Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2015-10-20 PC AGENDA
AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1315 VALLEY DRIVE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 October 20, 2015 7:00 P.M. Ron Pizer, Chairman Peter Hoffman, Vice Chair Kent Allen Michael Flaherty Rob Saemann Note: No Smoking Is Allowed in The City Hall Council Chambers THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER Planning Commission agendas and staff reports are available for review on the City's web site at www.hermosabch.org. Wireless access is available in the City Council Chambers for mobile devices: Network ID: CHB - Guest and Password: chbguest Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the Community Development Department during normal business hours from Monday through Thursday, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. and on the City's website. Final determinations of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the next regular City Council meeting date. If the 10th day falls on a Friday or City holiday, the appeal deadline is extended to the next City business day. Appeals shall be in written form and filed with the City Clerk's office, accompanied by an appeal fee. The City Clerk will set the appeal for public hearing before the City of Hermosa Beach City Council at the earliest date possible. If you challenge any City of Hermosa Beach decision in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described on this agenda, or in a written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. 4/8/25, 9:25 AM Planning Commission Meeting 10/20/15 https://hermosabeach.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=3992 1/4 To comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, Assistive Listening Devices will be available for check out at the meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call or submit your request in writing to the Community Development Department at (310) 318-0242 at least 48 hours (two working days) prior to the meeting time to inform us of your needs and to determine if/how accommodation is feasible. 1.Pledge of Allegiance 2.Roll Call 3.Oral / Written Communications - Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda may do so at this time. 4.Approval of the September 15, 2015 regular meeting action minutes September 15, 2015 Action Minutes Section I Consent Calendar 4.Approval of the September 15, 2015 regular meeting action minutes 5.Resolution(s) for Consideration - None THE RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED BELOW ARE FROM THE PLANNING STAFF AND ARE RECOMMENDATIONS ONLY. THE FINAL DECISION ON EACH ITEM RESTS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PLEASE DO NOT ASSUME THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WILL BE THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Section II Public Hearing Projects Zoning Map 6.CUP 15-5 -- Conditional Use Permit and Planned Development Permit to construct and operate an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility adjacent to the Kiwanis building at 2515 Valley Drive. The project consists of two (2) 35 foot high/2 foot diameter flagpoles (including the replacement of one existing flagpole) containing a total of six (6) antennas and six (6) tower mounted amplifiers, and removing and replacing an existing trash enclosure and installation of six (6) equipment cabinets and trash bin within the new trash enclosure; and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (continued from the July 21, 2015 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: Project withdrawn by the applicant. Memorandum 7.CUP 15-6 -- Conditional Use Permit to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility consisting of (12) panel antennas, (12) Remote Radio Units and associated equipment at 1200 Artesia Boulevard (Verizon Wireless); and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (continued from the 4/8/25, 9:25 AM Planning Commission Meeting 10/20/15 https://hermosabeach.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=3992 2/4 August 18, 2015 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: To continue to the December 9, 2015 meeting as requested by the applicant. Memorandum 8.CUP 15-11 / PARK 15-8 -- Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan to allow on-sale beer and wine from 4:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m. daily in association with limited food service in the first floor common area at an existing 81 room hotel at 2515 Pacific Coast Highway, Hotel Hermosa; and determine the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving Parking Plan 15-8 and Conditional Use Permit 15-11 and determining the project to be categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Report Project Plans 9.PDP 15-11 / CUP 15-10 / PARK 15-7 -- (1) Precise Development Plan to allow a 30,250± square foot hotel with 30 rooms and common areas on an undeveloped 11,516± square foot lot at 1429 Hermosa Avenue; (2) Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale general alcohol (mini-bars) in guest rooms and in common areas for hotel guests; (3) Parking Plan to allow a valet program and parking in tandem on-site; and adoption of an environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving Precise Development Plan 15-11, Parking Plan 15-7, and Conditional Use Permit 15-10 subject to conditions and adopting an environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Staff Report Project Plans Landscape Plans Supplemental Information: Traffic Impact Study (added 10/19/15 at 10:27 am) 10.CON 15-9 / PDP 15-12 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73616 for a three-unit residential condominium project on two lots, one previously determined to be convex sloping, at 650-704 Loma Drive, and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #73616 for a three-unit detached condominium project subject to conditions and determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Report Project Plans 11.CON 15-10 / PDP 15-13 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73205 for a two-unit residential condominium project, at 710-712 Ardmore Avenue, and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the 4/8/25, 9:25 AM Planning Commission Meeting 10/20/15 https://hermosabeach.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=3992 3/4 California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #73205 for a two-unit detached condominium project subject to conditions and determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Report Project Plans Section III Hearing 12.S-21#24 – Request to determine whether the property is a convex sloping lot and may use alternate spot elevations rather than property corner elevations along the north and south property lines for the purposes of determining building height at 2464 Hermosa Avenue. Staff Recommended Action: Project withdrawn by the applicant. Withdrawl Email 13.TEXT 15-2 -- Direction on Text Amendment to implement Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy. Staff Recommended Action: To provide direction on code amendments intended to implement a part of the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy. Staff Report Section IV 14.Staff Items a.Report on City Council actions. b.Report on comprehensive planning processes. Staff Report c.Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. November 17, 2015 Planning Commission Tentative Agenda d.Community Development Department activity report of August, 2015. August, 2015 Activty Report 15.Commissioner Items 16.Adjournment 4/8/25, 9:25 AM Planning Commission Meeting 10/20/15 https://hermosabeach.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=3992 4/4 1 Planning Commission Action Minutes September 15, 2015 ACTION MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH HELD ON SEPTEMBER 15, 2015, 7:00 P.M., AT THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS All public testimony and the deliberations of the Planning Commission can be viewed on the City’s web site at www.hermosabch.org, On-Demand Video of City Meetings The meeting was called to order at 7:03 P.M. by Chairman Flaherty. 1. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call Present: Commissioners Allen, Hoffman Pizer, Saemann, Chairman Flaherty Absent: None Also Present: Ken Robertson, Community Development Director Kim Chafin, Senior Planner Trevor Rusin, Assistant City Attorney Aaron Gudelj, Assistant Planner Nicole Ellis, Assistant Planner 3. Oral / Written Communications Anyone wishing to address the Commission regarding a matter not related to a public hearing on the agenda may do so at this time. Section I CONSENT CALENDAR 4. Approval of the August 18, 2015 action minutes ACTION: To approve the August 18, 2015 action minutes as presented. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Allen. The motion carried, noting the abstention of Commissioner Hoffman. 5. Resolution(s) for Consideration – None Section II Hearing 6. C-36 -- Semi-annual review and report on Conditional Use Permit compliance for on-sale alcoholic beverage establishments City wide. Staff Recommended Action: To conduct the semi-annual review of on-sale alcoholic beverage establishments for January-June 2015 and based on the information and “Standard Initiating P.C. Review” determine that none of the businesses have had sufficient 2 Planning Commission Action Minutes September 15, 2015 violations to initiate a modification/revocation hearing. ACTION: To receive and file. MOTION by Commissioner Allen and seconded by Commissioner Hoffman. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Public Hearing 7. CON 15-7 / PDP 15-9 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73629 for a two-unit residential condominium project at 515 Prospect Avenue, and determination whether alternative points at the top of the retaining wall at the rear of the site and an alternative point at the southwest property corner may be used for the purpose of calculating building height; and determine the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (continued from the August 18, 2015 meeting). Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving subject Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73629 for a two unit condominium subject to conditions and determine the project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act. ACTION: To adopt the resolution approving subject requests with modification to Condition 5a “…to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.” to add “and Director of Public Works” to the end of the paragraph for approval of landscaping, and determining that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman and seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: Comms. Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Saemann, Chmn. Flaherty NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 8. CON15-8 / PDP15-10 -- Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73730 for a two-unit residential condominium project at 1085- 1087 Monterey Boulevard, and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To adopt the resolution approving subject Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan, and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map No. 73730 for a two unit condominium project subject to conditions and determine the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. ACTION: To adopt the resolution approving subject requests with notification to applicant that proper procedures be followed regarding mature palm tree(s) in the parkway, and determining that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. MOTION by Commissioner Hoffman and seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion carried by the following vote: 3 Planning Commission Action Minutes September 15, 2015 AYES: Comms. Allen, Hoffman, Pizer, Saemann, Chmn. Flaherty NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None 9. CUP15-9 & PARK15-6 -- Conditional Use Permit Amendment to an existing ‘late night’ restaurant with an outdoor patio and on-sale general alcohol at 39 Pier Avenue (Palmilla) with current allowed hours until 1:30 A.M daily, for an approximate 1,100 square foot expansion into the adjacent space to the west (currently a bakery/café); with reduced hours of late night operation until 12:30 A.M. Sunday through Wednesday, and until 1:00 A.M. Thursday, and keeping hours until 1:30 A.M. Friday and Saturday, and a Parking Plan to determine the applicable parking requirements and possible payment of fees in-lieu of providing required parking on site, and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff Recommended Action: To continue to October 20, 2015 meeting as requested by the applicant. ACTION: To continue to an unspecified date as requested by the applicant and re-notice the public hearing. MOTION by Commissioner Allen and seconded by Commissioner Hoffman. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Section III Hearing COMMISSIONER HOFFMAN RECUSED HIMSELF FOR THE FOLLOWING THREE PROJECTS (ITEM #10 - 12) DUE TO CLOSE PROXIMITY TO HIS HOME. 10. S-21#21 – Request to determine whether a convex slope condition exists and to allow the use of alternative spot elevations rather than property corner elevations along the north and south property lines for the purposes of determining building height at 648 Loma Drive. Staff Recommended Action: To determine, by minute order, the convexity at the subject property but recommend use of alternative elevations with the exclusion of areas where fill soils are present towards the front and middle of the property. ACTION: To determine, by minute order, that the convexity at the subject property but recommend use of alternative elevations with the exclusion of areas where fill soils are present towards the front and middle of the property. MOTION by Commissioner Pizer and seconded by Commissioner Allen. The motion carried, noting the recusal of Commissioner Hoffman. 11. S-21#22 -- Request to determine whether a convex slope condition exists and to allow the use of alternative spot elevations rather than property corner elevations along the north and south property lines for the purposes of determining building height at 650 Loma Drive. Staff Recommended Action: To determine, by minute order, the convexity at the subject property but recommend use of alternative elevations with the exclusion of areas where fill soils are present towards the front and middle of the property. 4 Planning Commission Action Minutes September 15, 2015 ACTION: To determine, by minute order, that the convexity at the subject property but recommend use of alternative elevations with the exclusion of areas where fill soils are present towards the front and middle of the property. MOTION by Commissioner Saemann and seconded by Commissioner Pizer. The motion carried, noting the recusal of Commissioner Hoffman. 12. D-21#23 -- Request to determine whether a convex slope condition exists and to allow the use of alternative spot elevations rather than property corner elevations along the north and south property lines for the purposes of determining building height at 626 Loma Drive. Staff Recommended Action: To determine, by minute order, the convexity at the subject property but recommend use of alternative elevations with the exclusion of areas where fill soils are present towards the front and middle of the property. ACTION: To determine, by minute order, that the convexity at the subject property but recommend use of alternative elevations with the exclusion of areas where fill soils are present towards the front and middle of the property. MOTION by Commissioner Saemann and seconded by Commissioner Allen. The motion carried, noting the recusal of Commissioner Hoffman. Section IV 13. Staff Items a. Direction regarding Text Amendment to implement the Downtown Core Revitalization Strategy. Director Robertson advised that staff will be bringing this matter to the Planning Commission in October. b. Direction regarding the City’s noticing procedures for Planning Commission meetings. ACTION: the Planning Commission provided input for City Council consideration. c. Report on wireless communications facility for AT&T (relocation of the existing facility at 29th Court to the Kiwanis building located at 2515 Valley Drive). Assistant Planner Gudelj advised staff will be meeting with AT&T this week to discuss alternative sites. d. Memorandum regarding rotation of Planning Commission Chair and Vice Chair. ACTION: The Chair will rotate to Commissioner Pizer and Vice Chair to Commissioner Hoffman effective October, 2015 through June, 2016. e. Report on City Council actions. Director Robertson provided a synopsis of recent City Council actions. f. Report on comprehensive planning processes. 5 Planning Commission Action Minutes September 15, 2015 Leeanne Singleton of Raimi & Associates, the City’s General Plan Update consultants, provided written materials regarding mixed-use for the Planning Commission to review and discuss at a future date. g. Tentative future Planning Commission agenda. h. Community Development Department activity report of July, 2015. 14. Commissioner Items 15. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:23 P.M. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify the foregoing Minutes are a true and complete record of the action taken by the Planning Commission of Hermosa Beach at the regularly scheduled meeting of September 15, 2015. Michael Flaherty, Chairman Ken Robertson, Secretary Date 1 CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: October 20, 2015 To: Honorable Chairman and Members of the Hermosa Beach Planning Commission From: Nicole Ellis, Assistant Planner Subject: Report on a Wireless Telecommunications facility for Verizon Wireless (CUP 15-6) to be located at 1200 Artesia Boulevard Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission grant the Applicant’s request for a continuance to the December 9, 2015 Planning Commission hearing. Background: The Applicant submitted an application to construct an unmanned wireless telecommunication facility at 1200 Artesia Boulevard and is requesting a continuance to the December 9, 2015 hearing while Verizon Wireless and the ownership further review the proposed wireless telecommunication facility design. Attachments 1. Hearing Continuance Request Letter ARCHITECTURAL COVER FOOD SERVICE (FOR REFERENCE ONLY) 2658 Griffith Park Blvd. Suite 418 Los Angeles, CA 90039 STRUCTURAL 4358 Sepulveda Blvd. Culver City Ca 90230 Tel : (310) 838 0383 Fax : (310) 838 5380 Email : office@cwhowe.com 1854(5)(5)1854(5)1854(5)(5) UP 52 (COMPACT) UP STAIR#2 STORAGE B23 PUMP ROOM B22 DN PARKING: STANDARD: 13 STALLS COMPACT: 7 STALLS TOTAL: 20 STALLS ELEVATOR ELEVATOR LOBBY B21RAMP49 50 51 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 (COMPACT) 62 (COMPACT) 63 (COMPACT) 64 (COMPACT) 66 (COMPACT) 67 (COMPACT) 68 65 STORAGE EXITLANDSCAPING UP 8 (COMPACT) UP STAIR#2 LAUNDRYRM B15 ELEVATOR ELEVATOR LOBBY B11RAMPUP(SLOPESEEGRANDINGPLAN)SLOPEDOWNDN TRELLISABOVE STAIR#5 25'-0"DRIVEWAY ELEV.97.00 DN UP UP STAIR#1 UP STAIR#4 SPACE FOR MECH. VENTILATION EQUIP. WATER HEATER RM. B14 25'-0" DRIVEWAY STORAGE B13 W D D W RAMPDN22'-0"DRIVEWAYHANDICAPPED PARKING SIGN INTERNATIONAL ACCESSIBILITY SYMBOL (TYP.) LINEN RM B16 FOUNTAIN LANDSCAP'G NORTHPARKING: ADA: 3 STALLS STANDARD: 32 STALLS COMPACT: 9 STALLS TOTAL: 44 STALLS 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 2122232425262728293031323337 43444546 ADA 47 ADA 48 ADA 16 (COMPACT) 17 (COMPACT) 34 (COMPACT) 3536 (COMPACT) 38 39 (COMPACT)40 (COMPACT)41 (COMPACT)42 (COMPACT) GUESTLAUNDRY 1 REGISTRATIONPARKING2 3 (COMPACT) 4 (COMPACT) PARKING: STANDARD: 2 STALLS COMPACT: 2 STALLS TOTAL: 4 STALLS BUILDING AREA:TOTAL NUMBER OF GUEST ROOMS:3021KING ROOM:DOUBLE ROOM:91429 HERMOSA AVENUEHERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTELHERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 9006613101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD - 404PROJECT INFORMATIONLEGAL DESCRIPTION:ADDRESS:ARCHITECT:ZONE:PROJECT C-2CONTACT: ENVIROTECHNO ARCHITECTUREOWNER:SHEET INDEXPROJECT SCOPE:PROJECT DESCRIPTION1429 HERMOSA AVENUEHERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90254LOT SIZE:11,516 SQ.FT. SQ. FT.*RAJU CHHABRIA & RHAVI KHOSLAHERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL, LLC205 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 201HERMOSA BEACH, CALIFORNIALOTS 15, 16, 17 AND 18 IN BLOCK 15 OF HERMOSA BEACH, IN THECITY OF HERMOSA BEACH, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OFCALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGES 25 AND 26OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAIDCOUNTY.APN 4183-004-028PROPOSED PROJECT IS A (3) THREE STORY BOUTIQUEHOTEL (GROUND LEVEL/ GARAGE+2 STORIES) HAVING ATOTAL OF 30 GUEST ROOMS (10 DOUBLE, 20 KING SIZEGUEST ROOM). IT INCLUDES MULTI-FUNCTION ROOM, GYM,SPA, WITH MULTIPLE OUTDOOR SITTING AREAS.MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT:30 FEETNUMBER OF GUEST ROOMS:STANDARD SPACES:2213COMPACT SPACES:ACCESSIBLE SPACES:2PARKING (1 PER GUESTROOM):(*) LOT SIZE BASED UPON SURVEY PREPAREDBY DCi ENGINEERING, INC - JUNE 201237TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES:COMMERCIAL/COMMON AREA:GARAGE AREA:GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN AREA:COMMERCIAL/COMMON AREA:UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN AREA:GUEST ROOM AREA:COMMERCIAL/COMMON AREA:MIDDLE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN AREA:GUEST ROOM AREA:ROOF AREA:PROPOSED MECHANICAL EQUIP. AREA:5% MAX. AREA MECH. EQUIP.:CORRIDOR AREA:OUTDOOR AREA:CORRIDOR AREA:OUTDOOR AREA:BALCONY AREA:BALCONY AREA:TOTAL MIDDLE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN AREA:TOTAL UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN AREA:TOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA:COVER SHEETCS1.0 COVER SHEET - PROJECT DATACIVIL SHEETSC1 SURVEYC2 SURVEYGENERAL SHEETSG1.0 FLOOR AREA ANALYSISARCHITECTURAL SHEETSA1.0 SITE PLANA3.1 GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLANA3.2 MIDDLE LEVEL FLOOR PLANA3.3 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANA6.0 ROOF LEVEL PLANA7.1 SOUTH ELEVATION AND EAST ELEVATIONA7.2 NORTH ELEVATION AND WEST ELEVATIONLANDSCAPE SHEETSLC.1HARDSCAPE PLAN GROUND LEVELLC.2HARDSCAPE PLAN MIDDLE LEVELLC.3HARDSCAPE PLAN ROOF LEVELLP.1PLANTING PLAN GROUND LEVELLP.2PLANTING PLAN MIDDLE LEVELLP.3PLANTING PLAN UPPER LEVELMR. LUIS DE MORAES, AIAVOICE: (310) 377-7873EMAIL: luis@envirotechno.com2,950 SQ. FT.7,578 SQ. FT.10,528 SQ. FT.1,005 SQ. FT.6,896 SQ. FT.5,891 SQ. FT.901 SQ. FT.7,138 SQ. FT.6,237 SQ. FT.8,821 SQ. FT.293 SQ. FT.441 SQ. FT.1,172 SQ. FT.281 SQ. FT.1,130 SQ. FT.847 SQ. FT.1,136 SQ. FT.1,122 SQ. FT.9,727 SQ. FT.9,995 SQ. FT.30,250 SQ. FT.JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:0012-03ENMLDMPROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:09-17-12AS NOTEDHERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL 1429 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 RAJU CHHABRIA & RHAVI KHOSLA 205 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 201 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL, LLC PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 10/01/2015 13101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, #404LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90066310-377-7873 VOICEe-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:COVER SHEET - PROJECT DATA JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:0012-03ENMLDMPROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:09-17-12AS NOTEDHERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL 1429 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 RAJU CHHABRIA & RHAVI KHOSLA 205 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 201 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL, LLC PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 10/01/2015 13101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, #404LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90066310-377-7873 VOICEe-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:SCALE:1/16"=1'-0"GROUND LEVEL PLANSCALE:1/16"=1'-0"MIDDLE LEVEL PLANSCALE:1/16"=1'-0"UPPER LEVEL PLANSCALE:1/16"=1'-0"ROOF LEVEL PLANFLOOR AREA ANALYSIS JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:0012-03ENMLDMPROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:09-17-12AS NOTEDHERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL 1429 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 RAJU CHHABRIA & RHAVI KHOSLA 205 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 201 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL, LLC PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 10/01/2015 13101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, #404LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90066310-377-7873 VOICEe-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:SITE PLAN - PROPOSEDSITE PLANSCALE:1/8"=1'-0" JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:0012-03ENMLDMPROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:09-17-12AS NOTEDHERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL 1429 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 RAJU CHHABRIA & RHAVI KHOSLA 205 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 201 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL, LLC PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 10/01/2015 13101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, #404LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90066310-377-7873 VOICEe-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:GROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLANGROUND LEVEL FLOOR PLANSCALE:1/4"=1'-0" JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:0012-03ENMLDMPROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:09-17-12AS NOTEDHERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL 1429 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 RAJU CHHABRIA & RHAVI KHOSLA 205 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 201 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL, LLC PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 10/01/2015 13101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, #404LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90066310-377-7873 VOICEe-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:MIDDLE LEVEL FLOOR PLANMIDDLE LEVEL FLOOR PLANSCALE:1/4"=1'-0" JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:0012-03ENMLDMPROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:09-17-12AS NOTEDHERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL 1429 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 RAJU CHHABRIA & RHAVI KHOSLA 205 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 201 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL, LLC PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 10/01/2015 13101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, #404LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90066310-377-7873 VOICEe-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANUPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANSCALE:1/4"=1'-0" JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:0012-03ENMLDMPROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:09-17-12AS NOTEDHERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL 1429 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 RAJU CHHABRIA & RHAVI KHOSLA 205 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 201 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL, LLC PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 10/01/2015 13101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, #404LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90066310-377-7873 VOICEe-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:ROOF LEVEL PLANROOF LEVEL PLANSCALE:1/4"=1'-0" JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:0012-03ENMLDMPROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:09-17-12AS NOTEDHERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL 1429 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 RAJU CHHABRIA & RHAVI KHOSLA 205 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 201 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL, LLC PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 10/01/2015 13101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, #404LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90066310-377-7873 VOICEe-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:ROOF LEVEL CRITICAL POINTS HEIGHT CALCULATIONSROOF LEVEL CRITICAL POINTHEIGHT CALCULATIONSSCALE:1/4"=1'-0" 1'-0"8'-0"1'-3"8'-0"1'-3"9'-0"ROOF EL.44.75SECOND FLOOR F.F.EL.35.75FIRST FLOOR F.F.EL.26.50GROUND FLOOR F.F.EL.16.2510'-3"9'-3"9'-0"30'-0"PROPERTYLINE OPENPROPERTY LINE 30' MAX.HEIGHT30' MAX.HEIGHT45.25'CRITICAL POINTSIDEWALKHERMOSA AVENUEPROPOSEDTRANSFORMER PAD61122455678PROPOSEDTRANSFORMER (FINALELEVATION TO BEVERIFIED)10CP03 49.50' ACT15.57' + 30 = 45.57' MAX.CP05 49.50' ACT15.50' + 30 = 45.50' MAX.CP06 49.50' ACT15.45' + 30 = 45.45' MAX.CP04 49.50' ACT15.53' + 30 = 45.53' MAX.CP01 49.50' ACT15.60' + 30 = 45.60' MAX.CP02 51.00' ACT15.68' + 30 = 45.68' MAX.ROOF EL.44.75SECOND FLOOR F.F.EL.35.75FIRST FLOOR F.F.EL.26.50GROUND FLOOR F.F.EL.16.2530'-0"1'-0"8'-0"1'-3"1'-3"9'-0"8'-0"9'-0"10'-3"9'-3" 30'-0" PROPERTYLINE PROPERTY LINE 30' MAX.HEIGHTSIDEWALKFIFTEENTH STREETFIFTEENTH COURTSHIELDED CONTINUOUSLIGHTINGSHIELDED CONTINUOUSLIGHTINGFULL HEIGHT GLASSPARTITION TYPICAL ATALL EXPOSED SIDES42651256310NON-REFLECTIVE METAL PANELFINIISH SURFACES1TEXTURED GLASS PANEL2NON-REFLECTIVE METAL FASCIA3WIRE-MESH W/WINDOW BEHIND4CURTAINS5GLASS RAILING6LINE OF TRANSFORMER7LINE OF WALL/GATE8FILTERRA ROOF DRAIN SYSTEM AND STORAGEPIPE AND EPIC CHAMBERS - SEE CIVIL SHEETS9REQUIRED ELEVATOR OVERHEAD CLEARANCEAND ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM. STUCCOEXTERIOR FINISH.10SAFETY BEAM REQUIRED PER OSHA 1926.502,VERIFY WITH ELEVATOR MFG. REQUIREMENTS11ELEVATOR PIT - VERIFY REQUIREMENTS PERELEVATOR SPECIFICATIONS12JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:0012-03ENMLDMPROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:09-17-12AS NOTEDHERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL 1429 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 RAJU CHHABRIA & RHAVI KHOSLA 205 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 201 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL, LLC PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 10/01/2015 13101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, #404LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90066310-377-7873 VOICEe-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:SOUTH ELEVATION AND EAST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATIONSCALE:1/4"=1'-0"SOUTH ELEVATIONSCALE:1/4"=1'-0"BA ROOF EL.44.75SECOND FLOOR F.F.EL.35.75FIRST FLOOR F.F.EL.26.50GROUND FLOOR F.F.EL.16.251'-3"1'-0"8'-0"8'-0"1'-3"9'-0"10'-3"9'-3"9'-0"30'-0"OPENPROPERTY LINE PROPERTYLINE30' MAX.HEIGHT30' MAX.HEIGHTSIDEWALKHERMOSA AVENUEFULL HEIGHT GLASSPARTITION TYPICAL ATALL EXPOSED SIDESFULL HEIGHT GLASSPARTITION TYPICAL ATALL EXPOSED SIDESSTORMWATERTREATMENTSYSTEM9812255665310CP02 51.00' ACT15.68' + 30 = 45.68' MAX.ROOF EL.44.75SECOND FLOOR F.F.EL.35.75FIRST FLOOR F.F.EL.26.50GROUND FLOOR F.F.EL.16.251'-0"8'-0"1'-3"8'-0"1'-3"9'-0"10'-3"9'-3"9'-0" 30'-0" 30'-0"PROPERTYLINE PROPERTY LINE 30' MAX.HEIGHT30' MAX.HEIGHT45.25'CRITICALPOINTFIFTEENTH COURTFIFTEENTH STREET111187914'-11"+ FINAL DIMENSION MAY VERY 1015.59F.S.15.9F.G.18.6F.G.18.5F.G.18.5F.G.16.0F.S.16.1F.S.18.7F.G.96' TALLWALL ANDGATE6' TALLWALL ANDGATELINE OFPROPERTYLINE WALLCP02 51.00' ACT15.68' + 30 = 45.68' MAX.CP06 49.50' ACT15.45' + 30 = 45.45' MAX.NON-REFLECTIVE METAL PANELFINIISH SURFACES1TEXTURED GLASS PANEL2NON-REFLECTIVE METAL FASCIA3WIRE-MESH W/WINDOW BEHIND4CURTAINS5GLASS RAILING6LINE OF TRANSFORMER7LINE OF WALL/GATE8FILTERRA ROOF DRAIN SYSTEM AND STORAGEPIPE AND EPIC CHAMBERS - SEE CIVIL SHEETS9REQUIRED ELEVATOR OVERHEAD CLEARANCEAND ELEVATOR MACHINE ROOM. STUCCOEXTERIOR FINISH.10SAFETY BEAM REQUIRED PER OSHA 1926.502,VERIFY WITH ELEVATOR MFG. REQUIREMENTS11ELEVATOR PIT - VERIFY REQUIREMENTS PERELEVATOR SPECIFICATIONS12JOB NO:DATE:SCALE:DRAWN BY:SHEET TITLE:CHECKED BY:0012-03ENMLDMPROJECT TITLE:CLIENT NAME:09-17-12AS NOTEDHERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL 1429 HERMOSA AVENUE HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 RAJU CHHABRIA & RHAVI KHOSLA 205 PIER AVENUE, SUITE 201 HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL, LLC PLANNING SUBMITTAL - 10/01/2015 13101 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, #404LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90066310-377-7873 VOICEe-mail: luis@envirotechno.comwebsite: envirotechno.comINTERACTIVE ARCHITECTURE +INTERIOR DESIGNSHEET NO:NORTH ELEVATION AND WEST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATIONSCALE:1/4"=1'-0"NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE:1/4"=1'-0"DC LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Study Area .......................................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Project Description .................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Site Location ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Existing Project Site ........................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Proposed Project Description ............................................................................................ 6 3.0 Mobility Review ......................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Existing Project Site Vehicular Access ............................................................................. 8 3.2 Proposed Project ................................................................................................................. 9 3.2.1 Vehicular Site Access Review .............................................................................. 9 3.2.2 Pedestrian Access Review .................................................................................... 10 3.2.3 Bicycle Access Review ......................................................................................... 11 3.2.4 Service and Delivery Operations .......................................................................... 12 3.3 Site Distance Review ......................................................................................................... 12 3.3.1 Project Driveway Sight Distance Review ............................................................ 14 3.4 Project Access Recommendations ..................................................................................... 14 4.0 Existing Street System ............................................................................................................... 15 4.1 Local Roadway System ..................................................................................................... 15 4.2 Roadway Descriptions ....................................................................................................... 15 4.3 Public Bus Transit Service ................................................................................................. 17 5.0 Traffic Counts ............................................................................................................................ 20 6.0 Traffic Forecasting Methodology ............................................................................................ 24 6.1 Project Traffic Generation ................................................................................................. 24 6.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment .................................................................... 26 7.0 Future Traffic Conditions ........................................................................................................ 30 7.1 Related Projects Traffic Characteristics ............................................................................ 30 7.2 Ambient Traffic Growth .................................................................................................... 35 8.0 Traffic Impact Analysis Methodology .................................................................................... 36 8.1 Impact Criteria and Thresholds ......................................................................................... 36 8.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization Methods of Analysis .................................................... 36 8.2.1 Signalized Intersections ......................................................................................... 36 8.2.2 Unsignalized Intersections .................................................................................... 37 8.3 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios .................................................................................... 38 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) SECTION PAGE 9.0 Traffic Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 39 9.1 Existing Traffic Conditions ............................................................................................. 39 9.1.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 39 9.1.2 Existing With Project Conditions........................................................................ 39 9.2 Future Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................ 39 9.2.1 Future Without Project Conditions ..................................................................... 39 9.2.2 Future With Project Conditions .......................................................................... 46 10.0 Transportation Improvement Measures .............................................................................. 49 10.1 Project Access Recommendations ................................................................................... 49 10.2 Transportation Demand Management ............................................................................. 50 11.0 Congestion Management Program Traffic Impact Assessment ........................................ 51 11.1 Intersections ..................................................................................................................... 51 11.2 Freeways .......................................................................................................................... 51 11.3 Transit Impact Review ..................................................................................................... 52 12.0 Parking Supply-Demand Analysis ........................................................................................ 53 12.1 City Code Parking Analysis ............................................................................................ 53 12.1.1 City Code Parking Requirements ........................................................................ 53 12.1.2 Planned Parking Supply ...................................................................................... 54 12.1.3 Project Parking Supply-Demand Analysis ......................................................... 55 12.2 Shared Parking Demand Analysis ................................................................................... 55 12.2.1 Shared Parking Rationale and Basis ................................................................... 55 12.2.2 Shared Parking Analysis Results ........................................................................ 56 12.3 Parking Recommendations .............................................................................................. 56 13.0 Summary of Findings and Conclusions ................................................................................ 59 APPENDICES APPENDIX A. Traffic Count Data B. Intersection Level of Service Data Worksheets C. Shared Parking Demand Data LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) LIST OF FIGURES SECTION—FIGURE # PAGE 1–1 Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 2 2–1 Ground Floor Site Plan ...................................................................................................... 7 4–1 Existing Roadway Conditions and Intersection Controls ............................................. 16 4–2 Existing Public Transit Routes ........................................................................................... 19 5–1 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour .................................................... 22 5–2 Existing Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ..................................................... 23 6–1 Project Trip Distribution .................................................................................................... 27 6–2 Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ...................................................... 28 6–3 Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ....................................................... 29 7–1 Location of Related Projects ............................................................................................... 32 7–2 Related Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ....................................... 33 7–3 Related Projects Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ....................................... 34 9–1 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour .............................. 42 9–2 Existing With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour .............................. 43 9–3 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ........................... 44 9–4 Future Without Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour ............................ 45 9–5 Future With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday AM Peak Hour ................................. 47 9–6 Future With Project Traffic Volumes – Weekday PM Peak Hour .................................. 48 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) LIST OF TABLES SECTION—TABLE # PAGE 4–1 Existing Transit Routes ....................................................................................................... 18 5–1 Existing Traffic Volumes .................................................................................................... 21 6–1 Project Trip Generation ..................................................................................................... 25 7–1 List of Related Projects and Related Projects Trip Generation .......................................... 31 8–1 Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections........................................................ 36 8–2 Level of Service Criteria for Unsignalized Intersections ................................................... 37 8–3 Intersection Impact Threshold Criteria ............................................................................... 38 9–1 Existing Conditions Levels of Service Summary ............................................................... 40 9–2 Future Conditions Level of Service Summary.............................................................. 41 12–1 Weekday Shared Parking Demand Analysis ...................................................................... 57 12–2 Weekend Shared Parking Demand Analysis ................................................................ 58 LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT City of Hermosa Beach, California February 13, 2013 1.0 INTRODUCTION This traffic impact study addresses the potential traffic impacts and parking requirements associated with the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project. The project applicant proposes to develop a boutique type hotel with one parking level to be located at 1429 Hermosa Avenue in the City of Hermosa Beach, California. The proposed project site is situated along the west side of Hermosa Avenue between 15th Street to the north and 15th Court to the south. The proposed 1429 Hermosa Avenue project site location and general vicinity are shown in Figure 1-1. This report1 This traffic report satisfies the traffic impact study requirements of the City of Hermosa Beach and is consistent with the 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County documents the findings and recommendations of a traffic impact analysis, as well as a parking analysis, prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG Engineers) to determine the potential impacts associated with the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project. The traffic analysis evaluates the existing operating conditions at eight (8) key study intersections within the project vicinity, estimates the trip generation potential of the proposed project, and forecasts future operating conditions without and with the proposed project. Where necessary, intersection improvements and/or mitigation measures are identified. This report has been prepared in consultation with City of Hermosa Beach staff and the City’s consultant Traffic Engineer. 2 1 This report supersedes the previously submitted document, Traffic Impact Study, Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project, City of Hermosa Beach, California, prepared by LLG Engineers and dated November 26, 2012. The Scope of Work for this traffic study was developed in conjunction with the City of Hermosa Beach staff and the City’s consultant Traffic Engineer. The project site has been visited and an inventory of adjacent area roadways and intersections was performed. Existing peak hour traffic information has been collected at the eight (8) key study locations on a typical weekday (i.e., Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday) for use in the preparation of intersection Level of Service calculations. Information concerning cumulative projects (planned and/or approved) in the vicinity of the proposed project has been researched at the City of Hermosa Beach. Based on recent research, eight (8) related projects are planned in the City of Hermosa Beach. These eight (8) planned and/or approved related projects were therefore considered in the cumulative traffic analysis for this project. 2 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2010. - 1 - - 2 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc This traffic report analyzes existing and future weekday AM peak hour and PM peak hour traffic conditions for a future-term (Year 2014) traffic setting upon completion of the proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel project. Peak hour traffic forecasts for the Year 2014 horizon year have been projected by increasing existing traffic volumes by an annual growth rate of one percent (1.0%) per year and adding traffic volumes generated by eight (8) related projects. In addition, the planned project parking supply is compared with the City of Hermosa Beach Off-street Parking Code requirement. 1.1 Study Area Eight (8) study intersections have been identified for evaluation during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours based upon coordination with City of Hermosa Beach staff and the City’s contract Traffic Engineer. The study intersections provide local access to the study area and define the extent of the boundaries for this traffic impact analysis. Further discussion of the existing street system and study area is provided in Section 4.0. The general location of the project in relation to the study locations and surrounding street system is presented in Figure 1-1. The traffic analysis study area is generally comprised of those locations which have the greatest potential to experience significant traffic impacts due to the proposed project as defined by the Lead Agency. In the traffic engineering practice, the study area generally includes those intersections that are: a. Immediately adjacent or in close proximity to the project site; b. In the vicinity of the project site that are documented to have current or projected future adverse operational issues; and c. In the vicinity of the project site that are forecast to experience a relatively greater percentage of project-related vehicular turning movements (e.g., at freeway ramp intersections). The locations selected for analysis were based on the above criteria, proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel project peak hour vehicle trip generation, anticipated distribution of project vehicular trips and existing intersection/corridor operations. The eight (8) intersections listed below provide local access to the study area and define the extent of the boundaries for this traffic impact investigation. 1. Manhattan Avenue/27th Street-Greenwich Village 2. Hermosa Avenue/15th Street 3. Hermosa Avenue/14th Street 4. Hermosa Avenue/13th Street - 3 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 5. Hermosa Avenue/Pier Avenue 6. Manhattan Avenue West/Pier Avenue 7. Manhattan Avenue East/Pier Avenue 8. Monterey Boulevard/Pier Avenue The Volume-to-Capacity and Level of Service investigations at these key locations were used to evaluate the potential traffic-related impacts associated with area growth, cumulative projects and the proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel project. When necessary, this report recommends intersection improvements that may be required to accommodate future traffic volumes and restore/maintain an acceptable Level of Service, and/or to mitigate the impact of the project. Included in this traffic and parking analysis are: • Existing traffic counts, • Estimated project traffic generation/distribution/assignment, • Estimated cumulative project traffic generation/distribution/assignment, • Weekday AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for existing conditions (Year 2012) without and with project traffic, • Weekday AM and PM peak hour capacity analyses for future (Year 2014) conditions without and with project traffic, • Project-specific improvements, where necessary, • Congestion Management Program Traffic Impact Assessment, and • Parking analysis evaluation. - 4 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant seeks to obtain entitlements to construct a boutique-type hotel with one parking level to be located in the Downtown district of the City of Hermosa Beach, California. The proposed project site is situated along the west side of Hermosa Avenue between 15th Street to the north and 15th Court to the south. The proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel project site location and general vicinity are shown in Figure 1-1. 2.1 Site Location The project site is located within close proximity to Lower Pier Avenue, the City’s public parking structure, the Hermosa Beach Pier, and The Strand, as well as the Hermosa Avenue and Pier Avenue commercial corridors. The project location and development concept will promote the efficient and convenient travel by all appropriate modes (e.g., pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and vehicular) for hotel guests and employees. In addition, the project will complement the Downtown area environment where different modes of travel co-exist and share the roadway, providing seamless connections and reinforcing each other to develop a balanced and efficient transportation system. The project site is located approximately two blocks from the City’s public parking structure, which is located west of Hermosa Avenue between 14th Court and 13th Street. The public parking structure currently provides a total of 359 parking spaces, including 261 public spaces and 98 spaces allocated to the Beach House Hotel for guest and valet parking. The City of Hermosa Beach planned and constructed this public parking structure to serve the Downtown district and encourage development in the vicinity. The City’s parking structure is complementary of its Municipal Zoning Code which provides parking in-lieu fees for projects located in the Downtown district. Parking in-lieu fees are used to encourage development in the Downtown district, while planning and providing for parking on a district-wide basis. Generally, in-lieu parking provides the opportunity to cluster parking (as the City of Hermosa Beach has done with the existing Downtown parking structure), to build parking more efficiently, and to facilitate development in locations with difficult parcel configurations. 2.2 Existing Project Site The existing project site is situated at 1429 Hermosa Avenue, at the southwest corner of the Hermosa Avenue/15th Street intersection and is currently vacant. The project site was previously occupied by two buildings that were utilized for restaurant uses (i.e., Classic Burger restaurant and Hermosa Beach Donuts & Coffee restaurant), and surface parking spaces. All of the prior buildings and surface parking spaces on the project site were demolished as part of a previously proposed development project. - 5 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 2.3 Proposed Project Description The project site is located at 1429 Hermosa Avenue (at the southwest corner of the Hermosa Avenue/15th Street intersection). The existing project site is currently vacant. The proposed project consists of the development of a boutique hotel with a total of 30 guest rooms including eight double rooms and 22 single (king) rooms, and ancillary support facilities (e.g., lobby/check-in, sitting areas, and multi-purpose spaces, etc.) as is commonly provided within most hotels. However, it should be noted that the proposed project will not include banquet halls, other large scale meeting space, or restaurants/lounges for non-guests. The proposed project is planned to include a total of roughly 30 parking spaces with all of the parking spaces provided on the ground level. Vehicular access to the site is planned to be provided via a single driveway on 15th Street along the northerly property frontage and via a single driveway on 15th Court along the southerly property frontage. Additionally, all parking for guests and visitors at the proposed project will be conducted via valet parking operations. Construction of the proposed project is planned to begin in year 2013 with occupancy in year 2014. The ground floor level site plan for the proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel project is illustrated in Figure 2-1. - 6 - - 7 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 3.0 MOBILITY REVIEW As discussed with City staff and the City’s consultant Traffic Engineer, a review has been prepared of access to the project site in terms of mobility for all travel modes including vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, goods movement (i.e., service/delivery for the proposed project), transit, etc. The City of Hermosa Beach has long committed to promote and develop efficient and convenient travel by all appropriate modes. As stated in the Final Circulation Transportation and Parking (Final CTP) Element of the City of Hermosa Beach General Plan (March 1990), “OVERALL GOAL: Provide a balanced transportation system for the safe and efficient transport of people and goods consistent with the goals of the Land Use Element.” The objectives of the Final CTP Element include maximizing use of alternative transportation modes and minimizing residential neighborhood traffic intrusion. The goals and policies in the General Plan recognize the built-out character of Hermosa Beach and reflect the constraints imposed by a long-established street network, as well as relatively fixed land use patterns. However, the City’s chief aim is to work creatively within these constraints to enhance all modes of transportation and to provide for safe and efficient circulation for all City residents and visitors. The mobility review includes consideration of vehicular access to and from the project site, pedestrian and bicycle access in the project vicinity, and service/delivery access to the project site. Brief summaries of the key mobility and access associated with the project are provided in the following subsections. 3.1 Existing Project Site Vehicular Access Vehicular access to the existing project site is provided via a total of two driveways including one driveway on 15th Street and one driveway on 15th Court. It is noted that the existing site driveways are no longer in use as the project site has been vacant for the last few years. Brief descriptions of the existing project site driveways are provided in the following paragraphs. • Existing Site: 15th Street Driveway This driveway is located on the south side of 15th Street (i.e., along the northerly property frontage) near the westerly portion of the project site. This existing site driveway is situated roughly 75 feet west of Hermosa Avenue and previously provided access to the surface parking lot on the site. The existing 15th Street driveway accommodates full access (i.e., left- turn and right-turn ingress and egress vehicular turning movements). - 8 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc • Existing Site: 15th Court Driveway This driveway was located on the north side of 15th Court (i.e., along the southerly property frontage), approximately mid-way between the westerly property boundary and Hermosa Avenue. The prior site 15th Court driveway previously accommodated full access (i.e., left- turn and right-turn ingress and egress vehicular turning movements). 3.2 Proposed Project 3.2.1 Vehicular Site Access Review The proposed site access scheme for the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project is displayed in Figure 2-1. Access to the proposed project site will be provided via a total of two driveways: one driveway on 15th Street and one driveway on 15th Court. The two proposed project site driveways are located in similar locations to the prior site driveways. Descriptions of the planned project site access points are provided in the following paragraphs. • Proposed Project: 15th Street Driveway This project driveway will be located on the south side of 15th Street, approximately mid-way along the northerly property frontage. The proposed project site driveway is planned to be 25 feet in width and will be located just easterly of the existing site driveway on 15th Street which provided access to the site. The proposed 15th Street project site driveway will accommodate full access (i.e., left-turn and right-turn ingress and egress turning movements) into and out of the site. However, it is noted that nearly all traffic movements at this driveway will be westbound left-turn inbound and northbound right-turn outbound movements as 15th Street terminates at The Strand just west of the project site. It is anticipated that the 15th Street driveway will be the primary access point for guests and visitors at the project. This driveway will provide access to the internal site drive aisle where the valet operations station will be situated for drop-off and pick-up operations. The planned project site driveway will be constructed to City of Hermosa Beach design standards. • Proposed Project: 15th Court Driveway This project driveway will be located on the north side of 15th Court, approximately mid-way along the southerly property frontage. The proposed project site driveway is planned to be 25 feet in width and will be located in essentially the same location as the prior site driveway on 15th Court which provided access to the site. As 15th Court terminates at Noble Park just west of the project site, it is anticipated that traffic movements at this site driveway be limited to westbound right-turn ingress and southbound left-turn egress turning movements into and out of the site. The planned project site driveway will be constructed to City of Hermosa Beach design standards. - 9 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc Vehicular access to the proposed project site will be accommodated via the two driveways as described above (i.e., one driveway on 15th Street and one driveway on 15th Court). With this site access configuration, the potential vehicle-pedestrian-bicycle conflicts are essentially the same as when the site was previously occupied. It should be noted that the location, placement and configuration of the future on-street parking spaces along the 15th Street property frontage will need to be developed in coordination with the City’s Public Works Department. At a minimum, it is anticipated that the on-street parking spaces adjacent to the project site will need to be adjusted to accommodate the new site driveway location and that one on-street parking space may need to be removed. Should this occur, it is recommended that the project applicant contribute an in-lieu fee to the City’s improvement fund towards the Downtown district to mitigate the net loss of the public parking space. 3.2.2 Pedestrian Access Review Downtown Hermosa Beach experiences a high level of pedestrian activity, particularly along the Hermosa Avenue, The Strand and Pier Avenue near the project site. Based on the existing level of pedestrian activity in the area and the proximity of these key corridors, it is anticipated that there also will be a high level of pedestrian activity generated to and from the proposed project. The proposed project site has been designed to encourage pedestrian activity and walking as a transportation mode3. As indicated in Figure 2-1, pedestrian walkways are planned throughout the site, as well as connect to the adjacent sidewalks, in a manner that promotes walkability. Walkability is a term for the extent to which walking is readily available as a safe, connected, accessible and pleasant mode of transport.4 • Connectivity: People can walk from one place to another without encountering major obstacles, obstructions, or loss of connectivity. There are five basic requirements that are widely accepted as key aspects of the walkability of urban areas that should be satisfied. The underlying principle is that pedestrians should not be delayed, diverted, or placed in danger. The five primary characteristics of walkability are as follows: • Convivial: Pedestrian routes are friendly and attractive, and are perceived as such by pedestrians. • Conspicuous: Suitable levels of lighting, visibility and surveillance over its entire length, with high quality delineation and signage. • Comfortable: High quality and well-maintained footpaths of suitable widths, attractive landscaping and architecture, shelter and rest spaces, and a suitable allocation of roadspace to pedestrians. 3 For example, refer to http://www.walkscore.com/, which generates a walkability score of approximately 83 (Very Walkable – most errands can be accomplished on foot) out of 100 for the project site. Walk Score calculates the walkability of an address by locating nearby stores, restaurants, schools, parks, etc. Walk Score measures how easy it is to live a car-lite lifestyle—not how pretty the area is for walking. - 10 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc • Convenient: Walking is a realistic travel choice, partly because of the impact of the other criteria set forth above, but also because walking routes are of a suitable length as a result of land use planning with minimal delays. A review of the project site plan and pedestrian walkways indicates that these five primary characteristics are accommodated as part of the proposed project. The project site is adjacent to and accessible from the Downtown Hermosa Beach area, nearby retail, restaurant and entertainment opportunities, as well as The Strand and the beach. The pedestrian walkways within the site will be appropriately landscaped and adorned to provide a friendly walking environment. Additionally, the walkways and connections with the external environment will be well lit and include a wayfinding signage program. Pedestrian project access to the site will be provided along the 15th Street and Hermosa Avenue property frontages. Pedestrian circulation around the periphery of the project site will be accommodated by the public sidewalks. The main lobby entrance for pedestrians will be accessed via the internal drive aisle and the sidewalks along both Hermosa Avenue and 15th Street. Within the lobby area, an elevator and stairwells will be provided for pedestrian access to/from the upper floors of the building (i.e., Stairwell Nos. 1 and 2). A secondary stairwell (i.e., Stairwell No. 3) for pedestrian access to/from the upper floors of the building will be provided along the westerly property frontage. 3.2.3 Bicycle Access Review Bicycle access to the project site is facilitated by the City of Hermosa Beach bicycle roadway network. A total of four existing or proposed bicycle facilities (e.g., Class I Bicycle Path, Class II Bicycle Lanes, Class III Bicycle Routes, Proposed Bicycle Routes, etc.) in the City’s bicycle network are located within an approximate one-half mile radius from the project site. The following bicycle facilities are located in the vicinity of the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project site: • - The Strand: Class I Bicycle Lane North-South Routes - Hermosa Avenue: Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows/Share the Road Signs - Monterey Boulevard: Proposed Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows/Share the Road Signs 4 Chapter 4 of the Pedestrian Network Planning and Facilities Design Guide, Government of New Zealand, from the www.ltsa.govt.nz website. - 11 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc • - Pier Avenue: Proposed Class III Bicycle Route with Sharrows/Share the East-West Routes Road Signs The Federal and State transportation system recognizes three primary bikeway facilities: Bicycle Paths (Class I), Bicycle Lanes (Class II), and Bicycle Routes (Class III). Bicycle Paths (Class I) are exclusive car free facilities that are typically not located within a roadway area. Bicycle Lanes (Class II) are part of the street design that is dedicated only for bicycles and identified by a striped lane separating vehicle lanes from bicycle lanes. Bicycle Routes (Class III) are preferably located on collector and lower volume arterial streets. Use of bicycles as a transportation mode to and from the project site should be encouraged by the provision of ample and safe parking. It is recommended that the proposed project include bicycle parking within the ground floor of the project site. The bicycle spaces should be provided in a readily accessible location(s). The selected location(s) should encourage use and maintain visibility for personal safety and theft protection. Appropriate lighting will be provided to increase safety and provide theft protection during night-time parking. 3.2.4 Service and Delivery Operations As 15th Court is a discontinuous roadway, it is recommended that service and deliveries (e.g., daily linen service/delivery) at the proposed project site be conducted via use of the on-street meter parking along the Hermosa Avenue frontage during early morning hours, rather than conducting head-in and back-out maneuvers to/from 15th Court. This recommendation is intended to limit the potential conflicts between service/delivery vehicles with pedestrians and bicyclists along Hermosa Avenue, particularly since the egress movement from 15th Court would require backup movements. Also, it is recommended that consideration be given to signing one or possibly two on-street meter spaces along the Hermosa Avenue property frontage as “No Parking Except Trucks” for the identified service and delivery early morning hours (e.g., 7:00 to 9:00 AM). The location of the on- street space(s) and designated early morning service/delivery hours can be determined in consultation with City staff. 3.3 Sight Distance Review Based on comments received from City staff and the City’s consultant traffic engineer, a review has been prepared of the sight distance at the project driveway in terms of vehicular movements and pedestrian circulation. The sight distance evaluation includes a review of vehicular access to and from the project driveway on 15th Street. Brief summaries of the key existing and proposed project conditions are presented in the following paragraphs. - 12 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc • Existing Site Driveway on 15th Street The existing site driveway on 15th Street is situated approximately 67 feet west of Hermosa Avenue (i.e., measured from the beginning curb radius on 15th Street at Hermosa Avenue to the east side of the driveway). The existing driveway is approximately 21 feet wide. Three public on-street meter parking spaces are currently provided between the existing site driveway and Hermosa Avenue. Five feet of painted red curb is provided immediately east of the existing site driveway. Immediately west of the existing site driveway the following on-street elements are provided: two feet of painted red curb, one public on-street metered parking space, and then an approximate 30-foot wide private driveway associated with an adjacent apartment building. • Proposed Project Site Driveway on 15th Street The proposed project site driveway on 15th Street will be relocated easterly to a point approximately 49 feet west of Hermosa Avenue (i.e., measured from the beginning curb radius on 15th Street). Two public metered parking spaces can be retained between the proposed project site driveway and Hermosa Avenue. However, it is recommended that these two metered parking spaces be shifted roughly five feet easterly toward Hermosa Avenue. Approximately five feet of painted red curb also can be provided immediately east of the proposed site driveway. Immediately west of the project site driveway, painted red curb will be extended between the site driveway and the existing metered parking space (i.e., for a total of roughly 15 feet of red curb). While the proposed project site driveway placement could result in the loss of one on-street metered parking space when compared to existing conditions, the sight distance for exiting hotel motorists would be improved with the project (i.e., since only two feet of red curb exists west of the existing site driveway and 15 feet of red curb would be provided west of the project site driveway in the future with construction of the proposed hotel). • Public Sidewalks A 13-foot wide sidewalk is currently provided adjacent to the project site along the 15th Street property frontage. A six-foot wide sidewalk is presently provided adjacent to the project site along the Hermosa Avenue property frontage. No changes to the adjacent public sidewalks are expected to occur as part of the proposed project. - 13 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 3.3.1 Project Driveway Sight Distance Review As vehicles exiting the project site are anticipated to turn right to travel easterly to Hermosa Avenue, the sight distance for eastbound motorists approaching the driveway will be significantly improved based on both the relocation of the project site driveway and the extension of red curb west of the proposed project site driveway. The sight distance for westbound motorists approaching the project site driveway is essentially the same as existing conditions. However, as previously noted, it is anticipated that motorists exiting the site will turn right to travel to Hermosa Avenue, thus, conflicts between exiting vehicles and westbound motorists on Hermosa Avenue are not expected to occur. 3.4 Project Access Recommendations The following measures are recommended to facilitate access to and from the planned project site: • Direct project site guests and visitors to utilize the 15th Street project driveway to access the site. • Direct vendors to utilize the designated on-street meter parking space(s) along the Hermosa Avenue property frontage for service and deliveries at the project site in order to limit potential conflicts between service/delivery vehicles with pedestrians and bicyclists. • Develop a parking management plan for the proposed project, including details on the internal valet parking operations to address any potential queuing onto public right-of- way. • Install appropriate pavement markings (i.e., stop bar with STOP legend) on the project drive aisle just south of the public sidewalk to ensure that motorists stop prior to the sidewalk along 15th Street and at the 15th Court project drive aisle before exiting the site. • Install a pavement right-turn arrow prior to the stop bar/STOP legend on the 15th Street project drive aisle to reinforce the right-turn only movement for motorists exiting the site. • Install a pavement left-turn arrow prior to the stop bar/STOP legend on the 15th Court project drive aisle to reinforce the left-turn only movement for motorists exiting the site. • Provide bicycle parking within the ground floor of the project site in a readily accessible location(s). The selected location(s) should encourage use and maintain visibility for personal safety and theft protection. Appropriate lighting will be provided to increase safety and provide theft protection during night-time parking. - 14 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 4.0 EXISTING STREET SYSTEM 4.1 Local Roadway System The local network of streets serving the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project study area includes Hermosa Avenue, Manhattan Avenue, 14th Street, 14th Court and Pier Avenue. The eight (8) intersections listed below provide local access to the study area and define the extent of the boundaries for this traffic impact investigation. 