RPVCCA_SR_2011_04_05_02_Border_Issues_Status_ReportCrrvOF
TO:
FROM:
MEMORANDUM
HONORABLE MAYOR &CI~OUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,AICP,COM DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
DATE:APRIL 5,2011
SUBJECT:BORDER ISSUES STATUS REPORT ~n
REVIEWED:CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER ~
Project Manager:Kit Fox,AICP,Associate Planner (jJ)
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the current report on the status of Border Issues.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This month's report includes:
• A report on the preparation of the traffic study for the revised Ponte Vista project in
Los Angeles (San Pedro);
• A brief update on the proposed ChandlerRanch/Rolling Hills Country Club project in
Rolling Hills Estates and Torrance;
• A final report on the revised proposal for the expansion of Rolling Hills Covenant
Church in Rolling Hills Estates;and,
• A brief update on the status of the proposal for stadium lights at Palos Verdes
Peninsula High School in Rolling Hills Estates.
BACKGROUND
The following is the regular bi-monthly report to the City Council on various "Border Issues"
potentially affecting the residents of Rancho Palos Verdes.The complete text of the
current status report is available for review on the City's website at:
http://palosverdes.com/rpv/planning/border issues/201 0/2011 0405 Borderlssues StatusRpt.cfm
2-1
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
April 5, 2011
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Current Border Issues
Ponte Vista Project at Former Navy Housing Site, Los Angeles (San Pedro)
On February 24, 2011, the Planning and Land Use Committee of the Northwest San Pedro
Neighborhood Council (NWSPNC) received a presentation on the preparation of the new
traffic study for the revised, 1,135-unit Ponte Vista project. The developer’s traffic
consultant reviewed the methodology to be employed in the preparation of the report,
including the gathering of new traffic count data in Fall 2010; the new trip-generation
assumptions to be used for the project; and the addition of several more study intersections
(based upon public comments on the traffic study for the previous proposal), including
Western Avenue and Peninsula Verde Drive. Attached are draft figures and tables
summarizing the related projects to be included in the cumulative projects analysis;
weekday and Saturday traffic counts conducted in 2010; and the trip-generation
assumptions for the revised, 1,135-unit proposal. A follow-up session to present
preliminary traffic study results to the Planning and Land Use Committee was tentatively
scheduled for March 31, 2011. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future Border
Issues reports.
Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club Project, Rolling Hills Estates and Torrance
On January 31, 2011, the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission was scheduled to
continue its deliberations on the Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club project.
However, the project applicant requested a continuance to allow additional time to resolve
issues with the equestrian community (see attached Staff report and Daily Breeze article).
The public hearing was continued again to April 4, 2011.
On March 8, 2011, the Rolling Hills Estates City Council met in a special joint session with
the Park and Activities Commission and the Equestrian Committee to discuss possible
means to offset the loss of the horse overlay and a proposed equestrian trail on the project
site (see attached list). The project developer is proposing to guarantee $2 million in
equestrian-related improvements elsewhere in the City of Rolling Hills Estates if it is
relieved of the obligation to comply with the horse overlay and construct an equestrian trail
(see attached PV News article of March 10, 2011). Overall, the developer’s proposal has
received a favorable response so far. Staff will continue to monitor this project in future
Border Issues reports.
Rolling Hills Covenant Church Expansion Project, Rolling Hills Estates
On January 31, 2011, the Rolling Hills Estates Planning Commission adopted a resolution
recommending approval of the revised Rolling Hills Covenant Church project to the Rolling
Hills Estates City Council. After being postponed from February 8, 2011, at the applicant’s
2-2
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
April 5, 2011
Page 3
request, the City Council subsequently granted approval of the project on February 22,
2011. Copies of the Planning Commission and City Council Staff reports are attached.
Staff will remove this project from future Border Issues reports.
Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Proposal, Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School
District/Rolling Hills Estates
At its regular meeting of January 27, 2011, the School Board received an informational item
regarding the stadium lights proposal for Peninsula High School (see attached Daily Breeze
and PV News articles and Staff report). As discussed in the Staff report, the purpose of
agendizing this matter was to “re-state and clarify action taken at the July 22, 2010, Board
of Education meeting that authorized the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium
Lights Steering Committee to raise limited funds in order to develop necessary plans,
documentation, and estimated costs for the installation of stadium lights at Palos Verdes
Peninsula High School.” At the meeting, several residents surrounding the campus
expressed their continued objections to this proposal. Based upon comments attributed to
project proponents in the attached PV News article, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
will be prepared once fundraising has reached $250,000. Staff will continue to monitor this
project in future Border Issues reports.
New Border Issues
There are no new Border Issues on which to report at this time.
Attachments:
• Draft figures and tables from the Ponte Vista traffic study
• RHE PC Staff report for the Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club project
(dated 1/31/11)
• Daily Breeze article regarding the Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club project
(published 2/2/11)
• PV News item regarding equestrian issues and the Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills
Country Club project (published 3/3/11)
• List of “Proposed City-Wide Equestrian Improvements” related to the Chandler
Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club project (dated 3/8/11)
• PV News article regarding equestrian issues and the Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills
Country Club project (published 3/10/11)
• RHE PC Staff report for the Rolling Hills Covenant Church project (dated 1/31/11)
• RHE CC Staff report for the Rolling Hills Covenant Church project (dated 2/8/11)
• Daily Breeze article regarding the Rolling Hills Covenant Church project (published
2/10/11)
• RHE CC Staff report for the Rolling Hills Covenant Church project (dated 2/22/11)
2-3
MEMORANDUM: Border Issues Status Report
April 5, 2011
Page 4
Attachments (cont’d):
• PV News article regarding the Rolling Hills Covenant Church project (published
2/24/11)
• Daily Breeze article regarding the Peninsula High School stadium lights proposal
(published 1/27/11)
• PVPUSD Board of Education Staff report regarding Peninsula High School stadium
lights proposal (dated 1/27/11)
• PV News article regarding the Peninsula High School stadium lights proposal
(published 2/10/11)
• E-mail from Mark Sturgeon regarding the Peninsula High School stadium lights
proposal (received 2/16/11)
M:\Border Issues\Staff Reports\20110405_BorderIssues_StaffRpt.doc
2-4
2-5
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project
SATURDAY
PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
PROJECT PROJECT NAME DATA TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2]TRIP ENDS VOLUMES [2]
NO.STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL VOLUMES [2]IN OUT TOTAL
LA1 Proposed West Channel/Cabrillo Land Development 47 Acres [3]3,867 73 58 131 138 124 262 5,194 310 275 585
Miner Street and 22nd Street
LA2 Proposed 2006-CEN-3299 Townhouse 85 DU [4]494 6 31 37 29 15 44 482 22 18 40
Palos Verdes Street Housing Apartment 245 DU [5]1,629 25 100 125 99 53 152 1,566 64 63 127
550 and 560 S. Palos Verdes Street Retail 8,880 GLSF [6]381 5 4 9 16 17 33 444 22 21 43
Less 50% Pass-By [7](191)(3)(2)(5)(8)(9)(17)(222)(11)(11)(22)
Restaurant 3,000 GSF [8]381 18 17 35 19 14 33 475 22 20 42
Less 20% Pass-By [7](76)(4)(3)(7)(4)(3)(7)(95)(4)(4)(8)
LA3 Proposed San Pedro Waterfront (Bridge to Breakwater)Cruise Ship Terminal 2 Terminals [9]18,350 646 462 1,108 562 751 1,313 17,861 1,047 870 1,917
of the Port of Los Angeles Retail 175,000 GSF
425 S. Palos Verdes Street Restaurant 125,000 GSF
Berths 45-95 Conference Center 75,000 GSF
Warehouse 70,000 GSF
R&D Site 13 Acres
Public Open Space 18 Acres
LA4 Proposed Ocean View Apartment 158 DU [5]1,051 16 65 81 64 34 98 1,010 41 41 82
111 and 203-233 N. Harbor Boulevard Retail 8,000 GLSF [6]344 5 3 8 15 15 30 400 20 19 39
Less 50% Pass-By [7](172)(3)(2)(4)(8)(8)(15)(200)(10)(10)(20)
LA5 Proposed 281 W. 8th Street Townhouse 72 DU [4]418 5 27 32 25 12 37 408 18 16 34
Retail 7,000 GLSF [6]301 4 3 7 13 13 26 350 18 16 34
Less 50% Pass-By [7](151)(2)(2)(4)(7)(7)(13)(175)(9)(8)(17)
LA6 Proposed 420-430 W. 9th Street Condominium 25 DU [4]145 2 9 11 9 4 13 142 6 6 12
LA7 Proposed Sepia Homes Condominium 90 DU [4]523 7 33 40 31 16 47 510 23 19 42
812 S. Pacific Avenue
LA8 Under Port Police Station & Charter School Office 12,500 SF [10]3,583 323 189 512 80 120 200 1,100 55 55 110
Construction 330 S. Centre Street Police Headquarters 155 Employees
[NT]Charter School 580 Students
LA9 Proposed ENV-2005-5459-MND, TT-63729 Condominium 44 DU [4]256 3 16 19 15 8 23 249 11 10 21
26378 S. Vermont Avenue
LA10 Proposed TT-61196 Apartment 35 DU [5]233 4 14 18 14 8 22 224 9 9 18
315 N. Marine Avenue
LA11 Proposed China Shipping Container Terminal Marine Terminal 70 Acres [11]3,540 184 68 252 149 205 354 3,540 149 205 354
China Shipping Line - Phases II and III
Berths 97-108
LA12 Proposed TRAPAC Container Terminal Marine Terminal 57 Acres [12]2,100 128 79 207 86 124 210 2,100 86 124 210
TRAPAC Container Expansion
Berths 136-147
LA13 Proposed ENV-2007-1514-EA Condominium 94 DU [4]546 7 34 41 33 16 49 533 24 20 44
[NT]327 & 407 N. Harbor Boulevard
Table 6-1
LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS AND RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION FORECAST [1]
WEEKDAY
LAND USE DATA
City of Los Angeles
2
-
6
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project
SATURDAY
PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
PROJECT PROJECT NAME DATA TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2]TRIP ENDS VOLUMES [2]
NO.STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL VOLUMES [2]IN OUT TOTAL
LA14 Proposed Habitat for Humanity Single-Family Residential 8 DU [13]77 2 4 6 5 3 8 81 4 3 7
L Street and Lecouvreur Street
LA15 Proposed 534 Eubank Avenue Retail 20,000 GSF [6]859 12 8 20 37 38 75 999 51 47 98
Less 50% Pass-By [7](430)(6)(4)(10)(19)(19)(38)(500)(26)(24)(49)
LA16 Proposed Truck Parking and Dispatch Facility Office 1,440 GSF [14]16 2 0 2 0 2 2 3 1 0 1
525 E. E Street Warehouse 1,926 GSF [15]7 1 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0
LA17 Proposed Potential Industries Industrial 40,000 GSF [16]278 33 4 37 5 34 39 52 3 3 6
701 E. E Street
