23

PROJECT TRAFFIC VOLUMES

Development of future traffic forecasts for the proposed project uses a three-step process similar

to the process described for the related projects. The process estimates the project’s trip

generation, trip distribution, and traffic assignment.

Project Trip Generation

Traffic generation forecasts for projects such as the Villa Marina Residential project are normally

developed by estimating traffic generation for each land use separately. The project trip

generation rates used for estimating future trips for the residential component of the proposed

project was developed using the trip rates contained in the ITE Trip Generation, 6th Edition based

on the Residential Condominium/Townhouse land use category, ITE Code 230. The commercial

portion of the trip generation was developed using the trip rates contained in the ITE Trip

Generation, 6th Edition based on the Shopping Center land use category, ITE Code 820.

The project site currently contains five separate structures comprised of a 6,000 square feet

retail store, a 12,000 square feet restaurant, and a 3,000 square feet fast food restaurant. Since

these lots are currently in use, existing trip generation was estimated for these uses and the net

project trip generation was reduced accordingly.

Table 5 presents the trip generation rates and resulting trip generation estimates for the proposed

project. As indicated in the table, the proposed project is expected to generate a net increase of

approximately 124 trips during the morning peak hour and 129 trips during the afternoon peak

hour.

Project Trip Distribution

The geographic distribution of traffic generated by the proposed project is dependent on the same

factors described above for related projects: land use and employment density in the study area,

level of congestion on the street system, and the characteristics of the street system itself. The

ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourSize Code Daily IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

Proposed ProjectCondominium 310 DU 230 1,817 23 113 136 145 72 217

Shopping Center 9,000 sq.ft 820 1,449 23 15 38 63 68 131 Pass-by Trips 50% (725) (12) (8) (19) (32) (34) (66)

Subtotal 2,541 34 120 155 176 106 282

Existing to be Removed

Shopping Center 21,038 sq.ft 820 2,502 38 25 63 147 160 307 Pass-by Trips 50% (1,251) (19) (13) (32) (74) (80) (154)

Subtotal 1,251 19 12 31 73 80 153

Total Net Trips 1,290 15 108 124 103 26 129

Condominium Rate: Daily = 5.86trips/dwelling unit AM = 0.44 In: 17% Out: 83%

PM = 0.70 [a] In: 67% Out: 33%

Shopping Center Rates: Daily = exp(0.643*ln(Z1)+5.866)trips/1000 sf AM = exp(0.596*ln(Z1)+2.329) In: 61% Out: 39%

PM = 14.6 [a] In: 48% Out: 52%

Source: Rates from ITE, Trip Generation Manual , 6th Edition, unless otherwise noted.[a] Rates from Coastal Corridor Specific Plan Ordinance

TABLE 5ESTIMATED PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

25

general geographic trip distribution pattern used in the assignment of the traffic generated by the

proposed project is illustrated in Figure 9.

Project Trip Assignment

The project trip generation estimates summarized in Table 5 and the distribution patterns illustrated in Figure 9 were used to assign the project-generated traffic to the local and regional street system and through the 11 study intersections. Figure 10 illustrates the assignment of the proposed project-generated peak hour traffic volumes at each of the study intersections during a typical weekday peak hour. CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS

The proposed project-generated traffic volumes in Figure 10 were then added to the cumulative base traffic volumes resulting in the cumulative plus project traffic volumes for the proposed project. Figure 11 illustrates the resulting projected cumulative plus project a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic volumes. These volumes represent projected future weekday peak hour traffic conditions including the completion of the proposed project.

LEGEND:

XX%

(XX%

- Project Site

NOT TO SCALE

N

FIGURE 9

TRIP DISTRIBUTION PATTERN

TE

- Inbound Percent

- Outbound Percent

Marina Exwy EB

Marina Exwy WB

Washington

Bl

Ven

ice B

l

Mindanao

Wy

Maxella

Av

Glencoe Av

2

1

6

3

4

8

7

5

10

9

2%

23%

25%

(2%(23%

4%

4%

16%

(20%

25%

10%

10%

15%(25%

35%

(25%(25%

29%

(25%

(25%

(5%(2

0%

16%

15%

5%

(25%

15%

(25%

64%

(50%(50%

36%

17%

(17%

(3%

3%

Projec

t

Drivewa

y

(3%

3%

20%

2%

N 35%

E 38%

S 25%

W 2%12%

8%

N

NOT TO SCALE

TE

LEGEND

- Analyzed Intersection#

PROJECT ONLY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

FIGURE 10

- Project Site

187

1

90

S Ven

ice B

lvd

Abbot

Washing

ton B

lvd

Admiralty Wy

Glencoe Ave

Redwood Ave

Mild

red Ave

Maxella

Ave

Mindanao

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11G

lencoe Ave

Walgrove A

ve

Kinney

Blvd

3(1)

