IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS L. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS L. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC INTRODUCTION The following section summarizes the information provided in the traffic report entitled Traffic Impact Analysis for a Proposed Condominium Complex, Located at 1101 North Main Street, Los Angeles (the Traffic Report ), prepared by Overland Traffic Consultants in March 2006. The Traffic Report is provided as Appendix I to this Draft EIR. In addition, an Addendum to the report entitled Add Area Technical Analysis, prepared by Overland Traffic Consultants in October 2005 is provided as Appendix J to this Draft EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Traffic volume data was collected and field surveys were conducted in the study area to determine the roadway and intersection geometry and traffic signal operations. Figure IV.L.-1 illustrates the study locations, type of intersection traffic control, and lane configurations for the future project impact analysis. A brief description of the affected roadway facilities is provided below with the street plans of the roadways, city street standards, and the Central City North Community Plan Area (CPA) Highway Circulation Map provided in Appendix B to the Traffic Report (found in Appendix I to this draft EIR). Freeway and Street Characteristics Freeways serving the project area are the Pasadena Freeway (I-110) and the Hollywood Freeway (U.S. 101) which are immediately west and south of the site, respectively. Project access to the Pasadena Freeway is primarily provided from Hill Street. This north-south freeway provides access o downtown Los Angeles with an average traffic volume of 168,000 vehicles per day between Figueroa Street and Stadium Way. Project access to the Hollywood Freeway is provided from Vignes Street and Alameda Street. This northsouth freeway provides access to downtown Los Angeles with an average traffic volume of 204,000-218,000 vehicles per day between Vignes Street and N. Spring Street. Major streets providing access to the downtown Los Angeles area include, Main Street, Alameda Street, N. Spring Street, College Street, Alpine Street, Vignes Street, Cesar E. Chavez Avenue, Elmyra Street, and Llewellyn Street. Main Street is designated as a secondary highway and provides two lanes in each direction. On the east side of the street, parking is unrestricted north of College Street and 1-hour parking with afternoon peak hour restrictions from 4-6 pm south of College Street. The west side of the street has unrestricted parking Page IV.L-1

north of College Street and 1-hour parking with morning peak hour restrictions from 7-9 am south of College Street. Alameda Street is designated a major highway which becomes N. Spring Street at College Street. Alameda Street provides three lanes in each direction with on street parking. North Spring Street is designated a major highway per the community plan. The street provides two lanes in each direction with parking restrictions on both sides of the street. South of Elmyra Street the roadway widens to provide a third travel lane in each direction on approach to College Street. College Street is designated a secondary highway in the community plan. One lane in each direction is provided between Alameda Street and Main Street. East of N. Spring Street/Alameda Street there is two hour metered parking between the hours of 9 am to 3 pm and peak hour restrictions during the morning and evening peak hours on both sides of the street. Alpine Street is designated a secondary highway in the community plan. Two lanes in each direction are provided and parking is restricted on both sides of the street. The roadway is divided west of Main Street by columns from the elevated portion of the Metrorail line. East of Alameda Street, Alpine Street becomes Vignes Street. Vignes Street is designated a major highway in the community plan. Two lanes in each direction are provided and parking is restricted on both sides of the street. Vignes Street becomes Alpine Street west of Main Street. Vignes Street is divided due to columns along its centerline from the elevated portion of the Metrorail line. Cesar E. Chavez Avenue is designated a major highway in the community plan. The street provides three lanes of traffic, left turn channelization, and restricted parking on both sides of the street. Elmyra Street is designated a collector street in the community plan. There is no striping and parking is unrestricted on both sides of the street. Llewellyn Street is designated a local street in the community plan. One lane in each direction is provided with unrestricted parking on both sides of the street. Transit Service Public transportation in the project area is provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and the Southern California Regional Railroad Authority (SCRRA). Metro provides routes 58, 76, and 376 along Main Street through the project area. LADOT provides the DASH service with the Lincoln Heights/Chinatown line along Page IV.L-2

