CC SR 20180717 05 - Trump Development Tract No 50666
RANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 07/17/2018
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to identify the preferred street configuration for the
new intersection at Costa De La Islas and Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS) associated
with Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 for the Trump National Golf Club project.
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Review the alternative street design configurations, including the Traffic Safety
Committee’s (TSC) recommendation and the Staff’s preferred street design
alternative; and,
(2) Identify the Council-preferred street design Alternative for the new intersection at
Costa De La Islas and PVDS.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Applicant will bear all costs through fees and trust deposit
accounts to cover consultant costs associated with the design and construction of the
new intersection, including all improvements within public right-of-way.
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: Elias Sassoon, PE, Director of Public Works
REVIEWED BY: Same as above
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. 1992 Council-approved Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 (page A-1)
B. 2005 Council-approved Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 (page B-1)
C. Draft 2018 Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 (page C-1)
D. Trump National Golf Club Updated Traffic Impact Study, October 24, 2017
(page D-1)
E. Willdan Ingress/Egress Report, November 21, 2017 (page E-1)
F. Intersection Design Alternatives 1, 2, 3 (page F-1)
G. Portuguese Bend Club preferred Intersection Alternative (page G-1)
H. Applicant’s preferred Intersection Alternative (page H-1)
I. Portuguese Bend Club Petition (page I-1)
J. Public Correspondence (page J-1)
1
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On June 1, 1992, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 92-53, certifying
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 36, and adopted Resolution Nos. 92-54, 92-55,
92-56, 92-57, thereby conditionally approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 50666
and 50667, Tentative Parcel Map Nos. 20970 and 23004, Conditional Use Permit
Nos. 162 and 163, Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 103, and Grading Permit
No. 1541 for a Residential Planned Development (RPD) consisting of a total of 83
single-family dwelling units (which has been reduced over the years to 59 units),
infrastructure improvements (including public streets serving the project), an 18-hole
public golf course, and 261.4 acres of public open space at what is now known as
Trump National Golf Club.
A “vesting” map provides an Applicant statutorily-vested rights to construct the approved
subdivision. Specifically, California Government Code Section 66498.9(b) states:
To ensure that local requirements governing the development of a proposed
subdivision are established in accordance with Section 66498.1 when a local
agency approves or conditionally approves a vesting tentative map. The private
sector should be able to rely upon an approved vesting tentative map prior to
expending resources and incurring liabilities without the risk of having the project
frustrated by subsequent action by the approving local agency, provided the time
periods established by this article have not elapsed.
The Government Code goes on to state that a local agency has maximum discretion to
impose conditions of the vesting tentative map, so long as that discretion is not
exercised in a manner which precludes a subdivider from proceeding with the proposed
subdivision.
In 1999, Vesting Tract Map No. 50667 was recorded with the County of Los Angeles,
and soon thereafter, the Applicant began construction of the necessary infrastructure
improvements including, but not limited to, streets, utilities, storm drains, and grading in
order to begin selling the individual residential lots. The infrastructure improvements
were constructed based on the conditions of approval stated in the City Council-
approved Vesting Tract Map Nos. 50667 (generally east of Trump National Drive) and
50666 (generally west of Trump National Drive). The Applicant has spent a
considerable amount of capital to construct these improvements, based on the vested
rights given to them under the City Council’s approval of the tract maps. These
infrastructure improvements include grading to create the residential building pads and
a storm drain system in the general area of Vesting Tract Map No. 50667. The vested
map includes the entrance off of PVDS. However, any alteration to the existing median
is not part of the vesting. Any proposed modification to the existing median is subject to
the City’s approval.
In 1999, the clubhouse, with its restaurants, pro shop and banquet facilities, opened to
the public, and in 2006, the City Council approved the opening of the full, 18-hole golf
2
course to the public for the first time. Additionally, the sale and construction of 36
residential lots commenced. These improvements are primarily associated with Vesting
Tract Map No. 50667.
In 2005, Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 was revised to allow a driving range to be
constructed, which reduced the number of residential lots in this tract from 39 to 23 (see
Attachment B). As part of the City Council’s original approval of Vesting Tract Map No.
50666 in 1992 (Attachment A), followed by the 2005 City Council-approval revisions, a
public street off Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS) was shown on Vesting Tract Map
No. 50666 serving the remaining 12 residential lots located on Costa De La Islas.
The Applicant is working diligently to meet all of the Conditions of Approval tied to the
project by the August 21, 2018, City Council meeting due to deadlines set by the
Coastal Commission Conditions of Approval. One of these conditions include approving
the street improvement plans associated with the project. According to the City Council-
adopted Conditions of Approval, the Director of Public Works is to approve the design
and geometrics for all public streets. Specifically, City Council-adopted Condition No.
BB.1 of Resolution No. 2018-39 (formerly known as Condition No. I.1.d of Resolution
No. 2005-143), states that:
The proposed on-site streets shall be dedicated for public use on the Final Map
and designed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. PRIOR TO
RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP, the Applicant shall submit design
specifications for the on-site streets to the Director of Public Works for approval,
pursuant to the following specifications:
Subsection d (E Street is Costa De La Islas):
"E" Street shall be 34’ in width, measured from flow line to flow line. Parkway
widths shall be a minimum of 8’ along the southerly side along Street "E",
and shall be a minimum of 4’ along the northerly side Street "E". The total
right-of-way shall be 46’. The Final Map shall reflect these standards.
In an abundance of caution and transparency, the City Manager has chosen to bring
this item to the City Council for its review and final decision, rather than letting it remain
an administrative decision as is allowed by the Condition.
Pursuant to this Condition, in August 2017, the Applicant submitted to the Public Works
Director the street improvement plans for Costa De La Islas that provides access off
PVDS, consistent with the map design approved by the City Council both in 1992 and
2005. In response to this submittal, the City received several comments from the public
expressing concerns with the Applicant’s proposal, as summarized below (a detailed
discussion can be found under the Additional Information section of this report):
• Access should be provided off Trump National Drive rather than PVDS
• An opening in the median should be prohibited
3
• The width of the median should not be reduced
• Line-of-sight limitation at the proposed intersection
• Truck Accessibility
The Traffic Safety Committee (TSC) reviewed the following three alternative intersection
designs (Attachment D) at its November 6, 2017 and December 11, 2017 meetings and
provided its recommendations, as summarized below.
Alternative No. 1 (TSC- and Staff-Preferred Alternative) - New T-Intersection with
All Movements Allowed:
This “T-intersection” street design provides a median opening at PVDS and Costa De
La Islas intersection with the following elements:
• A left-turn lane allowing west-bound traffic along PVDS into the development;
• An exclusive right-turn lane allowing east-bound traffic along PVDS to move over
and make a right-turn into development; and,
• An acceleration (merge) lane along the median which would allow a refuge space
for vehicles exiting northbound out of the development right after crossing PVDS
eastbound traffic and just before merging into PVDS (west bound) traffic.
Advantages:
• Allows all turning movements into and out of Costa De La Islas;
• Eliminates need for U-turns at Schooner Drive, Conqueror Drive, and Trump
National Drive intersections at PVDS;
• Makes provisions for large trucks.
Disadvantages:
• Introduces turning movement conflicts at Costa De La Islas; and,
• Reduces the width of the median
At its December 11, 2017, meeting, after considering evidence introduced into the
record including public comments and Staff’s professional opinions, the TSC
recommended Alternative No. 1. This is staff’s preferred alternative as well due to the
fact that all turning movements will be allowed and the need for U-turns at Schooner
Drive, Conqueror Drive, and Trump National Drive is eliminated, which Staff believes
would introduce a traffic safety concern if the median was not opened to allow turning
movements at the proposed intersection.
