2025-10-13_ATT 8 CEQA Class 32 Report (including all attachments), June 28, 2024 — City Council Meeting Agenda, October 13, 2025 (part 1 of 7)

1 Class 32 Report

PREPARED BY
Costco Fuel Facility
Re-Location
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Ambruster Goldsmith & Delvac, LLP
SITE ADDRESS JURISDICTION DATE PROJECT NO.
13463 Washington
Blvd., Culver City,
CA 90292
City of Culver City 06/28/2024 10857.13

PREPARED FOR CLIENT ADDRESS
Costco Wholesale 730 Lake Drive, Issaquah, WA 98027
Attachment 8

2 SUPPORTING ANALYSIS FOR A CLASS 32 EXEMPTION
I. Description of the Proposed Project
A. Project Site and Surrounding Uses
The Proposed P roject will relocate the existing Costco fuel facility located at 13463 Washington Boulevard (Project Site) to the two developed parcels currently occupied by commercial buildings in the southwest corner of the existing shopping center. The Project Site comprises approximately 136,343 square feet (3.11 acres).

B. Existing Zoning and Land Use Designation
The Costco Wholesale (Costco) property is zoned Commercial Regional Retail (CRR), which permits the fuel facility. The existing fuel facility was previously approved as an ancillary use to the main Costco Warehouse under Tentative Parcel Map No. 52382, TPM No. 97-01 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-

01. C. Proposed Project
The existing Culver City Costco is located at 13463 Washington Blvd in the City of Culver City California (City) and includes a Costco Warehouse and a Costco Gasoline fuel station with 16 vehicle fueling positions located in the south-east corner. In addition, there are several pad developments on the overall shopping center property, including fast food and small retail. The Proposed Project will relocate the gas station to the area with two currently unoccupied that housed a Verizon mobile phone store, Subway, a GNC shop, and a Starbucks Coffee. This will provide more space between the gas station queues and the main entrance at the Washington Blvd . & Glencoe Ave . traffic signal. The existing buildings will be demolished and , therefore, eliminate on -site trips associated with those land uses 1. The existing gas station will also be demolished and developed with Costco warehouse member parking. (See Figure 1.) The Proposed Project comprises a new 13,000-square-foot fuel canopy, the installation of 15 new multi- product dispensers (MPDs), three 40,000 -gallon underground gasoline storage tanks (USTs), one (1) 1,500-gallon fuel additive UST, a new controller enclosure, a vapor processing unit, a nd associated site improvements, such as parking and landscaping. The relocated gasoline station will increase the number of dispensers from 8 dispensers (16 fueling positions) to 15 dispensers (30 fueling positions). However, there will be no increase in throughput (i.e., the total amount of gasoline to be dispensed yearly) . The existing fuel facility will be demolished and removed from the site, and the existing commercial buildings will be demolished. The existing underground storage tanks and piping will be decommissioned and removed by State-certified contractors. Following demolition, the existing fuel facility site will be improved with additional parking for the Costco Warehouse. The intent of the relocation is to install a new state-of-the-art facility to provide a more efficient fuel purchasing experience for Costco members.

1 The buildings were historically occupied and could be reoccupied again without any discretionary City approvals.

Under applicable case law (North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (2015) 241 Cal. App. 4th 94), these uses are considered to be part of the CEQA baseline even though the buildings are currently unoccupied . Therefore, the technical analyses include a trip credit for the removal of these uses from the project site. Moreover, as the buildings were occupied when the historic traffic counts at area roadways were taken, not taking such a credit would overstate project impacts.

3 1. Business Hours of Operation
The relocated fuel facility would operate from 5:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Saturday, and 6:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. Sunday, which are the same hours the existing facility is open. The station will be available for Costco Warehouse members only and will require a Costco membership to access the fuel pumps. The relocated station would be manned by one Costco employee, who will oversee day-to-day operations and cleanliness at the site. An additional one to two employees will be brought on site as needed to help implement the queue management plan and for overall vehicle circulation. No other automotive or retail sales will be available at the station. The facility is anticipated to receive up to eight nighttime fuel deliveries spread out evenly between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. (i.e., one fuel delivery per hour).

The proposed business hours of the gasoline station are compatible with the existing surrounding businesses in that the station provides a consumer service during typical gas station hours, same as the existing facility.

2. Parking & Circulation/Queue Management
The Proposed Project will remove 56 parking stalls for a total of 907 stalls for the overall shopping center.

City parking standards do not require a minimum amount of parking stalls for the overall development.

The overall development will continue to meet City parking requirements after the gasoline station is relocated.

The new fuel facility will continue to provide single -direction circulation with a full-length bypass lane between each dispenser island. The relocated facility will be equipped with a red-light/green-light system to indicate which pump is open and available to the next person in line along with CostcoPay (a key-fob pay system), which improves efficiency and helps shorten lines for waiting members.

3. Design
The canopy design includes a gray, metal canopy fascia with concrete masonry unit-wrapped canopy columns. The new controller enclosure is designed to match the fuel canopy and includes a gray, metal wrapped building. This design is consistent with the main Costco warehouse design.

4. Lighting and Signage
The under-canopy lighting will be flat lens LED light fixtures for the relocated canopy. Signage and any new parking lot lighting will also be LED. The new canopy signs will include 20 -square-foot "Costco Wholesale" signs located and centered on each façade of the canopy. The new signs are also designed consistent with the main Costco warehouse signage for a unified design.

5. Entitlement Requests
The applicant is requesting the following discretionary approval from the City to permit construction of the Proposed Project:
• Conditional Use Permit Modification
In addition, the applicant will seek ministerial grading and building permits and other ministerial approvals to permit construction of the Proposed Project , UST Installation Permit and UST Removal Permit from the Certified Unified Program Agency , and permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) to construct and operate the new fuel facility.

4 II. Evaluation of Class 32 Criteria
Generally, a discretionary action by the City requires environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act ( “CEQA”). However, the CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15300 to 15332) include a list of classes of projects that have been determined to not have a significant effect on the environment, also known as Categorical Exemptions. If a project falls within one of these classes, it is exempt from the provisions of CEQA, and no further environmental review is required. The Class 32 “Infill” Categorical Exemption (CEQA Guideline Section 15332) (the Class 32 Exemption ), exempts infill development within urbanized areas if it meets certain criteria. The class consists of environmentally benign infill projects that are consistent w ith the local General Plan and zoning requirements. The Proposed Project meets this exemption by adding a General Plan and zoning -compliant, relocated fuel facility use to a portion of an existing shopping center in a developed, urbanized area. Relocating the fuel facility on the Project Site w ill improve site circulation, as well as eliminate any potential off-site queuing.

This class of exemption is not intended for projects that would result in any significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality impacts. It may apply to residential, commercial, industrial, and/or mixed -use projects. A Class 32 Exemption applies to a project characterized as in -fill development by meeting the criteria described below:
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.
(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The following is an analysis of each of the above criteria.

A. The Proposed Project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

The Project Site is subject to the Culver City General Plan.

1. Culver City General Plan
The General Plan serves as a blueprint for future growth and development in the City, and contains policies and programs designed to provide decision-makers with a basis for all land use related decisions.

The General Plan addresses, among other subjects, land use, circulation, public safety, noise, and growth management.

The Land Use Element is a guide to the allocation of land use s in the City and provides a framework or context for the issues and subject areas examined in the other Elements of the General Plan.

The Project Site is designated as Regional Center (“RC”) under the Land Use Element. RC allows a fuel facility as an ancillary use to the main Costco warehouse designation.

5 The relocation of the fuel facility will execute the following goals of the General Plan:
• LU Policy 7.B: Allow existing regional and community centers to upgrade and expand in response to changing market demands, to maintain their economic viability, with adequate mitigation of impacts to nearby residential neighborhoods.

The Proposed Project will upgrade and expand the existing fuel facility and will reduce onsite vehicular congestion by providing more space between the gas station queues and the main entrance at the Washington Blvd. & Glencoe Ave. traffic signal. The new state-of-the-art facility will provide a more efficient fuel purchasing experience for Costco members. • LU Policy 8.A: Support desirable retail establishments in proximity to residential neighborhoods that provide needed goods and services.

The relocation and expansion of the members only fuel station will support the adjacent Costco warehouse.
• LU Policy 8.B: Ensure that development impact fees mitigate all resultant costs burdened on City infrastructure and services.

The Proposed Project would pay all required impact fees. • LU Policy 16.C: Encourage compatible commercial uses, through conditional expansion of commercial users, to adjacent residential lots in designated areas of Washington Boulevard.

The Proposed Project is the relocation and expansion of the existing fuel facility and will be conditioned to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential lots through the conditional use permit modification.

2. Culver City Municipal Code
The Proposed Project is subject to Title 17 – Zoning Code of the Culver City Municipal Code (“CCMC”).

As set forth in the table below, the Proposed Project would comply with the applicable provisions of the CCMC.

Development Standard Requirement Response
Maximum Building Height 56 feet The maximum height of the canopy is approximately 17 feet
from finished grade with a 14 -
foot 6-inch clearance.

Minimum Front Building Setback 15 feet The Proposed Project will maintain the required setback.

Minimum Side Building Setback None Not applicable.

Minimum Side Street Building
Setback
15 feet The Proposed Project will
maintain the required setback.

Minimum Rear Building Setback None Not applicable.

6 Off-Street Parking None The Proposed P roject will
remove 56 stalls for a total of
907 stalls for the overall
development.

Landscaping Minimum 5-foot landscape
strip along street frontages.

The Proposed Project will
provide a minimum 12-foot
landscape strip along
Washington Boulevard and
Walnut Avenue in the vicinity
of the fueling facility and a
minimum 9-foot landscape strip
along Washington Boulevard in
the vicinity of the new parking
area. Signs Maximum sign area of 1.5
square feet/1 linear foot of
elevation (not to exceed 40%
of wall area).
(North/South Facades: 141.5
linear feet of canopy elevation
= 212.25 sq. ft. sign area)
((141.5 linear feet x 3 feet) x
40% = 169.8 sq. ft. maximum
sign area)
(East/West Facades: 92 linear
feet of canopy elevation = 138
sq. ft. sign area) ((92 linear feet
x 3 feet) x 40% = 110.4 sq. ft.
maximum sign area)
The project will include one
20-square-foot "Costco
Wholesale" sign on each façade
of the canopy.

7 Development Standard Requirement Response
Exterior Lighting All exterior light sources,
including canopy, flood, and
perimeter, shall be energy
efficient, stationary, and
shielded or recessed within the
roof canopy to ensure that all
light, including glare or
reflections is directed away
from adjoining properties and
public rights-of-way.

Under-canopy lighting and
parking lot lighting will be
installed with flat lens LED
lighting fixtures and lighting
will be directed downward to
prevent offsite glare.

Design Criteria Architectural designs shall be
consistent in quality and
appearance with the overall
development.

The canopy design is
consistent with the design of
the main Costco Warehouse
and will include a metal-
wrapped canopy fascia with
concrete masonry unit
wrapped canopy columns.

3. Conclusion
As discussed above, the Proposed Project is consistent with the applicable General Plan designation and all applicable General Plan policies , as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations .

Therefore, the Proposed Project satisfies the first criterion for a Class 32 Exemption.

B. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

As shown in Figure 1, the Project Site Map, the Project Site is located within a portion of an existing shopping center in Culver City and is entirely surrounded by urban uses. The Project Site (consisting of the area where the fueling station and landscape screening will be relocated to and the area of the existing gas station to be demolished and replaced with parking) has a total area of approximately 3.11 acres. The Project Site includes all areas that will be physically change d.2 No new development or construction activity related to the Proposed Project will occur in the other portions of the shopping center, including the existing Costco Warehouse and other pad parcels, nor will the existing operations at these uses change as a result of the Proposed Project. These uses and areas are part of the existing physical environment prior to

2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a) provides: “‘Project’ means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment …” (Emphasis added.) See Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin , 70 Cal.App.5th 951 (2021) (Upholding use of Class 32 CEQA exemption for 2.38 acre project site included within 12-acre existing shopping center as project site was below 5-acre maximum).

8 the Project that will not change as result of the Project. Therefore, they comprise the environmental baseline and are not part of the Proposed Project.3
Therefore, the Proposed Project satisfies the second criterion for a Class 32 Exemption.

C. The Project Site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

The Project Site is located in a highly urbanized area within the City. The current location of the fuel facility is fully developed as is the relocation site. Th e surrounding area is fully developed with urban infrastructure and do es not contain any significant areas of natural open space or areas of significant biological resource or habitat value. The Project Site is developed with the existing fuel facility, two retail buildings, and asphalt-paved parking areas. There are ornamental trees and other vegetation located on-site as landscaping within the surface parking areas. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report, no candidate, sensitive, or special status species identified in local plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or the USFWS have been recorded or exist on the Project Site. Furthermore, no critical habitat was identified in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s NEPAssist mapping tool.

The Proposed Project would relocate seven and remove 33 non-protected trees and zero protected trees on the Project Site. While the removal of non -protected trees would not be considered a significant impact under CEQA, the removal of these trees has the potential to impact nesting bird species if they are present at the time of tree removal. Nesting bir ds are protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (Title 16, United States Code, Section 703 et seq., see also Title 50, Code of Federal Regulation, Part 20) and Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code. In accordance with the MBTA, tree removal activities would take place outside of the nesting season (February 15–September 15), if and to the extent feasible. To the extent that vegetation removal activities must occur during the nesting season, a biological monitor would be present during the removal activities to ensure that no active nests would be impacted. If active nests are found, a 300-foot buffer (500 feet for raptors) would be established until the fledglings have left the nest. Accordingly, with adherence to the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the State Fish and Game Code. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on endangered, rare, or threatened species or their habitat.

Therefore, the Proposed Project satisfies the third criterion for a Class 32 Exemption.

D. Approval of the Proposed Project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

1. Traffic
The following traffic impact analysis summarizes and incorporates the information set forth in the Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study prepared by Kittelson & Associates (KA) dated May 29, 2024 (Traffic Analysis). The Traffic Analysis is included as Attachment 1 to this document.

3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a) provides: “An EIR must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project … at the time environmental analysis is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact is significant.”

9 a) Programs, Plans, Ordinances, And Policies
As set forth in detail in the Traffic Analysis, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or preclude the ability of the City to implement its programs, plans, ordinances, and policies related to the transportation system.
b) VMT Analysis
On Ju ly 13 , 2020, the City updated the Transportation Study Criteria and Guidelines, which include methodologies and criteria to evaluate land use and transportation projects from a VMT standpoint.

Regional serving retail projects should be evaluated to determine their effect on vehicle trip length and VMT.

As set forth in detail in the Traffic Analysis, a VMT estimate was developed for the Proposed Project that takes into account the fact that the fuel station exists on the Project Site today, and the Project is an on- site relocation to this existing use, not the addition of a new use. The membership of a Costco warehouse is not related to or affected by the size of its fuel facility, and the existing demand for gas by members of the Culver City Costco warehouse would remain after the expansion. The proposed Project relocates the existing fuel station on site and removes four existing retail/commercial uses on the site (Verizon store, Subway, GNC, and Starbucks), resulting in fewer vehicle trips to the site overall. Specifically, the Proposed Project would result in a net decrease of 331 daily trips. Regarding trip lengths, the Project would be replacing trips from retail uses with trips to a gas station. Retail stores and restaurants in urban areas normally attract trips from a larger area compared to gas stations, as gasoline is a commodity that can be found in multiple locations in the West Los Angeles and Culver City area, and most consumers normally do not divert from their routes to buy gasoline. Additionally, a Costco membership is needed to use the gas station, and trips associated with the gas station are typically associated with trips to the warehouse.

Conversely, retail uses have a larger number of employees that typically drive longer distances, and consumers normally drive longer distances to purchase goods and services. In summary, as the Project would generate fewer daily trips and the trip lengths associated with the Project would be shorter, the Project would result in a net decrease in VMT and, therefore, would not result in a significant impact. c) Geometric Design Standards
As set forth in detail in the Traffic Analysis, the Project will not cause a substantial increase in on -street hazards due to geometric design or incompatible uses and , therefore, not result in a significant impact related to CEQA. The intersection queuing analysis concluded that the Project may result in increased queuing but would not result in new locations where the available storage would be exceeded at study intersections on public street approaches. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact.
d) Emergency Access
The Proposed Project will retain the existing emergency access driveway on Walnut Avenue. The Proposed Project will maintain this emergency access during construction. As the Proposed Project will result in a net reduction in vehicle trips, it will not impede emergency access on area roadways. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact.

10 2. Noise
The following noise impact analysis summarizes and incorporates the information set forth in the Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project prepared by Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc (AES) dated May 2024 (Noise Report). The Noise Report is included as Attachment 2 to this document. a) Construction Noise Impacts
The following Project Design Features would be implemented as part of the Project to reduce the construction-related noise impacts:

PDF-1: Temporary noise barriers would be provided at the following locations to block the line- of-sight between the construction equipment and the adjacent noise sensitive uses. • Along the project’s western property line. The noise barrier shall provide minimum 20 dBA noise reduction (minimum 16 feet high, relative to local grade elevation) at the residences across the Project Site to the west (receptor location R1).
• Along the project’s northern property line. The noise barrier shall provide minimum 5 dBA noise reduction (minimum 6 feet high, relative to local grade elevation) at the residences to the northwest (receptor location R5). • Along the existing fuel station eastern property line. The noise barrier shall provide minimum 12 dBA noise reduction (minimum 12 feet high, relative to local grade elevation) to the residences across the Project Site to the east (receptor location R3).

PDF-2: The Project contractor will use power construction equipment with properly operating and maintained noise shielding and muffling devices, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.

PDF-3: The Project construction activities will avoid concurrent construction with the Washington Boulevard Stormwater and Urban Runoff Project (City’s Sewer Project) as follows:
• Avoid concurrent construction within 500 feet of the City’s Stormwater Project and receptor location R1
• Avoid concurrent construction within 400 feet of the City’s Stormwater Project and receptor location R3
• Avoid concurrent construction within 100 feet of the City’s Stormwater Project and receptor location R4

The estimated noise levels from on -site temporary construction activities would temporarily increase ambient noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site. However, the construction noise level would be below the significance threshold with i mplementation of the specified Project Design Features.

As such, Project-specific construction noise impacts would be less than significant.

11 b) Construction Vibration Impacts
The estimated vibration levels from Project on -site temporary construction activities would be below the significance threshold for building damage at the nearest off -site buildings to the north, south, east and west. Therefore, temporary vibration impacts associated with Project on-site construction activities would be less than significant.

The estimated vibration levels from the Project’s on-site temporary construction activities would be below the 80 VdB significance threshold pursuant to human annoyance at all off-site vibration sensitive receptors.

Therefore, Project -level vibration impacts from on -site construction activities with respect to human annoyance would be less than significant.
c) Operational Noise Impacts
Noise levels associated with the fuel station typical operation would include running product dispensers, vehicle circulation, and arrival, unloading and departure of a delivery truck. The estimated overall noise levels from the product dispensers and vehicles range from 13.5 dBA (Leq) at receptor R2 to 43.6 dBA (Leq) at receptor location R1, which would be below the existing ambient noise levels. As such, the estimated noise levels at all off-site receptor locations would be below the significance threshold of 5 dBA (Leq) above ambient noise levels.

The estimated noise levels from the product delivery truck operation range from 30.3 dBA (Leq) at receptor R2 to 52.5 dBA (L eq) at receptor location R4, which would be consistent with the existing ambient noise levels. As such, the estimated noise levels increase at all off -site receptor locations would be below the significance threshold of 5 dBA (Leq) increase over the ambient noise levels.

In addition, a noise analysis was conducted to evaluate the potential sleep disturbance associated with the product delivery trucks. The potential sleep disturbance was analyzed using the Sound Exposure Level (SEL) and based on the recommended SEL noise limit from the LAX South Airfield Improvement Project EIR. The estimated SEL noise level at all off -site receptors ranged from 65.9 dBA SEL at the exterior of receptor R2 to 88.1 dBA SEL at the exterior of receptor R4, which would be below the maximum exterior noise limit of 94 dBA SEL (assuming windows open). In addition, the estimated SEL at the interior of the residence, with the window opens (worst -case noise scenario) would be approximately 52.9 to 75.1 dBA SEL, which would be below the 81 dBA SEL interior noise limits.

A temporary 80 KVA generator would be used for the new fuel facility operation. The temporary generator for the new fuel facility operation would be used 24 hours per day, on a temporary basis. The estimated generator noise levels would be below the Project significance threshold at all off-site noise receptors.

A composite operational noise analysis was performed to evaluate the noise impacts (concurrent operation) from all Project-related noise sources, including product dispensers, vehicle queueing, and product delivery truck operations. The Project would result in a maximum increase of 0.1 dBA CNEL at receptor R2 to 2.4 dBA CNEL at receptor R1. The increases in noise levels due to Project operations (all noise sources) at off-site receptors R1, R2, R3, and R5 would be below the 5 dBA CNEL significance thresho ld, as the estimated noise levels would be below 65 dBA CNEL. The estimated noise level increase at off -site receptor R4 would be below the 3 dBA CNEL significance threshold for noise level greater than 65 dBA CNEL. Therefore, the composite operational n oise level impacts due to Project operation would be less than significant.

12 3. Air Quality
The following air quality impact analysis summarizes and incorporates the information set forth in the Costco Culver City Project Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report prepared by Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc. (Ramboll), dated May 2024 (AQ Analysis). The AQ Analysis is included as Attachment 3 to this document.
a) Air Quality Analysis
(1) Introduction
The AQ Analysis provides an air quality assessment of the Proposed Project in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. Specifically, emissions of criteria air pollutants (CAP) associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Project were estimated in order to evaluate if the Proposed Project would cause significant air quality impact s. The AQ Analysis concludes that the Proposed Project would not cause significant air quality impacts. A brief description of the methodology and results of the analyses are provided in the following sub-sections.
(2) Methodology
Ramboll developed a criteria area pollutant ( CAP) emission inventory for the construction and operation of the Proposed Project. Sources of construction emissions related to the Proposed Project include off-road equipment, fugitive dust, off-gassing from paving, architectural coatings, and on-road mobile sources. The Proposed Project would also generate emissions during operation from area sources (architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping), energy sources (natural gas and electricity), and mobile sources (passenger cars and fuel delivery trucks).

Ramboll utilized the California Emission Estimator Model version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod®)4 to quantify the CAP emissions associated with construction and operation of the Proposed Project. CalEEMod® is a state- wide program designed to calculate both criteria pollutant emissions from development projects in California developed under the auspices of the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD), with input from other California air districts, and is currently supported by numerous lead agencies for use in quantifying the emissions associated with development projects undergoing environmental review.

CalEEMod® utilizes widely accepted models for emission estimates combined with appropriate default data that can be used if site -specific information is not available. These models and default estimates use sources, such as the USEPA AP -42 emission factors5, CARB’s on-road and off-road equipment emission models, such as the EMission FACtor model (EMFAC) and the Emissions Inventory Program model (OFFROAD), and studies commissioned by California agencies, such as the California Energy Commission (CEC) and CalRecycle.

In addition, CalEEMod ® contains default values and existing regulation methodologies to use in each specific local air district region. Appropriate statewide default values can be utilized if regional default values are not defined. Ramboll used default factors for the Los Angeles County area (within the SCAQMD’s jurisdiction) for the emissions inventory, unless otherwise noted in the methodology descriptions below.

4 SCAQMD. 2020. California Emissions Estimator Model ®. Available at: http://www.CalEEMod.com/. 5 The USEPA maintains a compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors and process information for several air pollution source categories. The data is based on source test data, material balance studies, and engineering estimates.

Available at: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors.

13 (3) Results
(a) Criteria Air Pollutant Emissions
(i) Mass Daily Emissions
Table 4-6 to the AQ Analysis presents the maximum daily CAP emission estimates from construction of the Proposed Project. As shown in this table, the construction emissions for the Proposed Project are less than the SCAQMD mass daily significance thresholds for all pollutants. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4-9 to the AQ Analysis presents the maximum daily CAP emission estimates from Proposed Project operations. As shown in the table, the operational emissions for the Proposed Project are less than the SCAQMD mass daily significance thresholds for all pollutants. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
(ii) Localized Ambient Air Quality
Ramboll evaluated the localized ambient air quality impacts from on -site construction and operational activities for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2), particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 micron s (PM2.5) using SCAQMD ’s localized significance thresholds (LSTs) methodology 6. As shown in Table 7-1 to the AQ Analysis, the Proposed Project’s localized construction and operation emissions would not result in an exceedance of SCAQMD ’s LSTs.

Hence, the proposed construction and operational activities do not result in a significant localized impact for air quality.
(b) Health Risk Assessment
Table 5-4 to the AQ Analysis presents the health risk assessment for toxic air contaminants (TACs) for each receptor type during construction. Table 5-3 to the AQ Analysis presents the health risk assessment for TACs for each receptor type during operation. As shown in the table s, the Proposed Project TAC emissions are below the SCAQMD thresholds for cancer risk, chronic hazard index and acute hazard index.

Hence, the Proposed Project would not cause a significant health risk impact during construction or operation.
(4) Conclusion
As described in the results section, the AQ Analysis concludes that the Proposed Project would not cause a significant air quality impact.
b) Regulatory Compliance Measures
As conditioned, the applicant must obtain approval from SCAQMD prior to the issuance of the building or grading permit and must comply with all SCAQMD regulations and obtain a Permit to Construct and Permit to Operate with respect to the Proposed Project.

6 SCAQMD. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. June 2003, Revised July 2008. Available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-lst-methodology- document.pdf?sfvrsn=2.

14 In addition to the analysis set forth in the AQ Analysis, c ompliance with these regulatory compliance measures will ensure that construction and operation of the Proposed Project would not cause any significant impacts to air quality.

4. Water Quality
Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. (Fuscoe) prepared the Preliminary Final Hydrology/MS4 Study Costco Culver City Gas Station Relocation for the Proposed Project, dated September 29, 2022, Revised May 31, 2024 (Hydrology Report), which is included as Attachment 4. Based on the proposed site development layout and grading, following development of the Proposed Project the site will follow similar drainage patterns as in the existing conditions, with flow being routed to on -site catch basins before ultimately being discharged to the existing infrastructure in Washington Boulevard. All on -site drainage will be collected in a proposed private storm drain system and treated before discharging to the public street. Water quality treatment will be provided via a detention system and a modular wetland on the Project Site. Fuscoe determined that the Proposed Project’s hydrology and MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Plan) site program meets the design requirements as specified by the Culver City Hydrology and Low Impact Development (LID) Manuals. In addition, the Proposed Project will include water quality best management practices (BMPs), LID BMPs, and source controls to reduce pollutants in storm water discharges.

The following addresses CEQA Appendix G threshold questions related to hydrology and water quality.

Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
During construction, the Proposed Project would implement an Erosion Control Plan that specifies BMPs and erosion control measures to be used during construction to manage runoff flows. These BMPs would be designed to reduce runoff and pollutant levels in runoff during construction. Therefore, impacts to water surface water quality during construction would be less than significant.

During on-site grading and building construction, hazardous materials, such as fuels, paints, solvents, and concrete additives, could be used and would therefore require proper management and, in some cases, disposal. The management of any resultant hazardous wastes could increase the opportunity for hazardous materials releasing into groundwater. However, compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning the handling, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste, would reduce the potential for the construction of the Proposed Project to release contaminants into groundwater. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in any substantial increase in groundwater contamination through hazardous materials releases, and impacts on groundwater quality during construction would be less than significant.

Under the existing conditions, there are no water quality BMPs implemented within the project area. Under the proposed conditions, biofiltration BMPs will be implemented as part of the site design. Based on the implementation of water quality BMPs consiste nt with the MS4 Stormwater Permit, no violations of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements are anticipated during operation and are considered less than significant. Infiltration has not been proposed as a storm water quality solution; therefore, groundwater quality would not be affected.

Operational activities which could affect groundwater quality include spills of hazardous materials and leaking underground storage tanks (USTs). The four USTs that will be installed as part of the Proposed Project will undergo preinstallation testing to verify structural integrity and employ safety features such as

15 primary and secondary containment systems, spill containment and overfill prevention systems, and leak detection systems. Therefore, with compliance with applicable regulations, impacts to groundwater from the USTs would be less than significant.

The development of the expanded fuel facility would incrementally increase the use of on -site hazardous materials during operations. However, compliance with all applicable regulations regarding the handling and potentially required cleanup of hazardous materials would prevent the Proposed Project from affecting or expanding any potential areas of contamination, increasing the level of contamination, or causing regulatory water quality standards at an existing production well to be violated. Furthermore, operation of the Proposed Project would not require extraction from the groundwater supply. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in releases or spills of contaminants that could reach a groundwater recharge area or spreading ground or otherwise reach groundwater through percolation. Therefore, impacts to groundwater quality would be less than significant.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? The existing site condition is 95% impervious, and infiltration and associated groundwater recharge is highly limited due to very little pervious area. Under the proposed condition, site perviousness will remain nearly the same and thus will allow the same or more incidental groundwater recharge through proposed landscaping areas. Neither the existing condition nor the Proposed Project include any groundwater pumping onsite. Therefore, impacts related to decreasing groundwater supplies is less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; During construction, the Proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable City grading permit regulations that require necessary measures, plans, and inspections to reduce sedimentation and erosion. Through compliance with all NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, implementation of BMPs, and compliance with applicable City grading regulations, Proposed Project construction would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.

Under the existing condition, an existing storm drain system collects flows from the project areas and conveys the flows to improved storm drain facilities on Washington Boulevard before being ultimately discharged into Marina Del Rey. The site is currentl y 95% impervious. and the on -site and off-site storm drain systems are fully hardened and improved and are not susceptible to erosion on-site or off-site.

Under the proposed condition, the site will remain 95% impervious, and the proposed on -site storm drain will not be susceptible to erosion. The existing off -site storm drain systems will continue to be utilized.

Thus, the project will not result in any in crease in erosion on or off -site, and impacts are considered less than significant.
ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
Construction activities are temporary, and flow directions and runoff volumes during construction will be controlled. Through compliance with all NPDES General Construction Permit requirements, implementation of BMPs, and compliance with applicable City grading regulations, the Project would not

16 substantially alter the project site drainage patterns during construction in a manner that would result flooding on- or off-site.

During operation, the proposed project will not significantly alter the rate or amount of surface runoff that could impact flooding on -site or off -site. Under the proposed conditions, peak flow runoff will slightly decrease due to improved site design and a proposed storm drain system will collect runoff to minimize on- site flooding. Due to the slight decrease in proposed runoff conditions, impacts related to off- site flooding are considered less than significant.
iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or As discussed above, the project would implement an Erosion Control Plan that specifies BMPs and erosion control measures to be used during construction to manage runoff flows and prevent pollution. These BMPs would be designed to contain stormwater or construction watering on the Project Site such that runoff will not impact off-site drainage facilities or receiving water. Therefore, impacts during construction would be less than significant.

Implementation of the project will result in a decrease in proposed runoff, and the existing and proposed storm drain systems are adequately sized to accommodate flood flows. Increases in runoff water will not exceed the capacity of existing or planned sto rmwater drainage systems. Therefore, impacts during operation would be less than significant.
iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
The site is located in FEMA flood zone X, and therefore is located within an area of minimum flood hazard.

In addition, the existing and proposed storm drain systems are adequately sized to accommodate flood flows. Further, implementation of the project w ill result in a small decrease in proposed runoff. As such, the project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the Project Site in a manner that would impede or redirect flood flows, and impacts would be less than significant. d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? The project is not located in an area subject to flood hazard, tsunami or seiche. The project is not located adjacent to a major body of water and is over 1.5 miles from the Pacific Ocean. The project site is not in a hillside area and is not at risk of mudflow. Therefore, impacts related to release of pollutants due to project inundation are considered less than significant.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
As discussed above in the responses to (a) and (b) above, the project would implement BMPs to filter, treat, and reduce stormwater pollutants prior to discharge from the project site in accordance with applicable regulations. Non -stormwater runoff associated with typical operations of the Project Site would also be filtered by the BMPs provided on -site prior to discharging from the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or s ustainable groundwater management plan, and impacts would be less than significant.

17 5. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Proposed Project satisfies the fourth criterion for a Class 32 Exemption.

E. The Project Site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The Project Site is located in an urbanized area within an existing shopping center. The Proposed Project relocates the existing gas station. The infrastructure for the utilities required to serve the Proposed Project is already in place and serve the existing gas station. The nominal increase in demand for utilities would be offset by the decrease from demolition of the existing fueling facility and commercial buildings.

The Proposed Project has no residential uses and, like the existing fuel facility, will only employ one regular employee. Therefore, the Proposed Project can be adequately served by existing police and fire services, schools, parks, and libraries.

Therefore, the Proposed Project can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services and satisfies the fifth criterion for a Class 32 Exemption.

III. Exceptions to Categorical Exemptions
Section 15300.2 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides exceptions to the exemptions depending on the nature or location of a project, including the following:

1. The project and successive projects of the same type in the same place will result in cumulative impacts;

2. There are unusual circumstances creating the reasonable possibility of significant effects;

3. The project may result in damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within an officially designated scenic highway;

4. The project is located on a site on any list compiled pursuant to Government code section 65962.5, as being affected by hazardous wastes or clean-up problems; or

5. The project may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.

A. Cumulative Impacts
The Proposed Project and successive projects of the same type in the same place would not result in cumulative impacts.

1. Traffic
As noted above, development of the Proposed Project would not result in any significant traffic impacts.

Moreover, the City would review any related project for consistency with transportation plans and VMT impacts. Each related project would be required to comply with applicable City design standards and therefore would not substantially increase hazards. Further, as the Proposed Project will maintain emergency access during construction and will result in a net reduction in vehicle trips, it would not result in a significant cumulative impact to emergency access.

18 2. Noise
Noise attenuates rapidly with distance and due to intervening barriers, such as buildings or landscaping .

The City’s Washington Boulevard Stormwater and Urban Runoff Project is the only related project in close enough proximity to the Project Site that, when combined with the Proposed Project , could potentially result in cumulative construction noise impacts. However, implement ation of the Project Design Feature identified in the Noise Report will ensure that such cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Vibration also attenuates rapidly with distance. The City’s Washington Boulevard Stormwater and Urban Runoff Project is the only related project in close enough proximity to the Project Site that, when combined with the Proposed Project, could potentially result in cumulative construction vibration impacts. However, implementation of the Project Design Feature that avoids concurrent construction in proximity to sensitive receptors will ensure that such cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

Regarding mobile noise sources during operations, i t generally requires a doubling of traffic volumes to result in a perceptible increase in traffic noise. As shown in the Traffic Analys is, the Proposed Project would result in a net reduction in trips and would theref ore not result in a doubling of traffic volumes on any roadways . Accordingly, cumulative noise impacts from operational traffic would be less than significant.

3. Air Quality
Cumulative air quality impacts from construction and operation of the Proposed Project, based on SCAQMD guidelines, are analyzed in a manner similar to project -specific air quality impacts. The SCAQMD recommends that a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts should be assessed utilizing the same significance criteria as those for project specific impacts. Therefore, according to the SCAQMD, individual development projects that generate construction or operational emissions that exceed the SCAQMD recommended daily thresholds for project-specific impacts would also cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions.

Thus, as discussed above, because the construction-related and operational daily emissions associated with Proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds, these emissions associated with the Proposed Project would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, cumulative air quality impacts would be less than significant.

4. Water Quality
The Proposed Project would not result in any significant water quality impacts. Like the Proposed Project, any other projects in the vicinity would be required to implement stormwater BMPs pursuant to Water Quality Management Plans. Mandatory structural BMPs in accordance with the NPDES water quality program and LID requirements would result in a cumulative reduction of surface water runoff, as the development in the vicinity of the Project Site is limited to infill development and redevelopment of existing urbanized areas. Therefore, by means of regulatory compliance by the Proposed Project and other projects, cumulative water quality impacts would be less than significant.

5. Utilities and Public Services
As noted above, the Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan, the Project Site is served by existing utilities infrastructure, and the Proposed Project is not expected to result in significant new demand for utilities or public services. Adequate capacity exists to serve the Proposed Project, and it would not result in any significant cumulative impacts associated with utilities or public services.

19 B. Unusual Circumstances
As noted in the analyses presented herein, there are no unusual circumstances that exist in connection with the Proposed Project or surrounding environmental conditions that have the potential to result in significant environmental impacts. The Project Site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is consistent with the existing physical arrangement of the properties within the vicinity of the Project Site. The zoning designation for the Project Site is Commercial Regional Retail, the General Plan land use designation for the Project Site is Regional Commercial. The Proposed Project is permitted under the zoning and General Plan.

The Proposed Project constitutes infill development within a portion of an existing commercial shopping center along a major commercial thoroughfare and in close proximity to significant transportation facilities.

There are no features of the Proposed Project, such as its size or location, that distinguish it from others in the exempt class. The relocated fuel facility is generally consistent with other gas stations in the City and other Costco fuel facilities in the area, including the existing fuel facility on the Project Site.

Therefore, no unique or unusual circumstances exist with respect to the Proposed Project that would give rise to a reasonable possibility of a significant effect upon the environment.

C. Scenic Highways
The Project Site is located in an urbanized area and does not contain any scenic resources. The Project Site is not bordered by or within the viewshed of any designated scenic highway.7 Further, there are no protected trees or unique geologic features on -site. The Proposed Project would not damage any scenic resources within an officially designated scenic highway.

D. Historical Resources
The existing fuel facility was constructed in 2002. Based upon information set forth in the Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 13431 and 13455 Washington Boulevard Culver City Gasoline Station Relocation prepared by Kleinfelder, dated December 1, 2021 (Phase II ESA), included as Attachment 5, the two commercial buildings to be removed were also constructed in approximately 2002. These buildings are utilitarian in design. Accordingly, there are no historical resources on the Project Site.

The immediate vicinity of the Project Site is developed with a shopping center and other commercial uses.

There are no historical resources located in the vicinity of the Project Site.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource.