1. Manhattan Avenue/27th Street-Greenwich Village 2. Hermosa Avenue/15th Street 3. Hermosa Avenue/14th Street 4. Hermosa Avenue/13th Street 5. Hermosa Avenue/Pier Avenue 6. Manhattan Avenue West/Pier Avenue 7. Manhattan Avenue East/Pier Avenue 8. Monterey Boulevard/Pier Avenue Five of the eight study intersections (Intersection Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, and 8) selected for analysis are controlled by stop signs. The remaining study intersections (Intersection Nos. 3, 4, and 5) are currently traffic signal controlled. The existing lane configurations at the eight study intersections are displayed in Figure 4-1. Brief descriptions of the important roadways in the project vicinity are provided in the following paragraphs. 4.2 Roadway Descriptions A brief description of the important roadways in the project vicinity is provided in the following paragraphs. Hermosa Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway that borders the project site to the east. Hermosa Avenue provides primary north-south circulation through the Downtown Hermosa Beach area. Two through travel lanes are provided in each direction along the roadway within the project study area. The Hermosa Avenue/Pier Avenue intersection is currently traffic signal controlled, with separate left-turn phasing provided for the southbound left-turn movement. Three-hour metered parking on Hermosa Avenue is generally allowed on both sides of the roadway and is enforced seven days a week from 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Hermosa Avenue is posted for a 25 miles per hour speed limit near the project site. - 15 - - 16 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc Manhattan Avenue is a north-south oriented roadway that is located one block east of the project site. Manhattan Avenue provides local north-south traffic access in the vicinity of the project site. One through travel lane is provided in each direction along the roadway within the project study area. The Manhattan Avenue/Pier Avenue intersection is currently stop sign controlled, with the stop signs facing the Manhattan Avenue approaches. Manhattan Avenue is posted for a 25 miles per hour speed limit within the project study area. Monterey Boulevard is a north-south oriented roadway that is located east of the project site. Monterey Boulevard provides local north-south traffic access in the vicinity of the project site. One through travel lane is provided in each direction along the roadway within the project study area. The Monterey Boulevard/Pier Avenue intersection is currently all-way stop sign controlled. Monterey Boulevard is posted for a 25 miles per hour speed limit within the project study area. 15th Street is an east-west oriented roadway that borders the project site to the north. Near the project site, 15th Street extends between Hermosa Avenue to the east and the The Strand/beach to the west. One through travel lane is provided in each direction along the roadway within the project study area. Three-hour parking from 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM is generally allowed along both sides of 15th Street in the project study area. Twenty-four hour resident parking is also accommodated along both sides of 15th Street near the project site with resident parking passes. There is no posted speed limit on this segment of 15th Street in the project vicinity, thus it is assumed to be a prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour. 15th Court is an east-west oriented roadway that borders the project site to the south. Near the project site, 15th Court extends between Hermosa Avenue to the east to its terminus at Noble Park to the west. Two-way travel is accommodated along 15th Court near the project site. Parking is prohibited along both sides of 15th Court within the project study area. Pier Avenue is an east-west oriented roadway that is located south of the project site. Pier Avenue provides primary east-west circulation through the Downtown Hermosa Beach area, extending between Hermosa Avenue to the west to Pacific Coast Highway to the east. One through travel lane is provided in each direction along the roadway within the project study area. West of Hermosa Avenue, Pier Avenue is a pedestrian plaza area. However, emergency vehicle access is accommodated along this section of Pier Avenue. Pier Avenue is posted for a 25 miles per hour speed limit near the project site. 4.3 Public Bus Transit Service Public bus transit service within the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project study area is currently provided by the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, City of Redondo Beach – Beach Cities Transit, and the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation. A summary of the existing transit service, including the transit route, destinations and peak hour headways is presented in Table 4-1. The existing public transit routes in the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project site vicinity are illustrated in Figure 4-2. - 17 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project ROADWAY(S) ROUTE DESTINATIONS NEAR SITE DIR AM PM Metro Route 130 Redondo Beach to Cerritos via Hermosa Beach, Torrance,Pier Avenue, Monterey Boulevard EB 2 2 Harbor Gateway, Carson, Compton, North Long Beach,WB 3 2 Bellflower Commuter Express 438 Palos Verdes & Via Valencia to Downtown Los Angeles Manhattan Avenue, 27th Street, Hermosa NB 3 0 Avenue, Pier Avenue SB 0 2 Total 8 6 [1] Sources: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), LADOT Transit Services websites, 2012. Table 4-1 EXISTING TRANSIT ROUTES [1] NO. OF BUSES/TRAINS DURING PEAK HOUR - 18 - - 19 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 5.0 TRAFFIC COUNTS Based on discussions with the City’s contract Traffic Engineer, new manual counts of vehicular turning movements were conducted at each of the eight study intersections during the weekday morning (AM) and afternoon (PM) commuter periods to determine the peak hour traffic volumes. The manual counts were conducted by traffic count subconsultants, City Traffic Counters and The Traffic Solution, at the eight study intersections from 7:00 to 9:00 AM to determine the AM peak commuter hour, and from 4:00 to 6:00 PM to determine the PM peak commuter hour. Traffic volumes at the eight study intersections show the morning and afternoon peak periods typically associated with peak commuter hours in the metropolitan area. In addition, a count of pedestrian, bicycle and truck volumes was collected during the peak periods in conjunction with the manual turning movement vehicle counts. The existing weekday AM and PM peak commuter period manual counts of turning vehicles at the eight study intersections are summarized in Table 5-1. The existing traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak commuter hours are shown in Figures 5-1 and 5-2, respectively. Summary data worksheets of the manual traffic counts at the study intersections are contained in Appendix A. - 20 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project Table 5-1 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOURNO.INTERSECTION DATE DIR BEGAN VOLUME BEGAN VOLUME 1 Manhattan Avenue/11/01/2012 NB 7:30 278 5:00 141 27th Street-Greenwich Village [1]SB 187 496 EB 384 151 WB 152 222 2 Hermosa Avenue/11/01/2012 NB 7:45 416 5:00 240 15th Street [2]SB 198 435 EB 21 14 WB 0 0 3 Hermosa Avenue/11/01/2012 NB 7:45 435 5:00 266 14th Street [2]SB 214 443 EB 28 28 WB 17 37 4 Hermosa Avenue/11/01/2012 NB 7:45 461 5:00 265 13th Street [2]SB 199 430 EB 22 76 WB 0 0 5 Hermosa Avenue/11/01/2012 NB 7:45 467 5:00 271 Pier Avenue [2]SB 216 454 EB 0 0 WB 141 163 6 Manhattan Avenue (West)/11/01/2012 NB 8:00 78 5:00 40 Pier Avenue [1]SB 0 0 EB 185 195 WB 182 312 7 Manhattan Avenue (East)/11/01/2012 NB 8:00 0 5:00 0 Pier Avenue [1]SB 65 125 EB 253 220 WB 217 306 8 Monterey Boulevard/11/01/2012 NB 7:45 150 5:00 162 Pier Avenue [1]SB 74 113 EB 236 261 WB 241 354 [1]Counts conducted by City Traffic Counters [2]Counts conducted by The Traffic Solution - 21 - - 22 - - 23 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 6.0 TRAFFIC FORECASTING METHODOLOGY In order to estimate the traffic impact characteristics of the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project, a multi-step process has been utilized. The first step is trip generation, which estimates the total arriving and departing traffic volumes on a peak hour and daily basis. The traffic generation potential is forecast by applying the appropriate vehicle trip generation equations or rates to the project development tabulation. The second step of the forecasting process is trip distribution, which identifies the origins and destinations of inbound and outbound project traffic volumes. These origins and destinations are typically based on demographics and existing/anticipated travel patterns in the study area. The third step is traffic assignment, which involves the allocation of project traffic to study area streets and intersections. Traffic assignment is typically based on minimization of travel time, which may or may not involve the shortest route, depending on prevailing operating conditions and travel speeds. Traffic distribution patterns are indicated by general percentage orientation, while traffic assignment allocates specific volume forecasts to individual roadway links and intersection turning movements throughout the study area. With the forecasting process complete and project traffic assignments developed, the impact of the proposed project is isolated by comparing operational (i.e., LOS) conditions at selected key intersections using expected existing and future traffic volumes without and with forecast project traffic. The need for site-specific and/or cumulative local area traffic improvements can then be evaluated and the significance of the project’s impacts identified. 6.1 Project Traffic Generation Traffic generation is expressed in vehicle trip ends, defined as one-way vehicular movements, either entering or exiting the generating land use. Generation equations and/or rates used in the traffic forecasting procedure are found in the 9th Edition of Trip Generation, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) [Washington D.C., 2012]. Based on discussions with the City’s consultant Traffic Engineer, ITE Land Use Code 310 (Hotel) trip generation average rates were used to forecast the traffic volumes expected to be generated by the 30 guest rooms planned for the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the proposed project were based upon rates per number of occupied rooms to be provided as part of the proposed project. The trip generation rates and forecast of the vehicular trips anticipated to be generated by the proposed project are presented in Table 6-1. The project trip generation forecast was submitted for review and approval by the City’s consultant Traffic Engineer. - 24 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project Table 6-1 PROJECT TRIP GENERATION [1] DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2] LAND USE SIZE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL Hotel [3]30 Occ. Rooms 268 12 8 20 10 11 21 268 12 8 20 10 11 21 [1]Source: ITE "Trip Generation", 9th Edition, 2012. [2]Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. [3]ITE Land Use Code 310 (Hotel) trip generation average rates. - Daily Trip Rate: 8.92 trips/occupied room; 50% inbound/50% outbound - AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.67 trips/occupied room; 58% inbound/42% outbound - PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.70 trips/occupied room; 49% inbound/51% outbound TOTAL - 25 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc As presented in Table 6-1, the proposed project is expected to generate 20 vehicle trips (12 inbound trips and 8 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate 21 vehicle trips (10 inbound trips and 11 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate 268 daily trip ends during a typical weekday (134 inbound trips and 134 outbound trips). 6.2 Project Traffic Distribution and Assignment The general, directional traffic distribution pattern for the proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel project is presented in Figure 6-1. Project traffic volumes both entering and exiting the site have been distributed and assigned to the adjacent street system based on the following considerations: • The site's proximity to major traffic corridors (i.e., Pier Avenue, Hermosa Avenue, Pacific Coast Highway and Gould Avenue/Artesia Boulevard), • Expected localized traffic flow patterns based on adjacent roadway channelization and presence of traffic signals, • Existing intersection traffic volumes, • Ingress/egress availability at the project site, • The location of existing and proposed parking areas, and • Input from the City’s consultant Traffic Engineer. The forecast weekday AM and PM peak hour project traffic volumes associated with the proposed project are presented in Figures 6-2 and 6-3, respectively. The traffic volume assignments presented in Figures 6-2 and 6-3 reflect the traffic distribution characteristics shown in Figure 6-1 and the project traffic generation forecasts presented in Table 6-1. - 26 - - 27 - - 28 - - 29 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 7.0 FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The forecast of future pre-project conditions was prepared in accordance to procedures outlined in Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the CEQA Guidelines provide two options for developing the future traffic volume forecast: “(A) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the [lead] agency, or (B) A summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan, or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect. Such plans may include: a general plan, regional transportation plan, or plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. A summary of projections may also be contained in an adopted or certified prior environmental document for such a plan. Such projections may be supplemented with additional information such as a regional modeling program. Any such document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.” Accordingly, the traffic analysis provides a highly conservative estimate of future pre-project traffic volumes as it incorporates both the “A” and “B” options outlined in CEQA Guidelines for purposes of developing the forecast. 7.1 Related Projects Traffic Characteristics A forecast of on-street traffic conditions prior to occupancy of the proposed project was prepared by incorporating the potential trips associated with other known development projects (related projects) in the area. With this information, the potential impact of the proposed project can be evaluated within the context of the cumulative impact of all ongoing development. The related projects research was based on information on file at the City of Hermosa Beach. The list of related projects in the project site area and a brief description for each of the eight (8) related projects is presented in Table 7–1. The location of the related projects is shown in Figure 7–1. Traffic volumes expected to be generated by the related projects were calculated using rates provided in the ITE Trip Generation manual. The related projects’ respective traffic generation for the weekday AM and PM peak hours, as well as on a daily basis for a typical weekday, is summarized in Table 7-1. As shown in Table 7-1, the related projects are expected to generate a combined total of 9,282 daily trips during a typical weekday, 457 trips (271 inbound trips and 186 outbound) during the weekday AM peak hour, and 875 trips (431 inbound trips and 444 outbound trips) during the weekday PM peak hour. The anticipated distribution of the related projects traffic volumes to the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours is displayed in Figures 7-2 and 7-3, respectively. - 30 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project Table 7-1RELATED PROJECTS LIST AND TRIP GENERATION [1] PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR MAP ADDRESS/LAND USE DATA DATA TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2] NO.LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL 1 824 1st Street Office 3,000 GSF [3]33 4 1 5 1 3 4 2 1221-1223 Hermosa Avenue Bank 6,600 GSF [4]978 46 34 80 80 80 160 3 205 Pier Avenue Office/Retail 6,000 GSF [5]256 4 2 6 11 11 22 4 2101 Pacific Coast Highway Office 10,124 GSF [3]112 14 2 16 3 12 15 Condominium 21 DU [6]122 2 7 9 7 4 11 5 906 Hermosa Avenue Office 8,780 GSF [3]97 12 2 14 2 11 13 Condominium 21 DU [6]122 2 7 9 7 4 11 6 Pier Avenue to 13th Street Hotel 100 rooms [7]892 39 28 67 34 36 70 (The Strand to parking lot) 7 2420 Pacific Coast Highway Retail 120,000 GLSF [5]5,124 71 44 115 214 231 445 950 Artesia Boulevard Restaurant 12,000 GSF [8]1,526 72 58 130 71 47 118 8 555 6th Street Heavy Industrial 3 acres [9]20 5 1 6 1 5 6 9,282 271 186 457 431 444 875 [1]Sources: City of Hermosa Beach Community Development Department. Trip generation for the related projects are based on the ITE "Trip Generation", 9th Edition, 2012 (as referenced in the Project Data Source column). [2]Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving. [3]ITE Land Use Code 710 (General Office) trip generation average rates. [4]ITE Land Use Code 912 (Drive-In Bank) trip generation average rates. [5]ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) trip generation average rates. [6]ITE Land Use Code 230 (Residential Condominium) trip generation average rates. [7]ITE Land Use Code 310 (Hotel) trip generation average rates. [8]ITE Land Use Code 932 (High-Turnover Sit-Down Restaurant) trip generation average rates. [9]ITE Land Use Code 120 (General Heavy Industrial) trip generation average rates. TOTAL- 31 - - 32 - - 33 - - 34 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 7.2 Ambient Traffic Growth Horizon year, background traffic growth estimates also have been calculated by using an ambient traffic growth factor. The ambient traffic growth factor is intended to include unknown related projects in the study area, as well as account for typical growth in traffic volumes due to the development of projects outside the study area. The future growth in traffic volumes has been calculated at one percent (1.0%) per year. The ambient growth factor was based on review of the background traffic growth estimates for the South Bay/LAX area (RSA 18) published in the 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, which indicate that existing traffic volumes would be expected to increase at an annual rate of less than one percent (approximately 0.26% per year) between years 2010 and 2015. However, a one percent (1.0%) ambient traffic growth factor has been employed in this analysis in order to provide a conservative, worst case forecast of future traffic volumes in the area. Application of the ambient traffic growth factor to existing Year 2012 traffic volumes results in a two percent (2.0%) increase in existing traffic volumes to horizon Year 2014. Further, it is noted that the CMP manual’s traffic growth rate is intended to anticipate future traffic generated by development projects in the project vicinity. Thus, the inclusion in this traffic analysis of both a forecast of traffic generated by known related projects plus the use of an ambient growth traffic factor based on CMP traffic model data results in a conservative estimate of future traffic volumes at the study intersections. - 35 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 8.0 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 8.1 Impact Criteria and Thresholds The relative impact of the added project traffic volumes generated by the proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel project during the AM and PM peak hours was evaluated based on analysis of future operating conditions at the eight (8) key study intersections, without, then with, the proposed project. The significance of the potential project impacts at each key intersection was then evaluated using the traffic impact criteria employed in previous analyses for projects in the City of Hermosa Beach. A significant transportation impact is determined based on the sliding scale criteria presented in Table 8-1. TABLE 8-1 INTERSECTION IMPACT THRESHOLD CRITERIA Final ICU Level of Service Project Related Increase in ICU > 0.801-0.900 D – signalized equal to or greater than 0.02 > 0.901 or greater E/F – signalized equal to or greater than 0.01 Drop in LOS by one level D/E/F - unsignalized --- As indicated in Table 8-1, the project-related increase in ICU value for the signalized intersections that defines a significant impact varies with LOS. At LOS D the threshold of significance is an increase of 0.02 or greater in the ICU value for signalized intersections. This is reduced to 0.01 or greater under LOS E and F. Similarly, for the unsignalized intersections, a decrease in LOS by one level or more is considered significant for those locations operating at LOS D, E, or F. 8.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization Methods of Analysis 8.2.1 Signalized Intersections In conformance with the City of Hermosa Beach and Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program requirements, existing weekday AM and PM peak hour operating conditions for the key signalized study intersections were evaluated using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The ICU methodology is intended for signalized intersection analyses and estimates the volume-to-capacity (V/C) relationship for an intersection based on the individual V/C ratios for key conflicting traffic movements. The ICU numerical value represents the percent signal (green) time, and thus capacity, required by existing and/or future traffic. It should be noted that the ICU methodology assumes uniform traffic distribution per intersection approach lane and optimal signal timing. The ICU value translates to a LOS estimate, which is a relative measure of the intersection performance. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding ICU value range and are shown in Table 8-2. A description of the ICU method and corresponding Level of Service is provided in Appendix B. - 36 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc TABLE 8-2 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service (LOS) Intersection Capacity Utilization Value (V/C) Level of Service Description A ≤ 0.600 EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and no approach phase is fully used. B 0.601 – 0.700 VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C 0.701 – 0.800 GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D 0.801 – 0.900 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 0.901 – 1.000 POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F > 1.000 FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very long delays with continuously increasing queue lengths. Pursuant to Los Angeles County CMP requirements, the ICU calculations use a lane capacity of 1,600 vehicles per hour (vph) for left-turn, through, and right-turn lanes, and a dual left-turn capacity of 2,880 vph. Additionally, a clearance adjustment factor of 0.10 was added to each Level of Service (LOS) calculation. The ICU value is the sum of the critical volume to capacity ratios at an intersection; it is not intended to be indicative of the LOS of each of the individual turning movements. According to City of Hermosa Beach criteria, LOS D (V/C ratio = 0.801 to 0.900) is the minimum acceptable condition that should be maintained during the morning and evening peak commute hours. 8.2.2 Unsignalized Intersections The Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (HCM2010) methodology outlined in Chapter 19 for unsignalized/two-way stop-controlled study intersections was utilized for the analysis of the unsignalized intersections. The TWSC methodology estimates the average control delay for each minor-street movement (or shared movement) as well as major-street left-turns and determines the LOS for each constrained movement. It should be noted that LOS is not defined for the overall TWSC intersection because major-street movements with no delays typically result in a weighted average delay that is extremely low. Average control delay for any particular movement is a function of the capacity of the approach and the degree of saturation. The average control delay is - 37 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc measured in seconds per vehicle, and includes delay due to deceleration to a stop at the back of the queue from free-flow speed, move-up time within the queue, stopped delay at the front of the queue, and delay due to acceleration back to free-flow speed. A description of the HCM method and corresponding Level of Service is also provided in Appendix B. The six qualitative categories of Level of Service have been defined along with the corresponding HCM control delay value range, as shown in Table 8-3. TABLE 8-3 LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service (LOS) Highway Capacity Manual Delay Value (sec/veh) Level of Service Description A ≤ 10.0 Little or no delay B > 10.0 and ≤ 15.0 Short traffic delays C > 15.0 and ≤ 25.0 Average traffic delays D > 25.0 and ≤ 35.0 Long traffic delays E > 35.0 and ≤ 50.0 Very long traffic delays F > 50.0 Severe congestion 8.3 Traffic Impact Analysis Scenarios Pursuant to City of Hermosa Beach and Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program requirements, Level of Service calculations have been prepared for the following scenarios for the study intersections: (a) Existing (Year 2012) conditions. (b) Condition (a) with completion and occupancy of the project. (c) Condition (b) with implementation of project mitigation measures where necessary. (d) Condition (a) plus one percent (1.0%) annual ambient traffic growth through Year 2014 and with completion and occupancy of the related projects (i.e., future Year 2014 without project conditions) (e) Condition (d) with completion and occupancy of the project (i.e., future Year 2014 with project conditions). (f) Condition (e) with implementation of project mitigation measures where necessary. The traffic volumes for each new condition were added to the volumes in the prior condition to determine the change in capacity utilization at the study intersections. - 38 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 9.0 TRAFFIC ANALYSIS The traffic impact analysis prepared for the study intersections using the ICU and HCM methodologies with application of the City of Hermosa Beach significant traffic impact criteria is summarized in Table 9–1 for existing traffic conditions. The traffic impact analysis prepared for the study intersections using the ICU and HCM methodologies with application of the City of Hermosa Beach significant traffic impact criteria is summarized in Table 9–2 for future traffic conditions. The ICU and HCM data worksheets for the analyzed intersections are contained in Appendix B. 9.1 Existing Traffic Conditions 9.1.1 Existing Conditions As indicated in column [1] of Table 9–1, all eight study intersections are presently operating at LOS B or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours under existing conditions. The existing traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are displayed in Figures 5–1 and 5–2, respectively. 9.1.2 Existing With Project Conditions As shown in column [2] of Table 9–1, application of the City’s threshold criteria to the “Existing With Project” scenario indicates that the proposed project is not expected to create significant impacts at any of the eight study intersections. Incremental, but not significant, impacts are noted at the study intersections. Because there are no significant impacts, no traffic mitigation measures are required or recommended for the study intersections under the “Existing With Project” conditions. The existing with project traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figures 9–1 and 9–2, respectively. 9.2 Future Traffic Conditions 9.2.1 Future Without Project Conditions The future without project conditions were forecast based on the addition of traffic generated by the completion and occupancy of related projects, as well as the growth in traffic due to the combined effects of continuing development, intensification of existing developments and other factors (i.e., ambient growth). The v/c ratios and delay at all of the study intersections are incrementally increased with the addition of ambient traffic and traffic generated by the related projects listed in Table 7–1. As presented in column [1] of Table 9–2, all eight study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the addition of growth in ambient traffic and related projects traffic under the future without project conditions. The future Year 2014 without project (existing, ambient growth and related projects) traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are presented in Figures 9–3 and 9– 4, respectively. - 39 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project Table 9-1 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY OF VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIOS DELAY AND LEVELS OF SERVICE WEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS [1][2] YEAR 2012 YEAR 2012 EXISTING WITH EXISTING PROJECT CHANGE SIGNIF. PEAK DELAY or LOS DELAY or LOS V/C IMPACT NO.INTERSECTION HOUR V/C [b]V/C [b][(2)-(1)][c] 1 Manhattan Avenue/AM 14.0 B 14.2 B 0.2 NO 27th Street-Greenwich Village [a]PM 14.2 B 14.4 B 0.2 NO 2 Hermosa Avenue/AM 9.8 A 10.1 B 0.3 NO 15th Street [a]PM 10.2 B 10.8 B 0.6 NO 3 Hermosa Avenue/AM 0.250 A 0.253 A 0.003 NO 14th Street PM 0.293 A 0.296 A 0.003 NO 4 Hermosa Avenue/AM 0.248 A 0.250 A 0.002 NO 13th Street PM 0.303 A 0.305 A 0.002 NO 5 Hermosa Avenue/AM 0.334 A 0.340 A 0.006 NO Pier Avenue PM 0.290 A 0.294 A 0.004 NO 6 Manhattan Avenue (West)/AM 9.7 A 9.7 A 0.0 NO Pier Avenue [a]PM 9.5 A 9.5 A 0.0 NO 7 Manhattan Avenue (East)/AM 11.1 B 11.1 B 0.0 NO Pier Avenue [a]PM 11.3 B 11.4 B 0.1 NO 8 Monterey Boulevard/AM 9.2 A 9.2 A 0.0 NO Pier Avenue [a]PM 10.2 B 10.2 B 0.1 NO [a]Unsignalized intersection. Reported value represents the highest delay (in seconds per vehicle) associated with the most constrained movement/approach to the intersection. [b]Level of Service (LOS) is based on the reported ICU value for signalized intersections and on the delay for unsignalized instesections. [c]According to City of Hermosa Beach, a transportation impact on an intersection shall be deemed significant in accordance with the following table: City of Hermosa Beach intersection impact threshold criteria is as follows: Final v/c LOS Project Related Increase in v/c >=0.801 - 0.900 D - signalized equal to or greater than 0.02 >=0.901 E/F - signalized equal to or greater than 0.01 Drop in LOS by one level D/E/F - unsignalized - 40 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project Table 9-2 FUTURE CONDITIONS SUMMARY OF VOLUME TO CAPACITY RATIOSDELAY AND LEVELS OF SERVICEWEEKDAY AM AND PM PEAK HOURS [1][2] YEAR 2014 YEAR 2014 FUTURE FUTURE WITHOUT WITH PROJECT PROJECT CHANGE SIGNIF. PEAK DELAY or LOS DELAY or LOS V/C IMPACT NO.INTERSECTION HOUR V/C [b]V/C [b][(2)-(1)][c] 1 Manhattan Avenue/AM 16.3 C 16.6 C 0.2 NO 27th Street-Greenwich Village [a]PM 18.0 C 18.4 C 0.3 NO 2 Hermosa Avenue/AM 10.2 B 10.4 B 0.2 NO 15th Street [a]PM 10.6 B 11.3 B 0.7 NO 3 Hermosa Avenue/AM 0.263 A 0.265 A 0.002 NO 14th Street PM 0.315 A 0.317 A 0.002 NO 4 Hermosa Avenue/AM 0.292 A 0.295 A 0.003 NO 13th Street PM 0.443 A 0.445 A 0.002 NO 5 Hermosa Avenue/AM 0.393 A 0.399 A 0.006 NO Pier Avenue PM 0.363 A 0.367 A 0.004 NO 6 Manhattan Avenue (West)/AM 10.0 A 10.1 B 0.1 NO Pier Avenue [a]PM 10.0 A 10.1 B 0.1 NO 7 Manhattan Avenue (East)/AM 11.8 B 11.9 B 0.1 NO Pier Avenue [a]PM 12.6 B 12.7 B 0.1 NO 8 Monterey Boulevard/AM 9.7 A 9.7 A 0.0 NO Pier Avenue [a]PM 11.3 B 11.3 B 0.1 NO [a]Unsignalized intersection. Reported value represents the highest delay (in seconds per vehicle) associated with the most constrained movement/approach to the intersection. [b]Level of Service (LOS) is based on the reported ICU value for signalized intersections and on the delay for unsignalized intersections. [c]According to City of Hermosa Beach, a transportation impact on an intersection shall be deemed significant in accordance with the following table: City of Hermosa Beach intersection impact threshold criteria is as follows: Final v/c LOS Project Related Increase in v/c >=0.801 - 0.900 D - signalized equal to or greater than 0.02 >=0.901 E/F - signalized equal to or greater than 0.01 Drop in LOS by one level D/E/F - unsignalized - 41 - - 42 - - 43 - - 44 - - 45 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 9.2.2 Future With Project Conditions As shown in column [2] of Table 9–2, application of the City’s threshold criteria to the “With Proposed Project” scenario indicates that the proposed project is not expected to create significant impacts at the eight study intersections. Incremental, but not significant, impacts are noted at the study intersections and all study intersections are expected to continue operating at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the addition of growth in ambient traffic, related projects traffic, and project traffic, as presented in Table 9–2. The future Year 2014 with project (existing, ambient growth, related projects and project) traffic volumes at the study intersections during the weekday AM and PM peak hours are illustrated in Figures 9–5 and 9–6, respectively. - 46 - - 47 - - 48 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 10.0 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT MEASURES The results of the intersection capacity analyses summarized in Tables 9-1 and 9-2 indicate that the proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel is not expected to create significant impacts at any of the eight (8) key study intersections. As there are no significant impacts, no traffic mitigation measures are required or recommended for the study intersections. However, as previously noted (see Subsection 3.3), improvement measures are recommended to facilitate access to and from the planned project site. In addition, it is recommended that transportation demand management (TDM) measures be implemented as part of the proposed project. The subsections below provide summaries of the recommended access improvement measures and TDM measures. 10.1 Project Access Recommendations The following measures are recommended to facilitate access to and from the planned project site: • Direct project site guests and visitors to utilize the 15th Street project driveway to access the site. • Direct vendors to utilize the designated on-street meter parking space(s) along the Hermosa Avenue property frontage for service and deliveries at the project site in order to limit potential conflicts between service/delivery vehicles with pedestrians and bicyclists. • Develop a parking management plan for the proposed project, including details on the internal valet parking operations to address any potential queuing onto public right-of- way. • Install appropriate pavement markings (i.e., stop bar with STOP legend) on the project drive aisle just south of the public sidewalk to ensure that motorists stop prior to the sidewalk along 15th Street and at the 15th Court project drive aisle before exiting the site. • Install a pavement left-turn arrow prior to the stop bar/STOP legend on the 15th Court project drive aisle to reinforce the left-turn only movement for motorists exiting the site. • Provide bicycle parking within the ground floor of the project site in a readily accessible location(s). The selected location(s) should encourage use and maintain visibility for personal safety and theft protection. Appropriate lighting will be provided to increase safety and provide theft protection during night-time parking. - 49 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 10.2 Transportation Demand Management Transportation demand management measures are recommended to be components of the proposed project so as to make every effort to reduce vehicular traffic and parking generated at the project site. The TDM measures that may be implemented as part of the proposed project should be aimed at decreasing the number of vehicular trips generated by persons traveling to/from the site by offering specific facilities, services and actions designed to increase the use of alternative transportation modes (e.g., transit, walking, bicycling, etc.) and ridesharing. Listed below are examples of TDM measures that should be considered for the proposed project. • Promotion of Transportation Information. The Project Applicant (or Project Applicant’s successors and assigns) should provide on-site information for employees, hotel guests, and visitors about local public transit services, bus fare programs, ride share programs and shuttles, and bicycle facilities (including routes, rental and sales locations, on-site bicycle racks). The Project Applicant (or Project Applicant’s successors and assigns should also provide walking and biking maps for employees, hotel guests, and visitors, which shall include but not be limited to information about convenient local services and restaurants within walking distance of the project site. Such transportation information could be provided through a computer terminal with access to the world wide web. • TDM Web Site Information. The Project Applicant (or Project Applicant’s successors and assigns) should provide transportation information such as the items noted above, including links to local transit providers, area walking and bicycling maps, etc., to inform employees, hotel guests, and visitors of available alternative transportation modes to access the project site and travel in the area. • Convenient Parking and Facilities for Bicycle Riders. The Project Applicant (or Project Applicant’s successors and assigns) should provide a location(s) for convenient parking for bicycle commuters for employees working at the site, guests traveling to/from the site, and visitors to the site. The bicycle parking will be located within the project site such that long- term and short-term parkers can be accommodated. - 50 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 11.0 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT The Congestion Management Program (CMP) is a state-mandated program that was enacted by the State Legislature with the passage of Proposition 111 in 1990. The program is intended to address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system. As required by the 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) has been prepared to determine the potential impacts on designated monitoring locations on the CMP highway system. The analysis has been prepared in accordance with procedures outlined in the 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, County of Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 2010. 11.1 Intersections The following CMP intersection monitoring location in the project vicinity has been identified: • CMP Station No. 22 Pacific Coast Highway/Artesia Boulevard-Gould Avenue Intersection The CMP TIA guidelines require that intersection monitoring locations must be examined if the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours. The proposed project will not add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours (i.e., of adjacent street traffic) at the above CMP monitoring intersection in the project vicinity, which is stated in the CMP manual as the threshold criteria for a traffic impact assessment. Therefore, no further review of potential impacts to intersection monitoring locations that are part of the CMP highway system is required. 11.2 Freeways No CMP freeway monitoring locations are located in the project vicinity. Further, the CMP TIA guidelines require that freeway monitoring locations must be examined if the proposed project will add 150 or more trips (in either direction) during either the AM or PM weekday peak periods. The proposed project will not add 150 or more trips (in either direction), during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours to the CMP freeway monitoring location, which is the threshold for preparing a traffic impact assessment, as stated in the CMP manual. Therefore, no further review of potential impacts to freeway monitoring locations that are part of the CMP highway system is required. - 51 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 11.3 Transit Impact Review As required by the 2010 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County, a review has been made of the CMP transit service. Existing transit service is provided in the vicinity of the proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel project. The project trip generation, as shown in Table 6-1, was adjusted by values set forth in the CMP (i.e., person trips equal 1.4 times vehicle trips, and transit trips equal 3.5 percent of the total person trips) to estimate transit trip generation. Pursuant to the CMP guidelines, the proposed project is forecast to generate demand for one transit trip during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the proposed project also is anticipated to generate demand for one transit trip. Over a 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate demand for 13 daily transit trips. The calculations are as follows: • AM Peak Hour = 20 × 1.4 × 0.035 = 1 Transit Trip • PM Peak Hour = 21 × 1.4 × 0.035 = 1 Transit Trip • Daily Trips = 268 × 1.4 × 0.035 = 13 Transit Trips As shown in Table 4-1, two bus transit lines and routes are provided adjacent to or in close proximity to the project site, with one of these transit lines and routes directly serving the site along the project frontage. A total of two different bus transit providers provide service within the study area. As outlined in Table 4-1 under the “No. of Buses During Peak Hour” column, these two transit lines provide service for an average (i.e., an average of the directional number of buses during the peak hours) of approximately eight buses during the AM peak hour and six buses during the PM peak hour. Therefore, based on the above calculated peak hour transit trips, this would correspond to less than one transit rider per bus. Thus, given the low number of generated transit trips per bus, no impacts on existing or future transit services in the project area are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. - 52 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 12.0 PARKING SUPPLY-DEMAND ANALYSIS This parking analysis involves determining the expected parking needs based on the size and type of project land use components (i.e., boutique hotel with meeting/classroom space) and comparing that to the planned parking supply. In general, there are two methods that can be used to estimate the project’s future peak parking needs. These methods include the following: • Application of the City Code requirements (which typically treat each use in the project as a stand-alone use at maximum demand). • Application of shared parking usage patterns by time-of-day (which recognizes that the parking demand for each tenancy type varies by time-of-day and day-of-week). The shared parking analysis typically starts with a Code calculation for each tenancy type and is then adjusted accordingly to reflect the time of day, and/or weekly and monthly variations. The shared parking methodology is concluded to be applicable to a development such as the proposed project, as the project’s land use components (i.e., hotel rooms and meeting/classroom space) experience peak demands at different times of the day. The shared parking approach has been selected for determination purposes as it results in the most realistic determination of a site’s peak parking demand given the project development program. 12.1 City Code Parking Analysis 12.1.1 City Code Parking Requirements The number of parking spaces required to support the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project was calculated using the parking Code requirements as contained in Chapter 17.44 Off-Street Parking of the City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code and compared with the proposed project parking supply. Specifically, Section 17.44.030 (Off-Street Parking – Commercial and Business Uses) and Section 17.44.040 (Parking Requirements for the Downtown District) apply to the proposed land use associated with the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project. The City’s Code parking requirements (i.e., Section 17.44.030 Off-Street Parking – Commercial and Business Uses and Section 17.44.040 - Parking Requirements for the Downtown District) for the proposed land uses associated with the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project are as follows: • H. Hotels: one (1.0) space per unit for the first fifty (50) units; one (1.0) space per one and one-half units after fifty (50) units; and one (1.0) space per two units after one hundred (100) units. Hotels with facilities including restaurants, banquet rooms, conference rooms, commercial retail uses and similar activities shall provide parking for the various uses as computed separately in accordance with the provisions in this chapter. • A. Auditoriums for churches, theater, entertainment, sports and other places and rooms of public assembly for more than twenty (20) persons; one space for each five seats, permanent or removable, or one space for each fifty (50) square feet of gross floor area in the auditorium, whichever is greater. - 53 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc The City Code parking requirements for the proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel project is calculated as follows: • 30 [Guest Rooms] × 1.0 [Spaces] = 30 Spaces • 695 SF [Meeting/Classroom Space] ÷ 50 = 14 Spaces • Total Code Requirement = 44 Spaces Direct application of the City Code parking requirements to the proposed project results in a Code requirement of 44 parking spaces. The City of Hermosa Beach provides for parking in-lieu fees for projects located in the Downtown district (see Section 14.44.040[E]). The City Code parking requirements provide for contribution to an improvement fund for a vehicle parking district to satisfy project parking requirements as defined in the Code. Parking in-lieu fees are used to encourage development in the Downtown district, while planning and providing for parking on a district-wide basis. Generally, in-lieu parking provides the opportunity to cluster parking (as the City of Hermosa Beach has done with the existing Downtown parking structure), to build parking more efficiently, and to facilitate development in locations with difficult parcel configurations. 12.1.2 Planned Parking Supply Based on information provided by the project architect and as shown on the proposed project site plan, a total of 30 marked parking spaces is planned to be provided. All 30 on-site marked parking spaces will be provided in the ground floor level of the project. It is noted that nine (9) tandem spaces (i.e., 18 total spaces) will be included within the project. As part of the parking supply, the project must also provide a minimum of two (2) handicap accessible spaces. This complies with the American With Disabilities Act (ADA) requirement of a minimum of two handicap spaces for parking facilities with 26 to 50 spaces, with one in every six handicap spaces being van accessible. Two (2) handicap accessible parking spaces, including one van handicap accessible space, will be provided as part of the proposed project parking supply, thus, the project will comply with ADA requirements. As previously noted, all parking for guests and visitors at the proposed project will be accommodated via valet parking operations. Valet operators typically utilize drive aisles and other unmarked areas for parking vehicles in order to maximize usage of parking facilities. As such, it is estimated that the project’s valet operators will be able to park a minimum of three (3) vehicles in the drive aisle by maneuvering vehicles within the site. Therefore, the effective project parking supply is calculated to be a total of 33 spaces including marked spaces and vehicles parked in the drive aisle through valet operations. - 54 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 12.1.3 Project Parking Supply-Demand Analysis With an effective project parking supply of 33 spaces (i.e., including marked spaces and valet attended vehicles parked in the drive aisle), the result is a theoretical shortfall of 11 spaces when compared to City Code requirement of 44 spaces. However, the proposed project provides an opportunity to share parking spaces based on the utilization profile of each included land use component. The following section calculates the parking requirements for the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project based on the shared parking methodology approach. 12.2 Shared Parking Demand Analysis 12.2.1 Shared Parking Rationale and Basis Accumulated experience in parking demand characteristics indicates that a mixing of land uses results in an overall parking need that is less than the sum of the individual peak requirements for each land use. Due to the proposed project characteristics, opportunities to share parking can be expected to occur when the hotel is used in combination with the meeting/classroom space. The objective of this shared parking analysis is to forecast the peak parking requirements for the project based on the combined demand patterns of the project’s different land use components. Shared parking calculations recognize that different uses often experience individual peak parking demands at different times of day, or days of the week. When uses share common parking footprints, the total number of spaces needed to support the collective whole is determined by adding parking profiles (by time of day for weekdays versus weekend days), rather than individual peak ratios as represented in the City of Hermosa Beach Zoning Code. In that way, the shared parking approach starts from the City's own Code ratios and results in the design level parking supply needs of a site. It should be noted that the demand results of the shared parking calculation are intended to be used directly for comparison to site supply. Further adjustments to account for walk-in and local patronage also can be applicable in addition to the time of day profiles applied to the peak parking ratios. There is an important common element between the traditional code and the shared parking calculation methodologies; the peak parking ratios or highpoint for each land use's parking profile typically equals the code parking ratio for that use. The analytical procedures for shared parking analyses are well documented in the Shared Parking, 2nd Edition publication by the Urban Land Institute (ULI). Shared parking calculations for the proposed project utilize hourly parking accumulations developed from field studies of single developments in free-standing settings, where travel by private auto is maximized. These characteristics permit the means for calculating peak parking needs when land use types are combined. Further, the shared parking approach illustrates how, at other than peak parking demand times, an increasing surplus of spaces will service the overall needs of the proposed project. The hourly parking demand profiles (expressed in percent of peak demand) utilized in this analysis and applied to the proposed project are based on profiles developed by the ULI and published in - 55 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc Shared Parking, 2nd Edition. The ULI publication presents hourly parking demand profiles for several land use categories such as retail, fine and casual dining, family restaurant, fast-food restaurant, office, medical-dental office, bank, health club leisure hotel, business hotel, etc. These profiles of parking demand have been used directly, by land use type, in the analysis of this site. Specifically, the Leisure Hotel and Conference Center/Banquet categories have been utilized for the project hotel and meeting/classroom land use components. It is noted that the shared parking demand analysis has been prepared using the ULI peak data for Leisure Hotel which typical during the months of July and August. In addition, it is noted that a 25 percent (25%) adjustment has been applied to the parking requirements for the meeting/classroom space to account walk-in patronage by local businesses and residents and internal capture. 12.2.2 Shared Parking Analysis Results The weekday and weekend (typically Saturday) parking demand profiles for the proposed project based on the shared parking methodology are presented in Tables 12-1 and 12-2, respectively. The sizing (number of rooms and square footage) of each component and parking ratios are included in the tabular headings of each land use type. The shared parking demand analysis data worksheets for the weekday and weekend parking design conditions are contained in Appendix C (refer to Appendix Tables C-1 and C-2, respectively). As indicated in Table 12-1, the peak weekday parking demand is expected to occur at 9:00 PM with a peak design level demand of 33 spaces. Based on the effective project parking supply of 33 spaces, the peak parking demand would be satisfied during the peak hour of a typical weekday during July/August conditions. As shown in Table 12-2, the peak weekend parking demand also is expected to occur at 9:00 PM with a peak design level demand of 37 spaces. Based on the effective project parking supply of 33 spaces, a deficiency of 4 spaces would result during the peak hour of a typical weekend day during July/August conditions. 12.3 Parking Recommendations As discussed above, a parking deficiency is forecast for the proposed project when comparing the shared parking demand with the effective parking supply for a typical weekend day under July/August conditions. Given the results of the parking evaluation, it is recommended that the project applicant implement one of the following two approaches to address the forecast deficit of 4 parking spaces: • Enter into a parking agreement to lease parking spaces from nearby private locations (e.g., 205 Pier Avenue, etc.) which have sufficient parking during the weekend peak hours forecast for the proposed project (i.e., during the special circumstance when all hotel rooms and both meeting rooms are fully booked); or • Contribute an in-lieu fee to an improvement fund for a vehicle parking district to mitigate the forecast parking deficit. As noted previously, City Code parking requirements provide for - 56 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project Table 12-1 WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Month:Jul Land Use Leisure Hotel Conference Ctr /Banquet Size 30 Rms 0.695 KSF Peak Pkg Rate[2]1.00 /Rm 1.0 /50 SF Weekday Pkg Rate[3]0.97 /Rm 1.0 /50 SF [5] Gross Spaces 29 Spc.14 Spc.Comparison w/ Adjusted Gross 29 Spc.10 Spc.Parking Supply Spaces[4]Shared 33 Spaces Number of Number of Parking Surplus Time of Day Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 22 0 22 11 7:00 AM 24 0 24 9 8:00 AM 26 3 29 4 9:00 AM 23 6 29 4 10:00 AM 22 6 28 5 11:00 AM 22 6 28 5 12:00 PM 21 7 28 5 1:00 PM 21 7 28 5 2:00 PM 22 7 29 4 3:00 PM 22 7 29 4 4:00 PM 22 7 29 4 5:00 PM 22 10 32 1 6:00 PM 22 10 32 1 7:00 PM 21 10 31 2 8:00 PM 22 10 32 1 9:00 PM 23 10 33 0 10:00 PM 23 5 28 5 11:00 PM 24 0 24 9 12:00 AM 23 0 23 10 Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [5] Parking supply includes marked spaces and estimated valet parked spaces in drive aisle. [2] Peak parking rates based on City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code parking requirements. [3] Weekday parking rates based on the weekday parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. [4] Gross spaces adjusted (25%) to reflect parking demand reduction due to captive market, internal capture, and/or local business and residents walk-in reduction. - 57 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project Table 12-2 WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] Month:Jul Land Use Leisure Hotel Conference Ctr /Banquet Size 30 Rms 0.695 KSF Peak Pkg Rate[2]1.00 /Rm 1.0 /50 SF Weekend Pkg Rate[3]1.00 /Rm 1.0 /50 SF [5] Gross Spaces 30 Spc.14 Spc.Comparison w/ Adjusted Gross 30 Spc.10 Spc.Parking Supply Spaces[4]Shared 33 Spaces Number of Number of Parking Surplus Time of Day Spaces Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 24 0 24 9 7:00 AM 26 0 26 7 8:00 AM 28 3 31 2 9:00 AM 25 6 31 2 10:00 AM 23 6 29 4 11:00 AM 23 6 29 4 12:00 PM 21 7 28 5 1:00 PM 21 7 28 5 2:00 PM 23 7 30 3 3:00 PM 23 7 30 3 4:00 PM 24 7 31 2 5:00 PM 24 10 34 (1) 6:00 PM 24 10 34 (1) 7:00 PM 24 10 34 (1) 8:00 PM 26 10 36 (3) 9:00 PM 27 10 37 (4) 10:00 PM 26 5 31 2 11:00 PM 27 0 27 6 12:00 AM 27 0 27 6 Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [5] Parking supply includes marked spaces and estimated valet parked spaces in drive aisle. [2] Peak parking rates based on City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code parking requirements. [3] Weekend parking rates reflect relationships between the weekend parking demand ratios and the peak parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. [4] Gross spaces adjusted (25%) to reflect parking demand reduction due to captive market, internal capture, and/or local business and residents walk-in reduction. - 58 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc contribution to an improvement fund for a vehicle parking district to satisfy project parking requirements as defined in the Code. 13.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS • Project Description – The project site is located at 1429 Hermosa Avenue (at the southwest corner of the Hermosa Avenue/15th Street intersection). The proposed project consists of the development of a boutique hotel with a total of 30 guest rooms including eight double rooms and 22 single (king) rooms, and ancillary support facilities (e.g., lobby/check-in, sitting areas, etc.) as is commonly provided within most hotels. However, it should be noted that the proposed project will not include banquet halls, other large scale meeting space, or restaurants/lounges. The proposed project is planned to include a total of roughly 30 parking spaces with all of the parking spaces provided on the ground level. Vehicular access to the site is planned to be provided via a single driveway on 15th Street along the northerly property frontage and via a single driveway on 15th Court along the southerly property frontage. Additionally, all parking for guests and visitors at the proposed project will be conducted via valet parking operations. Construction of the proposed project is planned to begin in year 2013 with occupancy in year 2014. • Study Scope – The following eight (8) intersections were selected for detailed peak hour level of service analyses under Existing (Year 2012) Traffic Conditions, Existing With Project Traffic Conditions, Future (Year 2014) Without Project Traffic Conditions, and Future With Project Traffic Conditions: 1. Manhattan Avenue/27th Street-Greenwich Village 2. Hermosa Avenue/15th Street 3. Hermosa Avenue/14th Street 4. Hermosa Avenue/13th Street 5. Hermosa Avenue/Pier Avenue 6. Manhattan Avenue West/Pier Avenue 7. Manhattan Avenue East/Pier Avenue 8. Monterey Boulevard/Pier Avenue The analysis is focused on assessing potential traffic impacts during the morning and evening commute peak hours (between 7:00 to 9:00 AM and 4:00 to 6:00 PM) on a typical weekday. • Project Trip Generation – On a typical weekday, the proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel project is expected to generate 20 vehicle trips (12 inbound trips and 8 outbound trips) during the weekday AM peak hour. During the weekday PM peak hour, the proposed project is expected to generate - 59 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc 21 vehicle trips (10 inbound trips and 11 outbound trips). Over a 24-hour period, the proposed project is forecast to generate 268 daily trip ends during a typical weekday (134 inbound trips and 134 outbound trips). • Related Projects Trip Generation – Eight (8) related projects were considered as part of the cumulative traffic analysis. These eight (8) related projects are all located in the City of Hermosa Beach. On a typical weekday, the related projects are expected to generate a combined total of 9,282 daily trips during a typical weekday, 457 trips (271 inbound trips and 186 outbound) during the weekday AM peak hour, and 875 trips (431 inbound trips and 444 outbound trips) during the weekday PM peak hour. • Existing (Year 2012) Traffic Conditions – All eight (8) key study intersections currently operate at an acceptable service level (i.e., LOS B or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak hour based on City of Hermosa Beach LOS standards. • Existing (Year 2012) With Project Traffic Conditions - The results of the traffic analysis indicate that the proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel project is not expected to create significant impacts at any of the eight study intersections. Incremental, but not significant, impacts are noted at the study intersections. Because there are no significant impacts, no traffic mitigation measures are required or recommended for the study intersections under the “Existing With Project” conditions. However, improvement measures are recommended to facilitate access to and from the planned project site. • Future (Year 2014) Without Project Traffic Conditions – All eight study intersections are expected to operate at LOS C or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours with the addition of growth in ambient traffic and related project traffic under the future without project conditions based on City of Hermosa Beach LOS standards. • Future (Year 2014) Future With Project Traffic Conditions – The results of the traffic analysis indicate that the proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel project is not expected to create significant impacts at any of the eight study intersections. Incremental, but not significant, impacts are noted at the study intersections. Because there are no significant impacts, no traffic mitigation measures are required or recommended for the study intersections under the “Future With Project” conditions. However, improvement measures are recommended to facilitate access to and from the planned project site. • CMP Traffic Assessment – The results of the Los Angeles CMP indicated that the proposed Hermosa Boutique Hotel project will not adversely affect any CMP arterial monitoring intersections or freeway monitoring locations, as well as nearby transit operations. Therefore, no improvements/mitigation measures are required of this project. • Parking Supply-Demand Analysis – The required number of parking spaces for the Hermosa Boutique Hotel project, based on City Code parking requirement totals 44 spaces. With an - 60 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\3996-Report3.doc effective parking supply of 33 parking spaces including marked spaces and vehicles parked in the drive aisle with valet operations, the result is a theoretical shortfall of 11 spaces when compared to City Code requirement of 44 spaces. The results of the shared parking demand analysis, which is based on the ULI shared parking methodology, indicate that the parking supply is expected to result in a deficiency of 4 parking spaces during the peak hour of a typical weekend day during July/August conditions when the hotel and both meetings rooms are fully booked. Given the results of the parking evaluation, it is recommended that the project applicant either 1) enter into a parking agreement to lease parking spaces from nearby private locations (e.g., 205 Pier Avenue, etc.) which have sufficient parking during the weekend peak hours forecast for the proposed project (i.e., during the special circumstance when all hotel rooms and both meeting rooms are fully booked); or 2) Contribute an in-lieu fee to an improvement fund for a vehicle parking district to mitigate the forecast parking deficit. - 61 - LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\Appendix Covers.doc APPENDIX A TRAFFIC COUNT DATA File Name : Man27th_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds Thru Peds Thru Peds Thru Peds Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 07:15 AM 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 4 07:45 AM 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 6 Total 0 2 0 4 0 5 0 0 11 08:15 AM 0 0 6 0 0 1 0 0 7 08:30 AM 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 08:45 AM 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 4 Total 0 2 8 2 0 1 1 0 14 04:00 PM 1 0 0 4 1 0 3 0 9 04:15 PM 1 4 0 4 3 0 3 1 16 04:30 PM 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 2 11 04:45 PM 0 3 0 1 2 1 0 1 8 Total 2 11 0 12 6 3 6 4 44 05:00 PM 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 05:15 PM 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 5 9 05:30 PM 4 3 1 0 0 1 3 1 13 05:45 PM 4 8 0 0 0 3 1 2 18 Total 8 14 2 3 0 4 4 8 43 Grand Total 10 29 10 21 6 13 11 12 112 Apprch %25.6 74.4 32.3 67.7 31.6 68.4 47.8 52.2 Total %8.9 25.9 8.9 18.8 5.4 11.6 9.8 10.7 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 0 1 1 0 2 2 0 3 3 0 0 0 6 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:15 AM 0 0 0 6 0 6 0 1 1 0 0 0 7 08:30 AM 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Total Volume 0 3 3 7 2 9 0 4 4 0 0 0 16 % App. Total 0 100 77.8 22.2 0 100 0 0 PHF .000 .375 .375 .292 .250 .375 .000 .333 .333 .000 .000 .000 .571 Manhattan Ave Greenwich 27th St Manhattan Ave Thru0 Peds3 InOut Total0 3 3 Thru7 Peds2 OutTotalIn0 9 9 Thru 0 Peds 4 Out TotalIn 0 4 4 Thru0 Peds0 TotalOutIn7 0 7 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM Bank 2 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 3 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 1 0 1 0 4 4 1 0 1 3 0 3 9 04:15 PM 1 4 5 0 4 4 3 0 3 3 1 4 16 04:30 PM 0 4 4 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 2 2 11 04:45 PM 0 3 3 0 1 1 2 1 3 0 1 1 8 Total Volume 2 11 13 0 12 12 6 3 9 6 4 10 44 % App. Total 15.4 84.6 0 100 66.7 33.3 60 40 PHF .500 .688 .650 .000 .750 .750 .500 .375 .750 .500 .500 .625 .688 Manhattan Ave Greenwich 27th St Manhattan Ave Thru2 Peds11 InOut Total6 13 19 Thru0 Peds12 OutTotalIn6 12 18 Thru6 Peds3 Out TotalIn2 9 11 Thru6 Peds4 TotalOutIn0 10 10 Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM Bank 2 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_Bus Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 07:30 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 08:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 04:45 PM 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 Total 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 05:00 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 05:45 PM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 Grand Total 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 0 0 15 Apprch %0 0 100 0 0 0 50 0 50 100 0 0 Total %0 0 40 0 0 0 6.7 0 6.7 46.7 0 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_Bus Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 07:30 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 5 % App. Total 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .000 .500 .625 Manhattan Ave Greenwich 27th St Manhattan Ave Right1 Thru0 Left0 InOut Total4 1 5 Right0 Thru0 Left0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Out TotalIn 0 0 0 Left4 Thru0 Right0 TotalOutIn1 4 5 Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM Bank 2 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_Bus Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 3 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:45 PM 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 05:00 PM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 Total Volume 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 6 % App. Total 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .375 .375 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .250 .500 .000 .000 .500 .500 Manhattan Ave Greenwich 27th St Manhattan Ave Right 3 Thru 0 Left 0 InOut Total 2 3 5 Right0 Thru0 Left0 OutTotalIn1 0 1 Left0 Thru0 Right1 Out TotalIn0 1 1 Left2 Thru0 Right0 TotalOutIn3 2 5 Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM Bank 2 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 7 4 3 6 5 5 0 31 9 32 13 0 115 07:15 AM 11 4 16 9 10 6 0 43 10 49 31 1 190 07:30 AM 9 11 19 6 18 12 0 43 19 76 26 2 241 07:45 AM 17 16 19 10 15 18 0 55 10 64 20 0 244 Total 44 35 57 31 48 41 0 172 48 221 90 3 790 08:00 AM 12 22 22 13 14 6 0 53 22 76 31 3 274 08:15 AM 12 6 19 9 15 15 1 52 23 62 17 0 231 08:30 AM 13 5 14 10 14 30 0 34 19 46 22 1 208 08:45 AM 9 11 23 7 18 21 1 32 19 37 18 2 198 Total 46 44 78 39 61 72 2 171 83 221 88 6 911 04:00 PM 16 23 27 12 21 7 1 22 13 15 11 0 168 04:15 PM 13 31 45 13 33 7 0 19 13 31 18 0 223 04:30 PM 10 29 43 12 22 15 0 25 11 26 11 0 204 04:45 PM 20 27 61 11 23 11 1 19 16 25 15 3 232 Total 59 110 176 48 99 40 2 85 53 97 55 3 827 05:00 PM 16 37 57 10 24 12 0 21 9 20 16 1 223 05:15 PM 11 49 54 15 23 15 0 24 9 20 9 1 230 05:30 PM 16 46 65 13 29 13 0 15 17 26 15 3 258 05:45 PM 17 58 65 14 34 18 4 23 16 22 14 1 286 Total 60 190 241 52 110 58 4 83 51 88 54 6 997 Grand Total 209 379 552 170 318 211 8 511 235 627 287 18 3525 Apprch %18.3 33.2 48.4 24.3 45.5 30.2 1.1 67.8 31.2 67.3 30.8 1.9 Total %5.9 10.8 15.7 4.8 9 6 0.2 14.5 6.7 17.8 8.1 0.5 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 9 11 19 39 6 18 12 36 0 43 19 62 76 26 2 104 241 07:45 AM 17 16 19 52 10 15 18 43 0 55 10 65 64 20 0 84 244 08:00 AM 12 22 22 56 13 14 6 33 0 53 22 75 76 31 3 110 274 08:15 AM 12 6 19 37 9 15 15 39 1 52 23 76 62 17 0 79 231 Total Volume 50 55 79 184 38 62 51 151 1 203 74 278 278 94 5 377 990 % App. Total 27.2 29.9 42.9 25.2 41.1 33.8 0.4 73 26.6 73.7 24.9 1.3 PHF .735 .625 .898 .821 .731 .861 .708 .878 .250 .923 .804 .914 .914 .758 .417 .857 .903 Manhattan Ave Greenwich 27th St Manhattan Ave Right79 Thru55 Left50 InOut Total532 184 716 Right51 Thru62 Left38 OutTotalIn218 151 369 Left 1 Thru 203 Right 74 Out TotalIn 98 278 376 Left278 Thru94 Right5 TotalOutIn142 377 519 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 3 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 16 37 57 110 10 24 12 46 0 21 9 30 20 16 1 37 223 05:15 PM 11 49 54 114 15 23 15 53 0 24 9 33 20 9 1 30 230 05:30 PM 16 46 65 127 13 29 13 55 0 15 17 32 26 15 3 44 258 05:45 PM 17 58 65 140 14 34 18 66 4 23 16 43 22 14 1 37 286 Total Volume 60 190 241 491 52 110 58 220 4 83 51 138 88 54 6 148 997 % App. Total 12.2 38.7 49.1 23.6 50 26.4 2.9 60.1 37 59.5 36.5 4.1 PHF .882 .819 .927 .877 .867 .809 .806 .833 .250 .865 .750 .802 .846 .844 .500 .841 .872 Manhattan Ave Greenwich 27th St Manhattan Ave Right 241 Thru 190 Left 60 InOut Total 229 491 720 Right58 Thru110 Left52 OutTotalIn165 220 385 Left4 Thru83 Right51 Out TotalIn248 138 386 Left88 Thru54 Right6 TotalOutIn355 148 503 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_Semi Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 08:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 04:30 PM 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Grand Total 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 Apprch %0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 Total %0 0 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_Semi Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 08:45 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total Volume 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 3 % App. Total 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 PHF .