Alternative No. 2 – Right-Turn-In and Right-Turn-Out Only Access; There is no
median opening/modification as part of this alternative:
This alternative is the option which proposes to provide only “right-turn-in” and “right-
turn-out” access to Costa De Las Islas. Westbound left-turns into the development and
northbound left-turns out of development will be physically restricted by the existing
raised median. This alternative only provides:
4
• An exclusive right-turn lane allowing east-bound traffic along PVDS to move over
into the exclusive right-turn lane and make a right turn into the development;
Advantages:
• Reduces turning movement conflicts;
• No median break;
• No median width reduction; and,
• Reduces potential for collisions at Costa De La Islas.
Disadvantages:
• Increases U-turns at Schooner Drive, Conqueror Drive, and Trump National
Drive;
• Inconvenient for motorists exiting Costa De La Islas wishing to go west
• Inconvenient for westbound motorists who wish to access Costa De La Islas
• Difficult U-turn maneuvers for large vehicles
• May increase emergency response times as compare to Alternative No. 1
Staff is not in favor of this alternative due to the disadvantages described above,
particularly the vehicle U-Turn movements which would occur if this alternative was
constructed.
Alternative No. 3 – Right-Turn-In, Right-Turn-Out, and Left-Turn-In:
This “T -intersection” street design provides a median cut along PVDS with the following
elements:
• An exclusive right-turn lane allowing east-bound traffic along PVDS to move over
into the exclusive right-turn lane and make a right turn into the development; and,
• A hooded left-turn lane along the median which would allow only a left-turn
movement for west-bound traffic along PVDS into the development. Under this
alternative, vehicular traffic leaving the development cannot make a left-turn into
PVDS, westbound.
Advantages:
• Reduces turning movement conflicts
• No U-turns required at Schooner Drive
• No acceleration (merge) lane, thus less reduction in median width
• Improves emergency access as compared to Alternative No. 2
Disadvantages:
• Increases U-turns at Conqueror Drive and Trump National Drive intersection.
• Inconvenient for motorists exiting Costa De La Islas wishing to go west
• Difficult maneuvers for large vehicles
• May increase emergency response times as compared to Alternative No. 1
5
Staff does not support this alternative because the disadvantages listed above outweigh
the advantages, particularly when it comes to introducing u-turn movements at the
intersections of Conqueror Drive and Trump National Drive.
In addition to the above, the following street design alternatives were recently requested
by the Portuguese Bend Club HOA and the Applicant for the City Council’s
consideration. Since these alternatives were recently received, they were not
considered by the TSC which made its recommendation on December 11, 2017.
Alternative No. 4 (Portuguese Bend Club Preferred Alternative) – This is the same
as Alternative No. 1 with the exception of the exclusive right-turn lane.
This “T -intersection” street design provides a median opening at PVDS and Costa De
La Islas intersection with the following elements (Attachment G):
• A left-turn lane allowing west-bound traffic along PVDS into the development;
• An acceleration (merge) lane along the median for vehicles exiting the
development and making a left turn into PVDS.
Advantages:
• Allows all turning movements into and out of Costa De La Islas;
• Eliminates need for U-turns at Schooner Drive, Conqueror Dr., and Trump
National Drive; and,
• Makes provisions for large trucks.
Disadvantages:
• Introduces turning movement conflicts at Costa De La Islas;
• Reduces the width of the median; and
• Vehicles wishing to make a right turn from PVDS eastbound into the
development will slow down the through traffic.
This alternative is preferred by the Portuguese Bend Club HOA because by eliminating
the right-turn lane the existing parkway which accommodates vegetation and a trail (a
segment of the California Coastal Trail) would not be reduced in width. The HOA is
concerned that the right-turn lane will adversely impact the opportunities to maintain the
existing landscape and future landscaping in this area. Further, with the construction of
the exclusive right-turn lane, the existing 4’ pedestrian trail along PVDS will have to be
reconstructed. The edge of the new trail, would be about 2.6’ from the edge of the
existing tree. However, the Applicant has obtained an opinion from a certified arborist
indicating that with proper care, the existing tree would not be adversely impacted if the
new trail is reconstructed as part of the construction of the exclusive right-turn lane.
Alternative No. 5 (Applicant’s Preferred Alternative) - This is the same as
Alternative No. 1 with the exclusion of the westbound acceleration (merge) lane.
This “T-intersection” provides a median opening at PVDS and Costa De La Islas
intersection with the following elements:
6
• A left-turn lane allowing west-bound traffic along PVDS into the development;
• An exclusive right-turn lane allowing east-bound traffic along PVDS to move over
and make a right-turn into development; and,
Advantages:
• Allows all turning movements into and out of Costa De La Islas;
• Eliminates need for U-turns at Schooner Drive, Conqueror Drive, and Trump
National Drive; and,
• Makes provisions for large trucks.
Disadvantages:
• Introduces turning movement conflicts at Costa De La Islas; and,
• Reduces the width of the median
• Makes it difficult for vehicles exiting the development and wishing to make a left
turn into PVDS to merge with through traffic since the acceleration (merge) lane
is eliminated in this alternative.
The Applicant prefers this alternative because they do not believe the acceleration
(merge) lane is necessary due to the limited number of vehicles trips entering and
exiting Costa De La Islas, and that the median would not have to be reduced in width.
That said, the Applicant has not expressed an opposition to the TSC-recommended and
the Staff-preferred Alternative No. 1, as well as the other Alternatives discussed in this
report.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Public Notification
On July 6, 2018, a listserv message was sent to the Trump National Golf Club project
subscribers informing them of tonight’s meeting.
Public Comments
In response to the listserv, as well as past notices issued on this matter, the City
received several public comments (Attachment J) expressing concerns regarding the
location of the proposed T-Intersection, as summarized below (public comments in bold
followed by Staff’s response).
• Access to Costa De La Islas off PVDS is not safe
This intersection has been designed by the Applicant’s engineer and reviewed by
the City Staff and the City’s Traffic Engineer based on the best engineering
practices and industry standards. The professional opinion is that the proposed
intersection is not considered “unsafe.”
• Access to Costa De La Islas should be provided off Trump National Drive
7
The Applicant is proposing to construct the intersection serving Costa De La Islas
off PVDS based on the 1992 City Council-approved Vesting Tract Map No.
50666 and the Council-approved revision in 2005 as previously discussed. If the
intersection were to be relocated off Trump National Drive, this would require the
processing of a revision to the Vesting Tract Map to be considered by the City
Council, as well as the California Coastal Commission via a revision to the
Coastal Development Permit. This may add up to two years to process in
combination with the City’s and the Coastal Commission’s review. Furthermore,
such a change to the Vesting Tract Map would result in other significant
consequences such as: (1) needing to mitigate the impacts to existing planted
habitat on the adjacent transition slope per the City-approved and Coastal
Commission-approved Habitat Conservation Plan; (2) needing to revise the
Grading Permit to accommodate significant additional fill for the street; (3)
needing to increase the final pad elevations and maximum roof ridgelines for
certain residential lots to accommodate the relocated street which would
adversely impact views from residences in the Seaview tract. Lastly, such a
change would also reduce the number of lots the Applicant can provide. While
one could argue that these are not the City’s concerns and they are the
Applicant’s concerns, given that the preliminary tract map is vested, they become
the City’s concerns if an amendment is proposed by the City.
• The Council-approved Vesting Tract Map includes language that allows the
Developer or a public agency to amend the map for safety reasons.
The cover page of Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 includes the following notation:
Concurrent approvals reflect the plans, standards and policies which were in
effect at the time of this subdivision approval. It is intended that the development
authorized by this vesting tentative tract map be carried out in conformance with
concurrent discretionary approvals unless amended by the developer or public
agency for health or safety considerations.
Certain members of the public believe that providing access to Costa De La Islas
off PVDS is unsafe and that the City should be able to amend the Vesting Tract
Map based on the above notation. As previously stated, Staff, including the City’s
Traffic Engineer, do not believe the proposed intersection is unsafe warranting
the City to invoke a change to the vesting tract map. Thus, while the cover page
includes the above language, the public agency must be able to identify safety
considerations to be able to propose amending the map. Staff cannot identify any
safety considerations, much less significant ones.