E. Hazardous Materials
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5(a), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) shall compile and update as appropriate, at least annually, a list of all hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action (pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code), all land desi gnated as hazardous waste property or border zone property (pursuant to Section 25220 of the Health and Safety Code), all information received by the DTSC on hazardous waste disposals on public land (pursuant to

7 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/design/documents/od-county-scenic-hwys-2015-a11y.pdf; https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways

20 Section 25242 of the Health and Safety Code), and all sites listed pursuant to Section 25356 of the Health and Safety Code.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5(b), the Department of Health Services (DHS) shall compile and update, at least annually, a list of all public drinking water wells that contain detectable levels of organic contaminants and that are subject to water analysis pursuant to Section 116395 of the Health and Safety Code.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5(c), the State Water Resources Control Board shall compile and update, at least annually, a list of all underground storage tanks for which an unauthorized release report is filed pursuant to Section 25295 of the Health and Safety Code, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a migration of hazardous waste and for which a California regional water quality control board has notified the DTSC pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 13273 of the Water Code, and a list of all cease and desist orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 13301 of the Water Code, and all cleanup or abatement orders issued after January 1, 1986, pursuant to Section 13304 of the Water Code, that concern the discharge of wastes that are hazardous materials.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5(d), the local enforcement agency shall compile, at least annually, a list of all solid waste disposal facilities from which there is a known migration of hazardous waste. The California Integrated Waste Management Board shall compile the local lists into a statewide list, which shall be submitted to the Secretary for Environmental Protection and shall be available to any person who requests the information.

The Project Site and adjoining properties are not listed in the EnviroStor database, as confirmed in the Phase II ESA. In addition, the Project Site is not listed for cleanup, permitting, or investigation of any hazardous waste contamination on any of the lists published pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.

Therefore, the Project Site is not located on a site that the DTSC and the Secretary for Environmental Protection have identified as being affected by hazardous wastes or clean-up problems.

Figures:
1 Project Site Map
Attachments:
1 Culver City Costco Fuel Station On -Site Relocation Transportation Study prepared by Kittelson & Associates, dated May 29, 2024.
2 Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project prepared by Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc., Inc., dated May 2024.
3 Costco Culver City Project Air Quality/Health Risk Technical Report prepared by Ramboll Americas Engineering Solutions, Inc., dated May 2024.
4 Preliminary Final Hydrology/MS4 Study Costco Culver City Gas Station Relocation for the Proposed Project, prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc., dated September 29, 2022, revised May 31, 2024. 5 Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment 13431 and 13455 Washington Boulevard Culver City Gasoline Station Relocation prepared by Kleinfelder, dated December 1, 2021. 6 Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin, 70 Cal.App.5th 951 (2021)

Figure 1

Project Site Map

(Attached)

Costco
Shopping
Area
Glencoe Ave
Walgrove Ave
Walnut Ave
Lincoln Blvd
Washington Blvd
Glencoe Ave

Attachment 1

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study prepared by Kittelson & Associates, dated May 29, 2024.

(Attached)

May 29, 2024

CULVER CITY COSTCO FUEL

STATION ON-SITE RELOCATION

TRANSPORTATION STUDY
13431-13463 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, CULVER CITY

Orange, California
Inside front cover
Page Intentionally blank

Costco Culver City Fuel Station
On-Site Relocation Project
Transportation Study
13431-13463 Washington Boulevard,
City of Culver City

Prepared for:

Costco Wholesale
999 Lake Drive
Issaquah, WA 98027

Prepared by:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
750 The City Drive, Suite 410
Orange, CA 92868
714.468.1997

Project Manager:

Fernando Sotelo, TE
Principal Engineer

Project Principal:

Sonia Hennum Daleiden, PTOE
Senior Principal Engineer

Project Analyst:

Michael Ruiz-Leon
Karen Phan, AICP
Transportation Analysts

Project Number 24944

May 29, 2024

Page Intentionally blank

CONTENTS
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 10 Project Description ............................................................................................................ 10 Scope of the Analysis ........................................................................................................ 11 Summary of CEQA Analysis .............................................................................................. 12 Summary of Non-CEQA Operational and Construction Analyses ............................... 13 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 17 Purpose of Transportation Study & Study Objectives .................................................... 17 Project Description ............................................................................................................ 17 Existing Transportation Network Review ............................................................................. 22 Roadway Network ............................................................................................................ 22 Existing Transit Service ....................................................................................................... 23 Pedestrian & Bicycle Facilities .......................................................................................... 24 Analysis Methodology & Evaluation Criteria ...................................................................... 26 CEQA Transportation Analysis .......................................................................................... 26 Non-CEQA Traffic Operations Analysis ............................................................................ 27 CEQA Transportation Analysis ............................................................................................. 33 Programs, Plans, Ordinances, and Policies ..................................................................... 33 Vehicle-Miles Traveled Analysis ........................................................................................ 36 Geometric Design Hazards .............................................................................................. 37 Traffic Operations Analysis ................................................................................................... 39 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................................. 39 Existing Plus Project Conditions ........................................................................................ 42 Background Conditions .................................................................................................... 53 Background Plus Project Conditions ............................................................................... 61 Temporary Construction Traffic ........................................................................................ 65 Findings & Recommendations ............................................................................................ 70 CEQA-Related ................................................................................................................... 70 Non-CEQA Supplemental Transportation Analysis ........................................................ 74

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study List of Tables May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 6

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Intersection LOS Summary Table, Weekday PM Conditions ................................................................. 13 Table 2 – Intersection LOS Summary Table, Saturday Peak Hour Conditions ...................................................... 13 Table 3 – Existing Transit Service ................................................................................................................................ 23 Table 4 – General Level of Service Definitions ........................................................................................................ 29 Table 5 – Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions ................................................................................ 30 Table 6 – Culver City Related Projects ..................................................................................................................... 34 Table 7 – Existing Conditions Intersection Operations ............................................................................................ 40 Table 8 – Existing Queuing at Intersections ............................................................................................................. 40 Table 9 – Weekday PM Peak Hour Growth ............................................................................................................. 43 Table 10 – Saturday Midday Peak Hour Trip Growth .............................................................................................. 43 Table 11 – ITE Trip Generation Rates ........................................................................................................................ 45 Table 12 – Comparative Trip Generation Summary ............................................................................................... 46 Table 13 – Existing Plus Project Intersection Operations ......................................................................................... 52 Table 14 – Existing Plus Project Queuing (Weekday PM & Saturday Midday) ..................................................... 52 Table 15 – Culver City Related Projects ................................................................................................................... 53 Table 16 – City of Los Angeles Related Projects ..................................................................................................... 54 Table 17 – Trip Generation Rates for Related Projects ........................................................................................... 55 Table 18 – Trip Generation for Related Projects ...................................................................................................... 55 Table 19 – Background Intersection Operations .................................................................................................... 58 Table 20 – Background Queuing (Weekday PM & Saturday Midday) ................................................................ 59 Table 21 – Background Plus Project Intersection Operations ................................................................................ 61 Table 22 – Background Plus Project Queuing (Weekday PM & Saturday Midday) ............................................ 63 Table 23- West Access & Washington Blvd Critical Movements 95th Percentile Queues Summary ................. 72 Table 24 - Glencoe Av & Washington Blvd Critical Movements 95th Percentile Queues Summary ................. 72 Table 25 – Intersection LOS Summary Table, Weekday PM Conditions ............................................................... 74 Table 26 – Intersection LOS Summary Table, Saturday Peak Hour Conditions .................................................... 74

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study List of Figures May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 7

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Project Location........................................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan .................................................................................................................................... 20 Figure 3 – Study Intersections – Existing Lane Configuration & Traffic Control Devices ...................................... 28 Figure 4 – Existing Conditions Traffic Volumes & Intersection Operations ............................................................ 41 Figure 5 – Trip Distribution & Project Only Volumes ................................................................................................. 48 Figure 6 – Existing Plus Project Intersection Operations .......................................................................................... 51 Figure 7 – Related Project Locations ........................................................................................................................ 56 Figure 8 – Related Projects Peak Traffic Volumes ................................................................................................... 57 Figure 9 – Background Traffic Volumes & Intersection Operations ....................................................................... 60 Figure 10 – Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes & Intersection Operations ................................................ 62 Figure 11- Costco Fuel Station Construction Phases ............................................................................................. 66 Figure 12 - Washington Boulevard Construction Phases ........................................................................................ 67

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Appendices May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 8

APPENDICES
Appendix A: Memorandum of Understanding ................................................................................................... 76 Appendix B: Historical Traffic Counts ................................................................................................................... 77 Appendix C: Existing Traffic Operations Worksheets ........................................................................................... 78 Appendix D: Existing Plus Project Traffic Operations Worksheets ...................................................................... 79 Appendix E: Related Projects List ......................................................................................................................... 80 Appendix F: Background Traffic Operations Worksheets .................................................................................. 81 Appendix G: Background Plus Project Traffic Operations Worksheets ............................................................. 82 Appendix H: Existing Conditions Modified Signal Timing Traffic Operations Worksheets ................................ 83 Appendix I: Background Modified Signal Timing Traffic Operations Worksheets ............................................... 84 Appendix J: Stormwater Project Construction Breakdown ................................................................................... 85

Section 1 — Executive Summary

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Executive Summary May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes the relocation of an existing Costco Gasoline fuel station located within the Culver City Costco Warehouse shopping area, located at 13463 Washington Boulevard in Culver City, California.

The property is currently developed with a Costco warehouse and a sixteen (16) vehicle fueling position Costco Gasoline fuel station located on the southeast corner of the property. In addition, there are several pad developments on the property including a fast-food restaurant and other retail uses. The project includes a new, approximately 13,000-square-foot fuel canopy, the installation of 15 new multi-product dispensers (MPDs), three (3) 40,000-gallon underground gasoline storage tanks (USTs), one (1) 1,500-gallon fuel additive UST, a new controller enclosure, a vapor processing unit, and associated site improvements, such as parking and landscaping. In addition, temporary noise barriers will be provided along the project’s western property line, northern property line, and the existing fueling facility’s eastern property line; the power construction equipment will contain noise shielding and muffling devices, consistent with manufacturers’ standards; and a portion of the project construction activities will not occur concurrently with the City’s Washington Boulevard Stormwater and Urban Runoff Project, as further described in the Noise Study, prepared by Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc., dated February 2023.

The existing fueling facility will be razed and removed from the site and the existing currently unoccupied commercial buildings will be demolished. The existing underground storage tanks and piping will be decommissioned and removed by state certified contractors. Following demolition, the existing fueling facility site will be improved with additional parking for the Costco Warehouse. The intent of the relocation is to install a new state of the art facility to provide a more efficient fuel purchasing experience for Costco members.

As discussed above, the on-site relocation will move the gas station to the southwest corner of the site to provide better on-site circulation and fuel station queue management. The relocation will also expand the fuel station to thirty (30) vehicle fueling positions to better serve peak period demand and reduce peak period queuing, wait times, and idling. The new location is currently occupied by retail buildings and a coffee shop with a total area of 6,890 square feet, and a Starbucks Coffee with an area of 1,590 square feet. These buildings will be demolished and therefore existing permitted trips associated with those land uses will be eliminated. 1 The on-site relocation and expansion will improve site circulation and service provided to Costco members.

The project is anticipated to be constructed during the first half of 2023 and last for 6 months. The proposed fuel station will retain the same operating hours as the existing station, operating approximately from 5:30 AM to 9:30 PM Monday through Friday, from 6:00 AM. to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and from 6:00 AM to 7:30 PM on Sundays.

The expansion and relocation of the Culver City Costco Gasoline fuel station (along with the removal of existing retail uses) will result in a reduction in net new trips to the site. The Project is estimated to approximately reduce 13 weekday PM peak hour net new trips (6 inbound, 7 outbound) and 14 Saturday midday peak hour net new trips (8 inbound/6 outbound). On a daily basis, the Project would result in 331 fewer trips during the weekdays. While Saturday daily estimates are not available, a comparison between the peak hour trips on weekdays and Saturdays suggest that the net daily trip reduction would also occur on Saturdays.

1 Under applicable case law (North County Advocates v. City of Carlsbad (2015) 241 Cal. App. 4th 94), these uses are considered to be part of the CEQA baseline even though the buildings are currently unoccupied. Therefore, this analysis includes a trip credit for the removal of these uses from the Project site. Moreover, as the buildings were occupied when the historic traffic counts at area roadways were taken, not taking such a credit would overstate post-Project traffic conditions.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Executive Summary May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 11

SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) has prepared a transportation study for the Costco fuel station on-site relocation project (“Project”) at the existing Costco development on Washington Boulevard in Culver City, California. This study was prepared in consultation with City of Culver City (City) staff and consistent with the Culver City Transportation Study Criteria and Guidelines (“Guidelines”) (dated June 8, 2020) as well as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

The study evaluated potential project impacts in terms of vehicle miles traveled (VMT), provided an evaluation of potential operation impacts for auto, bicycle, and pedestrian modes, and provided an evaluation of potential impacts during project construction, as summarized below.

A post-occupancy traffic count analysis of the development will be provided by the applicant if required by the City of Culver City. The analysis would be used to confirm the findings in this transportation study and would verify that the project would not result in any additional traffic impacts that would require additional mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval on the project.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Executive Summary May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 12

SUMMARY OF CEQA ANALYSIS

CONSISTENCY WITH PROGRAMS, PLANS, ORDINANCES, & POLICIES This transportation analysis evaluated potential for the project to preclude the ability of Culver City to implement its goals and policies. A review of key policies was conducted including the City’s General Plan Circulation Element, the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, Short Range Transit Plan and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan, among others. It was concluded that the proposed Project would not conflict with or preclude the ability of Culver City to implement its programs, plans, ordinances, and policies related to the transportation system.

VMT IMPACT ANALYSIS
On June 8, 2020, the City of Culver City updated the Transportation Study Criteria and Guidelines, which includes methodologies and criteria to evaluate land use and transportation projects from a VMT standpoint. Regional serving retail projects should be evaluated to determine their effect on vehicle trip length and VMT.

The Project would result in a net decrease of 331 daily trips. The Project would be replacing trips from retail uses with trips to a gas station, which on average consist of shorter trip lengths compared to those of retail trips. In summary, as the Project would generate fewer daily trips and the trip lengths associated with the Project would be less, the Project would result in a net decrease in VMT and therefore not result in a significant impact.

POLICIES & GEOMETRIC DESIGN STANDARDS
The Project will not cause a substantial increase in on-street hazards due to geometric design or incompatible uses and therefore not result in a significant impact related to CEQA. The intersection queuing analysis concluded that the Project may result in increased queuing but would not result in new locations where the available storage would be exceeded at study intersections on public street approaches.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Executive Summary May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 13

SUMMARY OF NON-CEQA OPERATIONAL AND

CONSTRUCTION ANALYSES

INTERSECTION LOS AND DELAY
Table 1 summarizes the LOS and delay at the three study intersections during the weekday PM peak hours.

With Project traffic under existing and background (project opening) year conditions, there is no degradation in LOS or major changes in delay at the study intersections. Therefore, the Project would not degrade intersection operations in terms of LOS or delay during the weekday PM peak hour.

Table 1 – Intersection LOS Summary Table, Weekday PM Conditions ID Intersection Existing Existing Plus
Project Background Background
Plus Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Lincoln Boulevard &
Washington Boulevard 62.7 E 62.7 E 67.5 E 67.7 E
2 West Access & Washington
Boulevard 7.1 A 9.3 A 6.8 A 8.9 A
3 Glencoe Avenue &
Washington Boulevard 41.8 D 41.9 D 48.6 D 50.8 D
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
Notes: bold correspond to LOS E and F operations.

Table 2 summarizes the LOS and delay at the three study intersections during the Saturday peak hours. With Project traffic under existing and background year conditions, the intersection of West Access & Washington Boulevard would change from LOS A to LOS B, which is considered acceptable in terms of operations. There is no degradation in LOS or minor changes in delay at the intersections of Lincoln Boulevard & Washington Boulevard, and Glencoe Avenue & Washington Boulevard. Therefore, the Project would not degrade intersection operations in terms of LOS and delay on Saturdays.

Table 2 – Intersection LOS Summary Table, Saturday Peak Hour Conditions ID Intersection Existing Existing Plus
Project Background Background Plus
Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Lincoln Boulevard &
Washington Boulevard 48.1 D 48.1 D 51.5 D 51.4 D
2 West Access &
Washington Boulevard 9.3 A 11.3 B 8.9 A 11.0 B
3 Glencoe Avenue &
Washington Boulevard 49.7 D 53.2 D 68.6 E 75.8 E
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
Notes: bold correspond to LOS E and F operations.

INTERSECTION QUEUES
The Project would increase the queue length and exceed the turn lane storage at the following locations on public streets:
• West Access at Washington Boulevard:
o Eastbound left-turn lane; Saturday – the 95th percentile queue at this intersection is currently exceeding the available storage at this location, in a condition where the queue extends to the adjacent eastbound through lane on Washington Boulevard. A review of aerial photography indicates that the left turn pocket cannot be extended. The Project would increase the 95
th percentile queue. Modifications to the signal timing would alleviate this queue but would result in an increase in the queue compared to no project conditions.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Executive Summary May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 14
• Glencoe Avenue at Washington Boulevard:
o Westbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday - the 95th percentile queue at this intersection is currently exceeding the available storage at this location, in a condition where the queue extends to the adjacent westbound through lane on Washington Boulevard. A review of aerial photography indicates that the left turn pocket cannot be extended. The Project would nominally increase the 95
th percentile queue by less than one vehicle.

Modifications to the signal timing would offset the queue increase. o Northbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday- the 95th percentile queue at this intersection is currently exceeding the available storage at this location. The Project would nominally modify the queue length by less than one vehicle at this location. The queue would be contained within the northbound approach of Glencoe Avenue and would not extend to the next driveway at Beach Avenue. This would not substantially affect circulation in the area, and no modifications are recommended to address this condition.

Project-related traffic would result in an increase in the queues at the eastbound left turn lane West access at Washington Boulevard, at a location where the queue already extends past the available storage. The project will be conditioned to either the installation of a battery backup and a Video Detection camera for the existing traffic signal, or payment of a $30,000 in-lieu fee.

NEIGHBORHOOD CUT-THROUGH TRAFFIC
The Project would not add new access driveways to the circulation network. All vehicular ingress and egress would continue to occur via Washington Boulevard. No access driveway will be constructed on Walnut Avenue. Walnut Avenue and Zanja Street already have traffic calming measures that restrict cut- thought traffic on those streets. Because the Project would result in a net decrease in traffic, and because site access would continue to occur primarily via the existing access driveways at Washington Boulevard, the Project would not add cut-through traffic to the nearby residential neighborhoods.

In addition, the Project would not add vehicle trips to the study area and therefore not exacerbate cut- through traffic through the neighborhood by causing additional congestion to the study area.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO NON-AUTO MODES
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
The existing Costco site provides decorative paving at all on-site pedestrian walkways and courtyards. The gasoline station would not generate a substantial number of pedestrian traffic to/from the warehouse and other parts of the shopping area. The new parking lot area at the location where the existing gas station is located will continue to be connected with decorative paving at all on-site pedestrian walkways and courtyards.

The Project does not include any off-site work that would adversely impact off-site bicycle and sidewalks. In addition, the proposed gasoline station would not create a substantial increase in pedestrian and bicycle activity. As such, the Project would not impact off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities and should not be required to provide any off-site bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

Bicycle Parking
Short-term bicycle parking is provided at the main Costco warehouse. The fuel facility is not required to provide parking stalls as it is an ancillary use to the main Costco warehouse, and no goods, other than fuel, are sold at the facility. In addition, the Project will remove approximately 29 parking stalls, and the California Green Building Code only requires new bicycle parking for any new parking provided. Based on the above information, the provision of additional short-term bicycle stalls should not be required for the fuel facility.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Executive Summary May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 15
Transit
The Project does not include any off-site work and does not impact the existing bus stops along Washington Boulevard. In addition, the Project is not anticipated to generate a significant number of additional trips to the site. As such, improvement measures are not warranted.

CONSTRUCTION
Construction of the Stormwater Project was scheduled to start in January 2022 and be completed in November 2022. However, the start of the project has been delayed. It is possible that the construction activities for both projects may overlap. As a project design feature of the Project, there would be no overlapping construction with the Washington Boulevard Stormwater close to certain nearby receptors, as described in Section 6.

During the Stormwater Project construction, the work zone traffic control plan outlines the closure of one lane of through eastbound traffic and the center median lane, as well as temporary removal of on-street parking along Washington Boulevard between the western Costco Wholesale driveway and Redwood Avenue. Furthermore, several pedestrian crosswalks will be closed during the project construction, but only across Washington Boulevard. Sidewalks along Washington Boulevard are to remain open and untouched by the project construction.

During the Stormwater Project construction, traffic in the vicinity of the Costco warehouse area could be affected by temporary lane closures, turn restrictions, potential alterations to bus stops, restrictions to local access driveways, and temporary loss of curbside parking. Traffic mitigation identified in the Washington Boulevard Diversion Traffic Management Plan, prepared by Albert Grover and Associates in December 2018, would include:
• Work zone traffic control and changeable message signs • Facilitate flow on Washington Boulevard and alternative routes • Intelligent project staging and work activities
To minimize congestion related to construction traffic, Costco will prepare a construction management plan in consultation with the City of Culver City, which will establish truck haul routes, access driveways, staging, parking and loading areas and traffic controls such as signage, pavement markings, cones, barricades, flaggers and other elements. The construction management plan will be submitted to the City and be approved prior to obtaining construction permits.

Section 2 — Introduction

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Introduction May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 17

INTRODUCTION

PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDY & STUDY

OBJECTIVES
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) has prepared a transportation study for the Costco fuel station on-site relocation project (“Project”) at the existing Costco development on Washington Boulevard in Culver City, California. This study was prepared in consultation with City of Culver City (City) staff and consistent with the Culver City Transportation Study Criteria and Guidelines (“Guidelines”) (dated July 13, 2020) as well as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (dated February 5, 2021) agreed to by both the City and Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). The scope for this transportation analysis was developed in consultation with City of Culver City and City of Los Angeles staff. A copy of the Memorandum of Understanding is included in Appendix A.

This study evaluates the impacts to the transportation system associated with the Project and involves:
• Assessment of the project site access, internal circulation, off-site traffic operations, parking, potential conflicts with pedestrian and bicyclists, and impacts to transit facilities; • Review of potential inconsistencies with existing City programs, plans, ordinances, and policies; • Assessment of the Project's Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) impact compared to the City’s adopted thresholds;
• Assessment of impacts and mitigations related to geometric design and emergency access; and • Potential transportation impacts during construction.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project proposes the relocation of an existing fuel station located within the Culver City Costco Warehouse shopping area, located at 13463 Washington Boulevard in Culver City, California. The property is currently developed with a Costco warehouse and a sixteen (16) vehicle fueling position Costco Gasoline fuel station located on the southeast corner of the property. In addition, there are several pad developments on the property including a fast-food restaurant and other retail uses.

The project includes a new, approximately 13,000- square-foot fuel canopy, the installation of 15 new multi- product dispensers (MPDs), three (3) 40,000-gallon underground gasoline storage tanks (USTs), one (1) 1,500- gallon fuel additive UST, a new controlle r enclosure, a vapor processing unit, and associated site improvements, such as parking and landscaping. In addition, temporary noise barriers will be provided along the project’s western property line, northern property line, and the existing fueling facility’s eastern property line; the power construction equipment will contain noise shielding and muffling devices, consistent with manufacturers’ standards; and a portion of the project construction activities will not occur concurrently with the City’s Washington Boulevard Stormwater and Urban Runoff Project, as further described in the Noise Study, prepared by Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc., dated February 2023.

The existing fueling facility will be razed and removed from the site and the existing commercial buildings will be demolished. The existing underground storage tanks and piping will be decommissioned and removed by state certified contractors. Following demolition, the existing fueling facility site will be improved with additional parking for the Costco Warehouse. The intent of the relocation is to install a new state of the art facility to provide a more efficient fuel purchasing experience for Costco members.

The on-site relocation will move the gas station to the southwest corner of the site to provide better on-site circulation and fuel station queue management. The relocation will also expand the fuel station to thirty (30) vehicle fueling positions to better serve peak period demand and reduce peak period queuing, wait Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Introduction May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 18
times, and idling. The new location is currently occupied by commercial buildings with a combined total gross floor area of 8,480 square feet. The buildings previously housed a Verizon mobile phone store, a Subway sandwich shop, and a GNC shop with a total gross floor area of 6,890 square feet, and a Starbucks Coffee with a gross floor area of 1,590 square feet. These buildings will be demolished and therefore eliminate existing permitted trips associated with those land uses. The existing fuel station will also be demolished and converted into additional parking for the site. The on-site relocation and expansion will improve site circulation and service provided to Costco members. The project is anticipated to be constructed during the first half of 2023 and last for 6 months. The proposed fuel station will retain the same operating hours as the existing station, operating approximately from 5:30 AM to 9:30 PM Monday through Friday, from 6:00 AM. to 8:00 PM on Saturdays, and from 6:00 AM to 7:30 PM on Sundays.

Figure 1 shows the Costco shopping area location, and Figure 2 depicts the Costco shopping area and project site plan.

Costco
Shopping
Area
Glencoe Ave
Walgrove Ave
Walnut Ave
Lincoln Blvd
Washington Blvd
Glencoe Ave

LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SITE
10 5
210
210
405
5 110
14 138
138
134
H:\24\24944 - Culver City Costco Gasoline OSR\report\figs\24944_Culver City Costco Fuel Station Relcation Figures.dwg May 01, 2020 - 8:31am - lnuxoll Layout Tab: fig01_sitevicinity Project Location
Culver City, California1
Culver City Costco Fuel Station Relocation
May 2020
Figure
N
- Study Intersections##
1 2
3 April 2021 Culver City Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project May 2024
H:\24\24944 - Culver City Costco Gasoline OSR\report\figs\24944_Culver City Costco Fuel Station Relcation Figures.dwg May 28, 2024 - 2:54pm - kphan Layout Tab: fig02_siteplanProposed Site PlanCulver City, California2 Culver City Costco Fuel Station RelocationMay 2024
Figure
3 2
1 E D CB A
24'-4"18'
34 2 13
13 8ADA6ADA
2 1ADA
2ADA
19 7
38 12
36 12
6036
61 58
64 25
28 7
2ADA6
12 3
4 23
54 85
6 2ADA
51 5ADA
1ADA2
2 ENTERENTERENTER
806.07'BUS ZONE
537.13'
960.41'
963.07'
610.27'
320.10'
703.08'
165.95'
129.09' 58.99'172.20'92.76'186.64'64.20'102.20'

96.76'
814.47'
348.28'

71.85'
290.65'
178.67'50.73'
104.24'

7.85'142.20'
116.39'
135.06'
174.34'
114.84'
154.24'
101.28'

28.42'26.00'
6 4
265.78'
10'
11'-7"
9'
9'-9"
13'
9'-4"

NOLEFTTURN

THRUDRIVE EV

ELECTRICVEHICLEPARKING

EVELECTRICVEHICLEPARKING
FRONT
FRONT
P P P

P P P P PPP
P
P
P
EV

ELECTRICVEHICLEPARKINGEV

ELECTRICVEHICLEPARKING

EVELECTRICVEHICLEPARKING

EVELECTRICVEHICLEPARKINGEVELECTRICVEHICLEPARKING

CITY OF CULVER CITYCITY OF LOS ANGELES

CITY OF CULVER CITYCITY OF LOS ANGELES
WALNUT AVENUE (40' WIDE)
ZANJA STREET (53' WIDE)

WASHINGTON BOULEVARD

GLENCOE AVENUE
INSTALL (2) EMPLOYEE BIKE LOCKERS - 2'-6"X 6'-2.5" (31 SF WORK AREA)

PROPERTY LINE TYPICAL PROPERTY LINE TYPICAL

PROPERTY LINE TYPICALPROPERTY LINE TYPICAL

PROPERTY LINE TYPICAL

IN & OUTBURGER

VALVOLINE PETCO/BANK
PROJECT AREA3.11 ACRES 025'50'100'1" = 50'-0"
© MG2, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproducedin any form or by any means without permission in writing from MG2.COSTCO WHOLESALECONCEPT SITE PLAN OVERLAYC U L V E R C I T Y , C A L I F O R N I AF E B R U A R Y 7 , 2 0 2 4 13463 WASHINGTON BLVD.CULVER CITY, CA 90292
94-0630-37FEBRUARY 7, 2024CONCEPTSITE PLANOVERLAYDD10-19 CULVER CITY, CA#479VICINITY MAP405
90WASHINGTON BLVD.

LINCOLN BLVD.

N. VENICE BLVD.SITEVENICE BLVD.

NORTH

Section 3 — Existing
Transportation Network Review

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Existing Transportation Network Review May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 22

EXISTING TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
REVIEW

ROADWAY NETWORK

ARTERIALS
Washington Boulevard is a major east-west arterial that runs from Venice Beach, through Downtown Los Angeles, east to Santa Fe Springs Road in Whittier where it merges with Whittier Boulevard. Within the vicinity of the Project, Washington Boulevard has a speed limit of 35 miles per hour and has two travel lanes in each direction plus turn lanes at certain intersections. Metered on-street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street, which mainly abuts commercial land uses. Shared lane markings are present near the Project site, and bicycle lanes are present west of Lincoln Boulevard and east of Redwood Avenue. The main access points for the Project site are from Washington Boulevard.

Lincoln Boulevard is a major north-south arterial that runs from Sepulveda Boulevard near Los Angeles International Airport to San Vicente Boulevard in Santa Monica. Lincoln Boulevard runs just west of the Project site. Within the vicinity of the Project, Lincoln Boulevard has a speed limit of 40 miles per hour and has two to three travel lanes in each direction (two lanes north of Washington Boulevard and three lanes south of Washington Boulevard). Bicycle facilities are not present. Free on-street parking is available on both sides of the street:
• South of Washington Boulevard: two-hour parking (7 AM to 6 PM on east side; 9 AM to 4 PM on west side)
• North of Washington Boulevard: one-hour parking (varies between 9 AM to 4 PM and 8 AM to 6 PM)
Venice Boulevard is a major east-west arterial that runs from Venice Beach to Main Street in Downtown Los Angeles, where it becomes 16
th Street. Within the vicinity of the Project, Venice Boulevard has a speed limit of 35 miles per hour and three travel lanes in each direction, with a raised center median. Bicycle lanes are present on both sides of the street.

COLLECTORS
Zanja Street is an east-west collector roadway that runs just north of the Project site. The roadway serves mostly residential land uses and allows free on-street parking (with some restrictions). Through movements are restricted for eastbound vehicles at Walnut Avenue – vehicles must turn right at the all-way stop- controlled intersection.

Glencoe Avenue is a north-south collector roadway that runs just east of the Project site. The roadway serves mostly residential land uses and allows free on-street parking (with some restrictions).

LOCAL ROADS
Walnut Avenue is a local north-south roadway that runs just west of the Project site. Apart from truck access to the Project site, the roadway primarily serves residential land uses. Through movements are restricted for northbound vehicles at Elm Street (vehicles must turn left) and for southbound vehicles at Zanja Street (vehicles must turn right; northbound vehicles are restricted from turning right).

Walgrove Avenue is a local north-south roadway that runs east of the Project site. Two-hour on-street parking is available on both sides of the street.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Existing Transportation Network Review May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 23

EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
Transit service is provided by LA Metro, Culver CityBus, and Santa Monica Big Blue Bus near the Project site, mainly along Venice Boulevard, Washington Boulevard, and Lincoln Boulevard. Table 3 presents the transit routes that serve the Project area.

Table 3 – Existing Transit Service
Agency Transit Line Description
LA Metro
Rapid Line 733
Rapid line offering service between Santa Monica
and Downtown Los Angeles, primarily along
Venice Boulevard
Local Line 33
Local line offering service between Santa Monica
and Downtown Los Angeles, primarily along
Venice Boulevard
Culver CityBus
Line 1
East-west line on Washington Boulevard/Fairfax
Avenue from Venice Beach to the West Los
Angeles Transit Center. Key route connecting
Downtown Culver City and Venice Beach to the
Metro E Line Light Rail Station
Line 2
Weekday community circulator that connects
Washington Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard with
the Westfield Culver City Mall and Corporate
Pointe, providing access to LA Metro lines and
Santa Monica’s Big Blue Bus lines
Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Route 3 Runs mainly on Lincoln Boulevard, from LAX to Downtown Santa Monica
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
Note: Table reflects transit service as of February 1, 2021 Several bus stops are located near the Project site, including one serving Culver Citybus Lines 1 and 2 along the Project frontage on Washington Boulevard. The following bus stops are located within the vicinity of the Project site.
• LA Metro
o Venice Boulevard/Lincoln Boulevard – Eastbound and Westbound (733 and 33) o Venice Boulevard/Walgrove Boulevard – Eastbound and Westbound (733 and 33) o Venice Boulevard/Glyndon Avenue – Eastbound and Westbound (33 only) • Culver CityBus Line 1
o Washington Boulevard/Lincoln Boulevard – Eastbound and Westbound o Washington Boulevard/Glencoe Avenue (near Vitamin Shoppe) – Eastbound and Westbound
o Washington Boulevard/Redwood Avenue – Eastbound and Westbound • Culver CityBus Line 2
o Washington Boulevard/Redwood Avenue (near Taco Bell) – Westbound o Washington Boulevard/Glencoe Avenue – Westbound
o Washington Boulevard/Lincoln Boulevard – Westbound
o Lincoln Boulevard/Zanja Street – Westbound
o Lincoln Boulevard/Venice Boulevard – Westbound
• Santa Monica Big Blue Bus
o Lincoln Boulevard/Venice Boulevard – Northbound and Southbound

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Existing Transportation Network Review May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 24

PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE FACILITIES
The following bicycle facilities are present near the Project site:
• Bicycle Lanes – Class II
o Washington Boulevard, west of Lincoln Boulevard
o Washington Boulevard, east of Redwood Avenue
o Venice Boulevard, entire length near Project
• Bicycle Shared Lanes (Route) – Class III
o Washington Boulevard, between Lincoln Boulevard and Redwood Avenue The abutting streets to the site including Walnut Avenue, Glencoe Avenue and Walgrove Avenue, contain sidewalks on both sides. There are no bikeways on connecting streets to the site. In the vicinity of the Project site, both sides of Washington Boulevard include sidewalks. The intersection of Glencoe Avenue at Washington Boulevard has crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads on the northern, southern, and eastern legs. The intersection at the west driveway and Washington Boulevard has crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads at the northern and eastern legs.

Section 4 — Analysis
Methodology & Evaluation
Criteria

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Analysis Methodology & Evaluation Criteria May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 26

ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY &

EVALUATION CRITERIA
This section describes the methodology and significance criteria used for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) transportation analysis, and the methodology used to evaluate the existing and future non-CEQA traffic operating conditions of the Project study area.

CEQA TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS

METHODOLOGY/CEQA CHECKLIST & SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
According to the City of Culver City’s Traffic Impact Study (TIS) Guidelines, CEQA-related potential impacts would occur if a land development project would:
• Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
The proposed Project will be qualitatively evaluated to determine if it is expected to conflict with a relevant programs, plans, ordinances, and policies related to the circulation system. For the purpose of this analysis, the Project could result in a significant impact if it results in a conflict with any of the programs, plans, ordinances, and policies listed in Section 5 under the CEQA Transportation Analysis discussion. A conflict could occur if the proposed Project would preclude the ability of Culver City to implement its goals or policies.

• Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)(1)? Regional serving retail projects should be evaluated to determine their effect on vehicle trip length and VMT. It is accepted that regional serving retail may be responsible for substituting longer trips for short
ones. The applicable metric is the total VMT generated by a retail project. The threshold of significance for retail projects, as discussed below, if any net positive change in citywide VMT.

A project has a significant impact related to VMT if it results in VMT greater than the following thresholds:
o Residential Use – Daily home-based daily VMT/capita – 15 percent below existing levels o Work Use – Daily home-based-work VMT/employee – 15 percent below existing levels o Regional Retail – Total VMT – Any net positive change in citywide VMT For the purpose of this analysis, the Project would result in a potentially significant impact if it would result in a net positive change in citywide VMT.
• Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Any project that causes a substantial increase in on-street hazards due to geometric design will potentially result in a significant impact. The method for determining geometric design impact involves examining the existing interactions on roadways around the project site between vehicles to vehicles, vehicles to bikes, and vehicles to pedestrians, and determining how those interactions may change with the proposed project.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Analysis Methodology & Evaluation Criteria May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 27

NON-CEQA TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

STUDY INTERSECTIONS
Traffic operations and queue lengths for the following signalized intersections were analyzed using methodologies from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 6th Edition (Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2016). The study intersections were selected based on estimated trip distribution patterns and in consultation with the City. The following delay scenarios were analyzed:
• Existing
• Existing Plus Project
• Background Base
• Background Plus Project
• Background Plus Project with Improvements
Background base corresponds to the project opening year condition in 2023 without project. Figure 3 shows the location of these intersections and the existing lane configurations and traffic control devices. All study intersections are signalized. The following are the study intersections and their jurisdictions:
• Washington Boulevard & Lincoln Boulevard (Los Angeles) • Washington Boulevard & Project Driveway – West Access (Culver City) • Washington Boulevard & Glencoe Avenue – East Access (Culver City)

1 23Washington BlvdGlencoe AveLincoln Blvd
Walnut AveSITEGlencoe AveN
1 3
C:\Users\amcintyre\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5672\Culver City Figs_20210301.dwg Apr 15, 2021 - 10:37am - amcintyre Layout Tab: Fig3_ELC & TCD Study IntersectionsExisting Lane Configurations & Traffic Control DevicesCulver City, California3 Culver City Costco Fuel Station Relocation ProjectApril 2021 Figure- EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL
2221 23Washington Boulevard& Lincoln BoulevardWashington Boulevard& Project DrivewayWashington Boulevard& Glencoe Avenue May 2024
Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Analysis Methodology & Evaluation Criteria May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 29

METHODOLOGY
Intersection Level of Service Analysis
“Level of service” describes the operating conditions experienced by users of a facility. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of the effect of several factors, including speed, travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver, driving comfort, and convenience. Levels of service are designated “A” through “F,” from best to worst, which cover the entire range of traffic operations that might occur. LOS A through E generally represent traffic volumes at less than roadway capacity while LOS F represents over capacity or forced flow conditions. In general, LOS D or better is considered acceptable while LOS E and LOS F are not. These conditions are generally described in Table 4.