LA18 Proposed Electronic Balancing Expansion Industrial 24,000 GSF [16]168 19 3 22 3 20 23 32 1 2 3
600 E. D Street
LA19 Under ENV-2006-4723-EA Medical Office Building 303,000 GSF [17]2,481 139 37 176 69 187 256 2,481 69 187 256
Construction Kaiser Permanente South Bay Master Plan Warehouse 42,500 GSF
[NT]25825 Vermont Avenue Hospital 260 Beds
LA20 Proposed ENV-2008-32-EAF Condominium 5 DU [4]29 0 2 2 2 1 3 28 1 1 2
1616 W. 208th Street
LA21 Proposed ENV-2006-9652-MN Private Elementary School 128 Students [18]317 63 41 104 9 13 22 Nom.Nom.Nom.0
931 Frigate Avenue
LA22 Proposed Yang Ming Container Terminal Marine Terminal N/A [10]5,080 252 111 363 206 302 508 5,080 206 302 508
Berths 121-131
LA23 Proposed AA-2007-2601-PMLA-SL Condominium 4 DU [4]23 0 2 2 1 1 2 23 1 1 2
1616 W. 205th Street
LA24 Proposed Wilmington Waterfront Development [19]5,140 232 107 339 206 296 502
100 East Harry Bridges Boulevard Restaurant 12,000 GSF [8]1,900 90 79 169
Light Industrial 150,000 GSF [16]198 10 11 21
Retail 58,000 GSF [6]2,898 150 138 288
Open Space 15.5 Acres [20]188 21 14 35
LA25 Under Community Plan 97-0050-CPU Condominium 115 DU [4]668 9 42 51 40 20 60 652 29 25 54
Construction 401 Hawaiian Avenue Apartment 120 DU [5]798 12 49 61 48 26 74 767 31 31 62
[NT]Single-Family Residential 76 DU [13]727 14 43 57 49 28 77 766 38 33 71
Senior Housing 100 Occ. DU [21]348 5 8 13 10 6 16 251 15 15 30
LA26 Proposed AA-2008-2427-COC Condominium 4 DU [4]23 0 2 2 1 1 2 23 1 1 2
576 W. 10th Street
LA27 Proposed DIR-2008-4235-CLQ Office 6,500 GSF [14]72 9 1 10 2 8 10 15 2 1 3
529 N. Broad Avenue
LA28 Proposed ZA-2008-4396-ZAA Condominium 3 DU [4]17 0 1 1 1 1 2 17 1 0 1
1325 S. Beacon Street
LA29 Proposed ENV-2007-3326-EAF Apartment 7 DU [5]47 1 3 4 3 1 4 45 2 2 4
2345 S. Gaffey Street
WEEKDAY
Table 6-1 (Continued)
LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS AND RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION FORECAST [1]
LAND USE DATA
City of Los Angeles (continued)
2
-
7
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project
SATURDAY
PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
PROJECT PROJECT NAME DATA TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2]TRIP ENDS VOLUMES [2]
NO.STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL VOLUMES [2]IN OUT TOTAL
LA30 Under ZA-2007-2966-ZV Apartment 49 DU [5]326 5 20 25 20 10 30 313 13 12 25
Construction Toberman Village
[NT]201 N. Palos Verdes Street
LA31 Proposed AA-2007-1359-PMLA-CN Condominium 4 DU [4]23 0 2 2 1 1 2 23 1 1 2
1553 W. 205th Street
LA32 Proposed ENV-2007-1546-EAF Condominium 8 DU [4]46 1 3 4 3 1 4 45 2 2 4
1609 W. 224th Street
LA33 Proposed ENV-2007-1167-CE Condominium 4 DU [4]23 0 2 2 1 1 2 23 1 1 2
1658 W. 228th Street
LA34 Proposed ENV-2007-804-EAF Condominium 30 DU [4]174 2 11 13 11 5 16 170 8 6 14
25941 S. Belle Porte Avenue
LA35 Proposed TT-68723-CN Condominium 43 DU [4]250 3 16 19 15 7 22 244 11 9 20
255 W. 8th Street Apartment 4 DU [5]27 0 2 2 1 1 2 26 1 1 2
LA36 Proposed ENV-2008-4836-EAF Warehouse 43,000 GSF [15]153 10 3 13 4 10 14 53 4 2 6
901 E. E Street
LA37 Proposed ENV-2007-3097-MND Condominium 10 DU [4]58 1 3 4 3 2 5 57 3 2 5
1620 W. 237th Street
LA38 Proposed AA-2008-4022-PMLA Apartment 3 DU [5]20 0 2 2 1 1 2 19 1 1 2
945 Broad Avenue
LA39 Proposed ENV-2008-1046-EAF Convenience Market 2,700 GSF [22]1,993 91 90 181 72 70 142 2,330 104 104 208
1831 S. Pacific Avenue Less 50% Pass-By [7](997)(46)(45)(91)(36)(35)(71)(1,165)(52)(52)(104)
LA40 Proposed ENV-2008-95-EAF Apartment 8 DU [5]53 1 3 4 3 2 5 51 2 2 4
1616 W. 260th Street
LA41 Proposed CPC-2006-10244-ZC Condominium 57 DU [4]331 4 21 25 20 10 30 323 15 12 27
1450 W. Pacific Coast Highway
LA42 Proposed CPC-2009-542-GPA-ZA-HD-SPR-ZAA Apartment 520 DU [23]3,494 53 212 265 209 113 322 2,058 135 135 270
1311 W. Sepulveda Boulevard Retail 17,904 GLSF 769 11 7 18 32 35 67 895 46 43 89
Less 10% Internal Capture (77)(1)(1)(2)(3)(4)(7)(89)(5)(4)(9)
Less 50% Pass-by (346)(5)(3)(8)(15)(16)(31)(403)(21)(20)(41)
Remove Warehouse (300)Employees (1,167)(110)(43)(153)(62)(115)(177)(177)(19)(11)(30)
Remove Office (10,000)GSF (110)(14)(2)(16)(3)(12)(15)(24)(2)(2)(4)
LA43 Proposed AA-2007-1166-PMLA-CN Condominium 4 DU [4]23 0 2 2 1 1 2 23 1 1 2
1658 W. 209th Street
LA44 Under Harry Bridges Span School Elementary School (K-8)1,278 Students [24]1,649 316 259 575 94 98 192 Nom.Nom.Nom.0
Construction 1235 Broad Avenue
[NT]
LA45 Proposed Pacific Pointe Project Office 275,000 GSF [14]3,028 375 51 426 70 340 410 652 61 52 113
18900 S. Vermont Avenue Retail 10,000 GSF [6]429 6 4 10 18 19 37 500 25 24 49
Less 50% Pass-By [7](215)(3)(2)(5)(9)(10)(19)(250)(13)(12)(25)
Table 6-1 (Continued)
LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS AND RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION FORECAST [1]
WEEKDAY
LAND USE DATA
City of Los Angeles (continued)
2
-
8
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project
SATURDAY
PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
PROJECT PROJECT NAME DATA TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2]TRIP ENDS VOLUMES [2]
NO.STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL VOLUMES [2]IN OUT TOTAL
LA46 Proposed Public Storage Self-Storage 185,054 GSF [25]463 17 11 28 24 24 48 431 37 37 74
1437-1459 W. 190th Street
LA47 Proposed HRB10-004 Industrial 266,005 GSF [16]1,854 216 29 245 31 227 258 352 17 20 37
Capelin Distribution Center
20000 S. Western Avenue
LA48 Proposed ENV-2009-1034-EAF, HRB09-003 Private School (K-8)225 Students [26]2,030 112 91 203 Nom.Nom.0 Nom.Nom.Nom.0
[NT]1717 W. 255th Street Existing Private School (K-8)(47)Students [26](420)(23)(19)(42)Nom.Nom.0 Nom.Nom.Nom.0
Existing Day Care Center (20)Students [27](90)(8)(8)(16)(8)(8)(16)(8)(1)(1)(2)
LA49 Proposed HRB10-005 Affordable Housing 76 DU [4]442 6 27 33 27 13 40 431 19 17 36
1524 Palos Verdes Drive North
[28]
LA50 Proposed HRB08-001 High School 810 Students [29]1,385 231 109 340 49 56 105 494 57 32 89
[NT]3200 S. Alma St Adult Evening School 450 Students [30]540 Nom.Nom.0 35 19 54 189 13 10 23
LA51 Proposed HRB09-002 Grain Rail Transfer Facility 4 Acres [16]208 25 5 30 6 23 29 34 2 2 4
[NT]522 Flint Avenue
LA52 Proposed ENV-2009-3810-EAF, HRB10-002 Convenience Market 2,480 GLSF [22]1,830 83 83 166 66 64 130 2,140 96 95 191
1655 E. Anaheim Street Less 50% Pass-By [7](915)(42)(42)(83)(33)(32)(65)(1,070)(48)(48)(96)
Office 2,852 GSF [14]31 4 0 4 1 3 4 7 1 0 1
LA53 Proposed AA-2010-1580-PMLA Condominium 3 DU [4]17 0 1 1 1 1 2 17 1 0 1
906 W. 30th Street
LA54 Proposed ZA-2010-1604-CU Self-Storage 44,341 GSF [25]111 4 3 7 6 6 12 103 9 9 18
750 W. Basin Street
LA55 Proposed ENV-2010-1216-CE Condominium 2 DU [4]12 0 1 1 1 0 1 11 1 0 1
1401 W. 253rd Street Existing Commercial (3,500)GSF [6](150)(2)(2)(4)(6)(7)(13)(175)(9)(8)(17)
LA56 Proposed ENV-2009-4097-CE Family Resource Center and 15,398 GSF [27]1,220 100 89 189 90 102 192 96 16 10 26
Harbor Interfaith Services Childcare Facilities
678 W. 9th Street
LA57 Proposed ZA-2009-3972-CEX Park 7,319 GSF [31]Nom.Nom.Nom.0 Nom.Nom.0 Nom.Nom.Nom.0
100 N. Avalon Boulevard
LA58 Proposed ENV-2009-3936-EAF, HRB10-001 Day Care 84 Students [27]376 36 31 67 32 37 69 33 6 3 9
25621 S. Normandie Avenue
LA59 Proposed HRB10-006 Bank with Drive-Through 3,700 GSF [32]548 26 20 46 48 48 96 319 51 47 98
1603 W. 25th Street Less 20% Pass-By [33](110)(5)(4)(9)(10)(10)(19)(64)(10)(9)(20)
Existing Auto Care Center (1,046)GLSF [34](40)(2)(1)(3)(2)(2)(4)(17)(2)(2)(4)
LA60 Proposed META Housing Corporation Senior Housing 70 DU [21]244 3 6 9 7 4 11 176 11 10 21
303 S. Pacific Avenue
Table 6-1 (Continued)
LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS AND RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION FORECAST [1]
WEEKDAY
LAND USE DATA
City of Los Angeles (continued)
2
-
9
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project
SATURDAY
PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
PROJECT PROJECT NAME DATA TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2]TRIP ENDS VOLUMES [2]
NO.STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL VOLUMES [2]IN OUT TOTAL
R1 Partially Trump National Golf Club Single-Family Residential 54 DU [13]517 10 31 41 35 20 55 544 27 23 50
Built Palos Verdes Drive South/west of Affordable Housing 4 DU [13]38 1 2 3 3 1 4 40 2 2 4
[NT]Shoreline Park (5 Homes Built)
R2 Partially Ocean Front Estates Single-Family Residential 5 DU [13]48 1 3 4 3 2 5 50 3 2 5
Built Seaward side of Palos Verdes Drive West (74 Homes Built)
[NT]terminus of Hawthorne Bouelvard
R3 Partially TTM No. 52666 Single-Family Residential 3 DU [13]29 1 1 2 2 1 3 30 2 1 3
Built 3200 Palos Verdes Drive West (10 Homes Built)
[NT]
R4 Proposed Marymount College Facilities Expansion Junior College Bldg Expansion 77,504 SF [35]1,931 149 51 200 83 92 175 888 65 47 112
30800 Palos Verdes Drive East Demolish Existing Building (18,022)SF
(793 Student Enrollment Cap with 250 BA Degree Program (University)250 Students
student Bachelor of Arts Degree Program Existing Junior College (250)Students
and 150 student Weekend Enrollment)Jr. College Weekend Enrollment 67 Students
R5 Proposed Crestridge Estate LLC Senior Center 10,000 SF [36]229 10 6 16 6 9 15 91 6 5 11
5601 Crestridge Road Senior Condominium 90 DU [21]313 4 8 12 8 6 14 226 14 13 27
R6 Proposed Green Hills Memorial Park Master Plan Cemetary 27.3 Acres [37]129 4 1 5 8 15 23 162 43 41 84
27501 S. Western Avenue
R7 Permit Hawthorne/Crest Office Building Office 7,232 GSF [14]80 10 1 11 2 9 11 17 2 1 3
Expired 10/09 29941 Hawthorne Boulevard
R8 Proposed Zone 2 Landslide Moratorium Single-Family Residential 47 DU [13]450 9 26 35 30 17 47 474 23 21 44
Ordinance Revision
North of Palos Verdes Drive
between Narcissa Drive and Peppertree Drive
R9 Under The Mirandela Project [38]272 2 16 18 16 9 25
Construction Northwest corner of Crestridge Road and Senior Apartment 34 DU [21]85 5 5 10
[NT]Crenshaw Boulevard
R10 Proposed Northwest corner of Granvia Altamira and Pharmacy 10,880 GSF [39]959 17 12 29 57 56 113 850 43 42 85
Hawthorne Boulevard Remove Gas-Station (8)VFP [40](4,341)(67)(66)(133)(77)(76)(153)(1,636)(41)(39)(80)
R11 Approved Highridge Condominium Project Condominium 28 DU [4]163 2 10 12 10 5 15 159 7 6 13
28220 Highridge Road
R12 Approved St. John Fisher Church Expansion Day Care Center 40 Students [27]179 17 15 32 16 17 33 16 3 1 4
5488 Crest Road New Building 32,426 SF [41]295 11 7 18 9 9 18 336 82 33 115
Remove Existing Building (10,329)SF [41](94)(4)(2)(6)(3)(3)(6)(107)(26)(11)(37)
R13 Proposed Chevron with Car Wash Gas Station With Convenience 6 VFP [42]917 37 35 72 43 41 84 1,210 61 60 121
27774 Hawthorne Boulevard Market and Car Wash
R14 Approved Point Vicente Animal Hospital Animal Hospital 5,759 GSF [43]270 17 6 23 11 16 27 270 11 16 27
31270 Palos Verdes Drive West
R15 Proposed The Annenberg Project at [44]596 81 30 111 51 59 110 297 5 14 19
Lower Point Vicente
31501 Palos Verdes Drive West
Table 6-1 (Continued)
LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS AND RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION FORECAST [1]
WEEKDAY
LAND USE DATA
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
2
-
1
0
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project
SATURDAY
PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
PROJECT PROJECT NAME DATA TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2]TRIP ENDS VOLUMES [2]
NO.STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL VOLUMES [2]IN OUT TOTAL
RH1 Proposed Rolling Hills Covenant Church Expansion Church 1,650 Seats [45]1,000 68 28 96 41 59 100 Nom.Nom.Nom.Nom.