• The Applicant’s Traffic Analysis is outdated
The Applicant’s “Updated Traffic Impact Analysis” was prepared in October 24,
2017 and the traffic volume data was taken directly from the Traffic Impact
8
Analysis prepared for the City’s General Plan Update. In preparation of the
General Plan Update, Staff directed the City’s traffic consultant to conduct the
traffic counts on Veteran’s Day in 2016 in order to ensure that local and visitor
trips were accounted at a time when City streets are heavily used not only by
vehicles, but other recreational users. Given the fact that there has not been any
significant changes or any new significant development in the last 8 months, the
data used for this TIA is not considered “outdated.”
Portuguese Bend Club Petition
On June 18, 2018, Staff received a copy of the petition from the Portuguese Bend Club
HOA requesting the elimination of the right turn lane at Costa De La Islas and PVDS
(Attachment I-1).
Recordation of Final Vesting Tract Map No. 50666
On August 21, 2018, the City Council will consider authorizing the recordation of Final
Vesting Tract Map No. 50666. The Applicant is working diligently to satisfy all of the
Conditions of Approval tied to the Trump National Golf Club by that date. If authorized
by the City Council, the Applicant will begin constructing the remaining public trails and
improvements (e.g., drainage, landscaping, etc.) to allow the individual residential lots in
this tract to be sold and/or developed.
Vesting Tract Map No. 50666 is set to expire on September 21, 2018, but can be
extended by the City Council up to an additional two years. However, the “Offers to
Dedicate” certain lots to the City for the public’s benefit, as required by the Coastal
Commission’s Conditions of Approval is set to expire in December of this year.
CONCLUSION:
Staff has carefully analyzed the alternatives regarding Costa De La Islas T-intersection
at PVDS and is recommending Alternative No. 1 (Attachment C-1). Accordingly, staff
recommends the following ranking of the alternatives:
1. Median opening with an exclusive right turn lane, a left turn lane, and an
acceleration (merge) lane as recommended by TSC (Alternative No. 1)
2. Median opening with a left turn lane, an acceleration lane, but no exclusive right
turn lane, as requested by Portuguese Bend Club HOA (Alternative No. 4)
3. Median opening with a left turn lane, an exclusive right turn lane, but with no
acceleration (merge) lane, as requested by the Applicant (Alternative No. 5)
4. An exclusive right turn lane only (Alternative 2, no median opening)
5. A hooded left turn lane along PVDS and an exclusive right turn lane along PVDS
(Alternative No. 3)
ALTERNATIVES:
9
In addition to the Staff recommendations, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify a different preferred street design and direct the Applicant to make
the appropriate changes to the project plans.
2. Take other action as deemed appropriate by the City Council.
10
A-1
B-1
C-1
Prepared For
THE TRUMP ORGANIZATION
October 24, 2017
Prepared By
Updated Traffic Impact Study
Trump National Golf Club of Los Angeles
Proposed Twelve Residential Units
D-1
October 24, 2017
Ms. Jill A. Martin
Vice President & Assistant General Counsel – Litigation & Employment
The Trump Organization
c/o Trump National Golf Club of Los Angeles
One Trump National Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Re: Updated Traffic Impact Study for Proposed Twelve Residential Units
Dear Ms. Martin,
Pursuant to your request, Albert Grover & Associates (AGA) has conducted this study for the
purposes of providing the City of Ranchos Palos Verdes with an updated traffic impact study for
the proposed 12 residential units (located on the north side of the Trump National Golf Course
property in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, see Figure 1) that have previously been approved,
and for which you have a vested right to develop in accordance with the tentative tract map. As
part of the project and in accordance with the vested right, a new T‐intersection off of Palos
Verdes South Parkway will be constructed. The name of the new street is Costa De La Islas. As
depicted in the approved tentative tract map, this intersection will be the only access in and out
of the project and only accessible for the 12 residential units. The layout of the intersection is
shown in Figure 2. The purpose of this traffic impact analysis is to evaluate any traffic impacts
due to the project and to evaluate the operation of the new intersection.
Figure 1. Project Location
Trump
National
Proposed New
T‐Intersection
“Costa De La Islas”
D-2
Ms. Jill A. Martin
October 24, 2017
Page 2 of 23
Based on the proposed intersection layout, there will be one new westbound left turn lane and
one eastbound right turn lane, along with a merge lane (north‐to‐west movement) construced
by reducing the center median and one shared northbound left/right turn lane out of the
project and one southbound lane entering the project.
There will be a separate project involving eleven single family residential units built on the
property just southeast of this project. However, the access to those units will be from Trump
National Drive and not Costa De La Islas.
Trip Generation
The project trips (trip generation) for the proposed residential development were determined
based on trip rates from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual
– 9th Edition. The trip generation analysis evaluated trips for the weekday AM/PM peak hours
and Saturday peak hour. The project trip generation, summarized below in Table 1, shows that
the proposed project will generate 9 AM peak hour trips, 12 PM peak hour trips, and 114 daily
trips during a typical weekday. For a typical Saturday, the proposed project is expected to
generate 11 peak hour trips and 119 daily trips. As expected for a project of this size, the
number of project trips is not considered significant; therefore, the analysis will only be
confined to the intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South/Costa De La Islas.
Figure 2. Proposed Intersection Layout
Palos Verdes Drive South
Proposed New Lane Existing Lane Costa De La Islas
D-3
Ms. Jill A. Martin
October 24, 2017
Page 3 of 23
Trip Distribution
The trip distribution was based on existing east/west traffic patterns outlined in the 2017
General Plan Update report. The peak hour project trips are shown in Figure 3.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates 9.520 0.188 0.563 0.75 0.630 0.370 1.00
Total Trips 114 2 7 9 8 4 12
Peak Hour
In Out Total
Trip Rates 9.910 0.502 0.428 0.93
Total Trips 119 6 5 11
Note: 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition.
2 DU - Dwelling Units
Weekday
Saturday
Table 1. Project Trip Generation
ITE1 Code 210: Single
Family Detached
Housin g
Quantity2 Daily
12 DU
ITE1 Code 210: Single
Family Detached
Housin g
Quantity2 Daily
12 DU
Figure 3. Peak Hour Project Trips
D-4
Ms. Jill A. Martin
October 24, 2017
Page 4 of 23
Level‐of‐Service (LOS) Methodology
Based on the peak hour traffic signal warrant guidelines (see Attachment A) from the 2014
California Manual on Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD), the number of peak hour project
trips (9 AM trips, 12 PM trips and 11 Sat trips) is well below the threshold of 100 vehicles per
hour to warrant a traffic signal. Therefore, the intersection level‐of‐service analyses evaluated
the intersection as an unsignalized intersection with stop control for Costa De La Islas. The
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) unsignalized methodology for two‐way stop controlled study
intersections uses a LOS scale similar to a signalized intersection, but the values reflect the
highest vehicle LOS and average per vehicle delay for the minor (side‐street) approach. Similar
to the 2017 General Plan Update report, the intersection LOS was analyzed using the Synchro
software program (HCM ) for a two‐way stop controlled intersection. The LOS criteria for
unsignalized intersections using control delay per vehicle is shown below:
LOS A ≤ 10.0 seconds LOS D > 25.0 and ≤ 35.0 seconds
LOS B > 10.0 and ≤ 15.0 seconds LOS E > 35.0 and ≤ 50.0 seconds
LOS C > 15.0 and ≤ 25.0 seconds LOS F > 50.0 seconds
For the roadway segment analyses, the LOS was evaluated based on the daily traffic volumes (v,
volumes) and the maximum roadway capacity (c, capacity) for a 2‐Lane divided arterial. Based
on the 2017 General Plan Update report, the capacity for this area (2‐lane divided arterial) is
17,900 vehicles per day (see Attachment B). The threshold volume‐to‐capacity (v/c) ratios to
determine the Level‐of‐Service for the roadway segment analyses are shown below:
LOS A 0 – 0.60 LOS D 0.81 – 0.90
LOS B 0.61 – 0.70 LOS E 0.91 – 1.00
LOS C 0.71 – 0.80 LOS F > 1.00
The LOS threshold for both the intersection and roadway segment analyses is LOS D. Generally,
improvements are only necessary if an intersection and/or roadway segment operates at a LOS
E or F due to the added project traffic.