All intersection level-of-service evaluations used the peak 15-minute flow rate during the weekday PM and Saturday peak hours. The peak hours were identified as the worse four consecutive 15-minute periods between 4 and 6 PM on weekdays, and between 11 AM and 1 PM on Saturdays. These represent the critical time periods for evaluation based on peak demand on the surrounding transportation system and the peak demand at the Costco fuel station. Using the peak 15-minute flow rate ensures that this analysis is based on a reasonable worst-case scenario. For this reason, the analysis reflects conditions that are only likely to occur for 15 minutes out of each average peak hour. During all other periods, the transportation system likely will operate under conditions better than the conditions described in this report.

Table 4 – General Level of Service Definitions
LOS Description
A
Free Flow or Insignificant Delays: Vehicles are completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream. Control delay at signalized intersections is minimal.

B
Stable Operation or Minimal Delays: The ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and control delay at signalized intersections are not significant.

C
Stable Operation or Acceptable Delays: The ability to maneuver and change lanes is somewhat restricted, and average travel speeds may be about 5 percent of the free flow speed.

D Approaching Unstable or Tolerable Delays: Small increases in flow may cause substantial increases in delay and decreases in travel speed.

E Unstable Operation or Significant Delays: Significant delays may occur, and average travel speeds may be 33 percent or less of the free flow speed.

F
Forced Flow or Excessive Delays: Congestion, high delays, and extensive queuing occur at critical signalized intersections with urban street flow at extremely low speeds.

Source: Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., 2016 Intersection analysis was conducted using the operational methodology outlined in the HCM at all intersections, as operationalized by the Synchro version 10 software tool. The HCM procedure calculates a weighted average stop delay in seconds per vehicle at an intersection and assigns a level of service designation based on the delay. Table 5 presents the relationship of average delay to level of service.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Analysis Methodology & Evaluation Criteria May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 30
Table 5 – Signalized Intersection Level of Service Definitions Average Delay Per
Vehicle (Seconds) LOS Description of Traffic Conditions ≤10.0 A LOS A represents free-flow travel with excellent levels of comfort and convenience and the freedom to maneuver.
>10.0 and ≤20.0 B
LOS B has stable operating conditions, but the presence of other road users causes a noticeable, though slight, reduction in comfort, convenience, and maneuvering freedom.
>20.0 and ≤35.0 C
LOS C has stable operating conditions, but the operation of individual users is substantially affected by the interaction with others in the traffic stream.
>35.0 and ≤55.0 D
LOS D represents high-density, but stable flow. Users experience severe restriction in speed and freedom to maneuver, with poor levels of comfort and convenience.
>55.0 and ≤80.0 E
LOS E represents operating conditions at or near capacity. Speeds are reduced to a low but relatively uniform value. Freedom to maneuver is difficult with users experiencing frustration and poor comfort and convenience. Unstable operation is frequent, and minor disturbances in traffic flow can cause breakdown conditions. >80.0 F
LOS F is used to define forced or breakdown conditions. This condition exists wherever the volume of traffic exceeds the capacity of the roadway. Long queues can form behind these bottleneck points with queued traffic traveling in a stop-and-go fashion.

Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, Washington, D.C., 2016 Intersection Queuing Analysis
Intersection queuing analysis was conducted for the study intersections. Expected intersection queues and how they compare to intersection geometry and available queue storage influence traffic operations. The average and 95th percentile queues, as reported by Synchro 10 HCM methodology, were used to assess queuing at all study intersections. The queue storage was estimated based on the striped queue storage shown in Google Earth and field verification.

INTERSECTION ANALYSES EVALUATION CRITERIA
Intersection performance measures reported in this study include LOS and queuing. Transportation system operations were compared to applicable evaluation criteria for the City of Culver City and the City of Los Angeles. The sections below summarize each of the respective agency standards and evaluation criteria.

Culver City Intersection Delay and Queuing Evaluation Criteria The study area includes study two intersections (#2 and #3) in Culver City, where the following criteria applies. Queuing conditions would be considered substantial if trips generated by the Project cause the queue lengths at nearby intersections to exceed the available capacity. This would apply for the Culver City study intersections.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Analysis Methodology & Evaluation Criteria May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 31
The driveway LOS and queuing analysis should address the following questions:
• Would the project’s driveways on arterial highways be limited to improve the pedestrian and bicycle environment?
• Would the location of project driveways relative to side streets or other driveways adversely affect left-turn queuing?
• Would the location of project driveways or sidewalls of structures affect motorists’ visibility of vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists?
Los Angeles Intersection Delay and Queuing Evaluation Criteria The study area includes intersections (#1) in Los Angeles, where the following criteria applies. For land use and transportation projects, the City of Los Angeles Transportation Assessment Guidelines calls for a quantitative evaluation of the project’s expected access and circulation operations. According to the guidelines, project access is considered constrained if the project’s traffic would contribute to unacceptable queuing on an Avenue or Boulevard (as designated in the City of Los Angeles Mobility Plan 2035) at project driveway(s) or would cause or substantially extend queuing at nearby signalized intersections. Unacceptable or extended queuing may be defined as follows:
• Spill over from turn pockets into through lane
• Block cross streets or alleys
• Contribute to “gridlock” congestion. For the purposes of this section, “gridlock” is defined as the condition in which traffic queues between closely spaced intersections impedes the flow of traffic through upstream intersections.

POST-OCCUPANCY TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
A post-occupancy traffic count analysis of the development will be provided by the applicant if required by the City of Culver City. The analysis would be used to confirm the findings in this transportation study and would verify that the project would not result in any additional traffic impacts that would require additional mitigation measures and/or conditions of approval on the project. The study will be prepared approximately six months to a year after project construction or at a time where traffic patterns are no longer impacted by COVID-19 conditions.

Section 5 — CEQA
Transportation Analysis

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study CEQA Transportation Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 33

CEQA TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
The following provides an evaluation of the Project’s (1) potential conflicts with City’s programs, plans, ordinances, and policies, (2) impacts in terms of VMT, and (3) potential geometric design hazards.

PROGRAMS, PLANS, ORDINANCES, AND POLICIES
The City has many programs, plans, ordinances, and policies related to the transportation system in Culver City. The following discusses the primary programs, plans, ordinances, and policies related to the Project and the study area:

TRAFFIC CODE, CHAPTER 7.05: MOTOR VEHICLE AIR QUALITY

MANAGEMENT
Chapter 7.05 of the Culver City Municipal Code outlines the requirements for new developments regarding transportation demand and trip reduction measures, maintenance, and violations and resulting penalties.

Per Section 7.05.15, the requirements in this chapter are applicable to projects that result in a net increase of twenty-five thousand (25,000) or more gross square feet of floor area. The proposed Project does not meet this threshold and therefore is not required to meet the development standards and trip reduction measures provided in the code.

CITY OF CULVER CITY GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The currently adopted Circulating Element (1994) includes several goals and policies related to the Project area, such as improving traffic flow, expanding public transit service and ridership, providing convenient and pleasant pedestrian access, and minimizing traffic hazards and accidents. As demonstrated in this study, the Project would generate a net reduction in trips and would not degrade intersection operations in terms of LOS and delay on Saturdays. Also, the Project would not add new access driveways to the circulation network; all vehicular ingress and egress would continue to occur via Washington Boulevard. No substantial hazards related to design have been identified. Finally, the Project would not include any off- site work and would not impact off-site bicycle and sidewalks; therefore, the Project would not result in significant impacts to off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities. In summary, the Project would not conflict with the goals and policies in the General Plan Circulation Element.

CITY OF CULVER CITY GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
The currently adopted Land Use Element (1996) is intended to guide land use and development with Culver City by designating the general distribution, intensity, and development policies regarding various land uses. The land use map designates the Project location as a “Regional Center”, which allows large- scale commercial uses that serve regional residential and business communities. Policy 24.C specifically calls for development of this Project site as a regional serving commercial center. The Project does not conflict with policies or goals stated in the Land Use Element or propose a change in land use or function.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study CEQA Transportation Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 34

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
This analysis evaluates the potential for Project traffic that can adversely affect the character and function of local streets in the vicinity of the Project site cut-through trips. Cut-through trips are defined as those which feature travel along local streets (e.g., Walnut Avenue, Glyndon Avenue, Louella Avenue, Glencoe Avenue, and Zanja Street) with residential land-use frontage, as an alternative to traveling through major streets (e.g., Washington Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard) to access a destination that is not within the neighborhood within which the local street is located. Effects on residential streets near the Project site are determined
1 based on the following analysis:
• Assess the potential for cut-through traffic generation and preventive measures such as traffic calming subject to community input
• Assess the potential for neighborhood parking intrusion and preventive measures The City of Culver City Transportation Impact Guidelines sets criteria to determine if a project creates significant conditions on a local residential street. The thresholds are shown in Table 6 below.

Table 6 – Culver City Related Projects
Projected ADT With Project Significant Project-Related Increase in ADT Volume
999 or Less 120 or more
1,000 to 1,999 12 percent or more of final ADT
2,000 to 2,999 10 percent or more of final ADT
3,000 or More 8 percent or more of final ADT
Source: City of Culver City Transportation Impact Guidelines The Project would not add new access driveways to the circulation network. All vehicular ingress and egress would continue to occur via Washington Boulevard. The project will retain the existing emergency access driveway on Walnut Avenue. This driveway is gated and not available for customer and employee use. No new access driveways would be accessible to customers and employees through nearby local streets. Walnut Avenue and Zanja Street already have traffic calming measures that restrict cut-through traffic on those streets. Because the Project would result in a net decrease in traffic, and because site access would continue to occur primarily via the existing access driveways at Washington Boulevard, the Project would not add cut-through traffic to the nearby residential neighborhoods.

Sometimes cut-through traffic can be exacerbated by development projects that add vehicle trips to congested arterial street segments. However, the Project would not add vehicle trips to the study area or cause any intersection levels of service to degrade to unacceptable levels and therefore would not exacerbate cut-through traffic by causing additional congestion to the study area.

GATEWAY NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Project does not fall within the Gateway Neighborhood area and the Gateway Neighborhood Design Guidelines are therefore not applicable.

GATEWAY ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN GUIDELINES
The Project does not fall within the Gateway Adjacent Neighborhood area and the Gateway Adjacent Neighborhood Design Guidelines are therefore not applicable.

1 Per City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study CEQA Transportation Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 35

RESIDENTIAL PARKWAY GUIDELINES
The Project is not located along a Residential Parkway and the Residential Parkway Guidelines are therefore not applicable.

UPPER CULVER CREST HILLSIDE DESIGN STANDARDS
The Project does not fall within the Upper Culver Crest area and the Upper Culver Crest Hillside Design Standards are therefore not applicable.

SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN
The Project does not include any off-site work and does not impact the existing bus stops along Washington Boulevard. In addition, the Project is not anticipated to generate additional transit trips to the site, as it would consist of a fuel station.

Because the Project would not generate new transit trips and would not affect transit service, placement of bus stops or bus lanes, the Project would not conflict or impact transit service or conflict with Culver City’s transit planning efforts.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ACTION PLAN
The new parking lot area where the existing gas station is located will continue to be connected with decorative paving at all on-site pedestrian walkways and courtyards.

Culver City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan supersedes the 2010 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and sets an overall vision and actions to establish walking and cycling as viable modes of travel for all trip types. The plan recommends the following active transportation improvements near the Project site. • Class II bicycle lanes on Washington Boulevard, between Lincoln Boulevard to Zanja Street • Improved pedestrian crossings
o Washington Boulevard/Glencoe Avenue – Restripe existing crosswalks as continental (across Glencoe and driveway)
o Washington Boulevard/Beethoven Street – Restripe existing crosswalks The following provides a review of the internal pedestrian circulation and the site’s connectivity with Washington Boulevard, including sidewalks and transit service/bus stops.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
The existing Costco site provides decorative paving at all on-site pedestrian walkways and courtyards. Two (2) 4-foot-wide pedestrian accesses will continue to be provided from the warehouse to Washington Boulevard. Pedestrian walkways throughout the parking area provide a pedestrian-friendly environment that will not be impacted by the Project.

The proposed gasoline station would not generate a substantial amount of pedestrian traffic to/from the warehouse and other parts of the shopping area. Internal pedestrian paths and crosswalks would connect the sidewalk on Washington Boulevard via the west/left side of the western access driveway to a pedestrian path oriented in the north-south direction towards the warehouse. These paths would be linked with new crosswalks as follows: (1) a continental crosswalk on the south leg of the intersection and (2) a continental crosswalk on the east leg of the intersection.

The crosswalks at the Project driveway/Washington Boulevard and Glencoe Avenue/Washington Boulevard intersections and the Keep Clear marking on Washington Boulevard will be re-striped as a result of the City's stormwater control project; therefore, a refresh is not required for the Costco Fuel Facility project.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study CEQA Transportation Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 36
The project includes the repairment of three (3) sidewalk panels along Washington Boulevard fronting the project site. The project will also close the existing gas station exit driveway, so there will be minor off-site work associated with that closure. As the egress driveway from the gas station is eliminated, vehicles would no longer cross the pedestrian path, improving pedestrian experience.

The proposed gasoline station would not create a substantial increase in pedestrian and bicycle activity and will provide improvements to sidewalks and crosswalks noted above. As such, the Project would not impact off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities and would not conflict with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan.

Bicycle Parking
Short-term bicycle parking is provided at the main Costco warehouse. The City requirement to provide bicycle parking correlates to minimum parking requirements for new buildings (e.g., 5 percent of required parking spaces). Based on previous discussions with City staff, the fuel facility is not required to provide parking stalls as it is an ancillary use to the main Costco warehouse and no goods, other than fuel, are sold at the facility. In addition, the Project will remove approximately 29 parking stalls, and the California Green Building Code only requires new bicycle parking for any new parking provided. Based on the above information, the provision of additional short-term bicycle stalls is not needed for the fuel facility.

As demonstrated, the Project would not impact off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities and would not conflict or impact bicycle and pedestrian travel and inhibit implementation of potential pedestrian and bicycle improvement projects or conflict with Culver City’s bicycle and pedestrian planning efforts.

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
Culver City is currently developing a comprehensive Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) to identify traffic safety improvements to reduce fatal and severe injuries. The plan has not yet been published, it is antecipated to be considered by City Council in the fall of 2021.

SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS, PLANS, ORDINANCES, AND POLICIES
In summary, the proposed Project would not conflict with or preclude the ability of Culver City to implement its programs, plans, ordinances, and policies related to the transportation system.

VEHICLE-MILES TRAVELED ANALYSIS
Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) was signed into law in September 2013. Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013) requires changes to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. Historically, CEQA transportation analyses of individual projects determined impacts in the circulation system in terms of roadway delay and/or capacity at specific locations. SB 743 changes include the elimination of auto delay, level of service (LOS), and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts and identified vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. Since the bill has gone into effect, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. Auto-mobility (often expressed as “level of service”) may continue to be a measure for the local agency planning purposes. In December 2018, the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) and the State Natural Resources Agency submitted updated CEQA Guidelines to the Office of Administrative Law for final approval to implement SB 743. The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines, thus implementing SB 743 and making VMT the primary metric used to analyze transportation impacts. The final text, final statement of reasons, and related materials are posted at http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa. The changes have been approved by the Office of the Administrative Law and are now in effect. For land use and transportation projects, SB 743-compliant CEQA analysis became mandatory on July 1, 2020.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study CEQA Transportation Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 37
On July 13, 2020, the City of Culver City updated the Transportation Study Criteria and Guidelines, which includes methodologies and criteria to evaluate land use and transportation projects from a VMT standpoint. Regional serving retail projects should be evaluated to determine their effect on vehicle trip length and VMT. VMT provides an indication of the amount of travel in the roadway system by multiplying the number of trips by the distance traveled. For example, 10 vehicles taking 10-mile trips each would result in a total of 100 VMT. In developing a VMT estimate for the fuel station expansion, it is important to recognize that the fuel station exists on site today, and the Project is an expansion an on-site relocation to this existing use, not the addition of a new use. The membership of a Costco warehouse is not related to or affected by the size of its fuel facility, and the existing demand for gas by members of the Culver City Costco warehouse would remain after the expansion. The proposed Project relocates the existing fuel station on site and removes four existing retail/commercial uses on the site (Verizon store, Subway, GNC, and Starbucks), resulting in fewer vehicle trips to the site overall. Specifically, using Costco trip rates, the project would result in a net decrease of 331 daily trips. Regarding trip lengths, the Project would be replacing trips from retail uses with trips to a gas station. Retail stores and restaurants in urban areas normally attract trips from a larger area compared to gas stations, as gasoline is a commodity that can be found in several locations in the west Los Angeles and Culver City area, and most consumers normally do not divert from their routes to buy gasoline. Additionally, a Costco membership is needed to use the gas station, and trips associated with the gas station are typically associated with trips to the warehouse.

Conversely, retail uses have a larger number of employees that typically drive longer distances, and consumers normally drive longer distances to purchase goods and services.

In summary, as the Project would generate fewer daily trips and the trip lengths associated with the Project would be less, the Project would result in a net decrease in VMT and therefore not result in a significant VMT impact.

GEOMETRIC DESIGN HAZARDS
As previously discussed, the method for determining geometric design impact involves examining the existing interactions on roadways around the project site between vehicles to vehicles, vehicles to bikes, and vehicles to pedestrians, and determining how those interactions may change with the proposed project. The project would not generate additional vehicular and pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The project site would not alter site access driveways or introduce new off-site crosswalks or modify the location of sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes and transit stops. Therefore, this analysis focuses on the potential for project traffic to result in greater queues at intersections.

To determine potential design hazards, intersection queuing analysis were conducted for the study intersections to identify locations where the queue length would exceed the available turn pockets (see Section 6). The intersection queuing analysis concluded that the Project would not result in new locations where the available storage would be exceeded at study intersections on public street approaches.

Section 6 — Traffic Operations
Analysis

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 39

TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ANALYSIS

EXISTING CONDITIONS

EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Due to atypical traffic conditions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, turning movement counts were not collected at study intersections, as they would not represent typical traffic conditions in the area.

Instead, existing (2020) volumes were developed using historic counts (included in Appendix B) and applying adjustments, as described below:
▪ Costco Accesses on Washington Boulevard : Weekday PM peak hour and Saturday midday turning movement counts were collected in 2018 for both the Glencoe Ave nue/East Costco Access & Washington Boulevard and the West Costco Access & Washington Boulevard study intersections for the Washington Boulevard Diversion Project. According to the LA County 2010 Congestion Management Program, growth in the area near the 2020 is estimated to be 0.5 percent per year. To be conservative and consistent with other traffic impact studies prepared for projects in Culver City, an annual growth rate of 1 percent per year was utilized. Therefore, for the intersections of Glencoe Avenue /East Costco Access & Washington Boulevard and the West Costco Access & Washington Boulevard, a growth rate of 1 percent per year growth rate was applied to the 2018 weekday PM peak hour and Saturday midday peak hour turning movement counts to estimate typical 2020 volumes. ▪ W
ashington Boulevard & Lincoln Boulevard : Historical weekday PM peak hour counts were obtained from the City of Los Angeles traffic count database. Traffic counts for this intersection were retrieved for the years 2009, 2011, and 2019. The average growth rate is negative between the previous years and 2019. The most recent 2019 traffic counts were used and adjusted by applying a growth rate of 1 percent per year that was estimated in the LA County 2010 Congestion Management Program to estimate typical 2020 weekday PM peak hour counts.

Because no Saturday midday turning movement counts are available, an adjustment of 4.2 percent was applied to the 2020 weekday PM peak hour counts to obtain 2020 Saturday midday peak hour counts. This rate was determined by comparing the westbound and eastbound through movements at the intersections along Washington Boulevard during the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday midday peak hour. The average difference between the weekday PM and Saturday midday is 4.2 percent (1.7% WB/6.7% EB).

The latest signal timings for signalized intersections were obtained from Culver City and the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation. Figure 4 shows the existing 2020 traffic volumes for the three study intersections for the weekday PM and Saturday midday peak periods. As previously discussed, a post- occupancy traffic count analysis of the development will be provided by the applicant if required by the City of Culver City. The analysis would be used to confirm the findings in this transportation study to confirm the traffic generated and intersection operations after the Costco fuel station and Washington Boulevard stormwater and urban runoff projects are completed.

EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
As previously discussed, the operational intersection analysis was conducted using the HCM methodology and reflecting the weekday evening commute and Saturday peak hour conditions. Table 7 summarizes existing traffic operations. As shown in Table 7, the existing signalized intersections operate at Level of Service ranging from “A” to “E” or better during the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday midday peak hours. Appendix C contains the year 2020 existing conditions Synchro worksheets.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 40
Table 7 – Existing Conditions Intersection Operations
ID Intersection
Weekday PM Saturday Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Lincoln Boulevard & Washington
Boulevard 62.7 E 48.1 D
2 West Access & Washington Boulevard 7.1 A 9.3 A
3 Glencoe Avenue & Washington
Boulevard 41.8 D 49.7 D
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
Notes: bold correspond to LOS E and F operations.

Existing Signalized Queuing Analysis
Signalized queues at the intersection of Lincoln Boulevard and Washington Boulevard and at the two access intersections are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8 – Existing Queuing at Intersections
ID Intersection Movement Available
Storage (ft)
Average | 95th Percentile Queue
Weekday PM Saturday Midday
1 Lincoln
Boulevard &
Washington
Boulevard
EBL 250 28 | 53 18 | 33
EBR 350 209 | 322 227 | 349
WBL 350 167 | 262 91 | 122
WBR 470 46 | 86 48 | 92
NBL 400 206 | 370 160 | 290
SBL 200 62 | 98 47 | 74
2 West Access &
Washington
Boulevard
EBL 170 30 | 63 79 | 181
SBL 175 91 | 146 136 | 213
SBR 175 105 | 161 113 | 173
3 Glencoe
Avenue &
Washington
Boulevard
EBL 375 14 | 37 17 | 36
EBR 435 14 | 80 30 | 108
WBL 300 219 | 523 226 | 407
WBR 150 80 |207 118 |257
NBL 145 136 | 203 107 | 174
NBR 400 0 | 90 54 | 91
SBL 165 187 | 270 173 | 270
SBR 165 0 | 30 0 | 33
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
Table 8 shows that the existing 95th percentile queues exceed available storage at the following locations:
• West Access at Washington Boulevard:
o Eastbound left-turn lane; Saturday
o Southbound left-turn lane (internal driveway); Saturday • Glencoe Avenue at Washington Boulevard:
o Westbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday
o Westbound right-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday
o Northbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday
o Southbound left-turn lane (internal driveway); Saturday 1 23Washington BlvdGlencoe AveLincoln Blvd
Walnut AveSITEGlencoe Ave
1 321
N
C:\Users\amcintyre\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5672\Culver City Figs_20210301.dwg Apr 15, 2021 - 10:38am - amcintyre Layout Tab: Fig4_Existing_PM and SAT Existing Traffic Volumes & OperationsWeekday PM Peak Hour & Saturday Midday Peak HourCulver City, California4 Culver City Costco Fuel Station Relocation ProjectApril 2021 Figure
504130718815914505573679491327717250LOS=DDel=48.1
1792442978471006142LOS=ADel=9.3
1631222413971098244784208290842517LOS=DDel=49.7
1 321
118201228895112688LOS=ADel=7.1
484125418115313925370651472314688240LOS=EDel=62.7
2331333043241666534758246371867410LOS=DDel=41.8
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Saturday Midday Peak Hour
May 2024
Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 42

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

PROJECT TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION
Costco Trip Generation Database
For the past 17 years, Kittelson has maintained a database of traffic data and travel characteristics for Costco Wholesale, including data about their fuel stations. The database contains transportation information such as trip rates, trip type percentages (total, pass-by, internal), and parking demand for Costco locations in the United States, as well as for locations in Canada and Mexico. The database is updated and refined whenever new Costco traffic counts or information become available to Kittelson.

The Costco transportation database contains a large quantity of data related to Costco fuel stations. Trip generation rates and trip type information for over 50 Costco Gasoline facilities located throughout the U.S. are included. Costco has invested significant time and effort into developing this use-specific trip generation database for its warehouses and fuel stations. Because of membership requirements and the nature of Costco sales, Costco members have unique travel characteristics and patterns which are different from those of customers of other supermarkets. These unique characteristics and patterns exist in the trip generation for Costco warehouses, Costco Gasoline facilities, and the interaction of trips between the two.

The Costco-specific trip generation data presented herein follows nationally accepted practices for trip generation data collection as recommended by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and presents a robust dataset upon which to confidently and accurately predict the trip generation of the expansion of the Culver City Costco Gasoline fuel station.

Before & After Fuel Expansion Data Summary
In developing a trip generation estimate for the Project, it is important to recognize that the fuel station exists on site today and that the Project is an on-site relocation and expansion of that station. The membership of Costco does not change with the expansion or on-site relocation of a fuel facility, and the general demand for fuel at the Culver City Costco will not change. Therefore, it is unlikely that the trip generation of the fuel station will increase directly in proportion to the increased number of fueling positions. Instead, the additional fueling positions will serve to more efficiently and effectively process the current peak demand at the fuel station, thus reducing wait times, vehicles queuing, and vehicle idling. This has been confirmed through before and after data collection at other Costco Gasoline expansion locations.

Kittelson has reviewed before and after data from other comparable Costco Gasoline facility expansion sites to determine a representative relationship between new trip generation and the addition of fueling positions to an existing fuel station.

Kittelson used trip generation counts at six Costco Gasoline facility locations that have expanded in size to study the relationship between trip generation and the fuel station expansion. These locations include sites where fuel stations have expanded from 16 fueling positions to 22 or 24 fueling positions. Currently, we do not have a sufficient database with 30 fueling positions; therefore, the trip rates are based on the sample for 24 fueling positions. The comparable expansion sites identified are:
- Rancho Del Rey, California
- NE San Jose, California
- Concord, California
- Rohnert Park, California
- Cypress, California
- Portland, Oregon

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 43
To work with a representative sample size, Costco provided fuel transactions collected on an hourly basis for a period before and after the expansion at each of these locations. Only data collected during the same months of the year before and after the expansion were included in this summary; for example, fuel transactions for the months of March and April before the expansion were compared to fuel transactions for the months of March and April after the expansion. The total number of weekday PM peak hour and Saturday midday peak hour trip ends counted for the seven listed sites are provided in Table 9 and Table 10, respectively. Note: the total number of trip ends does not reflect any reductions due to internal capture, pass-by, or diverted trips.

As shown in Table 9 and Table 10, each of the sites recorded some increase in the number of peak hour fuel transactions. However, the increase found in most situations is significantly less than what would be calculated from a direct linear relationship to the number of additional fueling positions. Using a linear relationship, expanding the gas bar from 16 to 22 fueling positions would equate to an increase in activity or trip generation of 38 percent, and expanding from 16 to 24 positions would equate to an increase of 50 percent. However, the before and after data show an average increase of 26.5 percent and 33.5 percent in fuel transactions during the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday midday peak hour, respectively.

These data demonstrate that increasing the number of fueling positions at the Culver City fuel station will not result in a direct linear increase in trip generation. The before and after data capture the change in demand that results from reducing peak hour queues and wait times at the fuel stations due to latent demand and more efficient peak operations. In all cases, peak queues and wait times are significantly reduced. Those members who previously chose not to purchase fuel because of the wait times will likely do so after the expansion when operations are improved.

Table 9 – Weekday PM Peak Hour Growth
Location
Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Generated
Fueling
Positions
Before
Expansion
Fueling
Positions
After Expansion Percent
Difference
Rancho Del
Rey, CA 16 414 24 676 63.3%
NE San Jose, CA 16 474 24 458 -3.4%
Concord, CA 16 470 24 550 17.0%
Rohnert Park,
CA 16 426 24 498 16.9%
Cypress, CA 16 472 24 654 38.6%
Portland, OR 16 N/A 24 404 N/A
Average 26.5%
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021

Table 10 – Saturday Midday Peak Hour Trip Growth
Location
Average Weekday PM Peak Hour Trips Generated
Fueling
Positions
Before
Expansion
Fueling
Positions
After Expansion Percent
Difference
Rancho Del
Rey, CA 16 N/A 24 678 N/A
NE San Jose, CA 16 494 24 686 38.9%
Concord, CA 16 520 24 700 34.6%
Rohnert Park,
CA 16 518 24 606 17.0%
Cypress, CA 16 514 24 740 44.0%
Portland, OR 16 462 24 616 33.0%
Average 33.5%
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 44
Weekday daily trip rates for the existing site were calculated based on trip generation counts for fueling facilities with 16 positions. For the proposed Project, the daily trip rates are based on trip generation counts for sites ranging from 22 to 24 fueling positions. The trip rates were then multiplied by the number of fueling positions to calculate the number of daily trips with the existing and proposed gas station.

Trip Credits
The data collected at existing Costco Gasoline fuel stations indicate the trip generation characteristics described below for internal trip capture between the fuel station and the warehouse, as well as pass-by trips and diverted trips capture from the surrounding street system. The unique nature of Costco operations and its membership requirements result in different trip characteristics than those observed at typical fuel stations summarized in the standard reference Trip Generation Manual, published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The percentages of pass-by or diverted trips at Costco fuel stations is considerably lower than those quoted in the ITE Trip Generation Manual for typical fuel stations.

Correspondingly, membership requirements also have a significant effect on trip internalization (or sharing of trips) between the warehouse and the fuel station. Fewer people exclusively visit a Costco fuel station (in comparison to a typical standalone fuel station) because they have another primary purpose (i.e., a trip to the warehouse) for visiting the site,
Internal Trips
A key finding from the studies conducted at Costco warehouses with fuel stations is that approximately 34 percent of the PM peak hour trips to and from Costco fuel stations and 35 percent of the Saturday midday trips are internal capture trips. Internal capture trips account for those members who patronize both the warehouse and the fuel station during a single visit to the Costco site. As such, although they account for a trip to both the warehouse and the fuel station, they only account for one overall vehicle trip to the site and on the surrounding transportation system. Based on studies, including surveys at Costco fuel stations and membership card transaction data, on average 34 percent and 35 percent of the members buying gas during the weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively, are members whose main purpose to the site is to visit the Costco warehouse. At some sites, this number ranges as high as 75 percent.

Internal capture data was analyzed from daily transactions at the Costco warehouse and at Costco Gasoline at the Culver City site for the entire year of 2019. The data was filtered to the same member transactions during times when the warehouse and the gas station were open. A review of the 2019 data at the Culver City location (see sample in Attachment A) indicates that the average weekday internal capture rate is 35.8 percent, 36.4 percent for Saturdays, and 38.4 percent for Sundays. In other words, in an average weekday, 35.8 percent of transactions at the warehouse also resulted in gasoline transactions.

However, to remain conservative, the average rates of 34 and 35 percent for all warehouses described above applied to this analysis.

Pass-By & Diverted Trips
Another key trip characteristic that must be considered is that of pass-by trip capture. Pass-by trips represent members (and trips) that are currently traveling on the surrounding street network for some other primary purpose (e.g., a trip from work to home) and stop into the site in-route during their normal travel. As such, pass-by trips do not result in a net increase in traffic on the surrounding transportation system and their only effect occurs at the immediate intersections and site access driveways where they become turning movements. Based on studies of customer surveys at Costco Gasoline fuel stations, an average of 37 percent and 33 percent of the members buying gas during the weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively, can be classified as pass-by trip capture from the surrounding street system. This is lower than the average pass-by rate (45 percent) quoted in the ITE Trip Generation Manual for typical service stations and is attributable to the unique travel characteristics that result from Costco’s membership requirements.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 45
Diverted trips are similar to pass-by trips in that they represent members (and trips) that are currently traveling on the surrounding street network for some other primary purpose and stop into the site in-route during their travel. However, as the name indicates, diverted trips divert from the normal roadways on which they would be traveling to go to the Costco site. Based on studies of customer surveys at Costco Gasoline fuel stations (see sample survey in Attachment A), an average of 37 percent and 36 percent of the members buying gas during the weekday PM and Saturday midday peak hours, respectively, can be classified as diverted trip capture from the surrounding street system.

Diverted and pass-by trips are accounted for in the evaluation of the internal circulation and project driveways and intersections, as these trips ingress and egress the site.

Trip Generation
In order to best evaluate the on-site trip impact of expanding and relocating the Culver City Costco Gasoline fuel station, the existing land uses were calculated to understand the trips brought to the site currently. Due to the stay-at-home order related to COVID-19, realistic counts at the driveways and fuel station could not be obtained. Therefore, Kittelson’s Costco trip counts database was used to calculate the average weekday PM peak hour and Saturday midday peak hour for a sixteen (16) vehicle fueling station.

Internal, pass-by, and diverted trip percentages were also obtained from the Kittelson Costco database.

The ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition (Reference 1) was used to estimate existing land uses trips.

Existing pass-by trips were estimated using the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3 rd Edition (Reference 2).

The Project will include expanding the existing sixteen (16) vehicle fueling station to thirty (30) vehicle fueling stations. The before and after data average percentages were used to grow the existing trips. The weekday PM peak hour increased by 26.5 percent, while the Saturday midday peak hour increased by

33.5 percent. Internal, pass-by, and diverted trip percentages remained the same.

The trip generation rates for the existing land uses to be removed are shown in Table 11. As shown in Table 12, the existing land use net new trips were subtracted from the resulting Project land use net new trips to calculate a net new trip difference for the site.

Table 11 – ITE Trip Generation Rates
Land Use ITE Code Unit 1
Trip Generation Rates 2
PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out
Retail 820 TSF 10.89 5.23 5.66 10.86 5.64 5.21
Coffee Shop 937 TSF 37.43 19.09 18.34 87.70 43.85 43.85 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
1 TSF = thousand square feet (of building floor area)
2 Trip generation rates for peak hour of adjacent street per ITE Trip Generation Manual, 10 th Edition

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 46
Table 12 – Comparative Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Size
Weekday PM Peak
Hour
Saturday PM Peak
Hour
Weekday
Daily Trips
Total In Out Total In Out Total
Existing Uses
Costco Fueling Station
16 Fueling
Positions
452 226 226 473 237 236 5605
Internal Trips (34% PM; 35% Saturday) (154) (77) (77) (166) (83) (83) (1,906) External Trips 298 149 149 307 154 153 3,699
Pass-By Trips (36% PM; 33% Saturday) (110) (55) (55) (101) (51) (51) (1,369) Diverted Trips (37% PM; 36% Saturday) (110) (55) (55) (111) (56) (55) (1,369) Net New Trips 78 39 39 94 47 47 961
Retail (820)
6,890 SF
75 36 39 75 39 36 975
Pass-By Trips (34% PM; 26% Saturday) (26) (13) (13) (20) (10) (10) (332) Net New Trips 49 23 26 55 29 26 643
Coffee Shop (937)
1,590 SF
69 34 35 139 69 70 1,304
Pass-By Trips (89% PM, Saturday) (61) (30) (31) (124) (62) (62) (1,161) Net New Trips 8 4 4 15 7 8 143
Total Existing Net New Trips 135 66 69 164 83 81 1,747 Proposed Uses
Costco Fueling Station
30 Fueling
Positions
709 355 354 750 375 375 8,257
Internal Trips (34% PM; 35% Saturday) (241) (121) (120) (263) (131) (132) (2,807) External Trips 468 234 234 487 244 243 5,450
Pass-By Trips (36% PM; 33% Saturday) (173) (87) (86) (162) (81) (81) (2,017) Diverted Trips (36% PM; 36% Saturday) (173) (87) (86) (175) (88) (87) (2,017) Total Proposed Net New Trips 122 60 62 150 75 75 1,416 Trip Difference (Proposed Uses – Existing Uses)
Net New Trip Difference (13) (6) (7) (14) (8) (6) (331) Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
As shown in Table 12, the expansion and relocation of the Culver City Costco Gasoline fuel station (along with the removal of existing retail uses) will result in a reduction in net new trips to the site. The Project is estimated to approximately reduce 13 weekday PM peak hour net new trips (6 inbound, 7 outbound) and 14 Saturday midday peak hour net new trips (8 inbound/6 outbound). On a daily basis, the Project would result in 331 fewer trips during the weekdays. While Saturday daily estimates are not available, a comparison between the peak hour trips on weekdays and Saturdays suggest that the net daily trip reduction would also occur on Saturdays.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 47
Trip Distribution/Assignment
Pass-by and diverted trips to the site would be from Washington Boulevard. While these trips are not deducted to assess traffic entering and egressing the site (for evaluating site accesses), pass-by and diverted trips do not result in system capacity and environmental impacts to off-site intersections as compared to new trips because these trips are already present on the adjacent arterial street. Figure 5 shows the trip distribution and Project only volumes for the study intersections. The volumes for intersections 2 and 3 include pass-by and diverted trips, and the volumes at intersection 1 represent net trips only. 1 23Washington BlvdGlencoe AveLincoln Blvd
Walnut AveSITEGlencoe AveN
C:\Users\amcintyre\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5672\Culver City Figs_20210301.dwg Apr 15, 2021 - 10:39am - amcintyre Layout Tab: Fig5_Trip Dist and Project Only Trip Distribution & Project Only VolumesWeekday PM Peak Hour & Saturday Midday Peak HourCulver City, California5 Culver City Costco Fuel Station Relocation ProjectApril 2021 Figure
5%
10%
60%
20%
5%
1 321Weekday PM Peak Hour
Saturday Midday Peak Hour
0 -10 00-3
688222 104
4-5 -67-51024 100-8900 0000 0 -67 -1900 0
1 321
-1 -20 00-1
547714 87
2-7 -71-7863 85-9400 0000 0 -69 -1800 0
May 2024
Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 49

EXISTING PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
Table 13 summarizes existing plus Project scenario intersection operations results. As shown in Table 13 and Figure 6, the existing signalized intersections operate at Level of Service ranging from “A” to “E” or better during the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday midday peak hours. There is no degradation in LOS at the study intersections. The average delay per vehicle at the intersection of West Access & Washington Boulevard increases slightly (from 7.1 to 9.4 on weekdays PM and from 9.2 to 11.9 seconds/vehicle in the Saturday peak) in the existing plus Project scenario, but remains at LOS A. There is no change in operations at the Lincoln Boulevard & Washington Boulevard intersection and only a minor change in delay at the Glencoe Avenue & Washington Boulevard intersection. Appendix D contains the year 2020 existing plus Project conditions Synchro worksheets.