INSERT FIGURE IV.L.-1 Page IV.L-3

Main Street on weekends and weekdays. SCRRA provides a rail stop for the Metro Gold Line at the northwest corner of College Street and North Spring Street, southwest of the proposed project site. The transit lines are illustrated in Appendix C to this Traffic Report, which can be found in Appendix I to this Draft EIR. Analysis of Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic volume data used in the following peak hour intersectional analysis were based on traffic counts conducted by the Traffic Solution, an independent traffic data collection company, and data provided by LADOT. The AM and PM period counts were conducted from 7:00 am to 9:00 am and 4:00 pm to 6:00 pm. Traffic counts were conducted by counting the number of vehicles traveling through each study intersection making each turn or through movement. The peak hour volume for each intersection was then determined by adding the four highest consecutive 15-minute volumes for all movements. The traffic conditions analysis was conducted using the Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) method. All study intersections were evaluated using this methodology pursuant to the criteria established by the LADOT. The peak hour traffic counts were used along with current intersection lane configuration and traffic controls to determine the intersection s operating condition. A CMA analysis of the existing baseline and future traffic conditions analysis has been completed at those locations expected to have the highest potential for significant traffic impacts. Morning and afternoon peak hour conditions have been evaluated at eight key intersections selected by LADOT for review. Low volume intersections or intersections with minimal project traffic are not included in the significance test. The intersections studied are: (1) North Main Street & Alpine Street/Vignes Street; (2) North Main Street & College Street; (3) North Main Street & Elmyra Street; (4) Alameda Street & Cesar E. Chavez Avenue; (5) Alameda Street & Ord Street/North Main Street; (6) Alameda Street & Alpine Street; (7) Alameda Street & College Street; and (8) North Spring Street & Elmyra Street. The CMA procedure uses a ratio of the intersection s traffic volume to its capacity for rating an intersection s congestion level. The highest combinations of conflicting traffic volume (V) divided by the Page IV.L-4

capacity (C) value represents the intersection V/C ratio. Intersection capacity represents the maximum volume of vehicles which has a reasonable expectation of passing through an intersection in one hour under typical traffic flow conditions. The volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio defines the proportion of an hour necessary to accommodate all the traffic moving through the intersection assuming all approaches were operating at full capacity. CMA ratios provide an ideal means for quantifying intersection operating characteristics. For example, if an intersection has a CMA value of 0.70, the intersection is operating at 70 percent capacity, with 30 percent unused capacity. One the volume-to-capacity ratio (i.e., CMA value) has been calculated, operating characteristics are assigned a level of service grade (A through F) to estimate the level of congestion and stability of the traffic flow. The term Level of Service (LOS) is used by traffic engineers to describe the quality of the traffic flow. Definitions of the LOS grades are shown in Table IV.L.-1. By applying the capacity procedures to the intersection data, the CMA values and the corresponding LOS for existing traffic conditions were calculated at each intersection. The existing LOS values for the study intersections are summarized in Table IV.L.-2. Supporting capacity worksheets are contained in Appendix E to the Traffic Report, which can be found in Appendix I to this Draft EIR. Table IV.L.-1 Level of Service Definitions LOS CMA Value Operating Conditions A 0.00-0.60 Free flow conditions with low traffic density B 0.61-0.70 A stable flow of traffic C 0.71-0.80 Light congestion but stable, occasional backups behind left-turning vehicles Approaching instability, drivers are restricted in freely changing lanes. D 0.81-0.90 Vehicles may be required to wait through more than one cycle. At or near capacity with possible long queues for left-turning vehicles. Blockage of intersection may occur if signal does not provide for protected turning movements. E 0.91-1.00 F > 1.00 Jammed conditions with stoppages of long duration. Source: Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc., March 2006. Pursuant to the City of Los Angeles traffic impact guidelines, the following steps have been taken to develop the future traffic volume estimate: (a) (b) (c) (d) Existing traffic plus ambient growth to 2008 study year (added 3 percent total); Traffic in (a) plus related projects (without project scenario); Traffic in (b) with the Proposed Project traffic (with project scenario); Traffic in (c) plus the proposed traffic mitigation, if necessary. Page IV.L-5

Table IV.L.-2 Existing Levels of Service at Study Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Intersection CMA LOS CMA LOS 1 N. Main St. & Alpine St./Vignes St. 0.319 A 0.513 A 2 N. Main St. & College St. 0.346 A 0.268 A 3 N. Main Street & Elmyra St. 0.421 A 0.312 A 4 Alameda St. & Cesar E. Chavez Ave. 0.587 A 0.512 A 5 Alameda St. & Ord St./N. Main St. 0.437 A 0.508 A 6 Alameda St. & Alpine St. 0.446 A 0.559 A 7 Alameda St. & College St. 0.464 A 0.433 A 8 N. Spring St. & Elmyra St. 0.547 A 0.556 A Source: Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc., March 2006. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Thresholds of Significance The traffic impact of the Proposed Project s traffic volume has been calculated by adding the project volume to the above without project traffic estimates. Comparing the changes in the traffic conditions between the without and with project traffic volume scenarios provides the data to determine if the project traffic volume creates a significant traffic impact which would require traffic mitigation at any of the study intersections. According to the traffic impact standards adopted by LADOT for the environmental assessment and approved for this study, a traffic impact is considered significant if the related increase in the CMA value equals or exceeds the thresholds shown in Table IV.L.-3. Table IV.L.-3 CMA Thresholds LOS Final CMA Value Increase in CMA Value C 0.71-0.80 + 0.04 D 0.81-0.90 + 0.02 E, F > 0.90 + 0.01 or more Source: Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc., March 2006. Proposed Project Site Impacts Construction Impacts Construction of the Proposed Project would require demolition of all existing structures, grading, and construction of the Proposed Project. Traffic during construction activities would be generated by construction equipment, crew vehicles, haul trucks, and vehicles delivering building materials. The number of construction workers and equipment would vary throughout the construction process in order to maintain a reasonable schedule of completion. Page IV.L-6