Study Scenarios
Since there is no existing establishment on the project site and also no existing intersection, all
scenarios for the intersection LOS analyzed only the “with Project” conditions. For the
D-5
Ms. Jill A. Martin
October 24, 2017
Page 5 of 23
intersection LOS, the weekday AM and PM peak hours and midday Saturday peak hour
conditions were evaluated. For a conservative intersection LOS analysis, the merge lane was not
included. For the roadway segment LOS, both “without Project” and “with Project” scenarios
were evaluated. In accordance with the 2017 General Plan Update, the roadway segment was
evaluated for weekday traffic conditions. This study analyzed the following scenarios:
Intersection LOS Analyses Scenarios
Existing Traffic (Year 2017) with Project
Opening Day (Year 2022) with Project
General Plan Build Out (Year 2040) with Project
Roadway Segment LOS Analyses Scenarios (Weekday Only)
Existing Traffic (Year 2017) without Project and with Project
Opening Day (Year 2022) without Project and with Project
General Plan Build Out (Year 2040) without Project and with Project
Traffic Volume Data
Traffic volume data from the 2017 General Plan Update was utilized for this project study.
For the peak hour intersection analyses, the east/west through volumes at the study
intersection were derived from the approach/departure peak hour volumes from the
intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South/Forrestal Drive‐Trump National Drive. For the
roadway segment analysis, the 2017 General Plan Update evaluated the area on Palos
Verdes Drive South between Narcissa Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East. The traffic volume
data for this segment was used in analyzing the added daily project traffic. Attachment C
shows the traffic volume data from the 2017 General Plan Update report as well as the peak
hour volume calculations for all study scenarios.
Existing Traffic (Year 2017)
The traffic counts conducted for the 2017 General Plan
Update were completed in 2016, therefore a one
percent growth factor was applied to the traffic counts
to determine the Year 2017 traffic volumes. Figure 4
shows the Year 2017 peak hour traffic volumes for the
project intersection.
Figure 4. Year 2017
Peak Hour Volumes with Project
D-6
Ms. Jill A. Martin
October 24, 2017
Page 6 of 23
Based on the Synchro HCM LOS for an unsignalized intersection, the study intersection is
expected to operate at LOS D or better for existing traffic conditions, Year 2017. The
roadway segment LOS analysis was also evaluated. Based on that analysis, the LOS for the
roadway segment is LOS D both with and without. The project is expected to increase the
daily traffic only by 0.7% (114 veh/15,330 veh). Table 2 provides a summary of the
intersection and roadway segment LOS analyses.
Opening Day (Year 2022)
For the Opening Day (Year 2022) with Project Scenario, a growth factor was of 3% was
applied to the base 2017 General Plan Update volumes. This represents a 0.5% annual
growth rate over six years (Year 2016 to Year 2022). The 2017 General Plan Update report
utilized a 6.8% growth from Year 2016 to Year 2040. That represents approximately a 0.28%
annual growth rate. Therefore, the 0.5% growth rate can be considered a conservative
value for this area and within the range of the 2017 General Plan Update report. For
Delay1 LOS3 Delay1 LOS3 Delay1 LOS3
27.7 D 18.8 C 23.2 C
Daily Vol5 V/C2 LOS Project
Dail y
Total
Dail y V/C2 LOS
15,330 0.856 D 114 15,444 0.863 D
Note 1. Delay in seconds.
2. V/C: Volume‐to‐Capacity Ratio
3. LOS: Level of Service
4. Unsignalized Intersection; LOS reflects the hi ghest vehicle delay for minor a pproach (side‐street)
was increased b y 1% to account for 2017 conditions.
5. The dail y roadwa y se gment volume was obtained from the General Plan Update Report. The volume
Roadway Segment Analysis ‐ Palos Verdes Drive South
(Two Lane Divided Arterial, LOS E Capacity = 17,900 veh/day)
With Project
Table 2. Existing Traffic (Year 2017)
Level of Service (LOS) Summary
Weekday Saturday
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hour
Intersection Analysis With Project Scenario
Location
Palos Verdes Drive South/
Costa De La Islas4
Weekday
Without ProjectBetween Narcissa Drive and
Palos Verdes Drive East
D-7
Ms. Jill A. Martin
October 24, 2017
Page 7 of 23
background projects within the study intersection, it was assumed that the other 11
residential units would be built around this time. Attachment D provides the trip generation
for the proposed 11 residential units. Figure 5 shows the Year 2022 peak hour traffic
volumes for the study intersection.
Based on the Synchro HCM LOS, the study intersection is expected to operate at LOS D or
better for Opening Day, Year 2022 conditions. The LOS for the roadway segment is expected
to be LOS D both with and without the project. Similar to Year 2017 conditions, the project
is also expected to increase the daily traffic only by 0.7% (114 veh/15,738 veh). Table 3
provides a summary of the intersection and roadway segment LOS analyses.
Figure 5. Year 2022
Peak Hour Volumes with Project
D-8
Ms. Jill A. Martin
October 24, 2017
Page 8 of 23
General Plan Build Out (Year 2040)
For the General Plan Build Out (Year 2040) scenario, traffic volumes from the 2017 General
Plan Update report were utilized. Figure 6 shows the Year 2040 peak hour traffic volumes
for the study intersection.
Delay1 LOS3 Delay1 LOS3 Delay1 LOS 3
29.4 D 19.6 C 24.4 C
Daily Vol5 V/C2 LOS Project
Dail y
Total
Dail y V/C 2 LOS
15,738 0.879 D 114 15,852 0.886 D
Note 1. Delay in seconds.
2. V/C: Volume‐to‐Capacity Ratio
3. LOS: Level of Service
4. Unsignalized Intersection; LOS reflects the hi ghest vehicle delay for minor a pproach (side‐street)
was increased b y 3% to account for 2022 conditions. The volume also includes the daily volume from
the 11 residential unit proj ect (105 veh).
5. The dail y roadwa y se gment volume was obtained from the General Plan Update Report. The volume
Table 3. Opening Day (Year 2022)
Level of Service (LOS) Summary
Intersection Analysis With Project Scenario
Location
Weekday Saturday
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hour
Palos Verdes Drive South/
Costa De La Islas 4
Roadway Segment Analysis ‐ Palos Verdes Drive South
(Two Lane Divided Arterial, LOS E Capacity = 17,900 veh/day)
Between Narcissa Drive and
Palos Verdes Drive East
Without Project With Project
Weekday
Figure 6. Year 2040
Peak Hour Volumes with Project
D-9
Ms. Jill A. Martin
October 24, 2017
Page 9 of 23
Based on the Synchro HCM LOS, the study intersection is expected to operate at LOS D or
better for General Plan Build Out (Year 2040) conditions. The LOS for the roadway segment
is expected to be LOS E both with and without the project. Although the roadway segment
is LOS E, there is minimal impact due to the project. The project will not significantly impact
this roadway segment since it Is expected to increase the daily traffic only by 0.7% (114
veh/16,302 veh) and increase the v/c ratio by only 0.006 (0.911 to 0.917). The 2017 General
Plan Update report evaluated improvements for Palos Verde Drive South, within this study
area for the Build Out Year 2040. The proposed improvement is to provide an additional
through lane for both the east/west directions. With the additional lanes, the new roadway
capacity increases from 17,900 vehicles per day to 36,100 vehicles per day and the LOS
improves to LOS A. However, as stated in the 2017 General Plan Update report, this
improvement may not be feasible since the bicycle lanes would need to be removed to
accommodate the additional lanes. Table 4 provides a summary of the intersection and
roadway segment LOS analyses. The Synchro HCM LOS worksheets for all scenarios are
provided in Attachment E.
