116 TWENTY-THIRD/SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD Cycle {sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.661 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.5 Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Of Service: A :***:************************x**:******************::******xx******:x******:**:* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include N1in. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1- 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base-Vol: 0 0 0 241 44 63 30 976 32 50 1439 233 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 241 44 63 30 976 32 50 1439 233 Added Vol: 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 241 44 63 30 976 32 - 50 1439 233 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 248 45 65 31 1006 33 52 1484 240 Reduct Val: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 248 45 65 31 1006 33 52 1484 240 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NiLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 261 48 68 31 1056 35 52 1558 252 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 .1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.07 1.07 1.07 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.10 1.07 1.07 0.12 1.05 1.05 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.41 0.59 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 1.72 0.28 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1722 708 1014 197 3937 129 236 3429 555 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.07 0.07 0.16 0.27 0.27 0.22 0.45 0.45 Crit Moves: - **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.69 0:69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.29 0.29 0.23 0.39 0.39. 0.32 0.66 0.66 Unifiorm Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.0 14.5 14.5 2.6 3.0- 3.0 2.9 4.1 4.1 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 O.S5 0.85 0.85 0.85 0,85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 12.4 12.4 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.7 3.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.6 12.4 12.4 2.3 2.6 2.6 2.6 3.7 3.7. DesignOueue: 0 0 0 7 1 2 0 12 0 1 19 3 ******:****x***xx****xx******x*xx***~:***:***~**:***::**x*****:***~********~***. Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 118-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #117 TWENTY-THIRD STREET/PICO BOULEVARD **********************zx***********x****+*x*xx**x**********************.******** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.533 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.0 Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Ofi Service: B *:t******x****xx***x***x***********xx*****:x**x********************:************* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T -R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Prot+permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 221 0 100 0 0 0 0 796 66 99 804 1 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 221 0 100 0 0 0 0 796 66 99 804 1 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 221 0 100 0 0 0 0 796 66 99 804 1 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 233 0 105 0 0 0 0 83S 52 104 846 1 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 233 0 105 0 0 0 0 838 52 104 846 1 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.05 1.05. 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 244 0 111 0 0 0 0 SSO 55 104 889 1 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.93 1.00 0.83 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 0.89 0.95 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 1.99 0.01 Final Sat.: 1576 0 1576 0 0 0 0 3188 198 1805 3795 5 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.28 0.06 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.29 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.52 0.63 0.63 0.63 Volume/Cap: 0.53 0.00 0.24 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.53 0.32 0.37 0.37 Unifiorm Del: 13.6 0.0 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 7.3 5.0 4.2 4.2 IncremntDel: 0,7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 12.2 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 6.4 6.4 4.4 3.6 3.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh: 12.2 0.0 10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.4 6.4 4.4 3.6 3.6 Design0ueue: 6 0 3 0 0 0 0 15 1 3 12 0 ************a**********:****************:*:*:**********:*****.*************:.*** - Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 119-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) **:**+*************zz*x**x*******x*xx*****x******s****x******x****:******x****** Intersection #118 TWENTY-THIRD STREET/OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD ******xxxr:**xxx***************:******:*******:t**:a:*************«:x:*-z****:**:** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap-. (X): 1.088 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 38.3 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Ofi Service: D *********x**************xxx****:e****x**xx*****xx******************::*x********** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R' L - T - R L - T - R L - T R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 143 607 248 6 258 14 0 1095 81 138 845 12 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 143 607 248 6 258 14 0 1095 S1 138 845 12 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 143 607 248 6 258 14 0 1095 ~ 81 138 845 12 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0:75 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 .0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 159 674 207 7 287 12 0 1217 90 146 892 13 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 159 674 207 7 287 12 0 1217 90 146 892 13 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 167 708 217 7 287 12 0 1278 94 153 937 14 Saturation Flow Module: - Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.72 0.79 0.72 0.61 0.67 0.61 1.00 0.83 0.89 0.47 0.47 0.47 Lanes: 0.32 1.26 0.42 0.02 0.94 0.04 0.00 1.87 0.13 0.28 1.70 0.02 Final Sat.: 443 1880 576 28 1196 49 0 2956 219 246 1509 23 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.38 0.38 - 0.38 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.00 0.43 0.43 0.62 0.62 0,62 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/cycle: 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 Volume/Cap: 1.09 1.09 1.09 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.00 0.76 0.76 1.09 1.09 1.09 Unifiorm Del: 14.9 14.9 14.9 12.8 12.8 12.8 0.0 7,4 7.4 9.8 9.8 9.8 IncremntDel: 50.4 50.4 .50.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 0.0 1.3 1.3 50.3 50.3 50.3 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.65 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 63.1 63.1 63.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 0.0 7.6. 7.6 58.6 55.6 58.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 63.1 63.1 63.1 14.1 14.1 14.1 0.0 7.6 7.6 58.6 58.6 58.6 DesignOueue: 4 17 5 0 7 0 0 20 2 2 15 0 ***x****~.e:t*i:***********x**xr:x*****:e:tz:***::::e:*************xx***.x.*x.:::x*:.~** Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 120-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) - ********x:tx*x*:tx**xx*x*xf:x:t:tx:tx**xx*~**x*:x***x*****x*xx*::*x~*r:**:*sx*****x***• Intersection #119 TWENTY-FOURTH STREET/MONTANA AVENUE *****:**:******xxxxx*x****x**~****:.*******x***********~~********: *.x**********:* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. {X): 0.844 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.4 Optimal Cycle: 58 Level Ofi Service: A ******-**+****xxx***x****z***:t****x******x**:*:***:t**x:t~z**:t***x*:**:***+**~~*:** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound PAovement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted - Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 20 0 23 41 895 0 0 550 13 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 20 0 23 41 895 0 0 550 13 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 20 0 23 41 895 0 0 550 13 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.66 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.66 0.86 0.86 0.86 PHF Volume: ~ 0 0 0 23 0 27 48 1041 0 0 640 15 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 23 0 27 48 1041 0 0 640 15 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 23 0 27 48 1041 0 0 640 15 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.65 1.00 0.65 0.49 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.53 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0,98 0.02 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 575 0 661 937 1419 0 0 1671 39 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.38 Crit Nioves: **** `*** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.87 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.87- 0.87 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.00 0.84. 0.06 0.84 0.00 0,00 0.44 0.44 Unifiorm Del: 0.0 0.0 0:0 21.5 0.0 21.5 0.4 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 42.8 0.0 42.8 ~0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0,00 0.00 0.85 0.85 Delay(Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.1 0.0 61.1 0.4 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 61.1 0.0 61 .f 0.4 ~4.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 DesignOueue: 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 0 3 0 :*****x**x*xxxx*xxx*:xx**x***********s*:*:******::e*zz**a:**xx+*x*z*xx~*x**+***s* Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 121-1 - -------------------------------------------------------------------- - -------- -------------------- - ------------------------ - -------------------------------- Level Ofi Service Computation Report - 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #120 CLOVERFIELD BOULEVARD/SANTA MONZCA BOULEVARD *:***x**x*x*:****xxx***:xx:x*****x**:***xx**xxx*******~***********:***~*****::*** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (.X): 0.593 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.6 Optimal Cycle: 28 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L- T - R L - T R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include N1in. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 1! 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 619 0 269 0 0 0 0 866 274 261 1158 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.OD 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 619 0 269 0 0 0 0 866 274 261 1158 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 619 0 269 0 0 0 0 866 274 261 1158 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 666 0 289 0 0 0 0 931 295 281 1245 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 666 0 269 0 0 0 0 931 295 281 1245 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.10 1:00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.00 Final Vol.: 732 0 304 0 0 0 0 978 295 281 1307 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.96 1.07 1.00 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 0.91 0.98 1.06 1..07 Lanes: 2.62 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 4803 0 2604 0 0 0 0 4066 1728 1867 4033 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.15 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.17 0.15 0.32 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.26 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00' 0.00 0.41 0.41 0.25 0.66 0.00 Volume/Cap: 0.59 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.42 0.59 0.49 O.OD Uniform Del: 14.8 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.6 9.7 14.9 3.9 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 1.5 0.1 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0,00 Delay/Veh: 13.0. 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 8.5 14.2 3.4 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 13.0 0.0 12.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.4 8.5 14.2 3.4 0.0 Design0ueue: 19 0 8 0 0 0 0 21 6 7 16 0 ********:*:***:::**:*********:*:**::***********:****x***********:************:** Default Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 122-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 NCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #121 CLOVERFIELD BOULEVARD/BROADWAY *******x*****xx***xx:***x*x*x**xx***x****xx*xx*z**+**:*****:****x***.