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .250 .375 Manhattan Ave Greenwich 27th St Manhattan Ave Right1 Thru0 Left0 InOut Total1 1 2 Right0 Thru0 Left0 OutTotalIn1 0 1 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Out TotalIn 0 0 0 Left1 Thru1 Right0 TotalOutIn1 2 3 Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM Bank 2 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_Semi Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 3 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 03:45 PM 03:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 % App. Total 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .000 .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 Manhattan Ave Greenwich 27th St Manhattan Ave Right 0 Thru 0 Left 0 InOut Total 0 0 0 Right0 Thru0 Left2 OutTotalIn0 2 2 Left0 Thru0 Right0 Out TotalIn2 0 2 Left0 Thru0 Right0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 03:45 PM Bank 2 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_SUnit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 1 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 07:15 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 08:45 AM 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 04:15 PM 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 Grand Total 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 1 1 12 Apprch %0 25 75 0 100 0 33.3 66.7 0 50 25 25 Total %0 8.3 25 0 8.3 0 8.3 16.7 0 16.7 8.3 8.3 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_SUnit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 07:15 AM 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 3 % App. Total 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .000 .000 .250 .750 Manhattan Ave Greenwich 27th St Manhattan Ave Right1 Thru0 Left0 InOut Total1 1 2 Right0 Thru1 Left0 OutTotalIn0 1 1 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Out TotalIn 0 0 0 Left1 Thru0 Right0 TotalOutIn2 1 3 Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : Man27th_SUnit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 3 Manhattan Ave Southbound 27th St Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Greenwich Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 Total Volume 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 1 5 % App. Total 0 50 50 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 0 100 PHF .000 .250 .250 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .250 .250 .625 Manhattan Ave Greenwich 27th St Manhattan Ave Right 1 Thru 1 Left 0 InOut Total 1 2 3 Right0 Thru0 Left0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Left1 Thru1 Right0 Out TotalIn2 2 4 Left0 Thru0 Right1 TotalOutIn2 1 3 Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 PHONE 626.446.2877 FAX trafsolutn@aol.com PEDESTRIAN - BICYCLE COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - ENGINEERS PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE:THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 PERIOD:AM / PM INTERSECTION:HERMOSA AVENUE / 15TH STREET FILE:4PED-BIKE 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D PERIOD A B C D 0700-0715 0 0 0 0 0700-0715 0 0 0 1 0715-0730 0 0 0 1 0715-0730 0 0 0 2 0730-0745 0 0 0 3 0730-0745 0 0 0 1 0745-0800 0 0 0 3 0745-0800 0 0 0 5 0800-0815 0 0 0 2 0800-0815 0 0 0 9 0815-0830 0 0 0 3 0815-0830 0 0 0 2 0830-0845 0 0 0 5 0830-0845 0 0 0 8 0845-0900 0 0 0 4 0845-0900 0 0 0 3 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D TOTALS PERIOD A B C D TOTALS 0700-0800 0 0 0 7 7 0700-0800 0 0 0 9 9 0715-0815 0 0 0 9 9 0715-0815 0 0 0 17 17 0730-0830 0 0 0 11 11 0730-0830 0 0 0 17 17 0745-0845 0 0 0 13 13 0745-0845 0 0 0 24 24 0800-0900 0 0 0 14 14 0800-0900 0 0 0 22 22 PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTSPEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 PHONE 626.446.2877 FAX trafsolutn@aol.com 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D PERIOD A B C D 0400-0415 0 0 0 2 0400-0415 0 0 0 6 0415-0430 0 0 0 7 0415-0430 0 0 0 13 0430-0445 0 0 0 7 0430-0445 0 0 0 8 0445-0500 0 0 0 6 0445-0500 0 0 0 3 0500-0515 0 0 0 5 0500-0515 0 0 0 6 0515-0530 0 0 0 6 0515-0530 0 0 0 8 0530-0545 0 0 0 5 0530-0545 0 0 0 7 0545-0600 0 0 0 10 0545-0600 0 0 0 4 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D TOTALS PERIOD A B C D TOTALS 0400-0500 0 0 0 22 22 0400-0500 0 0 0 30 30 0415-0515 0 0 0 25 25 0415-0515 0 0 0 30 30 0430-0530 0 0 0 24 24 0430-0530 0 0 0 25 25 0445-0545 0 0 0 22 22 0445-0545 0 0 0 24 24 0500-0600 0 0 0 26 26 0500-0600 0 0 0 25 25 PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTSPEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 15TH STREET FILE NUMBER:4-AM CAR 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 27 0 0 0 0 0 36 1 0 0 1 0715-0730 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 57 1 4 0 4 0730-0745 1 40 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 2 0 4 0745-0800 1 37 0 0 0 0 0 99 0 2 0 2 0800-0815 1 49 0 0 0 0 0 108 3 6 0 2 0815-0830 1 53 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 2 0 2 0830-0845 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 88 2 3 0 2 0845-0900 1 44 0 0 0 0 0 77 2 0 0 2 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 2 124 0 0 0 0 0 262 2 8 0 11 409 0715-0815 3 146 0 0 0 0 0 334 4 14 0 12 513 0730-0830 4 179 0 0 0 0 0 380 3 12 0 10 588 0745-0845 3 189 0 0 0 0 0 398 5 13 0 8 616 0800-0900 3 196 0 0 0 0 0 376 7 11 0 8 601 3 189 0 5 398 0 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0745-0845 8 0 13 15TH STREET DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 15TH STREET FILE NUMBER:4-PM CAR 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 2 80 0 0 0 0 0 54 2 3 0 1 0415-0430 1 85 0 0 0 0 0 59 1 1 0 2 0430-0445 1 83 0 0 0 0 0 51 2 0 0 1 0445-0500 2 82 0 0 0 0 0 41 2 2 0 0 0500-0515 3 93 0 0 0 0 0 55 3 3 0 2 0515-0530 1 97 0 0 0 0 0 59 4 3 0 0 0530-0545 3 118 0 0 0 0 0 50 3 3 0 0 0545-0600 4 112 0 0 0 0 0 62 2 2 0 1 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 6 330 0 0 0 0 0 205 7 6 0 4 558 0415-0515 7 343 0 0 0 0 0 206 8 6 0 5 575 0430-0530 7 355 0 0 0 0 0 206 11 8 0 3 590 0445-0545 9 390 0 0 0 0 0 205 12 11 0 2 629 0500-0600 11 420 0 0 0 0 0 226 12 11 0 3 683 11 420 0 12 226 0 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0500-0600 3 0 11 15TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 15TH STREET FILE NUMBER:4-AM SMALL TRUCK 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0800-0815 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0815-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0830-0845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 0715-0815 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 9 0730-0830 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 10 0745-0845 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 9 0800-0900 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 8 1 2 0 0 7 0 15TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0730-0830 0 0 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 15TH STREET FILE NUMBER:4-PM SMALL TRUCK 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0415-0430 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0430-0445 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0445-0500 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0500-0515 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0530-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545-0600 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 14 0415-0515 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 11 0430-0530 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 8 0445-0545 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0500-0600 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 6 0 0 5 0 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0400-0500 1 0 1 15TH STREET DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 15TH STREET FILE NUMBER:4-AM LARGE TRUCK 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0800-0815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0815-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0830-0845 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0715-0815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0730-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0745-0845 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0800-0900 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 0 15TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0745-0845 0 0 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 15TH STREET FILE NUMBER:4-PM LARGE TRUCK / NO ACTIVITY OBSERVED 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415-0430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430-0445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445-0500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500-0515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415-0515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0400-0500 0 0 0 15TH STREET DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 15TH STREET FILE NUMBER:4-AM BUS 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0800-0815 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0815-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0830-0845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 0715-0815 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 0730-0830 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 8 0745-0845 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 6 0800-0900 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 5 0 15TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0730-0830 0 0 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 15TH STREET FILE NUMBER:4-PM BUS 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415-0430 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0430-0445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445-0500 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0500-0515 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0515-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0530-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545-0600 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0415-0515 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 0430-0530 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0445-0545 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0500-0600 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0415-0515 0 0 0 15TH STREET THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 PHONE 626.446.2877 FAX trafsolutn@aol.com PEDESTRIAN - BICYCLE COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - ENGINEERS PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE:THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 PERIOD:AM / PM INTERSECTION:HERMOSA AVENUE / 14TH STREET FILE:3PED-BIKE 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D PERIOD A B C D 0700-0715 0 0 1 0 0700-0715 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 1 0 3 0715-0730 0 0 2 1 0730-0745 1 0 2 6 0730-0745 1 5 0 1 0745-0800 1 2 6 2 0745-0800 0 0 0 4 0800-0815 1 0 2 5 0800-0815 2 3 0 9 0815-0830 2 1 4 4 0815-0830 0 5 0 2 0830-0845 7 3 3 8 0830-0845 0 6 0 6 0845-0900 2 0 3 12 0845-0900 0 9 0 2 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D TOTALS PERIOD A B C D TOTALS 0700-0800 2 3 9 11 25 0700-0800 1 5 2 6 14 0715-0815 3 3 10 16 32 0715-0815 3 8 2 15 28 0730-0830 5 3 14 17 39 0730-0830 3 13 0 16 32 0745-0845 11 6 15 19 51 0745-0845 2 14 0 21 37 0800-0900 12 4 12 29 57 0800-0900 2 23 0 19 44 PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTSPEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 PHONE 626.446.2877 FAX trafsolutn@aol.com 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D PERIOD A B C D 0400-0415 4 2 3 8 0400-0415 2 0 0 4 0415-0430 1 2 5 11 0415-0430 0 4 1 14 0430-0445 0 2 6 7 0430-0445 0 2 2 8 0445-0500 2 1 9 7 0445-0500 0 9 0 3 0500-0515 6 3 5 5 0500-0515 0 2 0 3 0515-0530 6 10 6 6 0515-0530 0 5 1 7 0530-0545 2 4 9 10 0530-0545 0 3 0 5 0545-0600 6 9 7 16 0545-0600 1 3 0 2 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D TOTALS PERIOD A B C D TOTALS 0400-0500 7 7 23 33 70 0400-0500 2 15 3 29 49 0415-0515 9 8 25 30 72 0415-0515 0 17 3 28 48 0430-0530 14 16 26 25 81 0430-0530 0 18 3 21 42 0445-0545 16 18 29 28 91 0445-0545 0 19 1 18 38 0500-0600 20 26 27 37 110 0500-0600 1 13 1 17 32 PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTSPEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 14TH STREET FILE NUMBER:3-AM CAR 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 2 23 0 3 0 2 2 34 2 2 0 1 0715-0730 4 20 1 0 1 1 1 54 7 0 1 0 0730-0745 2 37 1 0 3 4 2 68 3 1 1 2 0745-0800 4 33 1 0 2 2 2 91 8 0 4 5 0800-0815 2 55 1 1 4 4 3 102 9 2 2 3 0815-0830 4 50 4 1 0 0 4 98 6 2 2 3 0830-0845 3 50 2 2 0 1 3 86 9 1 0 3 0845-0900 2 37 3 0 2 1 2 76 7 0 1 4 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 12 113 3 3 6 9 7 247 20 3 6 8 437 0715-0815 12 145 4 1 10 11 8 315 27 3 8 10 554 0730-0830 12 175 7 2 9 10 11 359 26 5 9 13 638 0745-0845 13 188 8 4 6 7 12 377 32 5 8 14 674 0800-0900 11 192 10 4 6 6 12 362 31 5 5 13 657 13 188 8 32 377 12 14TH STREET 6 7 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 4 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0745-0845 14 8 5 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 14TH STREET FILE NUMBER:3-PM CAR 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 5 76 4 3 2 2 3 51 7 3 0 3 0415-0430 1 86 2 3 1 5 5 53 7 2 1 0 0430-0445 2 84 1 0 2 4 7 52 5 3 1 2 0445-0500 6 69 2 2 3 5 3 37 9 7 0 2 0500-0515 4 98 2 3 6 2 2 48 12 2 2 5 0515-0530 4 96 2 6 3 2 7 50 7 3 2 3 0530-0545 3 117 4 5 2 1 3 49 10 2 2 1 0545-0600 6 100 3 3 1 3 5 59 11 4 0 2 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 14 315 9 8 8 16 18 193 28 15 2 7 633 0415-0515 13 337 7 8 12 16 17 190 33 14 4 9 660 0430-0530 16 347 7 11 14 13 19 187 33 15 5 12 679 0445-0545 17 380 10 16 14 10 15 184 38 14 6 11 715 0500-0600 17 411 11 17 12 8 17 206 40 11 6 11 767 17 411 11 40 206 17 12 8 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 17 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0500-0600 11 6 11 14TH STREET DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 14TH STREET FILE NUMBER:3-AM SMALL TRUCK 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0745-0800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0800-0815 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0815-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0830-0845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 1 6 0715-0815 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 1 9 0730-0830 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 0 1 11 0745-0845 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 9 0800-0900 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 1 0 0 10 1 1 0 1 6 0 1 14TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0730-0830 1 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 14TH STREET FILE NUMBER:3-PM SMALL TRUCK 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0415-0430 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0430-0445 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0445-0500 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0500-0515 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0530-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545-0600 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 1 6 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 14 0415-0515 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 10 0430-0530 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 8 0445-0545 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 5 0500-0600 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 6 0 1 5 0 14TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0400-0500 0 0 1 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 14TH STREET FILE NUMBER:3-AM LARGE TRUCK 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0800-0815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0815-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0830-0845 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0715-0815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0730-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0745-0845 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0800-0900 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 14TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0745-0845 0 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 14TH STREET FILE NUMBER:3-PM LARGE TRUCK / NO ACTIVITY OBSERVED 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415-0430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430-0445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445-0500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500-0515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415-0515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0400-0500 0 0 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 14TH STREET FILE NUMBER:3-AM BUS 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0800-0815 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0815-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0830-0845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 0715-0815 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 0730-0830 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 8 0745-0845 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 7 0800-0900 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 5 0 14TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0730-0830 0 0 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 14TH STREET FILE NUMBER:3-PM BUS 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415-0430 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0430-0445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445-0500 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0500-0515 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0515-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0530-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545-0600 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0415-0515 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 0430-0530 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0445-0545 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0500-0600 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0415-0515 0 0 0 14TH STREET THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 PHONE 626.446.2877 FAX trafsolutn@aol.com PEDESTRIAN - BICYCLE COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - ENGINEERS PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE:THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 PERIOD:AM / PM INTERSECTION:HERMOSA AVENUE / 13TH STREET FILE:2PED-BIKE 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D PERIOD A B C D 0700-0715 0 0 2 15 0700-0715 0 0 1 2 0715-0730 0 0 3 15 0715-0730 0 0 0 3 0730-0745 0 0 7 24 0730-0745 0 0 0 5 0745-0800 0 0 10 26 0745-0800 0 0 0 6 0800-0815 0 0 8 23 0800-0815 0 0 1 8 0815-0830 0 0 8 25 0815-0830 0 0 0 3 0830-0845 0 0 12 43 0830-0845 0 0 1 6 0845-0900 0 0 11 51 0845-0900 0 0 0 7 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D TOTALS PERIOD A B C D TOTALS 0700-0800 0 0 22 80 102 0700-0800 0 0 1 16 17 0715-0815 0 0 28 88 116 0715-0815 0 0 1 22 23 0730-0830 0 0 33 98 131 0730-0830 0 0 1 22 23 0745-0845 0 0 38 117 155 0745-0845 0 0 2 23 25 0800-0900 0 0 39 142 181 0800-0900 0 0 2 24 26 PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTSPEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 PHONE 626.446.2877 FAX trafsolutn@aol.com 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D PERIOD A B C D 0400-0415 0 0 7 27 0400-0415 0 0 1 2 0415-0430 0 0 11 29 0415-0430 0 0 2 14 0430-0445 0 0 9 37 0430-0445 0 0 2 10 0445-0500 0 0 10 31 0445-0500 0 0 7 12 0500-0515 0 0 20 36 0500-0515 0 0 5 10 0515-0530 0 0 15 25 0515-0530 0 0 2 16 0530-0545 0 0 16 42 0530-0545 0 0 2 15 0545-0600 0 0 11 39 0545-0600 0 0 3 9 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D TOTALS PERIOD A B C D TOTALS 0400-0500 0 0 37 124 161 0400-0500 0 0 12 38 50 0415-0515 0 0 50 133 183 0415-0515 0 0 16 46 62 0430-0530 0 0 54 129 183 0430-0530 0 0 16 48 64 0445-0545 0 0 61 134 195 0445-0545 0 0 16 53 69 0500-0600 0 0 62 142 204 0500-0600 0 0 12 50 62 PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTSPEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 13TH STREET FILE NUMBER:2-AM CAR 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 30 2 0 0 1 0715-0730 2 22 0 0 0 0 0 59 5 5 0 0 0730-0745 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 75 3 3 0 2 0745-0800 1 39 0 0 0 0 0 101 6 6 0 0 0800-0815 3 54 0 0 0 0 0 109 8 5 0 0 0815-0830 2 52 0 0 0 0 0 110 11 3 0 1 0830-0845 1 42 0 0 0 0 0 95 8 6 0 1 0845-0900 2 45 0 0 0 0 0 78 12 6 0 2 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 3 116 0 0 0 0 0 265 16 14 0 3 417 0715-0815 6 149 0 0 0 0 0 344 22 19 0 2 542 0730-0830 6 179 0 0 0 0 0 395 28 17 0 3 628 0745-0845 7 187 0 0 0 0 0 415 33 20 0 2 664 0800-0900 8 193 0 0 0 0 0 392 39 20 0 4 656 7 187 0 33 415 0 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0745-0845 2 0 20 13TH STREET DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 13TH STREET FILE NUMBER:2-PM CAR 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 2 67 0 0 0 0 0 44 2 10 0 3 0415-0430 2 99 0 0 0 0 0 69 8 17 0 4 0430-0445 5 74 0 0 0 0 0 50 4 10 0 9 0445-0500 2 90 0 0 0 0 0 49 3 7 0 5 0500-0515 6 81 0 0 0 0 0 50 7 11 0 8 0515-0530 3 110 0 0 0 0 0 66 8 11 0 8 0530-0545 5 100 0 0 0 0 0 51 13 10 0 8 0545-0600 4 118 0 0 0 0 0 62 5 15 0 5 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 11 330 0 0 0 0 0 212 17 44 0 21 635 0415-0515 15 344 0 0 0 0 0 218 22 45 0 26 670 0430-0530 16 355 0 0 0 0 0 215 22 39 0 30 677 0445-0545 16 381 0 0 0 0 0 216 31 39 0 29 712 0500-0600 18 409 0 0 0 0 0 229 33 47 0 29 765 18 409 0 33 229 0 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0500-0600 29 0 47 13TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 13TH STREET FILE NUMBER:2-AM SMALL TRUCK 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0800-0815 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0815-0830 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0830-0845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0715-0815 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 7 0730-0830 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 9 0745-0845 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 8 0800-0900 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 13TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0730-0830 0 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 13TH STREET FILE NUMBER:2-PM SMALL TRUCK 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0415-0430 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0430-0445 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0445-0500 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0500-0515 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0530-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 13 0415-0515 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 9 0430-0530 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 0445-0545 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0500-0600 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 7 0 0 6 0 13TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0400-0500 0 0 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 13TH STREET FILE NUMBER:2-AM LARGE TRUCK 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0800-0815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0815-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0830-0845 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0715-0815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0730-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0745-0845 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0800-0900 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0800-0900 0 0 0 13TH STREET DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 13TH STREET FILE NUMBER:2-PM LARGE TRUCK / NO ACTIVITY OBSERVED 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415-0430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430-0445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445-0500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500-0515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415-0515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0400-0500 0 0 0 13TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 13TH STREET FILE NUMBER:2-AM BUS 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0800-0815 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0815-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0830-0845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 0715-0815 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 7 0730-0830 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 8 0745-0845 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 7 0800-0900 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 5 0 13TH STREET 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0730-0830 0 0 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W 13TH STREET FILE NUMBER:2-PM BUS 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415-0430 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0430-0445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445-0500 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0500-0515 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0515-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0530-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545-0600 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0415-0515 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 0430-0530 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0445-0545 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 0500-0600 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0415-0515 0 0 0 13TH STREET THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 PHONE 626.446.2877 FAX trafsolutn@aol.com PEDESTRIAN - BICYCLE COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - ENGINEERS PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE:THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 PERIOD:AM / PM INTERSECTION:HERMOSA AVENUE / PIER AVENUE FILE:1PED-BIKE 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D PERIOD A B C D 0700-0715 2 0 6 0 0700-0715 0 1 0 0 0715-0730 8 1 7 0 0715-0730 0 3 0 0 0730-0745 7 2 7 0 0730-0745 1 4 0 0 0745-0800 11 1 14 0 0745-0800 1 2 1 0 0800-0815 13 2 8 0 0800-0815 1 4 1 0 0815-0830 12 0 6 0 0815-0830 1 5 1 0 0830-0845 15 1 3 0 0830-0845 1 5 1 0 0845-0900 15 1 7 0 0845-0900 1 10 4 0 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D TOTALS PERIOD A B C D TOTALS 0700-0800 28 4 34 0 66 0700-0800 2 10 1 0 13 0715-0815 39 6 36 0 81 0715-0815 3 13 2 0 18 0730-0830 43 5 35 0 83 0730-0830 4 15 3 0 22 0745-0845 51 4 31 0 86 0745-0845 4 16 4 0 24 0800-0900 55 4 24 0 83 0800-0900 4 24 7 0 35 PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTSPEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91006 626.446.7978 PHONE 626.446.2877 FAX trafsolutn@aol.com 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 15-MINUTE NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D PERIOD A B C D 0400-0415 33 8 34 0 0400-0415 0 1 4 0 0415-0430 34 5 34 0 0415-0430 1 4 8 0 0430-0445 36 5 41 0 0430-0445 4 2 6 0 0445-0500 45 4 51 0 0445-0500 2 5 3 0 0500-0515 29 3 46 0 0500-0515 4 5 4 0 0515-0530 38 8 42 0 0515-0530 3 4 7 0 0530-0545 38 9 48 0 0530-0545 2 2 5 0 0545-0600 24 4 39 0 0545-0600 3 1 5 0 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG 1-HOUR NORTH LEG EAST LEG SOUTH LEG WEST LEG PERIOD A B C D TOTALS PERIOD A B C D TOTALS 0400-0500 148 22 160 0 330 0400-0500 7 12 21 0 40 0415-0515 144 17 172 0 333 0415-0515 11 16 21 0 48 0430-0530 148 20 180 0 348 0430-0530 13 16 20 0 49 0445-0545 150 24 187 0 361 0445-0545 11 16 19 0 46 0500-0600 129 24 175 0 328 0500-0600 12 12 21 0 45 PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTS BICYCLIST MOVEMENTSPEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W PIER AVENUE FILE NUMBER:1-AM CAR 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 16 7 10 0 7 8 30 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 20 9 11 0 8 14 53 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 0 23 17 12 0 10 22 72 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 0 27 16 18 0 13 20 84 0 0 0 0 0800-0815 0 36 14 20 0 9 19 100 0 0 0 0 0815-0830 0 49 12 22 0 14 25 101 0 0 0 0 0830-0845 0 44 14 23 0 19 17 86 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 0 34 16 21 0 17 17 64 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 0 86 49 51 0 38 64 239 0 0 0 0 527 0715-0815 0 106 56 61 0 40 75 309 0 0 0 0 647 0730-0830 0 135 59 72 0 46 86 357 0 0 0 0 755 0745-0845 0 156 56 83 0 55 81 371 0 0 0 0 802 0800-0900 0 163 56 86 0 59 78 351 0 0 0 0 793 0 156 56 0 371 81 0 55 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 83 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0745-0845 0 0 0 PIER AVENUE DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W PIER AVENUE FILE NUMBER:1-PM CAR 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 0 63 20 17 0 22 21 38 0 0 0 0 0415-0430 0 75 33 23 0 20 23 40 0 0 0 0 0430-0445 0 77 26 22 0 24 18 33 0 0 0 0 0445-0500 0 68 20 20 0 17 22 42 0 0 0 0 0500-0515 0 75 21 23 0 18 23 45 0 0 0 0 0515-0530 0 91 20 19 0 17 15 40 0 0 0 0 0530-0545 0 97 21 21 0 21 22 44 0 0 0 0 0545-0600 0 99 27 20 0 22 23 54 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 0 283 99 82 0 83 84 153 0 0 0 0 784 0415-0515 0 295 100 88 0 79 86 160 0 0 0 0 808 0430-0530 0 311 87 84 0 76 78 160 0 0 0 0 796 0445-0545 0 331 82 83 0 73 82 171 0 0 0 0 822 0500-0600 0 362 89 83 0 78 83 183 0 0 0 0 878 0 362 89 0 183 83 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0500-0600 0 0 0 PIER AVENUE 0 78 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 83 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W PIER AVENUE FILE NUMBER:1-AM SMALL TRUCK 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0800-0815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0815-0830 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0830-0845 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 7 0715-0815 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 8 0730-0830 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 0 9 0745-0845 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 9 0800-0900 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 10 0 1 1 0 5 0 PIER AVENUE 0 1 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 2 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0800-0900 0 0 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W PIER AVENUE FILE NUMBER:1-PM SMALL TRUCK 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0415-0430 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0430-0445 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445-0500 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0500-0515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530-0545 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 0 3 4 2 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 14 0415-0515 0 2 3 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 0430-0530 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0445-0545 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0500-0600 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 4 0 4 0 0 1 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 2 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0400-0500 0 0 0 PIER AVENUE DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W PIER AVENUE FILE NUMBER:1-AM LARGE TRUCK 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0800-0815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0815-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0830-0845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0715-0815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0730-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0745-0845 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0800-0900 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0800-0900 0 0 0 PIER AVENUE DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W PIER AVENUE FILE NUMBER:1-PM LARGE TRUCK / NO ACTIVITY OBSERVED 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415-0430 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430-0445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445-0500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500-0515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0515-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0530-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415-0515 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0430-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445-0545 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0500-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0400-0500 0 0 0 PIER AVENUE 0 0 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:07:00 AM TO 09:00 AM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W PIER AVENUE FILE NUMBER:1-AM BUS 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0700-0715 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0715-0730 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0730-0745 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0745-0800 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0800-0815 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0815-0830 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0830-0845 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0845-0900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0700-0800 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 10 0715-0815 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 10 0730-0830 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 6 0 0 0 0 12 0745-0845 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 5 0 0 0 0 11 0800-0900 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 6 0 3 0 0 6 2 0 1 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 HERMOSA AVENUE A.M. PEAK HOUR 0730-0830 0 0 0 PIER AVENUE DATA PROVIDED BY: THE TRAFFIC SOLUTION 329 DIAMOND STREET ARCADIA, CALIFORNIA 91005 PH: 626-446-7978 FAX: 626-446-2877 . INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY CLIENT:LLG - PASADENA PROJECT:HERMOSA BOUTIQUE HOTEL PROJECT - HERMOSA BEACH DATE: PERIOD:04:00 PM TO 06:00 PM INTERSECTION N/S HERMOSA AVENUE E/W PIER AVENUE FILE NUMBER:1-PM BUS 15 MINUTE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT 0400-0415 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0415-0430 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0430-0445 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0445-0500 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0500-0515 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0515-0530 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0530-0545 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0545-0600 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 HOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 TOTALS SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTALS 0400-0500 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 6 0415-0515 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 9 0430-0530 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 7 0445-0545 0 3 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 9 0500-0600 0 2 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 4 0 0 3 1 HERMOSA AVENUE P.M. PEAK HOUR 0415-0515 0 0 0 PIER AVENUE 0 1 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 01, 2012 0 File Name : ManPierE_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 1 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds Thru Peds Thru Peds Thru Peds Int. Total 07:00 AM 2 0 0 8 0 22 0 0 32 07:15 AM 2 0 0 4 0 11 0 0 17 07:30 AM 1 0 2 9 0 11 0 0 23 07:45 AM 1 0 0 7 0 22 0 1 31 Total 6 0 2 28 0 66 0 1 103 08:00 AM 0 0 0 9 0 21 0 1 31 08:15 AM 4 0 0 11 0 18 0 0 33 08:30 AM 1 0 0 10 0 21 0 0 32 08:45 AM 4 0 1 9 0 22 0 0 36 Total 9 0 1 39 0 82 0 1 132 Grand Total 15 0 3 67 0 148 0 2 235 Apprch %100 0 4.3 95.7 0 100 0 100 Total %6.4 0 1.3 28.5 0 63 0 0.9 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierE_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 21 21 0 1 1 31 08:15 AM 4 0 4 0 11 11 0 18 18 0 0 0 33 08:30 AM 1 0 1 0 10 10 0 21 21 0 0 0 32 08:45 AM 4 0 4 1 9 10 0 22 22 0 0 0 36 Total Volume 9 0 9 1 39 40 0 82 82 0 1 1 132 % App. Total 100 0 2.5 97.5 0 100 0 100 PHF .563 .000 .563 .250 .886 .909 .000 .932 .932 .000 .250 .250 .917 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (E leg) Pier Ave (E leg) Manhattan Ave Thru9 Peds0 InOut Total0 9 9 Thru1 Peds39 OutTotalIn0 40 40 Thru 0 Peds 82 Out TotalIn 9 82 91 Thru0 Peds1 TotalOutIn1 1 2 Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierE_Bus Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Total 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 7 Apprch %0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Total %0 0 0 0 57.1 0 0 0 0 0 42.9 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierE_Bus Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 5 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .000 .750 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .625 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (E leg) Pier Ave (E leg) Manhattan Ave Right0 Thru0 Left0 InOut Total0 0 0 Right0 Thru3 Left0 OutTotalIn2 3 5 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Out TotalIn 0 0 0 Left0 Thru2 Right0 TotalOutIn3 2 5 Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierE_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 7 0 5 0 24 10 0 0 0 17 28 0 91 07:15 AM 8 0 3 0 31 8 0 0 0 9 35 0 94 07:30 AM 12 0 1 0 36 7 0 0 0 7 45 0 108 07:45 AM 15 0 4 0 33 9 0 0 0 16 49 0 126 Total 42 0 13 0 124 34 0 0 0 49 157 0 419 08:00 AM 12 0 4 0 35 9 0 0 0 16 57 0 133 08:15 AM 11 0 7 0 37 13 0 0 0 18 38 0 124 08:30 AM 6 0 5 0 43 15 0 0 0 11 39 0 119 08:45 AM 14 0 5 0 41 16 0 0 0 6 61 0 143 Total 43 0 21 0 156 53 0 0 0 51 195 0 519 Grand Total 85 0 34 0 280 87 0 0 0 100 352 0 938 Apprch %71.4 0 28.6 0 76.3 23.7 0 0 0 22.1 77.9 0 Total %9.1 0 3.6 0 29.9 9.3 0 0 0 10.7 37.5 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierE_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 12 0 4 16 0 35 9 44 0 0 0 0 16 57 0 73 133 08:15 AM 11 0 7 18 0 37 13 50 0 0 0 0 18 38 0 56 124 08:30 AM 6 0 5 11 0 43 15 58 0 0 0 0 11 39 0 50 119 08:45 AM 14 0 5 19 0 41 16 57 0 0 0 0 6 61 0 67 143 Total Volume 43 0 21 64 0 156 53 209 0 0 0 0 51 195 0 246 519 % App. Total 67.2 0 32.8 0 74.6 25.4 0 0 0 20.7 79.3 0 PHF .768 .000 .750 .842 .000 .907 .828 .901 .000 .000 .000 .000 .708 .799 .000 .842 .907 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (E leg) Pier Ave (E leg) Manhattan Ave Right21 Thru0 Left43 InOut Total104 64 168 Right53 Thru156 Left0 OutTotalIn238 209 447 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Out TotalIn 0 0 0 Left51 Thru195 Right0 TotalOutIn177 246 423 Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierE_Semi Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Apprch %0 0 0 0 75 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total %0 0 0 0 75 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierE_Semi Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .375 .000 .375 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .375 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (E leg) Pier Ave (E leg) Manhattan Ave Right0 Thru0 Left0 InOut Total0 0 0 Right0 Thru3 Left0 OutTotalIn0 3 3 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Out TotalIn 0 0 0 Left0 Thru0 Right0 TotalOutIn3 0 3 Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM Bank 2 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierE_SUnit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 1 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 07:30 AM 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 Total 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 12 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 08:15 AM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 08:45 AM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Total 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 9 Grand Total 3 0 1 0 7 2 0 0 0 0 8 0 21 Apprch %75 0 25 0 77.8 22.2 0 0 0 0 100 0 Total %14.3 0 4.8 0 33.3 9.5 0 0 0 0 38.1 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierE_SUnit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 07:30 AM 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 6 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Total Volume 0 0 1 1 0 6 2 8 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 14 % App. Total 0 0 100 0 75 25 0 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .375 .500 .500 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .625 .000 .625 .583 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (E leg) Pier Ave (E leg) Manhattan Ave Right1 Thru0 Left0 InOut Total2 1 3 Right2 Thru6 Left0 OutTotalIn5 8 13 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Out TotalIn 0 0 0 Left0 Thru5 Right0 TotalOutIn7 5 12 Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : PM_ManPierE_SUnit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 1 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 05:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Grand Total 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 Apprch %100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Total %20 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : PM_ManPierE_SUnit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:15 PM 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 05:00 PM 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total Volume 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 5 % App. Total 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .250 .000 .000 .250 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .000 .250 .625 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (E leg) Pier Ave (E leg) Right0 Thru0 Left1 InOut Total0 1 1 Right0 Thru2 Left0 OutTotalIn3 2 5 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Out TotalIn 0 0 0 Left0 Thru2 Right0 TotalOutIn2 2 4 Peak Hour Begins at 04:15 PM Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : PM_ManPierE_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds Thru Peds Thru Peds Thru Peds Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 12 04:15 PM 0 0 1 1 6 9 0 0 17 04:30 PM 0 0 1 4 3 22 0 0 30 04:45 PM 0 0 1 2 1 11 0 0 15 Total 0 0 3 9 10 52 0 0 74 05:00 PM 0 0 0 4 6 15 1 0 26 05:15 PM 0 0 0 1 1 12 0 0 14 05:30 PM 0 0 0 2 3 25 0 0 30 05:45 PM 0 0 1 7 3 23 1 0 35 Total 0 0 1 14 13 75 2 0 105 Grand Total 0 0 4 23 23 127 2 0 179 Apprch %0 0 14.8 85.2 15.3 84.7 100 0 Total %0 0 2.2 12.8 12.8 70.9 1.1 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : PM_ManPierE_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 4 4 6 15 21 1 0 1 26 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 12 13 0 0 0 14 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 2 2 3 25 28 0 0 0 30 05:45 PM 0 0 0 1 7 8 3 23 26 1 0 1 35 Total Volume 0 0 0 1 14 15 13 75 88 2 0 2 105 % App. Total 0 0 6.7 93.3 14.8 85.2 100 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .250 .500 .469 .542 .750 .786 .500 .000 .500 .750 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (E leg) Pier Ave (E leg) Thru0 Peds0 InOut Total13 0 13 Thru1 Peds14 OutTotalIn2 15 17 Thru 13 Peds 75 Out TotalIn 0 88 88 Thru2 Peds0 TotalOutIn1 2 3 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM Bank 2 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : PM_ManPierE_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 04:00 PM 5 0 13 0 60 9 0 0 0 3 52 0 142 04:15 PM 17 0 12 0 43 15 0 0 0 7 58 0 152 04:30 PM 14 0 12 0 45 8 0 0 0 6 52 0 137 04:45 PM 8 0 12 0 44 23 0 0 0 4 50 0 141 Total 44 0 49 0 192 55 0 0 0 20 212 0 572 05:00 PM 15 0 10 0 47 14 0 0 0 5 44 0 135 05:15 PM 16 0 13 0 62 13 0 0 0 4 52 0 160 05:30 PM 16 0 13 0 63 14 0 0 0 4 51 0 161 05:45 PM 12 0 29 0 64 27 0 0 0 11 47 0 190 Total 59 0 65 0 236 68 0 0 0 24 194 0 646 Grand Total 103 0 114 0 428 123 0 0 0 44 406 0 1218 Apprch %47.5 0 52.5 0 77.7 22.3 0 0 0 9.8 90.2 0 Total %8.5 0 9.4 0 35.1 10.1 0 0 0 3.6 33.3 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : PM_ManPierE_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (E leg) Westbound Northbound Pier Ave (E leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 15 0 10 25 0 47 14 61 0 0 0 0 5 44 0 49 135 05:15 PM 16 0 13 29 0 62 13 75 0 0 0 0 4 52 0 56 160 05:30 PM 16 0 13 29 0 63 14 77 0 0 0 0 4 51 0 55 161 05:45 PM 12 0 29 41 0 64 27 91 0 0 0 0 11 47 0 58 190 Total Volume 59 0 65 124 0 236 68 304 0 0 0 0 24 194 0 218 646 % App. Total 47.6 0 52.4 0 77.6 22.4 0 0 0 11 89 0 PHF .922 .000 .560 .756 .000 .922 .630 .835 .000 .000 .000 .000 .545 .933 .000 .940 .850 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (E leg) Pier Ave (E leg) Right65 Thru0 Left59 InOut Total92 124 216 Right68 Thru236 Left0 OutTotalIn253 304 557 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Out TotalIn 0 0 0 Left24 Thru194 Right0 TotalOutIn301 218 519 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierW_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 1 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds Thru Peds Thru Peds Thru Peds Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 13 07:15 AM 1 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 9 07:30 AM 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 07:45 AM 1 20 0 0 0 0 0 2 23 Total 3 43 0 0 0 0 1 4 51 08:00 AM 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 14 08:15 AM 3 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 08:30 AM 1 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 12 08:45 AM 1 7 0 2 0 0 0 1 11 Total 5 40 0 4 0 0 0 3 52 Grand Total 8 83 0 4 0 0 1 7 103 Apprch %8.8 91.2 0 100 0 0 12.5 87.5 Total %7.8 80.6 0 3.9 0 0 1 6.8 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierW_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 1 20 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 23 08:00 AM 0 13 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 14 08:15 AM 3 11 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 15 08:30 AM 1 9 10 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 Total Volume 5 53 58 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 4 64 % App. Total 8.6 91.4 0 100 0 0 0 100 PHF .417 .663 .690 .000 .250 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .500 .696 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (W leg) Pier Ave (W leg) Manhattan Ave Thru5 Peds53 InOut Total0 58 58 Thru0 Peds2 OutTotalIn0 2 2 Thru 0 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 5 0 5 Thru0 Peds4 TotalOutIn0 4 4 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierW_Bus Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Total 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 8 Apprch %0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 75 25 Total %0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 37.5 12.5 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierW_Bus Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 07:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierW_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 5 25 0 1 0 23 0 22 1 77 07:15 AM 0 0 0 6 28 0 3 0 18 0 25 1 81 07:30 AM 0 0 0 2 35 0 0 0 22 0 31 2 92 07:45 AM 0 0 0 10 27 0 1 0 26 0 38 2 104 Total 0 0 0 23 115 0 5 0 89 0 116 6 354 08:00 AM 0 0 0 6 35 0 1 0 21 0 54 1 118 08:15 AM 0 0 0 10 38 0 1 0 18 0 38 1 106 08:30 AM 0 0 0 9 38 0 0 0 19 0 32 5 103 08:45 AM 0 0 0 4 42 0 3 0 15 0 52 2 118 Total 0 0 0 29 153 0 5 0 73 0 176 9 445 Grand Total 0 0 0 52 268 0 10 0 162 0 292 15 799 Apprch %0 0 0 16.2 83.8 0 5.8 0 94.2 0 95.1 4.9 Total %0 0 0 6.5 33.5 0 1.3 0 20.3 0 36.5 1.9 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierW_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 08:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 08:00 AM 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 6 35 0 41 1 0 21 22 0 54 1 55 118 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 10 38 0 48 1 0 18 19 0 38 1 39 106 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 9 38 0 47 0 0 19 19 0 32 5 37 103 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 4 42 0 46 3 0 15 18 0 52 2 54 118 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 29 153 0 182 5 0 73 78 0 176 9 185 445 % App. Total 0 0 0 15.9 84.1 0 6.4 0 93.6 0 95.1 4.9 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .725 .911 .000 .948 .417 .000 .869 .886 .000 .815 .450 .841 .943 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (W leg) Pier Ave (W leg) Manhattan Ave Right0 Thru0 Left0 InOut Total0 0 0 Right0 Thru153 Left29 OutTotalIn249 182 431 Left 5 Thru 0 Right 73 Out TotalIn 38 78 116 Left0 Thru176 Right9 TotalOutIn158 185 343 Peak Hour Begins at 08:00 AM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierW_Semi Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:15 AM 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Total 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Grand Total 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Apprch %0 0 0 33.3 66.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total %0 0 0 33.3 66.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierW_Semi Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 07:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierW_SUnit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 1 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 Total 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 11 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 5 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 16 Apprch %0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 87.5 12.5 Total %0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 0 43.8 6.2 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : ManPierW_SUnit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/7/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 07:30 AM - Peak 1 of 1 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : PM_ManPierEW_Bus Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (Both legs) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (Both legs) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 12 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 05:15 PM 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 05:45 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Total 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 6 Grand Total 1 1 0 0 8 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 18 Apprch %50 50 0 0 88.9 11.1 0 0 100 0 100 0 Total %5.6 5.6 0 0 44.4 5.6 0 0 5.6 0 33.3 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : PM_ManPierEW_Bus Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (Both legs) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (Both legs) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 7 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 12 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 87.5 12.5 0 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .292 .250 .286 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .429 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (Both legs) Pier Ave (Both legs) Manhattan Ave Right0 Thru0 Left0 InOut Total1 0 1 Right1 Thru7 Left0 OutTotalIn4 8 12 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Out TotalIn 0 0 0 Left0 Thru4 Right0 TotalOutIn7 4 11 Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : PM_ManPierW_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 1 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds Thru Peds Thru Peds Thru Peds Int. Total 04:00 PM 1 18 1 2 0 0 0 0 22 04:15 PM 4 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 04:30 PM 0 35 5 0 0 0 0 0 40 04:45 PM 6 34 1 0 0 0 0 0 41 Total 11 111 7 2 0 0 0 0 131 05:00 PM 3 36 4 1 0 0 0 0 44 05:15 PM 3 25 1 0 0 0 0 0 29 05:30 PM 2 39 3 2 0 0 0 0 46 05:45 PM 5 19 8 0 0 0 0 0 32 Total 13 119 16 3 0 0 0 0 151 Grand Total 24 230 23 5 0 0 0 0 282 Apprch %9.4 90.6 82.1 17.9 0 0 0 0 Total %8.5 81.6 8.2 1.8 0 0 0 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : PM_ManPierW_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:45 PM 04:45 PM 6 34 40 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 05:00 PM 3 36 39 4 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 05:15 PM 3 25 28 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 05:30 PM 2 39 41 3 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 Total Volume 14 134 148 9 3 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 160 % App. Total 9.5 90.5 75 25 0 0 0 0 PHF .583 .859 .902 .563 .375 .600 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .870 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (W leg) Pier Ave (W leg) Manhattan Ave Thru14 Peds134 InOut Total0 148 148 Thru9 Peds3 OutTotalIn0 12 12 Thru 0 Peds 0 Out TotalIn 14 0 14 Thru0 Peds0 TotalOutIn9 0 9 Peak Hour Begins at 04:45 PM Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : PM_ManPierW_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 04:00 PM 0 0 0 24 50 0 1 0 10 0 48 3 136 04:15 PM 0 0 0 15 41 0 0 0 15 0 47 4 122 04:30 PM 0 0 0 19 38 0 0 0 3 0 54 4 118 04:45 PM 0 0 0 20 37 0 0 0 8 0 43 5 113 Total 0 0 0 78 166 0 1 0 36 0 192 16 489 05:00 PM 0 0 0 18 39 0 0 0 6 0 43 1 107 05:15 PM 0 0 0 23 54 0 0 0 9 0 47 3 136 05:30 PM 0 0 0 21 56 0 1 0 13 0 42 3 136 05:45 PM 0 0 0 25 67 0 0 0 10 0 48 3 153 Total 0 0 0 87 216 0 1 0 38 0 180 10 532 Grand Total 0 0 0 165 382 0 2 0 74 0 372 26 1021 Apprch %0 0 0 30.2 69.8 0 2.6 0 97.4 0 93.5 6.5 Total %0 0 0 16.2 37.4 0 0.2 0 7.2 0 36.4 2.5 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : PM_ManPierW_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 18 39 0 57 0 0 6 6 0 43 1 44 107 05:15 PM 0 0 0 0 23 54 0 77 0 0 9 9 0 47 3 50 136 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 21 56 0 77 1 0 13 14 0 42 3 45 136 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 25 67 0 92 0 0 10 10 0 48 3 51 153 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 87 216 0 303 1 0 38 39 0 180 10 190 532 % App. Total 0 0 0 28.7 71.3 0 2.6 0 97.4 0 94.7 5.3 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .870 .806 .000 .823 .250 .000 .731 .696 .000 .938 .833 .931 .869 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (W leg) Pier Ave (W leg) Manhattan Ave Right0 Thru0 Left0 InOut Total0 0 0 Right0 Thru216 Left87 OutTotalIn218 303 521 Left 1 Thru 0 Right 38 Out TotalIn 97 39 136 Left0 Thru180 Right10 TotalOutIn217 190 407 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : pm_manpierw_sunit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 1 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 Apprch %0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 0 Total %0 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 25 0 25 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : pm_manpierw_sunit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Manhattan Ave Southbound Pier Ave (W leg) Westbound Manhattan Ave Northbound Pier Ave (W leg) Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 04:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 4 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .250 .000 .250 .500 Manhattan Ave Pier Ave (W leg) Pier Ave (W leg) Manhattan Ave Right0 Thru0 Left0 InOut Total0 0 0 Right0 Thru2 Left0 OutTotalIn2 2 4 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 1 Out TotalIn 0 1 1 Left0 Thru1 Right0 TotalOutIn2 1 3 Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 1 Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds Thru Peds Thru Peds Thru Peds Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 6 0 2 1 5 0 1 15 07:15 AM 0 7 0 0 3 4 0 1 15 07:30 AM 0 9 0 4 0 10 0 0 23 07:45 AM 0 14 0 5 1 14 0 5 39 Total 0 36 0 11 5 33 0 7 92 08:00 AM 1 5 0 3 1 17 0 1 28 08:15 AM 1 9 0 0 1 10 0 0 21 08:30 AM 0 12 0 3 0 17 0 2 34 08:45 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Total 2 26 0 6 3 44 0 3 84 04:00 PM 2 27 0 1 3 10 0 1 44 04:15 PM 11 17 0 0 3 9 1 4 45 04:30 PM 7 21 1 5 3 22 0 0 59 04:45 PM 5 24 0 1 2 11 0 6 49 Total 25 89 1 7 11 52 1 11 197 05:00 PM 6 24 1 4 9 15 1 3 63 05:15 PM 8 26 0 1 1 12 2 3 53 05:30 PM 2 22 0 3 5 25 0 2 59 05:45 PM 5 20 0 8 4 23 0 5 65 Total 21 92 1 16 19 75 3 13 240 Grand Total 48 243 2 40 38 204 4 34 613 Apprch %16.5 83.5 4.8 95.2 15.7 84.3 10.5 89.5 Total %7.8 39.6 0.3 6.5 6.2 33.3 0.7 5.5 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 0 14 14 0 5 5 1 14 15 0 5 5 39 08:00 AM 1 5 6 0 3 3 1 17 18 0 1 1 28 08:15 AM 1 9 10 0 0 0 1 10 11 0 0 0 21 08:30 AM 0 12 12 0 3 3 0 17 17 0 2 2 34 Total Volume 2 40 42 0 11 11 3 58 61 0 8 8 122 % App. Total 4.8 95.2 0 100 4.9 95.1 0 100 PHF .500 .714 .750 .000 .550 .550 .750 .853 .847 .000 .400 .400 .782 Monterey Blvd Pier Ave Pier Ave Monterey Blvd Thru2 Peds40 InOut Total3 42 45 Thru0 Peds11 OutTotalIn0 11 11 Thru 3 Peds 58 Out TotalIn 2 61 63 Thru0 Peds8 TotalOutIn0 8 8 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_BP Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 3 Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Thru Peds App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 6 24 30 1 4 5 9 15 24 1 3 4 63 05:15 PM 8 26 34 0 1 1 1 12 13 2 3 5 53 05:30 PM 2 22 24 0 3 3 5 25 30 0 2 2 59 05:45 PM 5 20 25 0 8 8 4 23 27 0 5 5 65 Total Volume 21 92 113 1 16 17 19 75 94 3 13 16 240 % App. Total 18.6 81.4 5.9 94.1 20.2 79.8 18.8 81.2 PHF .656 .885 .831 .250 .500 .531 .528 .750 .783 .375 .650 .800 .923 Monterey Blvd Pier Ave Pier Ave Monterey Blvd Thru 21 Peds 92 InOut Total 19 113 132 Thru1 Peds16 OutTotalIn3 17 20 Thru19 Peds75 Out TotalIn21 94 115 Thru3 Peds13 TotalOutIn1 16 17 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_Bus Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 04:15 PM 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Total 0 0 1 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 12 05:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 05:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 Grand Total 0 0 1 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 23 Apprch %0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 Total %0 0 4.3 0 52.2 0 0 0 0 0 43.5 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_Bus Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:15 AM 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 4 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .500 Monterey Blvd Pier Ave Pier Ave Monterey Blvd Right0 Thru0 Left0 InOut Total0 0 0 Right0 Thru2 Left0 OutTotalIn2 2 4 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Out TotalIn 0 0 0 Left0 Thru2 Right0 TotalOutIn2 2 4 Peak Hour Begins at 07:15 AM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_Bus Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 3 Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 04:15 PM 0 0 1 1 0 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 04:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 Total Volume 0 0 1 1 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 12 % App. Total 0 0 100 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .292 .000 .292 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .500 .000 .500 .429 Monterey Blvd Pier Ave Pier Ave Monterey Blvd Right 1 Thru 0 Left 0 InOut Total 0 1 1 Right0 Thru7 Left0 OutTotalIn4 7 11 Left0 Thru0 Right0 Out TotalIn0 0 0 Left0 Thru4 Right0 TotalOutIn8 4 12 Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Unshifted Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:00 AM 2 4 0 1 24 1 3 11 6 3 24 1 80 07:15 AM 1 5 1 0 23 2 4 15 7 3 29 1 91 07:30 AM 6 4 0 2 25 1 3 13 10 2 48 4 118 07:45 AM 10 10 0 3 36 6 5 24 13 4 62 1 174 Total 19 23 1 6 108 10 15 63 36 12 163 7 463 08:00 AM 10 11 0 5 47 19 1 29 17 5 60 6 210 08:15 AM 9 14 1 2 41 18 3 22 7 2 41 2 162 08:30 AM 3 5 1 4 47 7 0 20 9 3 41 4 144 08:45 AM 10 8 1 2 40 4 1 15 11 4 41 3 140 Total 32 38 3 13 175 48 5 86 44 14 183 15 656 04:00 PM 16 13 2 11 61 15 3 21 11 4 47 4 208 04:15 PM 14 16 0 12 47 8 3 19 6 1 65 2 193 04:30 PM 14 13 3 8 49 26 2 13 8 3 61 3 203 04:45 PM 11 11 2 10 54 9 6 17 12 2 49 4 187 Total 55 53 7 41 211 58 14 70 37 10 222 13 791 05:00 PM 5 13 2 7 62 15 8 21 15 1 66 9 224 05:15 PM 12 24 3 11 55 11 7 22 7 3 52 1 208 05:30 PM 10 17 3 3 66 18 4 24 13 2 57 3 220 05:45 PM 9 9 5 6 76 15 8 29 4 0 59 3 223 Total 36 63 13 27 259 59 27 96 39 6 234 16 875 Grand Total 142 177 24 87 753 175 61 315 156 42 802 51 2785 Apprch %41.4 51.6 7 8.6 74.2 17.2 11.5 59.2 29.3 4.7 89.6 5.7 Total %5.1 6.4 0.9 3.1 27 6.3 2.2 11.3 5.6 1.5 28.8 1.8 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:45 AM 07:45 AM 10 10 0 20 3 36 6 45 5 24 13 42 4 62 1 67 174 08:00 AM 10 11 0 21 5 47 19 71 1 29 17 47 5 60 6 71 210 08:15 AM 9 14 1 24 2 41 18 61 3 22 7 32 2 41 2 45 162 08:30 AM 3 5 1 9 4 47 7 58 0 20 9 29 3 41 4 48 144 Total Volume 32 40 2 74 14 171 50 235 9 95 46 150 14 204 13 231 690 % App. Total 43.2 54.1 2.7 6 72.8 21.3 6 63.3 30.7 6.1 88.3 5.6 PHF .800 .714 .500 .771 .700 .910 .658 .827 .450 .819 .676 .798 .700 .823 .542 .813 .821 Monterey Blvd Pier Ave Pier Ave Monterey Blvd Right2 Thru40 Left32 InOut Total159 74 233 Right50 Thru171 Left14 OutTotalIn282 235 517 Left 9 Thru 95 Right 46 Out TotalIn 67 150 217 Left14 Thru204 Right13 TotalOutIn182 231 413 Peak Hour Begins at 07:45 AM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_Cars Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 3 Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 05:00 PM 05:00 PM 5 13 2 20 7 62 15 84 8 21 15 44 1 66 9 76 224 05:15 PM 12 24 3 39 11 55 11 77 7 22 7 36 3 52 1 56 208 05:30 PM 10 17 3 30 3 66 18 87 4 24 13 41 2 57 3 62 220 05:45 PM 9 9 5 23 6 76 15 97 8 29 4 41 0 59 3 62 223 Total Volume 36 63 13 112 27 259 59 345 27 96 39 162 6 234 16 256 875 % App. Total 32.1 56.2 11.6 7.8 75.1 17.1 16.7 59.3 24.1 2.3 91.4 6.2 PHF .750 .656 .650 .718 .614 .852 .819 .889 .844 .828 .650 .920 .500 .886 .444 .842 .977 Monterey Blvd Pier Ave Pier Ave Monterey Blvd Right 13 Thru 63 Left 36 InOut Total 161 112 273 Right59 Thru259 Left27 OutTotalIn309 345 654 Left27 Thru96 Right39 Out TotalIn106 162 268 Left6 Thru234 Right16 TotalOutIn299 256 555 Peak Hour Begins at 05:00 PM Unshifted Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_Semi Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 2 Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Grand Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Apprch %0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total %0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_Semi Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:00 AM 07:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 .000 .250 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .250 Monterey Blvd Pier Ave Pier Ave Monterey Blvd Right0 Thru0 Left0 InOut Total0 0 0 Right0 Thru1 Left0 OutTotalIn0 1 1 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Out TotalIn 0 0 0 Left0 Thru0 Right0 TotalOutIn1 0 1 Peak Hour Begins at 07:00 AM Bank 2 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_Semi Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 3 Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 12:00 PM 12:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12:45 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 Monterey Blvd Pier Ave Pier Ave Monterey Blvd Right 0 Thru 0 Left 0 InOut Total 0 0 0 Right0 Thru0 Left0 OutTotalIn0 0 0 Left0 Thru0 Right0 Out TotalIn0 0 0 Left0 Thru0 Right0 TotalOutIn0 0 0 Peak Hour Begins at 12:00 PM Bank 2 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_SUnit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 1 Groups Printed- Bank 1 Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Int. Total 07:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 Total 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 08:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 04:45 PM 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 Total 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 05:00 PM 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 05:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Grand Total 2 0 0 0 6 1 0 0 1 0 5 0 15 Apprch %100 0 0 0 85.7 14.3 0 0 100 0 100 0 Total %13.3 0 0 0 40 6.7 0 0 6.7 0 33.3 0 CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_SUnit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 2 Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 07:00 AM to 11:45 AM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 07:30 AM 07:30 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 07:45 AM 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 08:00 AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08:15 AM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 Total Volume 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 6 % App. Total 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 PHF .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .375 .000 .375 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .750 .000 .750 .500 Monterey Blvd Pier Ave Pier Ave Monterey Blvd Right0 Thru0 Left0 InOut Total0 0 0 Right0 Thru3 Left0 OutTotalIn3 3 6 Left 0 Thru 0 Right 0 Out TotalIn 0 0 0 Left0 Thru3 Right0 TotalOutIn3 3 6 Peak Hour Begins at 07:30 AM Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com File Name : MontPier_SUnit Site Code : 00000000 Start Date : 11/1/2012 Page No : 3 Monterey Blvd Southbound Pier Ave Westbound Monterey Blvd Northbound Pier Ave Eastbound Start Time Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Left Thru Right App. Total Int. Total Peak Hour Analysis From 12:00 PM to 05:45 PM - Peak 1 of 1 Peak Hour for Entire Intersection Begins at 04:00 PM 04:00 PM 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 04:15 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 04:30 PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 04:45 PM 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 Total Volume 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 5 % App. Total 100 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 100 0 100 0 PHF .250 .000 .000 .250 .000 .500 .000 .500 .000 .000 .250 .250 .000 .250 .000 .250 .417 Monterey Blvd Pier Ave Pier Ave Monterey Blvd Right 0 Thru 0 Left 1 InOut Total 0 1 1 Right0 Thru2 Left0 OutTotalIn3 2 5 Left0 Thru0 Right1 Out TotalIn0 1 1 Left0 Thru1 Right0 TotalOutIn2 1 3 Peak Hour Begins at 04:00 PM Bank 1 Peak Hour Data North CITY TRAFFIC COUNTERS 626.447.4171 www.ctcounters.com LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\Appendix Covers.doc APPENDIX B INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE DATA WORKSHEETS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION (ICU) DESCRIPTION Level of Service is a term used to describe prevailing conditions and their effect on traffic. Broadly interpreted, the Levels of Service concept denotes any one of a number of differing combinations of operating conditions which may occur as a roadway is accommodating various traffic volumes. Level of Service is a qualitative measure of the effect of such factors as travel speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, safety, driving comfort and convenience. Six Levels of Service, A through F, have been defined in the 1965 Highway Capacity Manual, published by the Transportation Research Board. Level of Service A describes a condition of free flow, with low traffic volumes and relatively high speeds, while Level of Service F describes forced traffic flow at low speeds with jammed conditions and queues which cannot clear during the green phases. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method of intersection capacity analysis has been used in our studies. It directly relates traffic demand and available capacity for key intersection movements, regardless of present signal timing, The capacity per hour of green time for each approach is calculated based on the methods of the Highway Capacity Manual. The proportion of total signal time needed by each key movement is determined and compared to the total time available (100 percent of the hour). The result of summing the requirements of the conflicting key movements plus an allowance for clearance times is expressed as a decimal fraction. Conflicting key traffic movements are those opposing movements whose combined green time requirements are greatest. The resulting ICU represents the proportion of the total hour required to accommodate intersection demand volumes if the key conflicting traffic movements are operating at capacity. Other movements may be operating near capacity, or may be operating at significantly better levels. The ICU may be translated to a Level of Service as tabulated below. The Levels of Service (abbreviated from the Highway Capacity Manual) are listed here with their corresponding ICU and Load Factor equivalents. Load Factor is that proportion of the signal cycles during the peak hour which are fully loaded; i.e. when all of the vehicles waiting at the beginning of green are not able to clear on that green phase. Intersection Capacity Utilization Characteristics Level of Service Load Factor Equivalent ICU A 0.0 0.00 - 0.60 B 0.0 - 0.1 0.61 - 0.70 C 0.1 - 0.3 0.71 - 0.80 D 0.3 - 0.7 0.81 - 0.90 E 0.7 - 1.0 0.91 - 1.00 F Not Applicable Not Applicable SERVICE LEVEL A There are no loaded cycles and few are even close to loaded at this service level. No approach phase is fully utilized by traffic and no vehicle waits longer than one red indication. SERVICE LEVEL B This level represents stable operation where an occasional approach phase is fully utilized and a substantial number are approaching full use. Many drivers begin to feel restricted within platoons of vehicles. SERVICE LEVEL C At this level stable operation continues. Loading is still intermittent but more frequent than at Level B. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red signal indication and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted, but not objectionably so. SERVICE LEVEL D This level encompasses a zone of increasing restriction approaching instability at the intersection. Delays to approaching vehicles may be substantial during short peaks within the peak hour, but enough cycles with lower demand occur to permit periodic clearance of queues, thus preventing excessive backups. Drivers frequently have to wait through more than one red signal. This level is the lower limit of acceptable operation to most drivers. SERVICE LEVEL E This represents near capacity and capacity operation. At capacity (ICU = 1.0) it represents the most vehicles that the particular intersection can accommodate. However, full utilization of every signal cycle is seldom attained no matter how great the demand. At this level all drivers wait through more than one red signal, and frequently through several. SERVICE LEVEL F Jammed conditions. Traffic backed up from a downstream location on one of the street restricts or prevents movement of traffic through the intersection under consideration. LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONManhattan Avenue @ 27th Street-Greenwich VillageN-S St: Manhattan Avenue Peak hr: AM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: 27th Street-Greenwich Village Annual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU12012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 0.001Nb Thru 203 1600 0.174 * 0 203 1600 0.174 * 0 203 1600 0.174 * 0 207 1600 0.177 * 0 207 1600 0.177 * 0 207 1600 0.177 *Nb Right 74 0 - 0 74 0 - 0 74 0 - 0 75 0 - 0 75 0 - 0 75 0 -Sb Left 50 1600 0.031 * 0 50 1600 0.031 * 0 50 1600 0.031 * 0 51 1600 0.032 * 0 51 1600 0.032 * 0 51 1600 0.032 *Sb Thru 55 1600 0.086 0 55 1600 0.087 0 55 1600 0.087 0 56 1600 0.096 0 56 1600 0.097 0 56 1600 0.097Sb Right 82 0 - 2 84 0 - 0 84 0 - 14 98 0 - 2 100 0 - 0 100 0 -Eb Left 284 0 0.178 * 1 285 0 0.178 * 0 285 0 0.178 * 10 300 0 0.187 * 1 301 0 0.188 * 0 301 0 0.188 *Eb Thru 95 1600 0.240 2 97 1600 0.242 0 97 1600 0.242 20 117 1600 0.264 2 119 1600 0.265 0 119 1600 0.265Eb Right 5 0 - 0 5 0 - 0 5 0 - 0 5 0 - 0 5 0 - 0 5 0 -Wb Left 38 0 0.024 0 38 0 0.024 0 38 0 0.024 1 40 0 0.025 0 40 0 0.025 0 40 0 0.025Wb Thru 63 1600 0.095 * 2 65 1600 0.096 * 0 65 1600 0.096 * 24 88 1600 0.113 * 2 90 1600 0.114 * 0 90 1600 0.114 *Wb Right 51 0 - 0 51 0 - 0 51 0 - 0 52 0 - 0 52 0 - 0 52 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.578 0.579 0.579 0.609 0.611 0.611LOS A A A B B B*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:City Traffic Counters2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONManhattan Avenue @ 27th Street-Greenwich VillageN-S St: Manhattan Avenue Peak hr: PM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: 27th Street-Greenwich Village Annual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU12012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 5 0 0.003 * 0 5 0 0.003 * 0 5 0 0.003 * 0 5 0 0.003 * 0 5 0 0.003 * 0 5 0 0.003 *Nb Thru 84 1600 0.088 0 84 1600 0.088 0 84 1600 0.088 1 87 1600 0.092 0 87 1600 0.092 0 87 1600 0.092Nb Right 52 0 - 0 52 0 - 0 52 0 - 2 55 0 - 0 55 0 - 0 55 0 -Sb Left 60 1600 0.038 0 60 1600 0.038 0 60 1600 0.038 0 61 1600 0.038 0 61 1600 0.038 0 61 1600 0.038Sb Thru 191 1600 0.273 * 0 191 1600 0.274 * 0 191 1600 0.274 * 1 196 1600 0.290 * 0 196 1600 0.291 * 0 196 1600 0.291 *Sb Right 245 0 - 2 247 0 - 0 247 0 - 18 268 0 - 2 270 0 - 0 270 0 -Eb Left 90 0 0.056 * 2 92 0 0.058 * 0 92 0 0.058 * 19 111 0 0.069 * 2 113 0 0.071 * 0 113 0 0.071 *Eb Thru 54 1600 0.094 2 56 1600 0.097 0 56 1600 0.097 38 93 1600 0.132 2 95 1600 0.134 0 95 1600 0.134Eb Right 7 0 - 0 7 0 - 0 7 0 - 0 7 0 - 0 7 0 - 0 7 0 -Wb Left 54 0 0.034 0 54 0 0.034 0 54 0 0.034 2 57 0 0.036 0 57 0 0.036 0 57 0 0.036Wb Thru 110 1600 0.139 * 2 112 1600 0.140 * 0 112 1600 0.140 * 37 149 1600 0.166 * 2 151 1600 0.167 * 0 151 1600 0.167 *Wb Right 58 0 - 0 58 0 - 0 58 0 - 0 59 0 - 0 59 0 - 0 59 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.571 0.574 0.574 0.628 0.632 0.632LOS A A A B B B*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:City Traffic Counters2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONHermosa Avenue @ 15th StreetN-S St: Hermosa Avenue Peak hr: AM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: 15th StreetAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU22012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 5 0 0.002 8 13 0 0.004 0 13 0 0.004 0 5 0 0.002 8 13 0 0.004 0 13 0 0.004Nb Thru 411 3200 0.130 * 0 411 3200 0.133 * 0 411 3200 0.133 * 31 450 3200 0.142 * 0 450 3200 0.145 * 0 450 3200 0.145 *Nb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Sb Left 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 *Sb Thru 194 3200 0.062 0 194 3200 0.063 0 194 3200 0.063 39 237 3200 0.075 0 237 3200 0.077 0 237 3200 0.077Sb Right 4 0 - 4 8 0 - 0 8 0 - 0 4 0 - 4 8 0 - 0 8 0 -Eb Left 8 0 0.005 3 11 0 0.007 0 11 0 0.007 0 8 0 0.005 3 11 0 0.007 0 11 0 0.007Eb Thru 0 1600 0.013 * 0 0 1600 0.017 * 0 0 1600 0.017 * 0 0 1600 0.013 * 0 0 1600 0.017 * 0 0 1600 0.017 *Eb Right 13 0 - 3 16 0 - 0 16 0 - 0 13 0 - 3 16 0 - 0 16 0 -Wb Left 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 *Wb Thru 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Wb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.243 0.249 0.249 0.256 0.262 0.262LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:The Traffic Solution2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONHermosa Avenue @ 15th StreetN-S St: Hermosa Avenue Peak hr: PM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: 15th StreetAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU22012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 12 0 0.004 * 7 19 0 0.006 * 0 19 0 0.006 * 0 12 0 0.004 * 7 19 0 0.006 * 0 19 0 0.006 *Nb Thru 228 3200 0.075 0 228 3200 0.077 0 228 3200 0.077 60 293 3200 0.095 0 293 3200 0.097 0 293 3200 0.097Nb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Sb Left 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Sb Thru 424 3200 0.136 * 0 424 3200 0.137 * 0 424 3200 0.137 * 56 488 3200 0.156 * 0 488 3200 0.157 * 0 488 3200 0.157 *Sb Right 11 0 - 4 15 0 - 0 15 0 - 0 11 0 - 4 15 0 - 0 15 0 -Eb Left 3 0 0.002 4 7 0 0.004 0 7 0 0.004 0 3 0 0.002 4 7 0 0.004 0 7 0 0.004Eb Thru 0 1600 0.009 * 0 0 1600 0.014 * 0 0 1600 0.014 * 0 0 1600 0.009 * 0 0 1600 0.014 * 0 0 1600 0.014 *Eb Right 11 0 - 4 15 0 - 0 15 0 - 0 11 0 - 4 15 0 - 0 15 0 -Wb Left 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 *Wb Thru 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Wb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.248 0.257 0.257 0.269 0.277 0.277LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:The Traffic Solution2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONHermosa Avenue @ 14th StreetN-S St: Hermosa Avenue Peak hr: AM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: 14th StreetAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU32012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 33 1600 0.021 0 33 1600 0.021 0 33 1600 0.021 0 34 1600 0.021 0 34 1600 0.021 0 34 1600 0.021Nb Thru 390 3200 0.126 * 8 398 3200 0.128 * 0 398 3200 0.128 * 31 429 3200 0.138 * 8 437 3200 0.140 * 0 437 3200 0.140 *Nb Right 12 0 - 0 12 0 - 0 12 0 - 0 12 0 - 0 12 0 - 0 12 0 -Sb Left 8 0 0.003 * 0 8 0 0.003 * 0 8 0 0.003 * 0 8 0 0.003 * 0 8 0 0.003 * 0 8 0 0.003 *Sb Thru 192 3200 0.067 5 197 3200 0.068 0 197 3200 0.068 39 235 3200 0.080 5 240 3200 0.082 0 240 3200 0.082Sb Right 14 0 - 0 14 0 - 0 14 0 - 0 14 0 - 0 14 0 - 0 14 0 -Eb Left 14 0 0.009 0 14 0 0.009 0 14 0 0.009 0 14 0 0.009 0 14 0 0.009 0 14 0 0.009Eb Thru 8 1600 0.018 * 0 8 1600 0.018 * 0 8 1600 0.018 * 0 8 1600 0.018 * 0 8 1600 0.018 * 0 8 1600 0.018 *Eb Right 6 0 - 0 6 0 - 0 6 0 - 0 6 0 - 0 6 0 - 0 6 0 -Wb Left 7 0 0.004 * 0 7 0 0.004 * 0 7 0 0.004 * 0 7 0 0.004 * 0 7 0 0.004 * 0 7 0 0.004 *Wb Thru 6 1600 0.011 0 6 1600 0.011 0 6 1600 0.011 0 6 1600 0.011 0 6 1600 0.011 0 6 1600 0.011Wb Right 4 0 - 0 4 0 - 0 4 0 - 0 4 0 - 0 4 0 - 0 4 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.250 0.253 0.253 0.263 0.265 0.265LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:The Traffic Solution2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONHermosa Avenue @ 14th StreetN-S St: Hermosa Avenue Peak hr: PM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: 14th StreetAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU32012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 40 1600 0.025 * 0 40 1600 0.025 * 0 40 1600 0.025 * 0 41 1600 0.026 * 0 41 1600 0.026 * 0 41 1600 0.026 *Nb Thru 209 3200 0.071 7 216 3200 0.073 0 216 3200 0.073 60 273 3200 0.091 7 280 3200 0.093 0 280 3200 0.093Nb Right 17 0 - 0 17 0 - 0 17 0 - 0 17 0 - 0 17 0 - 0 17 0 -Sb Left 11 0 0.003 0 11 0 0.003 0 11 0 0.003 0 11 0 0.004 0 11 0 0.004 0 11 0 0.004Sb Thru 414 3200 0.138 * 7 421 3200 0.141 * 0 421 3200 0.141 * 56 478 3200 0.159 * 7 485 3200 0.161 * 0 485 3200 0.161 *Sb Right 18 0 - 0 18 0 - 0 18 0 - 0 18 0 - 0 18 0 - 0 18 0 -Eb Left 11 0 0.007 * 0 11 0 0.007 * 0 11 0 0.007 * 0 11 0 0.007 * 0 11 0 0.007 * 0 11 0 0.007 *Eb Thru 6 1600 0.018 0 6 1600 0.018 0 6 1600 0.018 0 6 1600 0.018 0 6 1600 0.018 0 6 1600 0.018Eb Right 11 0 - 0 11 0 - 0 11 0 - 0 11 0 - 0 11 0 - 0 11 0 -Wb Left 8 0 0.005 0 8 0 0.005 0 8 0 0.005 0 8 0 0.005 0 8 0 0.005 0 8 0 0.005Wb Thru 12 1600 0.023 * 0 12 1600 0.023 * 0 12 1600 0.023 * 0 12 1600 0.024 * 0 12 1600 0.024 * 0 12 1600 0.024 *Wb Right 17 0 - 0 17 0 - 0 17 0 - 0 17 0 - 0 17 0 - 0 17 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.293 0.296 0.296 0.315 0.317 0.317LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:The Traffic Solution2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONHermosa Avenue @ 13th StreetN-S St: Hermosa Avenue Peak hr: AM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: 13th StreetAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU42012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 33 1600 0.021 0 33 1600 0.021 0 33 1600 0.021 55 89 1600 0.055 0 89 1600 0.055 0 89 1600 0.055Nb Thru 428 3200 0.134 * 8 436 3200 0.136 * 0 436 3200 0.136 * 9 446 3200 0.139 * 8 454 3200 0.142 * 0 454 3200 0.142 *Nb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Sb Left 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 *Sb Thru 192 3200 0.062 5 197 3200 0.064 0 197 3200 0.064 9 205 3200 0.076 5 210 3200 0.077 0 210 3200 0.077Sb Right 7 0 - 0 7 0 - 0 7 0 - 30 37 0 - 0 37 0 - 0 37 0 -Eb Left 2 0 0.001 0 2 0 0.001 0 2 0 0.001 22 24 0 0.015 0 24 0 0.015 0 24 0 0.015Eb Thru 0 1600 0.014 * 0 0 1600 0.014 * 0 0 1600 0.014 * 0 0 1600 0.053 * 0 0 1600 0.053 * 0 0 1600 0.053 *Eb Right 20 0 - 0 20 0 - 0 20 0 - 40 60 0 - 0 60 0 - 0 60 0 -Wb Left 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 *Wb Thru 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Wb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.248 0.250 0.250 0.292 0.295 0.295LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:The Traffic Solution2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONHermosa Avenue @ 13th StreetN-S St: Hermosa Avenue Peak hr: PM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: 13th StreetAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU42012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 33 1600 0.021 * 0 33 1600 0.021 * 0 33 1600 0.021 * 74 108 1600 0.067 * 0 108 1600 0.067 * 0 108 1600 0.067 *Nb Thru 232 3200 0.073 7 239 3200 0.075 0 239 3200 0.075 19 256 3200 0.080 7 263 3200 0.082 0 263 3200 0.082Nb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Sb Left 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Sb Thru 412 3200 0.134 * 7 419 3200 0.137 * 0 419 3200 0.137 * 16 436 3200 0.155 * 7 443 3200 0.157 * 0 443 3200 0.157 *Sb Right 18 0 - 0 18 0 - 0 18 0 - 40 58 0 - 0 58 0 - 0 58 0 -Eb Left 29 0 0.018 0 29 0 0.018 0 29 0 0.018 41 71 0 0.044 0 71 0 0.044 0 71 0 0.044Eb Thru 0 1600 0.048 * 0 0 1600 0.048 * 0 0 1600 0.048 * 0 0 1600 0.121 * 0 0 1600 0.121 * 0 0 1600 0.121 *Eb Right 47 0 - 0 47 0 - 0 47 0 - 75 123 0 - 0 123 0 - 0 123 0 -Wb Left 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 *Wb Thru 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Wb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.303 0.305 0.305 0.443 0.445 0.445LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:The Traffic Solution2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONHermosa Avenue @ Pier AvenueN-S St: Hermosa Avenue Peak hr: AM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: Pier AvenueAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU52012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Nb Thru 384 3200 0.146 * 2 386 3200 0.147 * 0 386 3200 0.147 * 26 418 3200 0.162 * 2 420 3200 0.162 * 0 420 3200 0.162 *Nb Right 83 0 - 0 83 0 - 0 83 0 - 15 100 0 - 0 100 0 - 0 100 0 -Sb Left 57 1600 0.036 4 61 1600 0.038 0 61 1600 0.038 28 86 1600 0.054 4 90 1600 0.056 0 90 1600 0.056Sb Thru 159 3200 0.050 2 161 3200 0.050 0 161 3200 0.050 21 183 3200 0.057 2 185 3200 0.058 0 185 3200 0.058Sb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Eb Left 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 *Eb Thru 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Eb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Wb Left 57 1600 0.036 0 57 1600 0.036 0 57 1600 0.036 13 71 1600 0.044 0 71 1600 0.044 0 71 1600 0.044Wb Thru 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Wb Right 84 1600 0.053 * 5 89 1600 0.056 * 0 89 1600 0.056 * 38 124 1600 0.077 * 5 129 1600 0.080 * 0 129 1600 0.080 *Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.334 0.340 0.340 0.393 0.399 0.399LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:The Traffic Solution2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONHermosa Avenue @ Pier AvenueN-S St: Hermosa Avenue Peak hr: PM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: Pier AvenueAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU52012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Nb Thru 186 3200 0.085 * 2 188 3200 0.085 * 0 188 3200 0.085 * 41 231 3200 0.107 * 2 233 3200 0.108 * 0 233 3200 0.108 *Nb Right 85 0 - 0 85 0 - 0 85 0 - 26 113 0 - 0 113 0 - 0 113 0 -Sb Left 89 1600 0.056 * 5 94 1600 0.059 * 0 94 1600 0.059 * 53 144 1600 0.090 * 5 149 1600 0.093 * 0 149 1600 0.093 *Sb Thru 365 3200 0.114 2 367 3200 0.115 0 367 3200 0.115 38 410 3200 0.128 2 412 3200 0.129 0 412 3200 0.129Sb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Eb Left 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Eb Thru 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Eb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Wb Left 80 1600 0.050 0 80 1600 0.050 0 80 1600 0.050 24 106 1600 0.066 0 106 1600 0.066 0 106 1600 0.066Wb Thru 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Wb Right 83 1600 0.052 5 88 1600 0.055 0 88 1600 0.055 52 137 1600 0.085 5 142 1600 0.089 0 142 1600 0.089Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.290 0.294 0.294 0.363 0.367 0.367LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:The Traffic Solution2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONManhattan Avenue (West) @ Pier AvenueN-S St: Manhattan Avenue (West) Peak hr: AM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: Pier AvenueAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU62012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 5 0 0.003 0 5 0 0.003 0 5 0 0.003 0 5 0 0.003 0 5 0 0.003 0 5 0 0.003Nb Thru 0 1600 0.049 * 0 0 1600 0.049 * 0 0 1600 0.049 * 0 0 1600 0.050 * 0 0 1600 0.050 * 0 0 1600 0.050 *Nb Right 73 0 - 0 73 0 - 0 73 0 - 0 74 0 - 0 74 0 - 0 74 0 -Sb Left 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 *Sb Thru 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Sb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Eb Left 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Eb Thru 176 1600 0.116 * 4 180 1600 0.118 * 0 180 1600 0.118 * 43 223 1600 0.145 * 4 227 1600 0.147 * 0 227 1600 0.147 *Eb Right 9 0 - 0 9 0 - 0 9 0 - 0 9 0 - 0 9 0 - 0 9 0 -Wb Left 29 0 0.009 * 0 29 0 0.009 * 0 29 0 0.009 * 0 30 0 0.009 * 0 30 0 0.009 * 0 30 0 0.009 *Wb Thru 153 3200 0.057 5 158 3200 0.058 0 158 3200 0.058 52 208 3200 0.074 5 213 3200 0.076 0 213 3200 0.076Wb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.273 0.276 0.276 0.304 0.306 0.306LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:City Traffic Counters2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONManhattan Avenue (West) @ Pier AvenueN-S St: Manhattan Avenue (West) Peak hr: PM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: Pier AvenueAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU62012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 0.001 0 1 0 0.001Nb Thru 0 1600 0.025 * 0 0 1600 0.025 * 0 0 1600 0.025 * 0 0 1600 0.026 * 0 0 1600 0.026 * 0 0 1600 0.026 *Nb Right 39 0 - 0 39 0 - 0 39 0 - 1 41 0 - 0 41 0 - 0 41 0 -Sb Left 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 *Sb Thru 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Sb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Eb Left 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Eb Thru 185 1600 0.122 * 5 190 1600 0.125 * 0 190 1600 0.125 * 79 268 1600 0.174 * 5 273 1600 0.177 * 0 273 1600 0.177 *Eb Right 10 0 - 0 10 0 - 0 10 0 - 0 10 0 - 0 10 0 - 0 10 0 -Wb Left 87 0 0.027 * 0 87 0 0.027 * 0 87 0 0.027 * 1 90 0 0.028 * 0 90 0 0.028 * 0 90 0 0.028 *Wb Thru 225 3200 0.098 5 230 3200 0.099 0 230 3200 0.099 76 306 3200 0.124 5 311 3200 0.125 0 311 3200 0.125Wb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.274 0.277 0.277 0.328 0.331 0.331LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:City Traffic Counters2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONManhattan Avenue (East) @ Pier AvenueN-S St: Manhattan Avenue (East) Peak hr: AM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: Pier AvenueAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU72012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 *Nb Thru 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Nb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Sb Left 43 0 0.027 0 43 0 0.027 0 43 0 0.027 1 45 0 0.028 0 45 0 0.028 0 45 0 0.028Sb Thru 0 1600 0.041 * 0 0 1600 0.041 * 0 0 1600 0.041 * 0 0 1600 0.043 * 0 0 1600 0.043 * 0 0 1600 0.043 *Sb Right 22 0 - 0 22 0 - 0 22 0 - 1 23 0 - 0 23 0 - 0 23 0 -Eb Left 51 0 0.016 * 0 51 0 0.016 * 0 51 0 0.016 * 1 53 0 0.017 * 0 53 0 0.017 * 0 53 0 0.017 *Eb Thru 202 3200 0.079 4 206 3200 0.080 0 206 3200 0.080 42 248 3200 0.094 4 252 3200 0.095 0 252 3200 0.095Eb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Wb Left 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Wb Thru 162 3200 0.068 * 5 167 3200 0.069 * 0 167 3200 0.069 * 51 216 3200 0.085 * 5 221 3200 0.087 * 0 221 3200 0.087 *Wb Right 55 0 - 0 55 0 - 0 55 0 - 1 57 0 - 0 57 0 - 0 57 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.224 0.226 0.226 0.245 0.246 0.246LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:City Traffic Counters2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONManhattan Avenue (East) @ Pier AvenueN-S St: Manhattan Avenue (East) Peak hr: PM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: Pier AvenueAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU72012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 * 0 0 0 0.000 *Nb Thru 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Nb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Sb Left 60 0 0.038 0 60 0 0.038 0 60 0 0.038 3 64 0 0.040 0 64 0 0.040 0 64 0 0.040Sb Thru 0 1600 0.078 * 0 0 1600 0.078 * 0 0 1600 0.078 * 0 0 1600 0.083 * 0 0 1600 0.083 * 0 0 1600 0.083 *Sb Right 65 0 - 0 65 0 - 0 65 0 - 3 69 0 - 0 69 0 - 0 69 0 -Eb Left 24 0 0.008 * 0 24 0 0.008 * 0 24 0 0.008 * 3 27 0 0.009 * 0 27 0 0.009 * 0 27 0 0.009 *Eb Thru 196 3200 0.069 5 201 3200 0.070 0 201 3200 0.070 76 276 3200 0.095 5 281 3200 0.096 0 281 3200 0.096Eb Right 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 -Wb Left 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000 0 0 0 0.000Wb Thru 238 3200 0.096 * 5 243 3200 0.097 * 0 243 3200 0.097 * 73 316 3200 0.121 * 5 321 3200 0.123 * 0 321 3200 0.123 *Wb Right 68 0 - 0 68 0 - 0 68 0 - 3 72 0 - 0 72 0 - 0 72 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.281 0.283 0.283 0.313 0.315 0.315LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:City Traffic Counters2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONMonterey Boulevard @ Pier AvenueN-S St: Monterey Boulevard Peak hr: AM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: Pier AvenueAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU82012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 9 0 0.006 0 9 0 0.006 0 9 0 0.006 0 9 0 0.006 0 9 0 0.006 0 9 0 0.006Nb Thru 95 1600 0.094 * 0 95 1600 0.094 * 0 95 1600 0.094 * 0 97 1600 0.096 * 0 97 1600 0.096 * 0 97 1600 0.096 *Nb Right 46 0 - 0 46 0 - 0 46 0 - 0 47 0 - 0 47 0 - 0 47 0 -Sb Left 32 0 0.020 * 0 32 0 0.020 * 0 32 0 0.020 * 0 33 0 0.020 * 0 33 0 0.020 * 0 33 0 0.020 *Sb Thru 40 1600 0.046 0 40 1600 0.046 0 40 1600 0.046 0 41 1600 0.047 0 41 1600 0.047 0 41 1600 0.047Sb Right 2 0 - 0 2 0 - 0 2 0 - 0 2 0 - 0 2 0 - 0 2 0 -Eb Left 14 0 0.004 * 0 14 0 0.004 * 0 14 0 0.004 * 0 14 0 0.004 * 0 14 0 0.004 * 0 14 0 0.004 *Eb Thru 209 3200 0.074 4 213 3200 0.075 0 213 3200 0.075 43 256 3200 0.089 4 260 3200 0.090 0 260 3200 0.090Eb Right 13 0 - 0 13 0 - 0 13 0 - 0 13 0 - 0 13 0 - 0 13 0 -Wb Left 14 0 0.004 0 14 0 0.004 0 14 0 0.004 0 14 0 0.004 0 14 0 0.004 0 14 0 0.004Wb Thru 177 3200 0.075 * 5 182 3200 0.077 * 0 182 3200 0.077 * 52 233 3200 0.093 * 5 238 3200 0.095 * 0 238 3200 0.095 *Wb Right 50 0 - 0 50 0 - 0 50 0 - 0 51 0 - 0 51 0 - 0 51 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.293 0.295 0.295 0.314 0.315 0.315LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:City Traffic Counters2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, ENGINEERS600 S. Lake Avenue, Suite 500, Pasadena CA 91106(626) 796.2322 Fax (626) 792-0941INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATIONMonterey Boulevard @ Pier AvenueN-S St: Monterey Boulevard Peak hr: PM Date: 11/13/2012E-W St: Pier AvenueAnnual Growth: 1.00% Date of Count: 2012Project: Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/1-123996-1Projection Year: 2014File: ICU82012 EXIST. TRAFFIC 2012 EXISTING PLUS PROJECT 2012 EXIST. W/PROJECT + MITIGATION 2014 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 2014 FUTURE WITH PROJECT 2014 FUTURE W/PROJECT + MITIGATIO1 2 V/C Added Total V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/C Added Total 2 V/CMovement Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume Capacity Ratio Volume Volume CapacityRatio Volume Volume Capacity RatioNb Left 27 0 0.017 0 27 0 0.017 0 27 0 0.017 0 28 0 0.017 0 28 0 0.017 0 28 0 0.017Nb Thru 96 1600 0.101 * 0 96 1600 0.101 * 0 96 1600 0.101 * 0 98 1600 0.103 * 0 98 1600 0.103 * 0 98 1600 0.103 *Nb Right 39 0 - 0 39 0 - 0 39 0 - 0 40 0 - 0 40 0 - 0 40 0 -Sb Left 37 0 0.023 * 0 37 0 0.023 * 0 37 0 0.023 * 0 38 0 0.024 * 0 38 0 0.024 * 0 38 0 0.024 *Sb Thru 63 1600 0.071 0 63 1600 0.071 0 63 1600 0.071 0 64 1600 0.072 0 64 1600 0.072 0 64 1600 0.072Sb Right 13 0 - 0 13 0 - 0 13 0 - 0 13 0 - 0 13 0 - 0 13 0 -Eb Left 6 0 0.002 * 0 6 0 0.002 * 0 6 0 0.002 * 0 6 0 0.002 * 0 6 0 0.002 * 0 6 0 0.002 *Eb Thru 239 3200 0.082 5 244 3200 0.083 0 244 3200 0.083 80 324 3200 0.108 5 329 3200 0.110 0 329 3200 0.110Eb Right 16 0 - 0 16 0 - 0 16 0 - 0 16 0 - 0 16 0 - 0 16 0 -Wb Left 27 0 0.008 0 27 0 0.008 0 27 0 0.008 0 28 0 0.009 0 28 0 0.009 0 28 0 0.009Wb Thru 268 3200 0.111 * 5 273 3200 0.112 * 0 273 3200 0.112 * 77 350 3200 0.137 * 5 355 3200 0.138 * 0 355 3200 0.138 *Wb Right 59 0 - 0 59 0 - 0 59 0 - 0 60 0 - 0 60 0 - 0 60 0 -Yellow Allowance: 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 * 0.100 *ICU 0.337 0.338 0.338 0.366 0.367 0.367LOS A A A A A A*Key conflicting movement as a part of ICU1 Counts conducted by:City Traffic Counters2 Capacity expressed in veh/hour of green LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS In the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), published by the Transportation Research Board, 2000, level of service for unsignalized intersections is defined in terms of delay, which is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel time. The delay experienced by a motorist is made up of a number of factors that relate to control, geometrics, traffic, and incidents. Total delay is the difference between the travel time actually experienced and the reference travel time that would result during base conditions, in the absence of incidents, control, traffic, or geometric delay. Only the portion of total delay attributed to the traffic control measures, either traffic signals or stop signs, is quantified. This delay is called control delay. Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. Level of Service criteria for unsignalized intersections are stated in terms of the average control delay per vehicle. The level of service is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Average control delay for any particular minor movement is a function of the service time for the approach and the degree of utilization. (Level of service is not defined for the intersection as a whole for two-way stop controlled intersections.) Level of Service Criteria for TWSC/AWSC Intersections Level of Service Average Control Delay (Sec/Veh) A ≤ 10 B > 10 and ≤ 15 C > 15 and ≤ 25 D > 25 and ≤ 35 E > 35 and ≤ 50 F > 50 Level of Service (LOS) values are used to describe intersection operations with service levels varying from LOS A (free flow) to LOS F (jammed condition). The following descriptions summarize HCM criteria for each level of service: LOS A describes operations with very low control delay, up to 10 seconds per vehicle. LOS B describes operations with control delay greater than 10 and up to 15 seconds per vehicle. LOS C describes operations with control delay greater than 15 and up to 25 seconds per vehicle. LOS D describes operations with control delay greater than 25 and up to 35 seconds per vehicle. LOS E describes operations with control delay greater than 35 and up to 50 seconds per vehicle. LOS F describes operations with control delay in excess of 50 seconds per vehicle. For two-way stop controlled intersections, LOS F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow side-street demand to safely cross through a major-street traffic stream. This level of service is generally evident from extremely long control delays experienced by side-street traffic and by queuing on the minor-street approaches. ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C1-INT1AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing (2012) Conditions Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 27th Street-Greenwich Village North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 284 95 5 38 63 51 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1 203 74 50 55 82 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L TR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)384 152 278 50 137 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 2 Geometry Group 2 2 4a 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.7 0.3 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.1 -0.2 -0.2 0.5 -0.4 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.34 0.14 0.25 0.04 0.12 hd, final value (s)5.72 5.90 5.84 7.12 6.18 x, final value 0.61 0.25 0.45 0.10 0.24 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 Service Time, ts (s)3.7 3.9 3.8 4.8 3.9 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)602 402 528 300 387 Delay (s/veh)17.23 10.84 13.53 10.60 10.78 LOS C B B B B Approach: Delay (s/veh) 17.23 10.84 13.53 10.73 LOS C B B B Intersection Delay (s/veh)14.02 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:12 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C1-INT1PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing (2012) Conditions Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 27th Street-Greenwich Village North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 90 54 7 54 110 58 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 84 52 60 191 245 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L TR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)151 222 141 60 436 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 2 Geometry Group 2 2 4a 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.6 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.5 -0.4 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.13 0.20 0.13 0.05 0.39 hd, final value (s)6.14 5.79 5.74 6.37 5.46 x, final value 0.26 0.36 0.22 0.11 0.66 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 Service Time, ts (s)4.1 3.8 3.7 4.1 3.2 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)401 472 391 310 641 Delay (s/veh)11.25 11.98 10.40 9.82 18.19 LOS B B B A C Approach: Delay (s/veh) 11.25 11.98 10.40 17.17 LOS B B B C Intersection Delay (s/veh)14.20 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:14 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C1-INT2AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing (2012) Conditions Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 15th Street North/South Street: Hermosa Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)5 411 0 194 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)5 411 0 0 194 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)8 13 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)8 0 13 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LR v (veh/h)5 0 21 C (m) (veh/h)1387 1159 764 v/c 0.00 0.00 0.03 95% queue length 0.01 0.00 0.08 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 8.1 9.8 LOS A A A Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 9.8 Approach LOS ---- A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:17 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C1-INT2PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing (2012) Conditions Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 15th Street North/South Street: Hermosa Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)12 228 0 424 11 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)12 228 0 0 424 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)3 11 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)3 0 11 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LR v (veh/h)12 0 14 C (m) (veh/h)1135 1352 703 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.02 95% queue length 0.03 0.00 0.06 Control Delay (s/veh)8.2 7.7 10.2 LOS A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 10.2 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:17 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C1-INT6AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing (2012) Conditions Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (West) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 176 9 29 153 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 176 9 29 153 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 0 Configuration TR LT T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)5 73 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)5 0 73 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 29 78 C (m) (veh/h) 1402 849 v/c 0.02 0.09 95% queue length 0.06 0.30 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 9.7 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh)----9.7 Approach LOS ----A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:18 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C1-INT6PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing (2012) Conditions Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (West) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 185 10 87 225 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 185 10 87 225 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 0 Configuration TR LT T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)1 39 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)1 0 39 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 87 40 C (m) (veh/h) 1390 841 v/c 0.06 0.05 95% queue length 0.20 0.15 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 9.5 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh)----9.5 Approach LOS ----A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:18 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C1-INT7AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing (2012) Conditions Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (East) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)51 202 162 55 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)51 202 0 0 162 55 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 43 22 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 43 0 22 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h)51 65 C (m) (veh/h)1365 657 v/c 0.04 0.10 95% queue length 0.12 0.33 Control Delay (s/veh)7.7 11.1 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 11.1 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:19 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C1-INT7AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing (2012) Conditions Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (East) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)24 196 238 68 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)24 196 0 0 238 68 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 60 65 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 60 0 65 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h)24 125 C (m) (veh/h)1266 694 v/c 0.02 0.18 95% queue length 0.06 0.65 Control Delay (s/veh)7.9 11.3 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 11.3 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:19 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C1-INT8AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Monterey Boulevard Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 14 209 13 14 177 50 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 9 95 46 32 40 2 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT TR LT TR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)118 118 102 139 150 74 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.3 -0.2 0.1 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.12 0.13 0.07 hd, final value (s)5.44 5.30 5.45 5.12 4.97 5.33 x, final value 0.18 0.17 0.15 0.20 0.21 0.11 Move-up time, m (s)2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)3.1 3.0 3.1 2.8 3.0 3.3 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)368 368 352 389 400 324 Delay (s/veh)9.31 9.11 9.14 9.08 9.26 8.98 LOS A A A A A A Approach: Delay (s/veh) 9.21 9.10 9.26 8.98 LOS A A A A Intersection Delay (s/veh)9.16 Intersection LOS A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:20 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C1-INT8PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing (2012) Conditions Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Monterey Boulevard Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 6 239 16 27 268 59 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 27 96 39 37 63 13 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT TR LT TR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)125 136 161 193 162 113 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.0 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.10 hd, final value (s)5.78 5.68 5.73 5.43 5.47 5.67 x, final value 0.20 0.21 0.26 0.29 0.25 0.18 Move-up time, m (s)2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)3.5 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.5 3.7 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)375 386 411 443 412 363 Delay (s/veh)9.93 9.92 10.40 10.35 10.24 9.89 LOS A A B B B A Approach: Delay (s/veh) 9.92 10.37 10.24 9.89 LOS A B B A Intersection Delay (s/veh)10.16 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:20 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C2-INT1AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing Plus Proj. Conditions Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project/ 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 27th Street-Greenwich Village North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 285 97 5 38 65 51 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1 203 74 50 55 84 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L TR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)387 154 278 50 139 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 2 Geometry Group 2 2 4a 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.5 -0.4 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.34 0.14 0.25 0.04 0.12 hd, final value (s)5.74 5.92 5.86 7.15 6.21 x, final value 0.62 0.25 0.45 0.10 0.24 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 Service Time, ts (s)3.7 3.9 3.9 4.8 3.9 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)601 404 528 300 389 Delay (s/veh)17.51 10.92 13.63 10.64 10.85 LOS C B B B B Approach: Delay (s/veh) 17.51 10.92 13.63 10.80 LOS C B B B Intersection Delay (s/veh)14.17 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:21 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C2-INT1PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing Plus Proj. Conditions Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 27th Street-Greenwich Village North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 92 56 7 54 112 58 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 84 52 60 191 247 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L TR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)155 224 141 60 438 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 2 Geometry Group 2 2 4a 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.6 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.6 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.5 -0.4 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.14 0.20 0.13 0.05 0.39 hd, final value (s)6.16 5.82 5.78 6.39 5.49 x, final value 0.27 0.36 0.23 0.11 0.67 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 Service Time, ts (s)4.2 3.8 3.8 4.1 3.2 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)405 474 391 310 638 Delay (s/veh)11.36 12.08 10.46 9.85 18.49 LOS B B B A C Approach: Delay (s/veh) 11.36 12.08 10.46 17.45 LOS B B B C Intersection Delay (s/veh)14.37 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:32 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C2-INT2AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing Plus Proj. Conditions Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 15th Street North/South Street: Hermosa Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)13 411 0 194 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)13 411 0 0 194 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)11 16 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)11 0 16 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LR v (veh/h)13 0 27 C (m) (veh/h)1382 1159 739 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.04 95% queue length 0.03 0.00 0.11 Control Delay (s/veh)7.6 8.1 10.1 LOS A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 10.1 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:35 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C2-INT2PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing Plus Proj. Conditions Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 15th Street North/South Street: Hermosa Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)19 228 0 424 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)19 228 0 0 424 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)7 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)7 0 15 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LR v (veh/h)19 0 22 C (m) (veh/h)1132 1352 645 v/c 0.02 0.00 0.03 95% queue length 0.05 0.00 0.11 Control Delay (s/veh)8.2 7.7 10.8 LOS A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 10.8 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:35 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C2-INT6AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing Plus Proj. Conditions Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (West) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 180 9 29 158 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 180 9 29 158 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 0 Configuration TR LT T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)5 73 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)5 0 73 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 29 78 C (m) (veh/h) 1397 845 v/c 0.02 0.09 95% queue length 0.06 0.30 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.6 9.7 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh)----9.7 Approach LOS ----A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:35 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C2-INT6PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing Plus Proj. Conditions Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (West) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 190 10 87 230 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 190 10 87 230 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 0 Configuration TR LT T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)1 39 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)1 0 39 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 87 40 C (m) (veh/h) 1384 835 v/c 0.06 0.05 95% queue length 0.20 0.15 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.8 9.5 LOS A A Approach Delay (s/veh)----9.5 Approach LOS ----A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:36 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C2-INT7AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing Plus Proj. Conditions Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (East) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)51 206 167 55 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)51 206 0 0 167 55 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 43 22 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 43 0 22 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h)51 65 C (m) (veh/h)1359 652 v/c 0.04 0.10 95% queue length 0.12 0.33 Control Delay (s/veh)7.8 11.1 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 11.1 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:39 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C2-INT7PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing Plus Proj. Conditions Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (East) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)24 201 243 68 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)24 201 0 0 243 68 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 60 65 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 60 0 65 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h)24 125 C (m) (veh/h)1261 689 v/c 0.02 0.18 95% queue length 0.06 0.66 Control Delay (s/veh)7.9 11.4 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 11.4 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:39 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C2-INT8AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing Plus Proj. Conditions Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Monterey Boulevard Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 14 213 13 14 182 50 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 9 95 46 32 40 2 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT TR LT TR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)120 120 105 141 150 74 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.1 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.2 0.1 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.13 0.13 0.07 hd, final value (s)5.44 5.31 5.45 5.13 4.99 5.35 x, final value 0.18 0.18 0.16 0.20 0.21 0.11 Move-up time, m (s)2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)3.1 3.0 3.2 2.8 3.0 3.4 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)370 370 355 391 400 324 Delay (s/veh)9.35 9.15 9.18 9.12 9.30 9.01 LOS A A A A A A Approach: Delay (s/veh) 9.25 9.15 9.30 9.01 LOS A A A A Intersection Delay (s/veh)9.20 Intersection LOS A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:40 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C2-INT8PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Existing Plus Proj. Conditions Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Monterey Boulevard Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 6 244 16 27 273 59 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 27 96 39 37 63 13 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT TR LT TR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)128 138 163 196 162 113 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.3 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.0 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.17 0.14 0.10 hd, final value (s)5.79 5.69 5.74 5.45 5.49 5.69 x, final value 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.30 0.25 0.18 Move-up time, m (s)2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)3.5 3.4 3.4 3.1 3.5 3.7 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)378 388 413 446 412 363 Delay (s/veh)9.99 9.97 10.45 10.43 10.28 9.93 LOS A A B B B A Approach: Delay (s/veh) 9.98 10.44 10.28 9.93 LOS A B B A Intersection Delay (s/veh)10.21 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 8:49 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C3-INT1AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) W/O Project Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project \ 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 27th Street-Greenwich Village North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 300 117 5 40 88 52 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1 207 75 51 56 98 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L TR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)422 180 283 51 154 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 2 Geometry Group 2 2 4a 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.5 -0.4 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.38 0.16 0.25 0.05 0.14 hd, final value (s)5.95 6.21 6.19 7.48 6.51 x, final value 0.70 0.31 0.49 0.11 0.28 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 Service Time, ts (s)3.9 4.2 4.2 5.2 4.2 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)583 430 533 301 404 Delay (s/veh)21.47 11.99 14.91 11.06 11.70 LOS C B B B B Approach: Delay (s/veh) 21.47 11.99 14.91 11.54 LOS C B B B Intersection Delay (s/veh)16.33 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 10:34 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C3-INT1PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) W/O Project Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 27th Street-Greenwich Village North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 111 93 7 57 149 59 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 87 55 61 196 268 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L TR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)211 265 147 61 464 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 2 Geometry Group 2 2 4a 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.5 -0.4 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.19 0.24 0.13 0.05 0.41 hd, final value (s)6.54 6.24 6.38 6.84 5.92 x, final value 0.38 0.46 0.26 0.12 0.76 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 Service Time, ts (s)4.5 4.2 4.4 4.5 3.6 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)461 515 397 311 593 Delay (s/veh)13.54 14.44 11.62 10.44 25.17 LOS B B B B D Approach: Delay (s/veh) 13.54 14.44 11.62 23.46 LOS B B B C Intersection Delay (s/veh)18.04 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:31 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C3-INT2AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) W/O Project Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 15th Street North/South Street: Hermosa Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)5 450 0 237 4 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)5 450 0 0 237 4 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)8 13 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)8 0 13 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LR v (veh/h)5 0 21 C (m) (veh/h)1337 1121 719 v/c 0.00 0.00 0.03 95% queue length 0.01 0.00 0.09 Control Delay (s/veh)7.7 8.2 10.2 LOS A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 10.2 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:32 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C3-INT2PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) W/O Project Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 15th Street North/South Street: Hermosa Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)12 293 0 488 11 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)12 293 0 0 488 11 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)3 11 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)3 0 11 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LR v (veh/h)12 0 14 C (m) (veh/h)1075 1280 652 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.02 95% queue length 0.03 0.00 0.07 Control Delay (s/veh)8.4 7.8 10.6 LOS A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 10.6 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:32 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C3-INT6AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) W/O Project Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (West) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 223 9 30 208 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 223 9 30 208 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 0 Configuration TR LT T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)5 74 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)5 0 74 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 30 79 C (m) (veh/h) 1348 795 v/c 0.02 0.10 95% queue length 0.07 0.33 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 10.0 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh)----10.0 Approach LOS ----B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:33 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C3-INT6PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) W/O Project Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (West) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 268 10 90 306 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 268 10 90 306 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 0 Configuration TR LT T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)1 41 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)1 0 41 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 90 42 C (m) (veh/h) 1296 755 v/c 0.07 0.06 95% queue length 0.22 0.18 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 10.0 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh)----10.0 Approach LOS ----B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:33 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C3-INT7AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) W/O Project Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (East) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)53 248 216 57 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)53 248 0 0 216 57 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 45 23 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 45 0 23 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h)53 68 C (m) (veh/h)1302 594 v/c 0.04 0.11 95% queue length 0.13 0.39 Control Delay (s/veh)7.9 11.8 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 11.8 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:52 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C3-INT7PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) W/O Project Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (East) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)27 276 316 72 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)27 276 0 0 316 72 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 64 69 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 64 0 69 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h)27 133 C (m) (veh/h)1182 607 v/c 0.02 0.22 95% queue length 0.07 0.83 Control Delay (s/veh)8.1 12.6 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 12.6 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:35 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C3-INT8AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) W/O Project Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Monterey Boulevard Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 14 256 13 14 233 51 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 9 97 47 33 41 2 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT TR LT TR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)142 141 130 168 153 76 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.2 0.1 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.07 hd, final value (s)5.55 5.43 5.54 5.27 5.22 5.60 x, final value 0.22 0.21 0.20 0.25 0.22 0.12 Move-up time, m (s)2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)3.2 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.6 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)392 391 380 418 403 326 Delay (s/veh)9.80 9.60 9.62 9.68 9.70 9.35 LOS A A A A A A Approach: Delay (s/veh) 9.70 9.66 9.70 9.35 LOS A A A A Intersection Delay (s/veh)9.65 Intersection LOS A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:36 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C3-INT8PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) W/O Project Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Monterey Boulevard Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 6 324 16 28 350 60 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 28 98 40 38 64 13 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT TR LT TR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)168 178 203 235 166 115 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.0 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.15 0.10 hd, final value (s)6.00 5.92 5.94 5.69 5.88 6.11 x, final value 0.28 0.29 0.34 0.37 0.27 0.20 Move-up time, m (s)2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)3.7 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.9 4.1 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)418 428 453 485 416 365 Delay (s/veh)11.02 11.05 11.61 11.72 11.06 10.59 LOS B B B B B B Approach: Delay (s/veh) 11.04 11.67 11.06 10.59 LOS B B B B Intersection Delay (s/veh)11.25 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:36 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C4-INT1AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) With Project Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 27th Street-Greenwich Village North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 301 119 5 40 90 52 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 1 207 75 51 56 100 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L TR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)425 182 283 51 156 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 2 Geometry Group 2 2 4a 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.7 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.6 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.5 -0.4 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.38 0.16 0.25 0.05 0.14 hd, final value (s)5.96 6.24 6.22 7.50 6.53 x, final value 0.70 0.32 0.49 0.11 0.28 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 Service Time, ts (s)4.0 4.2 4.2 5.2 4.2 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)582 432 533 301 406 Delay (s/veh)21.90 12.09 15.02 11.09 11.79 LOS C B C B B Approach: Delay (s/veh) 21.90 12.09 15.02 11.62 LOS C B C B Intersection Delay (s/veh)16.56 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:37 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C4-INT1PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) With Project Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 27th Street-Greenwich Village North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 113 95 7 57 151 59 %Thrus Left Lane Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 5 87 55 61 196 270 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LTR LTR LTR L TR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)215 267 147 61 466 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 1 1 1 2 Geometry Group 2 2 4a 5 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.5 0.2 0.0 1.0 0.0 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.6 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.5 hRT-adj -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -0.7 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.1 -0.1 -0.2 0.5 -0.4 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.19 0.24 0.13 0.05 0.41 hd, final value (s)6.56 6.27 6.43 6.87 5.95 x, final value 0.39 0.47 0.26 0.12 0.77 Move-up time, m (s)2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 Service Time, ts (s)4.6 4.3 4.4 4.6 3.7 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)465 517 397 311 591 Delay (s/veh)13.73 14.61 11.70 10.48 25.78 LOS B B B B D Approach: Delay (s/veh) 13.73 14.61 11.70 24.00 LOS B B B C Intersection Delay (s/veh)18.36 Intersection LOS C Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:39 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C4-INT2AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) With Project Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 15th Street North/South Street: Hermosa Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)13 450 0 237 8 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)13 450 0 0 237 8 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)11 16 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)11 0 16 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LR v (veh/h)13 0 27 C (m) (veh/h)1333 1121 695 v/c 0.01 0.00 0.04 95% queue length 0.03 0.00 0.12 Control Delay (s/veh)7.7 8.2 10.4 LOS A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 10.4 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:40 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C4-INT2PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) With Project Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: 15th Street North/South Street: Hermosa Avenue Intersection Orientation: North-South Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Northbound Southbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)19 293 0 488 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)19 293 0 0 488 15 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T LT TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)7 15 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)7 0 15 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Northbound Southbound Westbound Eastbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LT LR v (veh/h)19 0 22 C (m) (veh/h)1072 1280 590 v/c 0.02 0.00 0.04 95% queue length 0.05 0.00 0.12 Control Delay (s/veh)8.4 7.8 11.3 LOS A A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 11.3 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:40 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C4-INT6AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) With Project Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (West) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 227 9 30 213 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 227 9 30 213 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 0 Configuration TR LT T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)5 74 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)5 0 74 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 30 79 C (m) (veh/h) 1343 791 v/c 0.02 0.10 95% queue length 0.07 0.33 Control Delay (s/veh) 7.7 10.1 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh)----10.1 Approach LOS ----B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:41 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C4-INT6PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) With Project Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (West) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 273 10 90 311 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 273 10 90 311 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 1 0 0 2 0 Configuration TR LT T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)1 41 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)1 0 41 0 0 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h) 90 42 C (m) (veh/h) 1291 750 v/c 0.07 0.06 95% queue length 0.22 0.18 Control Delay (s/veh) 8.0 10.1 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh)----10.1 Approach LOS ----B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:41 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C4-INT7AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) With Project Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (East) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)53 252 221 57 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)53 252 0 0 221 57 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 45 23 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 45 0 23 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h)53 68 C (m) (veh/h)1296 588 v/c 0.04 0.12 95% queue length 0.13 0.39 Control Delay (s/veh)7.9 11.9 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 11.9 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:42 AM TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C4-INT7PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) With Project Project Description Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Manhattan Avenue (East) Intersection Orientation: East-West Study Period (hrs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h)27 281 321 72 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)27 281 0 0 321 72 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- -- 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration LT T T TR Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 64 69 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR (veh/h)0 0 0 64 0 69 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade (%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay, Queue Length, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration LT LR v (veh/h)27 133 C (m) (veh/h)1177 602 v/c 0.02 0.22 95% queue length 0.07 0.84 Control Delay (s/veh)8.1 12.7 LOS A B Approach Delay (s/veh)---- 12.7 Approach LOS ---- B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:42 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour Intersection C4-INT8AM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) With Project Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Monterey Boulevard Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 14 260 13 14 238 51 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 9 97 47 33 41 2 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT TR LT TR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)144 143 133 170 153 76 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.2 0.1 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.14 0.07 hd, final value (s)5.56 5.44 5.55 5.28 5.24 5.62 x, final value 0.22 0.22 0.20 0.25 0.22 0.12 Move-up time, m (s)2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)3.3 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.6 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)394 393 383 420 403 326 Delay (s/veh)9.84 9.64 9.67 9.73 9.73 9.37 LOS A A A A A A Approach: Delay (s/veh) 9.74 9.71 9.73 9.37 LOS A A A A Intersection Delay (s/veh)9.69 Intersection LOS A Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:44 AM ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL ANALYSIS General Information Site Information Analyst CT Agency/Co.LLG Engineers Date Performed 11/8/2012 Analysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Intersection C4-INT8PM Jurisdiction City of Hermosa Beach Analysis Year Future (2014) With Project Project ID Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project / 1-123996-1 East/West Street: Pier Avenue North/South Street: Monterey Boulevard Volume Adjustments and Site Characteristics Approach Eastbound Westbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 6 329 16 28 355 60 %Thrus Left Lane 50 50 Approach Northbound Southbound Movement L T R L T R Volume (veh/h) 28 98 40 38 64 13 %Thrus Left Lane Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Configuration LT TR LT TR LTR LTR PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Flow Rate (veh/h)170 181 205 238 166 115 % Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 No. Lanes 2 2 1 1 Geometry Group 5 5 2 2 Duration, T 0.25 Saturation Headway Adjustment Worksheet Prop. Left-Turns 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.3 Prop. Right-Turns 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 Prop. Heavy Vehicle 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 hLT-adj 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 hRT-adj -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 hHV-adj 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 hadj, computed 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 -0.1 -0.0 Departure Headway and Service Time hd, initial value (s)3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 3.20 x, initial 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.15 0.10 hd, final value (s)6.01 5.93 5.95 5.71 5.91 6.14 x, final value 0.28 0.30 0.34 0.38 0.27 0.20 Move-up time, m (s)2.3 2.3 2.0 2.0 Service Time, ts (s)3.7 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.9 4.1 Capacity and Level of Service Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 L1 L2 Capacity (veh/h)420 431 455 488 416 365 Delay (s/veh)11.08 11.14 11.68 11.82 11.10 10.63 LOS B B B B B B Approach: Delay (s/veh) 11.11 11.75 11.10 10.63 LOS B B B B Intersection Delay (s/veh)11.32 Intersection LOS B Copyright © 2010 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.6 Generated: 11/15/2012 9:44 AM LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project O:\JOB_FILE\3996\Report\Appendix Covers.doc APPENDIX C SHARED PARKING DEMAND DATA LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project Month:Jul Land Use Leisure Hotel Size 30 Rooms 0.695 KSF Peak Pkg Rate[2]1.00 /Room 1.0 /50 SF Weekday Pkg Rate[3]0.97 /Room 1.0 /50 SF Gross Spaces 29 Spaces 14 Spaces Comparison w/ Adjusted Gross 1.00 29 Spaces 0.75 Parking Supply Spaces[4]23 Guest Spc.6 Emp. Spc.10 Spc.Shared 33 Spaces Time % Of # Of % Of # Of % Of # Of Parking Surplus of Day Peak Spaces Peak Spaces Peak Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 95%22 5%0 0%0 22 11 7:00 AM 95%22 30%2 0%0 24 9 8:00 AM 90%21 90%5 30%3 29 4 9:00 AM 80%18 90%5 60%6 29 4 10:00 AM 70%16 100%6 60%6 28 5 11:00 AM 70%16 100%6 60%6 28 5 12:00 PM 65%15 100%6 65%7 28 5 1:00 PM 65%15 100%6 65%7 28 5 2:00 PM 70%16 100%6 65%7 29 4 3:00 PM 70%16 100%6 65%7 29 4 4:00 PM 75%17 90%5 65%7 29 4 5:00 PM 80%18 70%4 100%10 32 1 6:00 PM 85%20 40%2 100%10 32 1 7:00 PM 85%20 20%1 100%10 31 2 8:00 PM 90%21 20%1 100%10 32 1 9:00 PM 95%22 20%1 100%10 33 0 10:00 PM 95%22 20%1 50%5 28 5 11:00 PM 100%23 10%1 0%0 24 9 12:00 AM 100%23 5%0 0%0 23 10 Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Peak parking rates based on City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code parking requirements. [3] Weekday parking rates based on the weekday parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. [5] Parking supply includes marked spaces and estimated valet parked spaces in drive aisle. [4] Gross spaces adjusted (25%) to reflect parking demand reduction due to captive market, internal capture, and/or local business and residents walk-in reduction. Conference Center/Banquet Appendix Table C-1 LEISURE HOTEL WEEKDAY SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-12-3996-1 Hermosa Boutique Hotel Project Month:Jul Land Use Leisure Hotel Size 30 Rooms 0.695 KSF Peak Pkg Rate[2]1.00 /Room 1.0 /50 SF Weekend Pkg Rate[3]1.00 /Room 1.0 /50 SF Gross Spaces 30 Spaces 14 Spaces Comparison w/ Adjusted Gross 1.00 30 Spaces 0.75 Parking Supply Spaces[4]25 Guest Spc.5 Emp. Spc.10 Spc.Shared 33 Spaces Time % Of # Of % Of # Of % Of # Of Parking Surplus of Day Peak Spaces Peak Spaces Peak Spaces Demand (Deficiency) 6:00 AM 95%24 5%0 0%0 24 9 7:00 AM 95%24 30%2 0%0 26 7 8:00 AM 90%23 90%5 30%3 31 2 9:00 AM 80%20 90%5 60%6 31 2 10:00 AM 70%18 100%5 60%6 29 4 11:00 AM 70%18 100%5 60%6 29 4 12:00 PM 65%16 100%5 65%7 28 5 1:00 PM 65%16 100%5 65%7 28 5 2:00 PM 70%18 100%5 65%7 30 3 3:00 PM 70%18 100%5 65%7 30 3 4:00 PM 75%19 90%5 65%7 31 2 5:00 PM 80%20 75%4 100%10 34 (1) 6:00 PM 85%21 60%3 100%10 34 (1) 7:00 PM 85%21 55%3 100%10 34 (1) 8:00 PM 90%23 55%3 100%10 36 (3) 9:00 PM 95%24 55%3 100%10 37 (4) 10:00 PM 95%24 45%2 50%5 31 2 11:00 PM 100%25 45%2 0%0 27 6 12:00 AM 100%25 30%2 0%0 27 6 Notes: [1] Source: ULI - Urban Land Institute "Shared Parking," Second Edition, 2005. [2] Peak parking rates based on City of Hermosa Beach Municipal Code parking requirements. [3] Weekday parking rates based on the weekday parking demand ratios, as summarized in Table 2-2 of the "Shared Parking" manual. [5] Parking supply includes marked spaces and estimated valet parked spaces in drive aisle. [4] Gross spaces adjusted (25%) to reflect parking demand reduction due to captive market, internal capture, and/or local business and residents walk-in reduction. Conference Center/Banquet Appendix Table C-2 LEISURE HOTEL WEEKEND SHARED PARKING DEMAND ANALYSIS [1] PARCEL MAP NO.73616 6-25-2015 84 8299.14 TP NAIL10 0 . 0 4 P C 102.96102.89100.0899.53 TC99.06 FL99.17 EG99.78 TX9 9 . 2 0 F L 100.01101.38103.11103.15 103.90103.96103.4699.25SSMH99.4699.70104.57 TW103.661 0 3 . 2 3 P C 104.55 TW101.50 PC9 5 . 6 2 97 . 1 1101.65101.87101.79101.64100.38100.33105.16101.58101.35100.0510 1 . 7 0101.65STLT91.42 TW101.68 84.28 PC90.93ED BOX TEL BOX CTV 24"YUCCA 18"YUCCA103.5693.0792 . 5 0 765 766 1036 10371242 1243 N 77°49'30"E 106.00' P/L N 12°10'30"W52.00' P/LN 77°49'30"E 106.00' P/LN 12°10'30"W52.00' P/LN 12°10'30"W539.79'20.00' 20.00'227.79'52.00'260.00'N 77°51'10"E 246.05' N 77°49'30"E N 12°10'34"W4 0' 20'20' SHEET 1 OF 1 SHEET IN THE CITY OF HERMOSA BEACH COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES VESTING TENTATIVE FOUND S&W RCE 30826 PER R1 ESTAB PER CEFB 192 FOUND S&W RCE 30826 PER R1 FOUND N&T 20327 0.13' S'LY OF CORNER ON W'LY PROP. LINE. TAG ELEV = 100.04' EXISTING RESIDENCE EXISTING RESIDENCE SET L&T RCE 30826 ON TOP OF BLOCK WALL 2.00' S'LY & 1.09' E'LY OF PROP. CORNER TAG ELEV = 104.57' SET L&T RCE 30826 IN W. FACE OF BLDG 1.00' S'LY & 0.11' E'LY OF PROP. CORNER TAGELEV.=89.01' SET N&T RCE 30826 10.00' W'LY OF CORNER ON PROP. LINE PROD. TAG ELEV = 99.61' S'LY LINE OF LOT 6 ** N'LY LINE OF LOT 3 * W'LY LINE OF LOT 20 * W'LY LINE OF LOT 19 * RR TIE WALL 8TH STREET 6TH STREET CYPRESS AVENUELOMA DRIVEENGINEER DATE GARY J. ROEHL R.C.E. 30826 3914 DEL AMO BLVD., STE. 921 TORRANCE, CA 90503 310-542-9433 DENN ENGINEERS ** SIESOFO NGI NEREL EH L E ARFONIO.RARYJ No.30826 ALC IVIL OE C F I R NAD ERE IREGSTA S T P T G EXP. 3-31-16 EXISTING BUILDING CONCRETE BRICK WOOD DECK 106.76 EXISTING ELEVATION BLOCK WALL 100 EXISTING CONTOUR FINISH FLOOR GARAGE FINISH FLOOR LEAD AND TAG TOP OF CURB FLOW LINE TOP OF WALL TOP OF DVWY APRON BEGINNING OF CURB RET SPIKE FOUND WESTERLY PROPERTY CORNER FF GFF L&T TC FL TW TX BCR SPK FD W'LY PC X EXISTING FENCE NORTHERLYN'LY SPIKE AND WASHERS&W POWER POLEPP GUY WIREGW STK STAKE PROPERTY LINEPL, P/L E'LY EASTERLY MH MANHOLE SOUTHERLYS'LY WATER METERWM NOTE: ALL SETBACK DIMENSIONS SHOWNARE MEASURED TO EXTERIOR SURFACE OF BUILDINGS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. LEGEND BOUNDARY MONUMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARILYSET ON PROPERTY CORNERS. PLEASE REFER TOTHE NOTATION ON THE PLANS FOR OFFSETDISTANCES. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS,PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT DENN ENGINEERS FOR CLARIFICATION AT :(310) 542-9433, M-F 8:00 AM TO 5:00 PM. WM GENERAL INFORMATION AREA BREAKDOWN LEGAL DESCRIPTION OCCUPANCY GROUP NO. OF UNITS ZONING DES. NO. OF STORIES TYPE OF CONST. R-2, COASTAL 3 3 V-B R3-U1 LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 'H' TRACT NO. 1686 M.B. 20-188 APN 4187-030-013/014 LOT AREA 5512.00 SQ.FT. LOT COVERAGE MAX. (65%)3582.80 SQ.FT. LOT COVERAGE PROP. (57%)3147.00 SQ.FT. UNIT A FIRST FLOOR 461.00 SECOND FLOOR 968.00 THIRD FLOOR 880.00 TOTAL LIVING AREA 2309.00 SQ.FT. GARAGE 378.00 DECKS 524.00 OPEN SPACE 300.00 UNIT B FIRST FLOOR 425.00 SECOND FLOOR 966.00 THIRD FLOOR 845.00 TOTAL LIVING AREA 2236.00 SQ.FT. GARAGE 368.00 DECKS 535.00 OPEN SPACE 351.00 UNIT C BASEMENT 802.00 FIRST FLOOR 393.00 SECOND FLOOR 735.00 THIRD FLOOR 581.00 TOTAL LIVING AREA 2511.00 SQ.FT. GARAGE 452.00 DECKS 531.00 OPEN SPACE 300.00 TABLE OF CONTENTS ALL ROOF RUN-OFF & DECKS TO DRAIN DIRECTLY INTO PLANTING OR SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN AREAS WHERE POSSIBLE ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. DRIVEWAY SLOPE 11.76% TRASH TRASH GUEST PARKING GUEST PARKING ENTRY ENTRY ENTRYMAX. FENCE HT. 42" IN FRONT SETBACK GUEST PARKING TRASH CANS DRIVEWAY SLOPE 3.17% DRIVEWAY SLOPE 3.0% 6' - 0" 6' - 0"6' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0"5' - 0" 6' - 0" F.F. 97.50 F.F. 98.00F.F. 100.00 F.F. 98.83 F.F. 98.25 F.F. 100.00 F.F. 99.50 ACT. P.C. (100.04)ACT P.C. (103.23) ACT P.C. (101.70) ACT P.C. (84.28) ACT. P.C. (100.01) ADJ. P.C. (99.01) ACT. PT. 101.73 ADJ. PT. 98.23 ACT. PT. 103.40 ADJ. PT. 99.9 ACT. P.C. (101.50) ADJ. P.C. (100.50) ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR.17' - 0"6' WOOD FENCE/GATE 6' WOOD FENCE/GATE 6' WOOD FENCE/GATE 6' WOOD FENCE/GATE 6' WOOD FENCE/GATE 42' WOOD FENCE 42' WOOD FENCE SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 9:03:03 AM A100COVER SHEET, SITEPLANLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDateSHT.NO.SHT. NAME A100 COVER SHEET, SITE PLAN A101 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN A102 FIRST FLOOR PLAN A103 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A104 THIRD FLOOR PLAN A105 ROOF DECK A106 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A107 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A108 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A109 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A110 EAST-WEST SECTION, PERSPECTIVE VIEWS A111 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM TABLE, SECTIONS UNIT A & UNIT C A112 LANDSCAPE PLAN A113 CRITICAL POINTS A114 LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT PLAN SRV CONVEX SLOPE 650 LOMA DRIVE 1/8" = 1'-0"2 Site NORTH UNIT A UNIT B UNIT C CLOSET LAUNDRY PATIO CABINET ELEV. BATH BAR GAMEROOM CLOSET 20' - 0" UP 5' - 0" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE (F.F. 89.00) (F.F. 88.75) 6' - 0" 6' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0"19' - 6"3 A110 1 A111 2 A111 ACT. P.C. (100.04) ACT P.C. (103.23) ACT P.C. (101.70) ACT P.C. (84.28) ACT. P.C. (100.01) ADJ. P.C. (99.01) ACT. PT. 101.73 ADJ. PT. 98.23 ACT. PT. 103.40 ADJ. PT. 99.9 ACT. P.C. (101.50) ADJ. P.C. (100.50)20' - 6"SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 8:59:46 AM A101BASEMENT FLOOR PLANLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDate 1/4" = 1'-0"1 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN NORTH BEDROOM ELEV. CLOSET 200 CUBIC FEET OF STORAGE, 42" CLR. BELOW UNIT A UNIT B UNIT C GARAGE CLOSET PORCH TRASH CANS CLOSET CLOSET GUEST PARKING GUEST PARKING MAX. FENCE HT. 42" IN FRONT SETBACK DRIVEWAY TRASH CANS GARAGE DRIVEWAY CLOSET BEDROOM BATH BATH ENTRY DRIVEWAY GUEST PARKING 9' - 6"GARAGE CLOSET TRASH CANS ENTRY BEDROOM ENTRY PORCHPORCH 20' - 0" 10' - 6" 18' - 0"10' - 0"17' - 0"20' - 0"20' - 0"17' - 0"(DRIVEWAY SLOPE 3.0%) 17' - 0" 10' - 6"11' - 0"7' - 0"8' - 2" ELEV. BATH 24' - 0"26' - 0"DN UPUP DN UP 6' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0" 6' - 0" 6' - 0"6' - 0"5' - 0"10' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"LANDSCAPE AREA PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE (F.F. 100.00) (F.F. 100.00) (F.F. 98.00) (F.F. 99.50) (F.F. 98.83) (F.F. 98.25) (F.F. 97.50) F.G. 97.50 F.G. 99.50 F.G. 99.50 (DRIVEWAY SLOPE 3.17%) 63' - 0" (DRIVEWAY SLOPE 11.76%) 17' - 0" 3 A110 1 A111 2 A111 17' - 0"200 CUBIC FEET OF STORAGE, 42" CLR. BELOW 200 CUBIC FEET OF STORAGE, 42" CLR. BELOW 5' - 0"10' - 0"21' - 0"CAB. 11' - 6"11' - 5 1/2"ACT. P.C. (100.04) ACT P.C. (103.23) ACT P.C. (101.70) ACT P.C. (84.28) ACT. P.C. (100.01) ADJ. P.C. (99.01) ACT. PT. 101.73 ADJ. PT. 98.23 ACT. PT. 103.40 ADJ. PT. 99.9 ACT. P.C. (101.50) ADJ. P.C. (100.50) TANKLESS W/H TANKLESS W/H TANKLESS W/H ELECTRICAL METERS, "LOCATION T.B.D. BY UTILITY COMPANY" 6' WOOD FENCE/GATE 6' WOOD FENCE/GATE 6' WOOD FENCE/GATE OPEN STAIRWAYS DN ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. GAS METER GAS METER GAS METER 6' WOOD FENCE/GATE 6' WOOD FENCE/GATE 42' WOOD FENCE 42' WOOD FENCE DN LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE AREA DRIVEWAY SLOPE 11.76% DRIVEWAY SLOPE 3.17% CLOSET SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 8:59:48 AM A102FIRST FLOOR PLANLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDate 1/4" = 1'-0"1 FIRST FLOOR PLAN NORTH BATH M. BATH MASTER BEDROOM UNIT A UNIT B UNIT C OPEN TO BELOW ELEV. F.A.U. F.A.U. MAKEUP CLOSET DECK BEDROOM MASTER W.I.C. M.BATH ELEV. OPEN TO BELOW DECK LAUNDRY MASTER BATH BEDROOM MASTER BEDROOM CAB. CAB. LAUNDRY W.I.C. BEDROOM BATH DN 12' - 1"7' - 0"4' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0" 6' - 0"5' - 0"UP DN UP DN PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE (F.F. 109.0) (F.F. 109.0) (F.F. 107.0) 3 A110 BATH 1 A111 2 A111 15' - 0" CLOSET MASTER BEDROOM CABINET 15' - 6"17' - 0" 16' - 0" W.I.C.14' - 0"CLOSET DECK 10' - 6"10' - 0"ACT. P.C. (100.04) ACT P.C. (103.23) ACT P.C. (101.70) ACT P.C. (84.28) ACT. P.C. (100.01) ADJ. P.C. (99.01) ACT. PT. 101.73 ADJ. PT. 98.23 ACT. P.C. (101.50) ADJ. P.C. (100.50) OPEN STAIRWAYS11' - 6"11' - 6"15' - 6"16' - 6"13' - 6"11' - 0"SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 8:59:50 AM A103SECOND FLOOR PLANLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDate 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SECOND FLOOR PLAN NORTH PANTRY ARCHITECTURAL DETAIL UNIT A UNIT B UNIT C DECK ELEV. ELEV. STOR. DW RANGE REF KITCHEN PWDR (OPEN SPACE 251 SQ.FT.) REF DW RANGE DECK (OPEN SPACE 200 SQ.FT.) REF.RANGE POWDER KITCHEN FAMILY ROOMDINING ROOM PANTRY DECK (OPEN SPACE 200 SQ.FT.) FIREPLACE D.W. DINING ROOM FAMILY ROOM ELEV. DN DECK 21' - 0"9' - 6"30' - 0" 14' - 0"14' - 3"5' - 0"9' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0" 4' - 5" 6' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0" 6' - 0" UP DN PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE (F.F. 118.0) (F.F. 118.0) (F.F. 116.0)3 A110 1 A111 2 A111 29' - 0" PWDR ACT. P.C. (100.04) ACT P.C. (103.23) ACT P.C. (101.70) ACT P.C. (84.28) ACT. P.C. (100.01) ADJ. P.C. (99.01) ACT. PT. 101.73 ADJ. PT. 98.23 ACT. P.C. (101.50) ADJ. P.C. (100.50) FIREPLACE 10' - 0"7' - 3"KITCHEN DINING ROOM FAMILY ROOM "50% COVERED" "50% COVERED" PANTRY 12' - 6" FIREPLACE11' - 0"14' - 6" 18' - 0"22' - 0"17' - 6"16' - 9"20' - 0"14' - 6"17' - 0" SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 8:59:52 AM A104THIRD FLOOR PLANLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDate 1/4" = 1'-0"1 THIRD FLOOR PLAN NORTH UNIT A UNIT B UNIT C ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK 11' - 4"(OPEN SPACE 100 SQ.FT.) (OPEN SPACE 100 SQ.FT.) (OPEN SPACE 100 SQ.FT.)5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"ALL ROOF RUN-OFF & DECKS TO DRAIN DIRECTLY INTO SETTLING BASIN WHERE POSSIBLE ALL ROOF RUN-OFF & DECKS TO DRAIN DIRECTLY INTO SETTLING BASIN WHERE POSSIBLE ALL ROOF RUN-OFF & DECKS TO DRAIN DIRECTLY INTO SETTLING BASIN WHERE POSSIBLE5' - 0"5' - 0"5' - 0"6' - 0"5' - 10"6' - 0" DECK BELOW DECK BELOW DECK BELOW DECK BELOW DECK BELOW 1' - 6"11' - 9"18' - 0" 21' - 0"10' - 0"1' - 6" 1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6" ACT. P.C. (100.04) ACT P.C. (103.23) ACT P.C. (101.70) ACT P.C. (84.28) PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE (F.F. 126.83) (RAILING HT. 130.33) (F.F. 126.83) (RAILING HT. 130.33) 3 A110 1 A111 2 A111 ACT. P.C. (100.01) ADJ. P.C. (99.01) ACT. PT. 101.73 ADJ. PT. 98.23 ACT. PT. 103.40 ADJ. PT. 99.9 ACT. P.C. (101.50) ADJ. P.C. (100.50) 14' - 0"14' - 6"17' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6" 1' - 6"1' - 6"(F.F. 126.83) (RAILING HT. 130.33) 1' - 6" 1' - 6" 4' - 0"2' - 0"4' - 6"3' - 0"SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 8:59:54 AM A105ROOF DECKLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDate 1/4" = 1'-0"1 ROOF DECK NORTH (PC. 103.23)(F.G. 101.76) (F.G. 91.60) (F.G. 90.00) (F.G. 88.00) (F.G. 86.00) (PC. 84.28) PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING FINISH GRADE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE EXISTING FINISH GRADE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE (PC. 101.70 "P/L FENCE"3' - 6"BASEMENT FLOOR UNIT C 89.00 FIRST FLOOR UNIT C 98.00 SECOND FLOOR UNIT C 107.00 THIRD FLOOR UNIT C 116.00 ROOF DECK UNIT C 126.83 "P/L FENCE"3' - 6"42" FENCE BEYOND ROOF DECK RAILING HORIZONTAL SIDING RETAINING WALLS WOOD TRIM 3' - 6"5' - 0" 5' - 0" SMOOTH STUCCO 3 A110 3' - 6""RETAINING WALL"4' - 5 1/2""P/L FENCE"6' - 0""RETAINING WALL"6' - 0""RETAINING WALL"3' - 3"ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. 1' - 6" 3' - 0"3' - 6"ROOF DECK RAILING, HT. 130.33 FIRST FLOOR PLAN 100.00 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 109.00 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 118.00 ROOF DECK 126.83 (P.C. 101.50)(P.C. 100.04) (F.G. 100.01) PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING FINISH GRADE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE WOOD POST/RAILING METAL ROOF WOOD BEAM WOOD TRIM HORIZONTAL SIDING CHIMNEY 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 10' - 0" SMOOTH STUCCO EXISTING FINISH GRADE 3 A110 ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. 2' - 0" SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 8:59:59 AM A106EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDate 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION UNIT C UNIT A FIRST FLOOR PLAN 100.00 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 109.00 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 118.00 ROOF DECK 126.83 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 91.00 (PC. 101.50) (E.G. 101.58) (E.G. 101.84)(E.G. 101.84)(E.G. 101.69)(E.G. 101.81)(E.G. 100.91) (E.G. 100.53) (E.G. 96.00) (E.G. 94.56) (E.G. 93.52) (E.G. 90.00) (E.G. 88.00) (E.G. 86.00) (PC. 84.28) PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING FINISH GRADEDRIVEWAY SLOPE 3.17% EXISTING FINISH GRADE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE UNIT A UNIT B UNIT C "P/L FENCE"3' - 6""MAX. HT. IN FRONT S.B."3' - 6"BASEMENT FLOOR UNIT C 89.00 FIRST FLOOR UNIT C 98.00 SECOND FLOOR UNIT C 107.00 THIRD FLOOR UNIT C 116.00 ROOF DECK UNIT C 126.83 "DRIVEWAY CLR."8' - 6""P/L FENCE"6' - 0"WOOD POST WOOD TRIM CHIMNEYROOF DECK RAILING 3' - 6"3' - 6"3' - 6"3' - 6"3' - 6"5' - 0" 6' - 0" 6' - 0" 5' - 0" 1 A111 2 A111 DRIVEWAY SLOPE AT P.L. (11.76%) DRIVEWAY SLOPE AT GUEST PARKING (3.0%)3' - 6""RETAINING WALL"6' - 0""RETAINING WALL"6' - 0""RETAINING WALL"6' - 0""RETAINING WALL"4' - 5 1/2""RETAINING WALL"5' - 10 1/2""P/L FENCE"3' - 6"ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR.3' - 6"6' - 0"3' - 6"6' WOOD FENCE/GATE 6' WOOD FENCE/GATE 1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6"1' - 6" 1' - 6"1' - 6" 4' - 0"2' - 1" 4' - 6"CHIMNEY ROOF DECK RAILING CHIMNEYROOF DECK RAILING SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 9:00:08 AM A107EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015AuthorCheckerNo.DescriptionDate 1/4" = 1'-0"1 SOUTH ELEVATION FIRST FLOOR PLAN 100.00 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 109.00 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 118.00 ROOF DECK 126.83 PC 103.23 (E.G. 103.46)(E.G. 103.96) (E.G. 103.90) (E.G. 103.11) (E.G. 102.89) (E.G. 101.38) (E.G. 100.08) (PC 100.04) PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE EXISTING FINISH GRADEPROPOSED FINISH GRADE EXISTING FINISH GRADE PROPOSED FINISH GRADE UNIT AUNIT BUNIT C FIRST FLOOR UNIT C 98.00 SECOND FLOOR UNIT C 107.00 THIRD FLOOR UNIT C 116.00 ROOF DECK UNIT C 126.83 "P/L FENCE"6' - 0""P/L FENCE"6' - 0"SMOOTH STUCCO HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING ROOF DECK RAILING, HT. 130.33HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING STUCCO FINISH "MAX. HT. IN FRONT S.B."3' - 6"ARCHITECTURAL FRONT PROJECTION 5' - 0" 6' - 0" 5' - 0" 4' - 5" SMOOTH STUCCO SMOOTH STUCCO SMOOTH STUCCO 3' - 6"3' - 6"ROOF DECK RAILING, HT. 130.33 1 A1112 A111 ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. 6' WOOD FENCE/GATE 6' WOOD FENCE/GATE 1' - 6"1' - 6" 1' - 6"1' - 6" 1' - 6" ROOF DECK RAILING, HT. 130.33 SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 9:00:12 AM A108EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDate 1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH ELEVATION THIRD FLOOR PLAN UNIT B 118.00 ROOF DECK UNIT B 126.83 SECOND FLOOR PLAN UNIT B 109.00 FIRST FLOOR PLAN UNIT B 100.00 PROPERTY LINE 5' - 0" 5' - 0"3' - 6"PROPERTY LINE 1' - 6"1' - 6"3' - 6"4' - 0"3' - 6"THIRD FLOOR PLAN UNIT B 118.00 ROOF DECK UNIT B 126.83 SECOND FLOOR PLAN UNIT B 109.00 FIRST FLOOR PLAN UNIT B 100.003' - 6"5' - 0" 5' - 0" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 1' - 6" 4' - 0" FIRST FLOOR UNIT C 98.00 SECOND FLOOR UNIT C 107.00 THIRD FLOOR UNIT C 116.00 ROOF DECK UNIT C 126.83 3' - 6"PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 5' - 0" 5' - 0" 1' - 6" 3' - 0" SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 9:00:17 AM A109EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDate 1/4" = 1'-0"1 EAST ELEVATION - UNIT B 1/4" = 1'-0"2 WEST ELEVATION - UNIT B 1/4" = 1'-0"3 WEST ELEVATION - UNIT C FIRST FLOOR PLAN 100.00 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 109.00 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 118.00 ROOF DECK 126.83 BASEMENT FLOOR UNIT C 89.00 FIRST FLOOR UNIT C 98.00 SECOND FLOOR UNIT C 107.00 THIRD FLOOR UNIT C 116.00 ROOF DECK UNIT C 126.83 BEDROOM BEDROOM BEDROOM BATH ROOF DECK BATH GARAGE ENTRY LAUNDRY LAUNDRY BEDROOM BATH W.I.C. (RAILING HT. 130.33)(RAILING HT. 130.33 (RAILING HT. 129.33) PROPERTY LINE GAMEROOM BATH FAMILY ROOM 1 A111 5' - 0" "SETBACK" 5' - 0" PROPERTY LINE 8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"10' - 0"9' - 2"8' - 0"8' - 0"6' - 0"6' - 0"9' - 9"8' - 0"3' - 6"3' - 6"(F.F. 100.00) (F.F. 109.00) (F.F. 118.00) (F.F. 98.83) (F.F. 109.00) (F.F. 118.00) (F.F. 98.25) (F.F. 107.00) (F.F. 116.00) (F.F. 98.00) (F.F. 89.00) 2 A111 1' - 6"1' - 6" 1' - 6" 126.83 8' - 0"SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 9:00:23 AM A110EAST-WEST SECTION,PERSPECTIVE VIEWSLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDate1 NORTH SIDE2SOUTH SIDE 1/4" = 1'-0"3 EAST-WEST SECTION FIRST FLOOR PLAN 100.00 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 109.00 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 118.00 ROOF DECK 126.83 3 A110 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE "SETBACK" 5' - 0" "SETBACK" 5' - 0" BEDROOM GARAGEBATHENTRY KITCHEN MASTER BEDROOMLAUNDRY 8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 6""GUEST PARKING" 10' - 0"3' - 6"HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDING SMOOTH STUCCO 1' - 6"8' - 0"BASEMENT FLOOR UNIT C 89.00 FIRST FLOOR UNIT C 98.00 SECOND FLOOR UNIT C 107.00 THIRD FLOOR UNIT C 116.00 ROOF DECK UNIT C 126.83 3 A110 PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE "SETBACK" 5' - 0""SETBACK" 5' - 0"MASTER BEDROOM GARAGEENTRY GAMEROOM DINING ROOM FAMILY ROOM 8' - 0"8' - 0"8' - 0"10' - 0"3' - 6"ROOF DECK 1' - 6"3' - 6"SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 9:00:25 AM A111DEVELOPMENTPROGRAM TABLE,SECTIONS UNIT A &UNIT CLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDate 1/4" = 1'-0"1 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION UNIT A 1/4" = 1'-0"2 NORTH-SOUTH SECTION UNIT C DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROJECT LOCATION:650/704 LOMA DRIVE OWNER'S NAME:GARY LANE TEL.:310-937-8081 ADDRESS:2212 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, HERMOSA BEACH, CA 90254 LEGAL DESCRIPTION:LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK "H", TRACT NO. 1686, M.B. 20-188, APN 418-030-013/014 ZONING:R-2 GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION LOT AREA:5512.00 SQ.FT.TOTAL BUILDING AREA:7056.00 SQ.FT. "LIVING AREA" 1147.00 SQ.FT. "GARAGE" UNIT A UNIT B UNIT C BASEMENT LIVING AREA 802.00 1ST LEVEL LIVING AREA 461.00 425.00 393.00 GARAGE 378.00 368.00 452.00 2ND LEVEL LIVING AREA 968.00 966.00 735.00 DECKS/BALCONIES 84.00 60.00 36.00 3RD LIVING AREA 880.00 845.00 581.00 DECKS/BALCONIES 245.00 272.00 200.00 ROOF DECK 195.00 203.00 295.00 TOTAL LIVING AREA 2309.00 2236.00 2511.00 TOTAL DECKS/BALCONIES 524.00 535.00 531.00 NO. OF BEDROOMS 3.0 3.0 3.0 NO. OF BATHROOMS 4.0 4.0 4.0 ZONING INFORMATION AREA:REQUIRED PROVIDED LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT 1750.00 1837.33 LOT COVERAGE 65.0%57.0% YARDS: FRONT 5.0'5.0' SIDE 5.0'5.0' REAR 5.0'5.0' PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS: NUMBER OF SPACES 6 6 GUEST SPACES 2 3 PARKING SETBACK VARIES VARIES PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS VARIES VARIES TURNING AREA VARIES VARIES DRIVEWAY WIDTH 9.00'10.00' DRIVEWAY MAXIMUM SLOPE 12.5%3.0% - 11.76% FENCES/WALLS: HEIGHT FROM FINISHED SURFACE 42" FRONT SETBACK 6'-0" TYPICAL P.L. WALLS LINEAL FEET 254.0 P.L. WALLS OPEN SPACE: TOTAL 900 SQ.FT.951 SQ.FT. PRIVATE (PER UNIT)300 SQ.FT./D.U.UNIT A:300.00 UNIT B:351.00 UNIT C:300.00 PRIVATE STORAGE SPACE: CUBIC FEET PER UNIT 200.00 UNIT A:200.00 UNIT B:200.00 UNIT C:200.00 BASEMENT QUALIFICATION CALCULATION UNIT C 1ST LEVEL F.F. ELEVATION 98.0/97.50 LINEAL FEET(LF) OF PERIMETER 126.00' LF OF PERIMETER <6' FROM GRADE TO F.F. ABOVE 97.0' % OF PERIMETER <6' TO F.F. ABOVE 77.0% ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY F.F. 97.50 F.F. 98.00F.F. 100.00 F.F. 98.83 F.F. 98.25 F.F. 100.00 F.F. 99.50 ACT. P.C. (100.04)ACT P.C. (103.23) ACT P.C. (101.70) ACT P.C. (84.28) ACT. P.C. (100.01) ADJ. P.C. (99.01) ACT. PT. 101.73 ADJ. PT. 98.23 ACT. PT. 103.40 ADJ. PT. 99.9 ACT. P.C. (101.50) ADJ. P.C. (100.50) 6' WOOD FENCE/GATE DRYWELL DRYWELL DRYWELL DRYWELL 18"X18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN 18"X18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN MAX. FENCE HT. 42" IN FRONT SETBACK 18"X18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN 18"X18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN 18"X18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN 18"X18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN 6'-0" WOOD FENCE/GATE 6'-0" WOOD FENCE/GATE 6'-0" WOOD FENCE/GATE 6'-0" WOOD FENCE/GATE 42" WOOD FENCE PLANTER PLANTERS42" WOOD FENCE 18"X18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN 18"X18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN 18"X18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN LANDSCAPE AREA ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. ALL PROPOSED FENCE/WALL NOT TO EXCEED 6'-0" RETAINING WALL WITH 42" OPEN RAILING ABOVE. ACTUAL HEIGHT TO BE DISCUSS WITH NEIGHBOR. SYMBOL VEGETATION TYPE:BOTANICAL NAME:COMMON NAME:REGIONAL EVALUTIONS WATER NEEDS: SIZE:DIAMETER (PLANTING/MATURED): HEIGHT (PLANTING/MATURED): QUANTITY: AREA CALCULATION: LOT AREA:5512.00 SQ.FT. BUILDING FOOTPRINT: 44%2434.00 SQ.FT. HARDSCAPE AREA: "DRIVEWAY" 30%1649.00 SQ.FT. LANDSCAPE AREA: 12.6%693.00 SQ.FT. PERMEABLE AREA: 13.4%736.00 SQ.FT. IRRIGATION SYSTEM & SPECIFICATIONS:WATER EFFICIENT AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM W/ EVAPOTRANSPIRATION WITH A RAIN SHUT-OFF SENSOR. DRIP IRRIGATION EMITTERS SHALL EMIT NO MORE THAN (2) GALLONS PER HOUR. Gc PERENNIAL ZOYZIA TENUIFOLIA MASCARENE GRASS MEDIUM 693 SQ.FT.N/A N/A 72 SQ.FT. PERMEABLE CONCRETE AREAS 8.56. 070 Water Conservation Requirements. The following water conservation requirements shall apply to all persons: A. Landscaping. 1. Watering hours and duration. No lawn or landscaped area shall be irrigated or watered by any means between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on any day. Above-ground spray irrigation or watering shall not exceed fifteen (15) minutes per irrigation station or area. This provision shall not apply to drip irrigation systems, use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, use of a hand-held hose equipped with a positive action quick-release shutoff valve or nozzle, irrigation necessary to establish newly planted low water usage plants, or water expended for limited periods of time necessary for irrigation system maintenance or leak repair. 2. Over-watering: No lawn or landscaped area shall be irrigated or watered to the point where excess water ponds, sprays or runs off the lawn or landscaped area onto any walkways, sidewalks, driveways, streets, alleys or storm drains. 3. Irrigation during rainfall: No lawn or landscaped area shall be irrigated or watered during rainfall or within 24 hours after measurable rainfall. 4. Landscape maintenance: All lawns and landscaping shall be regularly maintained to reduce water use by such methods as aerating, thatching and mulching. 5. Landscape irrigation system maintenance: Landscape irrigation systems shall be regularly inspected, maintained and repaired to eliminate leaks, remove obstructions to water emission devices and eliminate over spraying. B. Pools and spas. New pools and spas shall be equipped with a cover. Not later than July 1, 2012, all existing pools and spas shall be constructed, installed or equipped with a cover. Pools and spas shall be covered overnight and daily when use is concluded. C. Water fountains and decorative water features. No person shall operate a fountain or other decorative water feature that does not recycle or re-circulate the water utilized by the device. D. Cleaning. No person shall use water to wash or clean any sidewalks, walkways, patios, driveways, alleys, parking or similar areas, whether paved or unpaved; however, use of water brooms or pressure washers or similar low flow technology, or water recycling systems to clean these surfaces, is permitted. In no case shall such water run off the property or drain onto any walkways, sidewalks, streets, alleys or storm drains. E. Car washing. No person shall use water to wash or clean any motorized or un-motorized vehicle, including, but not limited to, an automobile, truck, boat, van, bus, motorcycle, trailer or similar vehicle, except by use of a bucket or similar container or a hand-held hose equipped with a positive action quick-release shutoff valve or nozzle. This subsection shall not apply to any commercial car washing facility that uses a water recycling system to capture or reuse water. F. Waste and leaks. No person shall: 1. Cause, permit or allow water to leak from any exterior or interior pipe, hose or plumbing fixture. 2. Cause, permit or allow water to flow from any source on private or public property onto walkways, sidewalks, streets, alleys or storm drains, except as a result of rainfall or pumping excessive groundwater infiltration, such as by means of a sump pump. 3. The use of water for cleaning, washing and other uses shall be performed in an efficient manner to reduce waste and total water use. 8.60. 060 Standards for New Landscape. “New landscape" as defined in Section 8.60.040 shall be designed and managed to use the minimum amount of water required to maintain plant health. New landscape shall comply with all of the requirements in Sections 492.6 through 492.15 of the Model Efficient Ordinance and the following, whichever is more restrictive, unless an exception is granted pursuant to Section 8.60.050(D). A. Plant material. 1. Plant species and landscape design shall be adapted to the climate, soils, topographical conditions, and shall be able to withstand exposure to localized urban conditions such as pavement heat radiation, vehicle emissions and dust, and urban runoff. Water conserving plant and turf species shall be used. 2. Plant species or specifications shall comply with any official list of species, guidelines or regulations adopted by the City to the extent that such lists, guidelines or regulations do not conflict with this Chapter 3. `Plants listed in the current Invasive Plant Inventory for the southwest region by the California Invasive Plant Council or similar source acceptable the Community Development Director are prohibited, except for known non-fruiting, non-invasive, sterile varieties or cultivars. Plants known to be susceptible to disease or pests in this Climate Zone six (6) shall not be used. 4. The landscape area of projects proposing exclusively commercial or industrial uses shall be designed using exclusively water conserving plants. Single family residential, multi-family residential, mixed use and institutional use projects shall be designed with not more than twenty (20) percent of the total landscaped area in turf or high water use plants in the Water Use Classification for Landscape Species (WUCOLS). Turf may be used as a bio-swale or bio- filter or for functional purposes such as active recreational areas as determined by the Community Development Director. Public agencies shall be exempt from this requirement. 5. Turf shall not be allowed on slopes greater than twenty (20) percent. Where the toe of the slope is adjacent to an impermeable surface, alternatives to turf should be considered on slopes exceeding twenty (20) percent, meaning one (1) foot of vertical elevation change for every five (5) feet of horizontal length. Approved turf areas may be watered at 1.0 of the reference evapotranspiration (ETo). 6 .Planted areas shall be covered with a minimum of two (2) inches of organic mulch, except in areas covered by groundcovers or within twenty-four (24) inches of the base of a tree, or where a reduced application is indicated. Additional mulch material shall be added from time to time as necessary to maintain the required depth of mulch. 7. Species and landscape design shall complement and to the extent feasible in compliance with this Chapter be proportional to the surroundings and streetscape and incorporate deciduous trees to shade west and south exposures. Landscaping shall not interfere with safe sight distances for vehicular traffic, the vision clearance in Section 17.46.060, height restrictions for hedges in 17.46.130, pedestrian or bicycle ways, or overhead utility lines or lighting. B. Water features, pools and spas. 1. Recirculating water systems shall be used for water features. Where available, recycled water shall be used as a source for decorative water features. 2. Pools and spas shall be equipped with a cover and covered overnight and daily when use is concluded. C. Grading and runoff. Landscape design shall minimize soil erosion and runoff. 1. Grading plans shall avoid disruption of natural drainage patterns to the extent feasible. 2. Grading plans shall demonstrate that normal rainfall and irrigation will remain within the property lines and not drain onto impermeable surfaces, walkways, sidewalks, streets, alleys, gutters, or storm drains. 3. Plans and construction shall protect against soil compaction within landscape areas. 4. Stormwater best management practices to minimize runoff, to increase on-site retention and infiltration, and control pollutants shall be incorporated into project plans. Rain gardens, cisterns, swales, structural soil, permeable pavement, connected landscape areas, and other landscape features and practices that increase onsite rainwater capture, storage and infiltration, emphasizing natural approaches over technology-based approaches that require ongoing maintenance, shall be considered during project design. Plans and practices shall comply with Chapter 8.44. D. Irrigation systems. 1. An automatic irrigation system using either evapotranspiration or soil moisture sensor data, with a rain shut-off sensor, shall be installed. Drip irrigation emitters shall emit no more than two (2) gallons per hour. 2. An average landscape irrigation efficiency of 0.71 shall be used for the purpose of determining Maximum Applied Water Allowance. Irrigation systems shall be designed, maintained, and managed to meet or exceed this efficiency. Landscapes using recycled water are considered Special Landscape Areas, where the ET Adjustment Factor shall not exceed 1.0. 3. The irrigation system shall be designed to prevent water waste resulting in runoff, overspray, or similar conditions where irrigation water ponds or flows onto non-irrigated areas, walkways, sidewalks, streets, alleys, gutters, storm drains, adjacent property, or similar untargeted areas. Runoff to other permeable or impermeable surfaces shall not be allowed. 4. Narrow or irregularly shaped areas, including turf less than eight (8) feet in width in any direction, shall be irrigated with subsurface irrigation or low volume above-ground irrigation system. 5. Overhead irrigation shall not be permitted within two (2) feet of any impermeable surface. Drip, drip line, or other low flow non-spray technology shall be used. 6. All sprinklers shall have matched precipitation rates within each valve and circuit. All irrigation systems shall be designed to include optimum distribution uniformity, head to head spacing, and setbacks from sidewalks, pavement and impermeable surfaces. 7. All irrigation systems shall provide backflow prevention devices in accordance with the current edition of the California Building/Plumbing Code and check valves at the low end of irrigation lines to prevent unwanted draining of irrigation lines. Pressure regulators may be required if the pressure at the sprinkler head exceeds the manufacturer’s recommended optimal operating pressure. 8. Reclaimed water and graywater irrigation systems shall be used when reasonably feasible and shall conform to the current edition of the California Building/Plumbing Code, and all other applicable local, state and federal laws. E. Irrigation system hydrozones. 1. The irrigation system shall conform to the hydrozones of the landscape design plan. 2. Each hydrozone shall have plant materials with similar water use, with the exception of hydrozones with plants of mixed water use where the plant factor of the higher water using plant is used for calculations. No hydrozone shall mix high and low water use plants. 3. Sprinkler heads and other emission devices shall be appropriate for the plant type within that hydrozone. Where feasible, trees shall be placed on separate valves from turf, shrubs and groundcovers. 4. No landscape plan or restriction of any type, including those applicable to common interest developments such as condominiums, shall prohibit or include conditions that have the effect of prohibiting native or water conserving plants. F. Landscape and irrigation maintenance. 1. All landscape and related elements shall be designed and properly maintained to insure long-term health and shall maintain conformance with the requirements of this Chapter. 2. Irrigation scheduling shall be regulated by automatic irrigation controllers. 3. Watering hours and duration shall be scheduled compliant with the requirements of Chapter 8.56. 4. A regular maintenance schedule shall include, but not be limited to, routine inspection, adjustment and repair of the irrigation system, aerating and dethatching turf areas, replenishing mulch, fertilizing, pruning, weeding and removing any obstruction to emission devices. 5. Repair of all irrigation equipment shall be promptly undertaken, using the originally installed components, or equivalent or enhanced components compatible with the irrigation system. 6. Landscape areas shall be permanently maintained and kept free of weeds, debris and litter; plant materials shall be maintained in a healthy growing condition and diseased or dead plant materials shall be replaced, in kind, pursuant to the approved plans within thirty (30) days. Alternatively, diseased or dead plant materials may be replaced with plant materials that have low water needs, as rated in the current edition of the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species. 7. The use, storage and disposal of all landscape and lawn care products shall comply with all manufacturer’s specifications and applicable laws, and minimize the discharge of pollutants to the environment. G. Notwithstanding the requirements of this Section, landscape design and maintenance shall additionally comply with the requirements of Chapters 8.44 and 8.56, Title 17 (Zoning), any other applicable provisions of this code, and the requirements of a development permit, whichever is more restrictive. 8.60. 070 Standards for Small Landscape Areas. "Small landscape areas" as defined in Section 8.60.040 are subject to the provisions in this Section and are otherwise exempt from this Chapter A. Procedures. Prior to issuance of a permit for construction, the applicant shall provide information substantiating compliance with this section to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. The Planning Commission may impose additional measures or conditions on discretionary planning entitlements to further the purposes of this Chapter. No building or other equivalent construction permit shall be issued a permanent Certificate of Occupancy until the Community Development Director determines the project complies with the standards in this section. In the case of any decision to deny a permit issuance or certificate of occupancy, the applicant may modify and resubmit the application, apply for an exception from standards, or appeal the decision in accordance with Subsections D or E of Section 8.60.050. B. Standards. Small landscape areas shall comply with the following standards. Provisions that are encouraged but not required are indicated with words such as 'should.' 1. Plant species and landscape design shall be adapted to the climate, soils, topographical conditions, and shall be able to withstand exposure to localized urban conditions such as pavement heat radiation, vehicle emissions and dust, and urban runoff. Water conserving plant and turf species shall be used. Where practical, such as in areas exceeding four hundred (400) square feet of contiguous landscape, plantings should be arranged by hydrozones. 2. Plant species or specifications shall comply with any official list of species, guidelines or regulations adopted by the City to the extent that such lists, guidelines or regulations do not conflict with this Chapter. 3. Plants listed in the current Invasive Plant Inventory for the southwest region by the California Invasive Plant Council or similar recognized authority acceptable to the Community Development Director are prohibited, except for known non-fruiting, non-invasive, sterile varieties or cultivars. Plants known to be susceptible to disease or pests in this Climate Zone six (6) should not be planted. 4. The landscape area of projects proposing exclusively commercial, industrial or institutional uses shall be designed using exclusively water conserving plants. Turf may be used as a bio-swale or bio-filter or for functional purposes such as active recreational areas as determined by the Community Development Director. Turf shall not be allowed on slopes greater than twenty (20) percent. Deciduous trees should be used to shade west and south exposures. 5. Planted areas shall be covered with a minimum of two (2) inches of organic mulch, except in areas covered by groundcovers or within twenty-four (24) inches of the base of a tree, or where a reduced application is indicated. Additional mulch material shall be added from time to time as necessary to maintain the required depth of mulch. 6. Landscaping shall not interfere with safe sight distances for vehicular traffic, the vision clearance in Section 17.46.060, height restrictions for hedges in 17.46.130, pedestrian or bicycle ways, or overhead utility lines or lighting. 7. Plans and construction shall protect against soil compaction within landscape areas. Stormwater best management practices to minimize runoff, to increase on-site retention and infiltration, and control pollutants shall be incorporated into project plans. Rain gardens, cisterns, swales, structural soil, permeable pavement, connected landscape areas, and other landscape features and practices that increase onsite rainwater capture, storage and infiltration, emphasizing natural approaches over technology-based approaches, should be considered during project design. No plan or practice shall conflict with Chapter 8.44. 8. No landscape plan or restriction of any type, including those applicable to common interest developments such as condominiums, shall prohibit or include conditions that have the effect of prohibiting native or water conserving plants. 9. When irrigation systems are installed, an automatic irrigation system using either evapotranspiration or soil moisture sensor data, with a rain shut-off sensor, shall be installed. Drip irrigation emitters shall emit no more than two (2) gallons per hour. Watering hours and duration shall be compliant with the requirements of Chapter 8.56. 10. All irrigation systems shall be designed to prevent water waste resulting in runoff, overspray, or similar conditions where irrigation water ponds or flows onto non-irrigated areas, sidewalks, walkways, streets, alleys, storm drains, adjacent property, or similar untargeted areas. Runoff to other permeable or impermeable surfaces shall not be allowed. 11. All landscape and related elements shall be properly maintained to insure long-term health and shall additionally comply with the requirements of Chapters 8.44 and 8.56, Title 17, any other applicable provisions of this code, and the requirements of a development permit, whichever is more restrictive. The use, storage and disposal of all lawn and landscape care products shall comply with all manufacturer specifications and applicable laws, and minimize the discharge of pollutants to the environment. SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 9:00:28 AM A112LANDSCAPE PLANLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDate 1/8" = 1'-0"1 LANDSCAPE PLAN ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ACT. P.C. (100.04) ACT P.C. (103.23) ACT P.C. (101.70) ACT P.C. (84.28) (F.F. 126.83) (RAILING HT. 130.33) (RAILING HT. 130.33) (F.F. 126.83) (RAILING HT. 130.33) ACT. P.C. (100.01) ADJ. P.C. (99.01) ACT. PT. 101.73 ADJ. PT. 98.23 ACT. PT. 103.40 ADJ. PT. 99.9 ACT. P.C. (101.50) ADJ. P.C. (100.50) 16' - 6" 30' - 6" 35' - 0" 48' - 4 1/2" 61' - 3" 74' - 0" 80' - 0" 10' - 6" 39' - 6" 47' - 6" 88' - 10" 101' - 0"2' - 6"7' - 6"13' - 4 1/2"10' - 3"4' - 6"4' - 6"14' - 0"58' - 6" 47' - 6"25' - 0"27' - 0"27' - 0"25' - 0"106' - 0" 3' - 6" 12' - 5 1/2" 30' - 6" 58' - 6" A B C D A' B' C' D'A''B'' C''D''22' - 0"13' - 0"7' - 3"21' - 6"15' - 9"CP#1 ACT. 130.33 MAX. 130.33 5' - 7 1/2"CP#3 ACT. 126.38 MAX. 130.71 CP#4 ACT. 128.38 MAX. 131.14 5' - 0"CP#5 ACT. 130.00 MAX. 131.15 CP#6 ACT. 130.33 MAX. 131.60 CP#2 ACT. 130.33 MAX. 130.54 CP#7 ACT. 130.33 MAX. 131.48 CP#16 ACT. 126.50 MAX. 129.55 CP#8 ACT. 130.33 MAX. 132.15 CP#9 ACT. 130.33 MAX. 131.86 CP#10 ACT. 126.38 MAX. 129.44 CP#11 ACT. 126.38 MAX. 129.8821' - 6"CP#12 ACT. 129.37 MAX. 129.37 CP#13 ACT. 126.38 MAX. 128.75 CP#14 ACT. 128.33 MAX. 129.218' - 9"CP#15 ACT. 126.38 MAX. 127.22 25' - 0" 3' - 6" 50' - 3" 9' - 6" CP#17 ACT. 124.24 MAX. 124.24 CP#18 ACT. 124.24 MAX. 126.63 17' - 6"7' - 0"(F.F. 126.83) SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 9:00:30 AM A113CRITICAL POINTSLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDateNORTH 1/4" = 1'-0"1 CRITICAL POINTS ROOF DECK ROOF DECK ROOF DECK GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER GUTTER DOWN SPOUT DOWN SPOUT DOWN SPOUT DOWN SPOUT DOWN SPOUT DOWN SPOUT DOWN SPOUT DOWN SPOUT 18" X 18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN 18" X 18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN 18" X 18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN PERMEABLE PAVING PERMEABLE PAVING PERMEABLE PAVING LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE AREA CONCRETE DRIVEWAY CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 18" X 18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN 18" X 18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN 18" X 18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN 18" X 18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN DOWN SPOUT DRYWELL DRYWELL DRYWELL DRYWELL LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE AREA 18" X 18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN 18" X 18" SEDIMENT SETTLING BASIN ALL ROOF RUN-OFF & DECKS TO DRAIN DIRECTLY INTO SETTLING BASIN WHERE POSSIBLE ALL ROOF RUN-OFF & DECKS TO DRAIN DIRECTLY INTO SETTLING BASIN WHERE POSSIBLE ALL ROOF RUN-OFF & DECKS TO DRAIN DIRECTLY INTO SETTLING BASIN WHERE POSSIBLE SHT. CONTENT Project numberDateDrawn byChecked byCLIENT REVISIONS SHT. ID.LANE DESIGN BUILD - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED: THE ABOVE DRAWINGS, IDEAS AND EMBODIED DESIGNS THERIN ARE THE PROPERTY OF LANE DESIGN BUILD AND SHALL NOT BE COMPIED, REPRODUCED, DISCLOSED TO OTHERS OR USED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY WORK OTHER THAN THE SPECIFIED PROJECT FOR WHICH THEY HAVE BEEN PREPARED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS.2212 PACIFIC COAST HWY. HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254 PHONE: 310-937-8081 FAX: 310-937-8089 LANEDESIGNBUILD.COM 10/15/2015 9:00:37 AM A114LOW IMPACTDEVELOPMENT PLANLOMA-1513704 DEVELOPMENT650 & 704 LOMA DRIVEHERMOSA BEACH, CAOCTOBER 12, 2015G.T.L.G.T.L.No.DescriptionDate 1/4" = 1'-0"1 LID PLAN NORTH PATTI NERNBERG SHEET INDEXA.1a A.6 A.8 SITE PLAN A.5 UNIT 'A' CRITICAL POINT DIMENSIONS A.2 GARAGE LEVEL FLOOR PLANS CONSULTANTSSTRUCTURAL ENGINEER SURVEYOR TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR:PA R C H I T E C T SRITZKAT&JOHNSONA R C H I T E C T9 0 2 7 7M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A TA R C H I T E C TK E I T H B . J O H N S O NT E L :F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 53 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0www.pritzkatjohnson.comPA R C H I T E C T SRITZKAT&JOHNSONC A L I F O R N I AR E D O N D O B E A C H S U I T E A3 0 6 V I S T A D E L M A RDENN ENGINEERS 3914 DEL AMO BLVD., SUITE 921 TORRANCE, CA 90503 310.542.9433 ENERGY CALCULATIONS CHAD CAMPBELL NEWTON ENERGY 310.345.2761 newtonenergy@yahoo.com ELEVATIONS ELEVATIONS SECTIONS A.3 MIDDLE LEVEL FLOOR PLANS APN# 4187-032-019 A.4 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLANS TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR:710 & 712 Ardmore Avenue Hermosa Beach California PATTI NERNBERG710 & 712 Ardmore Avenue Hermosa BeachCalifornia 90254TO BE DETERMINED CIVIL ENGINEER TO BE DETERMINED GEOTECHNCAL ENGINEER NORCAL ENGINEERING 10641 HUMBOLT STREET LOS ALAMITOS, CA 90720 562.799.9469 PROJECT DATAFIRE SPRINKLERS:__REQUIRED_ __ TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-B _ OCCUPANCY TYPE: _R-3/U __ NUMBER OF STORIES: _ 3 __ APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES: 2013 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE 2013 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2013 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2013 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2013 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC CODE 2010 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE. HERMOSA BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE A.1b LANDSCAPE PLAN VICINITY MAPSUBJECT PROPERTY A.7REQUIRED CODE DATAA.5 UNIT 'B' CRITICAL POINT DIMENSIONS A.1e ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY A.1c COVERAGE CALCULATIONS A.1d OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS A.5 ROOF PLANS w/ UNIT 'A' CRITICAL POINTS 7 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM ATTACHMENT 2 PROJECT LOCATION: OWNER’S NAME: TEL: ADDRESS: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ZONING: GENERAL BUILDING INFORMATION LOT AREA: TOTAL BUILDING AREA: UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UNIT 3 UNIT4 1ST LEVEL LIVING AREA GARAGE 2ND LEVEL LIVING AREA DECKS/BALCONIES 3RD LEVEL LIVING AREA DECKS/BALCONIES TOTAL LIVING AREA TOTAL DECKS/BALCONIES NO. OF BEDROOMS NO. OF BATHROOMS ZONING INFORMATION REQUIRED PROVIDED AREA: LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT LOT COVERAGE YARDS: FRONT SIDE REAR PARKING AND DRIVEWAYS: NUMBER OF SPACES GUEST SPACES PARKING SETBACK PARKING STALL DIMENSION TURNING AREA DRIVEWAY WIDTH DRIVEWAY MAXIMUM SLOPE FENCES/WALLS: HEIGHT FROM FINISHED SURFACE LINEAL FEET OPEN SPACE: TOTAL PRIVATE (PER UNIT) UNIT 1: UNIT 2: UNIT 3: UNIT 4: PRIVATE STORAGE SPACE: CUBIC FEET PER UNIT UNIT 1: UNIT 2: UNIT 3: UNIT 4: BASEMENT QUALIFICATION CALCULATION BUILDING 1 BUILDING 2 BUILDING 3 BUILDING 4 1ST LEVEL F.F. ELEVATION LINEAL FEET(LF) OF PERIMETER LF OF PERIMETER <6’ FROM GRADE TO F.F. ABOVE % OF PERIMETER < 6’ to FF ABOVE f:b95\cd\applicat\devprog 7/30/98 Patti Nernberg 710 & 712 ARDMORE 310.806.1965 P.O. BOX 32 Redondo Beach, CA 90277 Lot 7, Dr. Dougherty’s Hermosa Bay View Tract, M.B. 10-140 R-2 591 sq.ft. 483 sq.ft. 591 sq.ft. 491 sq.ft. 4367 sq.ft. 925 sq.ft. 319 sq.ft. 1270 sq.ft. 20 sq.ft. 1100 sq.ft.837 sq.ft. 57 sq.ft.491 sq.ft. 2616 sq.ft.2698 NOTE: UNIT 1 ROOF DECK = 526 sq.ft. NOTE: UNIT 2 ROOF DECK = 429 sq.ft. 902 sq.ft.940 sq.ft. 3 1/2 3 1/2 3 3 65% max 1750 sq.ft. / d.u.2183 sq.ft. / d.u. 2836 / 4367 = 64.9% 5 7 10% of Lot Width 4’-0” Ground 5’ : 2nd fl 3’Ground 5’-0” : Upper Level 3’-0” 2 / d.u.2 / d.u. 1 1 N/A 8’-6” x 20’-0”8’-6” x 20’-0” 25’25’ 25’25’ 12.5%6% 145 lin.ft. 42” : 6’-0”42” : 6’-0” 300 sq.ft. / d.u. 200 cu.ft. / d.u. 320 sq.ft. 435 sq.ft. 303 sq.ft. 312 sq.ft. No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:10 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: (E) 75.20 (E) 76.23 (E) 74.31 (E) 72.02 (E) 74.35 (E) 74.31 (E) 69.67 (E) 78.52 (E) 75.51 (E) G.M. (E) WOOD STAIRS (ABOVE GRADE) (E) S'LY LINE OF LOT 17 REDONDO HERMOSA TRACT M.B. 7-151 (E) 69.01 (E) 69.80 (E) 76.18 (E) 76.93 (E) 77.05 (E) 81.11 (E) 81.49 TW (E) 81.15 (E) 77.02 (E) 79.47 (E) 79.41 (E) 76.61 (E) 79.39 (E) 81.51 TW (E) 68.72 TX (E) 68.11 FL (E) 68.91 (E) POWER POLE (E) 69.19 TC (E) 68.60 FL (E) 69.27 (E) 74.25 (E) 68.94 FL (E) 69.51 BCR (E) 74.18 (E) 74.37 SET L&T RCE 30826 2.00' W'LY OF CORNER ON PROPERTY LINE PROD. L&T ELEV = 69.37 (E) 74.16 (E) 74.15 (E) 74.36 (E) SET L&T RCE 30826 2.00' S'LY & 0.96' W'LY OF CORNER ON PROPERTY LINE PROD. L&T ELEV = 74.60 (E) 68.50 TC (E) 67.97 FL (E) 69.04 (E) FD L&T REC 30826 ON PROPERTY CORNER L&T ELEV = 68.73 N 79° 03' 46" E (E) 68.73 SIGN (E) FDL L&T C/L PROD. (E) EXISTING ROOM 80.07 FF SET N&T RCE 30826 IN W'LY FACE OF BLOCK WALL 0.39' E'LY & 1.38' S'LY OF PROPERTY CORNER N&T ELEV = 80.64 (E) 74.33 (E) 76.60 (E) 69.94 (E) 77.50 TW (E) 78.61 (E) 70.45 (E) 77.40 (E) 76.69 (E) 75.32 (E) 75.32 (E) 75.31 (E) 77.24 TW (E) 78.84 TW (E) 75.44 (E) 79.80 (E) 78.80(E) EM (E) 78.45 (E) 78.43 (E) 78.84 TW (E) 75.37 (E) 75.32 (E) 74.25 (E) 73.92 FL (E) 78.84 TW (E) 74.39 TC (E) 74.16 (E) 69.55 (E) 69.90 (E) 69.23 FL (E) 69.73 BCR (E) 68.54 TX X XXX X ON GRADE PLANTER TRASH AREA TRASH AREA A.1a S C A L E : 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " P L O T P L A N CL CL N 7 t h S T R E E TA R D M O R E A V E N U E ZONE = R-230'-0"15'-0"FH EXISTING RESIDENCE 20'-0"20'-0" 40'-0"15'-0"WMWMABONDON (E) DRIVEWAY EXISITING SIDEWALK EXIST. SIDEWALKWV WV 62.23'77.38 PC 68.73 PC 69.55 PC 74.97 PC 5'-0" 3'-0" 5'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"25'-0" OUTLINE OF GARAGE OUTLINE OF GARAGE LOWER LEVEL FOOTPRINT LOWER LEVEL FOOTPRINT NEW THREE STORY RESIDENCE 68.13 LOWER FF 78.15 MIDDLE FF 88.84 UPPER FF (EXISTING FF = ±75.0) NEW THREE STORY RESIDENCE 68.13 LOWER FF 78.15 MIDDLE FF 88.23 UPPER FF (EXISTING FF = ±75.0) 68.58 FL 68.68 EL 2%68.3 FL 68.4 EL 67.75 GARAGE LIP 67.75 GARAGE LIP 2%2%±5%67.67 EL 68.54 EL ELEVATION FF GFF L&T TC FL TW TX BCR SPK FD WM PC FINISH FLOOR GARAGE FINISH FLOOR LEAD AND TAG TOP OF CURB FLOW LINE TOP OF WALL TOP OF DRIVEWAY APRON BEGINNING OF CURB RETURN SPIKE FOUND WATER METER PROPERTY CORNER BLOCK WALL LEGEND 100 EXISTING CONTOUR MODIFIED CONTOUR AS SURVEYED CONTOURS WESTERLYW'LY NORTHERLYN'LY SPIKE AND WASHERS&W POWER POLEPP GUY WIREGW STK STAKE E'LY EASTERLY MH MANHOLE SOUTHERLYS'LY NOTE: ALL SETBACK DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE MEASURED TO EXTERIOR SURFACE OF BUILDINGS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. BOUNDARY MONUMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARILY SET ON PROPERTY CORNERS. PLEASE REFER TO THE NOTATION ON THE PLANS FOR OFFSET DISTANCES. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT DENN ENGINEERS FOR CLARIFICATION AT : (310) 542-9433, M-F 8:00 AM TO 5:00 PM. X FENCE DEMO'D / REMOVED LOWER LEVEL FOOTPRINT NATURAL GRADE XXX.XX NEW 42" TALL STUCCO CONC WALL 3.6%3.6%NEW PATIO EL = 68.04 1% NEW 6'-0" TALL STUCCO CONC WALL NEW DRIVEWAY, CURB CUT & APRON PER CITY STANDARDS TOW 84.07 ENTRY LANDING EL = 78.07 TOW 84.07 TOW = 78.57 TOR = 81.57 TOW = 78.07 TOR = 81.57 TOW = 78.57 TOR = 81.57 YARD EL = 78.07 YARD EL = 78.07 BOS = 74.25 YARD EL = 74.25 TOW = 78.07 ENTRY LANDING EL = 78.07 TOS = 76.16 TOW = 78.57 TOR = 81.57 BOW = 74.18 TOW 71.54 8'-6" x 20'-0" SHARED GUEST PARKING SPACE 10'-0"10'-0"NOTHING HIGHER THAN 36" IN THIS AREA TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 17.46.060 (HERMOSA MUNICIPAL CODE FOR VISION CLEARANCE ON CORNER LOTS) NEW 6'-0" TALL STUCCO CONC WALL NEW 10-0" TALL STUCCO CONC RETAINING WALL WITH 42" GUARDRAIL NEW 42" TALL STUCCO CONC WALL NEW 6-0" TALL STUCCO CONC RETAINING WALL WITH 42" GUARDRAIL NEW 9-0" TALL STUCCO CONC RETAINING WALL WITH 42" GUARDRAIL PL SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" DRIVEWAY PROFILE A 68.3 FL 2% 68.4' APRON 67.67' DRIVEWAYARDMORE AVE 4.2% GARAGE DOOR 67.75' GARAGE LIP FACE OF BUILDING68.44 FL 2% 68.54' APRON 67.67' DRIVEWAYARDMORE AVE 4.8% GARAGE DOOR TOP OF DRAIN = 67.5' 3.6% 68.58 FL 2%68.68' APRON 67.67' DRIVEWAYARDMORE AVE 5.2% GARAGE DOOR 67.75' GARAGE LIPFACE OF BUILDINGPL FACE OF BUILDINGFACE OF BUILDINGPL FACE OF BUILDINGFACE OF BUILDINGSCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" DRIVEWAY PROFILE B SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" DRIVEWAY PROFILE C 3.6% UNIT 'A' UNIT 'B' REAR SETBACK SIDE SETBACKSIDE SETBACKREQUIRED FRONT SETBACK 7'-1" FRONT SETBACK ADRIVEWAY PROFILEBDRIVEWAY PROFILECDRIVEWAY PROFILE5.1'17.29'16.0' 5.1'18.3'16.0' 5.1'19.4'16.0' N 13° 20' 46" W 108.27'N 76° 34'00" E 45.45'N 76° 34' 01" E36.64'L = 108.67' R = 1387.30' No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:10 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: X XXX X A.1b S C A L E : 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " L A N D S C AP E P L A N N LEGEND CONCRETE - NON-PERMEABLE GRAVEL - PERMEABLE PAVERS - PERMEABLE GRASS-CRETE - PERMEABLE = = = = CL CL7 t h S T R E E TA R D M O R E A V E N U E 129 sq.ft. GRASS: MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS/DEER GRASS REGIONAL WATER NEEDS: LOW & PHORMEUM TENAX / BRONZE NEW ZEALAND FLAX REGIONAL WATER NEEDS: LOW 51 sq.ft. PLANTING AREA (4) TREES: 15gal SIZE--PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM / TAWHIWHI REGIONAL WATER NEEDS: MEDIUM MATRURED HEIGHT = 10'-15' 286 sq.ft. GRASSCRETE AREA 94 sq.ft. GRASS: MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS/DEER GRASS REGIONAL WATER NEEDS: LOW & PHORMEUM TENAX / BRONZE NEW ZEALAND FLAX REGIONAL WATER NEEDS: LOW 84 sq.ft. GRAVEL AREA 130 sq.ft. GRAVEL AREA 920 sq.ft. PERMEABLE CONCRETE AT DRIVEWAY AND TURNAROUND AREA CONCRETE - PERMEABLE= N 13° 20' 46" W 108.27'N 76° 34'00" E 45.45'N 76° 34' 01" E36.64'L = 108.67' R = 1387.30' TREE PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM MEDIUM 15 GAL 10'-15'4 GRASS LOW GRASS LOW DEER GRASS NEW ZEALAND FLAX 4"-8" MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS PHORMEUM TENAX 1st Level OPEN SPACE: 4,367 sq.ft. 1st level: 2,156 sq.ft.2,211 sq.ft.49% OF LOT 51% OF LOT 13% OF OPEN SPACE 64% OF OPEN SPACE 274 sq.ft. 1420 sq.ft. PROVIDE AUTOMATIC DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO COMPLY WITH LOCAL MUNICIPAL REQUIREMENTS 517 sq.ft.23% OF OPEN SPACE 77% LANDSCAPE / PERMEABLE 724"30"10 GAL DUNE SEDGE CAREX PANSA LOWGRASS 424"30"10 GAL 4" POTS 12"4"40 710 & 712 ARDMORE No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:10 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: CL CL 7 t h S T R E E TA R D M O R E A V E N U E 5'-0" 3'-0" 5'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"N 13° 20' 46" W 108.27'N 76° 34'00" E 45.45'N 76° 34' 01" E 36.64'L = 108.67' R = 1387.30' 20'-0" POINT 'A' 68.73 = PC POINT 'C' 77.38 = PC POINT 'B' 69.55 = PC POINT 'D' 74.97 = PC 15'-0"REAR SETBACK REDUCED REAR SETBACK SIDE SETBACKSIDE SETBACKREQUIRED FRONT SETBACK 7'-1" FRONT SETBACKSIDE SETBACK28.33 sq.ft.7.69 sq.ft. .08 sq.ft.1072.24 sq.ft. 16.05 sq.ft.266 sq.ft. 20.09 sq.ft.298.22 sq.ft. 1082.80 sq.ft.44.35 sq.ft. UP UPLOWER LEVEL COVERAGE ADDITIONAL MAIN LEVEL COVERAGE ADDITIONAL UPPER LEVEL COVERAGE S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " COVERAGE CALCULATION UNIT 'A'UNIT 'B' 1390.39 sq.ft. OF COVERAGE 1445.46 sq.ft. OF COVERAGE TOTAL COVERAGE = 2835.85 sq.ft. LOT SIZE = 4367 sq.ft. 2835.85 / 4367 = 64.9 % A.1c N No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:10 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: 2.3 S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " UNIT 'A' OPEN SPACE CALCULATION S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " UNIT 'A' OPEN SPACE COVERAGE ABOVE.491.72 sq.ft. 200.33 sq.ft. OPEN SPACE OPEN SPACE AREA 6.316.127.334.47 3.46 .94 13.43COVERED OPEN SPACE AREA 46.47 32.77 100.05 sq.ft. COVERED AREA 4.13 sq.ft. 9.08 23.37.91 212.2 sq.ft. 212.2 sq,ft. OPEN SPACE S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " UNIT 'B' OPEN SPACE CALCULATION S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " UNIT 'B' OPEN SPACE COVERAGE ABOVE 9.08 17.42COVERED OPEN SPACE AREA 1.5 2.0 34.84 sq.ft. 13.62 sq.ft. 48.46 sq.ft. COVERED AREA .24 0.4231.127.00 217.84 14.08 A.1d S C A L E : 1 / 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " SIDE YARD SETBACK CALCULATION N 13° 20' 46" W 108.27'N 76° 34'00" E 45.45'N 76° 34' 01" E36.64'L = 108.67' R = 1387.30' 54.135'54.135'39.974' WIDTH OF LOT AT MIDPOINT39.974 x 10% = 3.997 = 4'-0" SETBACK EA. SIDE 6.917' N No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:10 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: A.1e No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:10 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: CL CL 7 t h S T R E E TA R D M O R E A V E N U E 5'-0" 3'-0" 5'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"N 13° 20' 46" W 108.27'N 76° 34'00" E 45.45'N 76° 34' 01" E 36.64'L = 108.67' R = 1387.30' 20'-0" POINT 'A' 68.73 = PC POINT 'C' 77.38 = PC POINT 'B' 69.55 = PC POINT 'D' 74.97 = PC 15'-0"REAR SETBACK REDUCED REAR SETBACK SIDE SETBACKSIDE SETBACKREQUIRED FRONT SETBACK 7'-1" FRONT SETBACKSIDE SETBACK±25 sq.ft. SHAFT ELEVATOR BENCH8'-6" x 20'-0" SHARED GUEST PARKING SPACE OUTDOOR SHOWER 8'-6" x 20'-0" PARKING SPACE 8'-6" x 20'-0" PARKING SPACEFAUHWH WET BAR UNDER COUNTER REF3-PANEL SLIDER +42" OFF OF GROUND (3) 30" TRASH CANS MIN. (3) 30" TRASH CANS MIN. 8'-6" x 20'-0" PARKING SPACE 8'-6" x 20'-0" PARKING SPACE ELEVATOR±25 sq.ft. SHAFT ON GRADE PLANTER MEDIA CABINETUNDER COUNTER REF WET BAR C A.8 A A.8A A.8C A.8 B A.8B A.8S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " L O W E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N N A.2 REC ROOM 14'-0" x 17'-0" TWO CAR GARAGE 22'-4" x 19'-0" STORAGE AREA 5'-0" x 9'-8" x 9'-0" TALL ±435 cu.ft. BATH #2 UNDER STAIR STORAGE TWO CAR GARAGE 22'-6" x 17'-6" 25'-0" OFFICE / WORKOUT ROOM 15'-11" x ±10'-0" STORAGE / WET BAR PATIO STORAGE AREA FAU / HWH? UP EQUIP'T ROOM MUD ROOM UP UP ELEV EQUIPT 4'-8" x 7'-8" x 9'-0" TALL ±320 cu.ft. RETAINING WALLS NEW STUD WALLS STONE VENEER= = = LEGEND REC ROOM BATH UNIT BUNIT A 5'-0"9'-8"7'-8"4'-8" WET BAR NOTE: NO GARBAGE DISPOSAL AND FRIDGE MUST BE OF AN UNDERCOUNTER TYPE WET BAR NOTE: NO GARBAGE DISPOSAL AND FRIDGE MUST BE OF AN UNDERCOUNTER TYPE 16'-0" x 8'-0" GARAGE DOOR16'-0" x 8'-0" GARAGE DOOR42" MAX HEIGHT OF RAILING 42" MAX HEIGHT OF RAILING 21'-4"9'-6"25'-2"9'-6"27'-6" 93'-0"27'-10"± 13 3/4"± 19 1/2"26'-2"± 4'-3 3/4"± 28'-3"± 6'-8 1/4"13'-2"20'-8"25'-2"5'-4"21'-5"10'-3" 96'-0"3'-0"3'-0" No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:20 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: CL CL 7 t h S T R E E TA R D M O R E A V E N U E 5'-0" 3'-0" 5'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"N 13° 20' 46" W 108.27'N 76° 34'00" E 45.45'N 76° 34' 01" E 36.64'L = 108.67' R = 1387.30' 20'-0" POINT 'A' 68.73 = PC POINT 'C' 77.38 = PC POINT 'B' 69.55 = PC POINT 'D' 74.97 = PC 15'-0"REAR SETBACK REDUCED REAR SETBACK SIDE SETBACKSIDE SETBACKREQUIRED FRONT SETBACK 7'-1" FRONT SETBACKSIDE SETBACK39" x 96" COUCH60" x 30 TABLE40" x 96" TABLE±7' TALL WALLFRONT LOAD WASHER FRONT LOAD DRYER ±25 sq.ft. SHAFT ELEVATOR DW 42" REF/ FREEZE36" FARM BBQ BUILT-INSHELVINGOVENS QUEEN BEDQUEEN BED 39" x 96" COUCHNICHE / LINEN NICHE / BROOM TBD NICHE NICHE ELEVATOR±25 sq.ft. SHAFT 3-PANEL SLIDER +18" OFF OF GROUND CALIFONIA KING BED24" x 24" TABLE24" x 24" TABLESHELF LINEN 96'-0" 40'-7"9'-10"7'-0"38'-7"29'-1"6"28'-7"± 36'-3"96'-0" ± 28'-0 3/4"± 12'-6 1/4"9'-10"7'-1"1'-6"17'-4"9'-4"10'-4" C A.8 A A.8A A.8C A.8 B A.8B A.8S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " M I D D L E L E V E L F L O O R P L A N A.3 DINING AREA 12'-0" x 13'-2" FAMILY ROOM 17'-4" x 14'-8" STORAGE BEDROOM #2 12'-8" x 10'-6" BATH #2 BEDROOM #3 ±12'-6" x 11'-0"MASTER BEDROOM 12'-6" x 12'-2" ENTRY 6'-5" x 10'-7" MASTER BATH 8'-11" x 12'-6" COATS / STORAGE UP UNDERSTAIR STORAGE MASTER CLOSET LAUNDRY 6'-8" x 5'-7" POWDER KITCHEN 18'-6" x 10'-7" ENTRY N AWNINGPANTRY DOUBLE SIDED FIREPLACEDN UPDN DN DN RETAINING WALLS NEW STUD WALLS STONE VENEER= = = LEGEND 3'-1" STAIR SETBACK 3'-0" MIN. 42" MAX HEIGHT OF RAILING 42" MAX HEIGHT OF RAILING UNIT BUNIT A1'-5 1/2"ROOF PROJECTION LINE OF FLOOR ABOVE 200 sq.ft. OPEN SPACE @ BALCONY, 100 sq.ft. COVERED, SEE A.1c FOR CALCULATIONS 1'-11" STAIRS IN FRONT YARD No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:20 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: CL CL 7 t h S T R E E TA R D M O R E A V E N U E 5'-0" 3'-0" 5'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"N 13° 20' 46" W 108.27'N 76° 34'00" E 45.45'N 76° 34' 01" E 36.64'L = 108.67' R = 1387.30' 20'-0" POINT 'A' 68.73 = PC POINT 'C' 77.38 = PC POINT 'B' 69.55 = PC POINT 'D' 74.97 = PC 15'-0"REAR SETBACK REDUCED REAR SETBACK SIDE SETBACKSIDE SETBACKREQUIRED FRONT SETBACK 7'-1" FRONT SETBACKSIDE SETBACKDW36" FARM42" REF/ FREEZE39" x 96" COUCH60" x 30 TABLE40" x 96" TABLEDOUBLE SIDED FIREPLACEBBQHALF WALL / BOOKSPIVOT DOORHALF WALL OVENSAPPLIANCE GARAGE QUEEN BED FRONT LOAD WASHERFRONT LOAD DRYER QUEEN BEDSHELVESELEVATOR±25 sq.ft. SHAFT NICHE / SHELVES / LINEN TBD CALIFONIA KING BED24" x 24" TABLE24" x 24" TABLEBENCHLINEN ±25 sq.ft. SHAFT ELEVATOR NICHE SHELVES BENCH BUILT-IN98'-0" 1'-11"4'-2"30'-9"5'-8"12'-5"2'-2"21'-2"5'-8"14'-0"2'-0"28'-7"14'-6"14'-1"29'-1"± 7'-5 1/2"16'-11"10'-0"2'-2"98'-0" 1'-11"7'-3"15'-11"17'-5"12'-5"± 1'-0 1/2"± 22'-3 1/2"9'-3"12'-5" C A.8 A A.8A A.8C A.8 B A.8B A.8S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " U P P E R L E V E L F L O O R P L A N A.4 BEDROOM #3 11'-0" x 10'-6" BEDROOM #2 11'-6" x 12'-10" MASTER BEDROOM 13'-0" x 12'-0"MASTER BATH MASTER CLOSET PANTRY POWDER N SKYLIGHT BATH #2 DN KITCHEN 16'-9" x 15'-3" FAMILY ROOM 15'-5" x 17'-9" AWNING BEDROOM VESTIBULEDN RETAINING WALLS NEW STUD WALLS STONE VENEER= = = LEGEND 42" MAX HEIGHT OF RAILING 42" MAX HEIGHT OF RAILING UNIT BUNIT A1'-7"ROOF PROJECTION 1'-6"ROOF PROJECTION 2'-6"6"2'-6" LINE OF ROOF ABOVE 212 sq.ft. OPEN SPACE @ BALCONY, 48 sq.ft. COVERED, SEE A.1c FOR CALCULATIONS UP UP No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:10 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: CL CL 7 t h S T R E E TA R D M O R E A V E N U E 5'-0" 3'-0" 5'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"N 13° 20' 46" W 108.27'N 76° 34'00" E 45.45'N 76° 34' 01" E 36.64'L = 108.67' R = 1387.30' 20'-0" POINT 'A' 68.73 = PC POINT 'C' 77.38 = PC POINT 'B' 69.55 = PC POINT 'D' 74.97 = PC 15'-0"REAR SETBACK REDUCED REAR SETBACK SIDE SETBACKSIDE SETBACKREQUIRED FRONT SETBACK 7'-1" FRONT SETBACKSIDE SETBACKC A.8 A A.8A A.8C A.8 B A.8B A.8S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " R O O F P L A N ROOF DECK 526 sq.ft. (100 sq.ft. COUNTS TOWARDS OPEN SPACE) ROOF DECK 429 sq.ft. (100 sq.ft. COUNTS TOWARDS OPEN SPACE) UNIT BUNIT A 6"2'-6"6"3'-6"1'-0"3'-0"3'-6"6"A.5 IN REQUIRED SETBACK IN REQUIRED SETBACKIN REQUIRED SETBACKIN REQUIRED SETBACKNOTE: PROVIDE A CONDUIT FROM THE ROOF TO THE ELECTRICAL SERVICE PANEL AT BOTH UNITS N DN DN CRITICAL POINT #1 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.63' CRITICAL POINT #2 EL = 99.33' MAX = 99.56' CRITICAL POINT #4 EL = 99.54' MAX = 99.73'CRITICAL POINT #3 EL = 99.54' MAX = 99.66' CRITICAL POINT #5 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.57' CRITICAL POINT #1 EL = 99.33' MAX = 101.04' CRITICAL POINT #4 EL = 100.25' MAX = 100.36' CRITICAL POINT #6 EL = 100.25' MAX = 100.60' CRITICAL POINT #2 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.26' CRITICAL POINT #3 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.34' CRITICAL POINT #5 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.34' CRITICAL POINT #7 EL = 101.92' MAX = 102.86' CRITICAL POINT #6 EL = 102.25' MAX = 106.34' CRITICAL POINT #8 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.63' CRITICAL POINT #7 EL = 102.25' MAX = 104.48' CRITICAL POINT #8 EL = 99.33' MAX = 103.99' CRITICAL POINT #9 EL = 102.18' MAX = 104.27' No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:10 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: CL CL 7 t h S T R E E TA R D M O R E A V E N U E 5'-0" 3'-0" 5'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"N 13° 20' 46" W 108.27'N 76° 34'00" E 45.45'N 76° 34' 01" E 36.64'L = 108.67' R = 1387.30' 20'-0" POINT 'A' 68.73 = PC POINT 'C' 77.38 = PC POINT 'B' 69.55 = PC POINT 'D' 74.97 = PC 15'-0"REAR SETBACK REDUCED REAR SETBACK SIDE SETBACKSIDE SETBACKREQUIRED FRONT SETBACK 7'-1" FRONT SETBACKSIDE SETBACKC A.8 A A.8A A.8C A.8 B A.8B A.8S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " R O O F P L A N ROOF DECK 526 sq.ft. (100 sq.ft. COUNTS TOWARDS OPEN SPACE) ROOF DECK 429 sq.ft. (100 sq.ft. COUNTS TOWARDS OPEN SPACE) UNIT BUNIT A 6"2'-6"6"3'-6"1'-0"3'-0"3'-6"6"A.5 IN REQUIRED SETBACK IN REQUIRED SETBACKIN REQUIRED SETBACKIN REQUIRED SETBACKNOTE: PROVIDE A CONDUIT FROM THE ROOF TO THE ELECTRICAL SERVICE PANEL AT BOTH UNITS N DN DN W I T H U N I T ' A ' C R I T I C A L P O I N T D I M E N S I O N S UNIT A DIMS 46.05' 44.53'39.34' LOT WIDTH @ CP #518.91'22.35' 22.02'37.76' LOT WIDTH @ CP #33.63'2.55' 2.21'36.75' LOT WIDTH @ CP #23.5'3.63'36.86' LOT WIDTH @ CP #1 & #616.78'5.05' 48.77'39.57' LOT WIDTH @ CP #43.5'49.04'37.93' LOT WIDTH @ CP #837.54' LOT WIDTH @ CP #723.86' 16.39' 2.33'32.86'18.55'26.04'25.34'17.85'CRITICAL POINT #1 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.63' CRITICAL POINT #2 EL = 99.33' MAX = 99.56' CRITICAL POINT #4 EL = 99.54' MAX = 99.73'CRITICAL POINT #3 EL = 99.54' MAX = 99.66' CRITICAL POINT #5 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.57' CRITICAL POINT #1 EL = 99.33' MAX = 101.04' CRITICAL POINT #4 EL = 100.25' MAX = 100.36' CRITICAL POINT #6 EL = 100.25' MAX = 100.60' CRITICAL POINT #2 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.26' CRITICAL POINT #3 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.34' CRITICAL POINT #5 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.34' CRITICAL POINT #7 EL = 101.92' MAX = 102.86' CRITICAL POINT #6 EL = 102.25' MAX = 106.34' CRITICAL POINT #8 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.63' CRITICAL POINT #7 EL = 102.25' MAX = 104.48' CRITICAL POINT #8 EL = 99.33' MAX = 103.99' CRITICAL POINT #9 EL = 102.18' MAX = 104.27' No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:10 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: CL CL 7 t h S T R E E TA R D M O R E A V E N U E 5'-0" 3'-0" 5'-0"4'-0"4'-0"4'-0"N 13° 20' 46" W 108.27'N 76° 34'00" E 45.45'N 76° 34' 01" E 36.64'L = 108.67' R = 1387.30' 20'-0" POINT 'A' 68.73 = PC POINT 'C' 77.38 = PC POINT 'B' 69.55 = PC POINT 'D' 74.97 = PC 15'-0"REAR SETBACK REDUCED REAR SETBACK SIDE SETBACKSIDE SETBACKREQUIRED FRONT SETBACK 7'-1" FRONT SETBACKSIDE SETBACKC A.8 A A.8A A.8C A.8 B A.8B A.8S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " R O O F P L A N ROOF DECK 526 sq.ft. (100 sq.ft. COUNTS TOWARDS OPEN SPACE) ROOF DECK 429 sq.ft. (100 sq.ft. COUNTS TOWARDS OPEN SPACE) UNIT BUNIT A 6"2'-6"6"3'-6"1'-0"3'-0"3'-6"6"A.5 IN REQUIRED SETBACK IN REQUIRED SETBACKIN REQUIRED SETBACKIN REQUIRED SETBACKNOTE: PROVIDE A CONDUIT FROM THE ROOF TO THE ELECTRICAL SERVICE PANEL AT BOTH UNITS N DN DN W I T H U N I T ' B ' C R I T I C A L P O I N T S UNIT B DIMS40.33' LOT WIDTH CP #1 & #841' LOT WIDTH CP #2 & #942.04' LOT WIDTH CP #442.18' LOT WIDTH CP #343.79' LOT WIDTH CP #544.02' LOT WIDTH CP #644.78' LOT WIDTH CP #75.08'18.64'20.18'6.93'21.79'8.77'26.95'56.23' 64.67' 76.79' 77.05' 92.41' 95.58' 100.8' 58.47' 66.13' 77.22' 78.55' 93.97' 96.06' 102.72' 58.11' 63.67'28.17'30.97'CRITICAL POINT #1 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.63' CRITICAL POINT #2 EL = 99.33' MAX = 99.56' CRITICAL POINT #4 EL = 99.54' MAX = 99.73'CRITICAL POINT #3 EL = 99.54' MAX = 99.66' CRITICAL POINT #5 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.57' CRITICAL POINT #1 EL = 99.33' MAX = 101.04' CRITICAL POINT #4 EL = 100.25' MAX = 100.36' CRITICAL POINT #6 EL = 100.25' MAX = 100.60' CRITICAL POINT #2 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.26' CRITICAL POINT #3 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.34' CRITICAL POINT #5 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.34' CRITICAL POINT #7 EL = 101.92' MAX = 102.86' CRITICAL POINT #6 EL = 102.25' MAX = 106.34' CRITICAL POINT #8 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.63' CRITICAL POINT #7 EL = 102.25' MAX = 104.48' CRITICAL POINT #8 EL = 99.33' MAX = 103.99' CRITICAL POINT #9 EL = 102.18' MAX = 104.27' No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:10 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: CRITICAL POINT #1 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.63' CRITICAL POINT #2 EL = 99.33' MAX = 99.56' CRITICAL POINT #4 EL = 99.54' MAX = 99.73' CRITICAL POINT #3 EL = 99.54' MAX = 99.66' CRITICAL POINT #5 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.57' CRITICAL POINT #1 EL = 99.33' MAX = 101.04' CRITICAL POINT #4 EL = 100.25' MAX = 100.36' CRITICAL POINT #6 EL = 100.25' MAX = 100.60' CRITICAL POINT #2 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.26' CRITICAL POINT #3 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.34' CRITICAL POINT #5 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.34' CRITICAL POINT #7 EL = 101.92' MAX = 102.86' CRITICAL POINT #8 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.63' S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " W E S T E L E V A T I O N UNIT 'A"UNIT 'B'9'-1"12"9'-9"12"9'-5"7'-8"9'-7"TOP OF CURB = 68.0 11'-0"S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " N O R T H E L E V A T I O N UNIT 'B' S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " S O U T H E L E V A T I O N UNIT 'B' LOWER LEVEL FF = 68.13 MIDDLE LEVEL FF = 78.15 PLATE PLATE PLATE UPPER LEVEL FF = 88.84 ROOF DECK FF = 98.693'-6"TOP OF WALL = 102.25 ± 3'-11 1/4"PLATE POINT 'A' 68.73 = PC POINT 'B' 69.55 = PC 9'-1"12"12'-8"MIDDLE LEVEL FF = 78.15 PLATE UPPER LEVEL FF = 88.23 TOP OF WALL = 102.25 ± 1'-4 1/4"9'-1"12"9'-1"12"10'-1"TOP OF CURB = 68.0 LOWER LEVEL FF = 68.13 MIDDLE LEVEL FF = 78.15 PLATE PLATE UPPER LEVEL FF = 88.23 ROOF DECK FF = 98.69 3'-6"TOP OF WALL = 102.25 ± 3'-11 1/4"POINT 'D' 74.97 = PC POINT 'B' 69.55 = PC30'-0"CRITICAL POINT #6 EL = 100.25' MAX = 100.6' CRITICAL POINT #7 EL = 101.92' MAX = 102.86' POINT 'D' 74.97 = PC POINT 'B' 69.55 = PC30'-0"7'-6"GLASS RAILING SMOOTH WHITE PLASTER BEIGE STONE VENEER SMOOTH WHITE PLASTER BRONZE METAL ROOF / FASCIA SMOOTH WHITE PLASTER GLASS RAILING BEIGE STONE VENEER METAL ROOF / FASCIA A.6 CRITICAL POINT #8 EL = 99.33' MAX = 103.99' CRITICAL POINT #9 EL = 102.18' MAX = 104.27' CRITICAL POINT #2 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.26'CRITICAL POINT #1 EL = 99.33' MAX = 101.04' CRITICAL POINT #4 EL = 100.25' MAX = 100.36' CRITICAL POINT #5 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.34' TEAK FENCE PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSED GRADE EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE CLEAR ANODIZED ALUM DOORS & WINDOWS CLEAR ANODIZED ALUM DOORS & WINDOWS TEAK DOOR METAL & GLASS GARAGE DOORS CLEAR ANODIZED ALUM DOORS & WINDOWS 30'-0" No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:10 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: CRITICAL POINT #2 EL = 99.33' MAX = 99.56' CRITICAL POINT #5 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.57' CRITICAL POINT #3 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.34' CRITICAL POINT #5 EL = 102.18' MAX = 102.34' CRITICAL POINT #7 EL = 101.92' MAX = 102.86'CRITICAL POINT #6 EL = 102.25' MAX = 106.34'CRITICAL POINT #8 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.63' CRITICAL POINT #7 EL = 102.25' MAX = 104.48' CRITICAL POINT #8 EL = 99.33' MAX = 103.99' CRITICAL POINT #9 EL = 102.18' MAX = 104.27' S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " N O R T H E L E V A T I O N UNIT 'A" S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " E A S T E L E V A T I O N UNIT 'A'UNIT 'B' S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " S O U T H E L E V A T I O N UNIT 'A"9'-1"12"9'-9"12"9'-5"TOP OF CURB = 68.0 LOWER LEVEL FF = 68.13 MIDDLE LEVEL FF = 78.15 PLATE PLATE UPPER LEVEL FF = 88.84 ROOF DECK FF = 98.693'-6"TOP OF WALL = 102.25 ± 3'-11 1/4"9'-1"12"12'-8"MIDDLE LEVEL FF = 78.15 PLATE UPPER LEVEL FF = 88.23 TOP OF WALL = 102.25 ± 1'-4 1/4"9'-1"12"9'-9"12"9'-5"TOP OF CURB = 68.0 LOWER LEVEL FF = 68.13 MIDDLE LEVEL FF = 78.15 PLATE PLATE UPPER LEVEL FF = 88.84 ROOF DECK FF = 98.693'-6"TOP OF WALL = 102.25 ± 3'-11 1/4"POINT 'A' 68.73 = PC POINT 'C' 77.38 = PC 30'-0"CRITICAL POINT #1 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.63' CRITICAL POINT #2 EL = 99.33' MAX = 99.56' CRITICAL POINT #3 EL = 99.54' MAX = 99.66'9'-1"12"9'-9"12"TOP OF CURB = 68.0 LOWER LEVEL FF = 68.13 MIDDLE LEVEL FF = 78.15 PLATE PLATE UPPER LEVEL FF = 88.84 TOP OF WALL = 102.25 ± 3'-9 1/4"POINT 'A' 68.73 = PC POINT 'C' 77.38 = PC9'-7"PLATE 7'-6"PLATE 30'-0"CRITICAL POINT #4 EL = 99.54' MAX = 99.73' CRITICAL POINT #5 EL = 102.25' MAX = 102.57' SMOOTH WHITE PLASTER SMOOTH WHITE PLASTER BRONZE METAL ROOF / FASCIA BRONZE METAL ROOF / FASCIA BRONZE METAL ROOF / FASCIA WHITE SMOOTH PLASTER BEIGE STONE VENEER BRONZE METAL ROOF / FASCIA GLASS RAILING A.7 CRITICAL POINT #6 EL = 102.25' MAX = 106.34' PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSED GRADE PROPOSED GRADE EXISTING GRADE EXISTING GRADE METAL & GLASS GARAGE DOORS CLEAR ANODIZED ALUM DOORS & WINDOWS CLEAR ANODIZED ALUM DOORS & WINDOWS CLEAR ANODIZED ALUM DOORS & WINDOWS GLASS RAILING TEAK DOOR 30'-0"POINT 'D' 74.97 = PC POINT 'C' 77.38 = PC No.Date REVISIONS DESCRIPTION A R C H I T E C T 3 0 4 V I S T A D E L M A R, S U I T E D R E D O N D O B E A C H , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 2 7 7 M I L E S E . P R I T Z K A T A R C H I T E C T K E I T H B . J O H N S O N P A R C H I T E C T S R I T Z K A T &J O H N S O N T E L : F A X :3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 4 3 7 5 3 1 0 . 3 7 5 . 7 7 0 0 10/14/15, 5:10 AM www.pritzkatjohnson.com THESE PLANS ARE NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS THEY ARE WET STAMPED BY ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER OR HAVE "PERMIT SET" PRINTED ON THEM IN THE SPACE ABOVE PATTI NERNBERG 710 & 712 Ardmore Ave Hermosa Beach California 90254 TWO NEW DETACHED TOWNHOUSES FOR: LOWER LEVEL FF = 68.13 MIDDLE LEVEL FF = 78.15 UPPER LEVEL FF = 88.84 REC ROOM ENTRYPOWDER BEDROOM #2 ROOF DECK S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " S E C T I O N A OFFICE / WORKOUT ROOM TWO CAR GARAGE MASTER BATHROOM MASTER CLOSET ENTRY VESTIBULE FAMILY ROOM ROOF DECK S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " S E C T I O N B LOWER LEVEL FF = 68.13 MIDDLE LEVEL FF = 78.15 UPPER LEVEL FF = 88.23 ENTRY REC ROOM TWO CAR GARAGE TWO CAR GARAGEDRIVEWAY MUD ROOM FAMILY ROOM LOWER LEVEL FF = 68.13 MIDDLE LEVEL FF = 78.15 UPPER LEVEL FF = 88.84 ENTRYBEDROOM HALLWAYBATH #2 ROOF DECK BEDROOM VESTIBULE BEDROOM #3 MASTER BATH POWDER LOWER LEVEL FF = 68.13 MIDDLE LEVEL FF = 78.15 UPPER LEVEL FF = 88.23 FAMILY ROOMKITCHEN ROOF DECK S C A L E : 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " S E C T I O N C A.8 VEST. Mixed-Use Development in Theory and Practice: Learning from Atlanta’s Mixed Experiences Joshua D. Herndon Applied Research Paper Dr. William Drummond May 5, 2011 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-2 2 Mixed-Use in Context ......................................................................................... 3-9 3 Mixed-Use in Theory ....................................................................................... 10-29 Definition ...................................................................................................... 10-14 Conceptualization ......................................................................................... 15-21 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 21-29 4 Mixed-Use in Practice .................................................................................... 30-53 Planning ....................................................................................................... 30-35 Acquisition & Entitlement ............................................................................. 35-38 Design .......................................................................................................... 38-43 Ownership & Financing ................................................................................ 43-46 Construction ................................................................................................ 46-49 Management & Operation ............................................................................ 50-53 5 Mixed-Use in Atlanta ....................................................................................... 54-84 Technology Square ....................................................................................... 56-64 Atlantic Station ............................................................................................. 65-74 Glenwood park ............................................................................................. 75-84 6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 85-88 References ............................................................................................................. 