All haul trucks would be brought onto the Proposed Project site and would be stored within the perimeter fence of the construction site. No detours around the construction site are expected, however, flagmen would be used as necessary to control traffic movement during the ingress and egress of trucks and heavy equipment. Construction hours and days are planned to occur from 9:00 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday, as directed by the Mayor of Los Angeles with overtime hours and some weekends as required. Construction equipment would generally be contained onsite. At times when onsite staging would not be available, a street use permit would be required to stage larger construction equipment and trucks adjacent to the Proposed Project site. It is likely that short-term traffic impacts would occur in the immediate area during the busiest construction phase (i.e., foundation, building shell, and finish construction phases). Therefore, mitigation measures are provided below, to address this potentially significant, albeit temporary impact. Traffic Generation Traffic-generating characteristics of many land uses have been surveyed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and published in the Trip Generation handbook, 7 th Edition. This publication of traffic generation data is the industry standard for estimating traffic generation for different land uses. The ITE studies indicate that the land uses associated with the Proposed Project site generally exhibit the tripmaking characteristics as shown by the trip rates in Table IV.L.-4, below. Table IV.L.-4 Project Trip Generation Rates AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Daily Total In Out Total In Out Condominium (per unit) 5.86 0.44 0.07 0.37 0.52 0.35 0.17 Industrial (per 1,000 sf) 6.97 0.92 0.81 0.11 0.98 0.12 0.86 Notes: sf=square feet Source: Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc., March 2006. On the basis of these ITE trip generation rates, estimates of the project s driveway traffic volume were calculated. Traffic discounts were applied for transit usage and pedestrian traffic as allowed by LADOT. As shown in Table IV.L.-5 below, the Proposed Project could be expected to generate an average of 1,318 vehicle trips per weekday, with 99 morning peak hour trips and 117 afternoon peak hour trips. These trip estimates have been adjusted to account for the traffic generated by the existing uses to be removed as part of the project. After these traffic adjustments, it has been estimated that the net traffic added to the adjacent streets is approximately 1,102 daily trips with 71 morning trips and 87 afternoon trips. Page IV.L-7

Table IV.L.-5 Estimated Project Traffic Generation Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Land Use Traffic Total In Out Total In Out 300 unit condos 1,758 132 21 111 156 105 51 Less 25% transit/ped - 440-33 -5-28 -39-26 -13 Subtotal Residential 1,318 99 16 83 117 79 38 Less 31,000 sf industrial - 216-28 - 25-3 - 30-4 - 26 Net Trips 1,102 71-9 80 87 75 12 Notes: sf=square feet Source: Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc., March 2006. Traffic Distribution A primary factor affecting trip destination is the spatial distribution of population and employment centers which would generate project trip origins and destinations. The estimated project directional trip distribution is also based on the study area roadway network. Figure IV.L.-2 illustrates the estimated area wide project traffic distribution percentages. Figure IV.L.-3 shows the estimated project traffic percentages at the selected study intersections. Using the traffic assignment at each intersection and the estimated peak hour traffic volume as provided in Table IV.L.-5, peak hour traffic volumes at each study location have been calculated and are shown in Figure IV.L.-4. This estimated assignment of the project traffic flow provides the information necessary to analyze the potential traffic impacts generated by the project at the study intersections. Analysis of Future Traffic Conditions Future traffic volume projections have been developed to analyze the traffic conditions after completion of other planned land developments including the Proposed Project. Pursuant to the City of Los Angeles traffic impact guidelines, the following steps have been taken to develop the future traffic volume estimate: (a) (b) (c) (d) Existing traffic plus ambient growth to 2008 study year (added 3 percent total); Traffic in (a) plus related projects (without project scenario); Traffic in (b) with the Proposed Project traffic (with project scenario); Traffic in (c) plus the proposed traffic mitigation, if necessary. Page IV.L-8