********::* Cycle (sec): 6o Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.860 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average.Delay (sec/veh): 7.4 Optimal Cycle; 61 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T- R L- T- R L- T- R L- T R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 252 652 32 it 515 11 35 97 186 31 75 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial ese: 252 652 32 11 515 11 35 97 186 31 75 14 Added Vol: - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 252 652 32 11 515 11 35 97 186 31 75 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 PHF Volume: 315 815 40 14 644 14 44 121 174 39 - 94 13 ReductVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 315 815 -40 14 644 14 44 121 174 39 94 13 PCE Adj: 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N1LF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 315 856 42 14 676 14 44 121 174 39 94 13 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.27 0.96 0.99 0.16 0.97 1.00 0.63 0.85 0,91 0.31 0.91 0.98 Lanes: 1.00 1.91 0.09 1.00.1.96 0.04 1.00 0.43 0.57 1.00 0.88 0.12 Final Sat.: 514 3472 170 296 3599 77 1188.689 991 585 1537 215 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.61 0.25 0.25 0.05 0.19 0.19 0.04 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.06 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.71 0.71 0.71.0.71 0.71 0.71 0.20 0.20 0.20. 0.20 0.20 0.20 Volume/Cap: 0.86 0.35 0.35 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.86 0.86 0.32 0.30 0.30 Uniform Del: 4.9 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.3 2.3 15.0 17.5 17.5 15.4 15.4 15.4 IncremntDel: 12.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.6- 7.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 16.8 2.2 2.2 1.7 2.0 2.0 12.8 22.4 22.4 13.6 13.2 13.2 User De1Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 16.8 2.2 2.2 1.7 2.0 2.0 12.8 22.4 22.4 13.6 13.2 13.2 Design0ueue: 3 9 0 0 7 0 1 3 5 1 3 0 Default Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 123-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #122 CLOVERFIELD BOULEVARD/COLORADO AVENUE - Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X}: ~ 1.319 Loss Time (sec): -5 (Y+R= 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 59.9 Optimal Cycle: 180 ~ Level Ofi Service: E Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Ntovement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 332 1195 0 26 827 39 14 442 109 79 644 24 Growth 'Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 332 1195 0 26 827 39 14 442 109 79 644 24 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 332 1195 0 26 827 39 14 442 109 79 644 24 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 357 1285 0 28 889 42 15 475 117 85 692 26 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 357 1285 0 28 889 42 15 475 117 85 692 26 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N1LF Adj: 1,00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.05 1.00. 7.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 357 1413 0 28 978 46 15 499 117 85 727 27 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.19 1.07 1.07 0.09 1.02 1.06 0.41 1.03 0.91. 0.43 0.99 1.06 Lanes: 1.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 2.87. 0.13 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 354 6099 0 177 5582 263 787 3930 1728 816 3631 135 Capacity Analysis Module:. Vol/Sat: 1.01 0.23 0.00 0.16 0.18 0.18 0.02 0.13 0.07 0.10 0.20 0.20 Crit Moves: **** - **** Green/Cycle: 0:76 0.76 0.00 0.76 0.76 0.76 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 Volume/Cap: 1.32 0.30 0.00 0.21 0.23 0.23. 0.13 0.84 0.45 0.69 1.32 1.32 Uniform Del: 5.4 1.6 0.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 16.7 18.8 17.6 18.3 19.3 19.3 IncremntDe1:209.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.4 5.2 201 200.7 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay(Veh: 213.8 1.4 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 14.2 19.8 15.4 20.8 217 217.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 213.8 1:4 0.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 14.2 19.8 15.4 20.8 217 217.2 Design0ueue: 3 12 0 0 8 0 0 15 3 2 22 1 Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 124-1 Level Of Service Computatioq Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***~*x***x*a*******x****x***x******zx*x*x*******xx*z****~*****:**~************** Intersection #123 CLOVERFIELD BOULEVARD/OLYMPIC BOULEVARD ***~+**:****************x*****x******x*****x****x*******:**xx*x****«***:******** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.878 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 13.7 Optimal Cycle: 67 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R Control: Protected Protected Protected Protected Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 3 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 239 1733 6 51 931 49 45 498 284 365 620 401 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 239 1733 6 51 931 49 45 498 284 365 620 401 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 239 1733 6 51 931 49 45 498 284 365 620 401 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 PHF Volume: 299 2166 8 64 1164 61 56 623 355 456 775 501 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 299 2166 8 64 1164 61 56 623 355 456 775 501 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.03 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.03 1.10 1.10 Final Vol.: 308 2383 8 64 1280 67 56 654 373 470 853 551 Saturation Flom Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.02 1.07 1.07 0.95 1.06 1.06 1.02 1.08 1.01 1.02 1.01 0.97 Lanes: 2.00 2.99 0.01 1.00 2.85 0.15 1.00 1.24 0.76 2.00 3.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 3863 6078 21 1803 5736 302 1931 2552 1455 3863 5733 1847 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.08 0.39 0.39 0.04 0.22 0.22 0.03 0.26 0.26 0.12 0.15 0.30 Crit Moves **** **** *"." *"** Green/Cycle: 0.13 0.45 0.45 0.04 0.36 0.36 0.04 0.29 0.29 0.14 0.39 0.39 Volume/Cap: 0.62 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.62 0.62. 0.76 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.38 0.76 Unifiorm Del: 18.8 11.5 11.5 21.8 12.1 12.1 21.7 15.4 15.4 19.3 9.9 12.0 IncremntDel: 0.9 1.4 1.4 28.4 0.2 0.2 23.3 5.6 5.6 10.8 0.0 1.4 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 16.9 11.1 11.1 46.9 10.5 10.5 41.8 18.7 18.7 27.2 8.5 11.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 16.9 11.1 11.1 46.9 10.5 10.5 41.8 18.7 18.7 27.2 8.5 11.6 Design0ueue: 9 49 0 2 29 2 2 17 9 14 18 12 *****x*x*x****************e*****z*:x**x******e****~**:*::*:x*:**:*:*x**x*x****** Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 125-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #124 CLOVERFIELD BOULEVARD/MICHIGAN AVENUE :***~*:***:**x*:*xe*****x*****************x**********:**************:xz*****x*** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Val./Cap. {X): 1.199 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R= 4 sec) Average Delay (seclveh): 12.2 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Ofi Service: B x*x*****x*x*****e*********x**x************x***x*******x::xx**********:xx*******~ Approach: North Bound South Bound ~ East Bound West Bound PAO Vement: L - T - R L - T - R L- T - R L- T- R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 143 3031 94 67 1684 59 90 16 106 80 6 90 Groaith Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 143 3031 94 67 1684 ~ 59 90 16 106 80 6 90 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 143 3031 94 67 1684 59 90 16 106 80 6 90 User Adjs. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0:92 PHF Volume: 155 3295 102 73 1830 ~ 64 98 17 115 87 7 98 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 155 3295 102 73 1830 64 98 17 115 87 7 98 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1'.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.00 1.10 1.10 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1-. 05. 1.05 Final Vol.: 155 3624 112 73 2013 71 103 18 121 91 7 103 Saturation Flaw Module: - Sat(Lane:~ 1900'1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.08 1.00 1.00 0.07 0.93 1.00 0.84 0.81 0.84 0.85 0.82 0.85 Lanes: 1.00 2.91 0.09 1.00 2.91 0.09 0.85 0.15 1.00 0.93 0.07 1.00 Final Sat.: 152 5529 171 142 5152 180 1347 239 1586 1492 112 1608 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 1.02 0.66 0.66 0.51 0.39 0.39 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.06 0.06 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 Volume/Cap: 1.20 0.77 0.77 0.60 0.46 0.46 1.20 1.20 1.20 0.96 0.96 1.00 Unifiorm Del: 3.4 1.4 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.8 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 21.3 IncremntDe1:133.2 0.3 0.3 3.0 0.0 0.0 140.6 141 140.6 37.7 37.7 50.1 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 O.S5 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh'. 136.0 1.5 1.5 3.8 0.7 0.7 158.7 159 158.7 55.8 55.8 68.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 136.0 1.5 1.5 3.8 0.7 0.7 158.7 159 158.7 55.8 55.8 68.2 Design0ueue: 1 21 1 0 11 0 3 1 4 3 0 3 **:*.::*..******:*.*.::«.****::*****************:*****************:*x******:**** Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 126-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *****x*x*************x*******x*******x************************************x***** Intersection #125 CLOVERFIELD BOULEVARD/I-10 WESTBOUND OFF RAMP *********.********:*****************************:::**********:e*:**************** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.278 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 136.5 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: ~ 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 '0 0 2 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 934 0 0 1889 0 0 0 0 881 0 2183 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 934 0 0 1889 0 0 0 0 881 0 2183 Added Vol: 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 934 0 0 1889 0 0 0. 0 881 0 2183 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0..94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 0 994 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0 937 0 2322 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 994 0 0 2010 0 0 0 0- 937 0 2322 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1-. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.b5 1.00 1.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.00 1.13 Final Vol.: 0 1043 0 0 2211 0 0 0 0 965 0 2624 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.79 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 2.00 Final Sat.: 0 3800 0 0 7347 0 0 0 0 3369 0 3015 Capacity Analysis Module: Val/Sat: 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.87 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.68 Volume/Cap: 0.00 1.17 0.00 0.00 1.28 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 1.28 Uniform Del: 0.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 17.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 0.0 7.3 IncremntDel: 0.0 84.9 0.0 0.0 160 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 161.9 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.85 0..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.85 Delay/Veh: 0.0 99.7 0.0 0.0 175 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.0 2.8 0.0 168.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 99.7 0.0 0.0 175 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 0.0 168.1 DesignOueue: 0 29 0 0 61 0 0 0 0 11 0 34 ****::********:«~***********«***x**x***********x**x****************x*:******:**~. MITIG8 - Default Scenario Fr1.OCt 29, 2010 12:33:25 Page 1-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ********x****:xx*******xx****t*******x*****+******:****************+**re+x***a** Intersection #126 CLOVERFIELD BOULEVARD/1-10 EB ON RAMP Cycle (sec): 60 critical Vol./cap. (X): 0.826 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.0 Optimal Cycle: 53 Level Of Service: B *******x*************+**x*********************::****+*x***++*******+*x**x*****+* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R' __________________ __ __________________I ______________. Control: Permitted Protected Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Ignore Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes : 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 U 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 ____________I_______ I_____________________________________________ Volume Module: - Base Vol: 0 917 512 1500 1007 8 0 6 38 0 0 ~ 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 917 512 1500 1007 8 0 6 38 0 0 0 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 917 516 1500 1007 9 0 6 38 0 0 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 0 965 0 1579 1060 8 0 6 40 0 0 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 965 0 1579 1060 8 0 6 40 0 0 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 0.00 1.03 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 1014 0 1626 1113 9- 0 6 40 0 0 0 __________________________________________II______________________________I Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 0.97 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.81 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.00 2.00 1.00 2.00 1.98 0.02 0.00 0.14 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 0 3673 1900 3610 3770 30 0 208 1317 0 0 0 ____________I_,______________I_______________II_______________I_ _____ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.45 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 Crit Moves: **** **** +*** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.55 0.88 0.88 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 volume/Cap: 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.83 0.34 0.34 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uniform Del: 0.0 14.0 0.0 8.6 0.5~ 0.5 0.0 21.8 21.