*(3)

3(18)

*(3)

3(1)

18(4)

1(4)

2(16

)

27(7

)

4(26)

27(7

)5(1)22

(5)

2(16)

1(5)

2(15)

*(2)

3(24)

1(4)

2(1

)25(6

)

27(7

)

27(7

)

2(15)

27(7)

2(15)

27(7

) 2(10

)

4(26)

22(5

)

4(30)

27(7

)

27(7

)

5(36)

Alla

Rd

4

22(5

)

3(21

)

Way

2(10)

N

NOT TO SCALE

TE

LEGEND

- Analyzed Intersection#

- AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes##(##)

FIGURE 11

YEAR 2008 CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

* - Negligible Volumes

- Project Site

187

1

90

S Ven

ice B

lvd

Abbot

Washing

ton B

lvd

Admiralty Wy

Glencoe Ave

Redwood Ave

Mild

red Ave

Maxella

Ave

Mindanao

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11G

lencoe Ave

Walgrove A

ve

Kinney

Blvd

280(299)

132(280)

995(902)

100(144)

212(277)

1,625(2,018)68(94)

302(312)

669(815)

305(435)

189(249)

2,044(2,109)

26(102)

160(246)

950(1,070)21

(68)

134(514)

677(1,115)

270(512)

70(337)

36(126)

393(389)

42(120

)

648(586)1(5)

83(135)

1,877(2

,653)

68(85)

380(569)

272(496)

122(124)

2,714(2,556)

37(82)

49(84)

201(325)

100(187)

127(182)

25(82)

298(683)

62(208)

49(63)

86(148

)

66(94)

78(188)

362(446)

253(405)

604(553)

710(756)

116(181)

142(210)

1,600(2

,241)

139(170)

167(305)

523(1,031)

177(437)

533(536)

2,182(2

,226)

740(604)

10(14)

1,155(1,178)

25(31)

368(565)

788(1

,221)

486(586)

724(1

,293)

38(65)

322(307)959(1,201)422(484)

13(22)

501(1

,009)

81(102)

60(39)

154(191)

21(109)

227(305)

218(294)

37(37)

259(634)122(243)66(124)

18(51)

294(373)343(383)

934(805)

1,893(2

,642)

806(959)

242(373)

2,620(2

,810)

310(360)

184(218)

62(153)

147(263)

2,318(2

,823)

65(117)

167(192)

24(67)

246(394)

248(352)

77(190)

2,964(2

,930)

148(86

)84

(65)91

(86)

Alla

Rd

4

76(94)

48(53)

1,178(1,126)26

(30)

22(44)

82(154)

14(23)

23(26)

1,061(1,138)

102(62

)

150(131)

86(66)

Way

29

IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS

This section presents an analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed Villa Marina Residential

project on the local street system. The analysis compares the projected levels of service at each

study intersection with the proposed project to the cumulative base (no project) scenario to

determine potential project impacts, using significance criteria established by the City of Los

Angeles.

INTERSECTION SIGNIFICANT IMPACT CRITERIA

The City of Los Angeles established threshold criteria that determine whether a project has a

significant traffic impact at a specific intersection. Under the city’s guidelines, a project impact

would be considered significant if the following conditions are met:

Intersection Condition with Project Traffic

Project-related Increase

LOS V/C Ratio in V/C Ratio C > 0.700 – 0.800 Equal to or greater than 0.040 D > 0.800 – 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.020

E, F > 0.900 Equal to or greater than 0.010

Using these criteria, for example, a project would not have a significant impact at an intersection if

it is operating at LOS C after the addition of project traffic and the incremental change in the V/C

ratio is less than 0.040. If the intersection, however, is operating at a LOS F after the addition of

project traffic and the incremental change in the V/C ratio is 0.010 or greater, the project would be

considered to have a significant impact.