89-93 2 1 Introduction Over the past several decades, mixed-use development has taken center stage in the urban planning and real estate development worlds. Whether it is the Congress for the New Urbanism, Smart Growth, the Compact City, or any other movement relating to the improvement of the built environment, mixing land uses is a ubiquitous component of the underlying visions and ideals. Moreover, the concept is being embraced by both the public and private sectors, and by each of the major parties involved in the real estate development process: the end users who demand space; the developers, investors, and financial institutions that supply space; and the planners and policy makers that regulate space. The reasons for the resurgence of mixed-use development are many. Among other things, traffic congestion, increasing gasoline prices, changing consumer demographics, and a longing for the sense of place and community that too many American cities lack, are all likely contributing factors. In addition, city planners are embracing the idea of mixing uses because of its potential to reduce automobile dependence, support public transit, combat sprawl, preserve open space, promote economic development, and limit the expense of providing and maintaining infrastructure in low density environments. Furthermore, developers have increasingly proposed mixed-use developments to adapt projects to infill locations, gain access to greater densities, respond to changing consumer demands, and capitalize on the synergies created by the integration of complementary uses (Rabianski, 2009). However, despite the widespread support that mixed-use development has recently garnered, its acceptance is not universal. Many people, especially residents of 1 suburban areas, see the reemergence of mixed land uses as a threat to their communities and believe that “greater density in suburban areas threatens [their] social and economic attractiveness” (Kotkin, 2010). Consequently, an interesting situation has arisen in which mixed-use development is simultaneously seen by some as a panacea for the problems facing American cities and by others as a direct assault on the American dream. Sorting the fact from the fiction and developing an in-depth understanding of both the possibilities and the limits of mixed-use development are essential if the positive aspects of the concept are to be maximized. Doing so requires the following questions to be considered: How has the arrangement of land uses changed over time? What are the necessary characteristics of a mixed-use development? What are the different ways of conceptualizing mixed-use projects? What are the goals of mixed-use development? What are the unique challenges associated with mixed-use projects? And what are the primary lessons should be learned from our experiences with mixed-use development to date? 2 2 Mixed-Use in Context The mixing of land uses has been a ubiquitous characteristic of cities and urban areas since the dawn of human civilization. Historically, the spaces required to house the essential functions of the built environment, including places to reside, socialize, and produce and distribute goods and services, were tightly intermingled because walking was the primary means of transportation (Morris, 1994). Consequently, the distances that people were able to travel on a daily basis were limited to what could reasonably be traversed on foot in the small amount of time that was available between sleeping and working. This limited both the overall size of the city and the amount of space that was available for each necessary function. In fact, a large portion of residents lived in structures that also served as their place of work, making and selling things from small shops integrated into their dwelling units. Moreover, prior to the early 19th century, almost every urban area in the world shared the following set of attributes: the primary means of transportation was walking; uses were mixed both throughout the city and within individual buildings; the population density curve was very steep, with high densities in the cities and low densities in the surrounding areas; and there was a clear, physical distinction between city and country (Jackson, 1985). The industrial revolution, however, brought about a fundamental shift in development patterns that realigned the structure of the built environment and, especially in the United States, eroded the set of common principles that historically structured urban form. This transformation was spurred primarily by five factors: industrialization, urbanization, advances in transportation, zoning ordinances, and the rise of an affluent middle class. 3 Industrialization The process of industrialization transformed America from a society based predominately on agricultural to one based on the manufacturing of goods and services. Technological advances dramatically increased the productivity of individual farm laborers, and mechanization, along with the division of labor, created industrial synergies in the mass production of goods. This had three significant implications for the built environment: first, small artisan shops were replaced with large factories that were able to take advantage of economies of scale; second, live/work dwellings were supplanted by tenements which were required to house the deluge of workers that poured into cities from rural areas; third, the rise of industrial capitalism and growth of corporate bureaucracies created the need for large amounts of clustered office space. Thus, for the first time, functions that were previously integrated into single structures were being compartmentalized into individual buildings and districts (Jackson, 1985; Mumford, 1961). Urbanization With farm laborers increasingly being replaced by technological advances in agricultural machinery, workers from rural areas began migrating en masse to cities with the hopes of finding employment in the factories. As urban populations swelled, cities were forced to grow both horizontally and vertically; horizontal growth being facilitated by increased agricultural output which decreased the amount of farmland that was needed around the city to feed its inhabitants, and vertical growth being facilitated by advances in building construction, such as steel and elevators, which 4 enabled buildings to reach heights never seen before. However, the corresponding increases in population density overwhelmed most municipalities’ inadequate sanitation infrastructure and cities became synonymous with congestion, filth, and disease. Furthermore, these horrendous urban conditions were exacerbated by the noise, pollution, and noxious odors that emanated from the multitude of factories scattered throughout most cities. As a consequence, perceptions of urban areas deteriorated and the traditional principles of urban form, such as high densities and mixed uses, developed negative connotations (Jackson, 1985; Mumford, 1961). Transportation The growing desires of city inhabitants to escape the dismal conditions surrounding them were met by a series of advances in transportation technology that served to stretch the urban fabric horizontally and began to blur the traditional distinction between urban and rural areas. These advances can be grouped into two key stages. The first was the advent of mass transportation options such as the street car. Street cars increased the distances that people could reasonably travel between their residence and their place of employment, and facilitated the development of neighborhoods on the outskirts of the city. The second, and far more powerful development, was the rise of the automobile. The introduction and acceptance of automobiles that were affordable for the average working class family allowed people to access widely dispersed uses in the same amount of time it previously took them to walk a few blocks down the street. Consequently, automobiles shattered the 5 constraints that the human stride had placed on the urban fabric and fundamentally altered the horizontal scale of the built environment (Jackson, 1985). Zoning The escalating pollution levels, safety hazards, and public health concerns that plagued industrial cities at the turn of the 19th century were addressed throughout the United States with the enactment of zoning ordinances. The intent of the regulations was to separate land uses that were deemed incompatible for the purposes of protecting the public’s health, safety, morals, and general welfare. The practice was substantiated by the Supreme Court’s landmark 1926 decision in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., to uphold the practice (Mandelker, 2008). Thus, through the compartmentalization of land uses into like functions, residential districts were separated from the noise and pollution of industry and detached from the hustle and bustle of commerce. Consequently, while in the past, specialized districts naturally evolved within cities due to economies of agglomeration, for the first time in history, cities were purposely divided into enclaves of uses completely segregated from each another. Even though there were undeniable public health benefits that initially arose from the implementation of these land use regulations, the rigidity of Euclidian zoning ordinances essentially outlawed mixed-use development and had far reaching implications on the structure of built environment (Grant, 2007). 6 Affluence The sustained increases in production that occurred as a result of the industrial revolution brought about a significant rise in average incomes and allowed Western societies to break free from the Malthusian trap that, up until that point in history, had always constrained economic growth. The subsequent rise of the middle class, combined with advances in transportation technology and government policies aimed at increasing homeownership, allowed a growing number of households to live in larger, detached homes that were far removed from the central city. The bigger homes on large, suburban lots further encouraged the advancement of horizontal, segregated growth and radically flattened the population density curve (Bruegmann, 2005). The effects that these changes had on the built environment were dramatic. As a consequence, the characteristics that describe most American cities today are essentially the antithesis of the pre-industrial city: the primary means of transportation is the automobile; uses are segregated into districts of like functions and are rarely mixed within buildings; the population density curve is flat in most places, with low densities spread throughout sprawling metropolises; and there is rarely a clear distinction between city and country. Unfortunately, in hindsight, planners, developers, and policy makers, are beginning to realize that the negative outcomes of this new urban structure far outweigh the benefits. And while few people would choose to return to city-life prior to or during the Industrial Revolution, there is a growing movement aimed at reinstating the principles of urban form that were common to pre-industrial cities. 7 The reasons for the re-emergence of these traditional urban principles are many and include a multitude of environmental, social, and economic factors. In addition, advances in infrastructural technology have addressed the sanitation issues that once made dense, mixed-use, walkable, pedestrian oriented places unsanitary. Furthermore, the sanitation and public health concerns that were the original catalyst for abandoning the historic principles of urban form, have now been replaced by a whole new set of problems. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the leading cause of death was infectious disease and, therefore, justified the focus on separating incompatible uses and reducing population densities. However, the leading cause of death has now shifted to chronic disease, which includes obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and asthma, and thus has spawned a new call to action. Consequently, planners and public health experts are beginning to work together to develop a broader understanding of how the built environment influences public health and to make decisions that are more supportive of true healthy living (Dannenberg, 2007). A key component of this “new” way of approaching urbanism is mixed-use development. However, the modern concept of mixed-use development is quite different from the historical model because it is placed within the context of euclidian zoning ordinances. Therefore, while in the past, the entire city was a mixed-use district, modern mixed-use districts are merely single tiles within a mosaic of mostly single-use zoning classifications. Additionally, unlike the mixed-use urban environments of the past, which evolved gradually over long periods of time as many different builders made incremental additions to the city, modern mixed-use projects are most often developed over a relatively short period of time by a single developer in conformance 8 with a master plan (Schwanke, 2003). These differences between the historic and modern applications of mixed-use development are important to consider when comparing the theory and practice of the concept. 9 3 Mixed-Use in Theory The shift away from the segregation of land uses and back toward the integration of them has established mixed-use development as an important paradigm in the planning and development worlds. In fact, many people actually view it as a panacea for the problems confronting our fragmented urban areas (Grant, 2002; Coupland, 1997). Consequently, mixed-use projects have been developed across the country in both urban and suburban areas and in a variety of different configurations. The ubiquity of the concept and variety of the product, however, has led to a lack of clarity regarding both what mixed-use development is and what it’s goals should be. Demystifying the concept and distilling a common theoretical framework that informs the practice of mixed-use development requires an understanding of both its core components and the strategic goals of the theory behind the concept. The construction of such a framework requires three basic questions to be addressed: What is mixed-use development? How is it conceptualized? And what is its purpose? Defining Mixed-Use Development Mixed-use development at first seems like a relatively straightforward concept. Intuitively, it suggests real estate development that combines more than one land use. However, further scrutiny reveals that the term’s apparent simplicity masks a tremendous amount of underlying complexity. Does the word “mixed” imply a certain level of integration or degree of compatibility among uses? Does the manner in which the different uses are combined, i.e. vertically in a single building or horizontally in multiple buildings on a single site, matter? Does the geographic scale of a project 10 matter? Is a certain intensity of uses required for a project to be considered mixed- use? These are all questions that must be answered if the concept is to be consistently understood and advanced. While the term frequently appears in the planning and real estate literature, the definition of mixed-use development is rarely elaborated upon. This seems to imply that there is little variation among the definitions that exist and, moreover, that the definitions that do exist are widely agreed upon. However, a thorough review of the literature contradicts this assumption, with several authors addressing the lack of clarity surrounding the topic: “The terms ‘mixed use’ or ‘mixed use development’ are widely used, but seldom defined” (Coupland, 1997); “Mixed-use development is an ambiguous, multi-faceted concept” (Rowley, 1996); “The term mixed-use development has frequently appeared in the planning literature...however this term is hardly defined” (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005); “The definition of mixed-use is not as precise as for a single property type” (Rabianski, 2009); “Although the term appears frequently in the planning literature it is rarely defined” (Grant, 2002). The ambiguity surrounding what does and does not constitute mixed-use development most likely arises from the competing perspectives of the parties involved in the debate. Developers view the concept from the project level and often consider any development which contains more than one use as a mixed-use project. Planners typically have a larger frame of reference, but seem to care less about the details of the definition and more about the intent behind the concept. Experts and academics push for a more specific definition both for research purposes and also with the goal of reducing the chances of the concept being tarnished by failed projects which don’t 11 actually embody the key principles of mixed-use development (Popovec, 2006). However, while all this disagreement would suggest that a plethora of definitions have been developed, that is not the case. There are actually only two definitions that are consistently referenced in the literature, but the similarities and differences between the two highlight the broader areas of agreement and ambiguity. The first definition was developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the other was recently derived from the results of a cross-organizational survey conducted by several real estate industry groups. ULI’s Definition The definition espoused by ULI is probably the most prevalent definition of the term. In 1976, ULI was the first organization to address the concept in-depth with the publication of their first book on the topic entitled Mixed-Use Developments: New Ways of Land Use, and while the concept has evolved over the years, their original definition has essentially remained in tact. Currently, the second edition of their Mixed-Use Development Handbook characterizes mixed-use development as consisting of: •three or more significant revenue-producing uses (such as retail/entertainment, office, residential, hotel, and/or civic/cultural/recreation) that in well planned projects are mutually supporting; •significant physical and functional integration of project components (and thus a relatively close-knit and intensive use of land), including uninterrupted pedestrian connections; and 12 •development in conformance with a coherent plan (that frequently stipulates the type and scale of uses, permitted densities, and related items) (Schwanke, 2003). In addition, ULI makes a point of distinguishing between mixed-use development and what it refers to as “multi-use” development. While both concepts include a variety of uses, multi-use development lacks the integration, density, and compatibility of land uses required to create a walkable community with uninterrupted pedestrian connections between the various project components. Additionally, ULI specifies that mixed-use must include at least three integrated uses and each of them must be substantial enough to attract a significant market in their own right; which excludes uses that simply serve as amenities for a primary use (Schwanke, 2003). Thus, projects that contain several uses but lack pedestrian connectivity, such as master planned communities in the suburbs that require an automobile to traverse, do not meet their requirements for mixed-use. The same is true for two-use projects, such as multi-story residential projects in urban areas with a relatively small amount of ground-level retail space. Industry Survey Definition The other definition commonly referenced in the literature is the product of a cross-organizational survey done in the fall of 2006 by the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP), the Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA), and the 13 National Multi Housing Council (NMHC). The purpose of the survey was to identify the fundamental characteristics of mixed-use development and the results were synthesized to produce the following definition: A mixed-use development is a real estate project with planned integration of some combination of retail, office, residential, hotel, recreation or other functions. It is pedestrian-oriented and contains elements of a live-work-play environment. It maximizes space usage, has amenities and architectural expression and tends to mitigate traffic and sprawl (Niemira, 2007). Thus, if this definition is overlaid upon the ULI definition, the primary areas of ambiguity regarding the required characteristics of mixed use become apparent. For example, a major discrepancy between the two definitions is the minimum number of uses required to be considered mixed-use; the ULI definition designates three, while the industry definition implies only two. This discrepancy is representative of the larger debate regarding whether a development that contains only two uses, but which meets the other core requirements qualifies as mixed-use or if it is simply multi-use (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005; Popovec, 2006). Additionally, the components included in the industry definition, but excluded from ULI’s, such as architectural expression, traffic mitigation, and sprawl reduction, emphasize the blurry boundary between the necessary components of mixed-use development and the potential characteristics or effects of individual mixed-use projects. 14 While overlaying the definitions upon one another highlights the uncertainties, it also illuminates the components of mixed-use development that are generally agreed upon. First, the project must consist of multiple uses that are physically and functionally integrated and which are substantial enough to attract their own markets. Second, the project must maximize space through intensive land use and be oriented toward the pedestrian. Third, each component of the project must conform to an overarching, coherent plan. These three principles make up the core of the consensus regarding mixed-use development and distinguish it from both single-use and multi- use development. Conceptualizing Mixed-Use Development Once the core principles are established, the next step in understanding what mixed-use development is, is conceptualizing the variety of ways that mixed-use projects can be manifested in physical space. This requires the consideration of factors such as the function of the individual land uses, the manner in which multiple uses can be combined, and the scale at which a mixing of uses can occur. However, just as defining mixed-use development has provoked debate, so has the conceptualization of it. Likewise, there are two conceptual models which are consistently referenced in the literature. The first typology was developed by Alan Rowley (1996) and the second was created by Eric Hoppenbrouwer and Erik Louw (2005) in an effort to expand upon Rowley’s ideas. 15 Rowley’s Typology The conceptual model of mixed-use development created by Alan Rowley (1996) is based on the view that mixed-used development is essentially an aspect of the internal texture of settlements. This model focuses on mixed-use in the horizontal dimension, or between adjacent buildings, and proposes that the physical form of mixed-use development is a function of urban texture, setting, and location. Rowley proposes that the urban texture of a settlement is the product of three things: grain, density, and permeability. The grain of a settlement refers to the manner in which the various elements of a settlement are mixed together in space. A fine grain refers to a settlement where like elements are widely dispersed among unlike elements and a course grain denotes settlements where extensive areas of one element are separated from extensive areas of another element. Moreover, an abrupt transition from a cluster of like elements to unlike elements is referred to as a sharp grain and a gradual transition is referred to as a blurred grain (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005). Density refers to the amount of space or number of units contained within a certain area and is a measure of the intensity of land uses. Permeability refers to the number of possible routes a pedestrian has to choose from as he/she moves through a given area. This is a function of the layout of the roads, the corresponding size and shape of the blocks, and the placement and design of the buildings and public spaces within each block. In addition to urban texture, Rowley also inserts setting or spatial scale into his model, making distinctions between buildings, blocks, streets and districts. Moreover, he distinguishes between four types of locations where mixed-use 16 development can occur: (1) city or town centers comprising the commercial and civic core of towns and cities; (2) inner-city areas on sites comprising derelict, vacant or built-up land needing regeneration; (3) suburban or edge-of-town locations; and (4) greenfield sites out past the urban fringe. Furthermore, Rowley (1996) includes three other components in his conceptual model. First, he points out that public policy and regulations, property markets, and cultural ideas and values are external factors that influence the form of mixed-use development. Second, he recognizes that activities and land uses within mixed-use projects generate different degrees of vitality, a characteristic he refers to as the transactional quality of a use. Lastly, Rowley acknowledges an important time dimension because different uses produce activity on varying time schedules and any one facility can be shared by multiple users over any given time period. The result of the complex interactions of these variables is what he terms a “mixed-use situation.” However, Rowley’s model focuses solely on the horizontal dimension and, while he acknowledges the time dimension in his paper, it is not adequately incorporated into his model. Hoppenbrouwer and Louw (2005) recognize the need to consider the vertical dimension, as well as a mix of uses within a single structure and different uses of a space over some period of time. Consequently, their typology expands upon Rowley’s and integrates the components in a more systematic way (Rabianski, 2009). Hoppenbrower and Louw’s Typology Hoppenbrouwer and Louw’s (2005) model is developed from a spatial perspective and is organized by function, dimension, scale, and urban texture. The 17 18 Figure 1: Rowley’s Mixed-Use Model Source: Rowley, 1996 function component of mixed-use development refers to the individual land uses that are being mixed, and while their typology utilizes housing (residential) and working (office) for the sake of simplicity, the model is flexible enough to be extended to any other combination of uses. The dimension component is composed of four elements: (1) the shared premise dimension, (2) the horizontal dimension, (3) the vertical dimension and (4) the time dimension. In addition, just as in Rowley’s model, a scale component is included in the typology; however, the method of subdivision is different, with Hoppenbrouwer and Louw’s scale component being broken down into the building, block, district, and city levels. Moreover, urban texture was carried over from Rowley’s model, but instead of grain, density, and permeability, their model is made up of grain, density and the interweaving of functions. Hoppenbrouwer and Louw (2005) also point out that the inclusion of other components in addition to function, dimension, scale, and texture, such as location (town center, suburban, greenfield, etc.) or employment and housing types, might be helpful in conceptualizing mixed use development. Moreover, they recognize that formulations of mixed-use development are insufficient in terms of urban design alone; that “it also comprises other non-design features such as the urban experience, the nature of uses, definitions of public and private, conflict and security” (Hoppenbrouwer, 2006). However, they felt that such formulations could continue ad nauseam and would only serve to over complicate the model. Likewise, they reference Kevin Lynch in Good City Form when he articulates, “a good environment is a place which affords obvious and easy access to a moderate variety of people, goods, and settings…this variety can be expanded if a person wishes to expand further energy, [but it’s] an explorable world, 19 20 Figure 2: Hoppenbrouwer and Louw’s Mixed-Use Model Source: Hoppenbrouwer, 2005 whose vast diversities can be sought out or ignored at will” (Lynch, 2000, p. 192). In sum, mixed-use development is far from a standardized product form (Rabianski, 2007). It can differ by the nature and combination of uses, the dimension in which the uses are being mixed, the scale at which the mix of uses is occurring, and the urban texture that is created both within the development and throughout the surrounding area. Moreover, there are a variety of other factors that influence the conceptualization of mixed-use development and, consequently, there are a near infinite amount of possible mixed-use configurations and characteristics. However, it is this lack of monotony that distinguish mixed-use developments from other product types. Purpose of Mixed-Use Development Determining what the purpose of mixed-use development is not nearly as difficult as defining or conceptualizing it, but the process is still more complicated than for other types of real estate development. After all, the same question is not asked of the traditional development products: residential development serves the purpose of providing housing for the residents of a given area; office development serves the purpose of providing space for administrative, clerical, professional, and a variety of other business activities; and retail development serves the purpose of providing space for the showcasing and sale of goods and services to consumers. More specifically, each traditional real estate product provides space for an individual and necessary function of modern day society. The same can not be said for mixed-use development. 21 Instead, mixed-use development is a strategy for arranging the physical space that is required for society to function. Moreover, the modern conception of mixed-use is predicated on the practice of segregating land uses through Euclidian zoning policies, which have contributed to undesirable growth patterns characterized by the following: •Unlimited outward and "leapfrog" expansion of low-density new development; •Large-scale development of open space and environmentally sensitive lands; •Ever worsening traffic congestion and air quality caused by intensive automobile use; •Costly requirements to expand roads, sewers, water systems, and other infrastructures outward, rather than utilize and upgrade the networks that are already in place; •Isolated neighborhoods and communities which lack vibrancy and a sense of place; •Inadequate public transportation and a lack of other public amenities (Downs, 2005). Thus, the primary goals of mixed-use development revolve around the desire to alter the current patterns of urban growth and rectify the detrimental effects that Euclidian zoning and sprawl have had on urban areas. Furthermore, it “forms part of a strategy for sustainable development as well as a theory of good urban form, with the objectives of economic vitality, social equity, and environmental quality” (Grant, 2002). 22 The specific ways in which mixed-use development advances these goals can be distilled from a sampling of the various books, articles, and zoning codes that elaborate on the benefits of integrating land uses. In his book Reclaiming the City: Mixed Use Development, Andy Coupland (1997) quotes John Gummer, the former U.K. Secretary of State for the Environment, who explained why the U.K. government was increasingly supporting mixed-use development as follows: The emerging consensus is that development is more sustainable if it produces a mixture of uses. Segregation of land uses, encouraged in the past, is not relevant now. The trend back to mixed usage brings a number of potential benefits. It ensures vitality through activity and diversity. It makes areas safer. It also reduces the need to travel, making people less reliant on cars, bringing welcome environmental benefits. Diversity of uses adds to the vitality and interest of town centers. Different but complementary uses, during the day and in the evening can reinforce each other, making town centers more attractive to residents, businesses, shoppers and visitors (DoE, 1995a). Coupland (1997), and subsequently Hoppenbrouwer and Louw (2005), also cite the following diagram that was created by the UK Department of the Environment (DoE, 1995b) to illustrate the benefits of mixed-use development: 23 In addition, Hoppenbrouwer and Louw (2005) reference the following passage from the New Charter of Athens, which was developed by the European Council of Spatial Planners (ECSP): The principle of mixed use should be promoted, especially in city centers, so as to introduce more variety and vitality into [the] urban fabric. Housing and work 24 Figure 3: Benefits of mixed-use development Source: Coupland, 1997 areas, as well as other compatible uses, should be closely related in time and space so as to reduce the need to travel, conserve energy and reduce pollution (ECSP, 2008). Furthermore, the City of Atlanta (2002) cites the following reasons, among others, for the implementation of its Mixed Residential Commercial (MRC) Zoning District: The city finds there is a need…to preserve and restore existing, traditional and pedestrian scale buildings in established, historic neighborhood districts, as well as create new pedestrian oriented commercial nodes…to encourage a balanced mix of uses to include proportionately significant residential uses and to facilitate safe, attractive and convenient pedestrian circulation…to improve air quality by promoting walking and reducing the number of vehicular trips…[and] to establish adequate parking requirements by encouraging shared parking arrangements. Lastly, and perhaps most comprehensively, the Smart Growth Network (2011) includes mixed-use development as one of its ten principles for smart growth, and summarizes the relationship between smart growth and mixed land uses as follows: Smart growth supports the integration of mixed land uses into communities as a critical component of achieving better places to live. By putting uses in close 25 proximity to one another, alternatives to driving, such as walking or biking, once again become viable. Mixed land uses also provide a more diverse and sizable population and commercial base for supporting viable public transit. It can enhance the vitality and perceived security of an area by increasing the number and attitude of people on the street. It helps streets, public spaces, and pedestrian-oriented retail again become places where people meet, attracting pedestrians back onto the street and helping to revitalize community life. Mixed land uses can [also] convey substantial fiscal and economic benefits. Commercial uses in close proximity to residential areas are often reflected in higher property values, and therefore help raise local tax receipts. Businesses recognize the benefits associated with areas able to attract more people, as there is increased economic activity when there are more people in an area to shop. In today's service economy, communities find that by mixing land uses, they make their neighborhoods attractive to workers who increasingly balance quality of life criteria with salary to determine where they will settle. Clearly there are a variety of reasons being asserted for why mixed-use development is essential to the revitalization of urban environments. The benefits run the gamut from restoring neighborhood vibrancy to improving air quality, and reducing chronic disease to increasing economic activity (Grant, 2002). However, Coupland (1997) points out that “while some of the advantages of mixed-use can be accepted as absolute, others may or may not be true in certain circumstances.” Therefore, since it is 26 not certain that all of the benefits associated with mixed-use development are guaranteed to occur, it is important to distinguish between the guaranteed and potential benefits of mixing land uses. Assuming that the space for each individual use is occupied, the effects of mixed-use development on a given area which are guaranteed to occur include accessibility to a greater diversity of uses, higher densities of people and space, and longer periods of pedestrian activity throughout the day. Each of these effects is typically perceived to be a benefit for urban areas, and together they provide the foundation needed for all the other proposed benefits to arise; however, by themselves they can not guarantee that they will. Furthermore, these benefits only extend to the periphery of each individual mixed-use development. Thus, for the desired large scale changes to occur, in addition to uses being integrated within individual projects, mixed- use developments must be integrated both with their surrounding areas and with each other. The benefits of mixed-use development which are not guaranteed to occur include safer, vibrant neighborhoods, less traffic, reduced air pollution, improved public health, and increased economic activity, among many other things. While each of these is certainly a possible benefit of mixed-use development, they can not be assured because each is reliant upon factors external to the mere presence of a mixed-use development. For example, having numerous uses within a close distance creates a situation where it is reasonable for people to walk or ride a bicycle to their desired destination. This reduces people’s need to rely solely on their automobiles for transportation, and assuming that they choose to take advantage of that opportunity, 27 has the ability to reduce the amount of cars on the road. Fewer automobiles on the road will likely lead to less traffic congestion and lower volumes of air pollutants entering the atmosphere. This in turn has the potential to improve air quality and benefit public health. However, each of these benefits is predicated on three external factors: first, the uses within the mixed-use development must align with the needs of the people residing in and around it; second, the people must actually decide to walk or bike to their destination instead of drive; and third, the amount of people driving to the development from other areas must not negate the benefits created by the residents of the development choosing to walk. Likewise, each of the other possible benefits is dependent upon a wide range of variables that can not be planned for or predicted. Consequently, besides the direct effects that mixed-use development has on the built environment, the benefits can not be automatically assumed. Rowley (1996) summarizes this point by asserting that “mixed land use and development is being officially promoted as essential to the creation and maintenance of attractive, livable and sustainable urban environments. However, mixed-use development should not be seen as an automatic panacea: for example, it cannot be divorced from cultural priorities and lifestyles.” In sum, it is important to realize that mixed-use development alone can not solve all of society’s problems, but it certainly is a tool that can be used to help create and sustain better urban environments (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005). Jane Jacobs, whose work is cited by many as a key reason for the resurgence of mixed-use development over the past few decades (Grant, 2002; Hoppenbrouwer, 2005; Rabianski, 2009; Rowley, 28 1996), identifies four indispensable conditions that great urban environments must possess. Her preconditions are: 1.The district, and indeed as many of its internal parts as possible, must serve more than one primary function; preferably more than two. These must ensure the presence of people who go outdoors on different schedules and are in the place for different purposes, but who are able to use many facilities in common. 2.Most blocks must be short; that is, streets and opportunities to turn corners must be frequent. 3.The district must mingle buildings that vary in age and condition, including a good proportion of old ones so that they vary in the economic yield that they produce. This mingling must be fairly close grained. 4.There must be a sufficiently dense concentration of people, for whatever purposes they may be there. This includes dense concentration in the case of people who are there because of residence. (Jacobs, 1961, pp. 150-51) Taking Jacob’s criteria into consideration, it is clear that mixed-use development plays a pivotal role in the emergence of quality urban areas. It is also clear that there are other factors besides a mixture of uses which interact to bring life and character to urban areas. In the end, however, there are few things as important to a healthy urban area as having a wide variety of uses drawing a wide variety of people at a wide variety of times throughout the day. 29 4 Mixed-Use in Practice In theory, there are many upsides to mixed-use development. However, in practice, the system of land use regulations, construction guidelines, financial underwriting standards, and various other processes that govern real estate development are still tailored to the single-use real estate products that dominated the past half century. As a result, mixed-use projects present developers with increased complexity and risk at every stage of the development process. Whether it is the planning, entitlement, design, financing, construction, or operation of a mixed-use project, understanding where the obstacles lie and how to overcome them is essential for a successful development. Planning All development projects, regardless of whether or not they are mixed-use, begin with an idea. The same is true for both successful projects and failures. The planning process is what takes that rough idea, hones it into something that can actually become a reality, and hopefully, if done properly, sets the project up for success. While the planning process is ubiquitous to all real estate development, it is much more complex and much less forgiving for mixed-use projects. A successful mixed-use development requires a capable and diverse development team, a clear set of objectives, sound and thorough market analysis, an innovative development strategy, accurate financial models, and a whole lot of creativity. 30 Team Selection An inexperienced development team is rarely capable of carrying out the complex undertaking of a mixed-use project. Even seasoned developers, designers, architects, and other real estate professionals whose experience is limited to single-use projects, have the deck stacked against them when it comes to mixed-use development. Therefore, it is imperative that the master developer assemble a diverse team that is intimately familiar with a wide variety of uses and the complex issues that arise specifically with mixed-use projects (Schwanke, 2003). Especially during the planning and design phases, it is essential to receive input from a variety of sources, including the leasing agents, property managers, market experts, financial analysts, capital providers, marketing consultants, major tenants, development partners, construction contractors, public officials, and the surrounding community. As ULI points out: Each participant’s input should relate not only to a specific use or issue but also to the overall project concept and operation. This collaborative team approach can be one of the most important aspects of the planning process, because no one person is likely to have a complete understanding of the detailed design and operational issues for all the project’s uses and elements (Schwanke, 2003). Goal Determination The complex nature of mixed-use development requires that a common set of objectives be distilled and adopted by the development team at the outset of the 31 project. This is often a difficult task given the inherent diversity of the team members and the differing objectives of the numerous stakeholders involved in the development process. However, to ensure that the project moves forward as expeditiously as possible, it is important that each party makes an effort to understand the other parties’ objectives and that compromises are reached. In addition, while both financial and non-financial goals need to be clearly identified, it is often more essential to the success of the project that the vision, or non-financial objectives, be explicitly stated at the beginning of the planning process (Schwanke, 2003). This ensures that the multitude of decisions that must be made over the course of the development are guided by a common set of ideals, which reduces the likelihood of the development team making noncohesive decisions. Market Analysis Conducting a comprehensive market analysis for a mixed-use project is imperative for determining the supply and demand for each project component and creating a successful development program. While these statements apply to single- use projects as well, the complexity of the analysis increases with the number of development components. This is because different geographies and market areas have to be considered for each specific on-site use. Likewise, each use must be analyzed with regard to its own supply and demand situation and should be able to attract sufficient market demand to make it financially feasible in its own right (Rabianski, 2009). 32 After determining if there is a sufficient market for each use, the developer should consider the potential market synergies from on-site support. ULI identifies three kinds of market synergy that can be achieved with mixed-use projects. The first type of market synergy is derived from direct on-site market support. This would include residents, office workers, and hotel guests frequenting the retail and restaurant components of the project. The second type of synergy involves the indirect benefits that the uses provide to each other as amenities. “For example, retail and hotel uses do not directly generate revenues for office tenants or residents, but they can serve as important amenities for those uses” (Schwanke, 2003). Finally, the third kind of synergy is derived from the potential of mixed-use development to create a unique sense of place and establish a new destination within the urban landscape (Schwanke, 2003). However, while the potential for market synergies should always be considered, it is unwise to depend on their impact to any large degree. Strategy Creation The creation of a viable mixed-use development strategy requires the consideration and alignment of a multitude of factors. The complexity and magnitude of this undertaking make it essential that input is received from each member of the development team. Additionally, a successful strategy often requires several alternative programs to be developed and tested against each other. Mixed-use projects typically “require several iterations until the best fit is found; the program must be marketable, feasible, and financeable, and must also be able to receive public approval. This latter 33 fact should not be underestimated, as the approval process can substantially affect the final program” (Schwanke, 2003). Moreover, in addition to creating a profitable mix of uses, the development strategy must synchronize the phasing and timing of each component of the project. This requires a thorough understanding of the market for each use and also a solid familiarity with the construction process and local building regulations. Project phasing also requires close coordination with the architects and engineers because building design often affects the ability to phase the delivery of project components. For example, “if multiple uses are going to share mechanical and fire safety systems, then the entire project may need to be completed simultaneously to obtain certificates of occupancy for any portion of the project” (Kirk, 2007). Feasibility Analysis Evaluating the financial feasibility of a mixed-use project can be much more complex than for a single-use development. This is primarily because mixed-use projects usually involve costs and revenues that are harder to predict. While some cost efficiencies may be achieved through mixing uses, the complexity of integrating multiple uses into a single structure may raise development and operating costs. Likewise, the synergy created by placing complementary uses in close proximity to each other may increase cash flows, but poor timing on the delivery of a certain project component may lead to increased vacancy and lower rents. Moreover, the added complexity of a mixed-use development often equates to longer development timelines, which heightens uncertainty and increases risk (Rabianski, 2009). While it is 34 impossible to predict exactly how much costs and revenues will vary on any given project, acknowledging the greater likelihood of miscalculations and incorporating larger contingency funds into the budget is often vital to the financial success of a mixed-use project. Additionally, it is important to perform separate financial analyses for each use and ensure that each is feasible in its own right (Schwanke, 2003). Since financial feasibility is simply when “the return on the investment meets or exceeds the required return of the developer and/or the investor” (Rabianski, 2009), each use being financially feasible does not imply that each use will perform equally well. Instead, each use just needs to meet its required return, which can vary among project components. The temptation is often to let uses that are expected to perform well make up for uses that are expected perform poorly, but that can be dangerous if the cornerstone use doesn’t perform as expected. The key for the development team is to analyze several alternative development programs and find the concept that they feel most comfortable with from a feasibility perspective (Schwanke, 2003). Acquisition & Entitlement The process of acquiring the land and gaining the entitlements necessary for a mixed-use project can present the development team with numerous challenges. Land acquisition often involves assembling multiple, separately owned parcels in good locations. Regulatory approvals require negotiations with various governmental entities and departments. And gaining community support requires building relationships with an often skeptical public and convincing them that a mixed-use development would 35 have a positive impact on their neighborhood. Rombouts (2006) identifies the following strategies for overcoming these obstacles: “Implementing an active community outreach program early; working closely with city planning and building officials; being fully informed on planning and performance of residential/retail mixed-use developments; understanding the community and its political dynamics; having project proponents actively engaged, especially on the retail side; identifying and communicating community benefits; and reaching out to and working closely with local media.” Land Assembly Mixed-use projects often require relatively large sites to be assembled from numerous parcels held by multiple landowners. This is especially the case in urban areas. Occasionally, a developer already owns the land and is seeking to take advantage of changing market conditions and development opportunities. Additionally, if the public sector is involved and is pushing the project, the process can be expedited because they have the ability to use condemnation proceedings if necessary, but that is usually not the case either. Typically, the developer must first target the owners of key parcels, then approach each one and attempt to diplomatically negotiate sales agreements. Since market factors determine the price of land, developers must have a good understanding of the expected costs and revenues of the proposed project and be able to negotiate a purchase price that does not compromise the financial viability of the development (Schwanke, 2003). Mixed-use developers also need to be open to 36 alternative acquisition strategies such entering into a land lease if the owner is unwilling to part with the land. Regulatory Approval In many municipalities, the approval process for mixed-use developments is often difficult, time-consuming, and fraught with uncertainty; all of which escalate the risks and costs associated with mixed-use projects. Depending on the specific city and location of the site, getting the property rezoned to allow multiple uses and higher densities can be a nightmare. Whether it is the city worried about traffic increases and impacts on infrastructure, or NIMBYism from local residents, the rezoning process for mixed-use projects is often contentious and usually requires the services of a real estate attorney (Rabianski, 2009). Moreover, even if the project site already has the desired zoning, certain aspects of the plan may not conform to the regulations and variances may have to be sought. A common source of contention with new urbanist mixed-use projects is street widths. New urbanism advocates for narrow streets, tight turning radii, and on-street parking, but local municipalities and state DOTs are often vehemently opposed to such designs. Occasionally, if compromises can not be reached, the developer must privatize some or all of the streets, bestowing significant maintenance costs on future residents and tenants. Furthermore, another difficult situation affecting the approval process involves high-profile projects that require approvals from various levels of government and multiple jurisdictions (Schwanke, 2003). Since the effects of large projects are likely to 37 ripple throughout an entire region, many mixed-use projects must be reviewed by multiple municipalities and regional bodies, adding yet another layer of complexity to the approval process. Community Support The time, cost, and effort required to gain community support for a mixed-use project is usually much greater than for a smaller single-use project. In order to foster and sustain a public environment conducive to project approval, the development team must gain the trust and support of the community. While there is no single solution for gaining public support, honesty and a willingness to listen and address community concerns are essential. Developers often make the mistake of trying to impose their vision on the community, but conducting neighborhood meetings and incorporating ideas and suggestions from the local residents is usually a better way of generating buy-in for the project (Rombouts, 2006). In addition, mixed-use developments usually have the potential to have a substantial impact on an area, so it is important to understand the goals of the local community and include them in the project proposal. Evaluating the contextual history and crafting development strategies that respond to an area’s built, social, and natural environments conveys to the public that their interests are being considered. Design Mixed-use developments are often confronted with unique design challenges that go far beyond the architectural and engineering concerns of typical sing-use real 38 estate projects. Moreover, managing a design process that often involves several different designers for each individual project component, in addition to receiving input from local municipalities, community groups, building operators and a variety of other sources, is a formidable task (Schwanke, 2003). Parking, public spaces and streetscapes, the integration and interrelationship of elements, pedestrian circulation and connectivity, and creating a sense of place are just a few of the design elements that are crucial to the success of a mixed-use project. Parking Program Parking is a crucial component of most mixed-use developments and can have a significant impact on the project’s aesthetics, operational efficiency, and overall success. As ULI points out, “form follows parking” and incorporating large amounts of parking into an attractive and functional mixed-use project is a major design challenge (Schwanke, 2003). In addition, accommodating the parking needs of each of the different uses can be difficult. Residents want secure parking that is separate from the commercial uses; hotels want spaces that are dedicated to the valet; office users wants individual reserved spaces; and retailers want free and abundant parking that is close to store entrances. Moreover, estimating the total demand for parking is much more complex for mixed-use projects given the different activity cycles for each use. However, shared parking is often an option that can be both financially and logistically appealing if designed properly (Rombouts, 2006). To be successful, the parking program for mixed-use developments cannot be overlooked and must be given the same amount of thought and attention as the rest of the project. 39 Public Space While single-use developments occasionally incorporate a public space component, the nature of mixed-use projects, including the number of functions, scale of buildings, and size of budgets, make it possible to create and justify a larger, more substantial public realm. Whether the public spaces consist of urban plazas, squares, town greens, parks, gardens, promenades, courtyards, or streetscapes, designing an attractive and engaging public realm is often vital to the success of a mixed-use development. The reason for the increased importance of the public realm in mixed- use projects is its ability to shape the interrelationship of uses within the project, solidify the development’s incorporation into the surrounding area, and amplify the visual connections between spaces (Schwanke, 2003). In large mixed-use projects, the design and location of streets, sidewalks and parks is actually just as important as the design and location of the buildings (Angotti and Hanhardt, 2001). Component Integration There is nothing more fundamental to the success of a mixed-use development than the proper integration of the project’s various components. Creating a harmonious relationship while placing different uses in close proximity to each other requires understanding the needs of each use and translating each of those needs into a coherent design scheme. That includes providing efficiently functioning infrastructure, including parking, utilities, services, and effective mechanical, electrical, and structural systems, that are capable of servicing each component’s differing demands (Schwanke, 2003). The different operating and activity cycles of each use must also be 40 accommodated and potential conflicts avoided through forethought and proactive design. The most common design considerations being: “noise abatement by soundproofing between uses; separate residential and commercial parking areas; screened loading and dock areas; odor suppression and ventilation for restaurants; and separate access for residential and office users from retail customers for security and privacy” (Rabianski, 2009). Moreover, the potential of mixed-use development to create synergies from the various uses can only be capitalized on if the project components are properly aligned. The design and position of each use must be thought out so that the uses perform as a whole and benefit from one another. This is often accomplished by situating complementary uses around common areas and public space, separating the uses that draw the largest numbers of people to encourage a consistent flow of pedestrians throughout the entire development, ensuring there are coffee shops and restaurants that serve lunch close to the office buildings, and placing dry cleaners and other everyday service providers are located next to the residential components. Pedestrian Connectivity One of the primary characteristics that distinguish a mixed-use development from a single or multi-use project is pedestrian connectivity both within the project and with the surrounding areas. The pedestrian orientation of mixed-use projects is a stark contrast to the automobile orientation of most other types of real estate development and requires significant thought to be put into the arrangement and design of the buildings and open spaces. The goal should be to ensure easy and effective pedestrian 41 access to each of the project components and to and from the relevant adjacent areas (Schwanke, 2003). A key component of an effective pedestrian network is a well-designed central open space. Whether it is a main street, central plaza, or some other type of public space, a central open space facilitates spatial orientation and provides strong visual connections and sight lines for pedestrians. Additionally, it is important to establish a clear hierarchy of streets, paths, and open spaces that radiate out from the central open space to create visual interest and draw people into the different areas of the development (Schwanke, 2003). Moreover, permeability, or the number of different routes that a pedestrian has to choose from, should be maximized through a grid structure and small block sizes. Sense of Place The design process for a mixed-use project is ultimately an exercise in place making, not just real estate development. As mentioned earlier in this paper, place making can be described as “the creation of vibrant, distinctive, pedestrian-friendly urban environments through the effective design and integration of a mix of uses” (Schwanke, 2003). So, while in the past, unique places within cities organically evolved over time, the challenge for mixed-use projects today is to instantaneously create unique places that feel authentic and possess a variety of distinctive characteristics that draw pedestrians back again and again. The place making process requires a thorough understanding of the local culture and built environment, as well as a common vision that combines the unique aspects 42 of the local community with principles of good urban and architectural form. Moreover, successfully creating a sense of place within a mixed-use development requires a painstaking attention to detail that often separates projects that feel artificial from projects that feel genuine. Wether it is older, more mature street trees, varying architectural styles and building facades, quirky streetscape furniture, unique lamp posts and lighting, narrow street widths with on street parking, or any other design characteristic, successful place making in mixed-use development often lies in the details (Field, 2008). Ownership & Financing As is the case with every type of real estate development, the realization of a mixed-use project ultimately comes down to finding the necessary investment capital. However, conventional investment practices favor standardization and conformity, and overtime the real estate industry has been distilled into 19 standard product types. These categories are made up of the single-use products that have defined America’s built environment for the past half century. Unfortunately, mixed-use development does not fit into one of these standard financing categories, often making it much harder and more expensive to secure the necessary capital for the project (Leinberger, 2003). Moreover, lenders often require complex ownership structures to be created for the purposes of expanding exit strategies and making it easier to foreclose on individual components of the project. For these reasons, identifying the optimal method of structuring ownership and securing financing for a mixed-use development requires careful consideration on the part of the development team. 43 Ownership Structure The ownership structure of a mixed-use development can have a significant impact on the development teams ability to secure financing “If the developer wants to use a single construction financing source, the lender will seek a single borrower entity that owns all projects components, such as a limited liability company, the members of which are the separate equity investors in the project components” (Rabianski, 2009). However, if the developer wants to utilize separate financing sources for each major component of the project, multiple special purpose entities would be created, with each assigned ownership of a certain project component. The purpose of structuring ownership in this way is to create a more flexible exit strategy with the ability to sell different components of the project at different points in the development cycle (Rabianski, 2009). “The developer faces similar tradeoffs and complications when pursuing permanent financing. The larger loan associated with permanent financing on the entire property may be more attractive to many lenders; however, unless the mortgage contains lease provisions, individual loans on each property type parcel will give the owner greater flexibility in exit strategies (Wieden, 2007). When a single construction loan has separate take-outs for the project components, the construction lender is dependent upon each of the permanent lenders to accomplish full take-out of the loan. The condominium form of ownership will allow the construction lender to foreclose and sell only the single-use component on which the take-out commitment failed rather than foreclose and sell the entire mixed-use project (Kane, 2004)” (Rabianski, 2009). 44 Capital Sources Securing the needed debt and equity capital for mixed-use projects is difficult for a variety of reasons. Compared with most single-use projects, mixed-use developments often require larger capital requirements, more financing sources, higher equity requirements, more complicated underwriting, a longer development period, and more financial involvement from the public sector (Schwanke, 2003). However, the sources of funds themselves are the same as for single-use projects; the investors usually just have different requirements for mixed-use developments. Financing any real estate project begins with equity, and equity in a project originates with a developer’s own capital. Since most developers can’t meet the equity requirements on their own, and even if they could, wouldn’t want that much of their money at risk, the remainder of the capital comes from equity partners. These investors may include developers and private property companies, wealthy individuals and limited partnerships, pension funds, investment advisory firms using pension fund money, insurance companies, REITs, opportunity funds, investment banks, commercial banks (especially in Europe), and other private investment entities” (Schwanke, 2003). The remainder of the required capital, usually 70% of the total project cost for mixed-use developments, is covered by debt financing. The vast majority of debt financing is provided by commercial banks, insurance companies, savings institutions, the CMBS industry, and finance companies. Additionally, a variety of public financing tools may be available for mixed-use developments that meet certain criteria set by the government. Although, many of these financing tools require that the project be located in special districts created by 45 the local municipality, such as improvement districts or reinvestment zones, and usually require certain criteria to be met (Rabianski, 2009). Furthermore, tax abatement programs, development bonds, and bonds from tax increment financing (TIF), known as tax allocation districts (TAD) in Georgia, may be available for the construction of certain types of facilities and infrastructure (Kirk, 2007). Construction The construction of a mixed-use project presents the development team, and construction service providers in particular, with a number of unique challenges. Many of these issues are related to the integration of multiple uses into a single structure and must be first addressed by the architects and engineers in the planning and design stage of the development processes. These issues often include incorporating separate points of ingress and egress for each use, aligning the different floor plans and structural requirements of various uses, and integrating the multiple sets of building systems usually needed for each use. However, there are several challenges that can not be easily resolved through thoughtful design. Potential issues that must be addressed on the construction site by the superintendent or project manager include ensuring that the proper building standards for each use are followed by the contractors, effectively managing the construction schedule for a complex project in which problems will inevitably arise, and coordinating a much larger number of sub- contractors than is typically utilized on a single-use project (Bergeron, 2007). 46 Building Standards Building codes typically vary for each of the components included in a mixed- use development and the added complexity often creates difficulties for the contractors and subcontractors tasked with constructing the project. Even though the construction documents produced by the design team should specify the materials and standards to be used for each component, the drawings and specifications are not always correct, and regardless, it can be a challenge keeping everything straight on the job site. Moreover, mixed-use projects often encounter situations where it is difficult to know which standards to apply; such as for the common areas of a building that includes retail, hotel, office, and residential uses, or for the partitions that separate each use. Life safety and fire separation issues are especially important, and working with the inspectors and fire marshall to figure out the proper fire rating or sprinkler systems to use in each situation can cause significant delays and unforeseen expenses (Bergeron, 2007). Additionally, there are construction best practices for mixed-use developments that usually fall outside the requirements of most building codes, but which can have a significant impact on the success of a project. Specifically, adequate amounts of sound attenuation and odor suppression must be incorporated into the project to prevent certain uses from becoming nuisances to other uses (Rabianski, 2009). Likewise, the subcontractors responsible for the installation of those systems have little room for error and must make sure that everything is installed properly. Seemingly insignificant mistakes like small gaps left in the sound batting between uses or accidental screw 47 holes made in a ventilation pipe can have serious implications down the road when the tenants and residents are moved in. Construction Schedule The construction schedule for a mixed-use development typically spans a longer timeframe than for a comparably sized single-use project. The reason for the extended schedule is the increased complexity experienced at nearly every stage of the mixed- use construction process. Whether it is complicated below-grade parking structures that are integrated into the building’s foundation, independent sets of building systems that must be installed separately for each use, or any other unique design characteristic that pushes contractors outside of their comfort zone, the potential for problems on mixed-use projects is sky high. As a result, the development team, and specifically the construction project manager, must be extra vigilant to ensure that the project stays on track and on budget (Bergeron, 2007). Furthermore, on top of the increased complexity and extended construction schedules, it is often much more important to avoid delays and complete mixed-use projects on time. The increased pressure to finish on schedule originates from the fact that to be successful, mixed-use developments need to hit the ground running. This is a result of both the high carrying costs associated with mixed-use projects and the nature of mixed-use synergies which require a majority of the space for each use to be filled and open for business. Consequently, the marketing and promotion efforts for a mixed-use project typically begin very early on in the life of the project. This is both to begin building awareness and excitement around the project and to start attracting 48 quality retailers, office users, and residents (Schwanke, 2003). But with so much hype leading up the completion of the project, setbacks and delays are impossible to conceal and can cast negative light on the project. Contractor Coordination Coordination of the numerous contractors and subcontractors involved with the construction of a mixed-use project can be a logistical nightmare. Determining which sub is doing what and identifying when and where they are doing it requires a significant amount of organization and management skills. While some construction divisions, such as the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing trades, are typically handled by a single subcontractor, it can be difficult to find subs that have the necessary breadth of experience and skill needed to tackle each component of a large mixed-use project. Consequently, separate subcontractors are often brought in to handle each use. With multiple subs working on different uses it is critical that the superintendent effectively communicate to each sub their respective responsibilities and ensure that everything is properly integrated. Moreover, the project manager must ensure that the scopes of the contracts for each sub do not overlap and result in duplicate or repetitive work, but also must make sure that nothing is overlooked and not covered by any of the scopes, which could result in gaps in the overall work product (Bergeron, 2007). 