Delay1 LOS3 Delay1 LOS3 Delay1 LOS3
31.0 D 20.3 C 25.4 D
Daily Vol5 V/C2 LOS Project
Dail y
Total
Dail y Vol V/C2 LOS
16,302 0.911 E 114 16,416 0.917 E
16,302 0.452 A 114 16,416 0.455 A
Notes 1. Delay in seconds.
2. V/C: Volume‐to‐Capacity Ratio
3. LOS: Level of Service
4. Unsignalized Intersection; LOS reflects the hi ghest vehicle dela y for minor a pproach (side‐street)
Build out (16,197 veh) plus the daily volume of the 11 residential unit project (105 veh).
5. The dail y roadwa y se gment volume includes volume data from the General Plan U pdate Report, Cit y
With Proposed General Plan
Improvements, Four Lane
Arterial (Capacity = 36,100)
Palos Verdes Drive South/
Costa De La Islas 4
Roadway Segment Analysis ‐ Palos Verdes Drive South
(Two Lane Divided Arterial, LOS E Capacity = 17,900 veh/day)
Between Narcissa Drive and
Palos Verdes Drive East
Without Project With Project
Weekday
Table 4. General Plan Build Out (Year 2040)
Level of Service (LOS) Summary
Intersection Analysis With Project Scenario
Location
Weekday Saturday
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Peak Hour
D-10
Ms. Jill A. Martin
October 24, 2017
Page 10 of 23
Palos Verdes Drive South/Costa De La Islas Intersection Evaluation
Queuing Analysis for the Westbound Left Turn Lane
Included in the LOS analyses was the queuing analysis (95th % queue) for the westbound left
turn lane to determine if the proposed layout provides adequate storage. The Build Out Year
2040 report did not show a queue for the westbound left turn lane for any of the peak hours.
Based on engineering judgement, even though the westbound left turn demand is expected to
be low, it is expected at times that there will be vehicles queued in the left turn lane. The
proposed layout shows the left turn storage at 150 feet in length, which should be able to
accommodate six to seven passenger vehicles. The storage should be adequate due to the low
number of project trips and that there should be adequate gaps of traffic in the opposing
eastbound lane.
Project Intersection – Collisions and Sight Distance Analysis
The City requested that collisions at the proposed intersection be evaluated. Collision data
(reported incidents) from the City was obtained from Year 2013 to the present day. Based on
the information, there was one collision on Palos Verdes Drive South, between Schooner Drive
and the proposed intersection. The incident occurred in August 2014 and involved a bicyclist
(rear end) heading eastbound on Palos Verdes Drive South. Right angle collisions (broadside) at
the adjacent intersections to the proposed intersection were also evaluated. Based on the data
provided, the highest number of right angle collisions for a single year were two collisions at the
intersection of Palos Verdes Drive South/Conqueror Drive. Those two incidents occurred in
2016. All right angle collisions for the adjacent intersections since 2013 are provided in Table 5
and all collision data evaluated is provided in Attachment F. A sight distance analysis was
conducted at the project intersection to determine if adequate sight distance is available for
both ingress and egress movements at the proposed intersection.
A sight distance analysis was conducted for the left turns at the proposed intersection. The
analysis evaluated the corner sight distance of the traffic exiting Costa De La Islas as well as
sight distance for the westbound left turn movement from Palos Verde Drive South into Costa
De La Islas. The sight distance for both movements is based on line of sight determination as a
function of geometrics and vehicle speed. Although the speed limit on Palos Verdes Drive South
is 40 mph, a speed of 45 mph was used in the analyses to provide a more conservative
approach.
For the corner sight distance analysis, a motorist waiting to turn left from Costa De La Islas
should be able to see oncoming vehicles along Palos Verdes Drive South to safely maneuver the
D-11
Ms. Jill A. Martin
October 24, 2017
Page 11 of 23
turn. Guidelines from the Caltrans Highway Design Manual were utilized for this analysis. Per
the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, a corner sight distance of 495 feet is required for an
approach speed of 45 mph. The corner sight distance was evaluated for a vehicle exiting left
from Costa De La Islas and looking at both the eastbound and westbound approaches on Palos
Verdes Drive South. This is a conservative analysis since the corner sight distance for the
westbound approach is not required due to the proposed merge lane for the northbound left
turn onto Palos Verdes Drive South. Figures 7A and 7B show the corner sight distance
evaluation. Based on those figures, there is adequate corner sight distance for a vehicle exiting
Costa De La Islas as long as no large obstructions (signs, monuments and/or landscaping) are
placed within the line of sight.
Location Date Directions Description
Palos Verdes Drive South at
Conqueror Drive 6/9/2013 SB Left Turn and
WB Thru
Failed to yield at
stop sign
Palos Verdes Drive South at
Conqueror Drive 7/13/2014 SB Left Turn and
WB Thru
Failed to yield at
stop sign
Palos Verdes Drive South at
Trump National 9/19/2014 NB Left Turn and
EB Thru
Failure to yield to
oncoming traffic
Palos Verdes Drive South at
Schooner Drive 1/22/2015 WB Thru and
SB Thru
Failed to yield at
stop sign
Palos Verdes Drive South at
Forrestal Drive 1/20/2016 NB Left Turn and
EB Thru
Failure to yield to
oncoming traffic
Palos Verdes Drive South at
Conqueror Drive 5/16/2016 SB Left Turn and
WB Thru
Failure to yield to
oncoming traffic
Palos Verdes Drive South at
Conqueror Drive 10/26/2016 SB Left Turn and
WB Thru
Failure to yield to
oncoming traffic
Collision data was provided by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes. A list of all collisions are
provided in Attachment F.
Year 2013
None reported as of September 2017
Year 2017
Year 2016
Table 5. Broadside Collisions (2013 ‐ 2017)
Year 2015
Year 2014
D-12
Ms. Jill A. Martin
October 24, 2017
Page 12 of 23
For the westbound left turn, a vehicle turning from Palos Verdes Drive South should be able to
see oncoming eastbound vehicles and safely make the turn. The sight distance analysis for this
movement was based on the American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials (AASHTO) “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets”. Based on the
AASHTO calculation for sight distance (Case F‐Left Turns from the Major Road), the intersection
sight distance (based on gap timing) for a passenger car traveling at 45 mph is 365 feet. Figure 8
shows the sight distance evaluation for the proposed westbound left turn. Based on the figure,
there is adequate sight distance for the westbound left turn as long as no large obstructions
(signs, monuments and/or landscaping) are placed in the median island that interferes with the
sight distance.
For the study intersection, there will be new street name signs required and other signs in the
median may need to be relocated. It is advisable that all signs should be placed outside of the
line of sight for both the corner sight distance and westbound left turn sight distance analyses.
D-13
D
-
1
4
D
-
1
5
D
-
1
6
Ms. Jill A. Martin
October 24, 2017
Page 16 of 23
Truck Turning Template Evaluation
A truck turning template for a small size truck (30 foot truck similar to a trash truck or typical
FedEx/UPS delivery truck) was evaluated for the ingress and egress movements. The ingress
movement assumed a tight turn into Costa De La Islas and the egress movement assumed a
wide right turn out of the street (see Figure 9). Based on the figure, the proposed layout should
be able to accommodate a 30 foot truck inbound and outbound without affecting the other
vehicular movements. A larger moving truck (WB‐67, 73 foot) was also evaluated (see Figures
10A‐10D). It is expected that these trucks will be used less frequent, mainly for residents
moving in and out and/or delivery of large items. Based on the turning templates, in order for a
large truck of this size to enter from the westbound left turn lane, the proposed median should
be reduced by 12 feet. For large trucks exiting the intersection, the trucks will have difficulty in
exiting right out. Therefore, it is recommended to either have large trucks exit only left (north
to west) onto Palos Verdes Drive South, or widen the proposed intersection and install a right
turn lane. If such a larger sized truck is utilized, a City permit will be required. The access to the
project, along with the new street layout/design, is still subject to the review by the police and
fire departments. The street improvement plan for the project is provided in Attachment G.