CUMULATIVE BASE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS

The results of the analysis of the 11 intersections under the cumulative base traffic conditions are

summarized in Table 6. Background traffic growth and traffic generated by related projects is

YEAR 2008 FUTURE CONDITIONSINTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE

Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project SignificantPeak Base [a] Project Increase Project

Intersection Hour V/C LOS V/C LOS in V/C Impact

1 Lincoln Blvd & AM 1.185 F 1.194 F 0.009 NOVenice Blvd PM 1.276 F 1.279 F 0.003 NO

2 Lincoln Blvd & AM 0.944 E 0.950 E 0.006 NOWashington Blvd PM 1.160 F 1.169 F 0.009 NO

3 Glencoe Ave & AM 0.590 A 0.608 B 0.018 NOWashington Blvd PM 0.953 E 0.965 E 0.012 YES

4 Redwood Ave AM 0.592 A 0.599 A 0.007 NOWashington Blvd PM 0.567 A 0.569 A 0.002 NO

5 Lincoln Blvd & AM 0.857 D 0.868 D 0.011 NOMaxella Ave PM 0.932 E 0.947 E 0.015 YES

6 Glencoe Ave & AM 0.318 A 0.336 A 0.018 NOMaxella Ave PM 0.582 A 0.602 B 0.020 NO

7 Mindanao Way & AM 0.353 A 0.393 A 0.040 NOGlencoe Ave PM 0.787 C 0.787 C 0.000 NO

8 Mindanao Way & AM 0.431 A 0.431 A 0.000 NOSR90 Marina WB PM 0.719 C 0.722 C 0.003 NO

9 Mindanao Way & AM 0.728 C 0.738 C 0.010 NOSR90 Marina EB PM 0.812 D 0.815 D 0.003 NO

10 Lincoln Blvd & AM 1.083 F 1.085 F 0.002 NOSR90 Marina Fwy PM 1.163 F 1.172 F 0.009 NO

11 Lincoln Blvd & AM 0.978 E 0.979 E 0.001 NOMindanao Way PM 1.107 F 1.109 F 0.002 NO

Notes: - All study Intersection are currently operating under ATSAC system.

TABLE 6

ITE Trip Gen

- With the exception of the Intersection of Mindanao Way & Glencoe Ave, All study intersections are projected to operate With ATCS under future conditions.

31

expected to cause a deterioration in operating conditions from the existing conditions even without

consideration of potential traffic associated with the proposed project. As indicated in Table 6,

four of the 11 intersections are projected to operate at unacceptable level of service (LOS E or F)

during the morning peak hour, while six of these intersections are also expected to operate at

unacceptable level of service during the afternoon peak hour.

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

The cumulative plus project peak hour traffic volumes illustrated in Figure 11 were analyzed to determine the projected year 2008 future operating conditions with the completion of the proposed project. Application of the significance criteria established by the City of Los Angeles indicates that the project would create significant traffic impacts at the intersections of Glencoe Avenue & Washington Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard & Maxella Avenue during the afternoon peak hours under cumulative plus project conditions. The other eight intersections, however, would have no significant project traffic impacts.

32

V. MITIGATION MEASURES

The traffic impact analyses in Chapter IV determined that development of the proposed Villa Marina Residential project is projected to cause significant impacts at two of the 11 study intersections.

PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES

Although all potential measures were considered while developing project mitigation measures,

the analysis concentrated on those measures that could use the following criteria: improvements

within the existing roadway right-of-way, improvements to the existing signal operations, and

improvements requiring right-of-way acquisition.

Physical Mitigation Measures

The proposed project is located in an area that is densely populated and nearly fully built-out.

Opportunities for physical mitigation measures such as flaring of intersection approaches to add

turn lanes, restriping of lanes to provide additional lanes, and improving traffic control devices

were investigated. The following are the suggested mitigation measures for the impacted study

intersections:

• Glencoe Avenue and Washington Boulevard - Restripe the westbound approach to

provide an additional left-turn lane. This would require removal of parking on the east leg of Washington Boulevard on the south side of the curb. Approximately eight on-street parking spaces would be removed.

• Lincoln Boulevard and Maxella Avenue - Widening the east leg of Maxella Avenue

would be required to mitigate the project impact at this location. This would require right-of-way acquisition from the gas station located on the southeast corner of the intersection to provide additional lane on the westbound approach. It is uncertain that the gas station would agree to right-of-way acquisition. Thus, no physical or operational mitigation measure appears feasible at this intersection.

