CITY OF LOS' ANGELES

Transcription

1 FORM GEN. 160A (Rev. 1/82) CTY OF LOS' ANGELES NTER-DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE 959 Seward St DOT Case No. CEN Date: August 29, To: Hadar Plafkin, City Planner Qepartment of City Planning F rom: Subject: Mike Bag eri, Transportatll7H~tt::l Department of Transportation TRAFFC MPACT STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED OFFCE PROJECT. LOCATED AT 959 SEWARD STREET The Department of Transportation (LADOT) has reviewed the traffic study, prepared by traffic consultant Crain and Associates, dated March 2007, for a proposed office project) located on the southwest. corner of Romaine Street and Seward Street. The study analyzed 18 intersections and determined that eleven of the study intersections would be significantly impacted by the project related traffic (see Attachment 1 and Attachment 2). The study could not find acceptable mitigation measures for ten of the eleven impacted intersections..~ DSCUSSON AND FNDNGS Project Description. ~~/ The proposed project consists of a new 237,568 square-foot (SF) office building with a 4,000 SF restaurant. The existing site is currently vacant. The project will provide 710 parking spaces in a new parking structure. Access to the site will be provided by a twoway driveway on Seward Street and on Romaine Avenue. The project is expected to be complete by Year Trip ~eneration The project will generate approximately 2,337 net daily trips with 336 net trips in the AM peak hour and 310 net trips in the PM peak hour (see Attachment 3). Significant Traffic mpact Locations The proposed project will experience a significant traffic impacts at the following locations:

2 Hadar Plafkin -2- August 29, Highland Avenue and Sunset Boulevard 2. Highland Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard 3. Cahuenga Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard 4. Santa Monica Boulevard and Vine Street 5. Gower Street and Santa Monica Boulevard 6. Sew,ard Street and Willoughby Avenue 7. ' La BreC:l.Avenue and Melrose Avenue 8. Highland Avenue and Melrose Avenue 9. Melrose Avenue and Seward Street 10. Melrose Avenue' and Rossmore AvenueNine Street 11. Gower Street (North) and Melrose Avenu~ PROJECT REQUREMENTS A. Melrose Avenue and Rossmore AvenueNine Street (Attachment 4). Restrip~ northbound and southbound Rossmore Avenue and install a new northboufld right-turn only lane. The proposed improvement is acceptable to LADOT and would mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance. B. Seward Street and Willoughby Avenue nstall a new traffic signal to replace the existing stop-controlled intersection. f a new traffic signal is found to be warranted by the LADOT Hollywood Witshire District office, the developer shall pay the cost of planning, design, and, construction of a new traffic signal through the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) B-permit process. The proposed improvement, if approved, would mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance. 4 C. Santa Monica 86tl'evard and Vine Street Widen and restripe southbound Vine Street to provide a right-turn only lane. The proposed improvement is unacceptable because the widening required to accommodate the improvement would reduce the existing sidewalk to less than the standard width. No other alternative improvement is available, and the intersection remains impacted. D. Gower Street and Santa Monica Boulevard Widen and restripe southbound Gower Street to provide a right-tum only lane. The proposed improvement is unacceptable because the widening required to accommodate the improvement would reduce the existing sidewalk to less than the