D-17
D
-
1
8
D
-
1
9
D
-
2
0
D
-
2
1
D
-
2
2
Ms. Jill A. Martin
October 24, 2017
Page 22 of 23
Conclusions
Based on an engineering analysis of the traffic volume data, Synchro HCM LOS analyses and the
proposed intersection layout plan, the following conclusions can be drawn:
The project intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable level‐of‐service (LOS)
for existing traffic conditions, Year 2022 and in Year 2040.
The segment roadway is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS for existing traffic
conditions and in Year 2022. The segment roadway is expected to operate at LOS E in
Year 2040 both with and without the project. The project is expected to only increase
the daily trips on Palos Verdes Drive South by less than one percent (0.7%). According to
the 2017 General Plan Update report, a four lane arterial is required in Year 2040 and
will improve the segment roadway from a LOS E to LOS A. However, as stated in the
2017 General Plan Update report, the improvement to a four lane arterial may not be
feasible as it will require the removal of the bicycle lanes.
The queuing analysis for the westbound left turn lane revealed that the proposed
intersection layout plan provides adequate vehicle storage.
Based on collision data (reported incidents) from the City, there has been one accident
near the proposed intersection in the past four years. There is adequate sight distance
for vehicles exiting Costa De La Islas and for westbound vehicles turning left into the
proposed street. It is recommended that no large obstructions (signs, monuments
and/or landscaping) be placed within the line of sight of the turning movements.
The proposed intersection layout and configuration allows enough room for a trash
truck/small delivery truck to enter and exit without affecting other movements. For
larger sized trucks (WB‐67) entering and exiting the intersection, those trucks will have
difficulty in turning right out (exiting) of the proposed intersection. Therefore, the larger
sized trucks should be required to exit left only or the project should provide a
northbound right turn lane. If a larger sized truck is utilized, a permit from the City will
be required. The access to the project, along with the new street layout/design, is still
subject to the review by the police and fire departments.
D-23
D
-
2
4
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A California Manual on Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) 2014, Traffic
Signal Warrant
Attachment B General Plan Update Report – Roadway Segment Capacities
Attachment C General Plan Update Report ‐ Traffic Volumes
‐ Synchro HCM Worksheets
‐ Volume Calculations for Project Driveway
‐ Roadway Segment Volumes
Attachment D Project Trip Generation for the 11 Residential Units
Attachment E Level of Service Worksheets
‐ Existing Traffic Conditions (Year 2017)
‐ Opening Day (Year 2022)
‐ Build Out (Year 2040)
Attachment F Collision Data on Palos Verdes Drive South
‐ Schooner Drive – Forrestal Drive, Years 2013‐2017
Attachment G Palos Verdes Drive South ‐ Roadway Improvement Plan
D-25
Attachment A Includes:
California Manual on Traffic Control Devices (CA
MUTCD) 2014
o Traffic Signal Warrant - Peak Hour Warrant
D-26
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 837
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)
Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014
Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
_____________________________________________________________________________________
D-27
Attachment B Includes:
General Plan Update Report
o Section 2.2, Table B: Roadway Segment Capacities
D-28
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Update
Traffic Impact Analysis
May 2017
7 | Page
2.2 Roadway Segment Levels of Service
The analysis of traffic operations on roadway segments was conducted by comparing the daily traffic volumes to the
maximum roadway capacity of each facility type. The maximum roadway capacity is a measure of a streets ability to
meet the vehicular demand that is placed on it. Table B identifies the maximum daily capacity values for each
roadway type. These daily capacities were developed consistent with HCM Chapter 16, Urban Street Facilities, which
provides a methodology for developing generalized daily service volumes based on daily volumes and applying k-
factors (proportion of daily volume that occurs during the peak hour) and d-factors (proportion of traffic moving in
peak direction of travel). The v/c ratios listed in Table A represent the level of service criteria for roadway segments.
Table B: Roadway Segment Capacities
2.3 Levels of Service Thresholds
The CMP standard level of service for intersections is LOS E. However, local jurisdictions are allowed to use a
stricter LOS standard. The City uses LOS D as the minimum level of service standard for roadway segment and
D
This level is typically assigned when the
volume-to-capacity ratio is high and either
progression is ineffective or the cycle
length is long. Many vehicles stop and
individual cycle failures are noticeable.
> 25 and < 35 > 35 and <
55
0.81-0.90
E
This level is typically assigned when the
volume-to-capacity ratio is high,
progression is unfavorable, and the cycle
length is long. Individual cycle failures are
frequent.
> 35 and < 50 > 55 and <
80
0.91-1.00
F
This level is typically assigned when the
volume-to-capacity ratio is very high,
progression is very poor, and the cycle
length is long. Most cycles fail to clear the
queue.
> 50 > 80
>1.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2016/2010 LA County CMP
Classification
Maximum Two-Way
Daily Traffic
Volume (LOS E)
4-Lane Divided Arterial 36,100
2-Lane Divided Arterial 17,900
2-Lane Undivided Arterial 17,000
4-Lane Undivided Collector 34,300
2-Lane Divided Collector 17,900
D-29
Attachment C Includes:
General Plan Update Report Traffic Volumes
o Synchro HCM Worksheets for Palos Verdes Drive
South/Forrestal Dr-Trump National Dr
o Volume Calculations for Project Driveway
Year 2017, 2022 & 2040
o Roadway Segment Volumes for Palos Verdes
Drive, between Narcissa Dr and Palos Verdes
Drive East
D-30
General Plan Update Report Traffic Volumes
o Synchro HCM Worksheets for Palos Verdes Drive
South/Forrestal Dr-Trump National Dr
o Volume Calculations for Project Driveway
Year 2017, 2022 & 2040
D-31
HCM 6th TWSC
18: Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive & Palos Verdes Drive South 03/29/2017
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Update 03/29/2017 Existing Weekday Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report
Translutions, Inc. Page 39
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 11 441 4 24 936 40 6 0 14 45 1 24
Future Vol, veh/h 11 441 4 24 936 40 6 0 14 45 1 24
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 150 - 150 200 - 200 60 - - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 12 464 4 25 985 42 6 0 15 47 1 25
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1027 0 0 468 0 0 1557 1565 464 1533 1527 985
Stage 1 - - -- - - 488 488 - 1035 1035 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 1069 1077 - 498 492 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - -- - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - -- - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 684 - - 1104 - - 93 113 602 96 119 304
Stage 1 - - - - - - 565 553 - 282 312 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 270 298 - 558 551 -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 684 - - 1104 - - 82 108 602 91 114 304
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 82 108 - 91 114 -
Stage 1 - - -- - - 555 543 - 277 305 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 241 291 - 535 541 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.2 0.2 23.5 59
HCM LOS C F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h)82 602 684 - - 1104 - - 91 285
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.077 0.024 0.017 - - 0.023 - - 0.521 0.092
HCM Control Delay (s) 52.5 11.1 10.4 - - 8.3 - - 81.3 18.9
HCM Lane LOS F B B - - A - - F C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 2.3 0.3
D-32
HCM 6th TWSC
18: Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive & Palos Verdes Drive South 03/29/2017
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Update 03/29/2017 Existing Weekday Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report
Translutions, Inc. Page 39
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 3.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 36 774 4 21 454 41 14 2 34 44 0 27
Future Vol, veh/h 36 774 4 21 454 41 14 2 34 44 0 27