33

EFFECTIVENESS OF MITIGATION MEASURES With the implementation of the suggested improvements, the significant project impacts would be

mitigated to levels of insignificance at one of the two impacted locations – Glencoe Avenue at

Washington Boulevard. Table 7 summarizes the effects of the proposed mitigation measures. As

shown in the table, the mitigation measures proposed above would reduce the V/C ratios to levels

less than significant (based on City of Los Angeles criteria) at one of the two impacted locations.

The project would result in an unmitigated significant impact at the intersection of Lincoln

Boulevard at Maxella Avenue.

Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project Significant Cumulative Plus Project SignificantPeak Base [a] Project Increase Project Project Increase Project

Intersection Hour V/C LOS V/C LOS in V/C Impact V/C LOS in V/C Impact

3 Glencoe Ave & AM 0.590 A 0.608 B 0.018 NO 0.564 A -0.026 NOWashington Blvd PM 0.953 E 0.965 E 0.012 YES 0.822 D -0.131 NO

5 Lincoln Blvd & AM 0.857 D 0.868 D 0.011 NO 0.868 D 0.011 NOMaxella Ave PM 0.932 E 0.947 E 0.015 YES 0.947 E 0.015 YES

Notes: - All study Intersection are currently operating under ATSAC system.

TABLE 7YEAR 2008 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH MITIGATIONS

INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

ITE Trip Gen Mitigation

35

VI. SITE ACCESS AND PARKING

VEHICULAR ACCESS Vehicular access to the Villa Marina Residential project would be provided via Maxella Avenue for

residential and business patrons as well as delivery vehicles. Driveways to the retail parking

supply would be provided on Maxella Avenue. A central driveway off Maxella Avenue would

provide access to the residential parking garages and would provide access to the existing hotel

located adjacent to the project boundary. In addition, residents would have access to “resident

only” parking via garage gates with an electronic permission feature. No vehicular access is

proposed along Lincoln Boulevard; however, signage directing access to the project would be

placed along both Maxella Avenue and Lincoln Boulevard.

Major arterials such as Lincoln Boulevard, Venice Boulevard, and Washington Boulevard and

secondary and collector roads such as Maxella Avenue, Mindanao Way, and Glencoe Avenue

offer many options for local access to the Villa Marina Residential project site. In addition, retail

employees and patrons traveling from east of the project site may access the site via the Marina

Freeway just south of the site with direct connections to and from the I-405. Lincoln Boulevard

also offers north-south access to the site from Santa Monica to the Los Angeles International

Airport (LAX).

PARKING As discussed in Chapter I, the Villa Marina Residential project proposes to supply a total of 691

parking spaces to accommodate the anticipated number of residents, guests, employees, and

patrons. According to the Official City of Los Angeles Municipal Code, Volume 1, as amended

through March 31, 2004, the following parking rates are required:

36

• A minimum of one parking space per dwelling unit of less than three habitable rooms

• A minimum of one and one-half parking spaces per dwelling unit of three habitable rooms

• A minimum of two parking spaces per dwelling unit of more than three habitable rooms

• One space per four dwelling units for visitors

• A minimum of four parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of general retail stores

Table 8 shows that the residential and commercial uses for the Villa Marina Residential project

would require a total of 609 spaces to meet the City of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code

requirements. The proposed supply of 691 spaces would be more than adequate to

accommodate the parking needs of the Villa Marina residents, patrons, employees, and guests.

TABLE 8PARKING GENERATION REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPOSED PROJECT

Estimated Parking Requirment

Land Use SizeCity of LA Planning and Zoning

Code

PROPOSED PROJECT

Residential Use 3 Habitable Rooms 250 Dwelling Units 1.5 Per DU 3753+ Habitable Rooms 60 Dwelling Units 2 Per DU 120Visitors 310 Dwelling Units 0.25 Per DU 78

Retail Use 9,000 Square Feet 4 Per 1,000 SF 36

NET PROJECT REQUIREMENTS 609

Note:a.

Parking Rates

Parking rates based on the Official City of Los Angeles Municipal Code, Volume 1, as amended through March 31, 2004.