2221-2222 Palos Verdes Drive North
RH2 Proposed South Coast County Golf Course Golf Course 18 Holes [46]643 32 8 40 23 27 50 731 41 42 83
25706 Hawthorne Boulevard Club House 29,000 SF
RH3 Built/Rolling Hills Villas Senior Condominium 41 Occ. DU [21]143 2 3 5 4 3 7 103 6 6 12
Partially 901 Deep Valley Drive Retail 1,526 GLSF [6]66 1 1 2 3 3 6 76 4 3 7
Occupied
[NT]
RH4 Built/Silver Spur Court Condominium 18 DU [4]105 1 7 8 6 3 9 102 4 4 8
Partially 981 Silver Spur Road
Occupied
[NT]
RH5 Approved Silverdes Medical Office Project Medical Office 24,518 GSF [47]886 44 12 56 23 62 85 220 51 38 89
828 Silver Spur Road Office 5,124 GSF [14]56 7 1 8 1 7 8 12 1 1 2
RH6 Approved Deep Valley Condominiums [48]636 (2)15 13 30 21 51
627 Deep Valley Drive Condominium 58 DU [4]329 15 12 27
Retail 5,810 GSF [6]290 15 13 28
Less 10% Pass-By (29)(2)(1)(3)
Less 10% Internal Capture (29)(2)(1)(3)
Existing Car Wash (13,608)SF [49](1,920)(96)(96)(192)
Existing Auto Repair (13,608)SF [50](900)(41)(49)(90)
RH7 Approved Mediterranean Village Condominium 75 DU [4]436 6 27 33 26 13 39 425 19 16 35
927 Deep Valley Drive Retail 2,000 SF [6]86 1 1 2 3 4 7 100 5 5 10
RH8 Approved 827 Deep Valley Drive Senior Condominium 16 DU [21]93 1 6 7 5 3 8 91 4 4 8
RH9 Proposed Butcher Ranch Subdivision Single-Family Residential 11 DU [13]105 2 6 8 7 4 11 111 5 5 10
Palos Verdes Drive North and
Montecillo Drive
RH10 Approved Crest Road Building Office 4,545 GSF [14]50 6 1 7 1 6 7 11 1 1 2
5883 Crest Road Retail 1,215 GLSF [6]52 1 0 1 2 3 5 61 3 3 6
RH11 Proposed Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club [51]1,486 24 42 66 152 70 222
26311 and 27000 Palos Verdes Drive East Single-Family Residential 114 DU [13]1,149 56 50 106
Quality Restaurant 338 Seats [52]950 66 46 112
Health/Fitness Club 7,150 GSF [53]149 9 11 20
Tennis Courts 5 TC [54]139 8 7 15
New Social Club Members 100 Members [55]80 3 4 7
RH12 Proposed Brickwalk LLC Residential Project Condominium 148 DU [4]860 11 54 65 52 25 77 839 38 32 70
655-683 Deep Valley Drive and Retail 14,200 GLSF [6]610 9 5 14 26 27 53 710 36 33 69
924-950 Indian Peak Road
RH13 Proposed Silver Center Project Retail/Commercial 4,745 GLSF [6]204 3 2 5 9 9 18 237 12 11 23
449 Silver Spur Road
RH14 Proposed Promenade at the Peninsula Condominium 66 DU [4]383 5 24 29 23 11 34 374 17 14 31
520, 550, and 580 Deep Valley Drive Retail 16,620 GLSF [6]714 10 7 17 30 32 62 831 42 39 81
Table 6-1 (Continued)
LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS AND RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION FORECAST [1]
WEEKDAY
LAND USE DATA
City of Rolling Hills Estates
2
-
1
1
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project
SATURDAY
PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
PROJECT PROJECT NAME DATA TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2]TRIP ENDS VOLUMES [2]
NO.STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL VOLUMES [2]IN OUT TOTAL
RH15 Proposed 2901 Palos Verdes Drive North Single-Family Residential 3 DU [13]29 1 1 2 2 1 3 30 2 1 3
RH16 Proposed Tanglewood Subdivision Single-Family Residential 3 DU [13]29 1 1 2 2 1 3 30 2 1 3
Northeast corner of Tanglewood Lane and
Rolling Hills Road
RH17 Proposed Continental Development Project Condominium 70 DU [4]407 5 26 31 24 12 36 397 18 15 33
627 Silver Spur Road Commercial 30,000 GSF [14]330 41 6 47 8 37 45 71 6 6 12
C1 Proposed Hopkins Real Estate Group Retail 41,000 GLSF [6]1,761 25 16 41 75 78 153 2,049 104 96 200
20700 S. Avalon Boulevard
C2 Under Boulevards at South Bay Condominium 1,150 DU [56]68,591 1,266 1,244 2,510 2,955 2,806 5,761 6,521 292 249 541
Construction Apartment 400 DU 2,556 104 104 208
[NT]Commercial 1,654,000 SF 57,983 2,705 2,423 5,128
Restaurant 141,125 SF 12,010 537 497 1,034
Hotel 300 Rooms 2,457 121 95 216
C3 Proposed Carson Street Master Plan Mixed-Use
C4 Proposed Shell Specific Plan Industrial 1,500,000 SF [57]10,440 1,033 227 1,260 271 1,019 1,290 3,736 168 357 525
20945 S. Wilmington Avenue 83,000 GLSF [6]3,564 51 32 83 152 158 310 4,148 211 195 406
C5 Proposed BP Shop Building Warehouse 127,273 GSF [15]453 30 8 38 10 31 41 157 11 6 17
DOR 1365-2010
2350 E. 223rd Street
C6 Proposed Cityview Single-Family Residential 29 DU [13]278 6 16 22 18 11 29 292 14 13 27
616 E. Carson Street Condominium 123 DU [4]715 9 45 54 43 21 64 697 31 27 58
Commercial 20,000 GLSF [6]859 12 8 20 37 38 75 999 51 47 98
C7 Under Gabuten Shopping Center Commercial 8,700 GSF [6]374 5 4 9 16 16 32 435 22 21 43
Construction 22005 S. Main Street
[NT]
C8 Under Harbor Community Church of God Church 11,516 GSF [41]105 4 2 6 3 3 6 119 29 12 41
Construction 21739-21745 Dolores Street
[NT]
C9 Proposed Judson Baptist Church Church 13,023 GSF [41]119 4 3 7 3 4 7 135 33 13 46
451 E. 223rd Street (Demolish Existing Church)(6,465)GSF [41](59)(2)(2)(4)(2)(2)(4)(67)(16)(7)(23)
C10 Under Pacific Planning Group Mixed-Use Retail 16,530 GLSF [6]710 10 7 17 30 32 62 826 42 39 81
Construction 101-155 E. Lomita Boulevard Condominium 1 DU [4]6 0 0 0 1 0 1 6 0 0 0
[NT]Storage 105,490 GSF [15]376 25 7 32 9 25 34 130 9 5 14
C11 On Hold ProLogis Warehouse 273,323 GSF [15]973 65 17 82 22 65 87 336 23 13 36
2211-2241/2307 E. Carson Street
C12 Proposed Related Affordable Housing 65 DU [4]378 5 24 29 23 11 34 369 17 14 31
425-437 E. Carson Street Live/Work
Table 6-1 (Continued)
LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS AND RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION FORECAST [1]
WEEKDAY
LAND USE DATA
City of Rolling Hills Estates (continued)
City of Carson
2
-
1
2
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project
SATURDAY
PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
PROJECT PROJECT NAME DATA TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2]TRIP ENDS VOLUMES [2]
NO.STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL VOLUMES [2]IN OUT TOTAL
C13 Under Safran City Center Project Condominium 150 DU [4]872 11 55 66 52 26 78 851 38 33 71
Construction 708-724 E. Carson Street Senior Housing 86 DU [21]299 4 7 11 8 6 14 216 13 13 26
[NT]21720-21814 S. Avalon Boulevard Restaurant 8,500 GSF [8]1,081 51 47 98 56 39 95 1,346 64 56 120
Retail 20,000 GSF [6]859 12 8 20 37 38 75 999 51 47 98
C14 Proposed DOR 1379-10 Landfill Operation Center 6,528 GSF [16]46 5 1 6 1 5 6 8 0 1 1
20400 S. Main Street Water Treatment Structure 7,179 GSF
C15 Proposed CUP 799-10 Adult Day Care 2,856 GSF [27]226 19 16 35 17 19 36 18 3 2 5
21601-21607 S. Moneta Avenue
C16 Proposed DOR 1334-09 Gas Station with Convenience 2,254 GSF [58]2,190 91 88 179 110 109 219 2,190 110 109 219
22235 S. Figueroa Street Market
C17 Approved DOR 1339-09 Single-Family Residential 7 DU [13]67 1 4 5 4 3 7 71 4 3 7
628-640 E. Lincoln Street
24007 Broad Street
C18 Approved CUP 722-09 Day Care 20 Students [27]90 8 8 16 8 8 16 8 1 1 2
129 E. 223rd Street
C19 Approved DOR 1295-08 Mixed-Use Business Park 265,000 GSF [59]3,381 318 61 379 79 263 342 678 16 53 69
20630 Figueroa Street
C20 Proposed DOR 1294-08 Apartment 197 DU [5]1,310 20 80 100 79 43 122 1,259 51 51 102
20331 S. Main Street
C21 Proposed DOR 1282-08 Office 10,661 GSF [14]117 15 2 17 3 13 16 25 2 2 4
440 E. Sepulveda Boulevard Condominium 8 DU [4]46 1 3 4 3 1 4 45 2 2 4
C22 Approved CUP 352-88 Condominium 38 DU [4]221 3 14 17 13 7 20 215 10 8 18
22100 Dolores Street
C23 Proposed CUP 696-08 Multi-Family Residential 5 DU [5]33 1 2 3 2 1 3 32 2 1 3
214 E. 220th Street
C24 Proposed DOR 1329-09 Rectory 3,075 GSF [41]28 1 1 2 1 1 2 32 8 3 11
21900 S. Main Street
C25 Proposed DOR 1391-10 Industrial Condominium 35,000 GSF [16]244 28 4 32 4 30 34 46 2 3 5
21205 S. Main Street 10 DU
LB1 Proposed West Gateway - New Urban Community Condominium 391 DU [4]2,272 29 143 172 136 67 203 2,217 99 85 184
8 square blocks situated at the entry to the Apartment 409 DU [5]2,720 42 167 209 165 89 254 2,614 107 106 213
City's downtown core.Retail 15,000 GLSF [6]644 9 6 15 27 29 56 750 38 35 73
LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS AND RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION FORECAST [1]
Table 6-1 (Continued)
WEEKDAY
LAND USE DATA
City of Carson (continued)
City of Long Beach
2
-
1
3
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project
SATURDAY
PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
PROJECT PROJECT NAME DATA TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2]TRIP ENDS VOLUMES [2]
NO.STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL VOLUMES [2]IN OUT TOTAL
T1 Approved TorMed Medical Center Expansion Hospital 389,216 GSF [60]6,422 257 179 436 186 258 444 3,962 440 440 880
3330 Lomita Boulevard (Existing Medical Office)(23,764)GSF [47](859)(43)(12)(55)(22)(60)(82)(213)(49)(37)(86)
Northeast corner of Skypark Drive and
Medical Center Drive
T2 Under CUP04-00007 Office 3,600 GSF [14]40 5 1 6 1 4 5 9 1 0 1
Construction 24510 Hawthorne Boulevard Restaurant 1,030 GSF [61]737 27 18 45 14 13 27 717 27 29 56
[NT]Condominium 14 DU [4]81 1 5 6 5 2 7 79 4 3 7
T3 Approved CUP07-00016, DOT Case No. OUT09-002 Office 222,189 GSF [14]2,446 303 41 344 56 275 331 527 49 42 91
2740 Lomita Boulevard Medical Office 129,020 GSF [47]4,661 235 62 297 120 326 446 1,156 267 201 468
T4 Under Standard Pacific Homes Condominium 33 DU [4]192 3 12 15 11 6 17 187 9 7 16
Construction 2303 Jefferson Street
[NT]
T5 Approved Sunrise Senior Living Assisted Living 103 Beds [62]274 9 5 14 10 13 23 227 16 18 34
25535 Hawthorne Boulevard
T6 Approved CUP07-00005 Condominium 12 DU [4]70 1 4 5 4 2 6 68 3 3 6
3525 Maricopa Street
T7 Approved CUP07-00025 Retail 1,090 GLSF [6]47 1 0 1 2 2 4 54 3 2 5
24255 Hawthorne Boulevard General Office 1,122 GSF [14]12 2 0 2 0 2 2 3 0 0 0
Apartment 6 DU [5]40 1 2 3 3 1 4 38 2 1 3
T8 Approved CUP08-00025 Drug Store with Drive-Through 12,850 GSF [39]1,133 19 15 34 67 66 133 1,010 51 50 101