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 IncremntDel: 0.0 1.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.2 40.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.0U 0.00 0.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 13.6 0.0 8.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 58.8 58.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 0.0 13.6 0.0 8.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 58.8 58.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 DesignQueue: 0 24 0 28 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 +++*x*******+****+~*«**+*********x****<*x****+++*+*<**************<**+******x*** Traffix 7.7.0515 (c) 2005 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to ICAKU, SANTA MONICA, CA Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 128-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *******x*x:*****:*x*****:**********:**:***x****x****«*************~***:********* Intersection #127 CLOVERFIELD BOULEVARD/VIRGINIA AVENUE *****************::***:**:**:ti:**x*******:x****x:x*****x*x**********:********:*** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 2.482 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 3056.4 Optimal Cycle: ~ 180 Level" Ofi Service: F xx***:********:****x**xx*exxx*:x***:x:*x*:*:****x***+**::***********::******:*** Approach: North Bound. South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include -"Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 27 2872 29 60 2339 35 34 81 72 38 122 71 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 27 2872 29 60 2339 35 34 81 72 38 122 71 Added Vol: 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 27 2872 29 60 2339 35 34 81 72 38 122 71 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 PHF Volume: 44 4632 47 97 3773 56 55 131 87 ~ 61 197 86 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 44 4632 47 97 3773 56 - 55 131 87 61 197 86 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 46 4864 49 102 3961 59 55 131 87 61 197 86 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.69 0.67 0.69 0.59 0.57 0.59 0.50 0.55 0'.50 0.52 0.57 0.52 Lanes: 0.02 1.96 0.02 0.05 1.92 0.03 0.21 0.46 0.33 0.19 0.55 0.26 Final Sat.: 23 2499 25 53 2068 31 201 478 319 186 599 261 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 1.95 1.95 1,95 1.92 1.92 .1.92 0.27 0.27 0.27 0.33 0.33 0.33 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0,78 0.78 0.78 ,0.78 0.78 0.78. 0.13O.t3 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.13 Volume/Cap: 2.48 2.48 2.48 2.44 2.44 2.44. 2.06 2.06 2.06 2.48 2.48 2,48 Unifiorm Del: 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 19.8 IncremntDel: 3167 3167 3167 2987 2987 2987 1647 1647 1647 3260 3260 3260 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 3172 3172 - 3172 2992 ,2992. 2992 1664 1664 1664 3277 3277' 3277 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 3172 3172 3172 2992 2992 2992 1664 1664 1664 3277 3277 3277 DesignOueue: 0 53 1 1 40 1 2 4 3 2 6 3 MITIGB - Default Scenario Fri Oct 29, 2010 12:44:20 Page 1-1 Level Of Service Computation Report - 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***************#***************#************x*************x*****#*****#***k***** Intersection Yr128 CLOVERFIELD BOULEVARD/PICO BOULEVARD ******#*#**####*##*#**#**********#**#*##****##*#**************###*******###***** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.719 Loss Time (sec): B (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay -(sec/veh): 340.2 Optimal C~c1e: 180 Level Of Service: - F - *********************i**********###***************##*#######*******************# P_pproach: North Sound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement : L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R' ____________'______________________________I______________________________ Control: Permitted Permitted Protected Protected Rights: Include Ignore Include Snclude Min, Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 ____________I______________________________II______________________________ Volume Module: Base Vol: 20 477 29 440 607 22 68 833 117 116 220 707 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 20 477 29 440 607 22 68 833 117 116 220 707 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVO1: 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 20 477 29 440 607 26 68 833 117 116 220 707 User Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.00 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume : 23 542 33 500 690 0 77 947 133 132 250 803 Redact Vol: 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 23 542 33 500 690 0 77 947 133 132 250 803 PCE Adj: 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 NtLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.03 1.05 1.'05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 23 569 35 500 690 0 80 994 140 132 263 844 ____________I_______________'___________________ _______________ Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.11 0.8'0 0.89 0.25 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.89 Lanes: 1.00 1.89 0.11 .1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.75 0.25 1.00 1.00. 1.00 Final Sat..: 209 3091 188 475 1900 1900 3610 2939 413 1685 1684 1684 ___________________________II_________________ _______________ Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.18 0.18 1.05 0.36 0.00 0.02 0.34 0.34 0.08 0.16 0.50 Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.61 0.61 0.61 0,61 0.61 0.00 0.01 0.25 0.25 0.06 0.29 0.29 Volume/Cap: 0.18 0.30 0.30 1,72 0.59 0.00 1.72 1.37 1.37 1.37 0.53 1.72 Uniform Del: 3.8 4.2 4.2 8.8 5.4 0.0 22.5 17.2 17.2 21.5 13.6 16.2 IncremntDel: 0.1 0.0 0.0 766.9 0,6 0.0 868.6 248 247.5 315.0 0.2 749.6 Delay P_dj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 3.3 3.6 3.6 77a.4 5.2 0.0 887.8 262 262.1 333.3 11.7 763.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 3.3 3.6 3.6 774.4 5.2 0.0 887.8 262 262.1 333.3 11.7 763.3 DesignQueue: 0 8 0 7 10 0 3 27 4 4 6 23 ************************#####***********************###*########***********#**** Traffix 7.7.0515 (c) 2005 Dowling Assoc. Licensed to ICA RU, SABPPA MONICP_, CA Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 130-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Ntethod (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #129 CLOVERFIELD BOULEVARD/OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD :*****************::***************:*z**xx******:*:***:::**********~:*********:* Cycle (sec): 60 - Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.111 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 42.2 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Ofi Service: E *******x***x*x*x**x****x*************x*******~****x*:::*:***::**************:*:* Approach: North Bound ~ South Bound - East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 i 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 104 0 110 315 1204 0 0 847 167 Growth Adj: .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 104 0 110 315 1204 0 0 847 167 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 104 0 110 315 1204 0 0 847 167 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 105 0 111 302 1216 0 0 856 169 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 105 0 111 - 302 1216 0 0 856 169 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 - 105 0 111 317 1277 0 0 898 177' Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 1.00 0.88 0.44 0.44 1.00 1.00 0.88 0.88 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.40 1.60 0.00 0.00 1.67 0.33 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 1685 0 1669 334 1342 0 0 2800 552 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0:00 0.07 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 0.86 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.86 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.00 1.11 1.11 1.11 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.37 Unifiorm Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.4 0.0 21.4 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 83.8 0.0 116.5 57.0 57.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 102.1 0.0 134.8 59.8 59.8 0.0 O.b 0.6 0.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 ,1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 102.1 0.0 134.8 59.8 59.8 0.0 0.0 0:6 0.6 DesignOueue: 0 0 0 3 0 4 2 7 0 0 5 1 **:******::****:*:****::*:******::i*********x*xe*************«**«***:*********:: Defiault Scenario anon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 133-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCN1 Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***:*****a*************:*****************:***::***.***********:**************::* Intersection #132 TWENTY-SIXTH STREET/MONTANA AVENUE *******:**********::*******************.*****>*:*.*:*z***:*:******.******:****** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.029 Loss Time -(sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average belay (sec/veh): 24.0 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T ~- R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted -Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 D 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 107 479 77 46 669 92 77 550 151 105 344 24 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 107 479 77 46 669 92 - 77 550 151 105 344 24 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 107 479 77 46 669 92 77 550 151 105 344 24 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 PHF Volume: 111 499 80 48 697 96 80 573. 157 109 358 25 Retluct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 111 499 80 48 697 96 80 573 157 109 358 25 PCE Adj: 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 111 499 80 48 697 96 80 573 157 109 358 25 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900.1900 1900 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.12 0.93 0.63 0.16 0.93 0.61 0.29 0.85 0.78 0.14 0.87 0.79 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.77 0.23 1.00 0.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 231 1773 1206. 296 1773 1163 551. 1246 342 257 1537 107 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.48 0.28 0.07 0.16 0.39 0.08 0.15 0.46 0.46 0.43 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 Volume/Cap: 1.03 0.60 0.14 0.34 0.84 0.18 0.33 1.03 1.03 0.95 0.52 0.52 Unifiorm Del: 12.1 8.9 6.9 7.6 10.6 7.0 8.2 12.6 12.6 12.2 9.1 9.1 IncremntDel: 77.0 0.9 0.0 0.6 5.3 0.0 0.3 33.8 33.8 50.7 0.6 0.6 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.,85 0.85 0.85 O.SS 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 87.3 8.5 5.8 7.1 14.2 6.0 7.2 44.5 44.5 61.1 8.3 8.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 87.3 8.5 5.8 7.1 14.2 6.0 7.2 44.5 44.5 61.1 8.3 8.3 DesignOueue: 2 9 1 1 14 2 1 12 3 2 7 0 Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14;17:24 Page 134-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #133 TWENTY-SIXTH STREET/WILSHIRE BOULEVARD Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 2.609 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 1055.9 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: - F ********:*:**:**:*******************:x***xxx**xx****************~***:***::****** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 91 472 68 167 679 86 63 1070 68 209 1714 44 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 91 472 68 167 679 86 63 1070 68 209 1714 44 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 91 472 68 167 679 86 63 1070 68 209 1714 44 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 PHF Volume: 138 715 77 253 1029 98 95 1621 77 317 2597 50 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 138 715 77 253 1029 98 95 1621 77 317 2597 50 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1,05 Final Vol.: 138 715 77 253 1029 98 95 1702 81 317 2727 53 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.19 0.74 0.74 0.18 0.71 0.79 0.11 0.83 0.89 0.11 0.87 0.90 Lanes: 1.00 0.90 0.10 1.00 0.92 0.08 1.00 1.91 0.09 1.00 1.96 0.04 Final Sat.: 359 1268 137 346 1248 119 209 3025 144 202 3246 62 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.38 0.56 0.56 0.73 0.82 0.82 0.46 0.56 0.56 1.57 0.84 0.84 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.32 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 Volume/Cap: 1.22 1.79 1.79 2.32 2.61 2.61 0.76 0.94 0.94 2.61 1.40 1.40 Unifiorm Del: 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 15.6 6.7 8.3 8.3 9.1 9.1 9.1 IncremntDe1:147.7 878 877.6 2499 3809 3809 8.6 3.9 3.9 3854 272 272.3 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 160.9 891 890.8 2512 3823 3823 14.3 11.0 11.0 3861 280 280.