INSERT FIGURE IV.L.-2 Page IV.L-9

INSERT FIGURE IV.L.-3 Page IV.L-10

INSERT FIGURE IV.L.-4 Page IV.L-11

The future cumulative analysis includes other development projects located within the study area that are either under construction or planned. As part of this analysis, development lists were obtained from the LADOT and checked in the field to identify those projects that could produce additional traffic at the study intersections by the future study year 2008. It should be noted that the Proposed Project, or any actions taken by the City regarding the Proposed Project, does not have a direct bearing on these other related projects. The locations of the 70 related projects are shown in Figure IV.L.-5 and listed in Table III-1 (Related Projects). Estimates of the peak hour trips generated by the other developments were calculated by applying ITE trip generation rates to evaluate future traffic conditions with the related projects. The potential net increase in traffic from the related projects is shown in Table IV.L.-6. The potential traffic impact of the total traffic growth has been calculated by adding the existing traffic volume, the ambient growth factor and traffic from other development projects. Further cumulative without project peak hour traffic volume estimates are shown in Figures IV.L.-6 and IV.L.-7 for the morning and afternoon, respectively. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Land Table IV.L.-6 Related Projects Net Traffic Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Use Size Daily In Out Total In Out Total Blossom Plaza Condominium Restaurant Cultural Office Artist Loft Residential Supermarket Apartment Apartment Beaumont LC High School Office Park 223 du 20,716 sf 17,424 sf 6,130 sf 5,000 sf 20,000 sf 30 du 600 du 27,000 sf 17,000 sf 4,200 sf 280 du 22,000 sf 200 du 5,000 sf 2,600 st 70,000 sf 11 acres 2,767 66 89 155 105 79 184 222 220 202 0 27 3 0 4 12 0 31 15 6 5 12 8 25 7 14 30 19 4,713 64 236 300 242 143 385 1,924 34 22 56 96 93 189 2,827 42 124 166 152 105 257 1,566 20 82 102 86 52 138 7,055 477 205 682 198 270 468 8 Gov t Office 1,660 empl. 1,052 122 30 152 29 117 146 9 Jail 179,000 sf 3,600 298 75 373 79 315 394 Page IV.L-12

Land Table IV.L.-6 (continued) Related Projects Net Traffic Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Use Size Daily In Out Total In Out Total 11 Residential 330 du 4,222 33 135 168 196 138 334 Commercial 50,000 sf 12 High School 500 st 855 140 65 205 35 35 70 13 Residential 73 du 484 6 31 37 30 15 45 14 School 380 st 650 106 49 155 27 27 54 15 Residential 80 du 538 8 33 41 32 18 50 16 Residential 600 du 4,891 73 254 327 276 171 447 20,000 sf 17 Condominium 460 du 2,696 34 168 202 166 82 248 18 Commercial 10,000 sf 1,696 18 97 115 100 54 153 Apartment 225 du 19 Apartment 450 du 3,376 49 213 261 216 111 327 15,000 sf 20 School 1,600 st 2,736 367 289 656 96 144 240 21 Condominium 277 du 1,837 23 118 141 115 57 172 22 Live/Work 38 du 252 3 16 19 16 8 24 23 Police HQ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 24 Residential 280 du 1,856 23 120 143 117 57 174 25 Condominium 66 du 387 5 24 29 24 12 36 26 Loft 209 du 1,386 17 90 107 87 43 130 27 Apartment 143 du 948 12 61 73 60 29 89 28 Apartment 36 du 239 3 15 18 15 7 22 29 Condominium 140 du 928 11 60 71 58 29 87 30 Loft 103 du 895 11 58 69 56 28 84 31 Condominium 40 du 265 3 17 20 17 8 25 32 Condominium Apartment 570 du 280 du 50,000 sf 4,688 207 69 276 91 274 365 33 Little Tokyo -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Condominium 127 du 756 10 12 22 26 24 50 34 6,000 sf First St South 6,673 72 379 451 393 213 606 Commercial 415,782 sf 35 Condo/Apt 1,154 du Hotel 500 room 36 Bar/Lounge 8,770 sf 789 0 0 0 35 31 66 37 Office 82,000 sf 1,968 90 45 135 44 88 132 Office 30,000 sf 38 Apartment 375 du 3,376 49 213 261 216 111 327 Single Family 93 du 39 High School 1,206 st 1,837 236 185 421 62 92 154 40 Residential 153 du 1,014 12 66 78 64 31 95 41 Condominium 90 du 597 7 39 46 38 186 224 Page IV.L-13