49 Management & Operation The complexity and challenges of mixed-use development do not fade once the project is completed. Instead the challenges persist as the development transitions from a project to a property. While a single-use property, such as an office building, condominium tower, or retail center, requires one set of practices for facilities upkeep, rent, accounting and other management factors, the same cannot be said for mixed- use properties (Marsh, 2006). Combining retail, hotel, office, multi-family, and any other use into a single property changes the management and operations significantly. “Each component of a mixed-use property has different demands and needs and property managers have to find a way to make the entire property operate efficiently” (Marsh, 2006). The successful management and operation of a mixed-use property requires the following questions to be addressed: What are the needs of each individual use? How should operating costs be allocated to each user? And how should operating responsibilities be designated? Need Identification A typical mixed-use property contains at least three separate components and each possesses distinct operation, management, and maintenance requirements. In a way, managing a mixed-use property can be like operating a small city; there are many different stakeholders with different motivations and concerns, and the needs of each stakeholder must be considered and balanced with everyone else's (Schwanke, 2003). The challenges can be especially difficult if uses that are not complementary and which have radically different operating needs are permitted into the development. However, 50 even complementary uses can have very different needs. “For example, a large retail component requires significantly different security arrangements, parking operations, waste removal, cleaning and delivery schedules, promotion, and events management from an office or residential component” (Schwanke, 2003). Cost Allocation The allocation of costs related to the management and operation of a mixed-use development to each of the property’s components can be a complicated process. The primary issues arise when trying to determine each use’s prorated share of expenses related to common area use and maintenance, impact on utility and infrastructure systems, and use of other common services. “Specific issues to be considered for each land use might include the following: the rate at which shared utilities are expected to be consumed; the traffic anticipated to be generated by each user on common roads; whether there will be limitations on the hours that each land user can operate; the expected costs of maintaining, insuring, and operating common property, facilities, and services; and the extent to which any land use will need to be monitored for security” (Weissman, 2000) As a result of the inherent difficulty in predicting actual use, common expenses are often allocated among property components on the basis of a generic formula such as square footage. The problem is that these simple formulas often do not accurately reflect the impact of each use. Moreover, once these formulas are put in place, they are usually very difficult alter, typically requiring the unanimous consent of all property owners. (Weissman, 2000) 51 Responsibility Designation There is no simple formula for determining the optimal operations, management, and maintenance structure for a mixed-use property. Rather, the designation of responsibilities must reflect the objectives of each major component and the particular nature of each project, which for mixed-use properties often requires complex management structures (Schwanke, 2003). However, when possible, centralized management is usually the preferred structure and is often utilized to maintain common areas and building exteriors, manage shared parking areas, and provide a variety of other commonly needed services. The benefit of a single entity is the efficiency gains from eliminating many of the coordination and communication issues experienced with dispersed responsibilities. The key is to find a property manager that has the required knowledge, experience, and personnel to effectively operate a property containing a mixture of uses (Marsh, 2006). While a centralized management structure is often preferred, it does not, preclude the allocation of operations, management, and maintenance to individual property components (Schwanke, 2003). Moreover, there are some situations where centralized management is not the desired strategy. This is usually the case when participants have substantially different operating needs and require significantly different types or levels of services. Additionally, public officials will often insist that the public component of a mixed-use property that operates under a public/private partnership, is managed and maintained by the public sector (Schwanke, 2003). 52 In sum, mixed-use development in practice is fraught with increased complexity and risk at each stage of the development process. Moreover, those complexities and difficulties differ for each project, and consequently, mixed-use development does not lend itself to the formulaic approach that many single-use real estate products enjoy (Schwanke, 2003). While experience with developing mixed-use projects certainly allows a developer to better predict where problems will arise and, to the greatest extent possible, address those issues in the planning and design stages of the development process, it is impossible to create a standardized product that can be applied to any situation. “Each project and situation is different, and concepts and outcomes vary dramatically, depending on the particular site, market, developer, urban designer, and financing” (Schwanke, 2003). However, the inability of mixed-use developments to be standardized and conform with the norms of the real estate finance world is part of what makes the concept so appealing to so many different groups of people. As Trischler (2001) states, “one of the most insidious problems with all development is the tendency to blindly follow the latest trends and fads without tailoring them to [each project’s] unique situation.” The great thing about mixed-use development is that the nature and scope of mixed-use projects make it much more difficult to continue building the monotonous single-use projects that currently dominate so much of the American landscape. 53 6 Conclusions Mixed-use development remains an ambiguous concept. In theory, there are debates regarding its definition and conceptualization, in addition to arguments over its guaranteed and potential benefits. In practice, real estate professionals involved with mixed-use projects are confronted with added complexity and risk at nearly every stage of the development process. However, despite the uncertainty associated with the concept, mixed-use development has garnered a significant amount of attention and praise over the past several decades and, most likely, will continue to play a pivotal role in the real estate and planning worlds for some time to come. The reason for mixed-use development’s rise to prominence is its potential to relatively quickly recreate the type of well structured urban environments that were regrettably abandoned over the course of the 20th century. In the past, mixed-use cities evolved gradually over centuries. The transformation of those dense, mixed-use urban areas into sprawling, monotonous metropolises occurred over many decades. The hope is that by incorporating a mixture of uses into single development projects, the process of once again restructuring our urban environments will be expedited. However, simply combining a variety of different uses within individual development projects will not automatically lead to the reemergence of quality, pedestrian-oriented urban areas. Moreover, even well designed mixed-use projects can struggle to generate the returns needed to succeed from a financial perspective. Ensuring that future mixed-use developments live up to the concept’s expectations requires planners and real estate professionals to absorb the lessons that each completed project has to offer. In this vein, four essential criteria for creating successful 85 mixed-use developments can be distilled from the three Atlanta case studies described in detail above. First, the project must be led by a diverse and experienced development team that is bound together by a common vision and is able to effectively communicate with one another. The success of both Glenwood Park and Technology Square can be directly attributed to the high degree of team work, collaboration, and professionalism that characterized the respective development teams. Moreover, both teams had a clear vision that guided decision making throughout each of the development processes. Atlantic Station, however, continues to suffer as a result of the development team’s lack of experience with mixed-use projects and their failure to develop a clear vision at the outset of the project. Second, the development team must create a master plan that responds to the project site’s unique environment, creates a distinct sense of place, maximizes pedestrian activity, and integrates a variety of synergistic uses into the existing urban fabric. These characteristics are not only vital to the long term success of the project, but also to gaining the trust and support of the local community at the beginning of the development. The context-sensitive and pedestrian-oriented design of Technology Square has transformed a blighted portion of Midtown into a well-integrated and unique destination that has been embraced by both Georgia Tech and the surrounding community. Additionally, Glenwood Park would not be what it is today if the master plan had not inspired the local neighborhoods to support the development team as they fought to get the city’s zoning regulations changed. Additionally, Atlantic Station’s 86 lack of a distinct sense of place and poor integration of uses has unfortunately resulted in it being negatively perceived by many people within the local community. Third, the project’s capital structure must allow the development team to retain control of their vision and be able to absorb setbacks from unforeseen challenges that are likely to arise. Each of the three Atlanta projects that were highlighted faced a variety of unforeseen challenges throughout the development process. The underlying capital structure of each project had a significant impact on the development team’s ability to deal with the issues while staying true to their vision for the project. Green Street Properties was able to fund Glenwood Park without having to utilize outside equity or bank debt. That allowed them to avoid having to make compromises on the project’s design and has resulted in a truly unique destination within the city. In contrast, the massive size and scope of Atlantic Station required significant debt financing from both the public and private sectors, and consequently, the lenders’ preferences for less risky national retailers has resulted in the development feeling more like an outdoor mall than a unique in-town neighborhood. Fourth, the project must incorporate a physical design and legal structure that allows the project to evolve over time and change as needed. The ability to change with the times and accommodate a wide range of future uses ensures that even if a project is not successful in the short-term, it has the opportunity to succeed in the long-term. So, while Atlantic Station might have a number of different issues that need to be addressed, the development was recently purchased by a group that has a new vision for the property and the project now has the opportunity to be reinvented. However, in order for a property to evolve into something better than its current state, 87 the physical components must be able to be altered and the ownership structure and lease agreements must allow for the necessary changes to be made. In sum, mixed land uses were an essential aspect of cities throughout most of human history. It was only during the early to mid 20th century that the growing pressures of technological and societal revolutions resulted in an alternative option being embraced. However, after several decades of living with the negative consequences of that alternative, a movement to reintroduce the mixed-use urban environments of the past has gained traction (Grant, 2004). Transforming the system that has governed planning and real estate development in America for the past half- century will undoubtedly be difficult, but such a transformation has occurred before and if recent trends hold, it is definitely possible. However, due to the variety of variables that influence the quality of urban areas, it will take much more than mixed- use development alone to bring about the widespread changes that are desired. In the end, “mixed use cannot resolve all the problems of the city, but cities that lack mixed use cannot hope to enjoy long-term prosperity or viability” (Grant, 2004). 88 References Angotti, T. and Hanhardt, E. (2001). Problems and Prospects for Healthy Mixed-use Communities in New York City. Planning Practice & Research, 16(2): 145-54. Atlantic Station. (2011). Atlantic Station - About. Retrieved 4/1/2011, from http:// www.atlanticstation.com/concept.php. Bergeron, A. (2007). Mixed-Use Developments: New Construction Trend Invades South Central Region. South Central Construction. Retrieved 2/15/2011, from http:// southcentral.construction.com/features/archive/2007/0708_feature2.asp. Brown, W. (2009). In Herndon J. (Ed.), Personal communication. Buntin, S. (2005). Glenwood Park - Atlanta, Georgia. Terrain.org. Retrieved 4/1/2011, from http://www.terrain.org/unsprawl/17/. City of Atlanta (2002). Code of Ordinances: Part 3-Land Development Code. Sec. 16-34.002. Bruegmann, R. (2005). Sprawl: A Compact History. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Cooperative Conservation America. (2011). Atlantic Station Redevelopment: Using Smart Growth Studies to Lower Emissions. Retreived 4/8/2011, from http:// www.cooperativeconservationamerica.org/viewproject.asp?pid=498. Coupland, A. (1997). Reclaiming the City: Mixed Use Development. London, E & FN Spon. Dannenberg, A., Edwards, R., et al. (2007). Leveraging Law and Private Investment for Healthy Urban Redevelopment. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35: 101-105. 89 Downs, A. (2005). Smart Growth. Journal of the American Planning Association. 71(4): 367-380. Department of the Environment. (1995a). PPG13: A Guide to Better Practice. HSMO, London. Department of the Environment. (1995b). Putting quality back into towns and city centres, (press release, 24 July) DoE, London. Dover, Kohl & Associates. (2006). Glenwood Park Atlanta, Ga. Retrieved 4/5/2011 from http://www.doverkohl.com/files/pdf/Glenwood%20Park_low%20res.pdf ECTP (1998) New Charter of Athens; the principles of ECTP for the planning of cities (London: ECTP). Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Atlantic Station: Atlantic Steel Site Redevelopment Project. Retrieved 4/2/2011, from http://www.epa.gov/ smartgrowth/topics/atlantic_steel.htm. Field, K. (2008). Design of the Times: Mixed use involves careful crafting of multiple elements. Chain Store Age: 106-108. Georgia Institute of Technology. Technology Square. Office of Real Estate Deveopment. Retrieved 4/3/2011 from http://www.realestate.gatech.edu/techsqr/. Grant, J. (2002). Mixed Use in Theory and Practice: Canadian Experience with Implementing a Planning Principle. Journal of the American Planning Association 68(1): 71 - 84. Grant, J. (2007). Chapter 3. Encouraging mixed use in practice. In GJ Knaap, HA Haccou, JW Frece (eds), Incentives, Regulations and Plans: the role of states and nation-states in smart growth planning, Edwin Elgar Publishers UK, pp 57-76. 90 Green Street Properties. Glenwood Park: From Greyfield to Green Community. Retrieved 4/6/2011, from http://greenstreetproperties.com/glenwood-park Hoppenbrouwer, E. and Louw, E. (2005). Mixed-use development: Theory and practice in Amsterdam's Eastern Docklands. European Planning Studies. 13(7): 967-983. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, Random House. Jones Kendall, J. (2006). Glenwood has perfect recipe for urban success. Atlanta Business Chronicle, 1-2. Kelley, Collin. (2011). Mark Toro Talks about Atlantic Station Evolution. Atlanta INtown. Retrieved 4/12/2011, from http://www.atlantaintownpaper.com/2011/02/mark- toro-talks-about-atlantic-station-evolution/. Kirk, P. (2007). Mixed-use Musings. Urban Land, 66(8): 84-90. Kotkin, J. (2010). The Broken Ladder: The Threat to Upward Mobility in the Global City. Legatum Institute. Leinberger, C. (2008). Sprawl to Meets It Limit in Atlanta. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. November 5, 2008. Retrieved April 1, 2011, from http://www.ajc.com/services/ content/opinion/stories/2008/11/05/leinbergered.html Lynch, K. (2000). Good City Form. Cambridge, MIT Press. Mandelker, D, et al. (2008). Planning and Control of Land Development: Cases and Materials. Newark: Lexis Nexus/Matthew Bender. Marsh, A. (2006). Mixed Management: Mixed-Use Property Managers Juggle Varying Tenant Needs. Commercial Property News: 23. Mijanovich, A. (2011). In Herndon J. (Ed.), Personal communication 91 Miller, Jason. (2006). Evolution of a Brownfield. Town Paper Publications. Retrieved 4/12/2011, from http://www.tndtownpaper.com/Volume8/ evolution_of_brownfield.htm. Morris, A. (1994). History of Urban Form Before the Industrial Revolutions. Longman Scientific. Mundy, B. and Condra, S. (2005). Atlantic Station: Partnerships, Progress, Protection. Retrieved 4/2/2011, from http://www.astswmo.org/files/meetings/ 2005BrownfieldsSymposium/Atlantic%20Station%20Site%20Atlanta%20GA.pdf. Niemira, M. P. (2007). The Concept and Drivers of Mixed-use Development: Insights from a Cross-Organizational Membership Survey. Research Review. 4(1): 53-56. Papa, R. (2008). Atlantic Station Case Study. Western Pennsylvania Brownfield Center. Popovec, J. (2006). The Great Debate. Retail Traffic Magazine. Retrieved 10/31/2010, from http:// retailtrafficmag.com/mag/retail_great_debate/index.html. Rabianski, J. and Clements, J. (2007). Mixed-Use Development: A Review of Professional Literature. The National Association of Industrial and Office Properties Research Foundation. Rabianski, J., Gibler, K., et al. (2009). Mixed-Use Development: A Call for Research. Journal of Real Estate Literature 17(2): 205-230. Rombouts, C. (2006). The Challenges of Mixed Use. Urban Land, Urban Land Institute. Rowley, A. (1996). Mixed-use Development: ambiguous concept, simplistic analysis and wishful thinking. Planning Practice & Research. 11(1): 85-98. Schwanke, D., Phillips, P., et al. (2003). Mixed-Use Development Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, D.C., ULI - The Urban Land Institute. 92 Smart Growth Network. Principles of Smart Growth - Mix Land Uses. Retrieved 11/04/2010, from http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/principles/principles.asp? prin=1. Trischler, T. (2001). In the Mix: Determining What Uses Work Together Most Successfully. Development Magazine. NAIOP. Weissman, S. (2000), Lawyering the New Urbanism, Urban Land. ULI. 84-89, 116-117. 93 4.1 MODEL MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE The following model zoning district provisions represent a commercial zoning classification that permits, rather than mandates, a vertical mix of commercial and residential uses within the same building. The district is intended to accommodate a physical pattern of development often found along village main streets and in neighborhood commercial areas of older cities. Primary Smart Growth Principle Addressed: Mix land uses Secondary Smart Growth Principle Addressed: Compact building design CX1, Neighborhood Commercial, Mixed-Use District 101. Purpose The purposes of the CX1, Neighborhood Commercial, Mixed-Use District are to: (1) Accommodate mixed-use buildings with neighborhood-serving retail, service, and other uses on the ground floor and residential units above the nonresidential space; (2) Encourage development that exhibits the physical design characteristics of pedestrian- oriented, storefront-style shopping streets; and (3) Promote the health and well-being of residents by encouraging physical activity, alternative transportation, and greater social interaction. 102. Definitions As used in this ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meanings specified herein: “Floor Area Ratio” means the ratio of a building’s gross floor area to the area of the lot on which the building is located. “Gross Floor Area” is the sum of the gross horizontal areas of all floors of a building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the centerline of walls separating two buildings. Gross floor area does not include basements when at least one- half the floor-to-ceiling height is below grade, accessory parking (i.e., parking that is available on or off-site that is not part of the use’s minimum parking standard), attic space having a floor-to-ceiling height less than seven feet, exterior balconies, uncovered steps, or inner courts. “Mixed-use Building” means a building that contains at least one floor devoted to allowed nonresidential uses and at least one devoted to allowed residential uses. 103. Allowed Uses Uses are allowed in “CX1” zoning districts in accordance with the use table of this section. U S E G R O U P Zoning District Use Category Specific Use Type CX1 P= permitted by-right C = conditional use N = Not allowed U S E G R O U P Zoning District Use Category Specific Use Type CX1 P= permitted by-right C = conditional use N = Not allowed R E S I D E N T I A L Household Living Artist Live/Work Space located above the ground floor P Artist Live/Work Space, ground floor C Dwelling Units located above the ground floor P Detached House C Multiunit (3+ units) Residential C Single-Room Occupancy C Townhouse C Two-Flat C Group Living Assisted Living C Group Home P Nursing Home C Temporary Overnight Shelter C Transitional Residences C Transitional Shelters C P U B L I C A N D C I V I C Colleges and Universities P Cultural Exhibits and Libraries P Day Care P Hospital N Lodge or Private Club N Parks and Recreation P Postal Service P Public Safety Services P Religious Assembly P School C Utilities and Services, Minor P Utilities and Services, Major C C O M M E R C I A L Adult Use N Animal Services Shelter/Boarding Kennel N Sales and Grooming P Veterinary P Artist Work or Sales Space P Drive-Through Facility [See comment] C Eating and Drinking Establishments Restaurant P Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 2 U S E G R O U P Zoning District Use Category Specific Use Type CX1 P= permitted by-right C = conditional use N = Not allowed Tavern C Entertainment and Spectator Sports Small (1–149 seats) P Medium (150–999 seats) N Large (1,000+ seats) N Financial Services P Food and Beverage Retail Sales P Gas Stations N Lodging Small (1–16 guest rooms) P Large (17+ guest rooms) C Medical Service P Office P Parking, Commercial (Nonaccessory) C Personal Service, including health clubs and gyms P Repair Service, Consumer, including bicycles P Residential Storage Warehouse N Retail Sales, General P Vehicle Sales, Service, and Repair N I N D U S T R I A L Manufacturing, Production and Industrial Services Artisan (hand-tools only; e.g., jewelry or ceramics) C O T H E R Wireless Communication Facilities Co-located P Freestanding (Towers) C Comment: This use table should be refined to reflect local characteristics and planning objectives. The range of uses allowed should be kept as broad as possible in order to ensure that the district is economically viable. Note that this model allows, as a conditional use, drive- through facilities. Drive-through facilities may be appropriate in such areas in connection with banks and pharmacies. Whether to allow them is a policy choice, no different than other policy choices in selecting permitted uses. Also keep in mind that in buildings with residential units, commercial use issues will be largely self-policing because owner associations and builder/developers will ensure that commercial uses in mixed-use buildings will be compatible with upper-story residential uses. 104. Commercial Establishment Size Limits The gross floor area of commercial establishments in the CX1 district shall not exceed [15,000] square feet. Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 3 Comment: Floor area limits are proposed in the model ordinance to help ensure that allowed commercial uses would be geared toward a neighborhood market area. Some local ordinances impose much more restrictive floor area limits in neighborhood-oriented districts. The limit proposed in this model ordinance would accommodate a modern drug store. If floor area limits are employed, the standards should not be so restrictive as to hamper the economic viability of the district. 105. Indoor/Outdoor Operations All permitted uses in the CX1 district must be conducted within completely enclosed buildings unless otherwise expressly authorized. This requirement does not apply to off-street parking or loading areas, automated teller machines, or outdoor seating areas. 106. Floor-to-Floor Heights and Floor Area of Ground-floor Space (1) All commercial floor space provided on the ground floor of a mixed-use building must have a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of [11] feet. (2) All commercial floor space provided on the ground floor of a mixed-use building must contain the following minimum floor area: (a) At least [800] square feet or [25] percent of the lot area (whichever is greater) on lots with street frontage of less than [50] feet; or (b) at least 20 percent of the lot area on lots with [50] feet of street frontage or more. Comment: In areas with strong residential real estate markets, ground-floor space is sometimes viewed as an afterthought, particularly when developed by those with a poor understanding of mixed-use development. These types of provisions can help ensure that ground-floor space will meet the needs of future retailers and not sit vacant for years after upper-floor residential units have been leased or sold. 107. Lot Area per Unit (Density) The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be [1,000] square feet for mixed-use buildings and [1,500] square feet for all other buildings. Comment: If mixed-use buildings are desired, such buildings should be rewarded with more flexible development standards. The model ordinance allows higher residential densities in mixed-use buildings than it does in single-use buildings. 108. Floor Area Ratio The maximum FAR shall be [2.0] for mixed-use buildings and [1.25] for all other buildings. Comment: To encourage mixed-use buildings, the model ordinance allows higher FARs for mixed-use projects. Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 4 109. Setbacks (1) The entire building façade must abut front and street side property lines or be located within [10] feet of such property lines. Comment: Rather than mandating a zero-foot “build-to” line for all properties in CX1 zoning districts, this model offers flexibility to accommodate shallow building setbacks that are sometimes necessary to accommodate features such as outdoor seating/display areas, stoops and sidewalk widening. Alternately, it is possible for the ordinance to establish a formula to determine setbacks based on the average setback of buildings in a block face. For an example of this, see Section 108 of the Model Town Center Ordinance (below). (2) The minimum rear setback is [0–30] percent of the lot depth. Comment: The appropriate minimum building setback will depend on lot and development patterns in the area. When alleys abut the rear of CX1 lots, no rear setback may be necessary, except perhaps for upper floors. On the other hand, when CX1-zoned lots will abut the rear property line of residential lots, buildings in the CX1 district should be set back from rear property lines in order to protect the privacy and open feeling expected within residential rear yards. (3) No interior side setbacks are required in the CX1 district, except when CX1-zoned property abuts R-zoned property, in which case the minimum side setback required in the CX1 district shall be the same as required for a residential use on the abutting R-zoned lot. Comment: Most pedestrian-oriented shopping streets are lined with buildings that span the entire width of the lot. The standard proposed here will help reinforce that pattern, while also ensuring that if a CX1 district abuts a residential zoning district, a “typical” residential side yard will be provided. 110. Building Height The maximum building height shall be [38–50] feet for mixed-use buildings and [35–47] feet for all other buildings. Comment: Some communities will want to regulate height by stories rather than feet above grade, since stories will allow for greater flexibility in building design. The standards proposed allow greater height for mixed-use buildings than for single-use buildings because mixed-use buildings are required to have taller floor-to-ceiling heights on the ground floor. The proposed standards will accommodate three- or four-story buildings. 111. Off-Street Parking (1) [Insert off-street parking standards] (2) No off-street parking is required for nonresidential uses in CX1 districts unless such uses exceed [3,000] square feet of gross floor area, in which case off-street parking must be provided for the floor area in excess of [3,000] square feet. Comment: Paragraph (2) may be incorporated into paragraph (1). Exempting small retail businesses from compliance with off-street parking requirements will help promote pedestrian- oriented character and encourage use/reuse of storefront retail space. Communities should also Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 5 examine off-street parking ratios with an eye toward reducing the amount of off-street parking required overall and encouraging shared and off-site parking arrangements. (3) Off-street parking spaces must be located to the rear of the principal building or otherwise screened so as to not be visible from public right-of-way or residential zoning districts. 112. Transparency (1) A minimum of [60–75] percent of the street-facing building façade between two feet and eight feet in height must be comprised of clear windows that allow views of indoor space or product display areas. (2) The bottom of any window or product display window used to satisfy the transparency standard of paragraph (1) above may not be more than [3–4.5] feet above the adjacent sidewalk. (3) Product display windows used to satisfy these requirements must have a minimum height of [4] feet and be internally lighted. 113. Doors and Entrances (1) Buildings must have a primary entrance door facing a public sidewalk. Entrances at building corners may be used to satisfy this requirement. (2) Building entrances may include doors to individual shops or businesses, lobby entrances, entrances to pedestrian-oriented plazas, or courtyard entrances to a cluster of shops or businesses. Comment: Requiring ground-floor windows and sidewalk-facing entrances help make for a more pleasing pedestrian environment. 114. Vehicle and Driveway Access No curb cuts are allowed for lots that abut alleys. Comment: Driveways that cross sidewalks disrupt pedestrian movements and pose safety threats. They should be the rare exception in neighborhood-oriented mixed-use districts. References Denver, Colorado, City of. Div. 15. Mixed-Use Districts, Sections 59-301--59-320, website [accessed November 5, 2004]: www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10257&sid=6 Fort Worth, Texas, City of. Zoning Code, Mixed Use Sections 4.902, Low-Density Mixed Use [accessed November 5, 2004]: www.fortworthgov.org/csec/disclaimer.asp Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 6 Maryland, State of. Infill Development Model [accessed November 5, 2004]: www.mdp.state.md.us/mgs/infill/InfillFinal_1.pdf Orland, Florida, City of. Southeast Orlando Sector Plan Development Guidelines and Standards [accessed November 5, 2004]: www.cityoforlando.net/planning/deptpage/sesp/sespguid.htm Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 7 Mixed-Use Development in Theory and Practice: Learning from Atlanta’s Mixed Experiences Joshua D. Herndon Applied Research Paper Dr. William Drummond May 5, 2011 1 Table of Contents 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-2 2 Mixed-Use in Context ......................................................................................... 3-9 3 Mixed-Use in Theory ....................................................................................... 10-29 Definition ...................................................................................................... 10-14 Conceptualization ......................................................................................... 15-21 Purpose ........................................................................................................ 21-29 4 Mixed-Use in Practice .................................................................................... 30-53 Planning ....................................................................................................... 30-35 Acquisition & Entitlement ............................................................................. 35-38 Design .......................................................................................................... 38-43 Ownership & Financing ................................................................................ 43-46 Construction ................................................................................................ 46-49 Management & Operation ............................................................................ 50-53 5 Mixed-Use in Atlanta ....................................................................................... 54-84 Technology Square ....................................................................................... 56-64 Atlantic Station ............................................................................................. 65-74 Glenwood park ............................................................................................. 75-84 6 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 85-88 References ............................................................................................................. 89-93 2 1 Introduction Over the past several decades, mixed-use development has taken center stage in the urban planning and real estate development worlds. Whether it is the Congress for the New Urbanism, Smart Growth, the Compact City, or any other movement relating to the improvement of the built environment, mixing land uses is a ubiquitous component of the underlying visions and ideals. Moreover, the concept is being embraced by both the public and private sectors, and by each of the major parties involved in the real estate development process: the end users who demand space; the developers, investors, and financial institutions that supply space; and the planners and policy makers that regulate space. The reasons for the resurgence of mixed-use development are many. Among other things, traffic congestion, increasing gasoline prices, changing consumer demographics, and a longing for the sense of place and community that too many American cities lack, are all likely contributing factors. In addition, city planners are embracing the idea of mixing uses because of its potential to reduce automobile dependence, support public transit, combat sprawl, preserve open space, promote economic development, and limit the expense of providing and maintaining infrastructure in low density environments. Furthermore, developers have increasingly proposed mixed-use developments to adapt projects to infill locations, gain access to greater densities, respond to changing consumer demands, and capitalize on the synergies created by the integration of complementary uses (Rabianski, 2009). However, despite the widespread support that mixed-use development has recently garnered, its acceptance is not universal. Many people, especially residents of 1 suburban areas, see the reemergence of mixed land uses as a threat to their communities and believe that “greater density in suburban areas threatens [their] social and economic attractiveness” (Kotkin, 2010). Consequently, an interesting situation has arisen in which mixed-use development is simultaneously seen by some as a panacea for the problems facing American cities and by others as a direct assault on the American dream. Sorting the fact from the fiction and developing an in-depth understanding of both the possibilities and the limits of mixed-use development are essential if the positive aspects of the concept are to be maximized. Doing so requires the following questions to be considered: How has the arrangement of land uses changed over time? What are the necessary characteristics of a mixed-use development? What are the different ways of conceptualizing mixed-use projects? What are the goals of mixed-use development? What are the unique challenges associated with mixed-use projects? And what are the primary lessons should be learned from our experiences with mixed-use development to date? 2 2 Mixed-Use in Context The mixing of land uses has been a ubiquitous characteristic of cities and urban areas since the dawn of human civilization. Historically, the spaces required to house the essential functions of the built environment, including places to reside, socialize, and produce and distribute goods and services, were tightly intermingled because walking was the primary means of transportation (Morris, 1994). Consequently, the distances that people were able to travel on a daily basis were limited to what could reasonably be traversed on foot in the small amount of time that was available between sleeping and working. This limited both the overall size of the city and the amount of space that was available for each necessary function. In fact, a large portion of residents lived in structures that also served as their place of work, making and selling things from small shops integrated into their dwelling units. Moreover, prior to the early 19th century, almost every urban area in the world shared the following set of attributes: the primary means of transportation was walking; uses were mixed both throughout the city and within individual buildings; the population density curve was very steep, with high densities in the cities and low densities in the surrounding areas; and there was a clear, physical distinction between city and country (Jackson, 1985). The industrial revolution, however, brought about a fundamental shift in development patterns that realigned the structure of the built environment and, especially in the United States, eroded the set of common principles that historically structured urban form. This transformation was spurred primarily by five factors: industrialization, urbanization, advances in transportation, zoning ordinances, and the rise of an affluent middle class. 3 Industrialization The process of industrialization transformed America from a society based predominately on agricultural to one based on the manufacturing of goods and services. Technological advances dramatically increased the productivity of individual farm laborers, and mechanization, along with the division of labor, created industrial synergies in the mass production of goods. This had three significant implications for the built environment: first, small artisan shops were replaced with large factories that were able to take advantage of economies of scale; second, live/work dwellings were supplanted by tenements which were required to house the deluge of workers that poured into cities from rural areas; third, the rise of industrial capitalism and growth of corporate bureaucracies created the need for large amounts of clustered office space. Thus, for the first time, functions that were previously integrated into single structures were being compartmentalized into individual buildings and districts (Jackson, 1985; Mumford, 1961). Urbanization With farm laborers increasingly being replaced by technological advances in agricultural machinery, workers from rural areas began migrating en masse to cities with the hopes of finding employment in the factories. As urban populations swelled, cities were forced to grow both horizontally and vertically; horizontal growth being facilitated by increased agricultural output which decreased the amount of farmland that was needed around the city to feed its inhabitants, and vertical growth being facilitated by advances in building construction, such as steel and elevators, which 4 enabled buildings to reach heights never seen before. However, the corresponding increases in population density overwhelmed most municipalities’ inadequate sanitation infrastructure and cities became synonymous with congestion, filth, and disease. Furthermore, these horrendous urban conditions were exacerbated by the noise, pollution, and noxious odors that emanated from the multitude of factories scattered throughout most cities. As a consequence, perceptions of urban areas deteriorated and the traditional principles of urban form, such as high densities and mixed uses, developed negative connotations (Jackson, 1985; Mumford, 1961). Transportation The growing desires of city inhabitants to escape the dismal conditions surrounding them were met by a series of advances in transportation technology that served to stretch the urban fabric horizontally and began to blur the traditional distinction between urban and rural areas. These advances can be grouped into two key stages. The first was the advent of mass transportation options such as the street car. Street cars increased the distances that people could reasonably travel between their residence and their place of employment, and facilitated the development of neighborhoods on the outskirts of the city. The second, and far more powerful development, was the rise of the automobile. The introduction and acceptance of automobiles that were affordable for the average working class family allowed people to access widely dispersed uses in the same amount of time it previously took them to walk a few blocks down the street. Consequently, automobiles shattered the 5 constraints that the human stride had placed on the urban fabric and fundamentally altered the horizontal scale of the built environment (Jackson, 1985). Zoning The escalating pollution levels, safety hazards, and public health concerns that plagued industrial cities at the turn of the 19th century were addressed throughout the United States with the enactment of zoning ordinances. The intent of the regulations was to separate land uses that were deemed incompatible for the purposes of protecting the public’s health, safety, morals, and general welfare. The practice was substantiated by the Supreme Court’s landmark 1926 decision in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., to uphold the practice (Mandelker, 2008). Thus, through the compartmentalization of land uses into like functions, residential districts were separated from the noise and pollution of industry and detached from the hustle and bustle of commerce. Consequently, while in the past, specialized districts naturally evolved within cities due to economies of agglomeration, for the first time in history, cities were purposely divided into enclaves of uses completely segregated from each another. Even though there were undeniable public health benefits that initially arose from the implementation of these land use regulations, the rigidity of Euclidian zoning ordinances essentially outlawed mixed-use development and had far reaching implications on the structure of built environment (Grant, 2007). 6 Affluence The sustained increases in production that occurred as a result of the industrial revolution brought about a significant rise in average incomes and allowed Western societies to break free from the Malthusian trap that, up until that point in history, had always constrained economic growth. The subsequent rise of the middle class, combined with advances in transportation technology and government policies aimed at increasing homeownership, allowed a growing number of households to live in larger, detached homes that were far removed from the central city. The bigger homes on large, suburban lots further encouraged the advancement of horizontal, segregated growth and radically flattened the population density curve (Bruegmann, 2005). The effects that these changes had on the built environment were dramatic. As a consequence, the characteristics that describe most American cities today are essentially the antithesis of the pre-industrial city: the primary means of transportation is the automobile; uses are segregated into districts of like functions and are rarely mixed within buildings; the population density curve is flat in most places, with low densities spread throughout sprawling metropolises; and there is rarely a clear distinction between city and country. Unfortunately, in hindsight, planners, developers, and policy makers, are beginning to realize that the negative outcomes of this new urban structure far outweigh the benefits. And while few people would choose to return to city-life prior to or during the Industrial Revolution, there is a growing movement aimed at reinstating the principles of urban form that were common to pre-industrial cities. 7 The reasons for the re-emergence of these traditional urban principles are many and include a multitude of environmental, social, and economic factors. In addition, advances in infrastructural technology have addressed the sanitation issues that once made dense, mixed-use, walkable, pedestrian oriented places unsanitary. Furthermore, the sanitation and public health concerns that were the original catalyst for abandoning the historic principles of urban form, have now been replaced by a whole new set of problems. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the leading cause of death was infectious disease and, therefore, justified the focus on separating incompatible uses and reducing population densities. However, the leading cause of death has now shifted to chronic disease, which includes obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and asthma, and thus has spawned a new call to action. Consequently, planners and public health experts are beginning to work together to develop a broader understanding of how the built environment influences public health and to make decisions that are more supportive of true healthy living (Dannenberg, 2007). A key component of this “new” way of approaching urbanism is mixed-use development. However, the modern concept of mixed-use development is quite different from the historical model because it is placed within the context of euclidian zoning ordinances. Therefore, while in the past, the entire city was a mixed-use district, modern mixed-use districts are merely single tiles within a mosaic of mostly single-use zoning classifications. Additionally, unlike the mixed-use urban environments of the past, which evolved gradually over long periods of time as many different builders made incremental additions to the city, modern mixed-use projects are most often developed over a relatively short period of time by a single developer in conformance 8 with a master plan (Schwanke, 2003). These differences between the historic and modern applications of mixed-use development are important to consider when comparing the theory and practice of the concept. 9 3 Mixed-Use in Theory The shift away from the segregation of land uses and back toward the integration of them has established mixed-use development as an important paradigm in the planning and development worlds. In fact, many people actually view it as a panacea for the problems confronting our fragmented urban areas (Grant, 2002; Coupland, 1997). Consequently, mixed-use projects have been developed across the country in both urban and suburban areas and in a variety of different configurations. The ubiquity of the concept and variety of the product, however, has led to a lack of clarity regarding both what mixed-use development is and what it’s goals should be. Demystifying the concept and distilling a common theoretical framework that informs the practice of mixed-use development requires an understanding of both its core components and the strategic goals of the theory behind the concept. The construction of such a framework requires three basic questions to be addressed: What is mixed-use development? How is it conceptualized? And what is its purpose? Defining Mixed-Use Development Mixed-use development at first seems like a relatively straightforward concept. Intuitively, it suggests real estate development that combines more than one land use. However, further scrutiny reveals that the term’s apparent simplicity masks a tremendous amount of underlying complexity. Does the word “mixed” imply a certain level of integration or degree of compatibility among uses? Does the manner in which the different uses are combined, i.e. vertically in a single building or horizontally in multiple buildings on a single site, matter? Does the geographic scale of a project 10 matter? Is a certain intensity of uses required for a project to be considered mixed- use? These are all questions that must be answered if the concept is to be consistently understood and advanced. While the term frequently appears in the planning and real estate literature, the definition of mixed-use development is rarely elaborated upon. This seems to imply that there is little variation among the definitions that exist and, moreover, that the definitions that do exist are widely agreed upon. However, a thorough review of the literature contradicts this assumption, with several authors addressing the lack of clarity surrounding the topic: “The terms ‘mixed use’ or ‘mixed use development’ are widely used, but seldom defined” (Coupland, 1997); “Mixed-use development is an ambiguous, multi-faceted concept” (Rowley, 1996); “The term mixed-use development has frequently appeared in the planning literature...however this term is hardly defined” (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005); “The definition of mixed-use is not as precise as for a single property type” (Rabianski, 2009); “Although the term appears frequently in the planning literature it is rarely defined” (Grant, 2002). The ambiguity surrounding what does and does not constitute mixed-use development most likely arises from the competing perspectives of the parties involved in the debate. Developers view the concept from the project level and often consider any development which contains more than one use as a mixed-use project. Planners typically have a larger frame of reference, but seem to care less about the details of the definition and more about the intent behind the concept. Experts and academics push for a more specific definition both for research purposes and also with the goal of reducing the chances of the concept being tarnished by failed projects which don’t 11 actually embody the key principles of mixed-use development (Popovec, 2006). However, while all this disagreement would suggest that a plethora of definitions have been developed, that is not the case. There are actually only two definitions that are consistently referenced in the literature, but the similarities and differences between the two highlight the broader areas of agreement and ambiguity. The first definition was developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the other was recently derived from the results of a cross-organizational survey conducted by several real estate industry groups. ULI’s Definition The definition espoused by ULI is probably the most prevalent definition of the term. In 1976, ULI was the first organization to address the concept in-depth with the publication of their first book on the topic entitled Mixed-Use Developments: New Ways of Land Use, and while the concept has evolved over the years, their original definition has essentially remained in tact. Currently, the second edition of their Mixed-Use Development Handbook characterizes mixed-use development as consisting of: •three or more significant revenue-producing uses (such as retail/entertainment, office, residential, hotel, and/or civic/cultural/recreation) that in well planned projects are mutually supporting; •significant physical and functional integration of project components (and thus a relatively close-knit and intensive use of land), including uninterrupted pedestrian connections; and 12 •development in conformance with a coherent plan (that frequently stipulates the type and scale of uses, permitted densities, and related items) (Schwanke, 2003). In addition, ULI makes a point of distinguishing between mixed-use development and what it refers to as “multi-use” development. While both concepts include a variety of uses, multi-use development lacks the integration, density, and compatibility of land uses required to create a walkable community with uninterrupted pedestrian connections between the various project components. Additionally, ULI specifies that mixed-use must include at least three integrated uses and each of them must be substantial enough to attract a significant market in their own right; which excludes uses that simply serve as amenities for a primary use (Schwanke, 2003). Thus, projects that contain several uses but lack pedestrian connectivity, such as master planned communities in the suburbs that require an automobile to traverse, do not meet their requirements for mixed-use. The same is true for two-use projects, such as multi-story residential projects in urban areas with a relatively small amount of ground-level retail space. Industry Survey Definition The other definition commonly referenced in the literature is the product of a cross-organizational survey done in the fall of 2006 by the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC), the National Association of Industrial and Office Properties (NAIOP), the Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA), and the 13 National Multi Housing Council (NMHC). The purpose of the survey was to identify the fundamental characteristics of mixed-use development and the results were synthesized to produce the following definition: A mixed-use development is a real estate project with planned integration of some combination of retail, office, residential, hotel, recreation or other functions. It is pedestrian-oriented and contains elements of a live-work-play environment. It maximizes space usage, has amenities and architectural expression and tends to mitigate traffic and sprawl (Niemira, 2007). Thus, if this definition is overlaid upon the ULI definition, the primary areas of ambiguity regarding the required characteristics of mixed use become apparent. For example, a major discrepancy between the two definitions is the minimum number of uses required to be considered mixed-use; the ULI definition designates three, while the industry definition implies only two. This discrepancy is representative of the larger debate regarding whether a development that contains only two uses, but which meets the other core requirements qualifies as mixed-use or if it is simply multi-use (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005; Popovec, 2006). Additionally, the components included in the industry definition, but excluded from ULI’s, such as architectural expression, traffic mitigation, and sprawl reduction, emphasize the blurry boundary between the necessary components of mixed-use development and the potential characteristics or effects of individual mixed-use projects. 14 While overlaying the definitions upon one another highlights the uncertainties, it also illuminates the components of mixed-use development that are generally agreed upon. First, the project must consist of multiple uses that are physically and functionally integrated and which are substantial enough to attract their own markets. Second, the project must maximize space through intensive land use and be oriented toward the pedestrian. Third, each component of the project must conform to an overarching, coherent plan. These three principles make up the core of the consensus regarding mixed-use development and distinguish it from both single-use and multi- use development. Conceptualizing Mixed-Use Development Once the core principles are established, the next step in understanding what mixed-use development is, is conceptualizing the variety of ways that mixed-use projects can be manifested in physical space. This requires the consideration of factors such as the function of the individual land uses, the manner in which multiple uses can be combined, and the scale at which a mixing of uses can occur. However, just as defining mixed-use development has provoked debate, so has the conceptualization of it. Likewise, there are two conceptual models which are consistently referenced in the literature. The first typology was developed by Alan Rowley (1996) and the second was created by Eric Hoppenbrouwer and Erik Louw (2005) in an effort to expand upon Rowley’s ideas. 15 Rowley’s Typology The conceptual model of mixed-use development created by Alan Rowley (1996) is based on the view that mixed-used development is essentially an aspect of the internal texture of settlements. This model focuses on mixed-use in the horizontal dimension, or between adjacent buildings, and proposes that the physical form of mixed-use development is a function of urban texture, setting, and location. Rowley proposes that the urban texture of a settlement is the product of three things: grain, density, and permeability. The grain of a settlement refers to the manner in which the various elements of a settlement are mixed together in space. A fine grain refers to a settlement where like elements are widely dispersed among unlike elements and a course grain denotes settlements where extensive areas of one element are separated from extensive areas of another element. Moreover, an abrupt transition from a cluster of like elements to unlike elements is referred to as a sharp grain and a gradual transition is referred to as a blurred grain (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005). Density refers to the amount of space or number of units contained within a certain area and is a measure of the intensity of land uses. Permeability refers to the number of possible routes a pedestrian has to choose from as he/she moves through a given area. This is a function of the layout of the roads, the corresponding size and shape of the blocks, and the placement and design of the buildings and public spaces within each block. In addition to urban texture, Rowley also inserts setting or spatial scale into his model, making distinctions between buildings, blocks, streets and districts. Moreover, he distinguishes between four types of locations where mixed-use 16 development can occur: (1) city or town centers comprising the commercial and civic core of towns and cities; (2) inner-city areas on sites comprising derelict, vacant or built-up land needing regeneration; (3) suburban or edge-of-town locations; and (4) greenfield sites out past the urban fringe. Furthermore, Rowley (1996) includes three other components in his conceptual model. First, he points out that public policy and regulations, property markets, and cultural ideas and values are external factors that influence the form of mixed-use development. Second, he recognizes that activities and land uses within mixed-use projects generate different degrees of vitality, a characteristic he refers to as the transactional quality of a use. Lastly, Rowley acknowledges an important time dimension because different uses produce activity on varying time schedules and any one facility can be shared by multiple users over any given time period. The result of the complex interactions of these variables is what he terms a “mixed-use situation.” However, Rowley’s model focuses solely on the horizontal dimension and, while he acknowledges the time dimension in his paper, it is not adequately incorporated into his model. Hoppenbrouwer and Louw (2005) recognize the need to consider the vertical dimension, as well as a mix of uses within a single structure and different uses of a space over some period of time. Consequently, their typology expands upon Rowley’s and integrates the components in a more systematic way (Rabianski, 2009). Hoppenbrower and Louw’s Typology Hoppenbrouwer and Louw’s (2005) model is developed from a spatial perspective and is organized by function, dimension, scale, and urban texture. The 17 18 Figure 1: Rowley’s Mixed-Use Model Source: Rowley, 1996 function component of mixed-use development refers to the individual land uses that are being mixed, and while their typology utilizes housing (residential) and working (office) for the sake of simplicity, the model is flexible enough to be extended to any other combination of uses. The dimension component is composed of four elements: (1) the shared premise dimension, (2) the horizontal dimension, (3) the vertical dimension and (4) the time dimension. In addition, just as in Rowley’s model, a scale component is included in the typology; however, the method of subdivision is different, with Hoppenbrouwer and Louw’s scale component being broken down into the building, block, district, and city levels. Moreover, urban texture was carried over from Rowley’s model, but instead of grain, density, and permeability, their model is made up of grain, density and the interweaving of functions. Hoppenbrouwer and Louw (2005) also point out that the inclusion of other components in addition to function, dimension, scale, and texture, such as location (town center, suburban, greenfield, etc.) or employment and housing types, might be helpful in conceptualizing mixed use development. Moreover, they recognize that formulations of mixed-use development are insufficient in terms of urban design alone; that “it also comprises other non-design features such as the urban experience, the nature of uses, definitions of public and private, conflict and security” (Hoppenbrouwer, 2006). However, they felt that such formulations could continue ad nauseam and would only serve to over complicate the model. Likewise, they reference Kevin Lynch in Good City Form when he articulates, “a good environment is a place which affords obvious and easy access to a moderate variety of people, goods, and settings…this variety can be expanded if a person wishes to expand further energy, [but it’s] an explorable world, 19 20 Figure 2: Hoppenbrouwer and Louw’s Mixed-Use Model Source: Hoppenbrouwer, 2005 whose vast diversities can be sought out or ignored at will” (Lynch, 2000, p. 192). In sum, mixed-use development is far from a standardized product form (Rabianski, 2007). It can differ by the nature and combination of uses, the dimension in which the uses are being mixed, the scale at which the mix of uses is occurring, and the urban texture that is created both within the development and throughout the surrounding area. Moreover, there are a variety of other factors that influence the conceptualization of mixed-use development and, consequently, there are a near infinite amount of possible mixed-use configurations and characteristics. However, it is this lack of monotony that distinguish mixed-use developments from other product types. Purpose of Mixed-Use Development Determining what the purpose of mixed-use development is not nearly as difficult as defining or conceptualizing it, but the process is still more complicated than for other types of real estate development. After all, the same question is not asked of the traditional development products: residential development serves the purpose of providing housing for the residents of a given area; office development serves the purpose of providing space for administrative, clerical, professional, and a variety of other business activities; and retail development serves the purpose of providing space for the showcasing and sale of goods and services to consumers. More specifically, each traditional real estate product provides space for an individual and necessary function of modern day society. The same can not be said for mixed-use development. 21 Instead, mixed-use development is a strategy for arranging the physical space that is required for society to function. Moreover, the modern conception of mixed-use is predicated on the practice of segregating land uses through Euclidian zoning policies, which have contributed to undesirable growth patterns characterized by the following: •Unlimited outward and "leapfrog" expansion of low-density new development; •Large-scale development of open space and environmentally sensitive lands; •Ever worsening traffic congestion and air quality caused by intensive automobile use; •Costly requirements to expand roads, sewers, water systems, and other infrastructures outward, rather than utilize and upgrade the networks that are already in place; •Isolated neighborhoods and communities which lack vibrancy and a sense of place; •Inadequate public transportation and a lack of other public amenities (Downs, 2005). Thus, the primary goals of mixed-use development revolve around the desire to alter the current patterns of urban growth and rectify the detrimental effects that Euclidian zoning and sprawl have had on urban areas. Furthermore, it “forms part of a strategy for sustainable development as well as a theory of good urban form, with the objectives of economic vitality, social equity, and environmental quality” (Grant, 2002). 22 The specific ways in which mixed-use development advances these goals can be distilled from a sampling of the various books, articles, and zoning codes that elaborate on the benefits of integrating land uses. In his book Reclaiming the City: Mixed Use Development, Andy Coupland (1997) quotes John Gummer, the former U.K. Secretary of State for the Environment, who explained why the U.K. government was increasingly supporting mixed-use development as follows: The emerging consensus is that development is more sustainable if it produces a mixture of uses. Segregation of land uses, encouraged in the past, is not relevant now. The trend back to mixed usage brings a number of potential benefits. It ensures vitality through activity and diversity. It makes areas safer. It also reduces the need to travel, making people less reliant on cars, bringing welcome environmental benefits. Diversity of uses adds to the vitality and interest of town centers. Different but complementary uses, during the day and in the evening can reinforce each other, making town centers more attractive to residents, businesses, shoppers and visitors (DoE, 1995a). Coupland (1997), and subsequently Hoppenbrouwer and Louw (2005), also cite the following diagram that was created by the UK Department of the Environment (DoE, 1995b) to illustrate the benefits of mixed-use development: 23 In addition, Hoppenbrouwer and Louw (2005) reference the following passage from the New Charter of Athens, which was developed by the European Council of Spatial Planners (ECSP): The principle of mixed use should be promoted, especially in city centers, so as to introduce more variety and vitality into [the] urban fabric. Housing and work 24 Figure 3: Benefits of mixed-use development Source: Coupland, 1997 areas, as well as other compatible uses, should be closely related in time and space so as to reduce the need to travel, conserve energy and reduce pollution (ECSP, 2008). Furthermore, the City of Atlanta (2002) cites the following reasons, among others, for the implementation of its Mixed Residential Commercial (MRC) Zoning District: The city finds there is a need…to preserve and restore existing, traditional and pedestrian scale buildings in established, historic neighborhood districts, as well as create new pedestrian oriented commercial nodes…to encourage a balanced mix of uses to include proportionately significant residential uses and to facilitate safe, attractive and convenient pedestrian circulation…to improve air quality by promoting walking and reducing the number of vehicular trips…[and] to establish adequate parking requirements by encouraging shared parking arrangements. Lastly, and perhaps most comprehensively, the Smart Growth Network (2011) includes mixed-use development as one of its ten principles for smart growth, and summarizes the relationship between smart growth and mixed land uses as follows: Smart growth supports the integration of mixed land uses into communities as a critical component of achieving better places to live. By putting uses in close 25 proximity to one another, alternatives to driving, such as walking or biking, once again become viable. Mixed land uses also provide a more diverse and sizable population and commercial base for supporting viable public transit. It can enhance the vitality and perceived security of an area by increasing the number and attitude of people on the street. It helps streets, public spaces, and pedestrian-oriented retail again become places where people meet, attracting pedestrians back onto the street and helping to revitalize community life. Mixed land uses can [also] convey substantial fiscal and economic benefits. Commercial uses in close proximity to residential areas are often reflected in higher property values, and therefore help raise local tax receipts. Businesses recognize the benefits associated with areas able to attract more people, as there is increased economic activity when there are more people in an area to shop. In today's service economy, communities find that by mixing land uses, they make their neighborhoods attractive to workers who increasingly balance quality of life criteria with salary to determine where they will settle. Clearly there are a variety of reasons being asserted for why mixed-use development is essential to the revitalization of urban environments. The benefits run the gamut from restoring neighborhood vibrancy to improving air quality, and reducing chronic disease to increasing economic activity (Grant, 2002). However, Coupland (1997) points out that “while some of the advantages of mixed-use can be accepted as absolute, others may or may not be true in certain circumstances.” Therefore, since it is 26 not certain that all of the benefits associated with mixed-use development are guaranteed to occur, it is important to distinguish between the guaranteed and potential benefits of mixing land uses. Assuming that the space for each individual use is occupied, the effects of mixed-use development on a given area which are guaranteed to occur include accessibility to a greater diversity of uses, higher densities of people and space, and longer periods of pedestrian activity throughout the day. Each of these effects is typically perceived to be a benefit for urban areas, and together they provide the foundation needed for all the other proposed benefits to arise; however, by themselves they can not guarantee that they will. Furthermore, these benefits only extend to the periphery of each individual mixed-use development. Thus, for the desired large scale changes to occur, in addition to uses being integrated within individual projects, mixed- use developments must be integrated both with their surrounding areas and with each other. The benefits of mixed-use development which are not guaranteed to occur include safer, vibrant neighborhoods, less traffic, reduced air pollution, improved public health, and increased economic activity, among many other things. While each of these is certainly a possible benefit of mixed-use development, they can not be assured because each is reliant upon factors external to the mere presence of a mixed-use development. For example, having numerous uses within a close distance creates a situation where it is reasonable for people to walk or ride a bicycle to their desired destination. This reduces people’s need to rely solely on their automobiles for transportation, and assuming that they choose to take advantage of that opportunity, 27 has the ability to reduce the amount of cars on the road. Fewer automobiles on the road will likely lead to less traffic congestion and lower volumes of air pollutants entering the atmosphere. This in turn has the potential to improve air quality and benefit public health. However, each of these benefits is predicated on three external factors: first, the uses within the mixed-use development must align with the needs of the people residing in and around it; second, the people must actually decide to walk or bike to their destination instead of drive; and third, the amount of people driving to the development from other areas must not negate the benefits created by the residents of the development choosing to walk. Likewise, each of the other possible benefits is dependent upon a wide range of variables that can not be planned for or predicted. Consequently, besides the direct effects that mixed-use development has on the built environment, the benefits can not be automatically assumed. Rowley (1996) summarizes this point by asserting that “mixed land use and development is being officially promoted as essential to the creation and maintenance of attractive, livable and sustainable urban environments. However, mixed-use development should not be seen as an automatic panacea: for example, it cannot be divorced from cultural priorities and lifestyles.” In sum, it is important to realize that mixed-use development alone can not solve all of society’s problems, but it certainly is a tool that can be used to help create and sustain better urban environments (Hoppenbrouwer, 2005). Jane Jacobs, whose work is cited by many as a key reason for the resurgence of mixed-use development over the past few decades (Grant, 2002; Hoppenbrouwer, 2005; Rabianski, 2009; Rowley, 28 1996), identifies four indispensable conditions that great urban environments must possess. Her preconditions are: 1.The district, and indeed as many of its internal parts as possible, must serve more than one primary function; preferably more than two. These must ensure the presence of people who go outdoors on different schedules and are in the place for different purposes, but who are able to use many facilities in common. 