23248 Hawthorne Boulevard
T9 Approved CUP08-00015 Shopping Center 20,300 GLSF [6]872 12 8 20 37 39 76 1,014 51 48 99
3720 Pacific Coast Highway
T10 Approved Providence Medical Medical Office Bldg - Phase I 106,200 GSF [47]3,837 193 51 244 99 268 367 952 220 166 386
CUP08-00011 (Existing Office)(85,000)GSF [14](936)(116)(16)(132)(22)(105)(127)(201)(19)(16)(35)
5215 Torrance Boulevard Medical Office Bldg - Phase II 68,435 GSF [47]2,473 124 33 157 64 173 237 613 141 107 248
T11 Approved CUP09-00018 Medical Office 66,000 GSF [47]2,385 120 32 152 62 166 228 591 137 103 240
2841 Lomita Boulevard (Existing Manufacturing)(66,000)GSF [63](252)(37)(11)(48)(17)(31)(48)(98)(9)(9)(18)
T12 EIR CUP08-00026 Medical Office 92,000 GSF [47]3,324 167 45 212 86 232 318 824 190 144 334
Required 20911 Earl Street
T13 Under CUP07-00008 Condominium 7 DU [4]41 1 2 3 3 1 4 40 2 1 3
Construction 1620 Gramercy Avenue Shopping Center 2,600 GLSF [6]112 2 1 3 5 5 10 130 7 6 13
[NT]
T14 Approved CUP04-00004 Synagogue 23,914 GSF [64]254 2 1 3 19 21 40 141 27 38 65
1918 Artesia Boulevard
T15 Under CUP07-00024 Office Condominium 12,741 GSF [14]140 18 2 20 3 16 19 30 3 2 5
Construction 1104 Sartori Avenue
[NT]
T16 Approved CUP07-00031 Condominium 6 DU [4]35 1 2 3 2 1 3 34 2 1 3
2319 Apple Avenue
LAND USE DATA
Table 6-1 (Continued)
LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS AND RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION FORECAST [1]
WEEKDAY
City of Torrance
2
-
1
4
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project
SATURDAY
PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
PROJECT PROJECT NAME DATA TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2]TRIP ENDS VOLUMES [2]
NO.STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL VOLUMES [2]IN OUT TOTAL
T17 Approved CUP07-00033 Industrial 30,000 GSF [16]210 25 3 28 3 26 29 40 2 2 4
435 Maple Avenue
T18 Approved CUP08-00010 Day Spa 27,000 GSF [65]330 33 0 33 7 32 39 1,370 49 88 137
2433 Moreton Street
T19 Approved CUP08-00031 Industrial Condominium 14,929 GSF [16]104 12 2 14 2 12 14 20 1 1 2
19701 Mariner Avenue
T20 Approved Toyota Dealership and Showroom Auto Dealership 16,978 GSF [66]566 25 9 34 17 27 44 357 26 24 50
2909 Pacific Coast Highway
T21 Approved Robinson Helicopter Manufacturing Addition 133,720 GSF [63]511 76 22 98 35 63 98 199 19 18 37
BLD09-01289
2931 Airport Drive
T22 Proposed Wal-Mart Superstore 75,400 GSF [67]4,316 54 26 80 189 188 377 5,359 284 273 557
BLD10-00478
22015 Hawthorne Boulevard
L1 Built SP No. 978 Commercial 14,330 GLSF [6]615 9 5 14 26 27 53 716 36 34 70
[NT]2040 & 2046 Lomita Boulevard
L2 Approved TTM No. 60165 Senior Housing 20 Occ. DU [21]70 1 2 3 2 1 3 50 3 3 6
25819-25 Eshelman Avenue
L3 Approved CUP 242, TTM No. 067343 Senior Housing 16 Occ. DU [21]56 1 1 2 2 1 3 40 3 2 5
25316 Ebony Lane
L4 Approved SP No. 1096 Office 11,100 GSF [14]122 15 2 17 3 14 17 26 3 2 5
Southeast corner of Western Avenue and
262nd Street
L5 Approved SP 1003, HVP 73, TTM 53874 Condominium 16 DU [4]93 1 6 7 5 3 8 91 4 4 8
25829-25837 Eshelman Avenue
L6 Proposed SP 1014, TPM 61155 Condominium 3 DU [4]17 0 1 1 1 1 2 17 1 0 1
1837 and 1839 W. 257th Street
L7 Appealed SP 1049 Retail 18,285 GLSF [6]785 11 7 18 33 35 68 914 46 43 89
2244 Pacific Coast Highway
L8 Approved SP 1130 Commercial 1,076 GSF [6]46 1 0 1 2 2 4 54 3 2 5
2266 Lomita Boulevard
L9 Approved CUP 269, SP 1131 Convenience Store 2,402 GSF [22]1,773 81 80 161 64 62 126 2,073 93 92 185
2477 Lomita Boulevard Addition to Car Wash 270 GSF [49]40 None None 0 2 2 4 40 2 2 4
L10 Proposed SP 1132 Storage Building 2,250 GSF [15]8 1 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 0
2344 Lomita Boulevard
Table 6-1 (Continued)
LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS AND RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION FORECAST [1]
WEEKDAY
LAND USE DATA
City of Torrance (continued)
City of Lomita
2
-
1
5
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project
SATURDAY
PROJECT DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
PROJECT PROJECT NAME DATA TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2]TRIP ENDS VOLUMES [2]
NO.STATUS ADDRESS/LOCATION LAND-USE SIZE SOURCE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL VOLUMES [2]IN OUT TOTAL
L11 Proposed CUP 268, TPM 066806, SP 1123 Condominium 3 DU [4]17 0 1 1 1 1 2 17 1 0 1
25322 Cypress Street
LAC 1 Approved 7-Eleven Convenience Store 2,400 GSF [22]1,771 81 80 161 64 62 126 2,071 93 92 185
1259 W. Carson Street Commercial 2,850 GSF [6]122 2 1 3 5 6 11 142 7 7 14
LAC 2 Proposed R2007-00791 Adult Cabaret 4,325 GSF [68]1,670 None None 0 107 60 167 1,670 95 72 167
20320 Hamilton Avenue (Existing Furniture Store)(4,325)GSF [69](22)(1)0 (1)(1)(1)(2)(21)(2)(2)(4)
LAC 3 Approved R2008-00597 Gym 44,000 GSF [53]1,449 27 34 61 88 67 155 918 55 67 122
958 Sepulveda Boulevard (Existing Commercial)(44,000)GSF [6](1,889)(27)(17)(44)(80)(84)(164)(2,199)(112)(103)(215)
232,982 9,276 6,314 15,590 9,528 11,763 21,291 206,240 11,305 10,645 21,950
[1]Source: City of Los Angeles City Planning Department, City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, City of Los Angeles WLA Related Projects Map (Bing.com), City of Rancho Palos Verdes Planning Department, City of Rancho Palos Verdes Estates Planning Department, City of Rolling Hills Planning
Planning Department, City of Rolling Hills Estates Planning Department, City of Carson Planning Division, City of Long Beach Planning Department, City of Torrance Community Development Department, City of Lomita Planning Department, and Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning.
The peak hour traffic volumes were forecast based on either related projects data obtained from the respective agencies or applied trip rates as provided in the ITE "Trip Generation", 8th Edition, 2008 (as referenced in the Project Data Source column).
[2]Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving.
[3]Source: "San Pedro Mixed-Use Development Traffic Study", by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc.
[4]ITE Land Use Code 230 (Residential Condominium/Townhome) trip generation average rates.
[5]ITE Land Use Code 220 (Apartment) trip generation average rates.
[6]ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) trip generation average rates.
[7]Pass-by trips are made as intermediate stops on the way from an origin to a primary trip destination without a route diversion. Pass-by trips are attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent street or roadway that offers direct access to the site. Pass-by reductions were based on the City of Los Angeles
Department of Transportation policy on pass-by trips.
[8]ITE Land Use Code 932 (High-Turnover Restaurant) trip generation average rates.
[9]Source: Traffic Study for the San Pedro Waterfront Project, prepared by Fehr & Peers, May 2008.
[10]Source: Traffic Study for the San Pedro Waterfront Project, prepared by Fehr & Peers, May 2008. Daily trip ends from LADOT Case Number 2005-CEN-2126.
[11]Source: Berths 97-109 Container Terminal Project - Recirculated Draft EIR, prepared by CH2M Hill, April 2008. Daily trip ends estimated based on the assumption that the higher of the AM or PM total peak hour traffic volume typically represents 10 percent of the daily traffic volume.
[12]Source: Berths 136-147 Terminal EIS/EIR, prepared by SAIC, November 2007. Daily trip ends estimated based on the assumption that the higher of the AM or PM total peak hour traffic volume typically represents 10 percent of the daily traffic volume.
[13]ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single Family Detached Housing) trip generation average rates.
[14]ITE Land Use Code 710 (General Office Building) trip generation average rates.
[15]ITE Land Use Code 150 (Warehouse) trip generation average rates.
[16]ITE Land Use Code 110 (Light Industrial) trip generation average rates.
[17]LADOT trip generation forecast. Directional distribution for the ITE Land Use Code 720 (Medical-Dental Office) obtained from the ITE "Trip Generation," 7th Edition, 2003.
[18]ITE Land Use Code 536 (Private School [K-12]) trip generation average rates.
[19]Source: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Wilmington Waterfront Development Project, prepared by Jones & Stokes, December 2008. Saturday trip generation forecast based on applied trip rates as provided in the ITE "Trip Generation," 7th Edition, 2003.
[20]ITE Land Use Code 412 (County Park) trip generation average rates.
[21]ITE Land Use Code 252 (Senior Adult Housing-Attached) trip generation average rates.
[22]ITE Land Use Code 851 (Convenience Market [Open 24 Hours]) trip generation average rates.
[23]Source: "1311 West Sepulveda Boulevard Project" Traffic Impact Study, prepared by LLG Engineers, July 2009.
[24]ITE Land Use Code 520 (Elementary School) trip generation average rates.
[25]ITE Land Use Code 151 (Mini-Warehouse) trip generation average rates.
[26]ITE Land Use Code 534 (Private School [K-8]) trip generation average rates. Daily trip ends estimated based on the assumption that the higher of the AM or PM total peak hour traffic volume typically represents 10 percent of the daily traffic volume.
[27]ITE Land Use Code 565 (Day Care Center) trip generation average rates.
[28]Source: "Traffic Impact Study - LAUSD South Region High School #15," prepared June 30, 2008.
[29]ITE Land Use Code 530 (High School) trip generation average rates.
[30]ITE Land Use Code 540 (Junior/Community College) trip generation average rates.
[31]ITE Land Use Code 411 (City Park) trip generation average rates.
[32]ITE Land Use Code 912 (Drive-In Bank) trip generation average rates.
[33]Source: "South Shores Center Project" Draft Traffic Impact Study, prepared by LLG Engineers, June 2010.