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 150 - 150 200 - 200 60 - - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 38 815 4 22 478 43 15 2 36 46 0 28
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 521 0 0 819 0 0 1449 1456 815 1434 1417 478
Stage 1 - - -- - - 891 891 - 522 522 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 558 565 - 912 895 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - -- - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - -- - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1056 - - 818 - - 110 131 381 113 138 591
Stage 1 - - - - - - 340 363 - 542 534 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 518 511 - 331 362 -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1056 - - 818 - - 100 123 381 96 129 591
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 100 123 - 96 129 -
Stage 1 - - -- - - 328 350 - 522 520 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 480 497 - 287 349 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0.4 25.4 49.8
HCM LOS D E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h)100 341 1056 - - 818 - - 96 591
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.147 0.111 0.036 - - 0.027 - - 0.482 0.048
HCM Control Delay (s) 47.1 16.9 8.5 - - 9.5 - - 73.4 11.4
HCM Lane LOS E C A - - A - - F B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.5 0.4 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 2.1 0.2
D-33
HCM 6th TWSC
18: Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive & Palos Verdes Drive South 03/29/2017
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Update 03/29/2017 Existing Saturday Conditions - Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report
Translutions, Inc. Page 37
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 47 560 36 43 517 73 26 0 49 41 1 76
Future Vol, veh/h 47 560 36 43 517 73 26 0 49 41 1 76
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 150 - 150 200 - 200 60 - - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 49 589 38 45 544 77 27 0 52 43 1 80
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 621 0 0 627 0 0 1400 1398 589 1366 1359 544
Stage 1 - - -- - - 687 687 - 634 634 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 713 711 - 732 725 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - -- - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - -- - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 969 - - 965 - - 119 142 512 126 150 543
Stage 1 - - - - - - 440 450 - 471 476 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 426 439 - 416 433 -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 969 - - 965 - - 94 128 512 105 136 543
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 94 128 - 105 136 -
Stage 1 - - -- - - 418 427 - 447 454 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 345 418 - 355 411 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 0.6 28.6 29.9
HCM LOS D D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h)94 512 969 - - 965 - - 105 523
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.291 0.101 0.051 - - 0.047 - - 0.411 0.155
HCM Control Delay (s) 58.3 12.8 8.9 - - 8.9 - - 61.4 13.1
HCM Lane LOS F B A - - A - - F B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.1 0.3 0.2 - - 0.1 - - 1.7 0.5
D-34
HCM 6th TWSC
18: Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive & Palos Verdes Drive South 03/29/2017
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Update 03/29/2017 General Plan Build Out Weekday Conditions - AM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report
Translutions, Inc. Page 39
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.2
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 12 470 4 25 999 42 6 0 15 48 1 26
Future Vol, veh/h 12 470 4 25 999 42 6 0 15 48 1 26
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 150 - 150 200 - 200 60 - - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 13 495 4 26 1052 44 6 0 16 51 1 27
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 1096 0 0 499 0 0 1661 1669 495 1635 1629 1052
Stage 1 - - -- - - 521 521 - 1104 1104 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 1140 1148 - 531 525 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - -- - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - -- - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 644 - - 1075 - - 78 97 579 82 103 278
Stage 1 - - - - - - 542 535 - 258 289 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 247 276 - 536 533 -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 644 - - 1075 - - 67 93 579 77 98 278
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 67 93 - 77 98 -
Stage 1 - - -- - - 531 524 - 253 282 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 216 269 - 511 522 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.3 0.2 26.5 81
HCM LOS D F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h)67 579 644 - - 1075 - - 77 260
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.094 0.027 0.02 - - 0.024 - - 0.656 0.109
HCM Control Delay (s) 64.2 11.4 10.7 - - 8.4 - - 115.1 20.5
HCM Lane LOS F B B - - A - - F C
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.3 0.1 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 3 0.4
D-35
HCM 6th TWSC
18: Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive & Palos Verdes Drive South 03/29/2017
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Update 03/29/2017 General Plan Build Out Weekday Conditions - PM Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report
Translutions, Inc. Page 39
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 4.7
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 38 827 4 22 484 44 15 2 36 47 0 29
Future Vol, veh/h 38 827 4 22 484 44 15 2 36 47 0 29
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 150 - 150 200 - 200 60 - - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 40 871 4 23 509 46 16 2 38 49 0 31
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 555 0 0 875 0 0 1545 1552 871 1528 1510 509
Stage 1 - - -- - - 951 951 - 555 555 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 594 601 - 973 955 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - -- - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - -- - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 1026 - - 780 - - 94 115 353 97 122 568
Stage 1 - - - - - - 315 341 - 520 516 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 495 493 - 306 339 -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 1026 - - 780 - - 84 107 353 81 114 568
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 84 107 - 81 114 -
Stage 1 - - -- - - 303 328 - 500 501 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 455 479 - 261 326 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.4 0.4 29.3 68.1
HCM LOS D F
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h)84 315 1026 - - 780 - - 81 568
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.188 0.127 0.039 - - 0.03 - - 0.611 0.054
HCM Control Delay (s) 57.5 18.1 8.7 - - 9.8 - - 102.9 11.7
HCM Lane LOS F C A - - A - - F B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.6 0.4 0.1 - - 0.1 - - 2.8 0.2
D-36
HCM 6th TWSC
18: Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive & Palos Verdes Drive South 03/29/2017
Rancho Palos Verdes General Plan Update General Plan Build Out Saturday Conditions - Midday Peak Hour Synchro 10 Report
Translutions, Inc. Page 37
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 5.4
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 50 597 38 46 551 78 28 0 52 44 1 81
Future Vol, veh/h 50 597 38 46 551 78 28 0 52 44 1 81
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Free Free Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop Stop
RT Channelized - - None - - None - - None - - None
Storage Length 150 - 150 200 - 200 60 - - 100 - -
Veh in Median Storage, # - 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Grade, %- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -- 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 53 628 40 48 580 82 29 0 55 46 1 85
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1 Minor2
Conflicting Flow All 662 0 0 668 0 0 1494 1492 628 1458 1450 580
Stage 1 - - -- - - 734 734 - 676 676 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 760 758 - 782 774 -
Critical Hdwy 4.1 - - 4.1 - - 7.1 6.5 6.2 7.1 6.5 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - - -- - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - - -- - - 6.1 5.5 - 6.1 5.5 -
Follow-up Hdwy 2.2 - - 2.2 - - 3.5 4 3.3 3.5 4 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver 936 - - 931 - - 102 125 487 109 132 518