City of LA Planning and Zoning Code Parking Rate

[a]

38

VII. REGIONAL/CMP ANALYSIS

This section presents the Congestion Management Program (CMP) transportation impact analysis. This analysis was conducted in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, June 2002). The CMP requires that when a traffic impact report is prepared for a project, traffic impact analyses be conducted for select regional facilities based on the quantity of project traffic expected to use these facilities. CMP TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The CMP guidelines for determining the study area of the analysis for CMP arterial monitoring intersections and for freeway monitoring locations are as follows:

• All CMP arterial monitoring intersections where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours of adjacent street traffic.

• All CMP mainline freeway monitoring locations where the proposed project will add 150 or

more trips, in either direction, during either the a.m. or p.m. weekday peak hours.

The nearest CMP arterial monitoring intersections to the project site is along Lincoln Boulevard at Venice Boulevard and at Marina Freeway (SR-90). Based on the incremental project trip generation estimates presented in Chapter III, the proposed project is not expected to add 50 or more new trips per hour to this location as shown in Figure 10. The intersection of Lincoln Boulevard and Venice Boulevard is projected to have 27 and 30 project trips during the morning and afternoon peak hour, respectively. At Lincoln Boulevard and SR-90, the total project traffic to be added would be 33 and 43 project trips during the morning and afternoon peak hour, respectively. Therefore, no further analysis of this CMP monitoring intersection is required. The nearest mainline freeway monitoring location to the project site is the San Diego Freeway (I-

405) north of Venice Boulevard. Based on the incremental project trip generation estimates, the

proposed project will not add 150 or more new trips per hour to this location in either direction. A

total of 10 and 38 project trips would be added at this location during the morning and afternoon

39

peak hours, respectively. Therefore, no further analysis of CMP freeway monitoring stations is

required.

The analysis indicates that the project would not have a significant impact on the Congestion

Management Plan system.

40

VIII. PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

An analysis was conducted to test the potential impacts of a smaller land use plan for the project.

As an alternate to the 310-unit project with 9,000 square feet of retail, this chapter analyzes the

effects of a project that contains 275 dwelling units in combination with 5,500 square feet of retail

uses.

ALTERNATE PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

Table 9 shows that the smaller project would generate 104 trips in the morning peak hour and

80 trips in the afternoon peak hour. This represents a reduction of 20 and 49 trips in the morning

and afternoon peak hours respectively when compared to the proposed project.

ALTERNATE PROJECT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The alternate project trips were assigned to the roadway system using the directional distribution

described earlier in this report. The alternate project trips were added to the future background

traffic levels shown in Figure 12 and a new set of capacity calculations were conducted for the

Cumulative plus Alternate Project traffic volumes.

Table 10 shows the results of the capacity calculations measuring the impacts on the alternate

project. As can be seen, the reduced project would not create a significant impact at any of the 11

study intersections.

ITE AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourSize Code Daily IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL

Proposed ProjectCondominium 275 DU 230 1,612 21 100 121 129 64 193

Shopping Center 5,500 sq.ft 820 1,056 17 11 28 38 42 80 Pass-by Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 2,668 38 111 149 167 106 273

Existing to be Removed

Shopping Center 21,038 sq.ft 820 2,502 38 25 63 147 160 307 Pass-by Trips 50% (1,251) (19) (13) (32) (74) (80) (154)

Subtotal 1,251 19 12 31 73 80 153

Total Net Trips 1,417 19 99 118 94 26 120

Condominium Rate: Daily = 5.86trips/dwelling unit AM = 0.44 In: 17% Out: 83%

PM = 0.70 [a] In: 67% Out: 33%

Shopping Center Rates: Daily = exp(0.643*ln(Z1)+5.866)trips/1000 sf AM = exp(0.596*ln(Z1)+2.329) In: 61% Out: 39%

PM = 14.6 [a] In: 48% Out: 52%

Source: Rates from ITE, Trip Generation Manual , 6th Edition, unless otherwise noted.[a] Rates from Coastal Corridor Specific Plan Ordinance

TABLE 9ESTIMATED ALTERNATE PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project SignificantPeak Base [a] Alternate Project Increase Project