Existing Plus Project Signalized Queuing Analysis
Signalized queues at the intersection of Lincoln Boulevard & Washington Boulevard and at the two access intersections under the existing plus Project scenario are summarized in Table 14. The analysis shows signalized 95th percentile queues exceed available storage at the following locations:
• West Access at Washington Boulevard:
o Eastbound left-turn lane; Saturday
o Southbound left-turn lane (internal driveway); weekday PM2 and Saturday o Southbound right-turn lane (internal driveway); Saturday1 • Glencoe Avenue at Washington Boulevard:
o Westbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday
o Northbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday
Compared to existing conditions, the Project results in one new turn lane exceeding available storage (identified in bold above) at the southbound west access driveway right-turn lane. The southbound west access driveway left-turn lane is also forecast to exceed available storage in the weekday PM period in addition to the Saturday period identified in existing conditions. The additional queues would be contained within the internal Project driveways, not on public streets. Therefore, this would not be considered a substantially adverse condition that affects traffic on public streets. In addition, the existing plus Project scenario found that two of the queuing impacts identified at the Glencoe Avenue & Washington Boulevard intersection (the westbound right-turn lane and the southbound left-turn lane) would be eliminated in the existing plus Project scenario.

The Project would increase the queue length and exceed the turn lane storage at the following locations on public streets:
• West Access at Washington Boulevard:
o Eastbound left-turn lane; Saturday – the available storage is 170 feet, and the Project would increase the 95
th percentile queue from 181 to 255 feet. This exceeds the available storage by approximately four vehicle lengths, which will typically pull into the taper to get out of the way as much as possible of eastbound through vehicles on Washington Boulevard. A review of aerial photography indicates that the left turn pocket cannot be extended. Modifications to the signal timing by allocating more time to the eastbound left-turn split would reduce this queue to 209 feet. The eastbound left-turn lane is already exceeding storage in the existing conditions for the 95th percentile queue, with signal timing improvements the project will add less than two vehicles in length. During the Saturday midday peak hour, the available storage is adequate for the average peak hour demand.

2 Average queues also exceed available storage.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 50

• Glencoe Avenue at Washington Boulevard:
o Westbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday - the available storage is 300 feet, and the Project would increase the 95th percentile queue from 523 to 527 feet on weekdays and from 407 to 418 on Saturdays. The Project would nominally increase the queue length by less than one vehicle at this location (less than 11 feet in both periods), which will typically pull into the taper to get out of the way of westbound through vehicles on Washington Boulevard. A review of aerial photography indicates that the left turn pocket cannot be extended.

Modifications to the signal timing would offset the queue increase.

o Northbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday- the available storage is 145 feet, and the Project would increase the 95th percentile queue from 203 to 205 feet on weekdays and decrease from 174 to 171 on Saturdays. The Project would nominally modify the queue length by less than one vehicle at this location, and only 2 feet which can be considered negligible, which will typically back into the northbound lane of Glencoe Avenue. The queue would be contained within the northbound approach of Glencoe Avenue and would not extend to the next driveway at Beach Avenue. This would not substantially affect circulation in the area, and no modifications are recommended to address this condition.

1 23Washington BlvdGlencoe AveLincoln Blvd
Walnut AveSITEGlencoe Ave
1 321
N
C:\Users\amcintyre\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5672\Culver City Figs_20210301.dwg Apr 15, 2021 - 10:39am - amcintyre Layout Tab: Fig6_E+P_PM and SAT Existing Plus Project Traffic Volumes & OperationsWeekday PM Peak Hour & Saturday Midday Peak HourCulver City, California6 Culver City Costco Fuel Station Relocation ProjectApril 2021 Figure
504130718715714505573679491327717249LOS=DDel=48.1
233321311847937229LOS=BDel=11.3
1661152413261028226870211290927423LOS=DDel=53.2
1 321
2202492518951060192LOS=ADel=9.3
484125417513313925370646472309682218LOS=EDel=62.7
2271283042581616515860249371967321LOS=DDel=41.9
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Saturday Midday Peak Hour
May 2024
Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 52
Table 13 – Existing Plus Project Intersection Operations ID Intersection
Weekday PM Saturday Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Lincoln Boulevard & Washington
Boulevard 62.7 E 48.1 D
2 West Access & Washington Boulevard 9.3 A 11.3 B
3 Glencoe Avenue & Washington
Boulevard 41.9 D 53.2 D
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
Notes: bold correspond to LOS E and F operations.

Table 14 – Existing Plus Project Queuing (Weekday PM & Saturday Midday) ID Intersection Move
ment
Available
Storage (ft)
Average | 95th Percentile
Queue
Substantial Project
Increase
Weekday
PM
Saturday
Midday
Weekday
PM
Saturday
Midday
1 Lincoln Boulevard &
Washington
Boulevard
EBL 250 28 | 53 18 | 33 - -
EBR 350 209 | 322 227 | 349 - -
WBL 350 162 | 262 91| 122 - -
WBR 470 45 | 85 47 | 92 - -
NBL 400 206 | 370 160 | 290 - -
SBL 200 62 | 98 46 | 73 - -
2 West Access &
Washington
Boulevard
EBL 170 43 | 119 99| 255 - Yes
SBL 175 143 | 206 185 | 261 Yes Yes
SBR 175 158 | 202 162 | 236 Yes Yes
3 Glencoe Avenue &
Washington
Boulevard
EBL 375 5 | 13 11 | 23 - -
EBR 435 21 | 83 46 | 78 - -
WBL 300 213 | 527 237 | 418 Yes Yes
WBR 150 68 |176 110 |225 - -
NBL 145 137 | 205 105 | 171 Yes -
NBR 400 0 | 90 54 | 91 - -
SBL 165 162 | 232 143 | 227 - -
SBR 165 0 | 30 0 | 33 - -
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 53

BACKGROUND CONDITIONS

PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Ambient Growth
To obtain background traffic volumes, a growth rate of 1 percent per year over the existing conditions was included per traffic growth projections in the LA County 2010 Congestion Management Program. In addition, traffic volumes from related projects were also included. Background conditions correspond to 2 years of traffic growth over existing conditions. At the time of the initiation of this study and consultation with public agencies, existing conditions corresponded to 2020, and the project opening year was anticipated to occur in 2022. While existing conditions are 2021 and the project is now anticipated to be operational in 2023, background traffic still correspond to 2 years of background traffic growth. Given the annual traffic growth of 1 percent per year, this discrepancy does not affect the findings and conclusions of this study.

Related Projects
The Cities of Culver City and Los Angeles identified related projects that could be operational in background conditions. Table 15 and Table 16 list projects in which project trips were added individually to the study area due to their size and proximity. Figure 7 shows their location, and Figure 8 shows their projected volumes. Other projects are included in the traffic forecast as part of the ambient growth traffic.

Table 17 shows the applicable trip generation rates for the related projects, and Table 18 summarizes the trip generation calculations for related projects. Appendix E contains a list of Culver City and Los Angeles projects.

Table 15 – Culver City Related Projects
Related
Project # Project Name Location Description
1 Baldwin Site 12803 Washington
Blvd
Mixed-Use Project
37 Multi-Family dwelling units
7,206 square foot Shopping Center
2 99 Cents Site

12727 Washington
Blvd
Mixed-Use Project
117 Multi-Family dwelling units
17,880 square feet Shopping Center
Replacing Existing 13,00 square foot
Commercial Building
3 Motel Mixed-Use 12654 Washington
Blvd
Mixed-use Project
6,836 square foot Ground Floor Commercial
One 5,863 square foot Residential Dwelling
4 Essence Cannabis Retail 12450 Washington
Blvd
4,950 square foot Cannabis Retail

5 Market Hall 12403 (12237-12423)
Washington Blvd
21,605 square foot Market Hall and Food
Building
5,230 square foot Shopping Center
6 Grandview Apartments 4025 Grand View
Blvd
36 Multi-Family dwelling units
Replacing 20 mobile home units
Source: City of Culver City
Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 54
Table 16 – City of Los Angeles Related Projects
Related
Project # Project Name Location Description
7 High Turnover
Restaurant
2508 Naples Ave,
Venice, CA
3,895 square foot High Turnover (sit-down)
Restaurant
8 Mixed-Use, Hotel, Retail
& Restaurant
1027 Abbot Kinney
Blvd, Venice, CA
92-Guest Room Hotel
3,000 square foot Shopping Center
2,072 square foot Restaurant
9 Mixed-Use Project 1414 Main St,
Venice, CA
Mixed-Use building: 26 Condo Units
1,184 square foot Shopping Center
4,567 square foot Restaurant
10 Condos and
Commercial Building
4091 Redwood Ave,
Los Angeles, CA
67 Multi-Family dwelling units
7,525 square foot Commercial Office
11 Mixed-Use Apartment
and Mini-Warehouse
4040 Del Rey Ave,
Marina Del Rey, CA
168 Multi-Family dwelling units
33,000 square foot General Office
12 New 3-Story
Manufacturing and
Retail
595 Venice Blvd,
Venice, CA
25,150 square foot Manufacturing
5,028 square foot Shopping Center
13 Inclave 4065 Glencoe Ave,
Marina Del Rey, CA
35,206 square foot Creative Office
1,500 square foot Shopping Center
49 Multi-Family dwelling units
14 Mixed-Use: Residential &
Commercial
2454 Lincoln Blvd,
Venice, CA
77 Multi-Family dwelling units
4,040 square foot Restaurant
1,905 square foot Shopping Center
15 Apartments 1015 Venice Blvd,
Venice, CA 56 Multi-Family dwelling units
16 Thatcher Yard
Residential
3311 Thatcher Ave,
Marina Del Rey, CA
50 affordable dwelling units (senior)
23 Multi-Family dwelling units
25 permanent supportive housing dwelling
units
17 Office and Retail 4212 Glencoe Ave,
Marina Del Rey, CA
121,822 square foot Commercial Office
1,500 square foot Shopping Center
18 New 4-Story 77
Apartments
1600 Venice Blvd,
Venice, CA
Demolish 7 Apartments and 1 Duplex
77 Apartments with Underground Parking
19 Apartments and
Restaurant
1808 Lincoln Blvd,
Venice, CA
50 Multi-Family dwelling units
4,458 square foot Restaurant
Source: City of Los Angeles

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 55
Table 17 – Trip Generation Rates for Related Projects
Land Use ITE
Code Unit1
Trip Generation2
PM Peak Hour Saturday Peak Hour
Total In Out Total In Out
Manufacturing 140 TSF 0.79 0.34 0.45 0.94 0.47 0.47
Multifamily Housing
(Mid-Rise) 221 DU 0.41 0.25 0.16 0.44 0.22 0.22
Mid-Rise Residential
with 1st-Floor
Commercial
231 DU 0.44 0.30 0.14 0.86 0.43 0.43
Mobile Home Park 240 DU 0.49 0.29 0.20 0.40 0.20 0.20
Hotel 310 Rooms 0.61 0.35 0.26 0.72 0.40 0.32
General Office
Building 710 TSF 1.42 0.26 1.16 0.53 0.29 0.24
Shopping Center 820 TSF 4.21 2.11 2.10 4.50 2.34 2.16
Marijuana Dispensary 882 TSF 29.93 14.97 14.96 36.43 18.22 18.21 High-Turnover (Sit-
Down) Restaurant 932 TSF 17.41 9.05 8.36 11.19 5.71 5.48 Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
1 TSF = thousand square feet, DU = dwelling units
2 Trip generation rates for peak hour of adjacent street, per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition

Table 18 – Trip Generation for Related Projects
ID Project Name Weekday PM Peak Hour1 Saturday Midday Peak Hour2
Total In Out Total In Out
1 Baldwin Site 101 53 48 111 62 49
2 99 Cents Site 157 88 69 188 117 71
3 Motel Mixed-Use 82 41 41 74 38 36
4 Essence Cannabis Retail 148 74 74 180 90 90
5 Market Hall1 137 83 54 174 96 78
6 Grandview Apartments 9 5 4 14 7 7
7 High Turnover Restaurant 33 20 13 44 22 22
8 Mixed-Use, Hotel, Retail & Restaurant 42 25 17 103 56 47 9 Mixed-Use Project 40 29 11 78 39 39
10 Condos and Commercial Building 51 29 22 39 19 20
11 Mixed-Use Apartment and Mini-Warehouse 121 149 -28 288 139 149 12 New 3-Story Manufacturing and Retail 85 15 70 47 24 23 13 Inclave 53 1 52 68 35 33
14 Mixed-Use: Residential & Commercial 54 40 14 88 44 44 15 Apartments 37 24 13 25 12 13
16 Thatcher Yard Residential 19 10 9 23 13 10
17 Office and Retail 124 63 61 38 14 24
18 New 4-Story 77 Apartments 155 24 131 72 39 33
19 Apartments and Restaurant 27 16 11 34 18 16
Total 634 344 290 742 410 332
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
1 Weekday PM peak hour trips for ID 1-6 were taken from the Market Hall traffic study and for ID 7-19 were received from the City of Los Angeles and include net trips.
2 Weekday PM peak hour and Saturday midday peak hour trips were generated using rates for peak hour of generator, per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition.
!
!!! !
!!
!
!
!!
!
! ! !!!
6 1 3
5 42
7 10
11 12 13
14 15
16 17
1819
Costco
Shopping
Area
H:\24\24944 - Culver City Costco Gasoline OSR\gis\RelatedProjects.mxd Date: 3/4/2021 Figure 7
Related Project Locations
Culver City, CA
[
0 1,650Feet
! Culver City Related Projects
! Los Angeles Related Projects
1 - Baldwin SIte
2 - 99 Cents Store
3 - Motel Mixed-Use
4 - Essence Cannabis Retail
5 - Market Hall
6 - Grandview Apartments
7 - High Turnover Restaurant
8 - Mixed-Use, Hotel, Retail, & Restaurant
9 - Mixed-Use Project
10 - Condos & Commercial Building
11 - Mixed-Use Apartment & Mini-Warehouse
12 - New 3-Story Manufacturing & Retail
13 - Inclave
14 - Mixed Use: Residential & Commercial
15 - Apartments
16 - Thatcher Y ard Residential
17 - Office & Retail
18 - New 4-Story 77 Apartments
19 - Apartments & Restaurant
1 23Washington BlvdGlencoe AveLincoln Blvd
Walnut AveSITEGlencoe Ave
1 321
N
C:\Users\amcintyre\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5672\Culver City Figs_20210301.dwg Apr 15, 2021 - 10:40am - amcintyre Layout Tab: Fig8_IP Only_PM and SAT Related Projects Traffic VolumesWeekday PM Peak Hour & Saturday Midday Peak HourCulver City, California8 Culver City Costco Fuel Station Relocation ProjectApril 2021 Figure
03663815412420 204281
0001621310
7002000001481469740
1 321
000921520
05368874711450 3094290
8501070000781472770
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Saturday Midday Peak Hour
May 2024
Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 58

BACKGROUND CONDITIONS INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
Intersection operations and queuing were analyzed for each study intersection for the Project opening year, including ambient growth and related projects but without the Project. As previously discussed, the operational intersection analysis was conducted using the HCM methodology and reflecting the weekday evening commute and Saturday peak hour conditions. Table 19 summarizes background traffic operations.

As shown in Table 19 and Figure 9, the signalized intersections operate at Level of Service ranging from “A” to “E” or better during the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday midday peak hours. Appendix F contains the background conditions Synchro worksheets.

Background Conditions Signalized Queuing Analysis
Signalized queues at the intersection of Lincoln Boulevard & Washington Boulevard and at the two access intersections are summarized in Table 20. The analysis shows signalized 95th percentile queues exceed available storage at the following locations:
• Lincoln Boulevard at Washington Boulevard:
o Eastbound right-turn lane; Saturday
• West Access at Washington Boulevard:
o Eastbound left-turn lane; Saturday
o Southbound left-turn lane (internal driveway); Saturday o Southbound right-turn lane (internal driveway); Saturday • Glencoe Avenue at Washington Boulevard:
o Westbound left-turn lane; weekday PM3 and Saturday2
o Westbound right-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday
o Northbound left-turn lane; weekday PM2 and Saturday
o Southbound left-turn lane (internal driveway); weekday PM2 and Saturday2 Table 19 – Background Intersection Operations
ID Intersection
Weekday PM Saturday Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Lincoln Boulevard
& Washington
Boulevard

67.5 E 51.5 D
2 West Access &
Washington
Boulevard

6.8 A 8.9 A
3 Glencoe Avenue
& Washington
Boulevard

48.6 D 68.6 E
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
Notes: bold correspond to LOS E and F operations.

3 Average queues also exceed available storage.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 59
Table 20 – Background Queuing (Weekday PM & Saturday Midday) ID Intersection Movement Available
Storage (ft)
Average | 95th Percentile Queue
Weekday PM Saturday Midday
1 Lincoln Boulevard &
Washington
Boulevard
EBL 250 29 | 54 19 | 34
EBR 350 212 | 327 231 | 355
WBL 350 194 | 293 96 | 148
WBR 470 86 | 143 86 | 147
NBL 400 237 | 375 165 | 294
SBL 200 98 | 146 74 | 107
2 West Access &
Washington
Boulevard
EBL 170 32 | 107 119 | 224
SBL 175 91 | 147 138 | 214
SBR 175 119 | 165 124 | 188
3 Glencoe Avenue &
Washington
Boulevard
EBL 375 15 | 26 17 | 35
EBR 435 20 | 79 42 | 120
WBL 300 354 | 664 357 | 552
WBR 150 102 |228 147 |290
NBL 145 169 | 248 137 | 206
NBR 400 7 | 123 62 | 102
SBL 165 189 | 280 176 | 288
SBR 165 0 | 32 0 | 35
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
Notes: bold correspond to queues exceeding available storage. 1 23Washington BlvdGlencoe AveLincoln Blvd
Walnut AveSITEGlencoe Ave
1 321
N
C:\Users\amcintyre\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5672\Culver City Figs_20210301.dwg Apr 15, 2021 - 10:42am - amcintyre Layout Tab: Fig9_Background_PM and SAT Background Traffic Volumes & OperationsWeekday PM Peak Hour & Saturday Midday Peak HourCulver City, California9 Culver City Costco Fuel Station Relocation ProjectApril 2021 Figure
509137226125815185675733496352769343LOS=DDel=52.0
18024630010421162143LOS=ADel=8.9
2431242734011108244942247382927522LOS=EDel=73.1
1 321
120203231986128489LOS=ADel=6.8
489132024923614535471701476345736331LOS=EDel=67.5
3111344143281686634758246447948414LOS=DDel=48.6
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Saturday Midday Peak Hour
May 2024
Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 61

BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS

BACKGROUND PLUS PROJECT INTERSECTION ANALYSIS
The background plus Project scenario evaluates future year operations including ambient growth, relevant projects, and the Project in place. Table 21 summarizes background plus traffic operations. As shown in Table 21 and Figure 10, the background year plus Project signalized intersections operate at Level of Service ranging from “A” to “E” or better during the weekday PM peak hour and Saturday midday peak hours. There would be no change in LOS grades at each peak hour analysis period at the study intersections compared to those in the no Project condition. The average delay per vehicle at the intersection of West Access & Washington Boulevard would increase slightly (from 6.8 to 8.9 on weekdays PM and from 8.9 to 11.0 seconds/vehicle in the Saturday peak), but would remain at LOS A. The average delay per vehicle at the intersection of Glencoe Avenue & Washington Boulevard would increase (from

48.6 to 50.8 on weekdays PM and from 68.6 to 75.8 seconds/vehicle in the Saturday peak), but would remain at LOS D/E (weekday PM peak/Saturday midday peak). Appendix F contains the background plus Project conditions Synchro worksheets.

Background Plus Project Signalized Queuing Analysis
Signalized queues at the intersection of Lincoln Boulevard & Washington Boulevard and at the two access intersections are summarized in Table 22. The analysis shows signalized 95th percentile queues exceed available storage at the following locations:
• Lincoln Boulevard & Washington Boulevard:
o Eastbound right-turn lane
• West Access at Washington Boulevard:
o Eastbound left-turn lane; Saturday
o Southbound left-turn lane (internal driveway); weekday PM4 and Saturday o Southbound right-turn lane (internal driveway); weekday PM and Saturday1 • Glencoe Avenue at Washington Boulevard:
o Westbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday
o Westbound right-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday
o Northbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday
o Southbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday
Compared to existing conditions, the Project would not result in additional turn lanes exceeding the available storage when compared to the background no Project conditions.

Table 21 – Background Plus Project Intersection Operations ID Intersection
Weekday PM Saturday Peak
Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Lincoln Boulevard & Washington
Boulevard 67.7 E 51.4 D
2 West Access & Washington Boulevard 8.9 A 11.0 B
3 Glencoe Avenue & Washington
Boulevard 50.8 D 75.8 E
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
Notes: bold correspond to LOS E and F operations.

4 Average queues also exceed available storage.
1 23Washington BlvdGlencoe AveLincoln Blvd
Walnut AveSITEGlencoe Ave
1 321
N
C:\Users\amcintyre\appdata\local\temp\AcPublish_5672\Culver City Figs_20210301.dwg Apr 15, 2021 - 10:43am - amcintyre Layout Tab: Fig10_TOTAL_PM and SAT Background Plus Project Traffic Volumes & OperationsWeekday PM Peak Hour & Saturday Midday Peak HourCulver City, California10 Culver City Costco Fuel Station Relocation ProjectApril 2021 Figure
509135625224015195675728496351766333LOS=DDel=51.4
23432331410171078231LOS=BDel=11.0
237116263330103822610262273621009428LOS=EDel=75.8
1 321
1882852539951222192LOS=ADel=8.9
489132025124014535471703476346737330LOS=EDel=67.7
31512941426116366159452664471053325LOS=DDel=50.8
Weekday PM Peak Hour
Saturday Midday Peak Hour
May 2024
Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 63
Table 22 – Background Plus Project Queuing (Weekday PM & Saturday Midday) ID Intersection Move
ment
Available
Storage (ft)
Average | 95th Percentile
Queue
Substantial Project
Increase
Weekday
PM
Saturday
Midday
Weekday
PM
Saturday
Midday
1 Lincoln Boulevard &
Washington
Boulevard
EBL 250 29 | 54 19 | 34 - -
EBR 350 212 | 327 231 | 355 - -
WBL 350 195 | 294 96| 148 - -
WBR 470 86 | 143 85 | 146 - -
NBL 400 237 | 375 165 | 294 - -
SBL 200 101 | 153 73 | 107 - -
2 West Access &
Washington
Boulevard
EBL 170 59 | 160 137| 345 - Yes
SBL 175 142 | 207 185 | 257 Yes Yes
SBR 175 167 | 206 170 | 255 Yes Yes
3 Glencoe Avenue &
Washington
Boulevard
EBL 375 4 | 14 10 | 21 - -
EBR 435 32| 67 58 | 75 - -
WBL 300 328 | 668 357 | 552 Yes -
WBR 150 83 |191 128 |247 - -
NBL 145 169 | 246 135 | 204 - -
NBR 400 0 | 107 62 | 102 - -
SBL 165 164 | 242 145 |243 - -
SBR 165 0 | 32 0 | 35 - -
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
Notes: bold correspond to queues exceeding available storage.

Signalized queues at the intersection of Lincoln Boulevard & Washington Boulevard and at the two access intersections under the background plus Project scenario are summarized in Table 22. The analysis shows signalized 95th percentile queues exceed available storage at the following locations:
• West Access at Washington Boulevard:
o Eastbound left-turn lane; Saturday
o Southbound left-turn lane (internal driveway); weekday PM5 and Saturday o Southbound right-turn lane (internal driveway); Saturday1 • Glencoe Avenue at Washington Boulevard:
o Westbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday
o Northbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday
Compared to background without Project conditions, the project results in an increase in queue at four turn lanes exceeding available storage (identified in bold above).

5 Average queues also exceed available storage.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 64
The Project would increase the queue length and exceed the turn lane storage at the following locations on public streets:
• West Access at Washington Boulevard:
o Eastbound left-turn lane; Saturday – the available storage is 170 feet, and the Project would increase the 95th percentile queue from 224 to 345 feet. This exceeds the available storage by approximately seven vehicle lengths, which will typically pull into the taper to get out of the way of eastbound through vehicles on Washington Boulevard. A review of aerial photography indicates that the left turn pocket cannot be extended. Modifications to the signal timing by allocating more time to the eastbound left-turn split would reduce this queue to 253 feet. The eastbound left-turn lane is already exceeding storage in the background conditions for the 95th percentile queue, with signal timing improvements the project will add less than two vehicles in length. During the Saturday midday peak hour, the available storage is adequate for the average peak hour demand.

• Glencoe Avenue at Washington Boulevard:
o Westbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday - the available storage is 300 feet, and the Project would increase the 95
th percentile queue from 664 to 668 feet on weekdays and remain at 552 feet on Saturdays. The Project would nominally increase the queue length by less than one vehicle at this location (less than 11 feet in both periods), which will typically pull into the taper to get out of the way of westbound through vehicles on Washington Boulevard. A review of aerial photography indicates that the left turn pocket cannot be extended.

Modifications to the signal timing would offset the queue increase.

The background plus Project scenario found that two of the queuing impacts identified at the Glencoe Avenue & Washington Boulevard intersection (the westbound right-turn lane and the southbound left-turn lane) would be eliminated. The additional segments would be contained within the internal Project driveways, not on public streets. Therefore, the increase in the queues at southbound approach at West Access & Washington Boulevard would not be considered a substantially adverse condition that affects traffic on public streets.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 65

TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
The Washington Boulevard Stormwater and Urban Runoff Project (“Stormwater Project”) will be implemented by the City of Culver City to capture stormwater and urban runoff before it enters the storm drain system. The redesign proposes five landscaped medians to be constructed within the existing painted medians on Washington Boulevard and will not remove any lanes once complete. The only raised median proposed on Washington Boulevard adjacent to the Costco site would be constructed between the eastern access driveway and Glencoe Avenue. Other medians would be constructed east of Walgrove Avenue.

Construction of the Stormwater Project was scheduled to start in January 2022 and be completed in November 2022. However, the start of the project has been delayed. It is possible that the construction activities for both projects may overlap. The following provides a detailed description of the anticipated construction activities, timing, location and construction-related traffic.

Costco Fuel Station Construction
The existing Costco Gasoline fuel station will be re-located to the two (2) developed parcels in the southwest corner of the shopping center currently occupied by commercial buildings. The existing fuel station will be razed and removed from the site and the existing commercial buildings will be demolished.

The existing underground storage tanks and piping will be decommissioned and removed by state certified contractors. Following demolition, the existing fuel facility site will be improved with additional parking for the Costco Warehouse. Construction of the proposed new fuel station and demolition of the existing fuel station is estimated to take approximately 6 months. Construction of the fuel station project would consist of 5 phases. Figure 11 depicts the anticipated start, end days and duration for each phase. Figure 11 shows the duration of each construction phase ranging from 29 to 88 days. The following provides a summary of each phase, duration in days, and total number of truckloads (truck hauling round trips) during the duration each phase:
 Phase 1, Demolition of commercial buildings – 29 days, 179 truckloads  Phase 2, Relocation of major utilities, rough grade and parking lot modification – 42 days, 179 truckloads
 Phase 3 A and B, New Fuel Facility Construction and Parking Lot Modifications – 88 days, 302 truckloads
 Phase 4, Decommission and demolition of the existing fuel facility – 61 days, 174 truckloads  Phase 5, Installation of new parking lot at existing gas station – 61 days, 40 truckloads

As a project design feature, there would be no overlapping construction with the Washington Boulevard Stormwater, as follows6:
 Avoid concurrent construction within 500 feet of the City’s Stormwater Project and receptor location R1
 Avoid concurrent construction within 400 feet of the City’s Stormwater Project and receptor location R3
 Avoid concurrent construction within 100 feet of the City’s Stormwater Project and receptor location R4

Washington Boulevard Stormwater and Urban Runoff Project Construction Work to be done along Washington Boulevard is anticipated to occur for a duration of 8 months. Figure 12 depicts the phases and timing for the Stormwater Project construction. Appendix J presents a description and schedule for each phase. The work area associated to the sewer connection will be plated during the

6 Receptors R1, R3, R4 are residential properties located on Walnut Avenue, Zanja Street, and Glencoe Avenue. These are described in detail in the Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project Environmental Noise Impact Study, prepared by A ES in October 2022.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 66
day for vehicular traffic. The work zone on Washington Boulevard would comprise of a 38-foot-wide area.

Traffic on Washington Boulevard would have limited travel and turning lanes at intersections.

A traffic control plan for the Stormwater Project was prepared and would include the closure of one lane of through eastbound traffic and the center median lane. The plan would also temporarily remove on- street parking along Washington Boulevard between the western Costco Wholesale driveway and Redwood Avenue. Furthermore, several pedestrian crosswalks will be closed during Stormwater Project construction, but only across Washington Boulevard. Sidewalks along Washington Boulevard are to remain open and untouched by the project construction.

Figure 11- Costco Fuel Station Construction Phases

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 67
Figure 12 - Washington Boulevard Construction Phases

During construction of the Stormwater Project, traffic in the vicinity of the Costco warehouse area could be affected by temporary lane closures, turn restrictions, potential alterations to bus stops, restrictions to local access driveways, and temporary loss of curbside parking. Traffic mitigation identified in the Washington Boulevard Diversion Traffic Management Plan, prepared by Albert Grover and Associates in December 2018, would include:
• Work zone traffic control and changeable message signs • Facilitate flow on Washington Boulevard and alternative routes • Intelligent project staging and work activities
• Updating signal timing to facilitate traffic flow through construction zones • Restricting deliveries and demolition hauling outside of the peak hours Anticipated delays and congestion due to construction activities and lane reductions are likely to influence motorists to choose alternate routes that provide a time advantage over waiting in congestion along Washington Boulevard. It is anticipated that some motorists will divert to Venice Boulevard and Maxella Avenue depending on their ultimate destination.

To minimize congestion related to construction traffic, Costco will prepare a construction management plan in consultation with the City of Culver City, which will establish truck haul routes, access driveways, time restrictions, maximum number of trucks per hour or per day, staging, parking and loading areas and

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Traffic Operations Analysis May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 68
traffic controls such as signage, pavement markings, cones, barricades, flaggers and other elements for implementation of the proposed fuel facility. The construction management plan will be submitted to the City and be approved prior to obtaining construction permits.

Section 6 — Traffic Operations
Analysis

7 Findings &
Recommendations
Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Findings & Recommendations May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 70

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The expansion and relocation of the Culver City Costco Gasoline fuel station (along with the removal of existing retail uses) will result in a reduction in net new trips to the site. The Project is estimated to approximately reduce 13 weekday PM peak hour net new trips (6 inbound, 7 outbound) and 14 Saturday midday peak hour net new trips (8 inbound/6 outbound). On a daily basis, the Project would result in 331 fewer trips during the weekdays. While Saturday daily estimates are not available, a comparison between the peak hour trips on weekdays and Saturdays suggest that the net daily trip reduction would also occur on Saturdays.

CEQA-RELATED

POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH PROGRAMS, PLANS, ORDINANCES, AND

POLICIES
Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
The Project would not add new access driveways to the circulation network. All vehicular ingress and egress would continue to occur via Washington Boulevard. No access driveway will be constructed on Walnut Avenue. Walnut Avenue and Zanja Street already have traffic calming measures that restrict cut- thought traffic on those streets. Because the Project would result in a net decrease in traffic, and because site access would continue to occur primarily via the existing access driveways at Washington Boulevard, the Project would not add cut-through traffic to the nearby residential neighborhoods.

In addition, the Project would not add vehicle trips to the study area and therefore not exacerbate cut- through traffic through the neighborhood by causing additional congestion to the study area.

Potential Impacts to Non-Auto Modes
Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation
The existing Costco site provides decorative paving at all on-site pedestrian walkways and courtyards. The gasoline station would not generate a substantial number of pedestrian traffic to/from the warehouse and other parts of the shopping area. The new parking lot area at the location where the existing gas station is located will continue to be connected with decorative paving at all on-site pedestrian walkways and courtyards.

As previously described in Section 5, the Project would not modify existing bicycle and pedestrian facilities that would impact off-site bicycle and sidewalks. The project includes the repairment of three (3) sidewalk panels along Washington Boulevard fronting the project site. The project will also close the existing gas station exit driveway, so vehicles would no longer cross the pedestrian path, improving pedestrian experience. In addition, the proposed gasoline station would not create a substantial increase in pedestrian and bicycle activity. As such, the Project would not impact off-site pedestrian and bicycle facilities and should not be required to provide any off-site bicycle and pedestrian improvements.

Bicycle Parking
Short-term bicycle parking is provided at the main Costco warehouse. The fuel facility is not required to provide parking stalls as it is an ancillary use to the main Costco warehouse and no goods, other than fuel, are sold at the facility. In addition, the Project will remove approximately 29 parking stalls, and the California Green Building Code only requires new bicycle parking for any new parking provided. Based on the above information, the provision of additional short-term bicycle stalls is not needed for the fuel facility.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Findings & Recommendations May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 71
Transit
The Project would not impact the existing bus stops along Washington Boulevard. In addition, the Project is not anticipated to generate a significant number of additional trips to the site. As such, bus stop upgrades should not be required.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED (VMT) IMPACTS
On June 8, 2020, the City of Culver City updated the Transportation Study Criteria and Guidelines, which includes methodologies and criteria to evaluate land use and transportation projects from a VMT standpoint. Regional serving retail projects should be evaluated to determine their effect on vehicle trip length and VMT.

GEOMETRIC DESIGN HAZARDS
Intersection Queues
The Project would increase the queue length and exceed the turn lane storage at the following locations on public streets. Table 23 and Table 24 summarize the 95 th percentile queues at the critical movements, as
described below.
• West Access at Washington Boulevard:
o Eastbound left-turn lane; Saturday – The available storage is 170 feet. The 95th percentile queue at this intersection of 181 feet is currently exceeding the available storage at this location, in a condition where the queue extends to the adjacent eastbound through lane on Washington Boulevard. A review of aerial photography indicates that the left turn pocket cannot be extended. The Project would increase the 95th percentile queue under existing and background conditions. Signal timing adjustments would reduce queue increases with the project as shown on Table 23, but queues would remain greater compared to no project conditions.
• Glencoe Avenue at Washington Boulevard:
o Westbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday - The available storage is 300 feet. The 95 th percentile queue (523 feet weekday PM/407 feet Saturday) feet at this intersection is currently exceeding the available storage at this location. A review of aerial photography indicates that the left turn pocket cannot be extended. The Project would increase the 95 th
percentile queue under existing and background conditions. Modifications to the signal timing would offset the queue increase as shown on Table 24.
o Northbound left-turn lane; weekday PM and Saturday- The available storage is 145 feet. The 95th percentile queue (203 feet weekday PM/174 feet Saturday) at this intersection is currently exceeding the available storage at this location. The Project would nominally modify the queue length by less than one vehicle at this location. The queue would be contained within the northbound approach of Glencoe Avenue and would not extend to the next driveway at Beach Avenue. This would not substantially affect circulation in the area, and no modifications are recommended to address this condition.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Findings & Recommendations May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 72
Table 23- West Access & Washington Blvd Critical Movements 95th Percentile Queues Summary Turn Lane Condition
Existing 95 Percentile Queues Background 95 Percentile Queues No Project With Project
With Project
and Signal
Timing
Updates
No Project With Project
With Project
and Signal
Timing
Updates
Eastbound Left
Weekday PM 63 119 119 107 160 160
Saturday 181 255 210 224 345 253
Notes: bold correspond to queues exceeding available storage of 170 feet.

Table 24 - Glencoe Av & Washington Blvd Critical Movements 95th Percentile Queues Summary Turn Lane Condition
Existing 95 Percentile Queues Background 95 Percentile Queues No Project With Project
With Project
and Signal
Timing
Updates
No Project With Project
With Project
and Signal
Timing
Updates
Westbound Left
Weekday PM 523 527 515 664 668 656
Saturday 407 418 405 552 552 502
Northbound Left
Weekday PM 203 205 205 248 246 248
Saturday 174 171 171 206 204 206
Notes: bold correspond to queues exceeding
available storage as follows:
- Westbound left available storage = 300 feet
- Northbound left available storage = 145 feet
Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Findings & Recommendations May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 73
Project-related traffic would result in an increase in the queues at the eastbound left turn lane of West access at Washington Boulevard, at a location where the queue already extends past the available storage. The project will be conditioned to either the installation of a battery backup and a Video Detection camera for the existing traffic signal, or payment of a $30,000 in-lieu fee.

The intersection queuing analysis concluded that the Project would not result in new locations where the available storage would be exceeded at study intersections on public street approaches. In addition, the Project will not cause a substantial increase in on-street hazards due to geometric design or incompatible uses and therefore not result in a significant impact related to CEQA.

Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Findings & Recommendations May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 74

NON-CEQA SUPPLEMENTAL TRANSPORTATION

ANALYSIS

INTERSECTION LOS AND DELAY
Table 25 summarizes the LOS and delay at the three study intersections during the weekday PM peak hours. With Project traffic under existing and background conditions, there is no degradation in LOS or minor changes in delay at the study intersections. Therefore, the Project would not degrade intersection operations in terms of LOS or delay during the weekday PM peak hour.

Table 25 – Intersection LOS Summary Table, Weekday PM Conditions ID Intersection Existing Existing Plus
Project Background Background
Plus Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Lincoln Boulevard &
Washington Boulevard 62.7 E 62.7 E 67.5 E 67.7 E
2 West Access & Washington
Boulevard 7.1 A 9.3 A 6.8 A 8.9 A
3 Glencoe Avenue &
Washington Boulevard 41.8 D 41.9 D 48.6 D 50.8 D
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
Notes: bold correspond to LOS E and F operations.

Table 26 summarizes the LOS and delay at the three study intersections during the Saturday peak hours.

With Project traffic under existing and background conditions, the intersection of West Access & Washington Boulevard would change from LOS A to LOS B, which is considered acceptable in terms of operations. There is no degradation in LOS or minor changes in delay at the intersections of Lincoln Boulevard & Washington Boulevard, and Glencoe Avenue & Washington Boulevard. Therefore, the Project would not degrade intersection operations in terms of LOS and delay on Saturdays.

Table 26 – Intersection LOS Summary Table, Saturday Peak Hour Conditions ID Intersection Existing Existing Plus
Project Background Background
Plus Project
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
1 Lincoln Boulevard &
Washington Boulevard 48.1 D 48.1 D 51.5 D 51.4 D
2 West Access &
Washington Boulevard 9.3 A 11.3 B 8.9 A 11.0 B
3 Glencoe Avenue &
Washington Boulevard 49.7 D 53.2 D 68.6 E 75.8 E
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 2021
Notes: bold correspond to LOS E and F operations.