2.Most blocks must be short; that is, streets and opportunities to turn corners must be frequent. 3.The district must mingle buildings that vary in age and condition, including a good proportion of old ones so that they vary in the economic yield that they produce. This mingling must be fairly close grained. 4.There must be a sufficiently dense concentration of people, for whatever purposes they may be there. This includes dense concentration in the case of people who are there because of residence. (Jacobs, 1961, pp. 150-51) Taking Jacob’s criteria into consideration, it is clear that mixed-use development plays a pivotal role in the emergence of quality urban areas. It is also clear that there are other factors besides a mixture of uses which interact to bring life and character to urban areas. In the end, however, there are few things as important to a healthy urban area as having a wide variety of uses drawing a wide variety of people at a wide variety of times throughout the day. 29 4 Mixed-Use in Practice In theory, there are many upsides to mixed-use development. However, in practice, the system of land use regulations, construction guidelines, financial underwriting standards, and various other processes that govern real estate development are still tailored to the single-use real estate products that dominated the past half century. As a result, mixed-use projects present developers with increased complexity and risk at every stage of the development process. Whether it is the planning, entitlement, design, financing, construction, or operation of a mixed-use project, understanding where the obstacles lie and how to overcome them is essential for a successful development. Planning All development projects, regardless of whether or not they are mixed-use, begin with an idea. The same is true for both successful projects and failures. The planning process is what takes that rough idea, hones it into something that can actually become a reality, and hopefully, if done properly, sets the project up for success. While the planning process is ubiquitous to all real estate development, it is much more complex and much less forgiving for mixed-use projects. A successful mixed-use development requires a capable and diverse development team, a clear set of objectives, sound and thorough market analysis, an innovative development strategy, accurate financial models, and a whole lot of creativity. 30 Team Selection An inexperienced development team is rarely capable of carrying out the complex undertaking of a mixed-use project. Even seasoned developers, designers, architects, and other real estate professionals whose experience is limited to single-use projects, have the deck stacked against them when it comes to mixed-use development. Therefore, it is imperative that the master developer assemble a diverse team that is intimately familiar with a wide variety of uses and the complex issues that arise specifically with mixed-use projects (Schwanke, 2003). Especially during the planning and design phases, it is essential to receive input from a variety of sources, including the leasing agents, property managers, market experts, financial analysts, capital providers, marketing consultants, major tenants, development partners, construction contractors, public officials, and the surrounding community. As ULI points out: Each participant’s input should relate not only to a specific use or issue but also to the overall project concept and operation. This collaborative team approach can be one of the most important aspects of the planning process, because no one person is likely to have a complete understanding of the detailed design and operational issues for all the project’s uses and elements (Schwanke, 2003). Goal Determination The complex nature of mixed-use development requires that a common set of objectives be distilled and adopted by the development team at the outset of the 31 project. This is often a difficult task given the inherent diversity of the team members and the differing objectives of the numerous stakeholders involved in the development process. However, to ensure that the project moves forward as expeditiously as possible, it is important that each party makes an effort to understand the other parties’ objectives and that compromises are reached. In addition, while both financial and non-financial goals need to be clearly identified, it is often more essential to the success of the project that the vision, or non-financial objectives, be explicitly stated at the beginning of the planning process (Schwanke, 2003). This ensures that the multitude of decisions that must be made over the course of the development are guided by a common set of ideals, which reduces the likelihood of the development team making noncohesive decisions. Market Analysis Conducting a comprehensive market analysis for a mixed-use project is imperative for determining the supply and demand for each project component and creating a successful development program. While these statements apply to single- use projects as well, the complexity of the analysis increases with the number of development components. This is because different geographies and market areas have to be considered for each specific on-site use. Likewise, each use must be analyzed with regard to its own supply and demand situation and should be able to attract sufficient market demand to make it financially feasible in its own right (Rabianski, 2009). 32 After determining if there is a sufficient market for each use, the developer should consider the potential market synergies from on-site support. ULI identifies three kinds of market synergy that can be achieved with mixed-use projects. The first type of market synergy is derived from direct on-site market support. This would include residents, office workers, and hotel guests frequenting the retail and restaurant components of the project. The second type of synergy involves the indirect benefits that the uses provide to each other as amenities. “For example, retail and hotel uses do not directly generate revenues for office tenants or residents, but they can serve as important amenities for those uses” (Schwanke, 2003). Finally, the third kind of synergy is derived from the potential of mixed-use development to create a unique sense of place and establish a new destination within the urban landscape (Schwanke, 2003). However, while the potential for market synergies should always be considered, it is unwise to depend on their impact to any large degree. Strategy Creation The creation of a viable mixed-use development strategy requires the consideration and alignment of a multitude of factors. The complexity and magnitude of this undertaking make it essential that input is received from each member of the development team. Additionally, a successful strategy often requires several alternative programs to be developed and tested against each other. Mixed-use projects typically “require several iterations until the best fit is found; the program must be marketable, feasible, and financeable, and must also be able to receive public approval. This latter 33 fact should not be underestimated, as the approval process can substantially affect the final program” (Schwanke, 2003). Moreover, in addition to creating a profitable mix of uses, the development strategy must synchronize the phasing and timing of each component of the project. This requires a thorough understanding of the market for each use and also a solid familiarity with the construction process and local building regulations. Project phasing also requires close coordination with the architects and engineers because building design often affects the ability to phase the delivery of project components. For example, “if multiple uses are going to share mechanical and fire safety systems, then the entire project may need to be completed simultaneously to obtain certificates of occupancy for any portion of the project” (Kirk, 2007). Feasibility Analysis Evaluating the financial feasibility of a mixed-use project can be much more complex than for a single-use development. This is primarily because mixed-use projects usually involve costs and revenues that are harder to predict. While some cost efficiencies may be achieved through mixing uses, the complexity of integrating multiple uses into a single structure may raise development and operating costs. Likewise, the synergy created by placing complementary uses in close proximity to each other may increase cash flows, but poor timing on the delivery of a certain project component may lead to increased vacancy and lower rents. Moreover, the added complexity of a mixed-use development often equates to longer development timelines, which heightens uncertainty and increases risk (Rabianski, 2009). While it is 34 impossible to predict exactly how much costs and revenues will vary on any given project, acknowledging the greater likelihood of miscalculations and incorporating larger contingency funds into the budget is often vital to the financial success of a mixed-use project. Additionally, it is important to perform separate financial analyses for each use and ensure that each is feasible in its own right (Schwanke, 2003). Since financial feasibility is simply when “the return on the investment meets or exceeds the required return of the developer and/or the investor” (Rabianski, 2009), each use being financially feasible does not imply that each use will perform equally well. Instead, each use just needs to meet its required return, which can vary among project components. The temptation is often to let uses that are expected to perform well make up for uses that are expected perform poorly, but that can be dangerous if the cornerstone use doesn’t perform as expected. The key for the development team is to analyze several alternative development programs and find the concept that they feel most comfortable with from a feasibility perspective (Schwanke, 2003). Acquisition & Entitlement The process of acquiring the land and gaining the entitlements necessary for a mixed-use project can present the development team with numerous challenges. Land acquisition often involves assembling multiple, separately owned parcels in good locations. Regulatory approvals require negotiations with various governmental entities and departments. And gaining community support requires building relationships with an often skeptical public and convincing them that a mixed-use development would 35 have a positive impact on their neighborhood. Rombouts (2006) identifies the following strategies for overcoming these obstacles: “Implementing an active community outreach program early; working closely with city planning and building officials; being fully informed on planning and performance of residential/retail mixed-use developments; understanding the community and its political dynamics; having project proponents actively engaged, especially on the retail side; identifying and communicating community benefits; and reaching out to and working closely with local media.” Land Assembly Mixed-use projects often require relatively large sites to be assembled from numerous parcels held by multiple landowners. This is especially the case in urban areas. Occasionally, a developer already owns the land and is seeking to take advantage of changing market conditions and development opportunities. Additionally, if the public sector is involved and is pushing the project, the process can be expedited because they have the ability to use condemnation proceedings if necessary, but that is usually not the case either. Typically, the developer must first target the owners of key parcels, then approach each one and attempt to diplomatically negotiate sales agreements. Since market factors determine the price of land, developers must have a good understanding of the expected costs and revenues of the proposed project and be able to negotiate a purchase price that does not compromise the financial viability of the development (Schwanke, 2003). Mixed-use developers also need to be open to 36 alternative acquisition strategies such entering into a land lease if the owner is unwilling to part with the land. Regulatory Approval In many municipalities, the approval process for mixed-use developments is often difficult, time-consuming, and fraught with uncertainty; all of which escalate the risks and costs associated with mixed-use projects. Depending on the specific city and location of the site, getting the property rezoned to allow multiple uses and higher densities can be a nightmare. Whether it is the city worried about traffic increases and impacts on infrastructure, or NIMBYism from local residents, the rezoning process for mixed-use projects is often contentious and usually requires the services of a real estate attorney (Rabianski, 2009). Moreover, even if the project site already has the desired zoning, certain aspects of the plan may not conform to the regulations and variances may have to be sought. A common source of contention with new urbanist mixed-use projects is street widths. New urbanism advocates for narrow streets, tight turning radii, and on-street parking, but local municipalities and state DOTs are often vehemently opposed to such designs. Occasionally, if compromises can not be reached, the developer must privatize some or all of the streets, bestowing significant maintenance costs on future residents and tenants. Furthermore, another difficult situation affecting the approval process involves high-profile projects that require approvals from various levels of government and multiple jurisdictions (Schwanke, 2003). Since the effects of large projects are likely to 37 ripple throughout an entire region, many mixed-use projects must be reviewed by multiple municipalities and regional bodies, adding yet another layer of complexity to the approval process. Community Support The time, cost, and effort required to gain community support for a mixed-use project is usually much greater than for a smaller single-use project. In order to foster and sustain a public environment conducive to project approval, the development team must gain the trust and support of the community. While there is no single solution for gaining public support, honesty and a willingness to listen and address community concerns are essential. Developers often make the mistake of trying to impose their vision on the community, but conducting neighborhood meetings and incorporating ideas and suggestions from the local residents is usually a better way of generating buy-in for the project (Rombouts, 2006). In addition, mixed-use developments usually have the potential to have a substantial impact on an area, so it is important to understand the goals of the local community and include them in the project proposal. Evaluating the contextual history and crafting development strategies that respond to an area’s built, social, and natural environments conveys to the public that their interests are being considered. Design Mixed-use developments are often confronted with unique design challenges that go far beyond the architectural and engineering concerns of typical sing-use real 38 estate projects. Moreover, managing a design process that often involves several different designers for each individual project component, in addition to receiving input from local municipalities, community groups, building operators and a variety of other sources, is a formidable task (Schwanke, 2003). Parking, public spaces and streetscapes, the integration and interrelationship of elements, pedestrian circulation and connectivity, and creating a sense of place are just a few of the design elements that are crucial to the success of a mixed-use project. Parking Program Parking is a crucial component of most mixed-use developments and can have a significant impact on the project’s aesthetics, operational efficiency, and overall success. As ULI points out, “form follows parking” and incorporating large amounts of parking into an attractive and functional mixed-use project is a major design challenge (Schwanke, 2003). In addition, accommodating the parking needs of each of the different uses can be difficult. Residents want secure parking that is separate from the commercial uses; hotels want spaces that are dedicated to the valet; office users wants individual reserved spaces; and retailers want free and abundant parking that is close to store entrances. Moreover, estimating the total demand for parking is much more complex for mixed-use projects given the different activity cycles for each use. However, shared parking is often an option that can be both financially and logistically appealing if designed properly (Rombouts, 2006). To be successful, the parking program for mixed-use developments cannot be overlooked and must be given the same amount of thought and attention as the rest of the project. 39 Public Space While single-use developments occasionally incorporate a public space component, the nature of mixed-use projects, including the number of functions, scale of buildings, and size of budgets, make it possible to create and justify a larger, more substantial public realm. Whether the public spaces consist of urban plazas, squares, town greens, parks, gardens, promenades, courtyards, or streetscapes, designing an attractive and engaging public realm is often vital to the success of a mixed-use development. The reason for the increased importance of the public realm in mixed- use projects is its ability to shape the interrelationship of uses within the project, solidify the development’s incorporation into the surrounding area, and amplify the visual connections between spaces (Schwanke, 2003). In large mixed-use projects, the design and location of streets, sidewalks and parks is actually just as important as the design and location of the buildings (Angotti and Hanhardt, 2001). Component Integration There is nothing more fundamental to the success of a mixed-use development than the proper integration of the project’s various components. Creating a harmonious relationship while placing different uses in close proximity to each other requires understanding the needs of each use and translating each of those needs into a coherent design scheme. That includes providing efficiently functioning infrastructure, including parking, utilities, services, and effective mechanical, electrical, and structural systems, that are capable of servicing each component’s differing demands (Schwanke, 2003). The different operating and activity cycles of each use must also be 40 accommodated and potential conflicts avoided through forethought and proactive design. The most common design considerations being: “noise abatement by soundproofing between uses; separate residential and commercial parking areas; screened loading and dock areas; odor suppression and ventilation for restaurants; and separate access for residential and office users from retail customers for security and privacy” (Rabianski, 2009). Moreover, the potential of mixed-use development to create synergies from the various uses can only be capitalized on if the project components are properly aligned. The design and position of each use must be thought out so that the uses perform as a whole and benefit from one another. This is often accomplished by situating complementary uses around common areas and public space, separating the uses that draw the largest numbers of people to encourage a consistent flow of pedestrians throughout the entire development, ensuring there are coffee shops and restaurants that serve lunch close to the office buildings, and placing dry cleaners and other everyday service providers are located next to the residential components. Pedestrian Connectivity One of the primary characteristics that distinguish a mixed-use development from a single or multi-use project is pedestrian connectivity both within the project and with the surrounding areas. The pedestrian orientation of mixed-use projects is a stark contrast to the automobile orientation of most other types of real estate development and requires significant thought to be put into the arrangement and design of the buildings and open spaces. The goal should be to ensure easy and effective pedestrian 41 access to each of the project components and to and from the relevant adjacent areas (Schwanke, 2003). A key component of an effective pedestrian network is a well-designed central open space. Whether it is a main street, central plaza, or some other type of public space, a central open space facilitates spatial orientation and provides strong visual connections and sight lines for pedestrians. Additionally, it is important to establish a clear hierarchy of streets, paths, and open spaces that radiate out from the central open space to create visual interest and draw people into the different areas of the development (Schwanke, 2003). Moreover, permeability, or the number of different routes that a pedestrian has to choose from, should be maximized through a grid structure and small block sizes. Sense of Place The design process for a mixed-use project is ultimately an exercise in place making, not just real estate development. As mentioned earlier in this paper, place making can be described as “the creation of vibrant, distinctive, pedestrian-friendly urban environments through the effective design and integration of a mix of uses” (Schwanke, 2003). So, while in the past, unique places within cities organically evolved over time, the challenge for mixed-use projects today is to instantaneously create unique places that feel authentic and possess a variety of distinctive characteristics that draw pedestrians back again and again. The place making process requires a thorough understanding of the local culture and built environment, as well as a common vision that combines the unique aspects 42 of the local community with principles of good urban and architectural form. Moreover, successfully creating a sense of place within a mixed-use development requires a painstaking attention to detail that often separates projects that feel artificial from projects that feel genuine. Wether it is older, more mature street trees, varying architectural styles and building facades, quirky streetscape furniture, unique lamp posts and lighting, narrow street widths with on street parking, or any other design characteristic, successful place making in mixed-use development often lies in the details (Field, 2008). Ownership & Financing As is the case with every type of real estate development, the realization of a mixed-use project ultimately comes down to finding the necessary investment capital. However, conventional investment practices favor standardization and conformity, and overtime the real estate industry has been distilled into 19 standard product types. These categories are made up of the single-use products that have defined America’s built environment for the past half century. Unfortunately, mixed-use development does not fit into one of these standard financing categories, often making it much harder and more expensive to secure the necessary capital for the project (Leinberger, 2003). Moreover, lenders often require complex ownership structures to be created for the purposes of expanding exit strategies and making it easier to foreclose on individual components of the project. For these reasons, identifying the optimal method of structuring ownership and securing financing for a mixed-use development requires careful consideration on the part of the development team. 43 Ownership Structure The ownership structure of a mixed-use development can have a significant impact on the development teams ability to secure financing “If the developer wants to use a single construction financing source, the lender will seek a single borrower entity that owns all projects components, such as a limited liability company, the members of which are the separate equity investors in the project components” (Rabianski, 2009). However, if the developer wants to utilize separate financing sources for each major component of the project, multiple special purpose entities would be created, with each assigned ownership of a certain project component. The purpose of structuring ownership in this way is to create a more flexible exit strategy with the ability to sell different components of the project at different points in the development cycle (Rabianski, 2009). “The developer faces similar tradeoffs and complications when pursuing permanent financing. The larger loan associated with permanent financing on the entire property may be more attractive to many lenders; however, unless the mortgage contains lease provisions, individual loans on each property type parcel will give the owner greater flexibility in exit strategies (Wieden, 2007). When a single construction loan has separate take-outs for the project components, the construction lender is dependent upon each of the permanent lenders to accomplish full take-out of the loan. The condominium form of ownership will allow the construction lender to foreclose and sell only the single-use component on which the take-out commitment failed rather than foreclose and sell the entire mixed-use project (Kane, 2004)” (Rabianski, 2009). 44 Capital Sources Securing the needed debt and equity capital for mixed-use projects is difficult for a variety of reasons. Compared with most single-use projects, mixed-use developments often require larger capital requirements, more financing sources, higher equity requirements, more complicated underwriting, a longer development period, and more financial involvement from the public sector (Schwanke, 2003). However, the sources of funds themselves are the same as for single-use projects; the investors usually just have different requirements for mixed-use developments. Financing any real estate project begins with equity, and equity in a project originates with a developer’s own capital. Since most developers can’t meet the equity requirements on their own, and even if they could, wouldn’t want that much of their money at risk, the remainder of the capital comes from equity partners. These investors may include developers and private property companies, wealthy individuals and limited partnerships, pension funds, investment advisory firms using pension fund money, insurance companies, REITs, opportunity funds, investment banks, commercial banks (especially in Europe), and other private investment entities” (Schwanke, 2003). The remainder of the required capital, usually 70% of the total project cost for mixed-use developments, is covered by debt financing. The vast majority of debt financing is provided by commercial banks, insurance companies, savings institutions, the CMBS industry, and finance companies. Additionally, a variety of public financing tools may be available for mixed-use developments that meet certain criteria set by the government. Although, many of these financing tools require that the project be located in special districts created by 45 the local municipality, such as improvement districts or reinvestment zones, and usually require certain criteria to be met (Rabianski, 2009). Furthermore, tax abatement programs, development bonds, and bonds from tax increment financing (TIF), known as tax allocation districts (TAD) in Georgia, may be available for the construction of certain types of facilities and infrastructure (Kirk, 2007). Construction The construction of a mixed-use project presents the development team, and construction service providers in particular, with a number of unique challenges. Many of these issues are related to the integration of multiple uses into a single structure and must be first addressed by the architects and engineers in the planning and design stage of the development processes. These issues often include incorporating separate points of ingress and egress for each use, aligning the different floor plans and structural requirements of various uses, and integrating the multiple sets of building systems usually needed for each use. However, there are several challenges that can not be easily resolved through thoughtful design. Potential issues that must be addressed on the construction site by the superintendent or project manager include ensuring that the proper building standards for each use are followed by the contractors, effectively managing the construction schedule for a complex project in which problems will inevitably arise, and coordinating a much larger number of sub- contractors than is typically utilized on a single-use project (Bergeron, 2007). 46 Building Standards Building codes typically vary for each of the components included in a mixed- use development and the added complexity often creates difficulties for the contractors and subcontractors tasked with constructing the project. Even though the construction documents produced by the design team should specify the materials and standards to be used for each component, the drawings and specifications are not always correct, and regardless, it can be a challenge keeping everything straight on the job site. Moreover, mixed-use projects often encounter situations where it is difficult to know which standards to apply; such as for the common areas of a building that includes retail, hotel, office, and residential uses, or for the partitions that separate each use. Life safety and fire separation issues are especially important, and working with the inspectors and fire marshall to figure out the proper fire rating or sprinkler systems to use in each situation can cause significant delays and unforeseen expenses (Bergeron, 2007). Additionally, there are construction best practices for mixed-use developments that usually fall outside the requirements of most building codes, but which can have a significant impact on the success of a project. Specifically, adequate amounts of sound attenuation and odor suppression must be incorporated into the project to prevent certain uses from becoming nuisances to other uses (Rabianski, 2009). Likewise, the subcontractors responsible for the installation of those systems have little room for error and must make sure that everything is installed properly. Seemingly insignificant mistakes like small gaps left in the sound batting between uses or accidental screw 47 holes made in a ventilation pipe can have serious implications down the road when the tenants and residents are moved in. Construction Schedule The construction schedule for a mixed-use development typically spans a longer timeframe than for a comparably sized single-use project. The reason for the extended schedule is the increased complexity experienced at nearly every stage of the mixed- use construction process. Whether it is complicated below-grade parking structures that are integrated into the building’s foundation, independent sets of building systems that must be installed separately for each use, or any other unique design characteristic that pushes contractors outside of their comfort zone, the potential for problems on mixed-use projects is sky high. As a result, the development team, and specifically the construction project manager, must be extra vigilant to ensure that the project stays on track and on budget (Bergeron, 2007). Furthermore, on top of the increased complexity and extended construction schedules, it is often much more important to avoid delays and complete mixed-use projects on time. The increased pressure to finish on schedule originates from the fact that to be successful, mixed-use developments need to hit the ground running. This is a result of both the high carrying costs associated with mixed-use projects and the nature of mixed-use synergies which require a majority of the space for each use to be filled and open for business. Consequently, the marketing and promotion efforts for a mixed-use project typically begin very early on in the life of the project. This is both to begin building awareness and excitement around the project and to start attracting 48 quality retailers, office users, and residents (Schwanke, 2003). But with so much hype leading up the completion of the project, setbacks and delays are impossible to conceal and can cast negative light on the project. Contractor Coordination Coordination of the numerous contractors and subcontractors involved with the construction of a mixed-use project can be a logistical nightmare. Determining which sub is doing what and identifying when and where they are doing it requires a significant amount of organization and management skills. While some construction divisions, such as the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing trades, are typically handled by a single subcontractor, it can be difficult to find subs that have the necessary breadth of experience and skill needed to tackle each component of a large mixed-use project. Consequently, separate subcontractors are often brought in to handle each use. With multiple subs working on different uses it is critical that the superintendent effectively communicate to each sub their respective responsibilities and ensure that everything is properly integrated. Moreover, the project manager must ensure that the scopes of the contracts for each sub do not overlap and result in duplicate or repetitive work, but also must make sure that nothing is overlooked and not covered by any of the scopes, which could result in gaps in the overall work product (Bergeron, 2007). 49 Management & Operation The complexity and challenges of mixed-use development do not fade once the project is completed. Instead the challenges persist as the development transitions from a project to a property. While a single-use property, such as an office building, condominium tower, or retail center, requires one set of practices for facilities upkeep, rent, accounting and other management factors, the same cannot be said for mixed- use properties (Marsh, 2006). Combining retail, hotel, office, multi-family, and any other use into a single property changes the management and operations significantly. “Each component of a mixed-use property has different demands and needs and property managers have to find a way to make the entire property operate efficiently” (Marsh, 2006). The successful management and operation of a mixed-use property requires the following questions to be addressed: What are the needs of each individual use? How should operating costs be allocated to each user? And how should operating responsibilities be designated? Need Identification A typical mixed-use property contains at least three separate components and each possesses distinct operation, management, and maintenance requirements. In a way, managing a mixed-use property can be like operating a small city; there are many different stakeholders with different motivations and concerns, and the needs of each stakeholder must be considered and balanced with everyone else's (Schwanke, 2003). The challenges can be especially difficult if uses that are not complementary and which have radically different operating needs are permitted into the development. However, 50 even complementary uses can have very different needs. “For example, a large retail component requires significantly different security arrangements, parking operations, waste removal, cleaning and delivery schedules, promotion, and events management from an office or residential component” (Schwanke, 2003). Cost Allocation The allocation of costs related to the management and operation of a mixed-use development to each of the property’s components can be a complicated process. The primary issues arise when trying to determine each use’s prorated share of expenses related to common area use and maintenance, impact on utility and infrastructure systems, and use of other common services. “Specific issues to be considered for each land use might include the following: the rate at which shared utilities are expected to be consumed; the traffic anticipated to be generated by each user on common roads; whether there will be limitations on the hours that each land user can operate; the expected costs of maintaining, insuring, and operating common property, facilities, and services; and the extent to which any land use will need to be monitored for security” (Weissman, 2000) As a result of the inherent difficulty in predicting actual use, common expenses are often allocated among property components on the basis of a generic formula such as square footage. The problem is that these simple formulas often do not accurately reflect the impact of each use. Moreover, once these formulas are put in place, they are usually very difficult alter, typically requiring the unanimous consent of all property owners. (Weissman, 2000) 51 Responsibility Designation There is no simple formula for determining the optimal operations, management, and maintenance structure for a mixed-use property. Rather, the designation of responsibilities must reflect the objectives of each major component and the particular nature of each project, which for mixed-use properties often requires complex management structures (Schwanke, 2003). However, when possible, centralized management is usually the preferred structure and is often utilized to maintain common areas and building exteriors, manage shared parking areas, and provide a variety of other commonly needed services. The benefit of a single entity is the efficiency gains from eliminating many of the coordination and communication issues experienced with dispersed responsibilities. The key is to find a property manager that has the required knowledge, experience, and personnel to effectively operate a property containing a mixture of uses (Marsh, 2006). While a centralized management structure is often preferred, it does not, preclude the allocation of operations, management, and maintenance to individual property components (Schwanke, 2003). Moreover, there are some situations where centralized management is not the desired strategy. This is usually the case when participants have substantially different operating needs and require significantly different types or levels of services. Additionally, public officials will often insist that the public component of a mixed-use property that operates under a public/private partnership, is managed and maintained by the public sector (Schwanke, 2003). 52 In sum, mixed-use development in practice is fraught with increased complexity and risk at each stage of the development process. Moreover, those complexities and difficulties differ for each project, and consequently, mixed-use development does not lend itself to the formulaic approach that many single-use real estate products enjoy (Schwanke, 2003). While experience with developing mixed-use projects certainly allows a developer to better predict where problems will arise and, to the greatest extent possible, address those issues in the planning and design stages of the development process, it is impossible to create a standardized product that can be applied to any situation. “Each project and situation is different, and concepts and outcomes vary dramatically, depending on the particular site, market, developer, urban designer, and financing” (Schwanke, 2003). However, the inability of mixed-use developments to be standardized and conform with the norms of the real estate finance world is part of what makes the concept so appealing to so many different groups of people. As Trischler (2001) states, “one of the most insidious problems with all development is the tendency to blindly follow the latest trends and fads without tailoring them to [each project’s] unique situation.” The great thing about mixed-use development is that the nature and scope of mixed-use projects make it much more difficult to continue building the monotonous single-use projects that currently dominate so much of the American landscape. 53 6 Conclusions Mixed-use development remains an ambiguous concept. In theory, there are debates regarding its definition and conceptualization, in addition to arguments over its guaranteed and potential benefits. In practice, real estate professionals involved with mixed-use projects are confronted with added complexity and risk at nearly every stage of the development process. However, despite the uncertainty associated with the concept, mixed-use development has garnered a significant amount of attention and praise over the past several decades and, most likely, will continue to play a pivotal role in the real estate and planning worlds for some time to come. The reason for mixed-use development’s rise to prominence is its potential to relatively quickly recreate the type of well structured urban environments that were regrettably abandoned over the course of the 20th century. In the past, mixed-use cities evolved gradually over centuries. The transformation of those dense, mixed-use urban areas into sprawling, monotonous metropolises occurred over many decades. The hope is that by incorporating a mixture of uses into single development projects, the process of once again restructuring our urban environments will be expedited. However, simply combining a variety of different uses within individual development projects will not automatically lead to the reemergence of quality, pedestrian-oriented urban areas. Moreover, even well designed mixed-use projects can struggle to generate the returns needed to succeed from a financial perspective. Ensuring that future mixed-use developments live up to the concept’s expectations requires planners and real estate professionals to absorb the lessons that each completed project has to offer. In this vein, four essential criteria for creating successful 85 mixed-use developments can be distilled from the three Atlanta case studies described in detail above. First, the project must be led by a diverse and experienced development team that is bound together by a common vision and is able to effectively communicate with one another. The success of both Glenwood Park and Technology Square can be directly attributed to the high degree of team work, collaboration, and professionalism that characterized the respective development teams. Moreover, both teams had a clear vision that guided decision making throughout each of the development processes. Atlantic Station, however, continues to suffer as a result of the development team’s lack of experience with mixed-use projects and their failure to develop a clear vision at the outset of the project. Second, the development team must create a master plan that responds to the project site’s unique environment, creates a distinct sense of place, maximizes pedestrian activity, and integrates a variety of synergistic uses into the existing urban fabric. These characteristics are not only vital to the long term success of the project, but also to gaining the trust and support of the local community at the beginning of the development. The context-sensitive and pedestrian-oriented design of Technology Square has transformed a blighted portion of Midtown into a well-integrated and unique destination that has been embraced by both Georgia Tech and the surrounding community. Additionally, Glenwood Park would not be what it is today if the master plan had not inspired the local neighborhoods to support the development team as they fought to get the city’s zoning regulations changed. Additionally, Atlantic Station’s 86 lack of a distinct sense of place and poor integration of uses has unfortunately resulted in it being negatively perceived by many people within the local community. Third, the project’s capital structure must allow the development team to retain control of their vision and be able to absorb setbacks from unforeseen challenges that are likely to arise. Each of the three Atlanta projects that were highlighted faced a variety of unforeseen challenges throughout the development process. The underlying capital structure of each project had a significant impact on the development team’s ability to deal with the issues while staying true to their vision for the project. Green Street Properties was able to fund Glenwood Park without having to utilize outside equity or bank debt. That allowed them to avoid having to make compromises on the project’s design and has resulted in a truly unique destination within the city. In contrast, the massive size and scope of Atlantic Station required significant debt financing from both the public and private sectors, and consequently, the lenders’ preferences for less risky national retailers has resulted in the development feeling more like an outdoor mall than a unique in-town neighborhood. Fourth, the project must incorporate a physical design and legal structure that allows the project to evolve over time and change as needed. The ability to change with the times and accommodate a wide range of future uses ensures that even if a project is not successful in the short-term, it has the opportunity to succeed in the long-term. So, while Atlantic Station might have a number of different issues that need to be addressed, the development was recently purchased by a group that has a new vision for the property and the project now has the opportunity to be reinvented. However, in order for a property to evolve into something better than its current state, 87 the physical components must be able to be altered and the ownership structure and lease agreements must allow for the necessary changes to be made. In sum, mixed land uses were an essential aspect of cities throughout most of human history. It was only during the early to mid 20th century that the growing pressures of technological and societal revolutions resulted in an alternative option being embraced. However, after several decades of living with the negative consequences of that alternative, a movement to reintroduce the mixed-use urban environments of the past has gained traction (Grant, 2004). Transforming the system that has governed planning and real estate development in America for the past half- century will undoubtedly be difficult, but such a transformation has occurred before and if recent trends hold, it is definitely possible. However, due to the variety of variables that influence the quality of urban areas, it will take much more than mixed- use development alone to bring about the widespread changes that are desired. In the end, “mixed use cannot resolve all the problems of the city, but cities that lack mixed use cannot hope to enjoy long-term prosperity or viability” (Grant, 2004). 88 References Angotti, T. and Hanhardt, E. (2001). Problems and Prospects for Healthy Mixed-use Communities in New York City. Planning Practice & Research, 16(2): 145-54. Atlantic Station. (2011). Atlantic Station - About. Retrieved 4/1/2011, from http:// www.atlanticstation.com/concept.php. Bergeron, A. (2007). Mixed-Use Developments: New Construction Trend Invades South Central Region. South Central Construction. Retrieved 2/15/2011, from http:// southcentral.construction.com/features/archive/2007/0708_feature2.asp. Brown, W. (2009). In Herndon J. (Ed.), Personal communication. Buntin, S. (2005). Glenwood Park - Atlanta, Georgia. Terrain.org. Retrieved 4/1/2011, from http://www.terrain.org/unsprawl/17/. City of Atlanta (2002). Code of Ordinances: Part 3-Land Development Code. Sec. 16-34.002. Bruegmann, R. (2005). Sprawl: A Compact History. Chicago, University of Chicago Press. Cooperative Conservation America. (2011). Atlantic Station Redevelopment: Using Smart Growth Studies to Lower Emissions. Retreived 4/8/2011, from http:// www.cooperativeconservationamerica.org/viewproject.asp?pid=498. Coupland, A. (1997). Reclaiming the City: Mixed Use Development. London, E & FN Spon. Dannenberg, A., Edwards, R., et al. (2007). Leveraging Law and Private Investment for Healthy Urban Redevelopment. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 35: 101-105. 89 Downs, A. (2005). Smart Growth. Journal of the American Planning Association. 71(4): 367-380. Department of the Environment. (1995a). PPG13: A Guide to Better Practice. HSMO, London. Department of the Environment. (1995b). Putting quality back into towns and city centres, (press release, 24 July) DoE, London. Dover, Kohl & Associates. (2006). Glenwood Park Atlanta, Ga. Retrieved 4/5/2011 from http://www.doverkohl.com/files/pdf/Glenwood%20Park_low%20res.pdf ECTP (1998) New Charter of Athens; the principles of ECTP for the planning of cities (London: ECTP). Environmental Protection Agency (2011). Atlantic Station: Atlantic Steel Site Redevelopment Project. Retrieved 4/2/2011, from http://www.epa.gov/ smartgrowth/topics/atlantic_steel.htm. Field, K. (2008). Design of the Times: Mixed use involves careful crafting of multiple elements. Chain Store Age: 106-108. Georgia Institute of Technology. Technology Square. Office of Real Estate Deveopment. Retrieved 4/3/2011 from http://www.realestate.gatech.edu/techsqr/. Grant, J. (2002). Mixed Use in Theory and Practice: Canadian Experience with Implementing a Planning Principle. Journal of the American Planning Association 68(1): 71 - 84. Grant, J. (2007). Chapter 3. Encouraging mixed use in practice. In GJ Knaap, HA Haccou, JW Frece (eds), Incentives, Regulations and Plans: the role of states and nation-states in smart growth planning, Edwin Elgar Publishers UK, pp 57-76. 90 Green Street Properties. Glenwood Park: From Greyfield to Green Community. Retrieved 4/6/2011, from http://greenstreetproperties.com/glenwood-park Hoppenbrouwer, E. and Louw, E. (2005). Mixed-use development: Theory and practice in Amsterdam's Eastern Docklands. European Planning Studies. 13(7): 967-983. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, Random House. Jones Kendall, J. (2006). Glenwood has perfect recipe for urban success. Atlanta Business Chronicle, 1-2. Kelley, Collin. (2011). Mark Toro Talks about Atlantic Station Evolution. Atlanta INtown. Retrieved 4/12/2011, from http://www.atlantaintownpaper.com/2011/02/mark- toro-talks-about-atlantic-station-evolution/. Kirk, P. (2007). Mixed-use Musings. Urban Land, 66(8): 84-90. Kotkin, J. (2010). The Broken Ladder: The Threat to Upward Mobility in the Global City. Legatum Institute. Leinberger, C. (2008). Sprawl to Meets It Limit in Atlanta. Atlanta Journal-Constitution. November 5, 2008. Retrieved April 1, 2011, from http://www.ajc.com/services/ content/opinion/stories/2008/11/05/leinbergered.html Lynch, K. (2000). Good City Form. Cambridge, MIT Press. Mandelker, D, et al. (2008). Planning and Control of Land Development: Cases and Materials. Newark: Lexis Nexus/Matthew Bender. Marsh, A. (2006). Mixed Management: Mixed-Use Property Managers Juggle Varying Tenant Needs. Commercial Property News: 23. Mijanovich, A. (2011). In Herndon J. (Ed.), Personal communication 91 Miller, Jason. (2006). Evolution of a Brownfield. Town Paper Publications. Retrieved 4/12/2011, from http://www.tndtownpaper.com/Volume8/ evolution_of_brownfield.htm. Morris, A. (1994). History of Urban Form Before the Industrial Revolutions. Longman Scientific. Mundy, B. and Condra, S. (2005). Atlantic Station: Partnerships, Progress, Protection. Retrieved 4/2/2011, from http://www.astswmo.org/files/meetings/ 2005BrownfieldsSymposium/Atlantic%20Station%20Site%20Atlanta%20GA.pdf. Niemira, M. P. (2007). The Concept and Drivers of Mixed-use Development: Insights from a Cross-Organizational Membership Survey. Research Review. 4(1): 53-56. Papa, R. (2008). Atlantic Station Case Study. Western Pennsylvania Brownfield Center. Popovec, J. (2006). The Great Debate. Retail Traffic Magazine. Retrieved 10/31/2010, from http:// retailtrafficmag.com/mag/retail_great_debate/index.html. Rabianski, J. and Clements, J. (2007). Mixed-Use Development: A Review of Professional Literature. The National Association of Industrial and Office Properties Research Foundation. Rabianski, J., Gibler, K., et al. (2009). Mixed-Use Development: A Call for Research. Journal of Real Estate Literature 17(2): 205-230. Rombouts, C. (2006). The Challenges of Mixed Use. Urban Land, Urban Land Institute. Rowley, A. (1996). Mixed-use Development: ambiguous concept, simplistic analysis and wishful thinking. Planning Practice & Research. 11(1): 85-98. Schwanke, D., Phillips, P., et al. (2003). Mixed-Use Development Handbook, Second Edition. Washington, D.C., ULI - The Urban Land Institute. 92 Smart Growth Network. Principles of Smart Growth - Mix Land Uses. Retrieved 11/04/2010, from http://www.smartgrowth.org/about/principles/principles.asp? prin=1. Trischler, T. (2001). In the Mix: Determining What Uses Work Together Most Successfully. Development Magazine. NAIOP. Weissman, S. (2000), Lawyering the New Urbanism, Urban Land. ULI. 84-89, 116-117. 93 4.1 MODEL MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT ORDINANCE The following model zoning district provisions represent a commercial zoning classification that permits, rather than mandates, a vertical mix of commercial and residential uses within the same building. The district is intended to accommodate a physical pattern of development often found along village main streets and in neighborhood commercial areas of older cities. Primary Smart Growth Principle Addressed: Mix land uses Secondary Smart Growth Principle Addressed: Compact building design CX1, Neighborhood Commercial, Mixed-Use District 101. Purpose The purposes of the CX1, Neighborhood Commercial, Mixed-Use District are to: (1) Accommodate mixed-use buildings with neighborhood-serving retail, service, and other uses on the ground floor and residential units above the nonresidential space; (2) Encourage development that exhibits the physical design characteristics of pedestrian- oriented, storefront-style shopping streets; and (3) Promote the health and well-being of residents by encouraging physical activity, alternative transportation, and greater social interaction. 102. Definitions As used in this ordinance, the following words and terms shall have the meanings specified herein: “Floor Area Ratio” means the ratio of a building’s gross floor area to the area of the lot on which the building is located. “Gross Floor Area” is the sum of the gross horizontal areas of all floors of a building measured from the exterior faces of the exterior walls or from the centerline of walls separating two buildings. Gross floor area does not include basements when at least one- half the floor-to-ceiling height is below grade, accessory parking (i.e., parking that is available on or off-site that is not part of the use’s minimum parking standard), attic space having a floor-to-ceiling height less than seven feet, exterior balconies, uncovered steps, or inner courts. “Mixed-use Building” means a building that contains at least one floor devoted to allowed nonresidential uses and at least one devoted to allowed residential uses. 103. Allowed Uses Uses are allowed in “CX1” zoning districts in accordance with the use table of this section. U S E G R O U P Zoning District Use Category Specific Use Type CX1 P= permitted by-right C = conditional use N = Not allowed U S E G R O U P Zoning District Use Category Specific Use Type CX1 P= permitted by-right C = conditional use N = Not allowed R E S I D E N T I A L Household Living Artist Live/Work Space located above the ground floor P Artist Live/Work Space, ground floor C Dwelling Units located above the ground floor P Detached House C Multiunit (3+ units) Residential C Single-Room Occupancy C Townhouse C Two-Flat C Group Living Assisted Living C Group Home P Nursing Home C Temporary Overnight Shelter C Transitional Residences C Transitional Shelters C P U B L I C A N D C I V I C Colleges and Universities P Cultural Exhibits and Libraries P Day Care P Hospital N Lodge or Private Club N Parks and Recreation P Postal Service P Public Safety Services P Religious Assembly P School C Utilities and Services, Minor P Utilities and Services, Major C C O M M E R C I A L Adult Use N Animal Services Shelter/Boarding Kennel N Sales and Grooming P Veterinary P Artist Work or Sales Space P Drive-Through Facility [See comment] C Eating and Drinking Establishments Restaurant P Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 2 U S E G R O U P Zoning District Use Category Specific Use Type CX1 P= permitted by-right C = conditional use N = Not allowed Tavern C Entertainment and Spectator Sports Small (1–149 seats) P Medium (150–999 seats) N Large (1,000+ seats) N Financial Services P Food and Beverage Retail Sales P Gas Stations N Lodging Small (1–16 guest rooms) P Large (17+ guest rooms) C Medical Service P Office P Parking, Commercial (Nonaccessory) C Personal Service, including health clubs and gyms P Repair Service, Consumer, including bicycles P Residential Storage Warehouse N Retail Sales, General P Vehicle Sales, Service, and Repair N I N D U S T R I A L Manufacturing, Production and Industrial Services Artisan (hand-tools only; e.g., jewelry or ceramics) C O T H E R Wireless Communication Facilities Co-located P Freestanding (Towers) C Comment: This use table should be refined to reflect local characteristics and planning objectives. The range of uses allowed should be kept as broad as possible in order to ensure that the district is economically viable. Note that this model allows, as a conditional use, drive- through facilities. Drive-through facilities may be appropriate in such areas in connection with banks and pharmacies. Whether to allow them is a policy choice, no different than other policy choices in selecting permitted uses. Also keep in mind that in buildings with residential units, commercial use issues will be largely self-policing because owner associations and builder/developers will ensure that commercial uses in mixed-use buildings will be compatible with upper-story residential uses. 104. Commercial Establishment Size Limits The gross floor area of commercial establishments in the CX1 district shall not exceed [15,000] square feet. Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 3 Comment: Floor area limits are proposed in the model ordinance to help ensure that allowed commercial uses would be geared toward a neighborhood market area. Some local ordinances impose much more restrictive floor area limits in neighborhood-oriented districts. The limit proposed in this model ordinance would accommodate a modern drug store. If floor area limits are employed, the standards should not be so restrictive as to hamper the economic viability of the district. 105. Indoor/Outdoor Operations All permitted uses in the CX1 district must be conducted within completely enclosed buildings unless otherwise expressly authorized. This requirement does not apply to off-street parking or loading areas, automated teller machines, or outdoor seating areas. 106. Floor-to-Floor Heights and Floor Area of Ground-floor Space (1) All commercial floor space provided on the ground floor of a mixed-use building must have a minimum floor-to-ceiling height of [11] feet. (2) All commercial floor space provided on the ground floor of a mixed-use building must contain the following minimum floor area: (a) At least [800] square feet or [25] percent of the lot area (whichever is greater) on lots with street frontage of less than [50] feet; or (b) at least 20 percent of the lot area on lots with [50] feet of street frontage or more. Comment: In areas with strong residential real estate markets, ground-floor space is sometimes viewed as an afterthought, particularly when developed by those with a poor understanding of mixed-use development. These types of provisions can help ensure that ground-floor space will meet the needs of future retailers and not sit vacant for years after upper-floor residential units have been leased or sold. 107. Lot Area per Unit (Density) The minimum lot area per dwelling unit shall be [1,000] square feet for mixed-use buildings and [1,500] square feet for all other buildings. Comment: If mixed-use buildings are desired, such buildings should be rewarded with more flexible development standards. The model ordinance allows higher residential densities in mixed-use buildings than it does in single-use buildings. 108. Floor Area Ratio The maximum FAR shall be [2.0] for mixed-use buildings and [1.25] for all other buildings. Comment: To encourage mixed-use buildings, the model ordinance allows higher FARs for mixed-use projects. Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 4 109. Setbacks (1) The entire building façade must abut front and street side property lines or be located within [10] feet of such property lines. Comment: Rather than mandating a zero-foot “build-to” line for all properties in CX1 zoning districts, this model offers flexibility to accommodate shallow building setbacks that are sometimes necessary to accommodate features such as outdoor seating/display areas, stoops and sidewalk widening. Alternately, it is possible for the ordinance to establish a formula to determine setbacks based on the average setback of buildings in a block face. For an example of this, see Section 108 of the Model Town Center Ordinance (below). (2) The minimum rear setback is [0–30] percent of the lot depth. Comment: The appropriate minimum building setback will depend on lot and development patterns in the area. When alleys abut the rear of CX1 lots, no rear setback may be necessary, except perhaps for upper floors. On the other hand, when CX1-zoned lots will abut the rear property line of residential lots, buildings in the CX1 district should be set back from rear property lines in order to protect the privacy and open feeling expected within residential rear yards. (3) No interior side setbacks are required in the CX1 district, except when CX1-zoned property abuts R-zoned property, in which case the minimum side setback required in the CX1 district shall be the same as required for a residential use on the abutting R-zoned lot. Comment: Most pedestrian-oriented shopping streets are lined with buildings that span the entire width of the lot. The standard proposed here will help reinforce that pattern, while also ensuring that if a CX1 district abuts a residential zoning district, a “typical” residential side yard will be provided. 110. Building Height The maximum building height shall be [38–50] feet for mixed-use buildings and [35–47] feet for all other buildings. Comment: Some communities will want to regulate height by stories rather than feet above grade, since stories will allow for greater flexibility in building design. The standards proposed allow greater height for mixed-use buildings than for single-use buildings because mixed-use buildings are required to have taller floor-to-ceiling heights on the ground floor. The proposed standards will accommodate three- or four-story buildings. 111. Off-Street Parking (1) [Insert off-street parking standards] (2) No off-street parking is required for nonresidential uses in CX1 districts unless such uses exceed [3,000] square feet of gross floor area, in which case off-street parking must be provided for the floor area in excess of [3,000] square feet. Comment: Paragraph (2) may be incorporated into paragraph (1). Exempting small retail businesses from compliance with off-street parking requirements will help promote pedestrian- oriented character and encourage use/reuse of storefront retail space. Communities should also Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 5 examine off-street parking ratios with an eye toward reducing the amount of off-street parking required overall and encouraging shared and off-site parking arrangements. (3) Off-street parking spaces must be located to the rear of the principal building or otherwise screened so as to not be visible from public right-of-way or residential zoning districts. 112. Transparency (1) A minimum of [60–75] percent of the street-facing building façade between two feet and eight feet in height must be comprised of clear windows that allow views of indoor space or product display areas. (2) The bottom of any window or product display window used to satisfy the transparency standard of paragraph (1) above may not be more than [3–4.5] feet above the adjacent sidewalk. (3) Product display windows used to satisfy these requirements must have a minimum height of [4] feet and be internally lighted. 113. Doors and Entrances (1) Buildings must have a primary entrance door facing a public sidewalk. Entrances at building corners may be used to satisfy this requirement. (2) Building entrances may include doors to individual shops or businesses, lobby entrances, entrances to pedestrian-oriented plazas, or courtyard entrances to a cluster of shops or businesses. Comment: Requiring ground-floor windows and sidewalk-facing entrances help make for a more pleasing pedestrian environment. 114. Vehicle and Driveway Access No curb cuts are allowed for lots that abut alleys. Comment: Driveways that cross sidewalks disrupt pedestrian movements and pose safety threats. They should be the rare exception in neighborhood-oriented mixed-use districts. References Denver, Colorado, City of. Div. 15. Mixed-Use Districts, Sections 59-301--59-320, website [accessed November 5, 2004]: www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=10257&sid=6 Fort Worth, Texas, City of. Zoning Code, Mixed Use Sections 4.902, Low-Density Mixed Use [accessed November 5, 2004]: www.fortworthgov.org/csec/disclaimer.asp Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 6 Maryland, State of. Infill Development Model [accessed November 5, 2004]: www.mdp.state.md.us/mgs/infill/InfillFinal_1.pdf Orland, Florida, City of. Southeast Orlando Sector Plan Development Guidelines and Standards [accessed November 5, 2004]: www.cityoforlando.net/planning/deptpage/sesp/sespguid.htm Sec. 4.1 Model Mixed-Use Zoning District Ordinance Model Smart Land Development Regulations Interim PAS Report ©American Planning Association, March 2006 7 Tentative Future Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION City of Hermosa Beach NOVEMBER 17, 2015 7:00 P.M. Project Title Public Notice Meeting Date Date Rec’d Remarks Whether “elevator housing” should be eliminated from the list of elements that are excepted from the height limit. 11/5 11/17 9/16 Discussion regarding convex slope determination (per 6/16/15 PC action) 11/5 11/17 9/18 39 Pier Avenue, Palmilla — Conditional Use Permit amendment and Parking Plan to an existing ‘late night’ restaurant with an outdoor patio and on-sale general alcohol. 11/5 11/17 715 2nd Street— Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Parcel Map #73564 for a 2-unit residential condominium. 11/5 11/17 9/21 f:b95\cd\Planning Commission Tentative Future Agenda 10/15/15 14c Easy Reader Run Date: October 8, 2015 DISPLAY Acct: 7010-2110 City of Hermosa Beach PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Hermosa Beach shall hold a public hearing on Tuesday, October 20, 2015, to consider the following: 1. Conditional Use Permit and Parking Plan to allow on-sale beer and wine from 11:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. daily in association with limited food service in the first floor common area at an existing 81 room hotel at 2515 Pacific Coast Highway, Hotel Hermosa; and determine the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 2. (1) Precise Development Plan to allow a 29,544+ square foot hotel with 30 rooms and common areas on an undeveloped 11,516+ square foot lot at 1429 Hermosa Avenue; (2) Conditional Use Permit to allow on-sale general alcohol (mini-bars) in guest rooms and in common areas for hotel guests; (3) Parking Plan to allow a valet program and parking in tandem; and adoption of an environmental Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan. 3. Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 73616 for a three-unit residential condominium project on two lots, one previously determined to be convex sloping, at 650-704 Loma Drive, and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. 4. Conditional Use Permit, Precise Development Plan and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 73205 for a two-unit residential condominium project, at 710-712 Ardmore Avenue, and determination that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. SAID PUBLIC HEARINGS shall be held at 7:00 P.M., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254. ANY AND ALL PERSONS interested are invited to participate and speak at these hearings at the above time and place. For inclusion in the agenda packet to be distributed, written comments of interested parties should be submitted to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, in care of City Hall at 1315 Valley Drive, Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 prior to Thursday, October 15, 2015, at 12:00 noon. All written testimony by any interested party will be accepted prior to or at the scheduled time on the agenda for the matter. IF YOU CHALLENGE the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at, or prior to, the public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, please contact the Community Development Department, Planning Division, at (310) 318-0242 or fax to (310) 937-6235. The Department is open from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. Please contact a staff planner to discuss any project on the Planning Commission agenda. A copy of the staff report(s) in the Planning Commission packet will be available for public review at the end of the business day on Thursday, October 15, 2015, at the Hermosa Beach Police Department, Public Library, and on the City’s website at www.hermosabch.org. Relevant Municipal Code sections are also available on the website. Elaine Doerfling City Clerk f:95\cclerk\legads\display\2015\planning\pc10-20-15 Artesia Blvd ± Projects Zoning MapPlanning Commission Meeting October 20, 2015 ZONING DESIGNATIONSR-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-1A LIMITED ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-2B LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL R-P RESIDENTIAL-PROFESSIONAL RPD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT R-3PD MULTIPLE FAMILY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL C-2 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL C-3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-3/AH-O GENERAL COMMERCIAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVERLAY M-1 LIGHT MANUFACTURING OS OPEN SPACE OS-1 RESTRICTED OPEN SPACE OS-2 RESTRICTED OPEN SPACE OS-O OPEN SPACE OVERLAY MHP MOBILE HOME PARK SPA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (RESIDENTIAL USES) SPA SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (COMMERCIAL USES) 2515 Pacific Coast Hwy (Hotel Hermosa)CUP, Parking PlanZone: C-3 710-712 Ardmore Ave2 Unit CondoZone: R-2 650-704 Loma Dr3 Unit CondoZone: R-2 1200 Artesia Blvd(Verizon Wireless)CUPZone: C-2 1429 Hermosa Ave(Boutique Hotel)Precise Development Plan,Parking Plan, CUPZone: C-2