Intersection Hour V/C LOS V/C LOS in V/C Impact

1 Lincoln Blvd & AM 1.185 F 1.192 F 0.007 NOVenice Blvd PM 1.276 F 1.277 F 0.001 NO

2 Lincoln Blvd & AM 0.944 E 0.949 E 0.005 NOWashington Blvd PM 1.160 F 1.165 F 0.005 NO

3 Glencoe Ave & AM 0.590 A 0.605 B 0.015 NOWashington Blvd PM 0.953 E 0.962 E 0.009 NO

4 Redwood Ave AM 0.592 A 0.599 A 0.007 NOWashington Blvd PM 0.567 A 0.568 A 0.001 NO

5 Lincoln Blvd & AM 0.857 D 0.866 D 0.009 NOMaxella Ave PM 0.932 E 0.941 E 0.009 NO

6 Glencoe Ave & AM 0.318 A 0.333 A 0.015 NOMaxella Ave PM 0.582 A 0.594 A 0.012 NO

7 Mindanao Way & AM 0.353 A 0.356 A 0.003 NOGlencoe Ave PM 0.787 C 0.787 C 0.000 NO

8 Mindanao Way & AM 0.431 A 0.431 A 0.000 NOSR90 Marina WB PM 0.719 C 0.721 C 0.002 NO

9 Mindanao Way & AM 0.728 C 0.737 C 0.009 NOSR90 Marina EB PM 0.812 D 0.813 D 0.001 NO

10 Lincoln Blvd & AM 1.083 F 1.084 F 0.001 NOSR90 Marina Fwy PM 1.163 F 1.170 F 0.007 NO

11 Lincoln Blvd & AM 0.978 E 0.978 E 0.000 NOMindanao Way PM 1.107 F 1.107 F 0.000 NO

Notes: - All study Intersection are currently operating under ATSAC system.

TABLE 10

ITE Trip Gen

- With the exception of the Intersection of Mindanao Way & Glencoe Ave, All study intersections are projected to operate With ATCS under future conditions.

YEAR 2008 FUTURE CONDITIONS WITH ALTERNATE PROJECTINTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE ANALYSIS

N

NOT TO SCALE

TE

LEGEND

- Analyzed Intersection#

- AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes##(##)

* - Negligible Volumes

- Project Site

YEAR 2008 CUMULATIVE PLUS ALTERNATIVE PROJECT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES

FIGURE 12

187

1

90

S Ven

ice B

lvd

Abbot

Washing

ton B

lvd

Admiralty Wy

Glencoe Ave

Redwood Ave

Mild

red Ave

Maxella

Ave

Mindanao

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11G

lencoe Ave

Walgrove A

ve

Kinney

Blvd

Alla

Rd

4

Way

279(298)

132(279)

995(902)

100(144)

212(277)

1,624(2,013)68(94)

302(312)

669(815)

305(434)

189(249)

2,041(2,106)

26(102)

160(246)

950(1,070)21

(68)

134(514)

676(1,114)

269(507)

70(337)

36(126)

393(389)

42(120

)

648(586)1(5)

83(135)

1,873(2

,648)

68(85)

380(569)

272(496)

122(124)

2,713(2,549)

37(82)

49(84)

197(320)

100(186)

124(178)

25(82)

298(683)

61(203)

49(63)

86(146

)

66(94)

77(184)

362(446)

253(405)

604(552)

710(756)

116(181)

142(210)

1,599(2

,234)

139(170)

167(305)

523(1,031)

177(435)

533(536)

2,179(2

,221)

740(604)

10(14)

1,155(1,178)

25(31)

365(560)

788(1

,221)

486(586)

720(1

,287)

38(65)

321(302)958(1,198)422(484)

13(22)

501(1

,009)

81(102)

56(33)

154(191)

21(109)

227(305)

218(294)

37(37)

259(634)122(243)66(124)

17(47)

294(373)343(383)

934(805)

1,890(2

,636)

806(956)

242(373)

2,618(2

,803)

307(356)

184(218)

62(153)

145(255)

2,318(2

,823)

65(117)

164(187)

24(67)

242(389)

247(343)

77(190)

2,964(2

,930)

148(86

)84

(65)91

(86)

76(94)

48(53)

1,175(1,122)26

(30)

22(44)

82(154)

14(23)

23(26)

1,060(1,132)

102(62

)

150(131)

86(66)

44

VIII. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This report documents the assumptions, methodologies, and findings of a study conducted by Kaku Associates, Inc. to evaluate the potential traffic and circulation impacts of the proposed Villa Marina Residential project, as part of the preparation of an environmental impact report. The following summarizes the findings of the study:

• A total of 11 intersections were analyzed within the study area for this project. Currently, 10 of the intersections are operating at acceptable levels of service (LOS D or better) during the morning peak hour and nine of the intersections are operating at acceptable levels of service during the afternoon peak hour.