Land Table IV.L.-6 (continued) Related Projects Net Traffic Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Use Size Daily In Out Total In Out Total Santee Ct 2,738 34 177 211 172 84 256 43 Condominium Apartment 80 du 299 du 44 Condominium 76 du 76 du 6 27 33 27 14 41 Condominium 875 du 7,488 82 338 410 417 240 657 45 Restaurant 34,061 sf 10,000 sf 46 Metropolis Condominium Office Hotel 836 du 988,255 sf 480 room 46,000 sf 24,644 1,817 409 2,224 904 2,151 3,055 47 Condominium 629 du 2,624 137 46 183 59 179 238 27,000 sf 48 Apartment 156 du 1,380 16 64 80 71 45 136 49 Loft Grocery Store Loft Condominium 7,500 sf 266 du 20,000 sf 10,000 sf 152 du 25,000 sf 520 du 30,000 sf 8,150 94 414 576 609 419 1,028 50 Loft 116 du 769 9 50 59 48 24 72 LA Live Hotel Cinema 1,200 room 3,600 seat 85,130 2,800 2,416 5,213 4,002 3,308 7,310 51 Theater 7,000 seat Restaurant 345,000 sf Office Apartment 498,000 sf 165,000 sf 800 du 52 53 54 Apartment Restaurant Condominium Condominium Other 179 du 8,000 sf 311 du 7,294 sf 128 du 3,472 sf 2,200 sf 1,907 73 24 97 96 128 171 1,230 70 23 93 63 84 112 676 31 10 41 35 46 61 55 Live/Work 78 du 967 8 36 44 57 28 85 Restaurant/Bar 3,000 sf 56 Loft 82 du 697 10 44 54 44 23 67 Apartment 20 du 1,652 206 28 234 38 18 56 57 Office 32,670 sf 37,600 sf Condominium 565 du Page IV.L-14

Land Table IV.L.-6 (continued) Related Projects Net Traffic Generation AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Use Size Daily In Out Total In Out Total 59 Condominium 300 du 1,102 11 60 71 59 28 87 60 Condominium 105 du 603 7 39 46 38 18 56 4,500 sf 61 Clinic 31,655 sf 996 58 19 77 123 41 164 62 Live/Work 91 du 603 7 39 46 38 18 56 63 Condominium 182 du 242 22 7 29 11 15 20 3,000 sf 64 Restaurant 5,000 sf 450 2 2 4 25 12 37 65 Condominium 300 du 1,910 88 136 224 75 52 127 3,400 sf 66 State Park 32 acres 21 -- -- -- -- -- -- 67 Residential 150 du 399 14 8 22 15 18 33 68 Apartment 264 du 311-11 28 17 51 36 87 13,000 sf 69 High School 1,521 st -1,466-139 -47-186 -26-362 -388 70 Office 118,000 sf 942 164 12 176 17 149 166 Notes: du=dwelling unit, sf=square feet, st=students Source: Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc., March 2006. Page IV.L-15

INSERT FIGURE IV.L.-5 Page IV.L-16

INSERT FIGURE IV.L.-6 Page IV.L-17

INSERT FIGURE IV.L.-7 Page IV.L-18

None of the study intersections are impacted by the project traffic volume using the significant impact criteria established by LADOT. It should be noted that the impact analysis does not consider any changes to the existing intersection configuration (i.e., future roadway improvements). Future cumulative with project peak hour traffic volumes are shown in Figures IV.L.-8 and IV.L.-9 for the morning and afternoon, respectively. Congestion Management Program Review The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was adopted to regulate and monitor regional traffic growth and transportation improvement programs. The CMP designates a transportation network which includes all state highways and some arterials within the County of Los Angeles. If the level of service standard deteriorates on the CMP network, then the local jurisdiction must prepare a deficiency plan to be in conformance with the LA County CMP. The intent of the CMP is to provide information to decision makers to assist in the allocation of transportation funds through the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process. For purposes of the CMP, a substantial change in freeway segments are defined as an increase or decrease of 0.10 in the demand to capacity ratio and a change in LOS. A CMP traffic impact analysis is required if a project will add 150 or more trips to the freeway, in either direction during either the AM or PM weekday peak hour. As shown in Figure IV.L.-4 (peak hour project traffic assignment), the Proposed Project does not exceed the CMP traffic limits. Based on this information, no additional freeway analysis is necessary. Parking and Access The Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) specifies parking requirements for condominium residential developments at a ratio of 2 spaces per unit. Thus, 544 parking spaces (i.e., 2 spaces x 272 dwelling units) would be required for the Proposed Project. Guest parking at a rate of one-quarter space per unit is also usually provided, which would amount to 68 guest parking spaces for the Proposed Project. In total, 612 parking spaces would be required of the Proposed Project. As the Proposed Project would provide a total on-site parking supply of 614 spaces, adequate on-site parking is anticipated, and no parking overflow impacts are expected. Vehicular access to the subterranean parking structure will be provided by a project driveway located on Llewellyn Street at mid-block. One inbound-only driveway and one outbound-only driveway will provide access to and from the structure. Page IV.L-19