PROJECT CONSTRUCTION
The Stormwater Project will be implemented by the City of Culver City in the near future. Construction of the proposed Costco Gasoline fuel facility and demolition of the existing gasoline dispensing facility is expected to last for 6 months. It is possible that an overlap of the construction projects may occur. As a project design feature of the Project, there would be no overlapping construction with the Washington Boulevard Stormwater as previously described.

During the Stormwater Project construction, the work zone traffic control plan outlines the closure of one lane of through westbound traffic and most of the center median lane, as well as temporary removal of on-street parking along Washington Boulevard between the western Costco Wholesale driveway and Redwood Avenue. Furthermore, several pedestrian crosswalks will be closed during the project Culver City Costco Fuel Station On-Site Relocation Transportation Study Findings & Recommendations May 29, 2024
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 75
construction, but only across Washington Boulevard. Sidewalks along Washington Boulevard are to remain open and untouched by the project construction.

Appendix A:

Memorandum of
Understanding

Appendix B:

Historical Traffic Counts
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 18-05468-001 Day:

City: Marina Del Rey Date:

AM 0 0 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 197 0 116 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 0 1 0 0 86 0 0
3 1104 0 0
0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0
0 0 224 1 TEV 0 0 2645 0 1 0 0
0 0 877 2 PHF 0.95
0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 3 1 17 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 0 0 0 AM
West Costco dwy on Washington Blvd
NONE
NONE
0 0 1308
Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave
0 0
Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave

SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

NORTHBOUND
1011
0 PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
0 311
0 Signalized
West Costco dwy on Washington Blvd

EASTBOUND
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
15 Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM)
Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave & West Costco dwy on Washington Blvd Friday
06/29/2018

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
NONE
Total Vehicles (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Total Vehicles (NOON)
0 COUNT PERIODS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NOON AM PM 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
`
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation: Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave & West Costco dwy on Washington Blvd City: Marina Del Rey Project ID: 18-05468-001
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 0 0 3 0 36 2 79 0 50 213 0 0 2 259 24 0 668
4:15 PM 1 1 3 0 40 0 53 0 49 209 1 0 0 256 20 0 633
4:30 PM 0 0 3 0 27 0 42 0 56 206 4 2 0 269 20 0 629
4:45 PM 0 0 2 0 30 0 43 0 43 221 1 1 1 271 26 0 639
5:00 PM 1 0 10 0 28 0 54 0 48 215 5 0 0 271 23 0 655
5:15 PM 1 1 6 0 27 0 53 0 68 235 5 2 2 270 23 0 693
5:30 PM 0 0 1 0 24 0 43 0 43 213 1 1 0 281 20 1 628
5:45 PM 1 0 0 0 37 0 47 0 65 214 0 1 2 282 20 0 669

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 4 2 28 0 249 2 414 0 422 1726 17 7 7 2159 176 1 5214 APPROACH %'s : 11.76% 5.88% 82.35% 0.00% 37.44% 0.30% 62.26% 0.00% 19.43% 79.47% 0.78% 0.32% 0.30% 92.15% 7.51% 0.04% PEAK HR : 05:00 PM 293 289 296 05:15 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 3 1 17 0 116 0 197 0 224 877 11 4 4 1104 86 1 2645 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.750 0.250 0.425 0.000 0.784 0.000 0.912 0.000 0.824 0.933 0.550 0.500 0.500 0.979 0.935 0.250 West Costco dwy on Washington BlvdWest Costco dwy on Washington BlvdBet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave

SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND
PM

NORTHBOUND
2018-06-29
Total

0.9540.900

WESTBOUND

0.9830.477 0.932
05:00 PM - 06:00 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 18-05468-002 Day:

City: Marina Del Rey Date:

AM 0 0 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 64 163 318 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 0.5 1.5 0 1 402 0 0
2 850 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 364 0 0
0 0 33 1 TEV 0 0 3825 0 0 0 0
0 0 743 2 PHF 0.97
0 0 241 1 0 1.5 0.5 1

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 219 130 298 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 0 0 0 AM
East Costco dwy on Washington Blvd
NONE
NONE
0 0 1133
Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave
0 0
Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave

SOUTHBOUND
04:00 PM - 06:00 PM

NORTHBOUND
1359
0 PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
0 565
0 Signalized
East Costco dwy on Washington Blvd

EASTBOUND
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
768
Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM)
Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave & East Costco dwy on Washington Blvd Friday
06/29/2018

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
NONE
Total Vehicles (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Total Vehicles (NOON)
0 COUNT PERIODS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NOON AM PM 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
`
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation: Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave & East Costco dwy on Washington Blvd City: Marina Del Rey Project ID: 18-05468-002
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:

1.5 0.5 1 0 1.5 0.5 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
4:00 PM 64 35 76 0 90 36 23 0 8 172 64 0 86 171 117 0 942 4:15 PM 50 33 88 0 87 41 14 0 6 196 59 0 87 189 90 0 940 4:30 PM 53 25 77 0 75 37 14 0 6 177 56 0 87 187 107 0 901 4:45 PM 58 33 71 0 80 41 20 0 10 186 57 0 93 224 111 0 984 5:00 PM 56 40 91 0 97 39 14 0 7 189 45 0 83 192 99 0 952 5:15 PM 49 27 71 0 67 47 14 0 7 189 78 0 95 234 99 0 977 5:30 PM 56 30 65 0 74 36 16 0 9 179 61 0 93 200 93 0 912 5:45 PM 50 28 58 0 79 38 16 0 14 188 52 0 90 245 92 0 950

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 436 251 597 0 649 315 131 0 67 1476 472 0 714 1642 808 0 7558 APPROACH %'s : 33.96% 19.55% 46.50% 0.00% 59.27% 28.77% 11.96% 0.00% 3.33% 73.25% 23.42% 0.00% 22.57% 51.90% 25.54% 0.00% PEAK HR : 04:45 PM 292 289 296 04:45 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 219 130 298 0 318 163 64 0 33 743 241 0 364 850 402 0 3825 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.944 0.813 0.819 0.000 0.820 0.867 0.800 0.000 0.825 0.983 0.772 0.000 0.958 0.908 0.905 0.000 East Costco dwy on Washington BlvdEast Costco dwy on Washington BlvdBet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave

SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND
PM

NORTHBOUND
2018-06-29
Total

0.9720.928

WESTBOUND

0.9440.865 0.908
04:45 PM - 05:45 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 18-05468-001 Day:

City: Marina Del Rey Date:

AM 0 0 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 239 2 175 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 0 1 0 0 139 0 0
3 986 0 0
0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0
0 0 289 1 TEV 0 0 2705 0 8 0 0
0 0 830 2 PHF 0.93
0 0 15 0 0 0 0 0

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 1 1 0 16 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 0 0 0 AM
West Costco dwy on Washington Blvd
NONE
NONE
0 0 1228
Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave
0 0
Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave

SOUTHBOUND
02:00 PM - 04:00 PM

NORTHBOUND
1029
0 PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
02:30 PM - 03:30 PM
0 428
0 Signalized
West Costco dwy on Washington Blvd

EASTBOUND
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
20 Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM)
Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave & West Costco dwy on Washington Blvd Saturday
06/30/2018

CONTROL

NS/EW Streets:
0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
2:00 PM 1 0 5 1 36 0 66 0 65 190 5 0 0 248 35 4 656
2:15 PM 0 0 6 0 27 0 65 0 71 171 2 0 0 261 43 0 646
2:30 PM 0 0 4 0 38 0 54 0 73 199 1 0 0 254 38 1 662
2:45 PM 0 0 1 0 39 1 58 0 74 192 7 0 0 232 35 2 641
3:00 PM 0 0 7 1 56 1 56 0 68 226 4 2 0 271 33 3 728
3:15 PM 1 0 4 0 42 0 71 0 74 213 3 0 2 229 33 2 674
3:30 PM 0 0 1 0 36 0 43 0 66 196 3 0 0 259 24 1 629
3:45 PM 0 0 5 0 45 0 55 0 54 187 2 1 2 263 19 0 633

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 2 0 33 2 319 2 468 0 545 1574 27 3 4 2017 260 13 5269 APPROACH %'s : 5.41% 0.00% 89.19% 5.41% 40.43% 0.25% 59.32% 0.00% 25.36% 73.24% 1.26% 0.14% 0.17% 87.93% 11.33% 0.57% PEAK HR : 02:30 PM 283 281 288 03:00 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 1 0 16 1 175 2 239 0 289 830 15 2 2 986 139 8 2705 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.250 0.000 0.571 0.250 0.781 0.500 0.842 0.000 0.976 0.918 0.536 0.250 0.250 0.910 0.914 0.667 West Costco dwy on Washington BlvdWest Costco dwy on Washington BlvdBet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave

SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND
PM

NORTHBOUND
2018-06-30
Total

0.9290.947

WESTBOUND

0.9240.563 0.920
02:30 PM - 03:30 PM
Prepared by National Data & Surveying Services
ID: 18-05468-002 Day:

City: Marina Del Rey Date:

AM 0 0 0 0 AM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
PM 80 107 389 0 PM

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
1 0.5 1.5 0 1 507 0 0
2 825 0 0
0 0 0 0 1 284 0 0
0 0 43 1 TEV 0 0 3724 0 0 0 0
0 0 769 2 PHF 0.98
0 0 204 1 0 1.5 0.5 1

AM NOON PM PM NOON AM
PM 0 160 120 236 PM
NOON 0 0 0 0 NOON
AM 0 0 0 0 AM
East Costco dwy on Washington Blvd
NONE
NONE
0 0 1065
Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave
0 0
Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave

SOUTHBOUND
02:00 PM - 04:00 PM

NORTHBOUND
1394
0 PEAK HOURS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NONE
03:00 PM - 04:00 PM
0 670
0 Signalized
East Costco dwy on Washington Blvd

EASTBOUND
Peak Hour Turning Movement Count
595
Total Vehicles (PM) Total Vehicles (PM)
Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave & East Costco dwy on Washington Blvd Saturday
06/30/2018

CONTROL

WESTBOUND
NONE
Total Vehicles (NOON)
Pedestrians (Crosswalks)
Total Vehicles (NOON)
0 COUNT PERIODS
Total Vehicles (AM)
NOON AM PM 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
PM
AM
AM
NOON
PM
PM
NOON
AM
AM
NOON
PM
NOON
`
NOON
PM
AM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
AM
PM
NOON
PM
AM
National Data & Surveying Services
Intersection Turning Movement CountLocation: Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave & East Costco dwy on Washington Blvd City: Marina Del Rey Project ID: 18-05468-002
Control: Signalized Date:

NS/EW Streets:

1.5 0.5 1 0 1.5 0.5 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
2:00 PM 50 44 56 0 102 39 20 0 11 172 48 0 67 191 119 0 919 2:15 PM 46 36 58 0 78 31 21 0 7 164 42 1 75 218 140 0 917 2:30 PM 55 28 63 0 95 28 27 0 11 194 46 0 70 180 110 0 907 2:45 PM 45 45 49 0 90 25 30 0 11 167 56 0 81 204 103 0 906 3:00 PM 35 30 61 0 87 27 25 0 9 198 54 0 68 205 142 0 941 3:15 PM 38 32 53 0 103 30 22 0 16 204 53 0 65 205 112 0 933 3:30 PM 47 33 59 0 102 21 14 0 12 192 37 0 71 194 118 0 900 3:45 PM 40 25 63 0 97 29 19 0 6 175 60 0 80 221 135 0 950

NL NT NR NU SL ST SR SU EL ET ER EU WL WT WR WU TOTAL
TOTAL VOLUMES : 356 273 462 0 754 230 178 0 83 1466 396 1 577 1618 979 0 7373 APPROACH %'s : 32.63% 25.02% 42.35% 0.00% 64.89% 19.79% 15.32% 0.00% 4.27% 75.33% 20.35% 0.05% 18.18% 50.98% 30.84% 0.00% PEAK HR : 03:00 PM 285 281 288 03:45 PM TOTAL
PEAK HR VOL : 160 120 236 0 389 107 80 0 43 769 204 0 284 825 507 0 3724 PEAK HR FACTOR : 0.851 0.909 0.937 0.000 0.944 0.892 0.800 0.000 0.672 0.942 0.850 0.000 0.888 0.933 0.893 0.000 East Costco dwy on Washington BlvdEast Costco dwy on Washington BlvdBet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave Bet. Walnut Ave & Glencoe Ave

SOUTHBOUND EASTBOUND
PM

NORTHBOUND
2018-06-30
Total

0.9800.930

WESTBOUND

0.9270.928 0.929
03:00 PM - 04:00 PM
City Of Los Angeles
Department Of Transportation

MANUAL TRAFFIC COUNT SUMMARY
PREPARED BY: AimTD LLC. tel: 714 253 7888 [email protected] STREET:

North / Sounth
East/West
Day: Weather Sunny
Hours:

School Day: Yes District I/S CODE

N/B S/B E/B W/B
DUAL-
WHEELED 515 365 305 255
BIKES 65 77 120 102
BUSES 57 56 44 35

N/B TIME S/B TIME E/B TIME W/B TIME
601 7:00:00 AM 403 8:15:00 AM 390 8:15:00 AM 274 8:45:00 AM 538 5:30:00 PM 441 4:30:00 PM 310 5:15:00 PM 316 5:45:00 PM 2221 7:00:00 AM 1541 7:45:00 AM 1440 8:00:00 AM 998 8:00:00 AM 1913 4:45:00 PM 1701 4:15:00 PM 1192 4:45:00 PM 1230 5:00:00 PM NORTHBOUND Approach SOUTHBOUND Approach TOTAL
Hours Lt Th Rt Total Hours Lt Th Rt Total N-S Ped Sch Ped Sch 7-8 696 1437 88 2221 7-8 176 921 75 1172 3393 26 7 22 4 8-9 760 1222 124 2106 8-9 217 1203 67 1487 3593 44 7 16 0 9-10 716 1229 184 2129 9-10 232 1102 98 1432 3561 43 11 45 7 3-4 411 1032 206 1649 3-4 172 1329 59 1560 3209 66 20 57 7 4-5 447 1070 188 1705 4-5 162 1451 56 1669 3374 66 20 43 7 5-6 479 1242 179 1900 5-6 151 1378 52 1581 3481 44 19 47 2 TOTAL 3509 7232 969 11710 TOTAL 1110 7384 407 8901 20611 289 84 230 27 EASTBOUND Approach WESTBOUND Approach TOTAL
Hours Lt Th Rt Total Hours Lt Th Rt Total E-W Ped Sch Ped Sch 7-8 56 701 415 1172 7-8 115 558 149 822 1994 23 4 37 5
8-9 58 800 582 1440 8-9 148 702 148 998 2438 27 4 31 9
9-10 88 653 513 1254 9-10 147 549 182 878 2132 40 8 54 7 3-4 84 605 481 1170 3-4 296 573 242 1111 2281 50 8 64 25 4-5 70 565 455 1090 4-5 301 604 244 1149 2239 45 8 77 6 5-6 69 645 467 1181 5-6 311 681 238 1230 2411 46 2 78 3 TOTAL 425 3969 2913 7307 TOTAL 1318 3667 1203 6188 13495 231 34 341 55

AM PK HOUR
Lincoln
Washington
Tuesday, May 7, 2019
AM PK 15 MIN
PM PK 15 MIN

PM PK HOUR

XING S/L XING N/L

XING W/L XING E/L

2009

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL 445-545 121 1416 197 241 709 263 245 1529 564 580 814 129 6808 2011

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL 500-600 118 1302 206 308 701 333 280 1684 485 554 802 122 6895 2014

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL 500-600 62 1372 201 237 733 214 213 1145 464 464 686 72 5863 2019

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL 500-600 52 1378 151 238 681 311 179 1242 479 467 645 69 5892 2014-2019 GROWTH

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL -3.5% 0.1% -5.6% 0.1% -1.5% 7.8% -3.4% 1.6% 0.6% 0.1% -1.2% -0.8% 0.1% 2011-2019 GROWTH

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL -9.7% 0.7% -3.8% -3.2% -0.4% -0.9% -5.4% -3.7% -0.2% -2.1% -2.7% -6.9% -1.9% 2009-2019 GROWTH

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL -8.1% -0.3% -2.6% -0.1% -0.4% 1.7% -3.1% -2.1% -1.6% -2.1% -2.3% -6.1% -1.4% 2020 LA County CMP Growth Rate 2.6%

LINCOLN & WASHINGTON
2014

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL 500-600 58 143 258 358 810 428 312 104 191 270 817 33 3782 2017

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL 400-500 73 134 312 405 843 394 281 107 199 270 797 30 3845 2014-2017 GROWTH

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL

8.0% -2.1% 6.5% 4.2% 1.3% -2.7% -3.4% 1.0% 1.4% 0.0% -0.8% -3.1% 0.6% 2014

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL 445-545 *No 2014 data avaliable for Saturday
2017

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL 400-500 86 99 330 453 858 331 284 149 187 240 854 44 3915 2014-2017 GROWTH

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL

PM VS SAT COMPARISON

SBRT SBTH SBLT WBRT WBTH WBLT NBRT NBTH NBLT EBRT EBTH EBLT TOTAL

15.1% -35.4% 5.5% 10.6% 1.7% -19.0% 1.1% 28.2% -6.4% -12.5% 6.7% 31.8% 1.8% Comparison of through movements on Washington Blvd

GLENCOE & WASHINGTON PM

GLENCOE & WASHINGTON SAT

GLENCOE & WASHINGTON COMPARISON OF PM VS SAT

Appendix C:

Existing Traffic
Operations Worksheets
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EX_PM
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/03/2021
Existing Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 651 472 314 688 240 484 1254 181 153 1392 53 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 651 472 314 688 240 484 1254 181 153 1392 53 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 71 664 482 320 702 245 494 1280 185 156 1420 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 117 1035 639 256 1175 694 388 1582 229 369 1729 66 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3510 3610 1610 3510 3610 1610 3510 4577 662 3510 5128 195 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 71 664 482 320 702 245 494 967 498 156 958 516 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1755 1805 1610 1755 1805 1610 1755 1729 1781 1755 1729 1865 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 20.1 32.2 9.1 20.4 1.8 13.8 31.8 31.8 5.2 31.7 31.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 20.1 32.2 9.1 20.4 1.8 13.8 31.8 31.8 5.2 31.7 31.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 117 1035 639 256 1175 694 388 1195 615 369 1166 629 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.64 0.75 1.25 0.60 0.35 1.27 0.81 0.81 0.42 0.82 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 1069 654 256 1175 694 388 1195 615 369 1166 629 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.6 39.0 32.4 58.0 35.3 11.8 55.6 37.2 37.2 52.4 38.0 38.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 1.3 4.8 139.9 0.8 0.3 142.3 6.0 11.0 0.8 6.6 11.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 9.0 13.3 9.0 9.1 3.2 13.7 14.0 15.3 2.3 14.1 16.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.6 40.2 37.3 197.8 36.1 12.1 197.9 43.1 48.1 53.1 44.5 49.5 LnGrp LOS E D D F D B F D D D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1217 1267 1959 1630
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.5 72.3 83.4 46.9
Approach LOS D E F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.2 49.0 15.0 41.8 20.0 48.2 10.2 46.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6 5.8 5.9 * 6 * 6.2 * 6 6.0 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 43.2 9.1 * 37 * 14 * 41 9.0 * 37 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.2 33.8 11.1 34.2 15.8 33.7 4.5 22.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 7.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 5.4 0.1 5.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 62.7
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues EX_PM
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/03/2021
Existing Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 664 482 320 702 245 494 1465 156 1474 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.72 0.60 1.26 0.69 0.35 0.93 0.74 0.46 0.87 Control Delay 59.9 47.0 21.7 191.0 43.9 9.0 78.1 35.9 58.4 45.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.9 47.0 21.7 191.0 43.9 9.0 78.1 35.9 58.4 45.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 258 209 ~167 273 46 206 364 62 406 Queue Length 95th (ft) 53 308 322 #262 328 86 #370 452 98 471 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2378 480 1614 1054
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 285 475 200
Base Capacity (vph) 252 1068 803 254 1081 732 530 1982 336 1704 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.62 0.60 1.26 0.65 0.33 0.93 0.74 0.46 0.87 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EX_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 03/03/2021
Existing Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 228 895 1126 88 118 201
Future Volume (veh/h) 228 895 1126 88 118 201
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1870 1885 1885 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 235 923 1161 91 122 207
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 2 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 513 2767 3222 252 264 375
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 3647 5036 381 1795 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 235 923 818 434 122 207
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1777 1716 1817 1795 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 9.3 0.0 0.0 7.5 13.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 9.3 0.0 0.0 7.5 13.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.21 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 513 2767 2271 1203 264 375
V/C Ratio(X) 0.46 0.33 0.36 0.36 0.46 0.55
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 588 2767 2271 1203 477 564
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.68 0.68 0.81 0.81 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.6 4.0 0.0 0.0 46.8 40.4
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 2.8 0.1 0.2 3.4 12.2
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 3.8 4.2 0.4 0.7 47.3 40.9
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1158 1252 329
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.1 0.5 43.2
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 98.2 21.8 14.0 84.2
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 15.0 59.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.3 16.7 7.1 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 17.4 0.5 0.2 24.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 7.1
HCM 6th LOS A
Queues EX_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 03/03/2021
Existing Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 235 923 1252 122 207
v/c Ratio 0.57 0.32 0.36 0.56 0.48
Control Delay 8.4 3.7 7.0 58.9 32.0
Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.1 3.9
Total Delay 8.4 4.1 7.1 59.1 35.9
Queue Length 50th (ft) 30 79 97 91 105
Queue Length 95th (ft) 63 131 101 146 161
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 166
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 464 2845 3456 475 494
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1189 635 58 207
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.51 0.56 0.44 0.29 0.72
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EX_PM
3: East Access/Glencoe Ave & Washington Blvd 03/03/2021 Existing Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 34 758 246 371 867 410 223 133 304 324 166 65 Future Volume (vph) 34 758 246 371 867 410 223 133 304 324 166 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1770 3539 1615 1681 1709 1509 1715 1775 1615 Flt Permitted 0.32 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 616 3574 1615 213 3539 1615 1681 1709 1509 1715 1775 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 766 248 375 876 414 225 134 307 327 168 66 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 185 0 0 145 0 0 235 0 0 47
Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 766 63 375 876 269 175 184 72 242 253 19 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 0% 2% 5% 7% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Over Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 37.5 30.3 30.3 63.2 52.0 52.0 18.5 18.5 28.3 22.6 22.6 35.0 Effective Green, g (s) 37.5 30.3 30.3 63.2 52.0 52.0 18.5 18.5 28.3 22.6 22.6 35.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.31 0.25 0.25 0.53 0.43 0.43 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.19 0.19 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 263 902 407 479 1533 699 259 263 355 322 334 471 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 c0.21 c0.18 0.25 0.10 c0.11 0.05 0.14 c0.14 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.03 0.04 0.23 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.13 0.85 0.15 0.78 0.57 0.38 0.68 0.70 0.20 0.75 0.76 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 28.9 42.7 34.9 30.6 25.6 23.1 47.9 48.1 36.8 46.0 46.1 30.5 Progression Factor 0.93 1.02 1.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 9.5 0.8 8.2 1.6 1.6 6.8 7.9 0.3 9.5 9.4 0.0 Delay (s) 27.0 53.1 55.8 38.8 27.2 24.7 54.7 56.0 37.1 55.6 55.6 30.5 Level of Service C D E D C C D E D E E C
Approach Delay (s) 52.9 29.2 47.0 52.6
Approach LOS D C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.78
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 81.4% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues EX_PM
3: East Access/Glencoe Ave & Washington Blvd 03/03/2021 Existing Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 766 248 375 876 414 175 184 307 242 253 66 v/c Ratio 0.11 0.85 0.42 0.78 0.56 0.48 0.68 0.70 0.52 0.75 0.76 0.13 Control Delay 17.6 53.1 9.0 43.2 29.8 13.0 60.3 61.6 8.8 60.2 60.4 6.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.6 53.1 9.0 43.2 29.8 13.0 60.3 61.6 8.8 60.2 60.4 6.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 14 299 14 219 272 80 136 144 0 187 195 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 37 374 80 #523 404 207 203 212 90 270 280 30 Internal Link Dist (ft) 440 2455 2238 219
Turn Bay Length (ft) 330 265 150 105
Base Capacity (vph) 388 944 609 480 1557 854 389 396 590 378 391 597 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.81 0.41 0.78 0.56 0.48 0.45 0.46 0.52 0.64 0.65 0.11 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EX_SAT
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/03/2021
Existing Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 73 679 491 327 717 250 504 1307 188 159 1450 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 73 679 491 327 717 250 504 1307 188 159 1450 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 693 501 334 732 255 514 1334 192 162 1480 56 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 461 1046 642 479 1092 653 497 1526 220 507 1664 63 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 4509 649 3456 5049 191 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 693 501 334 732 255 514 1007 519 162 998 538 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1754 1728 1702 1836 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 21.4 34.4 8.5 22.5 2.6 13.8 34.7 34.7 0.0 34.7 34.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 21.4 34.4 8.5 22.5 2.6 13.8 34.7 34.7 0.0 34.7 34.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 461 1046 642 479 1092 653 497 1152 594 507 1122 605 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.66 0.78 0.70 0.67 0.39 1.03 0.87 0.87 0.32 0.89 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 505 1052 644 479 1092 653 497 1176 606 507 1122 605 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.6 38.7 32.4 30.6 37.8 11.9 38.5 38.8 38.8 49.6 39.7 39.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 1.6 6.1 4.0 1.4 0.3 49.7 9.3 16.3 1.7 10.6 17.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 9.4 14.1 3.8 10.0 3.2 9.4 15.5 17.2 2.4 15.7 18.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.7 40.2 38.5 34.6 39.2 12.2 88.2 48.1 55.2 51.3 50.3 57.4 LnGrp LOS C D D C D B F D E D D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1268 1321 2040 1698
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.9 32.8 60.0 52.7
Approach LOS D C E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.1 48.1 15.0 42.8 20.0 47.2 13.4 44.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6 5.8 5.9 * 6 * 6.2 * 6 6.0 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 43.2 9.1 * 37 * 14 * 41 9.0 * 37 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 36.7 10.5 36.4 15.8 36.8 3.8 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 5.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.5 0.1 4.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues EX_SAT
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/03/2021
Existing Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 693 501 334 732 255 514 1526 162 1536 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.74 0.63 0.77 0.70 0.36 0.86 0.80 0.36 0.91 Control Delay 24.2 47.0 23.1 39.3 43.7 9.3 46.6 39.0 43.4 49.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.2 47.0 23.1 39.3 43.7 9.3 46.6 39.0 43.4 49.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 265 227 91 280 48 160 405 47 435 Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 326 349 122 345 92 #290 483 74 #513 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2378 480 1614 1054
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 285 475 200
Base Capacity (vph) 443 1047 780 434 1079 727 600 1896 449 1680 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.66 0.64 0.77 0.68 0.35 0.86 0.80 0.36 0.91 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EX_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 03/03/2021 Existing Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 297 847 1006 142 179 244
Future Volume (veh/h) 297 847 1006 142 179 244
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1885 1885 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 319 911 1082 153 192 262
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 1 1 1 0
Cap, veh/h 501 2664 2885 407 301 404
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3647 4726 644 1795 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 319 911 814 421 192 262
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1777 1716 1769 1795 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 6.9 10.4 0.0 0.0 12.0 17.5
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 6.9 10.4 0.0 0.0 12.0 17.5
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.36 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 501 2664 2172 1120 301 404
V/C Ratio(X) 0.64 0.34 0.37 0.38 0.64 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 576 2664 2172 1120 470 556
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.69 0.69 0.66 0.66 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.2 5.1 0.0 0.0 46.5 40.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.3 3.3 0.1 0.2 5.5 15.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.0 5.3 0.3 0.6 47.4 40.8
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1230 1235 454
Approach Delay, s/veh 5.5 0.4 43.6
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 95.3 24.7 14.0 81.3
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 15.0 59.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.4 19.5 8.9 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 17.1 0.7 0.3 24.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.3
HCM 6th LOS A
Queues EX_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 03/03/2021 Existing Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 319 911 1235 192 262
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.36 0.46 0.56 0.40
Control Delay 19.8 6.6 3.0 50.8 22.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 19.8 7.0 3.3 50.8 22.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 79 121 24 136 113
Queue Length 95th (ft) 181 153 38 213 173
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 186
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 459 2565 2705 467 656
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1027 718 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.69 0.59 0.62 0.41 0.40
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EX_SAT
3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd03/03/2021 Existing Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 44 784 208 290 842 517 163 122 241 397 109 82 Future Volume (vph) 44 784 208 290 842 517 163 122 241 397 109 82 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1787 3574 1615 1698 1773 1615 1715 1755 1615 Flt Permitted 0.14 1.00 1.00 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 261 3574 1615 227 3574 1615 1698 1773 1615 1715 1755 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 800 212 296 859 528 166 124 246 405 111 84 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 106 0 0 245 0 0 50 0 0 50
Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 800 106 296 859 283 143 147 196 255 261 34 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA pt+ov Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 42.7 33.7 33.7 48.1 36.7 36.7 20.4 20.4 31.8 34.2 34.2 48.4 Effective Green, g (s) 42.7 33.7 33.7 48.1 36.7 36.7 20.4 20.4 31.8 34.2 34.2 48.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.28 0.28 0.40 0.31 0.31 0.17 0.17 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 208 1003 453 239 1093 493 288 301 427 488 500 651 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.22 c0.12 0.24 c0.08 0.08 0.12 0.15 c0.15 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.07 c0.38 0.18
v/c Ratio 0.22 0.80 0.23 1.24 0.79 0.57 0.50 0.49 0.46 0.52 0.52 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 27.3 40.0 33.2 30.0 38.1 35.1 45.1 45.1 36.9 36.0 36.0 21.8 Progression Factor 0.88 0.89 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 6.3 1.2 137.8 5.7 4.8 0.5 0.5 0.3 4.0 3.9 0.0 Delay (s) 24.0 41.9 23.2 167.8 43.8 39.9 45.6 45.5 37.2 40.0 39.9 21.8 Level of Service C D C F D D D D D D D C
Approach Delay (s) 37.4 64.4 41.7 37.4
Approach LOS D E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 49.7 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 76.8% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues EX_SAT
3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd03/03/2021 Existing Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 800 212 296 859 528 143 147 246 255 261 84 v/c Ratio 0.21 0.80 0.38 1.23 0.79 0.72 0.49 0.49 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.12 Control Delay 20.5 42.3 9.5 163.2 44.2 17.8 51.5 51.0 17.8 40.9 40.8 5.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 20.5 42.3 9.5 163.2 44.2 17.8 51.5 51.0 17.8 40.9 40.8 5.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 313 30 ~226 319 118 107 110 54 173 177 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 36 388 108 #407 398 257 174 176 91 270 275 33 Internal Link Dist (ft) 440 2455 2238 214
Turn Bay Length (ft) 330 150 265 150 105
Base Capacity (vph) 211 1003 559 240 1093 738 464 484 630 488 499 685 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.21 0.80 0.38 1.23 0.79 0.72 0.31 0.30 0.39 0.52 0.52 0.12 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Appendix D:

Existing Plus Project
Traffic Operations
Worksheets
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EX+P_PM
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/08/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 651 472 314 688 237 484 1254 181 152 1392 53 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 651 472 314 688 237 484 1254 181 152 1392 53 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 71 664 482 320 702 242 494 1280 185 155 1420 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 117 1035 639 256 1175 694 388 1582 229 369 1729 66 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3510 3610 1610 3510 3610 1610 3510 4577 662 3510 5128 195 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 71 664 482 320 702 242 494 967 498 155 958 516 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1755 1805 1610 1755 1805 1610 1755 1729 1781 1755 1729 1865 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 20.1 32.2 9.1 20.4 1.8 13.8 31.8 31.8 5.2 31.7 31.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 20.1 32.2 9.1 20.4 1.8 13.8 31.8 31.8 5.2 31.7 31.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 117 1035 639 256 1175 694 388 1195 615 369 1166 629 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.64 0.75 1.25 0.60 0.35 1.27 0.81 0.81 0.42 0.82 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 1069 654 256 1175 694 388 1195 615 369 1166 629 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.6 39.0 32.4 58.0 35.3 11.8 55.6 37.2 37.2 52.3 38.0 38.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 1.3 4.8 139.1 0.8 0.3 142.3 6.0 11.0 0.8 6.6 11.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 9.0 13.3 9.0 9.1 3.1 13.7 14.0 15.3 2.3 14.1 16.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.6 40.2 37.3 197.1 36.1 12.1 197.9 43.1 48.1 53.1 44.5 49.5 LnGrp LOS E D D F D B F D D D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1217 1264 1959 1629
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.5 72.2 83.4 46.9
Approach LOS D E F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.2 49.0 15.0 41.8 20.0 48.2 10.2 46.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6 5.8 5.9 * 6 * 6.2 * 6 6.0 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 43.2 9.1 * 37 * 14 * 41 9.0 * 37 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.2 33.8 11.1 34.2 15.8 33.7 4.5 22.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 7.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 5.4 0.1 5.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 62.7
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues EX+P_PM
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/08/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 664 482 320 702 242 494 1465 155 1474 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.72 0.60 1.26 0.69 0.34 0.93 0.74 0.46 0.87 Control Delay 59.9 47.0 21.7 191.0 43.9 8.9 78.1 35.9 58.3 45.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.9 47.0 21.7 191.0 43.9 8.9 78.1 35.9 58.3 45.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 258 209 ~167 273 45 206 364 62 406 Queue Length 95th (ft) 53 308 322 #262 328 84 #370 452 98 471 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2378 480 1614 1054
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 285 475 200
Base Capacity (vph) 252 1068 803 254 1081 732 530 1982 336 1704 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.62 0.60 1.26 0.65 0.33 0.93 0.74 0.46 0.87 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EX+P_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 03/08/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 251 895 1059 192 186 283
Future Volume (veh/h) 251 895 1059 192 186 283
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1870 1885 1885 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 259 923 1092 198 192 292
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 2 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 482 2597 2690 487 350 451
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.20
Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 3647 4550 794 1795 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 259 923 855 435 192 292
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1777 1716 1742 1795 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 11.3 0.0 0.0 11.6 19.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 11.3 0.0 0.0 11.6 19.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 482 2597 2107 1070 350 451
V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.36 0.41 0.41 0.55 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 557 2597 2107 1070 477 564
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.69 0.69 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.3 5.9 0.0 0.0 43.5 37.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 3.8 0.1 0.3 5.2 16.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.6 6.1 0.5 0.9 44.0 38.6
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1182 1290 484
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.0 0.6 40.8
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 92.5 27.5 14.0 78.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 15.0 59.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.3 22.3 8.5 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 17.3 0.7 0.2 25.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.3
HCM 6th LOS A
Queues EX+P_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 03/08/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 259 923 1290 192 292
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.34 0.40 0.68 0.57
Control Delay 14.0 5.2 7.3 59.6 31.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.9 21.0
Total Delay 14.0 5.5 7.4 60.5 52.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 98 78 143 158
Queue Length 95th (ft) 119 165 75 206 202
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 166
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 442 2719 3192 475 557
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1089 512 116 256
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.57 0.48 0.53 0.97
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EX+P_PM
3: East Access/Glencoe Ave & Washington Blvd 03/08/2021 Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 15 860 249 371 967 321 227 128 304 258 161 65 Future Volume (vph) 15 860 249 371 967 321 227 128 304 258 161 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1770 3539 1615 1681 1709 1509 1715 1783 1615 Flt Permitted 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 557 3574 1615 205 3539 1615 1681 1709 1509 1715 1783 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 869 252 375 977 324 229 129 307 261 163 66 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 182 0 0 99 0 0 232 0 0 48
Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 869 70 375 977 225 176 182 75 209 215 18 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 0% 2% 5% 7% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Over Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.9 31.7 31.7 65.5 54.3 54.3 18.2 18.2 29.2 20.6 20.6 33.0 Effective Green, g (s) 38.9 31.7 31.7 65.5 54.3 54.3 18.2 18.2 29.2 20.6 20.6 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.26 0.26 0.55 0.45 0.45 0.15 0.15 0.24 0.17 0.17 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 255 944 426 492 1601 730 254 259 367 294 306 444 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.24 c0.19 0.28 0.10 c0.11 0.05 c0.12 0.12 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.04 0.23 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.06 0.92 0.16 0.76 0.61 0.31 0.69 0.70 0.20 0.71 0.70 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 27.6 42.9 34.0 30.4 24.8 20.9 48.3 48.3 36.1 46.9 46.8 31.9 Progression Factor 0.85 1.02 1.28 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 14.9 0.8 6.9 1.7 1.1 7.9 8.3 0.3 7.9 7.1 0.0 Delay (s) 23.5 58.9 44.4 37.3 26.6 22.0 56.2 56.7 36.4 54.8 53.9 31.9 Level of Service C E D D C C E E D D D C
Approach Delay (s) 55.2 28.1 47.2 51.3
Approach LOS E C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 41.9 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues EX+P_PM
3: East Access/Glencoe Ave & Washington Blvd 03/08/2021 Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 869 252 375 977 324 176 182 307 209 215 66 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.92 0.41 0.76 0.60 0.39 0.69 0.71 0.51 0.71 0.70 0.13 Control Delay 15.3 59.2 8.1 41.2 29.5 13.2 61.8 62.4 8.6 59.4 58.5 6.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 15.3 59.2 8.1 41.2 29.5 13.2 61.8 62.4 8.6 59.4 58.5 6.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 5 353 21 213 303 68 137 143 0 162 166 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m13 #470 83 #527 #489 176 205 211 90 232 236 30 Internal Link Dist (ft) 440 2455 2238 219
Turn Bay Length (ft) 330 265 150 105
Base Capacity (vph) 378 944 608 493 1624 838 389 395 599 375 390 569 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.92 0.41 0.76 0.60 0.39 0.45 0.46 0.51 0.56 0.55 0.12 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EX+P_SAT
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/08/2021
Existing with Project Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 73 679 491 327 717 249 504 1307 187 157 1450 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 73 679 491 327 717 249 504 1307 187 157 1450 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 693 501 334 732 254 514 1334 191 160 1480 56 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 461 1046 642 479 1092 653 497 1527 219 507 1664 63 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 4512 646 3456 5049 191 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 693 501 334 732 254 514 1006 519 160 998 538 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1754 1728 1702 1836 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 21.4 34.4 8.5 22.5 2.6 13.8 34.7 34.7 0.0 34.7 34.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 21.4 34.4 8.5 22.5 2.6 13.8 34.7 34.7 0.0 34.7 34.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 461 1046 642 479 1092 653 497 1152 594 507 1122 605 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.66 0.78 0.70 0.67 0.39 1.03 0.87 0.87 0.32 0.89 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 505 1052 644 479 1092 653 497 1176 606 507 1122 605 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.6 38.7 32.4 30.6 37.8 11.9 38.5 38.8 38.8 49.6 39.7 39.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 1.6 6.1 3.8 1.4 0.3 49.7 9.3 16.3 1.6 10.6 17.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 9.4 14.1 3.8 10.0 3.2 9.4 15.5 17.1 2.3 15.7 18.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.7 40.2 38.5 34.4 39.2 12.2 88.2 48.1 55.1 51.2 50.3 57.4 LnGrp LOS C D D C D B F D E D D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1268 1320 2039 1696
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.9 32.8 60.0 52.7
Approach LOS D C E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.1 48.1 15.0 42.8 20.0 47.2 13.4 44.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6 5.8 5.9 * 6 * 6.2 * 6 6.0 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 43.2 9.1 * 37 * 14 * 41 9.0 * 37 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 36.7 10.5 36.4 15.8 36.8 3.8 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 5.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.5 0.1 4.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues EX+P_SAT
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/08/2021
Existing with Project Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 693 501 334 732 254 514 1525 160 1536 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.74 0.63 0.77 0.70 0.36 0.86 0.80 0.36 0.91 Control Delay 24.2 47.0 23.1 39.3 43.7 9.3 46.6 38.9 43.3 49.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.2 47.0 23.1 39.3 43.7 9.3 46.6 38.9 43.3 49.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 265 227 91 280 47 160 404 46 435 Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 326 349 122 345 92 #290 482 73 #513 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2378 480 1614 1054
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 285 475 200
Base Capacity (vph) 443 1047 780 434 1079 727 600 1896 449 1680 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.66 0.64 0.77 0.68 0.35 0.86 0.80 0.36 0.91 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EX+P_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 03/08/2021 Existing with Project Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 311 847 937 229 233 321
Future Volume (veh/h) 311 847 937 229 233 321
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1885 1885 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 334 911 1008 246 251 345
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 1 1 1 0
Cap, veh/h 483 2504 2403 585 382 487
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.21 0.21
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3647 4299 1006 1795 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 334 911 837 417 251 345
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1777 1716 1704 1795 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.5 12.2 0.0 0.0 15.3 22.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.5 12.2 0.0 0.0 15.3 22.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 483 2504 1997 992 382 487
V/C Ratio(X) 0.69 0.36 0.42 0.42 0.66 0.71
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 548 2504 1997 992 470 565
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.69 0.69 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.2 7.0 0.0 0.0 43.2 37.2
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.6 0.3 0.4 0.7 1.3 2.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.2 4.2 0.1 0.2 7.0 19.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 8.8 7.3 0.4 0.7 44.5 39.7
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1245 1254 596
Approach Delay, s/veh 7.7 0.5 41.7
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 89.8 30.2 14.7 75.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 15.0 59.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.2 24.8 10.5 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 17.0 0.7 0.2 24.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.3
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues EX+P_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 03/08/2021 Existing with Project Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 334 911 1254 251 345
v/c Ratio 0.75 0.36 0.47 0.69 0.51
Control Delay 25.7 7.3 1.7 54.7 24.2
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 25.7 7.7 2.0 54.7 24.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 99 121 9 185 162
Queue Length 95th (ft) #255 183 21 261 236
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 186
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 443 2525 2665 467 669
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 991 713 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 126 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.75 0.59 0.64 0.54 0.52
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EX+P_SAT
3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd03/08/2021 Existing with Project Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 26 870 211 290 927 423 166 115 241 326 102 82 Future Volume (vph) 26 870 211 290 927 423 166 115 241 326 102 82 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1787 3574 1615 1698 1770 1615 1715 1758 1615 Flt Permitted 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 226 3574 1615 205 3574 1615 1698 1770 1615 1715 1758 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 888 215 296 946 432 169 117 246 333 104 84 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 96 0 0 182 0 0 50 0 0 50
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 888 119 296 946 250 140 146 196 216 221 34 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA pt+ov Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 42.7 33.7 33.7 48.1 36.7 36.7 20.4 20.4 31.8 34.2 34.2 48.4 Effective Green, g (s) 42.7 33.7 33.7 48.1 36.7 36.7 20.4 20.4 31.8 34.2 34.2 48.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.28 0.28 0.40 0.31 0.31 0.17 0.17 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 198 1003 453 232 1093 493 288 300 427 488 501 651 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.25 c0.12 0.26 0.08 c0.08 0.12 c0.13 0.13 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.07 c0.39 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.89 0.26 1.28 0.87 0.51 0.49 0.49 0.46 0.44 0.44 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 27.7 41.3 33.5 32.1 39.3 34.2 45.1 45.1 36.9 35.1 35.1 21.8 Progression Factor 0.83 0.88 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 10.7 1.3 153.2 9.2 3.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 2.9 2.8 0.0 Delay (s) 23.0 47.2 23.0 185.3 48.5 37.9 45.5 45.5 37.2 38.0 37.9 21.8 Level of Service C D C F D D D D D D D C
Approach Delay (s) 42.0 70.0 41.7 35.3
Approach LOS D E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 53.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues EX+P_SAT
3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd03/08/2021 Existing with Project Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 888 215 296 946 432 140 146 246 216 221 84 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.89 0.39 1.27 0.87 0.64 0.49 0.49 0.52 0.44 0.44 0.12 Control Delay 18.3 47.7 10.7 179.0 48.9 18.4 51.3 51.1 17.8 38.8 38.6 5.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 18.3 47.7 10.7 179.0 48.9 18.4 51.3 51.1 17.8 38.8 38.6 5.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 11 358 46 ~237 363 110 105 109 54 143 146 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m23 #461 78 #418 #454 225 171 177 91 227 232 33 Internal Link Dist (ft) 440 2455 2238 214
Turn Bay Length (ft) 330 150 265 150 105
Base Capacity (vph) 201 1003 549 233 1093 675 464 483 630 489 501 686 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.89 0.39 1.27 0.87 0.64 0.30 0.30 0.39 0.44 0.44 0.12 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Appendix E:

Related Projects List
No. Project Name Address Address_City Description City Est. Date Completion
Completed
Date
Project Phase Date of
Entitlement
Approval
Planner
1 3-unit Washington Place
Condos
12464 Washington
Place
12464 Washington
Place, Culver City
Three (3) new condominium dwelling units and
demolition of single family dewlling, resulting in
two (2) net new dwellings
CC 2019 3/26/2019 Completed - Occupied4/26/2017Gabriela Silva (310) 253-5736
2 Shell Carwash 11224 Venice Blvd 11224 Venice Blvd,
Culver City
New 3,150 sq. ft. commercial building, which
includes a 2,285 sq. ft. convenience store and
864 sq. ft. automated car wash facility, on a
vacant site
CC 2019 6/5/2019 Completed - Occupied12/9/2015Gabriela Silva (310) 253-5736
3 One Culver
8-story Office Building
Renovation
10000 Washington
Blvd
10000 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
Renovation of existing 8-story office building.

Convert ground floor office space to retail and
restaurant space. Total net increase of 10,614
sq. ft. of floor area, including a net reduction of
1,497 sq. ft. of office, increase of 8,424 sq. ft. of
retail/ restaurant and 3,687 sq. ft. of fitness use
CC 2019 2019 Completed 6/22/2016Planning Division
(310) 253-5710
4 Grandview Apartments 4025 Grand View
Blvd
4025 Grand View
Blvd, Culver City
New 3-story, for lease housing development,
consisting of 36 units, with subterranean parking.

Previous/Existing use includes 20 mobile home
units.

CC 2019 8/5/2019 Completed - Occupied 01/27/2016
(PC)
03/28/2016
(CC)
Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
5 Auto Repair Facility 2926 La Cienega
Blvd
2926 La Cienega
Blvd, Culver City
Four (4) bay auto repair use within existing car
rental facility
CC 2019 8/17/2019 Completed - Occupied8/8/2018 Jose Mendivil (310) 253-5757
6 Arora Condominiums 3837 Bentley
Avenue
3837 Bentley
Avenue, Culver City
Three (3) new condominium dwelling units,
resulting in two (2) net new dwellings
CC 2019 10/3/2019 Completed - Occupied4/8/2015 Gabriela Silva (310) 253-5736
7 New 4-unit Condo 4034 La Salle
Avenue
4034 La Salle
Avenue, Culver City
New four (4) unit residential condominium project,
resulting in a net increase of three (3) dwelling
units
CC 2019 11/19/2019 Completed 9/28/2016William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
8 Office Use, Tandem
Parking
5426 Sepulveda
Blvd
5426 Sepulveda
Blvd, Culver City
Change of use from auto repair to office use, with
addition of tandem parking
CC 2019 12/10/2019 Completed 1/3/2019 William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
9 Retail Building 3030 La Cienega
Blvd
3030 La Cienega
Blvd, Culver City
Addition of 1,250 sq. ft. of retail floor area to an
existing 8,338 sq. ft. retail building, and new
tandem parking
CC 2020 1/3/2020 Completed 6/19/2017Planning Division
(310) 253-5710
10Three unit condominium/
townhome
Redevelopment
4241 Duquesne
Avenue
4241 Duquesne
Avenue, Culver City
New three (3) detached condominium/
townhomes, resulting in two (2) net new
residential dwelling units
CC 2020 3/30/2020 Completed - Occupied 03/09/2016
(CC)
05/09/2016
(CC)
Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
11 2-unit Condominium 9615 Lucerne Ave 9615 Lucerne Ave, Culver City
Two (2) new residential condominium dwellings,
resulting in one (1) net new dwelling unit
CC 2020 6/26/2020 Completed 9/27/2017William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
12 Globe Affordable
Housing Project
4044 - 4068 Globe
Avenue
4044 - 4068 Globe
Avenue, Culver City
Comprehensive Plan and Planned Development
for a total of 10 new, for sale, residential dwelling
units on currently vacant land; however, the site
was previously developed with 7 single family
homes.

CC 2020 7/16/2020 Completed - Occupied 03/23/2016
(PC)
05/05/2016
(CC)
Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
13 Baldwin Site 12803 Washington
Blvd
12803 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
New 4 story mixed use project, cosisting of 37
dwelling units and 7,206 sq. ft. of ground floor
retail, on currently vacant site
CC 2020 9/2/2020 Completed 07/27/2016
(PC)
09/12/2016
(CC)
Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
14 Office Building 9919 Jefferson Blvd 9919 Jefferson Blvd, Culver City
New 3-story, 62,558 sq. ft., office and research
and development (laboratory) building, as well as
a five (5) level parking structure containing 398
parking spaces, and associated site
improvements
CC 2020 TBD Construction 10/26/2016Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
15 Parcel B - Culver Steps 9300 Culver Blvd 9300 Culver Blvd, Culver City
118,000 G.S.F. of office, retail, and restaurant
space.

CC 2020 TBD Construction 7/7/2012 Susan Herbertson
(310) 253-5755
16 New 3-unit Condo 4234 Sawtelle Blvd 4234 Sawtelle Blvd, Culver City
New three (3) unit residential condominium
project, resulting in a net increase of two (2)
dwelling units
CC 2020 TBD Construction 3/8/2017 Planning Division
(310) 253-5710
17 4-unit Townhome
Development
4118 Wade Street 4118 Wade Street,
Culver City
Sudivision of one parcel into four (4) townhome-
style dwelling units, resulting in a net increase of
one (1) new unit
CC 2020 TBD Construction 06/12/2017
(PC)
09/11/2017
(CC)
Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
18 3906-3910 Sawtelle Blvd 3906-3910 Sawtelle
Blvd
3906-3910 Sawtelle
Blvd, Culver City
Addition of one (1) new dwelling unit to an existing
triplex
CC 2020 TBD Construction 6/19/2017Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
19 3-unit Bentley Condos 3873 Bentley
Avenue
3873 Bentley
Avenue, Culver City
Three new residential condominium units,
resulting in two (2) net new residential dwelling
units
CC 2020 TBD Construction 2/22/2017William Kavadas
310-253-5706
20 6-unit Housing Complex 4227 Ince Boulevard 4227 Ince Boulevard, Culver
City
Sudivision of one parcel into three (3) land lots
with two (2) dwelling units each, for a total of six
(6) new units, resulting in five (5) net new units
CC 2020 TBD Construction 02/22/2017
(PC)
04/11/2017
(CC)
Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
21 5-unit Condominiums 3961 Tilden Avenue 3961 Tilden
Avenue, Culver City
Construction of five (5) new residential
condominium units, resulting in two (2) net new
residential dwelling units
CC 2021 TBD Construction 06/08/2016
(PC)
07/25/2016
(CC)
Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
22 Ivy Station Washington/
National TOD
Comprehensive Plan
8824 National Blvd
Corner of
Washington Blvd/
National Blvd
(8801, 8809
Washington Blvd)
8824 National Blvd
Corner of
Washington Blvd/
National Blvd
(8801, 8809
Washington Blvd),
Culver City
New TOD mixed use project consisting of a 148
room boutique hotel, approximately 57,742 gsf of
retail and restaurant uses, 196,333 gsf of office
use, and 200 residential units. Parking (1,531
spaces) provided on grade and in 3-level
subterranean garage.

CC 2021 TBD Construction 02/17/2016
(PC)
03/28/2016
(CC)
Susan Herbertson
(310) 253-5755
23 Surfas Site 8777 Washington
Blvd
8777 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
New Office/Retail project, consisting of 128,000
sq. ft. of office, and 4,500 sq. ft. of
retail/restaurant, with approximately 345 ground
and subterranean (3 level) parking spaces
CC 2021 TBD Construction 05/10/2017
(PC)
06/26/2017
(CC)
Susan Herbertson
(310) 253-5755
24 Motel Mixed-Use 12654 Washington
Blvd
12654 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
New mixed-use building, including 6,836 sq. ft.
ground floor commercial and one (1) 5,863 sq. ft.
residential dwelling on top
CC 2021 TBD Construction 5/29/2020Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
25 New 4-unit Condo 4180 Duquesne
Avenue
4180 Duquesne
Avenue, Culver City
New four (4) unit residential condominium project,
resulting in a net increase of three (3) dwelling
units
CC 2021 TBD Construction 9/28/2016William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
26 4-unit Condos 3832 Bentley
Avenue
3832 Bentley
Avenue, Culver City
Four (4) new condominium dwelling units,
resulting in three (3) net new dwellings
CC 2021 TBD Construction 2/22/2017Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
27 Synapse Office and
Retail/Restaurant (ICC
site)
8888 Washington
Blvd
8888 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
New 91,952 square foot, four (4) story, 56 ft. high,
office and retail/restaurant building, including
approximately 5,972 sq. ft. of ground floor space
(for retail/restaurant uses) and 56,559 gsf of office
space, and subterranean (24 ft. deep) automated
parking accommodating up to 210 vertically
stacked vehicles (3 stacked levels); the existing
auto collision repair center will be demolished.

CC 2021 TBD Construction 3/22/2017Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
28 Lorcan O'Herlihy
Architects
3434 Wesley Street3434 Wesley Street,
Culver City
New TOD Mixed Use project with 15 dwelling
units, and 14,237sq. ft. of office/gallery on a
vacant lot.

CC 2021 TBD Construction 10/26/2016
(PC)
02/13/2017
(CC)
William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
29 West Los Angeles
Community College
Master Plan and EIR
(2010)
LA County LA County, Culver
City
Approximately 92,000 sq. ft. of new building
construction and renovation. Anticipate future
student population of approx. 18,904 students.

LA
County
2021 TBD Construction EIR Certified
2004
Susan Herbertson
(310) 253-5755
30 Culver West Mixed Use
Washington/Inglewood
11924 Washington
Blvd
11924 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
Mixed use project with 3,750 sq. ft. of restaurant,
11,250 sq. ft. of specialty retail, and 98 for lease
residential apartment units.

Previous use includes approximately 26,445 sq.
ft. of commercial uses
CC/LA 2021 TBD Construction 12/09/2015
(PC)
06/08/2016
(LA City)
Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
31 2-unit Condominium 4225 La Salle Ave 4225 La Salle Ave, Culver City
Sudivision of one (1) parcel into two (2) townhome-
style dwelling units, resulting in one
(1) net new dwelling unit
CC 2021 TBD Construction 01/09/2019
(PC)
02/11/2019
(CC)
William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
32 Entrada Office Tower 6161 Centinela Blvd
(6181 Centinela
Blvd)
6161 Centinela Blvd
(6181 Centinela
Blvd), Culver City
New 281,194 sq. ft. creative office building CC 2021 TBD Construction 11/9/2016Susan Herbertson (310) 253-5755
33 The Brick and the
Machine
9735 Washington
Boulevard
9735 Washington
Boulevard, Culver
City
New 3- to 4-story office and retail building
consisting of 55,477 sq. ft. of office (upper floors),
12,249 sq. ft. of retail, 2,147 sq. ft. high turnover
restaurant, and 2,000 sq. ft. of quality restaurant
(on ground floor), and a 3-level, 228 space,
subterranean parking garage. The existing
vacant 16,200 sq. ft. bank and office building to
be demolished.

CC 2021 TBD Construction 06/27/2019
(PC)
11/12/2018
(CC)
Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
34 2-unit Condominium 4116 Higuera St 4116 Higuera St,
Culver City
Sudivision of one (1) parcel into two (2) townhome-
style dwelling units, resulting in one
(1) net new dwelling unit
CC 2021 TBD Construction 01/23/2019
(PC)
02/25/2019
(CC)
William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
35 Market Hall -
Washington Centinela
12403 (12237-
12423)
Washington
Boulevard
12403 (12237-
12423)
Washington
Boulevard, Culver
City
New multi-story 21,605 sq. ft. market hall and food
retail building with attached parking structure (184
spaces) and a new single story 5,230 sq. ft. retail
building with surface parking (20 spaces), on two
currently vacant sites
CC 2021 TBD Construction 10/25/2017
(PC)
01/22/2018
(CC)
02/12/2018
(CC)
Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
36 Culver Studios
Innovation Plan
Comprehensive Plan
Amendment No.7
9336 Washington
Blvd
9336 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
New production office buildings to replace existing
outmoded structures, to include 345,007 square
feet of net new production space.

CC 2021 TBD Construction 12/13/2017
(PC)
01/08/2018
(CC)
1/22/2018
(CC)
Susan Herbertson
(310) 253-5755
37 Cosmetique 10744-10746
Washington Blvd
10744-10746
Washington Blvd,
Culver City
New six (6) vehicle parking stacker for existing
4,700 sq. ft. medical office with additional 1,026
sq. ft.

CC 2021 TBD Building Permit 12/11/2019Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
38 Helms Homes 3336-3340 Helms
Ave
3336-3340 Helms
Ave, Culver City
Eight (8) new condominium dwelling units,
resulting in six (6) net new dwelling uits
CC 2021 TBD Building Permit 05/27/2020
(PC)
07/13/2020
(CC)
Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
39 6-unit Condominiums 3808 College Ave 3808 College Ave, Culver City
Six (6) new condominium dwelling units, resulting
in three (3) net new dwelling units
CC 2021 TBD Building Permit 07/22/2020
(PC)
09/14/2020
(CC)
Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
40 New Assisted Living
Facility
11141 Washington
Blvd
11141 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
New 5-story, 157,500 sq. ft., 117 room assisted
living facility, with subterranean parking. Exisitng
24,200 sq. ft. of commercial (retail, office, etc.)
uses will be demolished.

CC 2021 TBD Building Permit 3/11/2020Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
41 Huntley Units 4338-4342 Huntley
Ave
4338-4342 Huntley
Ave, Culver City
Two (2) new residential dwellings on vacant lots,
resulting in two (2) net new dwelling units
CC 2021 TBD Building Permit 7/14/2020William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
42 Outdoor dining and
tandem parking for VFF
Coffee
12680 Washington
Blvd
12680 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
New coffee shop and expansion of existing
preschool use on a site currently developed with
church. Project results in net increase of 952 sq.
ft. (485 sq. ft. coffee shop outdoor dining, 315 sq.
ft. coffee shop indoor use, 152 sq. ft. increase in
preschool uses).

CC 2021 TBD Pre-Building Permit 10/16/2020Deborah Hong
(310) 253-5714
43 Stacked Parking - NFL
Building
10950 Washington
Blvd
10950 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
Addition of 164 parking spaces through
installation of two- and three-level parking
stackers and surface lot restriping for tandem
parking to support exisitng media offices. No
additional square feet.

CC 2021 TBD Pre-Building Permit 4/10/2019
04/10/2020
(ET)
Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
44 Pure Carwash 11203 Washington
Blvd
11203 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
New waterless carwash, replacing auto repair use CC2021 TBD Pre-Application TBD William Kavadas (310) 253-5706
45 Sweet Flower (Cannabis
Retail)
10000 Culver Blvd 10000 Culver Blvd,
Culver City
Conversion of existing 5,982 sq. ft. retail space to
storefront cannabis retail store
CC 2021 TBD Pre-Application TBD Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
46 Essence (Cannabis
Retail)
12450 Washington
Blvd
12450 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
Conversion of existing 4,950 sq. ft. retail space to
storefront cannabis retail space
CC 2021 TBD Pre-Application TBD Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
47 Office Building 11259 Washington
Blvd
APN: 4233-033-021
11259 Washington
Blvd
APN: 4233-033-021,
Culver City
New 3-story, 4,022 sq. ft. office building with at-
grade parking, on a currently vacant site
CC 2022 TBD Construction 12/31/2018
12/31/2019
(ET)
Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
48 Lenawee-Culver Place 3814 Lenawee
Avenue
3814 Lenawee
Avenue, Culver City
New 8 single family dwelling units and 95 unit, 110
bed, assisted living and memory care facility
CC 2022 TBD Construction 06/08/2016
(PC)
08/08/2016
(CC)
Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
49 Willows School 8509 Higuera Street
8476 Warner Drive
8509 Higuera Street
8476 Warner Drive,
Culver City
Modification to previously approved CUP to allow
a playfield and increase student enrollment by
100, from 475 to 575, consistent with School
Master Plan.

CC 2022 TBD Construction 6/12/2019Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
50 4-unit condominium 3846 Bentley Ave 3846 Bentley Ave, Culver City
Four (4) new condominium dwelling units,
resulting in three (3) net new dwelling units
CC 2022 TBD Building Permit 9/25/2019William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
51 Warner Parking
Structure
8511 Warner Drive 8511 Warner Drive,
Culver City
51,520 G.S.F. Retail/Restaurant;784 parking
spaces, five levels; site currently developed as a
surface parking lot
CC 2022 TBD Building Permit 08/03/2009
ET -
01/09/2019
Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
52 Park Century School 3939 Landmark
Street
3939 Landmark
Street, Culver City
New athletic field, 2,441 sq. ft. classroom building,
and two-level subterranean parking, to allow an
increase in student enrollment from 120 to 170
and increase of 20 staff people.

CC 2022 TBD Building Permit 8/14/2019Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
53 4-unit Sawtelle
Condominiums
4041 Sawtelled Blvd 4041 Sawtelled
Blvd, Culver City
Four (4) new condominium dwelling units,
resulting in three (3) net new dwelling units
CC 2022 TBD Building Permit 3/11/2020Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
54 Schaefer II 3516 Schaefer St 3516 Schaefer St,
Culver City
An approx. 9,338 sq. ft. addition to a creative
office building, on a site spanning (3) three
parcels currently developed with a 7,500 sf
building, resulting in a three-story 16,839 sq. ft.
building. On-site parking will include 12 surface
stalls and 16 within parking stackers.

CC 2022 TBD Building Permit 08/28/2019.

ET.
08/28/2020
Planning Division
(310) 253-5710
55 5-unit Condo 3906 Tilden Ave 3906 Tilden Ave,
Culver City
Five (5) new condominium dwelling units,
resulting in two (2) net new dwelling units
CC 2022 TBD Pre-Building Permit 6/10/2020
(PC)
8/10/2020
(CC)
William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
56 Jackson Condos 4051 and 4055
Jackson Ave
4051 and 4055
Jackson Ave, Culver
City
New nine (9) unit residential condominium project
replacing six (6) existing units, for a net increase
of three (3) dwelling units
CC 2022 TBD Pre-Building Permit 04/10/2019
(PC)
04/10/2020
(ET)

TBD (CC)
Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
57 5-unit Condominiums 4080 Lafayette Pl 4080 Lafayette Pl, Culver City
Five (5) new condominium dwelling units,
resulting in two (2) net new dwelling units
CC 2022 TBD Pre-Building Permit 08/26/2020
(PC)
10/12/2020
(CC)
Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
58 Robertson Mixed Use 3727 Robertson
Blvd
3727 Robertson
Blvd, Culver City
New 5-story mixed-use development, including
approximately 6,800 sq. ft. of commercial (food
retail and office) floor area and twelve (12)
dwelling units. Demolition of approximately 2,850
sq. ft. 1-story commercial building and surface
parking.

CC 2022 TBD Entitlement TBD Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
59 Sawtelle 4-unit Condo 4095 Sawtelle Blvd 4095 Sawtelle Blvd, Culver City
Four (4) new residential condominiums, resulting
in a net increase of three (3) dwelling units
CC 2022 TBD Entitlement TBD William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
60 Boutique Hotel 11469 Jefferson
Blvd
11469 Jefferson
Blvd, Culver City
Demolition of 12,958 sq. ft. commercial shopping
center. New 5-story hotel of 183 rooms with
restaurant and outdoor dining.

CC 2022 TBD Entitlement TBD Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
61 4-unit La Salle Condo's 4030 La Salle Ave 4030 La Salle Ave, Culver City
Four (4) new condominium dwelling units,
resulting in three (3) net new dwelling units
CC 2022 TBD Entitlement TBD William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
62 4-unit Madison Condo's 4044 Madison Ave 4044 Madison Ave, Culver City
Three (3) new townhome dwelling units, resulting
in two (2) net new dwelling units
CC 2022 TBD Entitlement TBD William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
63 Volvo Auto Repair 11039 Washington
Blvd
11039 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
Expansion of existing 2-bay auto repair facility, to
add three (3) new auto bays
CC 2022 TBD Pre-Application TBD Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
64 Automated Parking 5977 Washington
Blvd
5977 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
New 48 space stacked parking facility on a
property with a vacant commercial building, to
serve as off-site parking for commercial building
at 5965 Washington Blvd.

CC 2022 TBD Pre-Application TBD Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
68 4-unit Condo 3826 Girard Ave 3826 Girard Ave,
Culver City
Four (4) new residential condominiums, resulting
in a net increase of three (3) dwelling units
CC 2022 TBD Pre-Application TBD William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
66 East Condos 4233 East Blvd 4233 East Blvd,
Culver City
Four (4) new residential condominiums, resulting
in a net increase of three (3) dwelling units
CC 2022 TBD Pre-Application TBD William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
67 TGS CC Ventures
(Cannabis Retail)
3800 Sepulveda
Blvd
3800 Sepulveda
Blvd, Culver City
New 5,280 sq. ft. storefront cannabis retail space
on a vacant lot.

CC 2022 TBD Pre-Application TBD Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
68 Vista Del Sol - Assisted
Living Expansion
11620 Washington
Blvd
11620 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
New 5-story, 72 bed, 33,747 sq. ft. expansion to
exisitng assisted living facility.

CC 2022 TBD Pre-Application TBD Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
69 Costco Fueling Station 13463 Washington
Blvd
13463 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
Demolition of two (2) commercial buildings,
totaling ±8,520 sq. ft., and 16 exisitng fueling
pumps; and construction of 24 new fueling pumps
CC 2022 TBD Pre-Application TBD Gabriela Silva
(310) 253-5736
70 Hillside Memorial
Cemetary
6001 Centinela 6001 Centinela,
Culver City
Conversion of existing maintenance yard to
additional burial plots
CC 2022 TBD Pre-Application TBD William Kavadas
(310)253-5706
71 Southern California
Hospital ER Remodel
3828 Delmas
Terrace
3828 Delmas
Terrace, Culver City
Remodel of existing E.R. department resulting in
5,500 square foot demolition of exisitng square
footage to accomdate new short term
parking/drop off area
CC 2022 TBD Pre-Application TBD William Kavadas
(310)253-5706
72 New Hotel 3868 Sepulveda
Blvd
3868 Sepulveda
Blvd, Culver City
New 5-story, 94 room hotel with 1,375 sq. ft. retail
space. Existing hotel totaling 38 rooms will be
demolished.

CC 2022 TBD Pre-Application TBD Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
73 New office and retail
building with
subterranean automated
parking.
3951 Higuera St 3951 Higuera St,
Culver City
Demolition of an existing 4,480 square foot co-
working office facility and construction of new
36,614 sq.ft. office and retail building with
subterranean automated parking.

CC 2023 TBD Pre-Application TBD Jose Mendivil
(310) 253-5757
74 New office building with
surface and
subterranean parking.
5863 Washington
Blvd
5863 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
New 17,500 sq. ft. creative office development CC2023 TBD Pre-Application TBD Deborah Hong (310) 253-5714
75 3817 Watseka Ave 3817 Watseka Ave,
Culver City
New 4-story 149,439 square foot office building
replacing surface parking and 2 existing office
buildings totaling 7,370 square feet
CC 2023 TBD Pre-Application TBD William Kavadas
(310) 253-5706
76 Triangle Site 11111 Jefferson
Blvd
11111 Jefferson
Blvd, Culver City
New 5-story mixed-use development, with 55,400
sq. ft. ground floor commercial, 51,300 sq. ft.
office space, and 252 dwelling units
CC 2023 TBD Pre-Application TBD Planning Division
(310) 253-5710
77 99¢ site 12727 Washington
Blvd
12727 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
New 6-story mixed-use development on a split-
jurisdiction site, including 117 units (CC: 82 units;
LA: 35 units), 17,880 sq. ft. of ground floor retail
(CC), 258 parking spaces (CC: 72 retail stalls and
130 residential stalls; LA: 46 residential stalls) at
grade and in a 2-level subterranean garage.

Demolition of existing 13,000 sq. ft. commercial
building.

CC/
LA
2023 TBD Pre-Application TBD Michael Allen
(310) 253-5710
78 Jazz Bakery 9814 Washington
Blvd
9814 Washington
Blvd, Culver City
New 200 seat Performace Theatre with a
museum and bakery/café, 2-stories & estimated
7,500 sqaure feet, on a property developed with a
vacant residential structure
CC 2023 TBD Pre-Application TBD Planning Division
(310) 253-5710
79 Bristol Parkway Mixed
Use
6221-6229 Bristol
Parkway
6221-6229 Bristol
Parkway, Culver
City
A new mixed-use development on a 6.26 acre site
in the Fox Hills area, consisting of 20,767 sq. ft. of
commercial/retai uses, 712 residential dwelling
units (including 50 live-work units), and
approximately 850 subterranean parking spaces.

Existing shopping center (approximately 60,000
sq. ft. of commercial floor area) to be demolished.

CC 2023 TBD Pre-Application TBD Michael Allen
(310) 253-5710
80 ECF Site 8700, 8710, 8740,
and
8750 Washington
Boulevard
8700, 8710, 8740,
and
8750 Washington
Boulevard, Culver
City
Preliminary Concept - Mixed Use TOD with
approximately 199 residential units and 40,00 sq.
ft. of commercial space (17,250 sq. ft. of live/work
space, 5,000 sq. ft. of restaurant, and 17,750 sq.
ft. of retail), on a 3.06 to possibly

3.53 acre site, currently developed with multiple
uses
CC 2022 TBD Pre-Application TBD Susan Herbertson
(310) 253-5755
81 Federal Express Site 3710 and 3750 S.

Robertson
Boulevard
3710 and 3750 S.

Robertson
Boulevard, Culver
City
Preliminary Concept - Mixed Use TOD with
approximately 141 residential units and 64,200
sq. ft. of creative office and 30,042 sq. ft.
commercial (retail/restaurant/live-work space), on
a 2.2 acre site.

CC 2023 TBD Pre-PPR TBD Susan Herbertson
(310) 253-5755
CLATS
Column
Welcome pedro! | Log Out | Profile | Admin
Case Logging and Tracking System

RELATED PROJECTS
Centroid Info: PROJ ID:50962Address:13463 WASHINGTON BLVDCulver City, CA 90292Lat/Long:33.9926, -118.447 Include NULL "Trip info":

Include NULL "FirstStudySubmittalDate" (latest)
Include "Inactive" projects:

Include "Do not show in Related Project":

Net_AM_Trips -Select -
Net_PM_Trips -Select -
Net_Daily_Trips -Select -
Buffer Radius: 1.50 mile
Search
Record Count: 26 | Record Per Page: All Records
Proj IDOfficeAreaCDYearProject TitleProject DescAddress First Study Submittal DateInactive Do not show in Related Project
Distance (mile) Trip Info
12530WestchesterCTC112005Restaurant, High Turnover
Proposed House Pies Sit-Down Restaurant land use (3,895 sq. ft.)1020 E VENICE BLVD04/10/2013 0.3 Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOut OtherS.F. Gross Area 389533 33 396 18 15 20 13
33 33 396 18 15 20
13667WestchesterCTC112011New 77 Unit Apartment ProjectNew 77-Unit Apartment Project 4100 S DEL REY AV05/06/2011 0.3Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutApartmentsTotal Units7739 54 512 8 31 35 19 39 54 512 8 31 35
13738WestchesterCTC112011MDR-LCP AmendmentMDR-LCP Amendment1 MARINA EXPRESSWAY02/16/2011 0.9 Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutOtherTotal Units2044 666OtherTotal Units129 22OtherOther505 178 RetailS.F. Gross Area 273741 1215
OtherSeats 1323 331
OfficeS.F. Gross Area 26000 57
OtherS.F. Gross Area 3000 14
OtherOther375 18OtherOther 1707 2 622 1085 13781125
1707 2503 0 622 10851378
40436WestchesterCTC112012New Apt & Office Bldg VTT-72107 New 4-Story,67-Unit Apt & 3,211 SF Office Bldg over 2-level pkg garage4140 S GLENCOE AV08/01/2012 0.4 Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutApartmentsTotal Units6734 47 446 7 27 31 16 OfficeS.F. Gross Area 32115 9 35 4 1 2 7
39 56 481 11 28 33
40714WestchesterCTC112012Mixed-Use, Hotel, Retail & Restaurant Uses New 92-Guest Room Hotel, 3,000 SF Retail & 2,072 SF Restaurant Use.1027 S ABBOT KINNEY BLVD12/17/2012 1.4Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutMixed UseRooms8525 42 654 16 9 25 17 25 42 654 16 9 25
41239WestchesterCTC112013Mixed-Use: Residential & Office Proposed Mixed-Use:136 Condominium Units & 20,000 SF Commercial Office 4210 S DEL REY AV11/05/2014 0.4Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutMixed UseTotal Units13671 85 627 24 47 48 37 71 85 627 24 47 48
41687WestchesterCTC112013Mixed-Use Project
Mixed-Use Bldg: 26 Condo Units, 1,184 SF Retail & 4,567 SF Restaurant 1414 S MAIN ST12/15/2013 1.5Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutMixed UseTotal Units269 40 421 3 6 29 11 9 40 421 3 6 29
42024WestchesterCTC112014Condominium & Commercial Office Building 67-DU Condo & 7,525 SF Commercial Office Bldg providing 141 pkg spaces 4091 S REDWOOD AV04/25/2014 0.3Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOut CondominiumsTotal Units6725 51 391 4 21 29 22
Apartments77 39
Results generated since: (1/31/2021 4:09:23 AM)
Case Logging and Tracking System (CLATS) Page 1 of 3
http://10.191.133.5/CLATS/FormViews/RelProjView.aspx?LAT=33.992554&LON=-118.4469248&PROJ_ID=509621/31/2021 Total Units
25 51 430 4 21 29
42588WestchesterCTC112014Mixed-Use168-Unit Apt. & 100KSF Mini-Warehouse (Opt 1) or 33KSF Office (Opt 2)4040 S DEL REY AV07/20/2015 0.2 Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutMixed UseTotal Units19541 59 908 -24 65 72 -13Mixed UseTotal Units23547 62 931 -26 74 77 -15 88 121 1839 -50 139149
42637WestchesterCTC112014Market Deli with Take-Out and Sit-Down Restaurant Adding Sit-Down Restaurant to existing Market Deli with Take-Out 600 E MILDRED AV06/25/2019 1.1
Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOut Mixed UseS.F. Gross Area 11345 3 26 3 2 2 1
5 3 26 3 2 2
43597WestchesterCTC112015Teledyne Office Project 159,000 sf creative office12964 W Panama Street02/02/2016 1.3 Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOut OfficeS.F. Gross Area 15900081 91 777 72 9 20 71
81 91 777 72 9 20
43730WestchesterCTC112015New 3-Story Manufacturing & Retail Construct new 3-story 25,150SF Manufacturing & 5,028SF Retail595 E VENICE BLVD02/08/2016 0.8 Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOut OfficeS.F. Gross Area 2515063 80 460 55 8 14 66
RetailS.F. Gross Area 50286 25 201 4 2 11 14
OtherS.F. Gross Area 5930-13 -20 -105 -9 -4 -10 -10
56 85 556 50 6 15
44394WestchesterCTC112016Mixed-Use Project (Inclave)
New 35206 SF Creative Office; 1500 SF Retail Space; & 49 Res Apt Unit 4065 S GLENCOE AVE08/16/2016 0.2
Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOut OfficeS.F. Gross Area 3520655 99 388 48 7 17 82
RetailS.F. Gross Area 15002 8 66 1 1 4 4
ApartmentsTotal Units49 25 34 326 5 20 22 12
OtherSvc Bays/Lanes14 -21 -84 -840 -14 -7 -42 -42
IndustrialS.F. Gross Area 5050-5 -4 -35 -4 -1 0 -4
Mixed UseOther 49 48 -96 31 18 1 47
105 101 -191 67 38 2
44456WestchesterCTC112016COU Warehouse to Office
COU Warehouse (24,051 SF) to Office, with 7,926 SF Office Addition4721 S ALLA RD08/18/2016 1.1 Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOut OfficeS.F. Gross Area 11835243 57 267 38 5 9 48
43 57 267 38 5 9
44625WestchesterCTC112016Apartment Building, 65 Units
new 6-Story, 65-Unit Residential Apartment Building (Stella, Phase 2)13488 W MAXELLA AV10/13/2016 0.6Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutApartmentsTotal Units6529 40 362 6 23 26 14 29 40 362 6 23 26
44829WestchesterCTC112016
Mixed-Use, Residential, Restaurant & Commercial
new Mixed-Use: 658-Unit Apt, 13.65 ksf Restaurant &13.65 ksf Commercia 13400 W Maxella Ave04/28/2017 0.5Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutMixed UseTotal Units658296 83 2079 60 236 115 -32 296 83 2079 60 236115
44850WestchesterCTC112016Charter SchoolRelocation of the Ocean Charter School w/ 532-student enrollment (K-8)12870 W PANAMA ST11/30/2016 1.3Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutSchoolEnrollment532479 168 1320 263 216 79 89 479 168 1320 263 21679
46481WestchesterWLA112017Mixed Use - Apts + Retail
New mixed use - 32 Apts + 3KSF Retail replaces 7.6KSF Furniture Store 12331 W PALMS BLVD01/29/2018 1.3Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutMixed UseOther18 28 303 4 14 16 12 18 28 303 4 14 16
46715WestchesterCTC112018Mixed-Use: Residential & Commercial Mixed-Use Bldg.: 77-DU Apt., 4.040 ksf Restaurant & 1.905 ksf Retail 2454 S LINCOLN BLVD05/04/2018 0.2Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutMixed UseTotal Units7742 54 527 15 27 40 14 42 54 527 15 27 40
46938WestchesterCTC112018Apartments
new 5-story, 56-Unit Apartment Bldg. over 2-Level basement pkg garage 1015 E VENICE BLVD05/02/2018 0.3Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutApartmentsTotal Units5627 37 343 6 21 24 13 27 37 343 6 21 24
Case Logging and Tracking System (CLATS) Page 2 of 3
http://10.191.133.5/CLATS/FormViews/RelProjView.aspx?LAT=33.992554&LON=-118.4469248&PROJ_ID=509621/31/2021 46994WestchesterCTC112018Thatcher Yard Residential98-DU: Affordable Senior(50), Family(23) & Perm Supportive(25) Housing 3233 S THATCHER AV05/23/2018 0.5Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutApartmentsTotal Units9821 19 212 8 13 10 9 21 19 212 8 13 10
47496WestchesterCTC112018Mixed-Use: Affordable Housing & Commercial 140-DU Affordable Apts, 1 ksf Cafe, 4065 sf Retail & 3155 sf Art space204 E North Venice Blvd11/13/2019 1.4Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutApartmentsTotal Units14088 124 911 39 49 63 61 88 124 911 39 49 63
48252WestchesterCTC112019Change of Use: Office to Medical Office COU: 40ksf Office to Med Office w-in 130,312 sf Office/Med Office bldg 13160 W MINDANAO WY08/15/2019 0.8
Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOut OfficeS.F. Gross Area 13031264 44 1003 46 18 26 18
64 44 1003 46 18 26
48488WestchesterCTC112019Office & Retail
new 121,822 sf Commercial Office & 1,500 sf Retail Complex(4 bldgs.) 4204 S GLENCOE AV10/23/2019 0.4
Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOut OfficeS.F. Gross Area 12182279 155 816 65 14 24 131
79 155 816 65 14 24
48532WestchesterCTC112019New 4-Story 77 Apts
Demolish 7 Apts & 1 Duplex, Construct 77 Apts with underground parking 1600 E Venice Bl09/16/2019 0.3Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutApartmentsTotal Units7725 27 341 7 18 16 11 25 27 341 7 18 16
49101WestchesterCTC112019Apartments & Restaurant
new MU: 6-Story, 50-Unit Residential Apt. & 4,458 sf Restaurant bldg. 1808 S LINCOLN BLVD12/05/2019 0.6Land_UseUnit_IDsizeNet_AM_TripsNet_PM_TripsNet_Daily_TripsNetAMInNetAMOutNetPMInNetPMOutApartmentsTotal Units5045 44 557 20 25 28 16 45 44 557 20 25 28
Case Logging and Tracking System (CLATS) Page 3 of 3
http://10.191.133.5/CLATS/FormViews/RelProjView.aspx?LAT=33.992554&LON=-118.4469248&PROJ_ID=509621/31/2021