• The proposed project would consist of 310 condominium units and 9,000 square feet of

commercial space. The proposed project is expected to generate net new morning and afternoon peak hour trips of 124 and 129 vehicles per hour.

• Analysis of the year 2008 cumulative base conditions, representing future conditions

without the proposed project, indicates that seven of the analyzed intersections would operate at LOS D or better during the morning peak hours, while five of these analyzed intersections would also operate at LOS D or better during the afternoon peak hours.

• Analysis of the cumulative plus project conditions indicates that, using the City of Los

Angeles criteria for determining significance of impact, the proposed project would have a significant impact at two of the 11 analyzed intersections during the afternoon peak hour.

• Project mitigation strategies consisting of physical measures were identified for one of

the impacted study intersections. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, project impacts at the intersection of Glencoe Avenue & Washington Boulevard would be fully mitigated.

• The project as proposed would result in an unmitigated significant impact at the

intersection of Lincoln Boulevard & Maxella Avenue.

• An alternate land use plan for the project was tested. A project of 275 dwelling units and 5,500 square feet of retail would generate 104 morning and 80 afternoon peak hour trips. At this level of project traffic generation, the project would not create a significant impact at any of the 11 study intersections.

• Analysis of potential impacts on the regional transportation system conducted in

accordance with the CMP requirements determined that the project would not have a significant impact on the freeway system.

45

• Analysis of the parking supply indicates that 691 parking spaces would be adequate to meet the code requirements as well as accommodate the parking needs of the Villa Marina residents, guests, patrons, and employees.

APPENDIX A INTERSECTION CONFIGURATIONS

TE

LEGEND

Number of Critical Phases#

INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS

5.

6.

EXISTING

CONDITIONS

BASE

CONDITIONS

Same As Existing

Same As Existing

2. Same As Existing

Same As Existing3.

Washington Blvd

Glencoe Ave &

Same As Existing1.

Glencoe Ave &

Maxella Ave

Glencoe Ave

Lincoln Blvd

Lincoln Blvd

Maxella Ave

Lincoln Blvd &

Lincoln Blvd &

Washington Blvd

Washington Blvd

4

4

Maxella Ave

Washington Blvd

4

Glencoe Ave

Maxella Ave

2

Venice Blvd

Lincoln Blvd &

4

WITH MITIGATIONS

No Feasible Mitigation

Same As Existing

Same As Existing

Same As Existing

CONDITIONS

FUTURE PROJECTFUTURE

Same As ExistingRedwood Ave &

Washington Blvd

4.

Lincoln Blvd

Maxella Ave

2

Same As Existing

Venice Blvd

Lincoln Blvd

4

Washington Blvd

Glencoe Ave

TE

LEGEND

Number of Critical Phases#

* Insufficent pocket to consider separate RT

INTERSECTION LANE CONFIGURATIONS

EXISTING

CONDITIONS

BASE

CONDITIONS

Lincoln Blvd &

SR 90 Fwy

10. Same As Existing

11.

Same As Existing

2

Glencoe Ave

Mindanao Wy

7.

8.

Glencoe AveMindanao Wy &

Mindanao Wy

Lincoln Blvd

SR 90 EB RampsMindanao Wy &

Mindanao Wy

Lincoln Blvd &

SR 90 EB Ramps

SR 90 WB Ramps

Mindanao Wy

4

Lincoln Blvd

SR 90

3

9.

3

3

Mindanao Wy

Mindanao Wy &SR 90 WB Ramps

Lincoln Blvd

Mindanao Wy

4

Mindanao Wy

SR 90 EB Ramps

3

Mindanao Wy

SR 90 WB Ramps

3

WITH MITIGATIONS

Same As Existing

Same As Existing

CONDITIONS

FUTURE PROJECTFUTURE

Same As Future Base

Same As Future Base

Same As Future Base

*

APPENDIX B TRAFFIC COUNT DATA SHEETS

APPENDIX C LEVEL OF SERVICE WORKSHEETS

EXISTING (YEAR 2004)

CUMULATIVE BASE (YEAR 2008)

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT

CUMULATIVE PLUS PROJECT WITH MITIGATIONS

CUMULATIVE PLUS ALTERNATE PROJECT