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 160.9 891 890.8 2512 3823 3823 14.3 11.0 11.0 3861 280 280.0 Design0ueue: 3 18 2 6 28 3 1 26 1 4 45 1 Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 135-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #134 TWENTY-SIXTH STREET/ARIZONA AVEPIUE Cycle {sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.942 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 10.9 Optimal Cycle: 95 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 122 626 - 27 29 886 30 16 84 77 48 92 29 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 122 626 27 29 886 30 16 84 77 48 92 29 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D Initial Fut: 122 626 27 29 886 30 16 - 84 77 48 92 29 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 131 673 29 31 953 32 17 - 90 62 52 99 23 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 131 673 29 31 953 32 17 90 62 52 99 23 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00- 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N1LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Final Vol.: 131 673 29 31 953 32 17 90 62 52 99 23 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.10 0.77 0.79 0.13 0.80 0.80 0.65 0.62 0.65 0.53 0.53 0.53 Lanes: 1.00 0.96. 0.04 1.00 0.97 0.03 0.10 0.54 0.36 0.30 0.57 0.13 Final .Sat.: 190 1396 60 247 1470 50 122 642 441 298 571 135 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.69 0.48 0.48 0.13 0.65 0.65 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.17 0.17 0.17 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.18 Volume/Cap: 0.94 0.66 0.66 0.17 0.88 0.88 0.76 D.76 0.76 0.94 0.94 0.94 Uniform Del: 5.3 3.1 3.1 1.9 4.6 4.6 17.7 17.7 17.7 18.4 18.4 18.4 IncremntDel: 28.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 3.4 3.4 5.3 5.3 5.3 23.4 23.4 23.4 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 O.S5 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 32.4 3.2 3.2 1.6 7.3 7.3 20.4 20.4 20.4 39.0 39.0 39.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 32.4 3.2 3.2 1.6 7.3 7.3 20.4 20.4 20.4 39.0 39.0 39.0 DesignOueue: 1 7 0 0 10 0 0 3 2 1 3 1 Defiault Scenario Pdon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 136-1 ------------------- - --------- - ------------------------------------------------ Level OfiService Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) :**:****************:ex**:*****:x**:***::********x:**************:::*******:***** Intersection #135T1VENTY-SIXTH STREET/SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD x***x**:**~***********:*********:*.**:**:************:r*******:::*:*****:*xx*x**x Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1,239 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 90.7 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Ofi Service: F *****************************************'k************************************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound PAovement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include PAin-. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0. 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 2 690 84 4 1063 54 62 731 48 82 979 114 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 2 690 84 4 1063 54 62 731 48 82 979 114 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 2 690 ~ 84 4 1063 54 62 731 48 82 979 114 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.900.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 2 767 70 4 1181 45 69 812 53 91 1088 127 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 2 767 70 4 1181 45 69 812 53 91 1058 127 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 2 767 70 4 1181 45 69 853 56 91 1142 133 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.12 0.85 0.85 0.12 0.85 0.85 0.22 0.89 0.95 0.22 0.89 0.95 Lanes: 1.00 0.92 0.08 1.00 0.96 0.04 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 1.80 0.20 Final Sat.: 224 1475 135 224 1551 59 417 3173 208 417 3050 355 Capacity Analysis Module: _ Vol/Sat: 0.01 0.52 0.52 0.02 0.76 0.76 0.17 0.27 0.27 0.22 0.37 0.37 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 Volume/Cap: 0.02 0.85 0,85 0.03 1.24 1.24 0.55 0.89 0.89 0.72 1.24 1.24 Uniform Del: 3.4 7.1 7.1 3.5 8.8 S.S 13.3 15.2 15.2 14.2 15.9 15.9 IncremntDel: 0.0 4.9 4.9 0.0 137 137.4 3.7 7.0 7.0 12.0 137 137.1 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 2.9 10.9 10.9 2.9 145 144.9 15.0 19.9 19.9 24.1 151 150.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 2.9 10.9 10.9 2.9 145 144.9 15.0 19.9 19.9 24.1 151 150.6 DesignOueue: 0 1,1 1 0 18 1 2 21 1 2 29 3 ******::******:***::***:**********e*x****************************::******«:***:* Defiault Scenario N1on Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 137-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *x***:********xxx*:*xx*****x***:e**************x*xx*********~*************x****~* Intersection #136 TWEPITY-SIXTH STREET/BROADWAY Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1,249 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 86.5 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Ofi Service: F Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T ~- R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1. 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 52 785 41 80 925 128 45 267 71 122 522 32 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 52 785 41 80 925 128 45 267 71 122 522 32 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 52 785 41 80 925 128 45 267 71 122 522 32 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 PHF Volume: 55 826 32 84 974 101 47 281 56 128 549 25 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 55 826 32 84 974 101 47 281 56 128 549 25 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 55 826 32 84 974 101 47 281 56 128 549 25 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.11 0.92 0.99 0.11 0.77 0.79 0.19 0.91 0.97 0.25 0.74 0.79 Lanes: 1.00 0.96 0.04 1.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 0.84 0.16 1.00 0.96 0.04 Final Sat.: 209 1694 66 209 1322 137 355 1450 289 479 1347 62 Capacity Analysis Module: - Vol/Sat: 0.26 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.74 0.74 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.27 0.41 0.41 Crit Ntoves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0,44 0.83 0.83 0.68 1.25 1.25 0.41 0.59. 0.59 0.82 1.25 1.25 Unifiorm Del: 5.2 7.5 7.5 6.4 9.4 9.4 11.9 12.8 12.8 14.1 15.3 15.3 IncremntDel: 1.3 3.0 3:0 7.4 143 142.9 1.0 0.9 0.9 15.0 150 149.9 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 5.7 9.4 9.4 12.9 151 150.9 11.1 11.8 11.8 27.0 163 162.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 5.7 9,4 9.4 12.9 151 150.9 11.1 11.8 11.8 27.0 163 162.9 DesignOueue: 1 13 0 1 16 2 1 7 1 3 13 1 *******x**~~~****:z****x***x****:*****xxe*****x:x****:**:::x:*::*::::*****:***** Defiault Scenario Nton Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 138-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCN1 Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***xxx**xx******z***x*xx*****x*~*********x***:tx********************:**:::***x*** Intersection #137 TWENTY-SIXTH STREET/COLORADO AVENUE .Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.342 .Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 80.6 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F **********xxx:e**~**:*xx***x*********:**x:e*****x****«x**~*****.**xx*:*xx::**.xzx* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L- T - R L - T - R - L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 -- Volume Module: Base Vol: 181. 446 63 91 703 303 117 350 128 71 692 69 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 181 446 63 91 703 303 117 350 128 71 692 69 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 181 446 63 91 703 303 117 350 128 71 692 69 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0:89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume; 203 501 53 102 790 255 131 393 144 80 778 78 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 203 501 53 102 790 255 131 393 144 80 778 78 - PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 203 501 53 102 790 255 131 413 151 80 816 81 Saturation Flow Module; Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.11 1.02 1.06 0.18 1.03 1.03 0.40 0.99 1.03 0.40 1.02 1.06 Lanes: 1.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 0.76 0.24 1.00 1.48 0.52 1.00 1.82 0.18 Final Sat.: 203 1765 187 346 1475 477 759 2758 1020 759 3549 354 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 1.00 0.28 0.28 0.30 0.54 0.54 0.17 0.15 0.15 0.11 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** - '*** Green/Cycle: 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Volume/Cap: 1.34 0.38 0.38 0.40 0.72 0.72 1.01 0.86 0.86 0.61 1.34 1.34 Unifiorm Del: 5.8 2.1 2.1 2.1 3.2 3.2 18.9 18.4 18.4 17.5 18.9 18.9 IncremntDel:241.8 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 0.9 46.0 4.5 4.5 3.0 220 220.4 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 O.S5- Delay/Veh: 246.7 1.8 1.8 2.2 3.6 3.6 62.0 20.1 20.1 17.9 236 236.5 User DelAdj.: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 246.7 1.8 1.8 2.2 3.6 3.6 62.0 20.1 20.1 17.9 236 236.5 DesignOueue: 2 5 0 1 8 3 4 12 4 2 24 2 *******:*******:*:::*****x********x*x***x*~**::****:*::***************:*:x*****: Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 140-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ::**:********:**************x*****:********:****:a********:*:x:****************** Intersection #139 YALE STREET/wILSHIREBOULEVARD :********::****x****~****x*******x**e:*e:*:xxz*******.**x*:************+*******. Cycle (sec): ~ 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.783 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.3 Optimal Cycle: 46 Level Ofi Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Nlest Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0. 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 76 57 52 49 80 19 21 1446 42 61 1413 32 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 76 57 52 49 80 19 21 1446. 42 61 1413 32 Added Val: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 76 57 52 49 80 19 21 1446 42 61 1413 - 32 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 PHF Volume: 84 63 58 54 89 21 23 1607 47 68 1570 36 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 84 63 58 54 89 21 23 1607 47 68 1570 36 PCE Adj:. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05. 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 84 63 58 54 89 21 23 1687 49 68 1649 37 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.54 0.60 0.54 O.5S 0.64 0.58 0.10 0.87 0.90 0.10 0.87 0.90 Lanes: 0.42 0.29 0.29 0.35 0.52 0.13 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1.96 0.04 Final Sat.: 436 327 299 382 624 148 184 3216 93 184 3235 73 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.13 0.52 0.52 0.37 0.51 0.51 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Volume/Cap: 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.58 0.58 0.58. 0.19 0.78 0.78 0.55 0.76 0.76 Uniform Del: 16.0 16.0 16.0 15.1 15.1 15.1 2.8 5.2 5.2 3.9 5.1 5.1 IncremntDel: 7.5 7.5 7'.5. 1.6 1.6 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.7 2.0 0.6 0.6 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 21.2 21.2 21.2 14.4 14.4 94.4 2.5 5.1 5.1 5.4 4.9 4.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 21.2 21.2 21.2 14.4 14.4 14.4 2.5 5.1 5.1 5.4 4.9 4.9 DesignOueue: 2 2 1 1 2 1 0 21 1 1 21 0 *******:*:**xx*xx:******~::*:*******x:x*****x*~***********:::*******::******x*x* Defiault Scenario Nion Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 141-1 Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #140 YALE STREET/SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.656 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.3 Optimal Cycle: 33 Level Ofi Service: B ***************************:::****::**:**:*****:**************:,****::***xi**:*.* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Pflovement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R C- T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include PAin. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 64 148 60 38 184 97 19 764 30- 57 1083 37 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00' 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 64 148 60 38 184 97 19 764 30 57 1083 37 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 64 1.48 60 38 184 97 19 764 30 57 1083 37 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00. 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 70 161 49 41 200 79 21 830 33 62 1177 40 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 70 161 49 41 200 79 21 830 83 62 1177 40 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N1LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 70 161 49 41 200 79 21 872 34 62 1236 42 Saturation F1o~ru.Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.60 0.65 0.60 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.13 0.95 0.95 0.20 0.96 0.96 Lanes: 0.26 0.56 0,18 0.13 0.62 0.25 1.00 1.92 0.08 1.00 1.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 297 687 209 164 795 314 244 3486 137 386 3539 121 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.25 0.25 0.25 O.OS 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.35 0.35 Crit Moves: - ~ **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Volume/Cap: 0.61 0:61 0.61 0.66 0.66 0.66. 0.16 0.47 0.47 0.30 0.66 0.66 Unifiorm Del: 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.6 11.6 11.6 5.4 6.6 6.6 5.9 7.6 7.6 IncremntDel: 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 .0.85 Delay/Veh: 10.9 10.9 10.9 11.5 11.5 11.5 4.6 5.7 5.7 5.2 6.S 6.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 10.9 10.9 10.9 11.5 11.5 11.5 4.6 5.7 5.7 5.2 6.8 6.8 Design0ueue: 1 3 1 1 4 2 0 14 1 1 21 1 ******:***************z******x****x***:***x**:.**a*********~*****:::*:**r******* Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14;17:24 Page 147-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) **********:**********xxx**x*****x*****.*****x****************:************xx***** Intersection #146 BERKELEY STREET/WILSHIRE BOULEVARD ********:**********:******.**:********:****************:*:*****::xx***:********* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): - 0.700 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 4.5 Optimal Cycle: 36 Level Ofi Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include N1in. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1-0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Niadule: Base Vol: 14 32 21 180 13 19 48 1388 28 27 1374 29 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 14 32 21 180 13 19 48 1388 28 27 1374 29 Added Vol.: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVo1: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 14 32 21 180 13 19 48 1388 28 27 1374 29 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 16 36 24 205 15 22 55 1577 32 31 1561 33 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 1fi 36 24 205 15 22 55 1577 32 31 1561 33 PCE.Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 16 36 24 205 15 22 55 1656 33 31 1639 35 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.86 0.75 0.68 0.78 0.75 0:68 0.10 0.95 0.89 0.10 0.89 0.89 Lanes: 0.27 0.73 1.00 0.93 0.07 1.00 1.00.1.96 0.04 1.00 1.96 0.04 Final Sat.: 449 1027 1292 1379 100 1292 184 3543 71 184 3323 70 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.15 0.15 0.02 0.30 0.47 0.47 0.17 0.49 0.49 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Volume/Cap: 0.17 0.17 0.09 0.70 0.70 0.08 0.42 0.66 0.66 0.24 0.70 0.70 Unifiorm Del: 14.7 14.7 14.4 16.6 16.6 14.4 2.8 3.7 3.7 2.4 3.9 3.9 IncremntDel: 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.3 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85. 0.85 0.85 0.85 0..85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 12.5 12.5 12.3 16.5 16.5 12.2 3.1 3.4 3.4 2.1 3.7 3.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 12.5 12.5 12.3 16.5 16:5 12.2 3.1 3.4 3.4 2.1 3.7 3.7 Design0ueue: 0 1 1 6 0 1 1 18 0 0 18 0 Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 151-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) :**********:::*********************:*********:*********x******************:***x* Intersection #150 CENTINELA AVENUE (EAST)/WILSHIRE BOULEVARD Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.918 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.2 Optimal Cycle: 82 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement; L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Prot+permit Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 137 6 65 16 13 20 2 1611 108 94 1400 2 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 _1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-. 00 1.00 Initial Bse: 137 6 65 16 13 20 2 1611 108 94 1400 2 Added Vol; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 137 6 65 16 13 20 2 1611 108 94 1400 2 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 156 7 74 18 15 23 2 1831 123 107 1591 2 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 0 0 0 0 Reduced Val: 156 7 74 18 15 '23 2 1831 123 107 1591 2 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 163 7 78 18 15 23 2 1922 129 107 1670 2 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.77 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.89 0.83 0.89 Lanes: 1.00 0.08 0.92 0..33 0.26 0.41 0.01 1.87 0.12 1.00 1.99 0.01 Final. Sat.: 1471 133 1443 511 415 638 4 3043 204 1685 3162 5 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.06 0.53 0.53 Crit Moves• **** **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.76 0.76 0.76 Volume/Cap: 0.92 0.44 0.44 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.46 0.70 0.70 Uniform Del: 19.8 18.6 18.6 21.8 21.8 21.8 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.6 2.9 2.9 IncremntDel: 19.9 0.3 0.3 60.9 60.9 60.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 1.0 0.6 0.6 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 36.7 16.1 16.1 79.5 79.5 79.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 6.6 3.1 3.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 36.7 1b.1 16.1 79.5 79.5 79.5 10.0 10.0 10.0 6.6 3.1 3.1 DesignOueue: 5 0 2 1 0 1 0 23 2 3 15 0 **x***xxxx*::xx*x*x************x************+xx:*:*****i:****::***************** Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010.14:17:24 Page 152-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report _ 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ********x**~********************:**********:**:**x:*******:**::***+******«:::*** Intersection #151 CENTINELA AVENUE/SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol.(Cap. (X): 0.794 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R= 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 9.0 Optimal Cycle: 48 Level Ofi Service: B :******x************x*********xx**x******e*x********::***:*::x*******:**.***z*** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include N1in. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 101 370 66 28 236 55 22 836 49 86 1107 49 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 101 370 66 28 236 55 22 836 49 86 1107 49 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 101 370 66 28 236 55 22 836 49 86 1107 49 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 i.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 .0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 115 420 75 32 268 63 25 950 56 98 1258 56 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 115 420 75 32 268 63 25 950 56 98 1255 56 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00-1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 i.05 Final Vol.: 115 420 75 32 268 63 25 998 ~ 58 98 1321 58 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.31 0.86 0.78 0.17 0.85 0.78 0.13 0.92 0.89 0.12 0.86 0.89 Lanes: 1.00 0.84 0-.16 1.00 0.80 0.20 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 1.92 0.08 Final Sat.: 589 1370 244 323 1291 301 255 3299 193. 231 3139 139 Capacity Analysis Module: _ Vol/Sat: 0.19 0.31 0.31 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.30 0.30 0.42 0.42 0.42 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53. Volume/Cap: 0.500.79 0.79 0.25 0.54 0.54. 0.18 0.57 0.57 0.80 0.79 0.79 Unifiorm Del: 10.7 12.4 12.4 9.5 10.8 10.8 5.6 7.2 7.2 8.7 8.7 8.7 IncremntDel: 1.1 3.7 3.7 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.2 11.5 0.9 0.9 Delay Adj: 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.65 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.85 Delay/Veh: 10.2 14.3 14.3 8.3 9.8 9.8 4.8 6.3 6.3 18.9 8.3 8.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 10.2 14.3 .14.3 8.3 9.8 9.8 4.8 6.3 6.3 18.9 8.3 8.3 Design0ueue: 2 9 2 1 6 1 0 17 1 2 23 1 Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27, 2010 14:17:24 Page 168-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM 4-Way Stop Method (Future Volume Alternative) ~~~<xx~t~~~xzxxxxx+~««xx:x~~xt~zx•~x~~zxx+xxxx~:e~x«xxx~~:xxxxxx~~~~xx~~xx~:x.:xx Intersection #168 TWENTY-THIRD STREET/ARIZONA AVENUE (UNSIG) xx:txxx~~x~x:t:t:tz~x~xx~:.e:xxasxx~~~xtx~xxxxxx:xx~:ti:~x~:x~xzxx~~xxxxxxx~x~f x:~~+ta Cycle (sec): 1 Critical Vol.lCap. (X): 0.392 Loss Time (sec): 0 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 3.9 Optimal Cycle: 0 Level Ofi Service: A Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Stop Sign Rights: Include Include Include Include Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 31 133 12 10 154 10 5 55 58 24 74 21 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 31 133 12 10 154 10 ~ 5 55 58 24 74 21 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 31 133 12 10 154 10 5 55 58 24 74 21 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 PHF Volume: 41 177 16 13 205 13 7 73 77 32 99 28 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0- 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 41 177 16 13 205 13 7 73 77 32 99 28 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 41 177 16 13 205 13 7 73 77 32 99 28 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 665 665 665 630 630 630 401 .401 401 513 513 513 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Lanes: 0.18 0.75 0.07 0.06 0.88 0.06 0.04 0.47 0.49 0.20 0.62 0.18 Final Sat.: 117 503 45 36 558 36 17 187 197 103 319 91 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.31 0.31 0.31 Drit Moves: ~~ " ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ApproachV/S: 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.31 Delay/Veh: 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.4 4.4 4.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 1,00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 3.8 3.8 3.8 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.4 -4.4 4.4 3.2 3.2 3.2 LOS by Move: A A A A A A A A A A A A ApproachDel: 3.8 4.1 4.4 3.2 Delay Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ApprAdjDel: 3.8 4.1 4.4 3.2 LOS by Appr: A A A A xxxx~x~z~+x~xx:xxx~:txxx~~~<x:xx~~z~xz~a~~xx~:xxxx~x~xxxx:exxx~~~x~z«x~~xxxx~zx~re Defiault Scenario Mon Sep 27,.2010 14:17:24 Page 171-1 Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Ntethod (Future Volume Alternative) :*r::t*:t***i::t**xx:x****x***:tx*xx**x******x*****x*x:t*****************::***x*x***:xx Intersection #171 TWENTIETH STREET (WEST)/MONTANA AVENUE (102) Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.847 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.7 Optimal Cycle: 58 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T- R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Permitted Rights :_ Include Include Include Include Ntin. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 0 0 78 0 30 9 838 0 0 445 14 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 0 0 78 0 30 9 838 0 0 445 14 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 0 0 78 0 30 9 838 0 0 445 14 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 0 0 0 90 0 34 10 963 0 0 511 16 - Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 0 0 90 0 34 10 963 0 0 511 16 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 N1LF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 0 0 0 90 0 34 10 963 0 0 511 16 Saturation Flo~,v Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.23 0.75 1.00 1.001.00 0.84 Lanes: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Final Sat.: 0 0 0 916 0' 352 437 1419 0 0 1900 1602 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.00 0_.00 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.01 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.12 0.80 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.80 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.S5 0.00 0.85 0.03 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.01 Unifiorm Del: 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.8 0.0 19.8 0.9 2.8 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.9 IncremntDel: '0.0 0.0 0.0 23.3 0.0 23.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Delay Adj: 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 Delay/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0' 43.1 0.0 43.1 0.9 5.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.9 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh: 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.1 0.0 43.1 0.9 5.1 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.9 DesignOueue: 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 7 0 0 4 0 **::*************:********a:e***********:*****.