INSERT FIGURE IV.L.-8 Page IV.L-20

INSERT FIGURE IV.L.-9 Page IV.L-21

Add Area Impacts The following Add Area analysis summarizes the information provided in the traffic report Add Area analysis, prepared by Overland Traffic Consultants in October 2005. This Add Area analysis is provided as Appendix J to this Draft EIR. In order to determine the potential traffic impacts of development on the vacant land area northeast of North Spring Street and College Street (the Add Area ), vehicle trip generation was conducted for six development scenarios according to standard practice. These trips were then distributed to the roadway network and study intersections in a similar manner to the proposed project with adjustments for access locations. The trips were added to the without project conditions as listed in the approved traffic study, and critical movement analysis (CMA) was conducted. The project trips were then added to the increased without project conditions. Evaluation of traffic impacts was conducted for each of the six development scenarios. Construction Impacts Development of the Add Area would require grading and construction of the proposed project. Traffic during construction activities would be generated by construction equipment, crew vehicles, haul trucks, and vehicles delivering building materials. The number of construction workers and equipment would vary throughout the construction process in order to maintain a reasonable schedule of completion. All haul trucks would be brought onto the Add Area and would be stored within the perimeter fence of the construction site. No detours around the construction site are expected, however, flagmen would be used as necessary to control traffic movement during the ingress and egress of trucks and heavy equipment. Construction equipment would generally be contained onsite. At times when onsite staging would not be available, a street use permit would be required to stage larger construction equipment and trucks adjacent to the Add Area. It is likely that short-term traffic impacts would occur in the immediate area during the busiest construction phase (i.e., foundation, building shell, and finish construction phases). Therefore, mitigation measures are provided below, to address this potentially significant, albeit temporary impact. Traffic Generation Six development scenarios were evaluated, including a large and small commercial alternative, large and small residential alternative, and large and small mixed-use alternative. Vehicle trip generation was conducted based upon standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation as required by LADOT. Table IV.L.-7, below, portrays the six alternatives and vehicle trip generation for each of these scenarios. Standard pass-by and conservative internal capture credits have been incorporated. Although this is an area where there is likely to be high transit and pedestrian activity, estimates of these Page IV.L-22

reductions were not incorporated in the Add Area to present a more conservative estimate of future conditions. Table IV.L.-7 Add Area Trip Generation Summary Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Alternative Description Size Traffic In Out Total In Out Total Commercial (large) Commercial (small) Office Pass-by credit Internal capture 214,102 sf 1,070,510 sf 30% 10% 11,139 8,279 (3,342) (780) 151 1,100 (45) (11) 96 150 (29) (7) 247 1,250 (74) (17) 497 217 (149) (35) 538 1,061 (161) (38) 1,035 1,278 (311) (72) Total 1,284,612 sf 15,297 1,195 210 1,406 530 1,400 1,930 Office Pass-by credit Internal capture 21,190 sf 105,950 sf 50% 5% 939 1,395 (470) (23) 15 173 (8) (0) 10 24 (5) (0) 25 197 (13) (1) 25 34 (13) (1) 32 164 (16) (1) 57 198 (29) (1) Total 127,140 sf 1,841 180 29 209 46 179 225 Residential (large) Apartments 481 DU 3,232 48 197 245 192 106 298 Residential (small) Apartments 47 DU 316 5 19 24 19 10 29 Mixed Use (large) Mixed Use (small) Apartments Pass-by credit Internal capture 214,102 sf 384 DU 30% 10% 11,139 2,580 (3,342) (780) 151 38 (45) (11) 96 157 (29) (7) 247 195 (74) (17) 497 154 (149) (35) 538 84 (161) (38) 1,035 238 (311) (72) Total 9,598 133 217 351 467 423 890 Apartments Pass-by credit Internal capture 21,190 sf 46 DU 50% 5% 939 309 (470) (23) 15 5 (8) (0) 10 19 (5) (0) 25 24 (13) (1) 25 18 (13) (1) 32 10 (16) (1) 1,046 28 (523) (26) Total 755 12 24 36 30 25 525 Notes: du=dwelling unit, sf=square feet Source: Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc., October 2005. Traffic Distribution The trips estimated for the Add Area were then distributed to the eight study intersections. They were distributed based upon travel patterns in the area similar to the Proposed Project. Approximately 20 percent of the trips would be from the northeast, 15 percent from the west, and 65 percent from the south. The trips created by the Add Area were added to the existing conditions increased by ambient growth and other related projects in the area to create a new without project condition for each of the Add Area scenarios. Page IV.L-23