[34]ITE Land Use Code 942 (Automobile Care Center) trip generation average rates. Daily trip ends estimated based on the assumption that the higher of the AM or PM total peak hour traffic volume typically represents 10 percent of the daily traffic volume. Saturday Mid-day peak hour traffic volumes
based on Weekday PM trip generation average rates.
Table 6-1 (Continued)
LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS AND RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION FORECAST [1]
WEEKDAY
LAND USE DATA
City of Lomita (continued)
County of Los Angeles
TOTAL
2
-
1
6
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project
[35]Source: Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project Bachelor of Arts Degree Program Environmental Impact Report Appendix D, January 2010.
[36]ITE Land Use Code 495 (Recreational Community Center) trip generation average rates.
[37]ITE Land Use Code 566 (Cemetary) trip generation average rates.
[38]The AM and PM peak hour trip generation forecast based on County of Los Angeles trip generation rates for townhomes/condominiums consistent with the "Traffic Impact Analysis for Senior Apartment Project", prepared by LLG Engineers, January 15, 2009.
[39]ITE Land Use Code 881 (Pharmacy/Drugstore with Drive-Through) trip generation average rates. Saturday PM mid-day peak hour traffic volumes represent ten percent of the Saturday daily trip generation forecast.
[40]ITE Land Use Code 853 (Convenience Market with Gas Pumps) trip generation average rates.
[41]ITE Land Use Code 560 (Church) trip generation average rates.
[42]ITE Land Use Code 946 (Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market and Car Wash) trip generation average rates. Saturday PM mid-day peak hour traffic volumes represent ten percent of the Saturday daily trip generation forecast.
[43]ITE Land Use Code 640 (Animal Hospital/Veterinary Clinic) trip generation average rates. Daily trip ends estimated based on the assumption that the higher of the AM or PM total peak hour traffic volume typically represents 10 percent of the daily traffic volume.
[44]Source: "The Annenberg Project at Lower Point Vicente" Traffic Impact Study, prepared by LLG Engineers, July 2010.
[45]Source: City of Rolling Hills Planning Department. Saturday trip generation forecast based on ITE Land Use Code 252 trip generation rates for Saturday.
[46]ITE Land Use Code 430 (Golf Course) trip generation average rates.
[47]ITE Land Use Code 720 (Medical/Dental Office) trip generation average rates.
[48]The AM and PM peak hour trip generation forecast obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis, "627 Deep Valley Drive Residential Mixed-Use Development", prepared by DKS Assocaites, October 13, 2005. Saturday trip generation forecast based on ITE Trip Generation Manual.
[49]ITE Land Use Code 948 (Automated Car Wash) trip generation average rates. Daily trip ends estimated based on the assumption that the higher of the AM or PM total peak hour traffic volume typically represents 10 percent of the daily traffic volume.
[50]ITE Land Use Code 943 (Automobile Parts and Service Center) trip generation average rates. Daily trip ends estimated based on the assumption that the higher of the AM or PM total peak hour traffic volume typically represents 10 percent of the daily traffic volume.
[51]The AM and PM peak hour trip generation forecast obtained from the Chandler Ranch/Rolling Hills Country Club Project DEIR, April 30, 2009. Saturday trip generation forecast based on ITE Trip Generation manual.
[52]ITE Land Use Code 931 (Quality Restaurant) trip generation average rates.
[53]ITE Land Use Code 492 (Health/Fitness Center) trip generation average rates.
[54]ITE Land Use Code 490 (Tennis Courts) trip generation average rates.
[55]ITE trip rates not provided in the ITE Trip Generation manual. Saturday new member trips calculated based on existing clubhouse trips during the PM peak hour.
[56]Source: "Traffic Impact Study for the Carson Marketplace", October 2005 prepared by Kaku Associates. Saturday trip generation forecast based on the ITE land use categories and weekday trip generation assumptions in the Traffic Impact Study.
[57]ITE Land Use Code 130 (Industrial Park) trip generation average rates.
[58]ITE Land Use Code 945 (Gasoline/Service Station with Convenience Market) trip generation average rates. Daily trip ends estimated based on the assumption that the higher of the AM or PM total peak hour traffic volume typically represents 10 percent of the daily traffic volume.
Saturday Mid-day peak hour traffic volumes based on Weekday PM trip generation average rates.
[59]ITE Land Use Code 770 (Business Park) trip generation average rates. Saturday Mid-day peak hour traffic volumes based on Weekday PM trip generation average rates.
[60]ITE Land Use Code 610 (Hospital) trip generation average rates.
[61]ITE Land Use Code 933 (Fast Food Restaurant without Drive Through) trip generation average rates.
[62]ITE Land Use Code 254 (Assisted Living) trip generation average rates.
[63]ITE Land Use Code 140 (Manufacturing) trip generation average rates.
[64]ITE Land Use Code 561 (Synagogue) trip generation average rates.
[65]ITE Land Use Code 918 (Hair Salon) trip generation average rates. Daily trip ends estimated based on the assumption that the higher of the AM or PM total peak hour traffic volume typically represents 10 percent of the daily traffic volume.
[66]ITE Land Use Code 841 (New Car Sales) trip generation average rates.
[67]ITE Land Use Code 815 (Free-Standing Discount Store) trip generation average rates.
[68]ITE Land Use Code 440 (Adult Cabaret) trip generation average rates. Daily trip ends estimated based on the assumption that the higher of the AM or PM total peak hour traffic volume typically represents 10 percent of the daily traffic volume.
[69]ITE Land Use Code 890 (Furniture Store) trip generation average rates.
[NT]Near-Term Related Project; i.e. development that is under construction and/or expected to be completed in the year 2012.
LIST OF RELATED PROJECTS AND RELATED PROJECTS TRIP GENERATION FORECAST [1]
Table 6-1 (Continued)
2
-
1
7
Table 5-1
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
NO.INTERSECTION DATE DIR BEGAN VOLUME BEGAN VOLUME
1 Hawthorne Boulevard/09/28/2010 NB 8:15 2,479 5:00 2,520
Sepulveda Boulevard [1]SB 1,906 2,899
EB 1,460 1,294
WB 1,385 1,789
2 Hawthorne Boulevard/09/28/2010 NB 7:30 1,641 5:00 1,216
Pacific Coast Highway [1]SB 1,325 2,110
EB 1,702 1,593
WB 1,359 1,467
3 Hawthorne Boulevard/09/28/2010 NB 7:45 1,251 5:00 940
Palos Verdes Drive [1]SB 958 1,427
EB 931 628
WB 736 739
4 Crenshaw Boulevard/09/29/2010 NB 7:45 1,677 5:00 2,037
Sepulveda Boulevard [1]SB 1,239 1,859
EB 1,432 1,684
WB 2,243 1,836
5 Crenshaw Boulevard/09/29/2010 NB 7:45 1,202 3:15 1,959
Lomita Boulevard [1]SB 1,636 1,852
EB 737 1,609
WB 1,704 1,224
6 Crenshaw Boulevard/09/29/2010 NB 7:30 1,441 3:15 1,075
Pacific Coast Highway [1]SB 1,027 1,232
EB 1,314 1,599
WB 2,656 1,994
7 Crenshaw Boulevard/09/30/2010 NB 7:30 1,367 5:00 1,015
Palos Verdes Drive [1]SB 948 1,146
EB 944 871
WB 955 958
8 Arlington Avenue/09/30/2010 NB 7:30 666 3:00 547
Lomita Boulevard [1]SB 423 545
EB 989 1,549
WB 1,595 1,231
9 Narbonne Avenue/09/30/2010 NB 7:30 761 5:00 474
Pacific Coast Highway [1]SB 415 618
EB 1,685 2,063
WB 2,350 2,093
10 Palos Verdes Drive East/10/07/2010 NB 7:30 730 5:00 415
Palos Verdes Drive North [1]SB 302 520
EB 1,324 1,326
WB 1,214 1,239
[1] Counts conducted by Accutek Traffic Data, Inc. [3] Counts conducted by The Traffic Solution
[2] Counts conducted by City Traffic Counters
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-10-3861-1Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project2-18
Table 5-1 (Continued)
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
NO.INTERSECTION DATE DIR BEGAN VOLUME BEGAN VOLUME
11 Western Avenue/10/07/2010 NB 7:15 1,477 5:00 1,184
Sepulveda Boulevard [1]SB 1,188 1,388
EB 1,339 1,766
WB 2,058 1,779
12 Western Avenue/10/07/2010 NB 7:30 1,359 5:00 908
Lomita Boulevard [1]SB 1,150 1,263
EB 1,237 1,767
WB 1,186 1,142
13 Western Avenue/10/12/2010 NB 7:30 1,388 5:00 1,142
Pacific Coast Highway [1]SB 891 1,031
EB 1,928 1,903
WB 1,895 1,659
14 Western Avenue/10/12/2010 NB 7:30 1,060 5:00 777
Anaheim Street [1]SB 963 1,329
EB 4 1
WB 638 474
15 Western Avenue/09/28/2010 NB 7:15 1,945 5:00 1,247
Palos Verdes Drive North [2]SB 776 995
EB 1,465 1,410
WB 984 1,179
16 Western Avenue/09/28/2010 NB 7:15 1,918 5:00 1,212
Peninsula Verde Drive [2]SB 1,152 1,642
EB 23 15
WB 0 0
17 Western Avenue/09/28/2010 NB 7:15 2,043 5:00 1,185
Green Hills Drive [2]SB 1,126 1,640
EB 1 30
WB 0 0
18 Western Avenue/09/28/2010 NB 7:30 1,758 5:00 1,181
Avenida Aprenda [2]SB 950 1,640
EB 455 101
WB 0 0
19 Western Avenue/09/28/2010 NB 7:45 1,710 5:00 1,180
Fitness Drive [2]SB 964 1,637
EB 0 0
WB 112 37
20 Western Avenue/09/28/2010 NB 7:30 1,600 5:00 1,215
Westmont Drive [2]SB 936 1,547
EB 315 134
WB 593 539
[1] Counts conducted by Accutek Traffic Data, Inc. [3] Counts conducted by The Traffic Solution
[2] Counts conducted by City Traffic Counters
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-10-3861-1Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project2-19
Table 5-1 (Continued)
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
NO.INTERSECTION DATE DIR BEGAN VOLUME BEGAN VOLUME
21 Western Avenue/09/28/2010 NB 7:30 1,672 5:00 1,335
Toscanini Drive [2]SB 1,009 1,558
EB 348 98
WB 163 77
22 Western Avenue/09/28/2010 NB 7:30 1,724 5:00 1,245
Caddington Drive [2]SB 1,296 1,581
EB 160 270
WB 37 45
23 Western Avenue/09/28/2010 NB 7:30 1,504 5:00 1,299
Capitol Drive [2]SB 1,250 1,648
EB 299 210
WB 460 450
24 Western Avenue/09/29/2010 NB 7:15 1,717 5:00 1,561
Park Western Drive [2]SB 1,154 1,528
EB 11 29
WB 232 347
25 Western Avenue/09/29/2010 NB 7:30 1,731 4:30 1,465
Crestwood Street [2]SB 1,233 1,572
EB 332 200
WB 104 318
26 Western Avenue/09/29/2010 NB 7:30 1,327 5:00 1,202
Summerland Avenue [2]SB 1,267 1,683
EB 115 65
WB 653 565
27 Western Avenue/09/29/2010 NB 7:30 1,524 4:45 1,291
1st Street [2]SB 1,166 1,627
EB 322 264
WB 522 645
28 Western Avenue/09/29/2010 NB 7:30 975 5:00 907
Weymouth Avenue [2]SB 1,272 1,640
EB 134 66
WB 505 411
29 Western Avenue/09/29/2010 NB 7:30 1,118 4:45 974
9th Street [2]SB 767 1,152
EB 207 351
WB 339 309
30 Western Avenue/09/29/2010 NB 7:30 202 4:45 246
25th Street [2]SB 737 849
EB 761 776
WB 527 456
[1] Counts conducted by Accutek Traffic Data, Inc. [3] Counts conducted by The Traffic Solution
[2] Counts conducted by City Traffic Counters
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-10-3861-1Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project2-20
Table 5-1 (Continued)