*«***********:**:**x***:**:**x**«* Zoos ~~~ P~to~~~~ (REVis~® ~~RKf~o P~oGRam; Am Defiault Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 83-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM-Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #81 FOURTEENTH STREET/WILSHIRE BOULEVARD ::*:**x**x*x*x**x**xx***xxx*x*xx*******exex*:exr:x*:t****x*x*«******:*****xx***x*** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.757 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R =-.4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.3 Optimal Cycle: 42 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L -' T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted ~ Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 55 253 77 148 318 56 53 1259 71 61 955 65 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 55 253 77 148 318 56 53 1259 71 61 955 65 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 55 253 77 148 318 56 53 1267 71 61 957 65 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 60 278 85 163 349 62 58 1392 59 67 1052 54 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 278 85 163 349 62 58 1392 59 67 1052 54 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 60 278 85 163 349 62 58 1462 61 67 1104 56 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.23.0.93 0.67 0.38 1.00 0.85 0.11 0.85 0.88 0.11 0.85 0.88 Lanes: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.92 0.08 1.00 1.91 0.09 Final Sat.: 445 1773 1282 722 1900 1615 202 3120. 131 202 3094 158 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.14 0.16 0.07 0.23 0.18 0.04 0.29 0.47 0.47 0-. 33 0.36 0.36 Crit Moues: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 Volume/Cap: 0.46 0.53 0.22 0.76 0.62 0.13 0.47 0.76 0.76 0.54 0.58 0.58 Delay/Veh: 12.0 11.7 10.3 17.5 12.5 9.9 5.0 5.9 5.9 6.0 4.5 4.5 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 12.0 11.7 10.3 17.5 12.5 9.9 5.0 5.9 5.9 6.0. 4.5 4.5 DesignOueue: 1 7 2 4 9 1 1 21 1 1 15 1 *******x**x************x**x*x*****x**********x*x**************:******::*::***:** Defiault Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 84-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJHPHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #82 FOURTEENTH STREET/ARIZONA AVENUE Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol.lCap. (X): 0.469 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.0 Optimal Cycle; 23 Level Ofi Service: B *********************************:******x*x******~~*~*********x****x******'x *xx*~ Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T-- R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 39 288 67 16 386 14 19 87 63 27 70 26 Growth Adj: 1.00 1:00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 39 288 67 16 386 14 19 87 63 27 70 26 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 39 288 67 16 386 14 19 89 63 27 70 26 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.84 PHF Volume: 46 343 60 19 460 13 23 106 56 32 83 23 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 46 343 60 19 460 13 23 106 56 32 8$ 23 PCE Adj; 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 46 343 60 19 460 13 23 106 56 32 83 23 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.24 0.86 0.78 0.32 0.88 0.80 D.66 0.66 0.66 0.63 0.63 0.63 Lanes: 1.00 0.84 0:16 1.00 0.97 0.03 0.12 0.58 0.30 0.23 0.60 0.17 Final Sat.: 459 1375 240 606 1623 44. 154 719. 382 276 715 199 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.25 0.25 0.03 0.28 0.28 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.12 0.12 0.12 Crit Moves: **** *~" Green/Cycle: 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.31 Volume/Cap:. 0.17 0.41 0.41 0.05 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.37 0.37 0.37 Delay/Veh: 3.4 4.2 4.2 3.2 4.5 4.5 11.4 11.4 11.4 10.6 10.6 10.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 3.4 4.2 4.2 3.2 4.5. 4.5 11.4 11.4 11.4 10.6 10.6 10.6 DesignOueue: 1 5 1 0 7 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 ***:*****.*,:*::*:*:**x****.*********x*****xxx*******~*****xx:x****:*~**~**~~*xt* Defiault Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 85-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM 1EVEL OFSERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #83 FOURTEENTH STREET/SANTA MONIGA BOULEVARD Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.517 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh):. 7.2 Optimal Gycle: 25 Level Ofi Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 58 331 80 88 377 31 34 670 47 51 573 64 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 58 331 80 88 377 31 34 670 47 51 573 64 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 6 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ Initial Fut: 58 331 80 SS 377 31 34 692 47 51 579 64 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 O.S9 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 PHF Volume: 65 372 90 99 424 35 38 77S 53 57 651 72 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 65 372 90 99 424 35 38 778 53 57 651 72 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF.Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00.1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 65 372 90 99 424 35 38 816 55 57 6S3 76 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 -1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 19D0 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.21 1.03 0.68 0.28 1.03 0.68 0.20 0.88 0.95 0.20 0.89 0.95 Lanes: ~ 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 1.81 0.19 Final Sat.: 403 1965 1290 531 1965 1290 379 3154 214 379 3053 337 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol(Sat: 0.16 0.19 0.07 0.19 0.22 0.03 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.15 0.22 0.22 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 Volume/Cap: 0.39 0.45 0.17 0.45 0.52 0.06 0.20 0.52 0.52 0.30 0.45 0.45 Delay/Veh: 8.5 S.4 7.1 8.8 8.8 6.8 5.4 6.7 6.7 5.9 6.3 6.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 8.5 S.4 7.1 8.8 8.8 6.8 5.4 6.7 6.7 5.9 6.3 ~ 6.3 DesignOueue: 1 S 2 2 9 1 1 14 1 1 12 1 **:*****************~********x****:x****************:*******:::*x*************** Default Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 86-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE NlITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #84 FOURTEENTH STREET/BROADWAY ******x*x************xx**:t***xx:t****:tx*:t********.i:*******:e*******:*:****x*z*x***: Cycle (sec): 6o Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.604 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8.0 Optimal Cycle: 29 Level Ofi Service: B *************:x**x**:*****************:e****x****xxx*******~***:********sx*'**x*x* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control:. Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Volume Module:. Base Vol: 36 396 35 53 422 48 29 213 26 17 263 43 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00.1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 36 396 35 53 422 48 29 213 26 17 263 43 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 36~ 396 35 53 422 48 29 215 26 17 263 43 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 .0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 40 435 29 58 464 40 32 236 29 19 289 47 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 40 435 29 58 464 40 32 236 29 19 289 47 PCE Adj: 1.00 ].00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Val.: 40 435 29 58 464 40 32 236 29 19 289 47 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1.900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.17 0.87 0.79 0.21 0.87 0.79 0.39 D.73 0.78 0.43 0.71 0.78 Lanes: 1.00.0.93 0.07 1.00 0.91 0.09 1.00 0.90 0.10 1.00 0.87 0.13 Final Sat.: 325 1543 102 393 1513 129 741 1249 151 817 1169 191 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.12 0.25 0.28 0.15 0.31 0.31 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.02 0.25 0.25 Crit Moves: **** *""" Green/Cycle: 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.41 Volume/Cap: 0.24 0.56 0.56 0.29 0.60 0.60 0.11 0.46 0.46 0.06 0.60 0.60 Delay/Veh: 5.5 7.2 7.2 5.8 7.7 7.7 7.1 8.8 8.8 6.9 9.7 9.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Ueh: 5.5 7.2 7.2 5.8 7.7 7.7 7.1 8.8 8.8 6.9 9.7 9.7 Design0ueue: 1 8 1 1 8 1 1 5 1 0 6 1 ****..*:********************::x*********~*x***:***+.*:**~*****************:***** Default Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 93-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCP4 Operations Method(FUture Volume Alternative) **********+:**x**xxx********x***xx********xxx**z*****************.*:*:*xxx******* Intersection #92 SEVENTEENTH STREET/MONTANA AVENUE ******z***:*:e********:****:xxzx*x*x*x~«xx**:******x:xz*:***+:****************:: Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.769 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.7 Optimal Cycle: 44 Level Ofi Service: B :**********~xxxzx***x***x****************x*x*xx**x:***********************'***<** Approach: North Bound. South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T ~- R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 48 62 34 31 107 22 30 571 63 26 446 19 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 48 62 34 31 107 22 30 571 63 26 446 19 Added Vol: 0 0 0 -6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 48 62 34 25 107 22 30 571 63 26 446 18 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: O.SO 0.80 0.80 O.SO 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 PHF Volume: 60 78 32 31 134 2S 38 714 59 33 558 17 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 60 78 32 31 134 28- 38 714 59 33 558 17 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 60 78 32 31 134 28 38 714 59 33 558 17 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.54 0.60 0.54 0.65 0.72 0.65 0.23 0.74 0.79 0.10 0.74 0.79 Lanes: 0.37 0.43 0.20 0.17 0.68 0.15 1.00 0.93 0.07 1.00 0.97 0.03 Final Sat.: 381 492 203 216 923 190 437 1304 10S 190 1369 41 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.09 0.55 0.55 0.17 0.41 0.41 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 Volume/Cap: 0.77 0.77 0.77 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.12 0.77 0.77 0.24 0.57 0.57 Delay/Veh: 24.7 24.7 24.7 19.9 19.9 19.9 1.8 4.9 4.9 2.1 3.2 3.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 24.7 24.7 24.7 19.9 19.9 19.9 1.8 4.9 4.9 2.1 3.2 3.2 DesignOueue: 2 2 1 1 4 1 0 8 1 0 6 O **********************************::x**~t*****xxxxx*******x**********«**xx**t**x Default Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 94-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY --- - --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *********x*****************xxx**************x******:******:**************x*xx*xx Intersection #93 SEVENTEENTH STREET/WILSHIRE BOULEVARD *********************:**:*******x******x*x*******::*******~**********:*«*******: Cycle (sec): ~ 60 CriticalVO1./Cap. (X): 0.762 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 8:1 Optimal Cycle: 43 Level Ofi Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: .44 170 66 151 315 79 23 1248 50 58 1032 70 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 44 170 66 151 315 79 23 1248 50 58 1032 70 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 2 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 44 170 66 151 315 79 23 1256 50 58 1034 70 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.92 0.92 0.92 0..92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 0.92 PHF Volume: 48 185 54 164 342 64 25 1365 41 63 1124 57 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 48 185 54 164 342 64 25 1365 41 63 1124 57 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 48 185 5'4 164 342 64 25 1433 43 63 1180 60 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.19 0.85 0.78 0.41 0.86 0.78. 0.11 0.87 0.90 0.11 0.86 0.89 Lanes: 1.00 0.76 0.24 1.00 0.83 0.17 1.00 1.94 0.06 1.00 1.91 0.09 Final Sat.: 355 1228 358 780 1358 255 209 3213 96 209 3120 i5S Capacity Analysis Module: VollSat: 0.13 0.15 0.15 0.21 0.25 0.25 0.12 0:45 0.45 0.30 0.38 0.38 Crit Moves• **** **** - Green/Cycle: 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 Volume/Cap: 0.41 0.45 0.45 0.64 0.76 0.76 -0.20 0.76 0.76 0.52 0.65 0.65 Delay/Veh: 11.3 10.7 10.7 14.5 16.0 16.0 3.9 7.0 7.0 6.3 5.6 5.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 11.3 10.7 10.7 14.5 16.0 16.0 8.9 7.0 7.0 6.3 5.6 5.6 DesignQueue: 1 4 1 4 8 2 0 22 1 1 18 1 Default Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 95-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *:**:***************:**«*:**:**************:**xx********************xx**x******. Intersection #94 SEVENTEENTH STREET/ARIZONA AVENUE Cycle (sec): 60. Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.492 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.7 Optimal Cycle: 24 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T _- R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 68 240 37 20 351 31 16 101 80 20 100 34 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 68 240 37 20 351 -31 16 101 80 20 100 34 Added Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 68 240 37 20 351 31 16 103 80 20 100 34 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: ~ 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 O.S3 0.83 PHF Volume: 82 289 33 24 423 28 19 124 72 24 120 31 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 82 289 33 24 423 28 19 124 72 24 120 31 PCE Adj: - 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 82 289 33 24 423 28 19 124 72 24 120 31 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.24 0.87 0.79 0.37 0.87 0.79 0.65 0.63 0.65 0.65 0.63 0.65 Lanes: 1.00 0,89 0.11 1.00 0.93 0.07 0.09 0.58 0.33 0.13 0.70 0.17 Final Sat.: 461 1469 170 709 1543 102 109 700 408 167 835 213 Capacity Analysis Module: Val/Sat: 0.18 0.20 0.20 0.03 0.27 0.27 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.14 0.14 0.14 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.36 Volume/Cap: 0.32 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.40 0.40 0.40 Delay/Veh: 4.9 4.8 4.8 3.9 5.6 5.6 10.4 10.4 10.4 9.6 9.6 9.6 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 4.9 4.8 4.8 3.9 5.6 5.6 10.4 10.4 10.4 9.6 9.6 9.6 Design0ueue: 1 4 1 0 7 0 0 3 2 1 3 1 Defiault Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 96-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***************x*~*x:*x*•i**********x***********x************::*****~*********** Intersection #95 SEVENTEENTH STREET/SANTA NIONICA BOULEVARD ******x**********:ex~*********x*x*****:*******x***xx**x*a*x~****:*****~********** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.540 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 6.9 Optimal Cycle: 26 Level Ofi Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 57 203 34 78 298 42 53 741 46 24 747 90 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 57 203 34 78 298 42 53 741 46 24 747 90 Added Vol: -0 0 =4 0 0 0 0 22 0 -1 6 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 57 203 30 78 298 42 53 763 46 23 753 90 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 63 223 25 86 327 35 58 838 51 25 827 99 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 63 223 25 86 327 35 58 838 51 25 827 99 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 63 223 25 S6 327 35 58 880 53 25 869 104 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.31 0.93 0.85 0.46 0.93 0.85 0:12 0.89 0.95 0.16 0.88 0.94 Lanes: 1.00 0.89 0.11 1.00 0.90 0.10 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 1.80 0.20 Final Sat.: 588 1579 175 865 1587 168 228 3201 193 304 3011 360 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.11 0.14 0.14 0.10 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.28 0.28 0.08 0.29 0.29 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.38 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.53 Volume/Cap: 0.25 0.37 0.37 0.26 0.54 0.54 0.48 0.51 0.51 0.16 0.54 0.54 Delay/Veh: 8.5 8.8 8.8 8.3 9.8 9.8 7.4 6.0 6.0 4.6 6.0 6.0 - User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 8.5 8.8 8.8 8.3 9.8 9.8 7.4 6.0 6.0 4.6 6.0 6.0 DesignOueue: 1 5 1 2 7 1 1 15 1 0 14 2 **:*******:********************x*x:t~*****:*********~**+~~****:*:****~<******:*** Defiault Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 97-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY - Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCN1 Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ******:**x********e*~***z***********x*x*:t**~****:*****:*:****:************x***** Intersection #96 SENVENTEENTH STREET/BROADWAY *******:*******:****::**.******x**xx*******x**f::t*x*********.:**.******:**:**:*** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.567 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 7.7 Optimal Cycle: 27 Level Ofi Service: B ***********:***~*~***x***************e******x******x************:*******.**'****** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T- R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include .Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 42 251 27 43 341 46 14 250 31 26 261 58 Growth-Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 42 251 27 43 341 46 14 250 31~ 26 261 58 Added Vol: 0 -4 0 0 -1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 42 247 27 43 340 46 14 252 31 26 261 58 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0-. 88 PHF Volume: 48 281 23 49 386 39 16 286 35 30 297 66 Reduct Val: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 -0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 48 281 23 49 386 39 16 286 35 - 30 297 66 PCE Adj:. 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 48 281 23 49 386 39 16 286 35 30. 297 66 Saturation Flow Module: - Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.29 0.87 0.79 0.38 0.87 0.79 0.38 0.73 0.78 0.35 0.72 0.78 Lanes: 1.00 0.92 0.08 1.00 0.90 0.10 1.00 0.90 0.10 1.00 0.83 0.17 Final Sat.: 550 1518 124 716 1489 151 722 1247 153 665 1140 253 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.18 0.18 0.07 0.26 0.26 0.02 0.23 0.23 0.04 0.26 -0.26 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.46 Volume/Cap: 0.19 0.40 0.40 0.15 0.57 0.57 0.05 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.57 0.57 Delay/Veh: 6.3 7.2 7.2 6.1 8.1 8.1 5.8 7.8 7.8 5.9 8.1 8.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 6.3 7.2 7.2 6.1 8.1 8.1 5.8 7.8 7.8 5.9.8.1 8.1 Design0ueue: 1 5 0 1 7 1 0 5 1 1 6 1 Defiault Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 103-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ***~xx*x***x*xx**x*x*a*:tx,t~~xx:t**+**x**,t***:********xx*~xxx*:t*x******x**x:t~*<.*. Intersection #102 TWENTIETH STREET (EAST)/MONTANA AVENUE (171) ****~~x:t~*:t************~**r***~**xxx*x~*~~**x*******:ex~x**~x*********x~x~x****x* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X); 1.006 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+p 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 11.9 Optimal Cycle: 168 Level Of Service: B Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R -L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Split Phase Split Phase Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include - Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 147 0 78 0 0 0 0 672 166 106 459 - 0 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 147 0 78 0 0 0 0 672 166 106 459 0 Added Vol: 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 149 0 79 0 0 0 0 672 174 109 459 0 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 0.87 PHF Volume: 171 0 91 0 0 0 0 772 200 125 528 0 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 171 0 91 0 0 0 0 772 200 125 528 0 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 171 0 91 0 0 0 0 772 200 125 528 0 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900.1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.92 1.00 0-. 73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.85, 0.08 0.75 1.00 Lanes: 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 Final Sat.: 1745 0 1378 0 0 0 0 1900 1615 152 1419 0 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.10 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.12 0.82 0.37 0.00 Crit Moves: **** ~ **** Green/Cycle: 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.82 0.00 Volume/Cap: 1.01 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.15 1.01 0.45 0.00 Delay/Veh: 72.5 0.0 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.7 49.2 1.1 0.0 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 72.5 0.0 25.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 D.0 1.2 0.7 49..2 1.1 0.0 DesignOueue: 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 3 0 *************x**~********~~********xx*****x:*****xx******xx:******:x*****~~**xxx Defiault Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 104-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #103 TWENTIETH STREET/WILSHIRE BOULEVARD *****:*x****xx***x***x*x**:t*x**xx****i:*:t*,t**x***a*+**:***********xxx*:**.******* Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.233 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 37.1 Optimal Cycle; 180 Level Ofi Service: D Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound Nlest Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 133 297 125 167 535 32 35 1272 159 150 1169 59 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Initial Bse: 133 297 125 167 535 32 35 1272 159 150 1169 59 Added Vol: 1 2 1 3 8 0 0 6 3 2 1 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 134 299 126 170 543 32 35 1278 162 152 1170 59 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 138 308 130 175 560 33 36 1318 125 157 1206 46 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 138 308 130 175 560 33 36 1318 125 157 1206 46 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 138 324 130 175 560 33 36 1383 132 157 1266 48 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.26 0.93 0.85 0.43 1.02 0.99 0.10 0.85 0.85 0.10 0.86 0.89 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.94 0.06 1.00 1.83 0.17 1.00 1.93 0.07 Final Sat.: 496 3547 1615 808 1832 108 190 2973 283 190 3145 119 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.28 0.09 0.08 0.22 0.31 0.31 0.19 0.47 0.47 0.82 0.40 0.40 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle; 0.25 0.25. 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 Volume/Cap: 1.12 0.37 0.32 .0.88 1.23 1.23 0.28 0.70 0.70 1.23 0.60 0.60 Delay/Veh: 129.7 12.2 12.1 36.2 157 157.1 2.9 4.5 4.5 176.4 3.8 3.8 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 129.7 12.2 12.1 36.2 157 157.1 2.9 4.5 4.5 176.4 3.8 3.8 Designflueue: 4 8 3 5 15 1 0 17 2 2 15 1 Defiault Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 105-1 SAINT JOHN'S-HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level 0'f Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) *****************x*******xx*****x****<*******xx*************x*********z******:*• Intersection #104 TWENTIETH_STREET/ARIZONA AVENUE Cycle (sec): 60 Critical vol./Cap. (X): 0.927 Loss Time (sec): - 5-(Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 15.8 Optimal Cycle: 87 Level Ofi Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L- T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Val: 101 560 96 26 892 34 143 80 153 87 107 37 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 101 560 96 26 892 34 143 80 153 87 107 37 Added Vol: 1 5 1 -4 16 0 0 -2 3 3 0 -1 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 102 565 97 22 908 34 143 78 156 90 107 36 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.88 0'.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 0.88 PHF Volume: 116 642 110 25 1032 39 163 89 133 102 122 31 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 116 642 110 25 1032 39 163 89 133- 102 122 31 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 MLF Adj: 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 .1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 122 674 116 26 1083 41 163 89 133 102 122 31 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900. 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.58 0.54 0.58 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.49 0.45 0.49 0.50 0.48 0.50 Lanes: 0.25 1.51 0.24 0.05 1.88 0.07 0.42 0.24 0.34 0.39 0.49 0.12 Final Sat.: 278 1539 264 77 3172 119 395 215 323 373 444 112 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.41 0.41. 0.41 0.27 0.27 0.27 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Volume/Cap: 0.93 0.93 0.93 ,0.72 0.72 0.72 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.62 0.62 0.62 Delay/Veh: 20.0 20.0 20.0 9.4~ 9.4 9.4 29.5 29.5 29.5 9.2 9.2 9.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 -1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 20.0 20.0 20.0 9.4 9.4 9.4 29.5 29.5 29.5 9.2 9.2 9.2 Design0ueue: 2 13 2 0 21 1 3 2 3 2 2 1 Defiault Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 106-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method(FutureVolume Alternative) x********xx****xx******x**x*****:t:*x*xazx****«***xx*zxx**:**xx: x:tx*x**x**e*****: Intersection #105 TWENTIETH STREET/SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD ****~****:***.***:*:*******x*x*~*.*~***x:e***********~~*..********~.*.***:*..**** Cycle (sec): 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.236 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 20.0 -Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Ofi Service: C Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 100 618 140 .134 702 42 61 677 111 138 808 249 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 100 618 140 134 702 42 61 677 111 138 808 249 Added .Vol: - 0 -7 49 25 1 2 -2 19 0 0 3 -12 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 100 611 189 159 703 44 59 696 111 138 811 237 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-. 00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.89 0.69 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.89 0._89 0.89 PHF Volume: 112 687 212 179 790 49 66 782 125 155 911 - 266 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0~ 0 - 0 0 0 0 Reduced Val: 112 687 212 179 790 49 66 782 12S 155 911 266 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1-. 