3 Hadar PJafkin -3- August 29, 2007 standard width. No other alternative improvement is available and the intersection remains impacted. E. Highland Avenue and Sunset Boulevard Highland Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard Cahuenga Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard La Brea Avenue and Melrose Avenue Highland Avenue and Melrose Avenue Melrose Avenue and S~ward Street Gower Street (North) and Melrose Avenue No feasi~le improvement measures were idt?ntified for the above intersections and they remain significantly impacted. F. Constru'ction mpacts LADOT recommends that a construction work site traffic control plan be submitted to LADOT for revlew and approval prior to the start of any construction work. The plan should show the location of any roadway or sidewalk closures r traffic detours, haul routes, hours of operation, protective devices, warning signs and access to abutting properties. LADOT also recommends that all construction related traffic be restricted to off-peak hours. G. Highway OedicationAnd Street Widening Requirements Barton Avenue, Romaine Street, and Seward Street are all classified as a Local Streets which require a 2D-foot half-width roadway on a 3D-foot half-width right-of- -~ way. t appears that additional highway dedication and street widening may be required. forthe proposed~roject. The developer must check with the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) Land Devejppment Group to defermine the highway dedication, street widening and sidewalk requirements for the project. H. Transportation Demand Management (TOM) and Trip Reduction Measures LADOT recommends that the-project comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. re8,700 in order to reduce some of the project trips. The applicant shall record a covenant and agreement to monitor and to submit annual reports on the progress. of the TOM plan to LADOT. Annual reports shall include a report on the van/bus ridership, and other transit-related measures.. Hollywood Area mprovements Given that there are 10 intersections which would remain significantly impacted due to lack of feasible physical improvements, DOT strongly believes that the project should be required to contribute to improving the area-wide transportation system as means to compensate for the unmitigated traffic impacts at these 10 intersections. f the project, as proposed, is approved with "over-riding

4 Hadar Plafkin -4- August 29, 2007 considerations'\ DOT recommends that applicant be required to participate in a proportionate fair share cost program to fund other area-wide transportation improvements currently being considered as part of the Hollywood Community Plan update process to improve multi-modal mobility, transit ridership, demand management and walkability. Prior -to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall be required to coordinate with DOT in identifying potential measures and determining the appropriate level offinancial participation. Furthermore, prior to the issuance of any occupancy permits, the applicant shall be required to pay the amount of fair share contribution identified. The following is a partial list of potential improvements for fair share consideration: Contribute funds to provide alternate pedestrian access points, via planned knock-off panels, to the Metro Red-Line stations,, Contribute fund forthe enhancement of the existing ATSAC/ATCS systems, Contribute funds to mprove the advance warning system/signage for special events - Contribute funds for Metro Rapid Bus system Contribute funds for the construction of neighborhood parking garage structures for parking impacted areas J. mprovement and Mitigation Measures mplementation Unless otherwise specified, the proposed mitigation measures and improvements shall be implemented through the Bureau of Engineering (BOE) B-Permit process. Construction of the improvements to the satisfaction of LADOT and BOE must be completed- before issuance of any certificate of occupancy. Should any improvement not receive required approval, the City may substitute an alternative measure of an equivalent cost and effectiveness. Prior to setting the bond amount, BOE shall require that the developer's engineer or contractor contact LADOT's B-Permit Coorcijnator, telephone (213) , to arrange a pre-design meeting to finalize the prffposed design needed for the project. K. Parking Analysis As noted previously, the traffic study indicated that the total number of proposed parking spaces would be 710. The developer should also check with the Department of Building and Safety on the number of Code required parking spaces needed for the project. L. Driveway Access The review of this study does not constitute approval of the driveway access and circulation scheme. ~hose require separate review and approval and should be coordinated as soon as possible with LAD at's Citywide Planning Coordination Section (201 N. Figueroa Street, 4th Floor, Station ) to avoid delays in the building permit approval process. n order to minimize and prevent last minute building design changes, it is highly imperative that the applicant, prior m

5 Hadar Plafkin August 29, 2007 to-the commencement of building or parking layout design efforts, contact LADOT for driveway width and internal circulation requirements so that such traffic flow considerations are designed and incorporated early into the building and parking layout pjans to avoid any unnecessary time delays and potential costs associated with late design changes. All driveways should be Case 2 driveways and 30 feet and 18 feet wide for two-way and one-way operations, respectively. (See Attachment ~) f you have any questions, please contact Wes Pring e of my staff at (213) Attachments' s :\letlers\cen _ 959 _ seward_office. wpd c: Renee Weitzer, Council District 4 Mitch 0' Farr~l, Council District 13 Jeannie Shen,.Hollywood-Wilshire District Tim Conger, Design Division, LADOT Taimour Tanavoli, Citywide Planning Coordination Section, LADOT Carl Mills, Central District, BOE Kipp Rudd, era Crain and Associates