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
NO.INTERSECTION DATE DIR BEGAN VOLUME BEGAN VOLUME
31 Weymouth Avenue/09/29/2010 NB 7:30 418 3:00 272
9th Street [2]SB 263 294
EB 355 306
WB 430 378
32 Normandie Avenue/10/12/2010 NB 7:30 800 4:30 613
Sepulveda Boulevard [1]SB 645 816
EB 1,451 1,739
WB 2,018 1,663
33 Normandie Avenue/10/13/2010 NB 7:30 772 4:45 670
Lomita Boulevard [1]SB 770 892
EB 1,517 1,626
WB 1,370 1,137
34 Normandie Avenue/10/13/2010 NB 7:30 536 4:45 717
Pacific Coast Highway [1]SB 625 618
EB 1,856 1,663
WB 1,838 1,702
35 Vermont Avenue/10/13/2010 NB 7:30 1,077 4:45 646
Normandie Avenue [1]SB 495 436
EB 284 0
WB 0 0
36 Vermont Ave-Palos Verdes N- 10/14/2010 NB 7:15 816 4:45 552
Gaffey Street/SB 715 937
Anaheim Street [1]EB 447 538
WB 1,003 1,027
NEB 1,519 1,036
37 Gaffey Street/10/12/2010 NB 7:30 1,134 4:30 1,114
Westmont Drive [3]SB 688 935
EB 711 378
WB 39 280
38 Gaffey Street/10/12/2010 NB 7:30 1,216 4:45 1,319
Capitol Drive [3]SB 874 1,145
EB 533 334
WB 0 0
39 Gaffey Street/10/12/2010 NB 7:15 1,309 4:30 1,270
Channel Street [3]SB 1,207 1,240
EB 601 510
WB 597 614
40 Gaffey Street/10/12/2010 NB 7:15 1,172 4:45 1,040
Miraflores Ave-I110 SB Ramps [3]SB 1,027 1,036
EB 78 61
WB 438 391
[1] Counts conducted by Accutek Traffic Data, Inc. [3] Counts conducted by The Traffic Solution
[2] Counts conducted by City Traffic Counters
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-10-3861-1Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project2-21
Table 5-1 (Continued)
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
NO.INTERSECTION DATE DIR BEGAN VOLUME BEGAN VOLUME
41 Gaffey Street/10/12/2010 NB 7:15 562 4:45 735
Summerland Avenue [3]SB 524 728
EB 513 248
WB 838 1,109
42 Gaffey Street/10/12/2010 NB 7:15 2,877 4:45 2,483
I-110 NB and SB Ramps-SB 812 1,170
SR-47 EB On-Ramp [3]EB 0 0
WB 1,357 1,894
43 Gaffey Street/09/29/2010 NB 7:15 1,097 3:30 1,013
9th Street [3]SB 821 1,039
EB 628 470
WB 361 326
44 Vermont Avenue/10/13/2010 NB 7:15 1,051 4:45 1,097
Sepulveda Boulevard [3]SB 786 942
EB 1,473 1,835
WB 2,442 2,105
45 Vermont Avenue/10/13/2010 NB 7:30 595 4:45 709
Lomita Boulevard [3]SB 876 930
EB 1,187 1,435
WB 1,326 924
46 Vermont Avenue/10/13/2010 NB 7:30 560 4:45 693
Pacific Coast Highway [3]SB 653 530
EB 1,701 1,544
WB 2,079 1,809
47 I-110 Southbound Ramps 10/26/2010 NB 7:30 0 5:00 0
Pacific Coast Highway [3]SB 2,002 2,248
EB 1,686 1,753
WB 1,369 1,056
48 Figueroa Place/10/14/2010 NB 7:45 198 5:00 84
I-110 Southbound Off-Ramp [3]SB 114 154
EB 31 20
WB 874 1,170
49 Figueroa Place/10/14/2010 NB 7:45 52 4:45 36
Anaheim Street [3]SB 670 1,188
EB 1,258 1,150
WB 930 794
50 Figueroa Street/10/13/2010 NB 7:15 573 5:00 507
Sepulveda Boulevard [3]SB 545 456
EB 1,155 1,529
WB 1,263 1,100
[1] Counts conducted by Accutek Traffic Data, Inc. [3] Counts conducted by The Traffic Solution
[2] Counts conducted by City Traffic Counters
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-10-3861-1Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project2-22
Table 5-1 (Continued)
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
28-Feb-11
AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR
NO.INTERSECTION DATE DIR BEGAN VOLUME BEGAN VOLUME
51 Figueroa Street/10/26/2010 NB 7:30 1,893 5:00 1,929
I-110 Northbound On-Ramp [3]SB 348 363
(north of PCH)EB 0 0
WB 7 11
52 Figueroa Street/10/26/2010 NB 7:45 867 5:00 935
Pacific Coast Highway [3]SB 214 317
EB 1,933 2,484
WB 1,585 1,227
53 Figueroa Street/10/14/2010 NB 7:45 1,227 5:00 1,118
I-110 NB on-ramp [3]SB 217 165
(north of Anaheim Street)EB 0 0
WB 187 97
54 Figueroa Street/10/14/2010 NB 7:15 668 4:45 685
Anaheim Street [3]SB 243 175
EB 1,342 1,410
WB 785 859
55 Wilmington Boulevard/10/26/2010 NB 7:15 940 5:00 560
Pacific Coast Highway [3]SB 409 528
EB 1,114 1,674
WB 1,408 1,208
56 Wilmington Boulevard/10/14/2010 NB 7:15 381 4:30 254
Anaheim Street [3]SB 357 420
EB 771 1,042
WB 718 849
[1] Accutek Traffic Data, Inc.[3] Counts conducted by The Traffic Solution
[2]ed by City Traffic Counters
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref: 1-10-3861-1Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project2-23
Table 5-2
EXISTING SATURDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES [1]
SATURDAY PEAK HOUR
NO. INTERSECTION DATE DIR BEGAN VOLUME
11 Western Avenue/09/25/2010 NB 12:30 1,099
Sepulveda Boulevard SB 762
EB 1,492
WB 1,570
12 Western Avenue/09/25/2010 NB 12:00 814
Lomita Boulevard SB 929
EB 1,030
WB 862
13 Western Avenue/09/25/2010 NB 12:00 1,192
Pacific Coast Highway SB 848
EB 1,892
WB 1,586
14 Western Avenue/09/25/2010 NB 12:15 900
Anaheim Street SB 974
EB 0
WB 419
15 Western Avenue/09/25/2010 NB 11:15 1,425
Palos Verdes Drive North SB 750
EB 1,172
WB 762
16 Western Avenue/11/13/2010 NB 12:00 1,430
Peninsula Verde Drive SB 1,315
EB 18
WB 0
17 Western Avenue/09/25/2010 NB 12:15 1,324
Green Hills Drive SB 1,288
EB 123
WB 0
18 Western Avenue/09/25/2010 NB 11:15 1,381
Avenida Aprenda SB 1,166
EB 130
WB 0
19 Western Avenue/11/13/2010 NB 11:45 1,419
Fitness Drive SB 1,211
EB 0
WB 47
20 Western Avenue/09/25/2010 NB 11:45 1,447
Westmont Drive SB 1,174
EB 105
WB 522
[1] Counts conducted by City Traffic Counters.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project2-24
Table 5-2 (Continued)
EXISTING SATURDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES [1]
SATURDAY PEAK HOUR
NO. INTERSECTION DATE DIR BEGAN VOLUME
21 Western Avenue/ 10/02/2010 NB 12:30 1,548
Toscanini Drive SB 1,463
EB 90
WB 131
22 Western Avenue/10/02/2010 NB 12:00 1,408
Caddington Drive SB 1,469
EB 250
WB 21
23 Western Avenue/10/02/2010 NB 12:00 1,469
Capitol Drive SB 1,675
EB 201
WB 435
24 Western Avenue/10/02/2010 NB 12:00 1,544
Park Western Drive SB 1,422
EB 39
WB 319
25 Western Avenue/10/02/2010 NB 12:00 1,581
Crestwood Street SB 1,435
EB 197
WB 331
26 Western Avenue/10/02/2010 NB 12:00 1,344
Summerland Avenue SB 1,471
EB 62
WB 388
27 Western Avenue/10/02/2010 NB 11:30 1,486
W. 1st Street SB 1,338
EB 236
WB 481
[1] Counts conducted by City Traffic Counters.
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project2-25
LINSCOTT, LAW & GREENSPAN, engineers LLG Ref. 1-10-3861-1
Ponte Vista at San Pedro Project
WEEKDAY SATURDAY
DAILY AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR DAILY MID-DAY PEAK HOUR
TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]VOLUMES [2]TRIP ENDS [2]VOLUMES [2]
LAND USE SIZE VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL VOLUMES IN OUT TOTAL
Single-Family [3]143 DU 1,369 27 80 107 91 53 144 1,441 70 63 133
Condominium [4]600 DU 3,486 45 219 264 209 103 312 3,402 152 130 282
Apartment [5]392 DU 2,607 40 160 200 158 85 243 2,505 110 94 204
Park [6]2.8 AC 6 Nom.Nom.Nom.Nom.Nom.Nom.34 4 2 6
TOTAL 7,468 112 459 571 458 241 699 7,382 336 289 625
[1]Source: ITE "Trip Generation", 8th Edition, 2008.
[2]Trips are one-way traffic movements, entering or leaving.
[3]ITE Land Use Code 210 (Single-Family Residential Detached Housing) trip generation average rates.
- Weekday Daily Trip Rate: 9.57 trips/DU; 50% inbound/50% outbound
- Weekday AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.75 trips/DU; 25% inbound/75% outbound
- Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 1.01 trips/DU; 63% inbound/37% outbound
- Saturday Daily Trip Rate: 10.08 trips/DU; 50% inbound/50% outbound
- Saturday Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.93 trips/DU; 53% inbound/47% outbound
[4]ITE Land Use Code 230 (Residential Condominium/Townhouse) trip generation average rates.
- Weekday Daily Trip Rate: 5.81 trips/DU; 50% inbound/50% outbound
- Weekday AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.44 trips/DU; 17% inbound/83% outbound
- Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.52 trips/DU; 67% inbound/33% outbound
- Saturday Daily Trip Rate: 5.67 trips/DU; 50% inbound/50% outbound
- Saturday Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.47 trips/DU; 54% inbound/46% outbound
[5]ITE Land Use Code 220 (Apartment) trip generation average rates.
- Weekday Daily Trip Rate: 6.65 trips/DU; 50% inbound/50% outbound
- Weekday AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.51 trips/DU; 20% inbound/80% outbound
- Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.62 trips/DU; 65% inbound/35% outbound
- Saturday Daily Trip Rate: 6.39 trips/DU; 50% inbound/50% outbound
- Saturday Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.52 trips/DU; 54% inbound/46% outbound
[6]ITE Land Use Code 412 (County Park) trip generation average rates.
- Weekday Daily Trip Rate: 2.28 trips/acre; 50% inbound/50% outbound
- Weekday AM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.01 trips/acre; assume 80% inbound/20% outbound
- Weekday PM Peak Hour Trip Rate: 0.06 trips/acre; 41% inbound/59% outbound
- Saturday Daily Trip Rate: 12.14 trips/acre; 50% inbound/50% outbound
- Saturday Peak Hour Trip Rate: 2.24 trips/acre; assume 59% inbound/41% outbound
Table 7-1
PROJECT TRIP GENERATION [1]
2
-
2
6
2-27
2-28
2-29
2-30
2-31
2-32
2-33
2-34
2-35
Rolling Hills Estates
hearing on Chandler
Ranch moved to April
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 02/01/2011 06:25:11 PM PST
Updated: 02/02/2011 11:14:02 AM PST
A long-planned and controversial residential
development in Rolling Hills Estates will return
for a hearing in April, following a Planning
Commission action this week.
The commission on Monday moved to continue
hearings on the 114-home Chandler Ranch
project at the request of representatives of the
development, which includes a construction
waste landfill and adjacent Rolling Hills Country
Club.
The project's backers reported to the city that
they are seeking to work out differences with
local equestrians, some of whom are critical of
the development because it would not include
horse facilities and would not complete a desired
horse trail.
The project will be considered again on April 4,
according to city Principal Planner Niki Cutler.
- Melissa Pamer
Advertisement
Page 1 of 1Format Dynamics :: CleanPrint :: http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_17263886
2/2/2011http://www.dailybreeze.com/fdcp?1296675577523
2-36
City Beats
Thursday, March 3, 2011 11:20 AM PST
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
Palos Verdes Marathon will happen on May 14
The city of Rancho Palos Verdes gave final approval for the Palos Verdes Marathon Monday night at a
specially scheduled public hearing.
The race, organized by the Rolling Hills Estates Kiwanis Club, will take place on May 14, start in RPV and run
along Palos Verdes Drive into Palos Verdes Estates and back.
This was the third meeting the council had regarding the marathon, which needed to be rushed through the
approval process for organizers to break even on the event.