05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 112 721 223 179 829 52 66 821 131 155 957 280 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.18 0.99 1.03 0.16 0.89 0.95 0.-16 1.05 1.05 0.15 1.04 1.04 Lanes: 1.00 1.54 0.46 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 1.72 0.28 1.00 1.55 0.45 Final Sat.: 348 2905 899 304 3195 200 305 3437 548 285 3052 892 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.32 0.25 0.25 0.59 0:26 0.26 0.22 0.24 0.24 0.54 0.31 0.31 Crit Moves; **** **'* Green/Cycle: 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Volume/Cap: 0.68 0.52 0.52 1.24 0.55 0.55 0.49 0.54 0.54 1.24 0.71 0.71 Delay/Veh: 11.7 7.2 7.2 165.5 7.3 7:3 8.9 8.1 8.1 170.3 9.3 9.3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 11.7 7.2 7.2 165.8 7.3 7.3 8.9 8.1 ~8.1 170.3 9.3 9.3 Design0ueue: 2 13 4 3 15 1 1 16 3 3 20' 6 Default Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 107-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #106 TWENTIETH STREET/BROADWAY Cycle (sec): 50 Critical Vol.(Cap. (X): 0.730 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay(sec/veh): 7.7 Optimal Cycle: 39 Level Of Service: B *****'k*'***"k***"k'k*'***!'k**************************1'*'*'k*************~*************** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L -- T- R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include. Min. Green: `0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 110 884 96 75 798 48 37 269 67 46 306 121 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00- 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 110 884 96 75 798 48 37 269 67 46 306 121 Added Vol: 0 2 9 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 36 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 110 886 105 75 801 48 37 271 67 46 306 157 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1-. 00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94 PHF Volume: 117 943 112 80 S52 51 39 288 71 49 326 125 Reduct Vol: 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0- 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 117 943 112 80 852 51 39 288 71 49 326 125 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: 117 990 117 80 895 54 39 288 71 49 326 125 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.14 0.98 1.05 0.12 0.98 1.06 0.21 0.80 0.83. 0.25 0.96 1.03 Lanes: 1.00 1.80 0.20 1.00 1.89 0.11 1.00 0.81 0.19 1.00 0.74 0.26 Final Sat.: 274 3349 397 220 3544 212 407 1231 304 474 1340 516 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.43 0.30 0.30 0.36 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.23 0.23 0.10 0.24 0.24 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 Volume/Cap: 0.73 0.51 0.51 0.62 0.43 0.43 0.29 0.70 0.70 0.31 0.73 0.73 Delay/Veh: 11.4 4.8 4.8 11.4 4.6 4.6 9.9 14.3 14.3 9.9 13.7 13.7 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDe1/Veh: 11.4 4.8 4.8 11.4 4.6 4.6 9.9 14.3 14.3 9.9 13.7 13.7 Design0ueue: 2 15 2 1 13 1 1 7 2 1 8 3 Default Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 108-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1. 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative] ::*x****************x*******:*********:e:*********x~*****xx********x*******x*x:e** Intersection #107 TWENTIETH STREET/COLORADO AVENUE *:****x***x*****~x**x*****x**x**z:tx***************xaxx**xx**x**xxxx*x'x+********* Cycle (sec): 60 ~ Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 1.395 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 109.0 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Ofi Service: F Approach: North Bound" South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T- R L - T - R Control: Permitted - Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include ~ Include Include Mina Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 87 954 328 214 743 52 76 724 181 129 623 164 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: '87 954 328 214 743 52 76 724 181 129 623 164 Added Vol: 0 ti 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 PasserByVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 87 965 328 214 746 52 76 724 iSi 129 623 162 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 PHF Volume: 94 1038 353 230 802 56 82 778 195 139 670 174 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 94 1038 353 230 802 56 82 778 195 139 670 174 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.05 1.05 FinalVO1.: 94 1090 353 230 842 59 82 817 195 139 703 183 Saturation Flow Module: Sat(Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.19 1.08- 0.91 0.12 0.89 0.95 0.35 1.00 0.91 0.39 1.00. 1.04 Lanes: 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.88 0.12 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 1.60 0.40 Final Sat.: 361 3930 1728 220 3175 221 714 3795 1728 740 3047 792 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.26 0.28 0.20 1.05 0.27 0.27 0.11 0.22 0.11 0.19 0.23 0.23 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 Volume/Cap: 0.35 0.37 0.27 1.40 0.35 0.35 0.69 1.30 0.65 1.13 1.40 1.40 Delay/Veh: 1.8 1.7 1.5 308.8 1.7 1.7 20.9 201 17.5 125.2 293 293.1 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 AdjDel/Veh: 1.8 1.7 1.5 305.8 1.7 1.7 20.9 201 17.5 125.2 293 293.1 Design0ueue: 1 10 3 2 7 1 2 24 6 4 21 5 Default Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010.12:36:09 Page 109-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY - Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #108 TWENTIETH STREET/OLYMPIC BOULEVARD Cycle (sec): 60 - Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 2.462 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (seclveh): 1124.4 Optimal Cycle: 180 Level Of Service: F ***************e******x:e**x**x*~************x*x****::********************x~**xx* Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 173 1134 313 303 565 - 164 116 751 36 197 820 166 Growth Adj: 1.00 1..00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Initial Bse: 173 1134 313 303 565 164 116 751 36 197 820 166 Added Vol: 0 13 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 Passer6yVol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 173 1147 313 303 568 164 116 751 36 197 620 165 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 1.00 PHF Adj: 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 PHF Volume: 178 1182 323 312 586 127 120 774 28 203 845 170 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 178 1182 323 312 586 127 120 774 28 203 845 170 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1..05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 Final Vol.: 178 1242 339 312 615 133 120 813 29 203 888 179 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.23 1.04 1.04 0.08 0.93 0.93 0.63 1.00 0..96 0.65 1.04 1.04 Lanes: 1.00 1.57 0.43 1.00 1.64 0.36 1.00 1.93 0.07 1.00 1.66 0.34 Final Sat.: 432 3098 846 157 2906 629 1199 3646 131 1239 3283 661 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.41 0.40 0.40 1.99 0.21 0.21 0.10 0.22 0.22 0.16 0.27 0.27 Crit Iuloves: **** **** Green/Cycle:. 0.81 0.81 0..81 0.81 0.81 0.81 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11 Volume/Cap: 0.51 0.50 0.50 2.46 0.26 0.26 0.91 2.03 2.03 1.49 2.46 2.46 Delay/Veh: 1.8 1.3 1.3 3126 0.9 0.9 53.1 1515 1515 456.2 3118 3118 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 1.6 1.3 1.3 3126 0.9 0.9 53.1 1515 1515 456.2 3118 3118 Design0ueue: 1 9 2 2 4 1 4 26 1 6 28 6 Defiault Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 110-1 - SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY Level Ofi Service Computation Report 1994 HCNI Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) Intersection #109 TWENTIETH ST/I-10 EB OFF-RAMP ***************:********x***x******xz*x***x**:*:ex*:*****:************:*****x**** Cycle (sec): ~ 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.946 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec/veh): 17.5 Optimal Cycle: 98 Level Of Service: C ****************:t*******x******:*******x***************:*****:************'s***** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Split Phase Split Phase Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 0 0 1 1 0~ 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: Base Vol: 0 1346 22 3 569 0 700 0 187 5 ~ 0 3 - Growth Adjs 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00. 1.00 Initial Bse: 0 1346 22 3 569 0 700 0 187 5 0 3 Added Vol: 0 -5 0 0 -1 0 18 0 0. 0 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 0 1341 22 3 568 0 718 0 187 5 0 3 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 '1.00 PHF Adj: 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 O.S6 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 ,. PHF Volume: - 0 1559 26 3 660 0 835 0 217 6 0 3 Reduct Val: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 0 1559 26 3 660 0 835 0 217 6 0 3 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1-. 00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Vol.: -0 1637 27 4 693 -0 835 0 217 6 0 3 Saturation Flow Module: Sat/Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj-ustment: 1.00 1.10 1.00 0.83 0.91 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.85 0.82 1.00 0.82 Lanes: 0.00 1.96 0.04 0.01 1.99 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.62 0.00 0.38 Final Sat.: 0 4106 67 18 3449 0 1805 0 1615 979 0 587 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.01 - Crit Moves: **** **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.00 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.49 -0.01 0.00 0.01 Volume/Cap: 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.48.0.48 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.28 0.95 0.00 0.95 Delay/Veh: 0.0 19.1 19.1 8.3 8.3 0.0 23.0 0.0 5.9 203.2 0.0 203.2 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 0.0 19.1 19.1 8.3 8.3 0.0 23.0 0.0 5.9 203.2 O.D 203.2 Design0ueue: 0 36 1 0 14 0 16 0 4 0 0 0 **************************x***exx**********x**x***:**:***********:*<************ Default Scenario Tue Oct 19, 2010 12:36:09 Page 111-1 SAINT JOHN'S HOSPITAL AND HEALTH FUTURE (YEAR 2005) AM LEVEL OF SERVICE WITH SJH PHASE 1 1994 HCM OPERATIONS METHODOLOGY ---------------------------- - -------------------------------------------------- Level Of Service Computation Report 1994 HCM Operations Method (Future Volume Alternative) ************«****«*************************x***********:************:*.********* Intersection #110 TWENTIETH STREET/DELAWARE AVENUE **********:***********~*******«*:*::***x:**xx*************************:********* Cycle (sec): ~ 60 Critical Vol./Cap. (X): 0.529 Loss Time (sec): 5 (Y+R = 4 sec) Average Delay (sec(veh): 3.6 Optimal Cycle: 25 Level Of Service: A ********:*****:*********a*****************:***************************«***':E***** Approach: North Bound South Bound East Bound ~ West Bound Movement: L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R L - T - R Control: Permitted Permitted Permitted Permitted Rights: Include Include Include Include Min. Green: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lanes: 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1! 0 0 0 0 1! 0 0 Volume Module: -Base Vol: 32 1024 27 17 663 38 32 27 77 13 16 48 Growth Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1..00 Initial Bse: 32 1024 27 17 663 38 32 27 77 13 16 48 Added Vol: 0 -5 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0 PasserByVOl: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Initial Fut: 32 1019 27 17 662 38 32 27 77 13 16 48 User Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.75 PHF Adj: 0.91 0,91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 PHF Volume: 35 1120 30 19 727 31 35 30 63 14 18 40 Reduct Vol: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~ 0 0 0 0 0 Reduced Vol: 35 1120 30 19 727 31 '35 30 63 14 18 40 PCE Adj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 MLF Adj: 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.05 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Final Yol.: 35 1176 31 19 764 33 35 30 63 14 18 40 Saturation Flow Module: Sat(Lane: 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adjustment: 0.21 0.84 0.90 0.08 0.83. 0.89 0.62 0.68 0.62 0.62 0.68 0.62 Lanes: 1.00 1.95 0.05 1.00 1,92 0.08 0.28 0.21 0.51 0.20 0.23 0.57 Final Sat.: 393 3115 83 154 3038 131 328 277 593 240 295 665 Capacity Analysis Module: Vol/Sat: 0.09 0.38 0.38 0.12 0.25 0.25 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.06 Crit Moves: **** **** Green/Cycle: 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 Volume/Cap: 0.13 0.53 0.53 0.17 0.35 0.35 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.29 0.29 0.29 Delay/Veh: 1.8 2.7 2.7 1.9 2.2 2.2. 15.5 15.5 15.5 13.3 13.3 13,3 User DelAdj: 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Adj Del/Veh: 1.8 2.7 2.7 1.9 2.2 2.2 75.5 15.5 15.5 13.3 13.3 13.3 Design0ueue: 0 12 0 0 8 0 1 1 2 0 0 1