6 Attachment 1 LEVEL OF SERVCE DEFNTONS FOR SGNALZED NTERSECTON l Level of Service Volume/Capacity Ratio Defmition A EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits ionger than one red light and no approach phase is fully used. B VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C GOOD. Occasionally, illivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may develop behind turning vehicles. D FAR. 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 POOR. Represents the most vehicles that intersection approaches can accommodate; may be long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles. F Greater than F AlLURE. Backups from nearby intersections or on cross streets may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Tremendous delays with continuously increasing queue lengths.. SGNFCANT TRANSPORTATON MPACT CRTERA 1. A transpoft~tion impact on an intersection shall be deemed "significant" in accordance with the following table ;-xcept as otherwise specified in a TSP, rco or C1v1P: SGNFCANT TRANSPORTATON MP ACT Level of Service Final VC Ratio Project-Related ncrease n VC C > equal to or greater than D > equal to or greater than E,F > equal to or greater than Source: Transportation Research Board, nterim Materials on Highway Capacity, Transportation Research Circular No. 212, January 1980.

7 Attachment 2 Table 8 Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) Summary Future (2010) Traffic Conditions - Without and With Project Peak Without Project With Project No. ntersection Hour CMA.bQ CMA LOS m12act 1_ Sunset Boulevard & AM F 1_013 F * Highland Avenue PM E E Sunset Boulevard' & AM E E Cahueng~ ~oulevard PM D Santa Monica Boulevard & PM D D La Brea Avenue PM F F Santa Monica Boulevard & AM E E * Highland Avenue PM E E * 5. Santa Monica Boulevard & AM B B Las Palmas Avenue PM C C Santa Monica Boulevard & AM C C Seward Street PM Santa Monica Boulevard & AM E E * Cahuenga Boulevard PM C C 0.008, , Santa Monica Boulevard & AM F F * Vine Street PM F 1_103 F Santa Monica Boulevard & AM D D Gower Street PM D E * -~ 10. Romaine Street & m B Highland AvenlJ9 PM B Romaine Street & AM A A Seward Street ~- PM A A Willoughby Avenue 5..J~~: AM C C Highland Avenue PM C C Willoughby Avenue & AM B C * Seward street PM C E * 14. Melrose Avenue & PM F F * La Brea Avenue PM F F * 15. Melrose Avenue & AM F F * Highland Avenue PM F F * 16. "Melrose Avenue & ANt C * Seward Street PM C D * Melrose Avenue & AM F F * Rossmore AvenueNine Street PM F F * Gower Street (N.) PM D * ndicates a significant project impact, prior to mitigation. t '! 18. Melrose Avenue & AM D * 54

8 Attachment 3 J Table 4 Project Trip Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Proposed Use Size Daily lib OB Total lib OB Total Office sf 2, Less transit 10% (260) (33) (5) (38) (6) (29) (35) Less nternal trips (corresponding (180) (1 ) (1).(2) (5) (10) (15) to restaurant use) Quality Restaurant sf ' Less nternal trips 50% (180) ill ill m l1q} { l tl } Net Project Trips. 2,

9 COrdon t Sf. V luaw4:lt:?uv ~ ~ ,:~~, '7 r ~ e=-'. - -!, )~~~ ~!lt~~ ~r f A E i A... i ~! ~ONCEPTUAL TRAFFC MTGATON PLAN FOR NTERSECTON OF MELROSE AVE. & VNE ST.lROSSMORE AVE. 0, A era N TransporfCJ!fon Planning ""' AOMEi"",._ n-.-a<l!avtatt.el.!ooe.~ watult f.. Trofflc Engrneering. " rj7~~... 'M PO/"7H~ F 3ll71.u4ml ASSOCA res

10 Attachment 5 6 NORTH SOlRCE: JEROEPARnERSHP FGURE 3 CONCEPTUALSTE PLAN na era N Transportation Planning ~... Traffic Engineering & r:'~~ ASSOCATES 1't/3OJ473~ FPDj04+Hl71 Y(W\'1'.cronoldossodales.com 6 «