Nobody spoke against the marathon at the meeting, and the race’s permit was approved with a 5-0 vote.
For more information, visit www.palosverdes.com/marathon.
— Jeremiah Dobruck
ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
Equestrian meeting scheduled for Chandler project
The equestrian community and developers of the Chandler Ranch project are looking for a solution to
mitigate the loss of a chunk of the horsekeeping zone in Rolling Hills Estates.
They are inviting members of the horse community and residents in general to a joint meeting on Tuesday,
March 8 at 6 p.m. at City Hall to discuss options.
The proposed Chandler Ranch development sits at the entrance of RHE along Palos Verdes Drive East. It
includes an expansion of the Rolling Hills Country Club, an Arnold Palmer-designed golf course and up to 114
new homes.
The homes would not be designed for horsekeeping despite being in a zone that requires it. It also would not
complete a horse trail, which the city had planned to require of a developer.
On Tuesday, the Equestrian Committee, City Council, Chandler representatives and the Horseman’s
Association will meet to discuss what improvements the horse community should receive in place of the lost
overlay and trail.
The public is invited to hear ideas and give its input.
— Jeremiah Dobruck
Print Page
Page 1 of 1Print Version
3/3/2011http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/03/03/local_news/news4.prt
2-37
2-38
A deal for the horses
By Jeremiah Dobruck, Peninsula News
Thursday, March 10, 2011 12:46 PM PST
Chandler development could provide $2 million in equestrian amenities.
RHE — Dozens of new amenities could be built for the equestrian community as part of a deal that involves
zoning changes in the proposed Chandler Ranch development.
The Chandler Co. and the Rolling Hills Country Club are currently traversing the city’s planning process
trying to finalize plans for a 224-acre expansion to the country club that includes 114 homes and a golf
course at the entrance to Rolling Hills Estates along Palos Verdes Drive East.
The area, which is currently occupied by Chandler’s Sand and Gravel Facility, is zoned to require any housing
lots be built large enough for keeping horses. But in order to build 114 homes on smaller lots and golf-
course-adjacent homes, developers are asking RHE to lift the horse requirements.
Chandler and RHCC also are asking the city to remove a stipulation making them complete a horse trail that
would cut directly through the golf course.
To compensate, developers and the horse community are starting to draft an agreement that would
guarantee $2 million of equestrian-related improvements throughout the city if the requirements are lifted.
On Tuesday night, the equestrian community and general public got a glimpse at the kind of improvements
that could happen.
Dale Allen, president of the Palos Verdes Peninsula Horsemen’s Association, presented a list of possible
improvements with the help of Patrick Killen, an architect working on the project.
“This would be a way to allow the Chandler project to eliminate a portion of their obligations and be able to
upgrade the equestrian community at large by doing these capital improvements,” Killen said.
The gem of the improvements could be at Ernie Howlett Park: a covered arena with grandstands, stalls to
rent out during events and bathrooms. Killen also presented dozens of other possible improvements
scattered throughout RHE.
No project, however, is set in stone.
“This shopping list is something we put together sometime back, and it could be very flexible,” Allen said.
The point of this meeting was to begin educating the public and City Council, and soliciting input from the
horse community about improvements they would want.
Currently, there is no guarantee the project will go through.
The Planning Commission is looking at the Chandler Ranch proposal, and the next meeting to discuss it is
planned for April 4.
If they get through the planning process the plans will go to the City Council for the final say.
Print Page
Page 1 of 2Print Version
3/10/2011http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/03/10/local_news/news3.prt
2-39
While this is going on, developers, Dale Allen and the team representing the equestrian community are
drafting the agreement to guarantee the $2 million for horse-related improvements.
RHE already knows developers will be required to pay a $2.6-million chunk of fees that the city is required to
put back into parks and recreation budgets as mitigation. If the city agrees to earmark $1 million of that
money to the equestrian improvements, Chandler has offered to contribute an additional $1 million to the
cause.
“We think it goes much, much further in terms of preserving the equestrian legacy in the city than building
some houses that happen to have the horse overlay on it or a trail that some people had indicated is really
not that quality,” Mike Cope, representing Chandler, said.
Chandler’s and the country club’s benefit from this deal would be the ability to build 114 houses instead of
74 homes on the larger lots required by the horse overlay. Cope previously said building only 74 homes
could kill the project.
All the improvements hinge on whether an agreement is drafted and if the city gives final approval to the
Chandler Ranch development.
So far though, indications have been positive. On Saturday at the City Council’s policy development session,
members made a policy decision to support the swap.
That policy decision does not take into account any details that may come up in the final contract. And Doug
Prichard, RHE’s city manager, reminded attendees that the devil is in the details.
“Council has set a policy agreement, but it’s not binding until they sign on the dotted line,” Prichard said.
The Horsemen’s Association is soliciting suggestions of what improvements the equestrian community wants
to see. They can be sent to Allen at daleallen39@cox.net.
jdobruck@pvnews.com
Page 2 of 2Print Version
3/10/2011http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/03/10/local_news/news3.prt
2-40
2-41
2-42
2-43
2-44
2-45
2-46
2-47
2-48
2-49
2-50
2-51
2-52
2-53
2-54
2-55
2-56
2-57
2-58
2-59
2-60
2-61
2-62
Rolling Hills Covenant
Church expansion
hearing postponed
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 02/09/2011 07:02:55 PM PST
Updated: 02/09/2011 07:03:18 PM PST
A hearing on a long-desired expansion of Rolling
Hills Covenant Church has been postponed until
Feb. 22.
The Rolling Hills Estates City Council on Tuesday
continued its hearing on the plans at the request
of church officials.
The church wants to add a 16,000-square-foot
addition to its campus on Palos Verdes Drive
North. The application does not include an
expansion of the sanctuary, which had been an
element of a proposal that drew neighborhood
opposition in past years.
The council also on Tuesday approved a $38,500
engineering contract for work on scaled-down
improvements to the Peter Weber Equestrian
Center.
- Melissa Pamer
Advertisement
Page 1 of 1Format Dynamics :: Kodak Viewer
2/10/2011http://www.dailybreeze.com/fdcp?1297352292465
2-63
2-64
2-65
2-66
2-67
2-68
2-69
2-70
2-71
2-72
2-73
2-74
2-75
2-76
2-77
2-78
2-79
2-80
2-81
2-82
2-83
2-84
2-85
2-86
2-87
2-88
2-89
2-90
2-91
2-92
2-93
2-94
2-95
2-96
2-97
2-98
2-99
2-100
2-101
2-102
2-103
2-104
2-105
2-106
2-107
2-108
2-109
2-110
2-111
2-112
2-113
2-114
2-115
2-116
2-117
A decade of planning pays off
By Jeremiah Dobruck, Peninsula News
Thursday, February 24, 2011 10:57 AM PST
Church’s expansion with a controversial past is about to be approved.
RHE — Rolling Hills Covenant Church is nearing the end of a saga.
At a quiet meeting with no objection, Rolling Hills Estates City Council moved within one step of approving
the church’s expansion that — through the last decade — brought threats of lawsuits, packed council
chambers and public speakers so passionate they were ejected from meetings.
Almost a decade ago, when the church at 2222 Palos Verdes Drive North first proposed an expansion, the
surrounding community balked. After that, four separate proposals were denied by the Planning Commission
or City Council, with the last one coming in 2006.
Now, more than four years later, the same City Council members who shot down multiple attempts, glowed
during Covenant Church’s plans at Tuesday night’s council meeting.
"I’m so delighted to be sitting here and looking at this so many years later because it comes kind of full
circle," Councilman Frank Zerunyan said. "It’s really nice to see. It’s nice to be here today."
The key and calming difference in Covenant Church’s plan is the sanctuary.
The original plans including a new 2,500-seat sanctuary drew residents’ ire, as did proposals for a 2,200-
seat sanctuary, a 1,650-seat sanctuary and a 1,500-seat sanctuary.
The idea of adding that many people and parking spaces to a rural neighborhood in RHE had neighbors up in
arms. They continually attacked the idea and the church’s proposals.
Since the last denial in 2006, Covenant Church members embarked on a journey to find a solution that
neighbors would support and the city would approve.
What they came up with is a 16,232-square-foot expansion including a reception area, choir room, office
space, Sunday school rooms, deck, bathrooms and — most importantly — no enlarged sanctuary.
"We worked really hard to get with our neighbors to find a project that they could live with and support and
one that we could live with and support," Craig Knickerbocker, the chairman of the expansion team at
Covenant Church, said.
Apparently they found one. No public speakers opposed the expansion either at the Planning Commission or
City Council level.
"We all kind of assumed there would be somebody or some group of people that would come out of the
woodwork and have a problem with it because you just can’t please everybody all the time, but in this case I
think we did please everybody," Knickerbocker said. "That was really neat to see from everybody’s
standpoint."
In fact, staunch opponents of the previous expansion plans took part in approving the new project.
Print Page
Page 1 of 2Print Version
2/24/2011http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/02/24/local_news/news3.prt
2-118
On the night Covenant Church's new proposal came before the Planning Commission, Tim Scott was selected
to chair the body.
Scott, a real estate lawyer, was one of the residents attacking previous plans for the expansion, but this
proposal was different.
"I loved it when I saw Tim Scott’s signature on the resolution [approving it]," Zerunyan said. "Only in Rolling
Hills Estates."
There were a few bumps in the road for this plan.
The church will have to move an equestrian trail, and the city approved for the first time using a percolating
pavement as counting toward both a landscaping and parking requirement for institutional zones.
But in comparison to overflowing council chambers, the issues were minor.
Because it built up almost $18 million in its expansion fund and this expansion is smaller than any it planned
before, the church has used the fund for other projects.
The church purchased a community center in Peninsula Center that can house congregants who won’t fit in
the unchanged sanctuary. It planted churches in Wilmington, Gardena, Torrance and Manhattan Beach. And
it sent a quarter million dollars each to build a women’s shelter in Wilmington, to support an aids orphanage
in South Africa and to build a small hospital in the Congo, Kinkerbocker said.
All that’s left is for the City Council to introduce a final ordinance for a second reading at its next meeting
and approve it. Barring the unforeseen, the expansion is a go, Knickerbocker said.
"We are just thrilled that our neighbors are happy and our congregation is happy because we want to be
good neighbors and we want to reach out to our community," he said.
jdobruck@pvnews.com
Page 2 of 2Print Version
2/24/2011http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/02/24/local_news/news3.prt
2-119
Palos Verdes Peninsula
school board to discuss
Peninsula High stadium
lighting
By Melissa Pamer Staff Writer
Posted: 01/26/2011 06:34:10 PM PST
Updated: 01/26/2011 06:44:45 PM PST
The Palos Verdes Peninsula school board tonight
will again turn to the controversial issue of a
proposal for stadium lighting at a local high
school.
Superintendent Walker Williams said he intends
to clarify the board's action last summer that
allowed a group of parents and alumni to raise
funds for a stadium lights plan at Palos Verdes
Peninsula High in Rolling Hills Estates.
Following a fundraising mailer recently sent out
by the committee backing the lighting plan,
Williams said he has received letters from
concerned citizens who live around the school.
The proposal has not yet received school board
approval, but the panel did vote to let the
committee move forward with fundraising.
A vote on the lighting plan itself has not yet
been scheduled, and the board is not set to take
any action tonight.
Williams also will discuss budget cuts that the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District
could face in the coming school year.
The 6:30 p.m. meeting is at 375 Via Almar, Palos
Verdes Estates.
- Melissa Pamer
Advertisement
Page 1 of 1Palos Verdes Peninsula school board to discuss Peninsula High stadium lighting - The Da...
1/27/2011http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_17208594
2-120
Palos Verdes Peninsula
USD
Created : January 27, 2011 at 08:36 AM
Meeting: Regular Meeting : O. Information
1. Review of Board Action Related to the Palos Verdes
Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee
Project
January 27, 2011
Status:
Quick Summary / Recommended Action
Presented as an information item.
Current Considerations
Staff will re-state and clarify action taken at the July 22, 2010, Board of Education meeting
that authorized the Palos Verdes Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering Committee
to raise limited funds in order to develop necessary plans, documentation, and estimated
costs for the installation of stadium lights at Palos Verdes Peninsula High School.
Associated File Attachments
Exhibit A - Board Policy 3290.1, Capital Campaigns/Project - Facilities (Files)
Exhibit B - Administrative Regulation 3290.1, Capital Campaigns/Project - Facilities
(Files)
Page 1 of 1Palos Verdes Peninsula USD : Review of Board Action Related to the Palos Verdes Penin...