Analysis of Future Traffic Conditions Critical movement analysis was conducted for the six Add Area alternative future without project traffic conditions. As would be anticipated, future conditions without the project increased with the addition of the Add Area commensurate with the increase in the level of development scenarios. There reaches a point in the Add Area development scenarios with the large commercial alternative where two intersections would deteriorate to a poor level of service. The project traffic was added to each of the six Add Area future without project conditions to evaluate the increase in the levels of service (LOS). Table IV.L.-8 provides a LOS for the without project conditions. Review of this information indicates that all development scenarios can be accommodated without deterioration until we reach the large commercial development. This scenario creates more than double the number of trips of the next smaller development (mixed-use large). Detailed summary CMA and LOS for the project with the lowest trip generation (residential small) and the largest trip generation (commercial large) are provided in Tables IV.L.-9 and IV.L.-10. Table IV.L.-8 Add Area Scenarios Included in Without Project Conditions Add Area Scenarios Original Peak Analysis Small Large Small Large Hour LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS Residential Mixed Use Commercial Small Intersection LOS N. Main St. & AM A A A A A A B Alpine St/Vignes St PM A A A A B A B N. Main St. & AM A A A A A A E College St. PM A A A A A A E N. Main St. & AM A A A A A A A Elmyra St. PM A A A A A A A Alameda St. & AM B B B B B B D Cesar Chavez Ave. PM A A A B B A D Alameda St. & AM A A A A A A A Ord St/N Main St PM A A A A A A B Alameda St. & AM A A A A A A A Alpine St. PM A A A A A A B Alameda St. & AM A A A A A A A College St. PM A A A A A A A N. Spring St. & AM A A A A A A A Elmyra St. PM A A A A A A B Source: Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc., October 2005. Large LOS Page IV.L-24

Table IV.L.-9 CMA Summary Without Project Add Area Residential (Small) and With Project Peak Future without Project Future with Project Intersection Hour CMA LOS CMA LOS Impact N. Main St. & AM 0.334 A 0.349 A 0.015 Alpine St/Vignes St PM 0.531 A 0.548 A 0.017 N. Main St. & AM 0.368 A 0.384 A 0.016 College St. PM 0.287 A 0.303 A 0.016 N. Main St. & AM 0.432 A 0.432 A 0.000 Elmyra St. PM 0.323 A 0.323 A 0.000 Alameda St. & AM 0.644 B 0.656 B 0.012 Cesar Chavez Ave. PM 0.562 A 0.568 A 0.006 Alameda St. & AM 0.457 A 0.465 A 0.008 Ord St/N Main St PM 0.535 A 0.544 A 0.009 Alameda St. & AM 0.462 A 0.468 A 0.006 Alpine St. PM 0.579 A 0.583 A 0.004 Alameda St. & AM 0.489 A 0.492 A 0.003 College St. PM 0.466 A 0.467 A 0.001 N. Spring St. & AM 0.560 A 0.576 A 0.016 Elmyra St. PM 0.574 A 0.586 A 0.012 Source: Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc., October 2005. Table IV.L.-10 CMA Summary Without Project Add Area Commercial (Large) and With Project Peak Future without Project Future with Project Intersection Hour CMA LOS CMA LOS Impact N. Main St. & AM 0.603 B 0.618 B 0.015 Alpine St/Vignes St PM 0.642 B 0.658 B 0.016 N. Main St. & AM 0.927 E 0.943 E 0.016 * College St. PM 0.983 E 0.999 E 0.016* N. Main St. & AM 0.472 A 0.472 A 0.000 Elmyra St. PM 0.370 A 0.370 A 0.000 Alameda St. & AM 0.860 D 0.871 D 0.011 Cesar Chavez Ave. PM 0.836 D 0.851 D 0.015 Alameda St. & AM 0.476 A 0.484 A 0.008 Ord St/N Main St PM 0.663 B 0.665 B 0.002 Alameda St. & AM 0.487 A 0.491 A 0.004 Alpine St. PM 0.602 B 0.605 B 0.003 Alameda St. & AM 0.504 A 0.507 A 0.003 College St. PM 0.574 A 0.575 A 0.001 N. Spring St. & AM 0.599 A 0.615 B 0.016 Elmyra St. PM 0.620 B 0.633 B 0.013 * Significant impact as identified by LADOT. Source: Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc., October 2005. Page IV.L-25