Appendix F:

Background Traffic
Operations Worksheets
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary BG_PM
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/03/2021
Year 2023 Background Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 701 476 345 736 331 489 1320 249 236 1453 54 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 701 476 345 736 331 489 1320 249 236 1453 54 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 715 486 352 751 338 499 1347 254 241 1483 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 118 1041 642 256 1179 693 388 1515 285 364 1723 64 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3510 3610 1610 3510 3610 1610 3510 4383 826 3510 5133 190 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 72 715 486 352 751 338 499 1062 539 241 999 539 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1755 1805 1610 1755 1805 1610 1755 1729 1751 1755 1729 1866 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 22.0 32.5 9.1 22.1 2.8 13.8 36.3 36.3 8.3 33.7 33.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 22.0 32.5 9.1 22.1 2.8 13.8 36.3 36.3 8.3 33.7 33.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 118 1041 642 256 1179 693 388 1195 605 364 1161 626 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.69 0.76 1.38 0.64 0.49 1.29 0.89 0.89 0.66 0.86 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 1069 654 256 1179 693 388 1195 605 364 1161 626 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.91 0.91 0.91 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.6 39.5 32.4 58.0 35.8 12.7 55.6 38.6 38.6 53.9 38.8 38.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 1.8 5.0 190.6 1.0 0.5 147.6 10.0 17.7 4.4 8.4 14.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 9.9 13.4 10.8 9.9 4.7 13.9 16.5 18.0 3.8 15.2 17.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.6 41.3 37.3 248.6 36.8 13.2 203.2 48.7 56.3 58.4 47.2 53.2 LnGrp LOS E D D F D B F D E E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1273 1441 2100 1779
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.1 83.0 87.4 50.6
Approach LOS D F F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 49.0 15.0 42.0 20.0 48.0 10.2 46.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6 5.8 5.9 * 6 * 6.2 * 6 6.0 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 43.2 9.1 * 37 * 14 * 41 9.0 * 37 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.3 38.3 11.1 34.5 15.8 35.7 4.5 24.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.4 0.0 1.6 0.0 4.2 0.1 5.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 67.5
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues BG_PM
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/03/2021
Year 2023 Background Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 715 486 352 751 338 499 1601 241 1538 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.75 0.60 1.39 0.71 0.47 1.01 0.83 0.72 0.90 Control Delay 59.9 47.1 21.8 238.3 43.8 13.5 96.1 39.8 67.6 48.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.9 47.1 21.8 238.3 43.8 13.5 96.1 39.8 67.6 48.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 274 212 ~194 288 86 ~237 427 98 432 Queue Length 95th (ft) 54 336 327 #293 356 143 #375 509 #146 498 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2378 480 1614 1054
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 285 475 200
Base Capacity (vph) 252 1068 797 254 1094 737 494 1927 336 1704 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.67 0.61 1.39 0.69 0.46 1.01 0.83 0.72 0.90 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary BG_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 03/03/2021
Year 2023 Background Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 2
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 231 986 1284 89 120 203
Future Volume (veh/h) 231 986 1284 89 120 203
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1870 1885 1885 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 238 1016 1324 92 124 209
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 2 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 470 2763 3247 226 266 377
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.78 1.00 1.00 0.15 0.15
Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 3647 5083 341 1795 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 238 1016 925 491 124 209
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1777 1716 1824 1795 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.2 10.7 0.0 0.0 7.6 13.8
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.2 10.7 0.0 0.0 7.6 13.8
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.19 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 470 2763 2268 1205 266 377
V/C Ratio(X) 0.51 0.37 0.41 0.41 0.47 0.55
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 545 2763 2268 1205 477 564
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.59 0.59 0.73 0.73 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 3.7 4.2 0.0 0.0 46.8 40.3
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.7 0.5 0.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 3.1 0.1 0.3 3.5 12.3
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 3.8 4.4 0.4 0.7 47.2 40.8
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1254 1416 333
Approach Delay, s/veh 4.3 0.5 43.2
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 98.1 21.9 14.0 84.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 15.0 59.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 13.7 16.8 7.2 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 20.2 0.5 0.2 29.1
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 6.8
HCM 6th LOS A
Queues BG_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 03/03/2021
Year 2023 Background Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 2
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 238 1016 1416 124 209
v/c Ratio 0.62 0.36 0.42 0.54 0.47
Control Delay 13.6 4.2 8.1 57.0 33.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.2 5.9
Total Delay 13.6 4.5 8.2 57.2 39.5
Queue Length 50th (ft) 32 95 113 91 119
Queue Length 95th (ft) 107 154 97 147 165
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 166
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 424 2823 3372 475 497
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1126 612 70 229
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.56 0.60 0.51 0.31 0.78
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis BG_PM
3: East Access/Glencoe Ave & Washington Blvd 03/03/2021 Year 2023 Background Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 1
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 34 758 246 447 948 414 311 134 414 328 168 66 Future Volume (vph) 34 758 246 447 948 414 311 134 414 328 168 66 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1770 3539 1615 1681 1704 1509 1715 1775 1615 Flt Permitted 0.26 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 485 3574 1615 213 3539 1615 1681 1704 1509 1715 1775 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 34 766 248 452 958 418 314 135 418 331 170 67 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 182 0 0 140 0 0 325 0 0 48
Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 766 66 452 958 278 220 229 93 245 256 19 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 0% 2% 5% 7% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Over Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.9 31.7 31.7 60.5 49.3 49.3 21.5 21.5 24.2 22.3 22.3 34.7 Effective Green, g (s) 38.9 31.7 31.7 60.5 49.3 49.3 21.5 21.5 24.2 22.3 22.3 34.7 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.26 0.26 0.50 0.41 0.41 0.18 0.18 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.29 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 236 944 426 421 1453 663 301 305 304 318 329 467 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.21 c0.22 0.27 0.13 c0.13 0.06 0.14 c0.14 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.04 c0.32 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.81 0.15 1.07 0.66 0.42 0.73 0.75 0.31 0.77 0.78 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 28.0 41.4 33.9 36.0 28.6 25.2 46.5 46.7 40.8 46.4 46.5 30.7 Progression Factor 0.87 1.00 1.40 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.3 7.2 0.7 64.9 2.4 2.0 8.8 10.0 0.6 11.0 11.0 0.0 Delay (s) 24.7 48.4 48.0 101.0 30.9 27.1 55.3 56.7 41.3 57.4 57.5 30.7 Level of Service C D D F C C E E D E E C
Approach Delay (s) 47.5 47.4 48.9 54.3
Approach LOS D D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 48.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.97
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 88.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues BG_PM
3: East Access/Glencoe Ave & Washington Blvd 03/03/2021 Year 2023 Background Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/03/2021 Page 3
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 34 766 248 452 958 418 220 229 418 245 256 67 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.81 0.41 1.07 0.65 0.51 0.73 0.75 0.66 0.77 0.78 0.13 Control Delay 17.5 48.8 8.0 97.4 33.4 15.5 60.4 61.7 11.3 62.4 62.5 7.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.5 48.8 8.0 97.4 33.4 15.5 60.4 61.7 11.3 62.4 62.5 7.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 15 299 20 ~354 327 102 169 177 7 189 198 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 26 374 79 #664 #453 228 248 256 #123 280 291 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 440 2455 2238 219
Turn Bay Length (ft) 330 265 150 105
Base Capacity (vph) 358 944 609 423 1478 812 389 394 629 371 385 593 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 0.81 0.41 1.07 0.65 0.51 0.57 0.58 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.11 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary BG_SAT
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/05/2021
Year 2023 Background Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/05/2021 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 728 496 351 766 334 509 1356 253 242 1518 56 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 728 496 351 766 334 509 1356 253 242 1518 56 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 743 506 358 782 341 519 1384 258 247 1549 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 431 1050 643 461 1094 644 497 1487 277 465 1660 61 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 4324 805 3456 5055 186 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 77 743 506 358 782 341 519 1089 553 247 1043 563 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1725 1728 1702 1837 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 23.3 34.8 9.1 24.4 4.8 13.8 38.6 38.7 3.8 37.1 37.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 23.3 34.8 9.1 24.4 4.8 13.8 38.6 38.7 3.8 37.1 37.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 431 1050 643 461 1094 644 497 1171 594 465 1118 603 V/C Ratio(X) 0.18 0.71 0.79 0.78 0.71 0.53 1.04 0.93 0.93 0.53 0.93 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 474 1052 644 461 1094 644 497 1176 596 465 1122 605 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.86 0.86 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.9 39.2 32.4 31.5 38.4 13.6 38.0 39.6 39.6 51.5 40.6 40.6 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 2.2 6.4 7.1 1.9 0.7 52.6 14.1 23.4 4.3 15.0 23.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 10.4 14.3 4.2 10.9 4.8 9.6 17.9 19.7 3.8 17.4 20.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.0 41.4 38.8 38.6 40.3 14.3 90.6 53.7 63.0 55.8 55.6 64.1 LnGrp LOS C D D D D B F D E E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1326 1481 2161 1853
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.7 33.9 64.9 58.2
Approach LOS D C E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.3 48.8 15.0 42.9 20.0 47.1 13.4 44.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6 5.8 5.9 * 6 * 6.2 * 6 6.0 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 43.2 9.1 * 37 * 14 * 41 9.0 * 37 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.8 40.7 11.1 36.8 15.8 39.1 3.8 26.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 2.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.8 0.1 4.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.5
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues BG_SAT
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/05/2021
Year 2023 Background Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/05/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 743 506 358 782 341 519 1642 247 1606 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.77 0.64 0.86 0.73 0.47 0.90 0.89 0.55 0.96 Control Delay 23.9 47.6 23.2 47.7 44.1 13.5 51.9 43.7 50.0 55.7 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.9 47.6 23.2 47.7 44.1 13.5 51.9 43.7 50.0 55.7 Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 285 231 96 300 86 165 457 74 464 Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 354 355 #148 373 147 #294 #567 107 #571 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2378 480 1614 1054
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 285 475 200
Base Capacity (vph) 425 1047 776 416 1087 730 578 1852 449 1671 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.71 0.65 0.86 0.72 0.47 0.90 0.89 0.55 0.96 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary BG_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 03/05/2021 Year 2023 Background Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/05/2021 Page 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 300 1017 1147 143 180 246
Future Volume (veh/h) 300 1017 1147 143 180 246
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1885 1885 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 323 1094 1233 154 194 265
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 1 1 1 0
Cap, veh/h 461 2658 2926 365 304 407
Arrive On Green 0.08 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.17 0.17
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3647 4803 579 1795 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 323 1094 913 474 194 265
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1777 1716 1781 1795 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 7.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 12.1 17.7
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 7.0 13.4 0.0 0.0 12.1 17.7
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.32 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 461 2658 2166 1125 304 407
V/C Ratio(X) 0.70 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.64 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 536 2658 2166 1125 470 556
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.63 0.63 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.4 5.5 0.0 0.0 46.4 40.1
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 1.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.8 0.7
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 2.5 4.3 0.1 0.2 5.5 15.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 6.9 5.8 0.3 0.6 47.2 40.8
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1417 1387 459
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.0 0.4 43.5
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 95.1 24.9 14.0 81.1
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 15.0 59.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.4 19.7 9.0 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 22.5 0.7 0.3 28.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.9
HCM 6th LOS A
Queues BG_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 03/05/2021 Year 2023 Background Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/05/2021 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 323 1094 1387 194 265
v/c Ratio 0.74 0.43 0.52 0.56 0.40
Control Delay 28.2 7.2 3.2 51.0 23.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 28.2 7.8 3.6 51.0 23.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 119 155 25 138 124
Queue Length 95th (ft) 224 196 43 214 188
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 186
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 438 2563 2653 467 661
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 950 661 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 204 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.74 0.68 0.70 0.42 0.40
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis BG_SAT
3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd03/05/2021 Year 2023 Background Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/05/2021 Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 44 940 224 362 924 522 235 124 263 401 110 82 Future Volume (vph) 44 940 224 362 924 522 235 124 263 401 110 82 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1787 3574 1615 1698 1759 1615 1715 1755 1615 Flt Permitted 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 226 3574 1615 205 3574 1615 1698 1759 1615 1715 1755 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 45 959 229 369 943 533 240 127 268 409 112 84 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 95 0 0 226 0 0 49 0 0 51
Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 959 134 369 943 307 180 187 219 258 263 33 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA pt+ov Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 42.7 33.7 33.7 48.1 36.7 36.7 21.6 21.6 33.0 33.0 33.0 47.2 Effective Green, g (s) 42.7 33.7 33.7 48.1 36.7 36.7 21.6 21.6 33.0 33.0 33.0 47.2 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.28 0.28 0.40 0.31 0.31 0.18 0.18 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 198 1003 453 232 1093 493 305 316 444 471 482 635 v/s Ratio Prot 0.02 0.27 c0.15 0.26 0.11 c0.11 0.14 c0.15 0.15 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.06 0.08 c0.49 0.19
v/c Ratio 0.23 0.96 0.30 1.59 0.86 0.62 0.59 0.59 0.49 0.55 0.55 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 28.0 42.4 33.8 32.6 39.3 35.7 45.1 45.2 36.5 37.1 37.1 22.5 Progression Factor 0.89 0.88 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.2 18.6 1.5 285.2 9.0 5.8 2.0 2.0 0.3 4.5 4.4 0.0 Delay (s) 25.2 56.0 24.4 317.8 48.3 41.6 47.2 47.1 36.8 41.7 41.5 22.6 Level of Service C E C F D D D D D D D C
Approach Delay (s) 49.0 100.3 42.8 38.9
Approach LOS D F D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 68.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.07
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 86.7% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues BG_SAT
3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd03/05/2021 Year 2023 Background Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/05/2021 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 45 959 229 369 943 533 180 187 268 258 263 84 v/c Ratio 0.22 0.96 0.42 1.58 0.86 0.74 0.59 0.59 0.55 0.55 0.55 0.13 Control Delay 21.0 56.6 12.2 307.5 48.7 21.1 53.3 53.1 18.3 43.0 42.8 5.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 21.0 56.6 12.2 307.5 48.7 21.1 53.3 53.1 18.3 43.0 42.8 5.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 17 392 42 ~357 362 147 137 144 62 176 180 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) 35 #524 120 #552 #451 290 206 212 102 288 291 35 Internal Link Dist (ft) 440 2455 2238 214
Turn Bay Length (ft) 330 150 265 150 105
Base Capacity (vph) 201 1003 548 233 1093 719 464 480 630 471 482 671 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.22 0.96 0.42 1.58 0.86 0.74 0.39 0.39 0.43 0.55 0.55 0.13 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

Appendix G:

Background Plus
Project Traffic
Operations Worksheets
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary TOTAL_PM
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/08/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 71 703 476 346 737 330 489 1320 251 240 1453 54 Future Volume (veh/h) 71 703 476 346 737 330 489 1320 251 240 1453 54 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 72 717 486 353 752 337 499 1347 256 245 1483 55 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 118 1041 642 256 1180 693 388 1513 287 364 1723 64 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.10 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3510 3610 1610 3510 3610 1610 3510 4377 831 3510 5133 190 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 72 717 486 353 752 337 499 1064 539 245 999 539 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1755 1805 1610 1755 1805 1610 1755 1729 1750 1755 1729 1866 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 22.0 32.5 9.1 22.1 2.7 13.8 36.4 36.4 8.4 33.7 33.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 22.0 32.5 9.1 22.1 2.7 13.8 36.4 36.4 8.4 33.7 33.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 118 1041 642 256 1180 693 388 1195 605 364 1161 626 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.69 0.76 1.38 0.64 0.49 1.29 0.89 0.89 0.67 0.86 0.86 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 1069 654 256 1180 693 388 1195 605 364 1161 626 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.6 39.5 32.4 58.0 35.8 12.7 55.6 38.7 38.7 54.0 38.8 38.8 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 1.8 5.0 191.5 1.0 0.5 147.6 10.1 17.8 4.8 8.5 14.4 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 9.9 13.4 10.8 9.9 4.7 13.9 16.6 18.1 3.9 15.2 17.5 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.6 41.3 37.3 249.4 36.8 13.1 203.2 48.8 56.5 58.8 47.2 53.2 LnGrp LOS E D D F D B F D E E D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1275 1442 2102 1783
Approach Delay, s/veh 41.1 83.3 87.4 50.7
Approach LOS D F F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.0 49.0 15.0 42.0 20.0 48.0 10.2 46.8 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6 5.8 5.9 * 6 * 6.2 * 6 6.0 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 43.2 9.1 * 37 * 14 * 41 9.0 * 37 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 10.4 38.4 11.1 34.5 15.8 35.7 4.5 24.1 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.1 4.3 0.0 1.6 0.0 4.2 0.1 5.3 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 67.7
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues TOTAL_PM
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/08/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 72 717 486 353 752 337 499 1603 245 1538 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.75 0.60 1.39 0.71 0.47 1.01 0.83 0.73 0.90 Control Delay 59.9 47.1 21.8 239.9 43.8 13.4 96.7 39.9 68.3 48.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.9 47.1 21.8 239.9 43.8 13.4 96.7 39.9 68.3 48.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 29 275 212 ~195 288 86 ~237 428 101 432 Queue Length 95th (ft) 54 337 327 #294 356 143 #375 509 #153 498 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2378 480 1614 1054
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 285 475 200
Base Capacity (vph) 252 1068 797 254 1095 737 493 1925 336 1704 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.29 0.67 0.61 1.39 0.69 0.46 1.01 0.83 0.73 0.90 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary TOTAL_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 03/08/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 253 995 1222 192 188 285
Future Volume (veh/h) 253 995 1222 192 188 285
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1870 1885 1885 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 261 1026 1260 198 194 294
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 2 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 442 2593 2749 432 352 453
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.20
Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 3647 4654 705 1795 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 261 1026 964 494 194 294
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1777 1716 1758 1795 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.6 13.2 0.0 0.0 11.7 19.4
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.6 13.2 0.0 0.0 11.7 19.4
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 442 2593 2103 1078 352 453
V/C Ratio(X) 0.59 0.40 0.46 0.46 0.55 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 517 2593 2103 1078 477 564
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.59 0.59 0.69 0.69 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.4 6.2 0.0 0.0 43.5 37.7
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.9
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.9 4.4 0.1 0.3 5.3 16.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.7 6.4 0.5 1.0 44.0 38.6
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1287 1458 488
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.3 0.7 40.7
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 92.4 27.6 14.0 78.4
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 15.0 59.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 16.2 22.4 8.6 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 20.3 0.7 0.2 30.6
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 8.9
HCM 6th LOS A
Queues TOTAL_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 03/08/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 1026 1458 194 294
v/c Ratio 0.69 0.38 0.48 0.65 0.55
Control Delay 21.6 5.9 8.3 56.1 31.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.1 1.2 54.7
Total Delay 21.6 6.3 8.5 57.3 86.2
Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 120 102 142 167
Queue Length 95th (ft) 160 194 52 207 206
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 166
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 407 2682 3074 475 569
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1021 590 131 298
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.64 0.62 0.59 0.56 1.08
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis TOTAL_PM
3: East Access/Glencoe Ave & Washington Blvd 03/08/2021 Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 15 945 266 447 1053 325 315 129 414 261 163 66 Future Volume (vph) 15 945 266 447 1053 325 315 129 414 261 163 66 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1770 3539 1615 1681 1704 1509 1715 1783 1615 Flt Permitted 0.22 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 415 3574 1615 205 3539 1615 1681 1704 1509 1715 1783 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 955 269 452 1064 328 318 130 418 264 165 67 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 177 0 0 95 0 0 326 0 0 49
Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 955 92 452 1064 233 219 229 92 211 218 18 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 0% 2% 5% 7% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Over Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.9 31.7 31.7 62.6 51.4 51.4 21.5 21.5 26.3 20.2 20.2 32.6 Effective Green, g (s) 38.9 31.7 31.7 62.6 51.4 51.4 21.5 21.5 26.3 20.2 20.2 32.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.26 0.26 0.52 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.18 0.22 0.17 0.17 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 217 944 426 449 1515 691 301 305 330 288 300 438 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.27 c0.22 0.30 0.13 c0.13 0.06 c0.12 0.12 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.06 c0.30 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.07 1.01 0.22 1.01 0.70 0.34 0.73 0.75 0.28 0.73 0.73 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 27.8 44.1 34.5 36.8 28.0 22.9 46.5 46.7 39.0 47.3 47.3 32.2 Progression Factor 0.86 0.98 0.94 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 31.3 1.1 44.1 2.7 1.3 8.5 10.0 0.5 9.3 8.5 0.0 Delay (s) 24.1 74.7 33.5 80.9 30.8 24.2 55.0 56.7 39.4 56.6 55.8 32.2 Level of Service C E C F C C D E D E E C
Approach Delay (s) 65.2 41.9 47.9 52.9
Approach LOS E D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 50.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.92
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues TOTAL_PM
3: East Access/Glencoe Ave & Washington Blvd 03/08/2021 Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 955 269 452 1064 328 219 229 418 211 218 67 v/c Ratio 0.06 1.01 0.45 1.00 0.69 0.41 0.73 0.75 0.64 0.73 0.72 0.14 Control Delay 16.4 74.7 8.4 79.1 33.5 15.4 60.1 61.7 9.6 61.6 60.7 7.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 16.4 74.7 8.4 79.1 33.5 15.4 60.1 61.7 9.6 61.6 60.7 7.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 ~405 32 ~328 365 83 169 177 0 164 169 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m14 #546 67 #668 #565 191 246 256 107 242 247 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 440 2455 2238 219
Turn Bay Length (ft) 330 265 150 105
Base Capacity (vph) 339 944 603 450 1538 796 389 394 656 368 383 563 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 1.01 0.45 1.00 0.69 0.41 0.56 0.58 0.64 0.57 0.57 0.12 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary TOTAL_SAT
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/08/2021
Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 75 728 496 351 766 333 509 1356 252 240 1519 56 Future Volume (veh/h) 75 728 496 351 766 333 509 1356 252 240 1519 56 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 77 743 506 358 782 340 519 1384 257 245 1550 57 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 431 1050 643 461 1094 644 497 1488 276 465 1660 61 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.30 0.30 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 4327 803 3456 5055 186 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 77 743 506 358 782 340 519 1088 553 245 1044 563 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1726 1728 1702 1837 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 23.3 34.8 9.1 24.4 4.7 13.8 38.5 38.6 3.7 37.1 37.1 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 23.3 34.8 9.1 24.4 4.7 13.8 38.5 38.6 3.7 37.1 37.1 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.47 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 431 1050 643 461 1094 644 497 1171 594 465 1118 603 V/C Ratio(X) 0.18 0.71 0.79 0.78 0.71 0.53 1.04 0.93 0.93 0.53 0.93 0.93 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 474 1052 644 461 1094 644 497 1176 596 465 1122 605 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.83 0.83 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.8 39.2 32.4 31.5 38.4 13.6 38.0 39.5 39.6 51.5 40.7 40.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 2.2 6.4 6.8 1.9 0.7 52.6 14.1 23.3 4.2 15.0 23.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.8 10.4 14.3 4.2 10.9 4.7 9.6 17.8 19.7 3.8 17.4 20.2 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 29.0 41.4 38.8 38.4 40.2 14.3 90.6 53.6 62.9 55.7 55.7 64.2 LnGrp LOS C D D D D B F D E E E E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1326 1480 2160 1852
Approach Delay, s/veh 39.7 33.8 64.9 58.3
Approach LOS D C E E
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 18.3 48.8 15.0 42.9 20.0 47.1 13.4 44.5 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6 5.8 5.9 * 6 * 6.2 * 6 6.0 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 43.2 9.1 * 37 * 14 * 41 9.0 * 37 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 5.7 40.6 11.1 36.8 15.8 39.1 3.8 26.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.4 2.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 1.8 0.1 4.9 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 51.4
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues TOTAL_SAT
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/08/2021
Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 77 743 506 358 782 340 519 1641 245 1607 v/c Ratio 0.19 0.77 0.64 0.86 0.73 0.47 0.90 0.89 0.55 0.96 Control Delay 23.9 47.6 23.2 47.7 44.1 13.4 51.9 43.6 49.9 55.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 23.9 47.6 23.2 47.7 44.1 13.4 51.9 43.6 49.9 55.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 19 285 231 96 300 85 165 457 73 464 Queue Length 95th (ft) 34 354 355 #148 373 146 #294 #566 107 #572 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2378 480 1614 1054
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 285 475 200
Base Capacity (vph) 425 1047 776 416 1087 730 578 1854 449 1671 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.18 0.71 0.65 0.86 0.72 0.47 0.90 0.89 0.55 0.96 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary TOTAL_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 03/08/2021 Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 314 1017 1078 231 234 323
Future Volume (veh/h) 314 1017 1078 231 234 323
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1885 1885 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 338 1094 1159 248 252 347
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 1 1 1 0
Cap, veh/h 449 2501 2461 527 384 490
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.70 1.00 1.00 0.21 0.21
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3647 4414 908 1795 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 338 1094 937 470 252 347
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1777 1716 1722 1795 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 8.6 15.8 0.0 0.0 15.4 22.9
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 8.6 15.8 0.0 0.0 15.4 22.9
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 449 2501 1990 998 384 490
V/C Ratio(X) 0.75 0.44 0.47 0.47 0.66 0.71
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 512 2501 1990 998 470 567
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.63 0.63 0.43 0.43 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 7.4 7.6 0.0 0.0 43.1 37.0
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 2.8 0.4 0.3 0.7 1.3 2.5
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 3.4 5.5 0.1 0.2 7.0 19.9
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 10.2 8.0 0.3 0.7 44.5 39.5
LnGrp LOS B A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1432 1407 599
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.5 0.5 41.6
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 89.7 30.3 14.9 74.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 15.0 59.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 17.8 24.9 10.6 2.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 22.3 0.7 0.2 29.4
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 11.0
HCM 6th LOS B
Queues TOTAL_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 03/08/2021 Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 338 1094 1407 252 347
v/c Ratio 0.81 0.44 0.54 0.68 0.51
Control Delay 36.6 8.2 2.0 53.6 25.6
Queue Delay 0.0 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 36.6 8.8 2.4 53.6 25.6
Queue Length 50th (ft) 137 155 12 185 170
Queue Length 95th (ft) #345 246 m25 257 255
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 186
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 419 2512 2603 467 669
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 907 643 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 317 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.81 0.68 0.72 0.54 0.52
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis TOTAL_SAT 3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd03/08/2021 Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 26 1026 227 362 1009 428 237 116 263 330 103 82 Future Volume (vph) 26 1026 227 362 1009 428 237 116 263 330 103 82 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1787 3574 1615 1698 1756 1615 1715 1758 1615 Flt Permitted 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 226 3574 1615 205 3574 1615 1698 1756 1615 1715 1758 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 1047 232 369 1030 437 242 118 268 337 105 84 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 88 0 0 169 0 0 49 0 0 51
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 1047 144 369 1030 268 177 183 219 219 223 33 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA pt+ov Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 42.7 33.7 33.7 48.1 36.7 36.7 21.5 21.5 32.9 33.1 33.1 47.3 Effective Green, g (s) 42.7 33.7 33.7 48.1 36.7 36.7 21.5 21.5 32.9 33.1 33.1 47.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.28 0.28 0.40 0.31 0.31 0.18 0.18 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 198 1003 453 232 1093 493 304 314 442 473 484 636 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.29 c0.15 0.29 c0.10 0.10 0.14 c0.13 0.13 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.09 c0.49 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.14 1.04 0.32 1.59 0.94 0.54 0.58 0.58 0.49 0.46 0.46 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 43.1 34.1 32.8 40.6 34.7 45.1 45.1 36.6 36.1 36.0 22.5 Progression Factor 0.82 0.87 0.65 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 39.2 1.7 285.2 16.5 4.2 1.8 1.8 0.3 3.2 3.1 0.0 Delay (s) 23.4 76.7 23.8 318.0 57.1 38.9 47.0 46.9 36.9 39.3 39.2 22.5 Level of Service C E C F E D D D D D D C
Approach Delay (s) 66.2 105.2 42.7 36.6
Approach LOS E F D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 75.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues TOTAL_SAT
3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd03/08/2021 Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/08/2021 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 1047 232 369 1030 437 177 183 268 219 223 84 v/c Ratio 0.13 1.04 0.43 1.58 0.94 0.66 0.58 0.58 0.55 0.46 0.46 0.12 Control Delay 18.1 76.5 12.8 307.5 57.4 20.7 53.2 52.9 18.4 40.6 40.4 5.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 18.1 76.5 12.8 307.5 57.4 20.7 53.2 52.9 18.4 40.6 40.4 5.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 ~466 58 ~357 408 128 135 140 62 145 148 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m21 #603 75 #552 #543 247 204 209 102 243 246 35 Internal Link Dist (ft) 440 2455 2238 214
Turn Bay Length (ft) 330 150 265 150 105
Base Capacity (vph) 201 1003 542 233 1093 663 464 480 630 473 485 672 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 1.04 0.43 1.58 0.94 0.66 0.38 0.38 0.43 0.46 0.46 0.13 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Appendix H:

Existing Conditions
Modified Signal Timing
Traffic Operations
Worksheets
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EX+P_PM
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/09/2021
Existing and Project Improvements Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/09/2021 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 70 651 472 314 688 237 484 1254 181 152 1392 53 Future Volume (veh/h) 70 651 472 314 688 237 484 1254 181 152 1392 53 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 71 664 482 320 702 242 494 1280 185 155 1420 54 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Cap, veh/h 117 1035 639 256 1175 694 388 1582 229 369 1729 66 Arrive On Green 0.03 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.35 0.35 0.11 0.34 0.34 Sat Flow, veh/h 3510 3610 1610 3510 3610 1610 3510 4577 662 3510 5128 195 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 71 664 482 320 702 242 494 967 498 155 958 516 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1755 1805 1610 1755 1805 1610 1755 1729 1781 1755 1729 1865 Q Serve(g_s), s 2.5 20.1 32.2 9.1 20.4 1.8 13.8 31.8 31.8 5.2 31.7 31.7 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 2.5 20.1 32.2 9.1 20.4 1.8 13.8 31.8 31.8 5.2 31.7 31.7 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 117 1035 639 256 1175 694 388 1195 615 369 1166 629 V/C Ratio(X) 0.61 0.64 0.75 1.25 0.60 0.35 1.27 0.81 0.81 0.42 0.82 0.82 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 253 1069 654 256 1175 694 388 1195 615 369 1166 629 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.90 0.90 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 59.6 39.0 32.4 58.0 35.3 11.8 55.6 37.2 37.2 52.3 38.0 38.0 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 5.0 1.3 4.8 139.1 0.8 0.3 142.3 6.0 11.0 0.8 6.6 11.5 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.2 9.0 13.3 9.0 9.1 3.1 13.7 14.0 15.3 2.3 14.1 16.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 64.6 40.2 37.3 197.1 36.1 12.1 197.9 43.1 48.1 53.1 44.5 49.5 LnGrp LOS E D D F D B F D D D D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1217 1264 1959 1629
Approach Delay, s/veh 40.5 72.2 83.4 46.9
Approach LOS D E F D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.2 49.0 15.0 41.8 20.0 48.2 10.2 46.7 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6 5.8 5.9 * 6 * 6.2 * 6 6.0 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 43.2 9.1 * 37 * 14 * 41 9.0 * 37 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 7.2 33.8 11.1 34.2 15.8 33.7 4.5 22.4 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.2 7.7 0.0 1.6 0.0 5.4 0.1 5.0 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 62.7
HCM 6th LOS E
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues EX+P_PM
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/09/2021
Existing and Project Improvements Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/09/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 71 664 482 320 702 242 494 1465 155 1474 v/c Ratio 0.33 0.72 0.60 1.26 0.69 0.34 0.93 0.74 0.46 0.87 Control Delay 59.9 47.0 21.7 191.0 43.9 8.9 78.1 35.9 58.3 45.6 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 59.9 47.0 21.7 191.0 43.9 8.9 78.1 35.9 58.3 45.6 Queue Length 50th (ft) 28 258 209 ~167 273 45 206 364 62 406 Queue Length 95th (ft) 53 308 322 #262 328 84 #370 452 98 471 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2378 480 1614 1054
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 285 475 200
Base Capacity (vph) 252 1068 803 254 1081 732 530 1982 336 1704 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.28 0.62 0.60 1.26 0.65 0.33 0.93 0.74 0.46 0.87 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EX+P_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 03/09/2021
Existing and Project Improvements Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/09/2021 Page 5
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 251 895 1059 192 186 283
Future Volume (vph) 251 895 1059 192 186 283
Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900
Total Lost time (s) 3.5 4.8 4.8 4.1 4.1
Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.91 1.00 1.00
Frt 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.85
Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (prot) 1787 3539 5017 1787 1599
Flt Permitted 0.17 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00
Satd. Flow (perm) 312 3539 5017 1787 1599
Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Adj. Flow (vph) 259 923 1092 198 192 292
RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 16 0 0 41
Lane Group Flow (vph) 259 923 1274 0 192 251
Heavy Vehicles (%) 1% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Turn Type pm+pt NA NA Prot pt+ov
Protected Phases 5 2 6 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2
Actuated Green, G (s) 91.7 91.7 75.4 18.4 35.3
Effective Green, g (s) 92.2 92.2 75.9 18.9 35.8
Actuated g/C Ratio 0.77 0.77 0.63 0.16 0.30
Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6
Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0
Lane Grp Cap (vph) 397 2719 3173 281 477
v/s Ratio Prot c0.07 0.26 0.25 c0.11 0.16
v/s Ratio Perm c0.43
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.34 0.40 0.68 0.53
Uniform Delay, d1 6.5 4.4 10.9 47.7 35.0
Progression Factor 1.00 1.00 0.60 1.00 1.00
Incremental Delay, d2 2.9 0.3 0.3 5.4 0.5
Delay (s) 9.4 4.7 6.8 53.1 35.5
Level of Service A A A D D
Approach Delay (s) 5.7 6.8 42.5
Approach LOS A A D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 12.2 HCM 2000 Level of Service B HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.67
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 12.4 Intersection Capacity Utilization 59.7% ICU Level of Service B Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues EX+P_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 03/09/2021
Existing and Project Improvements Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/09/2021 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 259 923 1290 192 292
v/c Ratio 0.65 0.34 0.40 0.68 0.57
Control Delay 14.0 5.2 7.2 59.6 31.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.9 21.0
Total Delay 14.0 5.5 7.3 60.5 52.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 43 98 76 143 158
Queue Length 95th (ft) 119 165 71 206 202
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 166
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 442 2719 3192 475 557
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1089 517 116 256
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.59 0.57 0.48 0.53 0.97
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EX+P_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 03/09/2021
Existing and Project Improvements Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/09/2021 Page 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 251 895 1059 192 186 283
Future Volume (veh/h) 251 895 1059 192 186 283
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1870 1885 1885 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 259 923 1092 198 192 292
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 2 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 482 2597 2690 487 350 451
Arrive On Green 0.09 0.73 1.00 1.00 0.20 0.20
Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 3647 4550 794 1795 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 259 923 855 435 192 292
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1777 1716 1742 1795 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 5.5 11.3 0.0 0.0 11.6 19.3
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 5.5 11.3 0.0 0.0 11.6 19.3
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.46 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 482 2597 2107 1070 350 451
V/C Ratio(X) 0.54 0.36 0.41 0.41 0.55 0.65
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 557 2597 2107 1070 477 564
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.69 0.69 0.78 0.78 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 5.3 5.9 0.0 0.0 43.5 37.8
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.8
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 1.8 3.8 0.1 0.3 5.2 16.8
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 5.6 6.1 0.5 0.9 44.0 38.6
LnGrp LOS A A A A D D
Approach Vol, veh/h 1182 1290 484
Approach Delay, s/veh 6.0 0.6 40.8
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 92.5 27.5 14.0 78.5
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 15.0 59.7
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.3 22.3 8.5 3.0
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 17.3 0.7 0.2 25.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 9.3
HCM 6th LOS A
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EX+P_PM
3: East Access/Glencoe Ave & Washington Blvd 03/09/2021 Existing and Project Improvements Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/09/2021 Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 15 860 249 371 967 321 227 128 304 258 161 65 Future Volume (vph) 15 860 249 371 967 321 227 128 304 258 161 65 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1770 3539 1615 1681 1709 1509 1715 1783 1615 Flt Permitted 0.29 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 557 3574 1615 211 3539 1615 1681 1709 1509 1715 1783 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 15 869 252 375 977 324 229 129 307 261 163 66 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 182 0 0 99 0 0 230 0 0 48
Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 869 70 375 977 225 176 182 77 209 215 18 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 0% 2% 5% 7% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Over Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 37.9 30.7 30.7 65.5 54.3 54.3 18.2 18.2 30.2 20.6 20.6 33.0 Effective Green, g (s) 37.9 30.7 30.7 65.5 54.3 54.3 18.2 18.2 30.2 20.6 20.6 33.0 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.26 0.26 0.55 0.45 0.45 0.15 0.15 0.25 0.17 0.17 0.28 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 250 914 413 507 1601 730 254 259 379 294 306 444 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 c0.24 c0.19 0.28 0.10 c0.11 0.05 c0.12 0.12 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.04 0.22 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.06 0.95 0.17 0.74 0.61 0.31 0.69 0.70 0.20 0.71 0.70 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 28.3 43.9 34.7 29.6 24.8 20.9 48.3 48.3 35.4 46.9 46.8 31.9 Progression Factor 0.85 1.02 1.24 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 19.4 0.8 5.6 1.7 1.1 7.9 8.3 0.3 7.9 7.1 0.0 Delay (s) 24.1 64.2 44.0 35.2 26.6 22.0 56.2 56.7 35.7 54.8 53.9 31.9 Level of Service C E D D C C E E D D D C
Approach Delay (s) 59.2 27.6 46.9 51.3
Approach LOS E C D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 42.8 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.79
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.3% ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues EX+P_PM
3: East Access/Glencoe Ave & Washington Blvd 03/09/2021 Existing and Project Improvements Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/09/2021 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 15 869 252 375 977 324 176 182 307 209 215 66 v/c Ratio 0.05 0.95 0.42 0.74 0.60 0.39 0.69 0.71 0.50 0.71 0.70 0.13 Control Delay 15.5 64.5 8.4 39.3 29.5 13.2 61.8 62.4 8.3 59.4 58.5 6.8 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 15.5 64.5 8.4 39.3 29.5 13.2 61.8 62.4 8.3 59.4 58.5 6.8 Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 356 21 210 303 68 137 143 0 162 166 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m14 #483 85 #515 #489 176 205 211 89 232 236 30 Internal Link Dist (ft) 440 2455 2238 219
Turn Bay Length (ft) 330 265 150 105
Base Capacity (vph) 374 914 595 508 1624 838 389 395 609 375 390 569 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.04 0.95 0.42 0.74 0.60 0.39 0.45 0.46 0.50 0.56 0.55 0.12 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EX+P_SAT
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/09/2021
Existing with Project Conditions Improvmenets for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/09/2021 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 73 679 491 327 717 249 504 1307 187 157 1450 55 Future Volume (veh/h) 73 679 491 327 717 249 504 1307 187 157 1450 55 Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Work Zone On Approach No No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 1870 Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 74 693 501 334 732 254 514 1334 191 160 1480 56 Peak Hour Factor 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Percent Heavy Veh, % 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Cap, veh/h 461 1046 642 479 1092 653 497 1527 219 507 1664 63 Arrive On Green 0.06 0.29 0.29 0.07 0.31 0.31 0.11 0.34 0.34 0.10 0.33 0.33 Sat Flow, veh/h 3456 3554 1585 3456 3554 1585 3456 4512 646 3456 5049 191 Grp Volume(v), veh/h 74 693 501 334 732 254 514 1006 519 160 998 538 Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1728 1777 1585 1728 1777 1585 1728 1702 1754 1728 1702 1836 Q Serve(g_s), s 1.8 21.4 34.4 8.5 22.5 2.6 13.8 34.7 34.7 0.0 34.7 34.8 Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 1.8 21.4 34.4 8.5 22.5 2.6 13.8 34.7 34.7 0.0 34.7 34.8 Prop In Lane 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.37 1.00 0.10
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 461 1046 642 479 1092 653 497 1152 594 507 1122 605 V/C Ratio(X) 0.16 0.66 0.78 0.70 0.67 0.39 1.03 0.87 0.87 0.32 0.89 0.89 Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 505 1052 644 479 1092 653 497 1176 606 507 1122 605 HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Upstream Filter(I) 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.87 0.87 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 28.6 38.7 32.4 30.6 37.8 11.9 38.5 38.8 38.8 49.6 39.7 39.7 Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.2 1.6 6.1 3.8 1.4 0.3 49.7 9.3 16.3 1.6 10.6 17.6 Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 %ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 0.7 9.4 14.1 3.8 10.0 3.2 9.4 15.5 17.1 2.3 15.7 18.1 Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 28.7 40.2 38.5 34.4 39.2 12.2 88.2 48.1 55.1 51.2 50.3 57.4 LnGrp LOS C D D C D B F D E D D E
Approach Vol, veh/h 1268 1320 2039 1696
Approach Delay, s/veh 38.9 32.8 60.0 52.7
Approach LOS D C E D
Timer - Assigned Phs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 19.1 48.1 15.0 42.8 20.0 47.2 13.4 44.4 Change Period (Y+Rc), s * 6 5.8 5.9 * 6 * 6.2 * 6 6.0 * 6 Max Green Setting (Gmax), s * 12 43.2 9.1 * 37 * 14 * 41 9.0 * 37 Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 2.0 36.7 10.5 36.4 15.8 36.8 3.8 24.5 Green Ext Time (p_c), s 0.3 5.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 3.5 0.1 4.8 Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 48.1
HCM 6th LOS D
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues EX+P_SAT
1: Lincoln Blvd & Washington Blvd 03/09/2021
Existing with Project Conditions Improvmenets for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/09/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT SBL SBT
Lane Group Flow (vph) 74 693 501 334 732 254 514 1525 160 1536 v/c Ratio 0.18 0.74 0.63 0.77 0.70 0.36 0.86 0.80 0.36 0.91 Control Delay 24.2 47.0 23.1 39.3 43.7 9.3 46.6 38.9 43.3 49.5 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 24.2 47.0 23.1 39.3 43.7 9.3 46.6 38.9 43.3 49.5 Queue Length 50th (ft) 18 265 227 91 280 47 160 404 46 435 Queue Length 95th (ft) 33 326 349 122 345 92 #290 482 73 #513 Internal Link Dist (ft) 2378 480 1614 1054
Turn Bay Length (ft) 155 285 475 200
Base Capacity (vph) 443 1047 780 434 1079 727 600 1896 449 1680 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.17 0.66 0.64 0.77 0.68 0.35 0.86 0.80 0.36 0.91 Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary EX+P_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 03/09/2021 Existing with Project Conditions Improvmenets for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/09/2021 Page 6
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 311 847 937 229 233 321
Future Volume (veh/h) 311 847 937 229 233 321
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1885 1885 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 334 911 1008 246 251 345
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 1 1 1 0
Cap, veh/h 703 2689 1882 459 289 672
Arrive On Green 0.26 0.76 0.91 0.91 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3647 4299 1006 1795 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 334 911 837 417 251 345
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1777 1716 1704 1795 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 0.8 10.1 5.1 5.1 16.4 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 0.8 10.1 5.1 5.1 16.4 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.59 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 703 2689 1564 777 289 672
V/C Ratio(X) 0.48 0.34 0.54 0.54 0.87 0.51
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 703 2689 1564 777 470 835
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.69 0.69 0.55 0.55 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 20.4 4.8 3.1 3.1 49.1 25.9
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.2 0.7 1.5 5.4 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.3 3.2 1.2 1.4 7.8 11.5
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 20.6 5.0 3.8 4.6 54.5 26.1
LnGrp LOS C A A A D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1245 1254 596
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.2 4.1 38.1
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 96.1 23.9 36.1 60.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 5.3 * 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 20.0 * 55
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 12.1 18.4 2.8 7.1
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 17.1 0.9 0.4 22.9
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues EX+P_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 03/09/2021 Existing with Project Conditions Improvmenets for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/09/2021 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 334 911 1254 251 345
v/c Ratio 0.70 0.36 0.48 0.69 0.50
Control Delay 34.8 7.3 2.1 54.9 24.8
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 34.8 7.6 2.4 54.9 24.8
Queue Length 50th (ft) 86 121 12 185 168
Queue Length 95th (ft) 209 181 28 263 238
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 186
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 475 2527 2600 467 775
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 994 632 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 57 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.70 0.59 0.64 0.54 0.45
Intersection Summary
HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis EX+P_SAT
3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd03/09/2021 Existing with Project Conditions Improvmenets for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/09/2021 Page 8
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 26 870 211 290 927 423 166 115 241 326 102 82 Future Volume (vph) 26 870 211 290 927 423 166 115 241 326 102 82 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1787 3574 1615 1698 1770 1615 1715 1758 1615 Flt Permitted 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 232 3574 1615 205 3574 1615 1698 1770 1615 1715 1758 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 888 215 296 946 432 169 117 246 333 104 84 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 97 0 0 182 0 0 49 0 0 50
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 888 118 296 946 250 140 146 197 216 221 34 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA pt+ov Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 41.7 32.7 32.7 49.1 36.7 36.7 20.4 20.4 32.8 34.2 34.2 48.4 Effective Green, g (s) 41.7 32.7 32.7 49.1 36.7 36.7 20.4 20.4 32.8 34.2 34.2 48.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.35 0.27 0.27 0.41 0.31 0.31 0.17 0.17 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.40 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 198 973 440 247 1093 493 288 300 441 488 501 651 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.25 c0.12 0.26 0.08 c0.08 0.12 c0.13 0.13 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.07 c0.37 0.15
v/c Ratio 0.14 0.91 0.27 1.20 0.87 0.51 0.49 0.49 0.45 0.44 0.44 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 28.1 42.3 34.3 33.3 39.3 34.2 45.1 45.1 36.1 35.1 35.1 21.8 Progression Factor 0.79 0.79 0.53 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 13.5 1.4 121.6 9.2 3.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 2.9 2.8 0.0 Delay (s) 22.3 46.7 19.6 154.9 48.5 37.9 45.5 45.5 36.3 38.0 37.9 21.8 Level of Service C D B F D D D D D D D C
Approach Delay (s) 40.9 64.6 41.3 35.3
Approach LOS D E D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 50.5 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.1% ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues EX+P_SAT
3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd03/09/2021 Existing with Project Conditions Improvmenets for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 03/09/2021 Page 7
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 888 215 296 946 432 140 146 246 216 221 84 v/c Ratio 0.13 0.91 0.40 1.19 0.87 0.64 0.49 0.49 0.51 0.44 0.44 0.12 Control Delay 17.6 47.3 9.5 149.0 48.9 18.4 51.3 51.1 17.2 38.8 38.6 5.4 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 17.6 47.3 9.5 149.0 48.9 18.4 51.3 51.1 17.2 38.8 38.6 5.4 Queue Length 50th (ft) 9 362 25 ~225 363 110 105 109 54 143 146 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m21 #452 72 #405 #454 225 171 177 89 227 232 33 Internal Link Dist (ft) 440 2455 2238 214
Turn Bay Length (ft) 330 150 265 150 105
Base Capacity (vph) 201 973 536 248 1093 675 464 483 642 489 501 686 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 0.91 0.40 1.19 0.87 0.64 0.30 0.30 0.38 0.44 0.44 0.12 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

Appendix I:

Background Modified
Signal Timing Traffic
Operations Worksheets
Queues TOTAL_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 09/20/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 1026 1460 229 259
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.38 0.51 0.76 0.44
Control Delay 29.2 6.0 9.2 63.1 27.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.2 2.0 2.9
Total Delay 29.2 6.4 9.3 65.1 30.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 122 104 171 135
Queue Length 95th (ft) 160 196 51 243 185
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 166
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 483 2678 2869 475 735
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1014 521 132 363
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.62 0.62 0.67 0.70
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary TOTAL_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 09/20/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 253 995 1224 192 222 251
Future Volume (veh/h) 253 995 1224 192 222 251
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1870 1885 1885 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 261 1026 1262 198 229 259
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 2 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 767 2727 1650 259 284 828
Arrive On Green 0.36 0.77 0.74 0.73 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 3647 4655 704 1795 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 261 1026 965 495 229 259
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1777 1716 1758 1795 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 11.3 20.4 20.5 14.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 11.3 20.4 20.5 14.8 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 767 2727 1262 647 284 828
V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.38 0.76 0.76 0.81 0.31
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 767 2727 1521 780 477 999
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.61 0.61 0.69 0.69 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.5 4.6 12.7 12.9 48.7 16.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.2 3.1 5.9 2.1 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 3.5 4.7 5.3 6.8 8.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.6 4.8 15.8 18.8 50.8 16.7
LnGrp LOS C A B B D B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1287 1460 488
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.4 16.9 32.7
Approach LOS A B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 96.9 23.1 48.0 48.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 5.3 * 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 22.0 * 53
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.3 17.8 6.5 23.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 20.4 0.7 0.3 20.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues TOTAL_PM
3: East Access/Glencoe Ave & Washington Blvd 09/20/2021 Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 955 269 452 1064 329 219 228 418 211 217 67 v/c Ratio 0.06 1.04 0.46 0.97 0.69 0.41 0.73 0.75 0.63 0.73 0.72 0.14 Control Delay 16.6 81.3 6.9 70.3 33.4 15.3 60.4 61.7 9.3 61.6 60.5 7.3 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 16.6 81.3 6.9 70.3 33.4 15.3 60.4 61.7 9.3 61.6 60.5 7.3 Queue Length 50th (ft) 4 ~425 33 ~305 364 83 169 176 0 164 168 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m15 #536 45 #656 #565 191 246 255 106 242 246 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 440 2455 2238 219
Turn Bay Length (ft) 330 265 150 105
Base Capacity (vph) 340 914 589 466 1540 798 389 394 666 368 383 563 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.05 1.04 0.46 0.97 0.69 0.41 0.56 0.58 0.63 0.57 0.57 0.12 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis TOTAL_PM
3: East Access/Glencoe Ave & Washington Blvd
09/20/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 16 945 266 447 1053 326 315 128 414 261 162 66 Future Volume (vph) 16 945 266 447 1053 326 315 128 414 261 162 66 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1770 3539 1615 1681 1704 1509 1715 1783 1615 Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 429 3574 1615 210 3539 1615 1681 1704 1509 1715 1783 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 955 269 452 1064 329 318 129 418 264 164 67 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 176 0 0 96 0 0 323 0 0 49
Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 955 93 452 1064 233 219 228 95 211 217 18 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 0% 2% 5% 7% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Over Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.0 30.8 30.8 62.7 51.5 51.5 21.4 21.4 27.3 20.2 20.2 32.6 Effective Green, g (s) 38.0 30.8 30.8 62.7 51.5 51.5 21.4 21.4 27.3 20.2 20.2 32.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.26 0.26 0.52 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 218 917 414 464 1518 693 299 303 343 288 300 438 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.27 c0.22 0.30 0.13 c0.13 0.06 c0.12 0.12 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.06 c0.29 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.07 1.04 0.22 0.97 0.70 0.34 0.73 0.75 0.28 0.73 0.72 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 28.4 44.6 35.2 36.0 28.0 22.8 46.6 46.8 38.2 47.3 47.3 32.2 Progression Factor 0.86 0.91 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 40.1 1.2 34.8 2.7 1.3 8.9 10.1 0.4 9.3 8.4 0.0 Delay (s) 24.7 80.8 24.3 70.8 30.7 24.2 55.5 56.9 38.7 56.6 55.6 32.2 Level of Service C F C E C C E E D E E C
Approach Delay (s) 67.8 39.3 47.7 52.9
Approach LOS E D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 50.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues TOTAL_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 09/20/2021 Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 338 1094 1407 252 347
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.43 0.56 0.69 0.50
Control Delay 40.8 7.9 4.1 55.0 25.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 40.8 8.5 4.5 55.0 25.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 129 155 23 185 180
Queue Length 95th (ft) #253 231 m56 264 249
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 186
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 461 2527 2517 467 788
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 920 543 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 244 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.68 0.71 0.54 0.44
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary TOTAL_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 09/20/2021 Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 314 1017 1078 231 234 323
Future Volume (veh/h) 314 1017 1078 231 234 323
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1885 1885 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 338 1094 1159 248 252 347
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 1 1 1 0
Cap, veh/h 689 2687 1864 399 290 699
Arrive On Green 0.27 0.76 0.88 0.88 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3647 4414 908 1795 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 338 1094 937 470 252 347
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1777 1716 1722 1795 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 13.0 8.8 8.8 16.4 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 13.0 8.8 8.8 16.4 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 689 2687 1507 756 290 699
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.41 0.62 0.62 0.87 0.50
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 689 2687 1507 756 470 860
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.63 0.63 0.43 0.43 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.6 5.2 4.6 4.6 49.1 24.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.8 1.7 5.6 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.3 4.1 1.9 2.0 7.9 11.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.7 5.4 5.5 6.3 54.6 24.7
LnGrp LOS C A A A D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1432 1407 599
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.8 5.7 37.3
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 96.0 24.0 38.0 58.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 5.3 * 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 22.0 * 53
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.0 18.4 6.1 10.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 22.6 0.9 0.4 24.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues TOTAL_SAT
3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd 09/20/2021 Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 1047 232 369 1030 437 177 183 268 219 223 84 v/c Ratio 0.13 1.04 0.43 1.58 0.94 0.66 0.58 0.58 0.55 0.46 0.46 0.12 Control Delay 18.8 74.5 13.3 307.5 57.4 20.7 53.2 52.9 18.4 40.6 40.4 5.9 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 18.8 74.5 13.3 307.5 57.4 20.7 53.2 52.9 18.4 40.6 40.4 5.9 Queue Length 50th (ft) 9 ~466 37 ~357 408 128 135 140 62 145 148 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m22 #580 101 #552 #543 247 204 209 102 243 246 35 Internal Link Dist (ft) 440 2455 2238 214
Turn Bay Length (ft) 330 150 265 150 105
Base Capacity (vph) 201 1003 542 233 1093 663 464 480 630 473 485 672 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.13 1.04 0.43 1.58 0.94 0.66 0.38 0.38 0.43 0.46 0.46 0.13 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis TOTAL_SAT 3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd 09/20/2021
Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 26 1026 227 362 1009 428 237 116 263 330 103 82 Future Volume (vph) 26 1026 227 362 1009 428 237 116 263 330 103 82 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1787 3574 1615 1698 1756 1615 1715 1758 1615 Flt Permitted 0.12 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 226 3574 1615 205 3574 1615 1698 1756 1615 1715 1758 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 1047 232 369 1030 437 242 118 268 337 105 84 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 88 0 0 169 0 0 49 0 0 51
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 1047 144 369 1030 268 177 183 219 219 223 33 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA pt+ov Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 42.7 33.7 33.7 48.1 36.7 36.7 21.5 21.5 32.9 33.1 33.1 47.3 Effective Green, g (s) 42.7 33.7 33.7 48.1 36.7 36.7 21.5 21.5 32.9 33.1 33.1 47.3 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.36 0.28 0.28 0.40 0.31 0.31 0.18 0.18 0.27 0.28 0.28 0.39 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 198 1003 453 232 1093 493 304 314 442 473 484 636 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.29 c0.15 0.29 c0.10 0.10 0.14 c0.13 0.13 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.04 0.09 c0.49 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.14 1.04 0.32 1.59 0.94 0.54 0.58 0.58 0.49 0.46 0.46 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 28.5 43.1 34.1 32.8 40.6 34.7 45.1 45.1 36.6 36.1 36.0 22.5 Progression Factor 0.85 0.81 0.68 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 39.2 1.7 285.2 16.5 4.2 1.8 1.8 0.3 3.2 3.1 0.0 Delay (s) 24.3 74.4 24.8 318.0 57.1 38.9 47.0 46.9 36.9 39.3 39.2 22.5 Level of Service C E C F E D D D D D D C
Approach Delay (s) 64.5 105.2 42.7 36.6
Approach LOS E F D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 75.3 HCM 2000 Level of Service E HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 1.04
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

Appendix J:

Stormwater Project
Construction
Breakdown

Queues TOTAL_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 09/20/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 261 1026 1460 229 259
v/c Ratio 0.60 0.38 0.51 0.76 0.44
Control Delay 29.2 6.0 9.2 63.1 27.5
Queue Delay 0.0 0.4 0.2 2.0 2.9
Total Delay 29.2 6.4 9.3 65.1 30.4
Queue Length 50th (ft) 59 122 104 171 135
Queue Length 95th (ft) 160 196 51 243 185
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 166
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 483 2678 2869 475 735
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 1014 521 132 363
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.54 0.62 0.62 0.67 0.70
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary TOTAL_PM
2: Washington Blvd & West Access 09/20/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 253 995 1224 192 222 251
Future Volume (veh/h) 253 995 1224 192 222 251
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1885 1870 1885 1885 1885 1885
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 261 1026 1262 198 229 259
Peak Hour Factor 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Percent Heavy Veh, % 1 2 1 1 1 1
Cap, veh/h 767 2727 1650 259 284 828
Arrive On Green 0.36 0.77 0.74 0.73 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 1795 3647 4655 704 1795 1598
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 261 1026 965 495 229 259
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1795 1777 1716 1758 1795 1598
Q Serve(g_s), s 3.5 11.3 20.4 20.5 14.8 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 3.5 11.3 20.4 20.5 14.8 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.40 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 767 2727 1262 647 284 828
V/C Ratio(X) 0.34 0.38 0.76 0.76 0.81 0.31
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 767 2727 1521 780 477 999
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.61 0.61 0.69 0.69 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 22.5 4.6 12.7 12.9 48.7 16.6
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.2 3.1 5.9 2.1 0.1
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 4.9 3.5 4.7 5.3 6.8 8.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 22.6 4.8 15.8 18.8 50.8 16.7
LnGrp LOS C A B B D B
Approach Vol, veh/h 1287 1460 488
Approach Delay, s/veh 8.4 16.9 32.7
Approach LOS A B C
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 96.9 23.1 48.0 48.9
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 5.3 * 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 22.0 * 53
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 14.3 17.8 6.5 23.4
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 20.4 0.7 0.3 20.2
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 15.9
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis TOTAL_PM
3: East Access/Glencoe Ave & Washington Blvd
09/20/2021
Existing and Project Traffic Conditions for Weekday PM Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 16 945 266 447 1053 326 315 128 414 261 162 66 Future Volume (vph) 16 945 266 447 1053 326 315 128 414 261 162 66 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1770 3539 1615 1681 1704 1509 1715 1783 1615 Flt Permitted 0.23 1.00 1.00 0.11 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.99 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 429 3574 1615 210 3539 1615 1681 1704 1509 1715 1783 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 Adj. Flow (vph) 16 955 269 452 1064 329 318 129 418 264 164 67 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 176 0 0 96 0 0 323 0 0 49
Lane Group Flow (vph) 16 955 93 452 1064 233 219 228 95 211 217 18 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 2% 2% 0% 2% 5% 7% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA Over Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 38.0 30.8 30.8 62.7 51.5 51.5 21.4 21.4 27.3 20.2 20.2 32.6 Effective Green, g (s) 38.0 30.8 30.8 62.7 51.5 51.5 21.4 21.4 27.3 20.2 20.2 32.6 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.32 0.26 0.26 0.52 0.43 0.43 0.18 0.18 0.23 0.17 0.17 0.27 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 4.6 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 218 917 414 464 1518 693 299 303 343 288 300 438 v/s Ratio Prot 0.00 0.27 c0.22 0.30 0.13 c0.13 0.06 c0.12 0.12 0.01 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.06 c0.29 0.14
v/c Ratio 0.07 1.04 0.22 0.97 0.70 0.34 0.73 0.75 0.28 0.73 0.72 0.04 Uniform Delay, d1 28.4 44.6 35.2 36.0 28.0 22.8 46.6 46.8 38.2 47.3 47.3 32.2 Progression Factor 0.86 0.91 0.66 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.1 40.1 1.2 34.8 2.7 1.3 8.9 10.1 0.4 9.3 8.4 0.0 Delay (s) 24.7 80.8 24.3 70.8 30.7 24.2 55.5 56.9 38.7 56.6 55.6 32.2 Level of Service C F C E C C E E D E E C
Approach Delay (s) 67.8 39.3 47.7 52.9
Approach LOS E D D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 50.4 HCM 2000 Level of Service D HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 91.4% ICU Level of Service F Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group
Queues TOTAL_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 09/20/2021 Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 1
Lane Group EBL EBT WBT SBL SBR
Lane Group Flow (vph) 338 1094 1407 252 347
v/c Ratio 0.73 0.43 0.56 0.69 0.50
Control Delay 40.8 7.9 2.8 55.0 25.7
Queue Delay 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0
Total Delay 40.8 8.5 3.3 55.0 25.7
Queue Length 50th (ft) 129 155 15 185 180
Queue Length 95th (ft) #253 231 m38 264 249
Internal Link Dist (ft) 480 440 186
Turn Bay Length (ft) 135
Base Capacity (vph) 461 2527 2517 467 788
Starvation Cap Reductn 0 920 579 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.73 0.68 0.73 0.54 0.44
Intersection Summary
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM 6th Signalized Intersection Summary TOTAL_SAT
2: Washington Blvd/Washginton Blvd & West Access 09/20/2021 Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 3
Movement EBL EBT WBT WBR SBL SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (veh/h) 314 1017 1078 231 234 323
Future Volume (veh/h) 314 1017 1078 231 234 323
Initial Q (Qb), veh 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ped-Bike Adj(A_pbT) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Parking Bus, Adj 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Work Zone On Approach No No No
Adj Sat Flow, veh/h/ln 1900 1870 1885 1885 1885 1900
Adj Flow Rate, veh/h 338 1094 1159 248 252 347
Peak Hour Factor 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93 0.93
Percent Heavy Veh, % 0 2 1 1 1 0
Cap, veh/h 689 2687 1864 399 290 699
Arrive On Green 0.27 0.76 0.88 0.88 0.16 0.16
Sat Flow, veh/h 1810 3647 4414 908 1795 1610
Grp Volume(v), veh/h 338 1094 937 470 252 347
Grp Sat Flow(s),veh/h/ln 1810 1777 1716 1722 1795 1610
Q Serve(g_s), s 4.1 13.0 8.8 8.8 16.4 0.0
Cycle Q Clear(g_c), s 4.1 13.0 8.8 8.8 16.4 0.0
Prop In Lane 1.00 0.53 1.00 1.00
Lane Grp Cap(c), veh/h 689 2687 1507 756 290 699
V/C Ratio(X) 0.49 0.41 0.62 0.62 0.87 0.50
Avail Cap(c_a), veh/h 689 2687 1507 756 470 860
HCM Platoon Ratio 1.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Upstream Filter(I) 0.63 0.63 0.19 0.19 1.00 1.00
Uniform Delay (d), s/veh 23.6 5.2 4.6 4.6 49.1 24.5
Incr Delay (d2), s/veh 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.7 5.6 0.2
Initial Q Delay(d3),s/veh 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
%ile BackOfQ(50%),veh/ln 7.3 4.1 1.8 1.8 7.9 11.6
Unsig. Movement Delay, s/veh
LnGrp Delay(d),s/veh 23.7 5.4 5.0 5.4 54.6 24.7
LnGrp LOS C A A A D C
Approach Vol, veh/h 1432 1407 599
Approach Delay, s/veh 9.8 5.1 37.3
Approach LOS A A D
Timer - Assigned Phs 2 4 5 6
Phs Duration (G+Y+Rc), s 96.0 24.0 38.0 58.0
Change Period (Y+Rc), s 5.3 4.6 5.3 * 5.3
Max Green Setting (Gmax), s 78.7 31.4 22.0 * 53
Max Q Clear Time (g_c+I1), s 15.0 18.4 6.1 10.8
Green Ext Time (p_c), s 22.6 0.9 0.4 24.7
Intersection Summary
HCM 6th Ctrl Delay 12.7
HCM 6th LOS B
Notes
* HCM 6th computational engine requires equal clearance times for the phases crossing the barrier.

Queues TOTAL_SAT
3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd 09/20/2021 Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 4
Lane Group EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 1047 232 369 1030 437 177 183 268 219 223 84 v/c Ratio 0.09 1.15 0.46 1.26 1.09 0.73 0.58 0.58 0.50 0.48 0.47 0.11 Control Delay 18.6 112.4 16.1 171.4 99.1 26.8 53.3 53.1 16.0 41.6 41.4 5.1 Queue Delay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total Delay 18.6 112.4 16.1 171.4 99.1 26.8 53.3 53.1 16.0 41.6 41.4 5.1 Queue Length 50th (ft) 10 ~505 41 ~307 ~473 149 135 140 60 147 150 0 Queue Length 95th (ft) m25 #619 119 #502 #606 278 204 210 94 245 248 32 Internal Link Dist (ft) 440 2455 2238 214
Turn Bay Length (ft) 330 150 265 150 105
Base Capacity (vph) 291 914 501 293 944 595 393 407 617 460 471 737 Starvation Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Spillback Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Storage Cap Reductn 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reduced v/c Ratio 0.09 1.15 0.46 1.26 1.09 0.73 0.45 0.45 0.43 0.48 0.47 0.11 Intersection Summary
~ Volume exceeds capacity, queue is theoretically infinite.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
# 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer.

Queue shown is maximum after two cycles.
m Volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal.

HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity Analysis TOTAL_SAT 3: Glencoe Ave/East Access & Washginton Blvd/Washington Blvd 09/20/2021
Total Traffic Conditions for Saturday Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report 09/20/2021 Page 5
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR Lane Configurations
Traffic Volume (vph) 26 1026 227 362 1009 428 237 116 263 330 103 82 Future Volume (vph) 26 1026 227 362 1009 428 237 116 263 330 103 82 Ideal Flow (vphpl) 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 1900 Total Lost time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 0.95 0.95 1.00 Frt 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 1.00 1.00 0.85 Flt Protected 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot) 1805 3574 1615 1787 3574 1615 1698 1756 1615 1715 1758 1615 Flt Permitted 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.13 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.95 0.97 1.00 Satd. Flow (perm) 248 3574 1615 237 3574 1615 1698 1756 1615 1715 1758 1615 Peak-hour factor, PHF 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 Adj. Flow (vph) 27 1047 232 369 1030 437 242 118 268 337 105 84 RTOR Reduction (vph) 0 0 89 0 0 169 0 0 47 0 0 47
Lane Group Flow (vph) 27 1047 143 369 1030 268 177 183 221 219 223 37 Heavy Vehicles (%) 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Turn Type pm+pt NA Perm pm+pt NA Perm Split NA pt+ov Split NA pt+ov Protected Phases 5 2 1 6 3 3 3 1 4 4 4 5
Permitted Phases 2 2 6 6
Actuated Green, G (s) 45.7 30.7 30.7 47.1 31.7 31.7 21.4 21.4 36.8 32.2 32.2 52.4 Effective Green, g (s) 45.7 30.7 30.7 47.1 31.7 31.7 21.4 21.4 36.8 32.2 32.2 52.4 Actuated g/C Ratio 0.38 0.26 0.26 0.39 0.26 0.26 0.18 0.18 0.31 0.27 0.27 0.44 Clearance Time (s) 4.0 5.3 5.3 4.6 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.2 Vehicle Extension (s) 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph) 289 914 413 291 944 426 302 313 495 460 471 705 v/s Ratio Prot 0.01 0.29 c0.16 0.29 c0.10 0.10 0.14 c0.13 0.13 0.02 v/s Ratio Perm 0.02 0.09 c0.33 0.17
v/c Ratio 0.09 1.15 0.35 1.27 1.09 0.63 0.59 0.58 0.45 0.48 0.47 0.05 Uniform Delay, d1 26.4 44.6 36.5 34.5 44.1 39.0 45.2 45.2 33.4 36.8 36.8 19.5 Progression Factor 0.91 0.83 0.73 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Incremental Delay, d2 0.0 77.4 2.1 145.0 57.3 6.9 1.9 1.8 0.2 3.5 3.4 0.0 Delay (s) 23.9 114.4 28.9 179.4 101.5 45.8 47.1 47.0 33.6 40.3 40.2 19.5 Level of Service C F C F F D D D C D D B
Approach Delay (s) 97.3 103.9 41.3 36.9
Approach LOS F F D D
Intersection Summary
HCM 2000 Control Delay 84.6 HCM 2000 Level of Service F HCM 2000 Volume to Capacity ratio 0.88
Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0 Sum of lost time (s) 20.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 79.5% ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min) 15
c Critical Lane Group

Attachment 2

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
Prepared by Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc., Inc., dated May 2024.
(Attached)

Environmental Noise Impact Study

COSTCO FUEL STATION RELOCATION PROJECT
13463 WASHINGTON BOULEVARD

CULVER CITY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for:

Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

May 2024

Report Ref:

R2021116.5

Prepared by:

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.
22801 Crespi Street
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

Table of Content

Executive summary ................................................................................................................... 1 Findings ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 4

1.1 Project Description ......................................................................................................... 4 2 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................. 5

2.1 Fundamentals of Sound and Environmental Noise ........................................................ 5

2.1.1 Outdoor Sound Propagation ..................................................................................... 5

2.1.2 Environmental Noise Descriptors ............................................................................ 9

2.2 Ground-borne Vibration ................................................................................................. 9

2.3 Application Noise Standards ........................................................................................ 10

2.3.1 Culver City General Plan Noise Element .............................................................. 10

2.3.2 Culver City Municipal Code .................................................................................. 11

2.4 Applicable Vibration Standards.................................................................................... 13

2.5 Existing Ambient Noise Levels .................................................................................... 14 3 Impact Analysis .......................................................................................................... 17

3.1 Methodology................................................................................................................. 17

3.1.1 Construction Noise ................................................................................................. 17

3.1.2 Construction Vibration ........................................................................................... 17

3.1.3 Operational Noise .................................................................................................. 17

3.2 Significance Thresholds ............................................................................................... 18

3.2.1 Construction Noise ................................................................................................. 18

3.2.2 Construction Vibration ........................................................................................... 18

3.2.3 Operations Noise .................................................................................................... 19

3.3 Project Design Features ................................................................................................ 20

3.4 Construction Noise Impacts ......................................................................................... 21

3.5 Construction Vibration Impacts.................................................................................... 24

3.6 Operation Impacts ........................................................................................................ 27

3.6.1 Product Dispensers and Vehicle Queueing ............................................................ 27

3.6.2 Product Delivery Trucks ........................................................................................ 28

3.6.3 Temporary Generator ............................................................................................. 30

3.6.4 Composite Operational Noise Levels .................................................................... 30

List of Figures

Figure 1. Project Site Map ..................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Noise Receptor Locations .................................................................................................... 15

List of Tables

Table 1. Typical Noise Levels ............................................................................................................... 8 Table 2. Culver City Interior and Exterior Noise Standards ............................................................... 11 Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

May 2024

Table 3. FTA Construction Vibration Impact Criteria for Building Damage ..................................... 13 Table 4. FTA Construction Vibration Impact Criteria for Human Annoyance ................................... 14 Table 5. Description of Noise Receptor Locations .............................................................................. 16 Table 6. Existing Ambient Noise Levels ............................................................................................. 16 Table 7. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels and Usage Factors .................................... 22 Table 8. On-Site Construction Noise Impacts ..................................................................................... 23 Table 9. Generator Noise Levels during Construction ........................................................................ 24 Table 10. Construction Equipment Vibration Levels .......................................................................... 25 Table 11. Construction Vibration Impacts – Building Damage .......................................................... 26 Table 12. Construction Vibration Impacts – Human Annoyance ........................................................ 26 Table 13. Costco Fuel Station Measured Noise Levels ....................................................................... 27 Table 14. Product Dispensers and Vehicle Queueing Noise Levels ................................................... 28 Table 15. Product Delivery Truck Noise Levels ................................................................................. 29 Table 16. Temporary Generator Noise Levels .................................................................................... 30 Table 17. Composite Operational Noise Impacts ................................................................................ 31

Appendices

Appendix A: Ambient Noise Measurements
Appendix B: Construction Noise and Vibration Calculations Worksheets Appendix C: Operation Noise Calculations Worksheets
Barghausen Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Costco Fuel Station Relocation Project
13463 Washington Boulevard
Culver City, California
Environmental Noise Impact Study

Acoustical Engineering Services, Inc.

Page 1 ends

City Council Meeting AgendaOctober 13, 2025

City Council Meeting Agenda
October 13, 2025