1/27/2011http://pvpusd.csbaagendaonline.net/cgi-bin/WebObjects/pvpusd-eAgenda.woa/wo/21.0.7.1...
2-121
Palos Verdes Peninsula USD
Board Policy
Capital Campaigns/Project-Facilities
BP 3290.1
Business and Noninstructional Operations
The Board of Education recognizes that members of individual school communities may wish to
organize capital campaigns to raise funds to build or modify facilities for their respective
schools. Capital campaigns are defined as any project for which funds are specifically raised
and that require approval from the Division of the State Architect (DSA).
While the Board is supportive of such activities, and welcomes the interest and participation of
members of the school community, it recognizes that these activities may not be the primary
function of the school or district. Even though these fundraising activities are independent of
the school and district, they are governed by all applicable provisions of the Education Code as
well as the policies and administrative regulations of the district.
While greatly appreciating suitable donations, the Board discourages any gift(s), which may
directly or indirectly impair its commitment to providing equal educational opportunities for all
students.
Organizers of capital campaigns shall be especially careful not to seek advantages for the
activities they support if those advantages might be detrimental to other school/district programs
and or support groups, including the PTA and Peninsula Education Foundation. In order to
protect the district and its programs, the Superintendent with approval of the Board, shall
establish appropriate controls for activities related to fundraising for capital campaigns/projects.
Any fundraising by a school connected organization for a facilities related project must be
approved by the Board prior to the initiation of fundraising activities.
Policy PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
adopted: June 29, 2006 Palos Verdes Estates, California
2-122
Palos Verdes Peninsula USD
Administrative Regulation
Capital Campaigns/Project-Facilities
AR 3290.1
Business and Noninstructional Operations
Any school connected organization whose purpose is to raise funds to build or modify facilities
at a school site or on any other district property shall comply with the following guidelines.
1. Prior to initiating fundraising activities for a capital campaign/project, the school
organization and/or principal shall provide the Superintendent or designee with the following
information regarding the committee and conceptual project:
a. The name of the organization
b. The names, addresses, phone numbers of all the officers and committee members
c. A description of the organization's purpose, proposed project(s), educational purpose of
the project, how the project falls within the overall educational objectives of the district, and
estimated cost of project(s).
d. A specific timeline and list of objectives
e. The name of the bank where organization accounts will be located and the names of those
authorized to withdraw funds and/or transfer funds to the district.
f. Recent financial information (i.e. budget and bank statements) about the organization.
g. A description of the organization's fundraising plans
h. A plan for funds that are raised but not spent
i. Proof of insurance
2. After receipt of the above information, the Superintendent or designee and/or the
Committee may submit a proposal to the Board for authorization to raise limited funds in order
to develop the necessary plans, documentation, and estimated costs for the project. All plans
shall be developed/designed by architects and engineers experienced with public schools
projects.
3. The district, at anytime at its sole discretion, shall reconfirm the estimated costs and
timeline of the project with a district approved construction management firm and/or by a firm
that has known and specialized experience in estimating school construction costs. Any costs
2-123
incurred by the district shall be reimbursed by the capital campaign.
4. Architectural plans, prior to being presented to the Division of State Architect (DSA),
shall first be presented to the Board of Education for approval. Such plans shall first be
reviewed by a Board approved Architect, familiar with DSA requirements.
5. After receipt of the above information, the Superintendent or designee may present the
proposed project(s) to the Board for initial approval if he/she determines:
a. That there is an educational need for the project
b. The proposal is realistic in terms of scope of work/project, proposed timelines and cost,
including the on-going cost of maintaining the facility.
c. The estimated cost for the project is accurate as verified by a firm that has known and
specialized experience in estimating school construction costs. The cost of this report will be a
part of the proposed budget. This includes the cost of district staff to properly evaluate,
supervise, and manage the project, all related soft costs, indirect costs, and 15 percent in
contingency costs. The project budget must also include the cost of a Board approved
construction management firm that will provide management and oversight to the project.
d. That there are alternative plans if the financial target is not reached
e. The project will not interfere with other district programs or fundraising projects that
have received prior approval from the Board.
6. If the project receives initial approval from the Board, the school organization may begin
raising funds to support the project. The committee shall provide the Board and the
Superintendent or designee with written updates monthly regarding:
a. Upcoming fundraising activities
b. Progress report on meeting financial target
c. Architectural plans and changes
7. Once the project receives approval from the Division of the State Architect, the principal
and/or committee shall ask the Board for approval for the district to begin the bidding process.
The principal and/or the committee must also verify that there is an appropriate amount of funds
for the project deposited in the bank or county Treasury based on a current (within the last three
months) construction cost estimate of the project and all the other associated costs as identified
in 5c.
8. After the bid process closes, the Superintendent or designee shall once again verify that
the school organization has the necessary funds, including 15 percent in contingency costs and
other associated costs as identified in 5c, to complete the project. Once verified, the
2-124
Superintendent will make a final recommendation to the Board regarding the proposed project.
Regulation PALOS VERDES PENINSULA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
approved: June 29, 2006 Palos Verdes Estates, California
revised: October 12, 2006
2-125
Glare, noise are concerns for lights opponents
By Mary Scott, Peninsula News
Thursday, February 10, 2011 10:35 AM PST
Feeling that they haven’t been heard clearly by the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District and the
Board of Education, members of the Peninsula Preservation Committee spoke to the board at its Jan. 27
meeting.
The group’s concern is the fundraising efforts by the Peninsula High School Stadium Lights Steering
Committee to pay for design plans and the environmental impact report for the installation of four 80-foot-
tall light poles and a new sound system on PENHI’s football field.
“You, the Palos Verdes school board, are our elected officials; we, the residents, are your constituency,”
resident Sam Josephson told board members. “You need to hear us; you need to talk with us, and you need
to take us seriously.”
The committee’s main issue is the negative effect the lights and night games could have on quality of life on
the Peninsula. Members fear they will alter the quiet residential, semi-rural neighborhoods that brought
them to the Peninsula in the first place. Beside the glare from the lights and the noise coming from the
stadium, they also are concerned about traffic and parking.
In the past, school boards have been asked to approve lights at the school, resident Eleanor Curry told the
News. Curry is a current member of the Preservation Committee and a former school board member.
“Each time, to date, the board and the administration has valued the residential area and felt that it was an
imposition,” she said, “and the imposition on the residents’ property values and their life on the Peninsula
was too big a price to ask of voting members of the citizenry, and people who have always supported the
schools and young people.”
Committee member Mark Sturgeon said he supports the schools and their academic and athletic programs,
but the concept of turning football games into community events can be done in the afternoons.
“They’re proposing bringing the community together, but the proposition of night games is actually dividing
the community,” Sturgeon said. “It’s having just the opposite effect.”
“It’s important to stress that it impacts the entire community. … It impacts more than the surrounding
homes below [the school],” Curry said.
None of the group members who spoke to the News said they were opposed to the temporary lights brought
in for special occasions such as homecoming games or graduation.
But, “permanent lights will bring permanent use,” Curry said.
The group said it believes that the high school’s field and lights will be used more than the five to seven
nights a year proposed.
“What would happen if the girls soccer team went to the school board and said, ‘We want to play our home
games at night using the lights’?” Sturgeon asked. “Is the school board going to be able to tell the girls
soccer team, ‘No you can’t use it; it’s for the exclusive use of the boys football team’? You don’t have to look
down the road very far to see where this is going to go.”
Print Page
Page 1 of 3Print Version
2/10/2011http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/02/10/local_news/news2.prt
2-126
Also on the residents’ minds are parking and traffic.
Michelle McKinney, general manager of the Peninsula Shopping Center, had offered the use of the center’s
parking lot for overflow. She has since retracted the offer after the center’s merchants signed a petition
against the idea.
Some streets surrounding the school have permit parking, Josephson said, and the cities of Rolling Hills
Estates and Rancho Palos Verdes have refined their requirements making it easier for other neighborhoods
to create permit parking.
“The lights’ proponents plan does not provide parking,” he said.
Josephson has lived in his home below the high school for 44 years and said he knew he was moving his
family near a high school.
“My kids went there,” he said.
He can tolerate the activity during the day because he knows that “when the sun goes down, they go home.”
Kevin Moen, a football coach at PENHI and a member of the Stadium Lights Steering Committee, said that
opponents have voiced their concerns at school board and city council meetings.
“To address those concerns we offered to add a new sound system to the stadium; we are incorporating the
latest light technology that reduces light spill outside of the field area; and we set about to create parking
alternatives, which are still under review,” he said. “We have heard the opposition and have made every
effort to address those concerns.”
The Preservation Committee has asked to meet with school board members outside of their meetings. The
committee would like for the board to give them a timeline as to how long the Steering Committee can raise
funds and when must they stop.
Board President Dora de la Rosa said that she and district administrators are in the process of setting up a
meeting with the Preservation Committee. A concern she has about board members talking with the
residents outside of meetings is a potential violation of the Brown Act, whereas no more than two board
members can discuss issues outside of meetings. Another is the potential of having five board members with
varying information when they are ready to vote on the issue.
“We’re going to make the best decision if we act as a body,” she said.
De la Rosa added that board members have not met with the Stadium Lights Steering Committee outside of
board meetings.
Currently, the lights committee has raised more than $100,000, Moen said.
“Once we reach $250,000, we can begin the EIR process, which was asked for by the opposition and
requested by the cities of RPV and RHE, and supported by the school board,” he said. “The cost of the EIR is
under review, and the report is based solely on scientific data and must comply
with the California Environmental Quality Act, the California law that regulates projects that may have an
impact on the environment. Upon completion of this report all parties will be notified and have an
opportunity to address any further concerns that exist.”
mscott@pvnews.com
Page 2 of 3Print Version
2/10/2011http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/02/10/local_news/news2.prt
2-127
Peninsula High School’s girls soccer team plays an afternoon home game against Manhattan Beach rival Mira
Costa High School. A group of residents living near the school are concerned that if a plan to install
permanent lights on the field for Friday night football games is approved, other teams at the school will want
to use them. Opponents say that the lights will impact the quiet, semirural atmosphere of the
neighborhoods.
Page 3 of 3Print Version
2/10/2011http://www.pvnews.com/articles/2011/02/10/local_news/news2.prt
2-128
Page 1 of 1
Kit Fox
...-_....•.._•._......•_.._._-_.._-.-.-.-.•_.•_..-.-.....•..__...••.._.•..............•.........•.....-.-_-__.-____-_._-_..-,-__-_-.__.._.•.....•_,..
From:
Sent:
To:
Carolynn Petru [carolynn@rpv.com]
Thursday,February 17,2011 744 AM
'Kit Fox'
Cc:'Joel Rojas'
Subject:FW:Stadium Lights at PVPHS
Hi Kit-
FYI -Border Issues.
CP
---_-•..__._.•._.._..•._.__.__•...•._--_.--------_._-
From:Mark &Joan Sturgeon [mailto:mjsturgeon@verizon.net]
Sent:Wednesday,February 16,2011 8:17 PM
To:cc@rpv.com
Subject:Stadium Lights at PVPHS
Dear Mayor Long and members of the City Council,
Subject:Proposed Stadium Lights at PVP High School
I am opposed to the installation of stadium lights at Palos Verdes Peninsula High School.Last night I turned
on channel 35 and was pleasantly surprised to find Ken Dyda addressing the City Council regarding this
issue.I was even more pleased to learn that Mayor Long had addressed this issue in a personal letter to the
School Board.Thank you Mayor Long.
I live in the Blackhorse tract,and like hundreds of my neighbors,already suffer the noise from Friday
afternoon football games.Should the lights be approved,my neighbors and I would be subjected to glare
and impairment of our nighttime views,in addition to the noise.You should have received my letter of
November 4,20]0 outlining my concerns and requesting your continued involvement.
This issue is bigger than the negative impacts that nighttime athletic events would impose upon the
neighborhoods surrounding the school.The larger issue is the preservation of the character of our
community_We all appreciate the Peninsula's semi-rural character with the absence of street lighting in the
majority of our cities and neighborhoods.We are a community that appreciates peace and quiet in the
evening hours.We are not a community that desires bright lights and a large crowd.
We look to you gentleman as the defenders of our community and its unique character.The School Board,
on the other hand,may choose to put the interest of the high school football team and their boosters ahead of
the community.I understand that the School Board has jurisdiction over this issue.Never the less,I am
asking you to use all the tools at your disposal to influence the outcome in the interest of the community.
Sincerely,
Mark Sturgeon
Rancho Palos Verdes
mjsturgeon@verizon.net
2/17/2011 2-129