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative Construction Impacts Several of the related projects may have overlapping construction schedules with the Proposed Project, and, thereby, potentially combining with the Proposed Project to result in a cumulative construction impact. However, the mitigation measures listed below would minimize any potential cumulative construction impact. Furthermore, the Mayor of the City of Los Angeles has directed the City to limit all construction hours on major streets to the off-peak hours of 9:00 am to 3:30 pm, Monday through Friday, and 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Saturdays. Cumulative Operational Impacts The analysis of traffic impacts considers the effects of background growth in the region, the development of the Add Area, and the related projects listed in Table III-1 (Related Projects). Consequently, the potential impacts of cumulative growth are already incorporated into the traffic model and are equivalent to those indicated for the Future with Project condition above. As impacts under the Future with Project condition would not be considered significant, as discussed above, cumulative impacts would be less than significant. Table IV.L.-11 Future Traffic Conditions without Project Existing Future without Project No. Intersection Peak Hour CMA LOS CMA LOS 1 N. Main St. & AM 0.319 A 0.362 A Alpine St./Vignes St. PM 0.513 A 0.703 C 2 N. Main St. & AM 0.346 A 0.362 A College St. PM 0.268 A 0.453 A 3 N. Main St. & AM 0.421 A 0.436 A Elmyra St. PM 0.312 A 0.495 A 4 Alameda St. & AM 0.587 A 0.729 C Cesar E Chavez Ave. PM 0.512 A 0.764 C 5 Alameda St. & AM 0.437 A 0.533 A Ord St./N. Main St. PM 0.508 A 0.708 C 6 Alameda St. & AM 0.446 A 0.541 A Alpine St. PM 0.559 A 0.664 B 7 Alameda St. & AM 0.464 A 0.567 A College St. PM 0.433 A 0.502 A 8 N. Spring St. & AM 0.547 A 0.695 B Elmyra St. PM 0.556 A 0.698 B Source: Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc., March 2006. Page IV.L-26

Table IV.L.-12 Future Traffic Conditions with Project Future without Project Future with Project No. Intersection Peak Hour CMA LOS CMA LOS Impact 1 N. Main St. & AM 0.362 A 0.362 A + 0.000 Alpine St/Vignes St PM 0.703 C 0.179 C + 0.016 2 N. Main St. & AM 0.362 A 0.378 A + 0.016 College St. PM 0.453 A 0.469 A + 0.016 3 N. Main St. & AM 0.436 A 0.436 A + 0.000 Elmyra St. PM 0.495 A 0.495 A + 0.000 4 Alameda St. & AM 0.729 C 0.740 C + 0.011 Cesar Chavez Ave PM 0.764 C 0.774 C + 0.010 5 Alameda St. & AM 0.533 A 0.541 A + 0.008 Ord St/N Main St PM 0.708 C 0.717 C + 0.009 6 Alameda St. & AM 0.541 A 0.547 A + 0.006 Alpine St. PM 0.664 B 0.668 B + 0.004 7 Alameda St. & AM 0.567 A 0.570 A + 0.003 College St. PM 0.502 A 0.503 A + 0.001 8 N. Spring St. & AM 0.695 B 0.711 C + 0.016 Elmyra St. PM 0.698 B 0.711 A + 0.013 Source: Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc., March 2006. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures listed below are recommended to address the potential conflicts between construction activities, street traffic and pedestrians: IV.L.-1 Prior to the issuance of construction permits the developer shall prepare Work Area Traffic Control Plans that at a minimum should include: Identification of a designated haul route to be used by construction trucks; Provide an estimate of the number to trucks trips and anticipated trips; Identification of traffic control procedures, emergency access provisions, and construction alternative crew parking locations; Identification of the onsite location of vehicle and equipment staging; Provide a schedule of construction activities; Limitations on any potential lane closures to off-peak travel periods; Scheduling the delivery of construction materials during non-peak travel periods, to the extent possible; Page IV.L-27

Coordinating deliveries to reduce the potential of trucks waiting to unload building materials; Prohibiting parking by construction workers on neighborhood streets as determined in conjunction with city staff; and Projects involving the import/export of 1,000 cubic yards or more of dirt shall obtain haul route approval by the Department of Building and Safety. IV.L.-2 To ensure pedestrian safety, the developer shall ensure that there are appropriate access restrictions to the Proposed Project site, covered sidewalks, and designating alternative pedestrian routes. The analysis contained in this section has determined that the change in traffic volume generated by the project would not significantly impact the traffic flow at any of the study intersections during the operation of the proposed project. Therefore, no additional project traffic mitigation measures are necessary. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With the implementation of the mitigation measures listed above, construction traffic impacts would be less than significant. Traffic impacts associated with the operation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. Page IV.L-28