Stage 1 - - - - - - 415 429 - 446 456 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 401 418 - 390 411 -
Platoon blocked, %- -- -
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver 936 - - 931 - - 78 112 487 89 118 518
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - - - - - - 78 112 - 89 118 -
Stage 1 - - -- - - 391 405 - 421 432 -
Stage 2 - - -- - - 317 396 - 327 388 -
Approach EB WB NB SB
HCM Control Delay, s 0.7 0.6 35.5 37.9
HCM LOS E E
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1NBLn2 EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBRSBLn1SBLn2
Capacity (veh/h)78 487 936 - - 931 - - 89 497
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.378 0.112 0.056 - - 0.052 - - 0.52 0.174
HCM Control Delay (s) 76.8 13.3 9.1 - - 9.1 - - 82.9 13.8
HCM Lane LOS F B A - - A - - F B
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 1.5 0.4 0.2 - - 0.2 - - 2.3 0.6
D-37
Peak
Hour EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
AM 11 445 4 24 945 40 6 0 14 45 1 24
AM Total 11 445 4 24 945 40 6 0 14 45 1 24
PM 36 782 4 21 459 41 14 2 34 44 0 27
PM Total 36 782 4 21 459 41 14 2 34 44 0 27
SAT 47 566 36 43 522 74 26 0 49 41 1 77
SAT Total 47 566 36 43 522 74 26 0 49 41 1 77
Peak
Hour EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
AM 24
Other Proj
AM Total 0000000000024
PM 27
Other Proj
PM Total 0000000000027
SAT 77
Other Proj
SAT Total 0000000000077
Peak
Hour EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
AM 460 999
w/ Proj 1 1 5 2
AM Total 460 1 1 999 5 2
PM 822 527
w/ Proj 5 3 1 3
PM Total 822 5 3 527 1 3
SAT 649 702
w/ Proj 2 4 3 2
SAT Total 649 2 4 702 3 2
Year 2017 Traffic Volumes
With Project
Palos Verdes Drive South at Forrestal Dr‐Trump National Dr
Without Project
Palos Verdes Drive South at Conqueror Dr, Assume SBR = SBR at Forestal Dr
Palos Verdes Drive South at Costa De La Islas
Year 2017 ‐ 1% Growth from 2016
D-38
Peak
Hour EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
AM 11 458 4 25 973 41 6 0 14 46 1 25
Other Proj 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0
AM Total 11 458 5 26 973 41 10 0 16 46 1 25
PM 37 805 4 22 473 42 14 2 35 45 0 28
Other Proj 0 0 5 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0
PM Total 37 805 9 24 473 42 15 2 38 45 0 28
SAT 48 583 37 44 538 76 27 0 50 42 1 79
Other Proj 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0
SAT Total 48 583 40 47 538 76 30 0 52 42 1 79
Peak
Hour EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
Other Proj
AM Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
PM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
Other Proj
PM Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
SAT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79
Other Proj
SAT Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79
Peak
Hour EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
AM 474 1033
w/ Proj 1 1 5 2
AM Total 474 1 1 1033 5 2
PM 851 544
w/ Proj 5 3 1 3
PM Total 851 5 3 544 1 3
SAT 671 726
w/ Proj 2 4 3 2
SAT Total 671 2 4 726 3 2
Year 2022 Traffic Volumes
With the 11 Proposed Units & Project
Palos Verdes Drive South at Forrestal Dr-Trump National Dr
With the 11 Proposed Units & Without Project
Palos Verdes Drive South at Conqueror Dr, Assume SBR = SBR at Forestal Dr
Palos Verdes Drive South at Costa De La Islas
Year 2022 - 3% Growth from 2016
D-39
Peak
Hour EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
AM 13 470 4 25 999 42 6 0 15 48 1 26
Other Proj 0 0 1 1 0 0 4 0 2 0 0 0
AM Total 13 470 5 26 999 42 10 0 17 48 1 26
PM 38 827 4 22 484 44 15 2 36 47 0 29
Other Proj 0 0 5 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0
PM Total 38 827 9 24 484 44 16 2 39 47 0 29
SAT 50 597 38 46 551 78 28 0 52 44 1 81
Other Proj 0 0 3 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0
SAT Total 50 597 41 49 551 78 31 0 54 44 1 81
Peak
Hour EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
AM 26
Other Proj
AM Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26
PM 29
Other Proj
PM Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
SAT 81
Other Proj
SAT Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 81
Peak
Hour EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
AM 488 1061
w/ Proj 1 1 5 2
AM Total 488 1 1 1061 5 2
PM 874 558
w/ Proj 5 3 1 3
PM Total 874 5 3 558 1 3
SAT 688 744
w/ Proj 2 4 3 2
SAT Total 688 2 4 744 3 2
Year 2040 Traffic Volumes, City Build Out
With Project
Palos Verdes Drive South at Forrestal Dr-Trump National Dr
Without Project
Palos Verdes Drive South at Conqueror Dr, Assume SBR = SBR at Forestal Dr
Palos Verdes Drive South at Costa De La Islas
D-40
General Plan Update Report Traffic Volumes
o Roadway Segment Volumes for Palos Verdes Drive,
between Narcissa Dr and Palos Verdes Drive East
D-41
the transportation solutions company...
Existing Conditions
Daily
Roadway Segment Functional Classification Volume
1 . Between the North City Limit and Blackhorse Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 29,164
2 . Between Blackhorse Road and Silver Spur Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 27,634
3 . Between Grayslake Road - Highridge Road and Indian Peak Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 36,880
4 . Between Grayslake Road - Highridge Road and Granvia Atlamira - Ridgegate Drive 4-Lane Divided Arterial 26,244
5 . Between Granvia Atlamira - Ridgegate Drive and Eddinghill Drive - Seamount Drive 4-Lane Divided Arterial 20,065
6 . Between Eddinghill Drive - Seamount Drive and Crest Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 16,300
7 . Between Crest Road and Vallon Drive 4-Lane Divided Arterial 17,199
8 . Between Vallon Drive and Palos Verdes Drive West 4-Lane Divided Arterial 16,524
9 . Between the North City Limit and Hawthorne Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Arterial 13,442
10 . Between Hawthorne Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive South 4-Lane Divided Arterial 15,365
11 . Between Palos Verdes Drive West and Crestmont Lane - Terranea Way 4-Lane Divided Arterial 16,056
12 . Between Crestmont Lane - Terranea Way and Narcissa Drive 4-Lane Divided Arterial 13,945
13 . Between Narcissa Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East 2-Lane Divided Arterial 15,178
14 . Between Palos Verdes Drive East and the East City Limit 2-Lane Divided Arterial 14,798
15 . Between the North City Limit and Miraleste Drive 2-Lane Undivided Arterial 10,605
16 . Between Miraleste Drive and Crest Road 2-Lane Undivided Arterial 8,221
17 . Between Crest Road and Ganado Drive 2-Lane Divided Arterial 3,756
18 . Between Ganado Drive and Palos Verdes Drive South 2-Lane Undivided Arterial 2,991
19 . Between the North City Limit and Indian Peak Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 33,049
20 . Between Indian Peak Road and Crest Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 18,028
21 . South of Crest Road 2-Lane Undivided Arterial 1,724
22 . Between Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 10,699
23 . Between Highridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Arterial 11,916
24 . Ganado Drive and Northern City Limits 2-Lane Undivided Collector 623
25 . Palos Verdes Drive East and Ganado Drive 4-Lane Undivided Collector 3,023
26 . Between Highridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard 2-Lane Undivided Arterial 7,311
27 . Between Hawthorne Boulevard and the City Limit with Rolling Hills Estates 2-Lane Undivided Arterial 9,054
28 . Between Crenshaw Boulevard and the City Limit with Rolling Hills Estates 2-Lane Divided Collector 6,628
29 . Between Palos Verdes Drive East and Via Colinita 2-Lane Divided Arterial 13,531
30 . Between Via Colinita and City’s Limit at 9th Street 2-Lane Divided Arterial 6,648
31 . Between Silver Spur Road and Rolling Hills Estates City Limits 2-Lane Divided Collector 8,269
32 . Between the North City Limit and just north of Hawthorne Boulevard 3-Lane Divided Arterial 12,838
33 . Between Hawthorne Boulevard and Dry Bank Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 17,291
34 . Between the North City Limit and Delasonde Drive 4-Lane Divided Arterial 36,416
35 . Between Delasonde Drive and Trudie Drive 4-Lane Divided Arterial 37,299
36 . Between Trudie Drive and South City Limit 4-Lane Divided Arterial 39,242
Notes:
LOS = Level of Service
* Exceeds Level of Service
Hawthorne Boulevard
Palos Verdes Drive West
Palos Verdes Drive South
Miraleste Drive
Montemalaga Road
Silver Spur Road
Western Avenue
Table C - Existing Weekday Roadway Segment Daily Traffic Volumes
Palos Verdes Drive East
Crenshaw Boulevard
Crest Road
Crestridge Road
Highridge Road
Indian Peak Road
P:\Rancho Palos Verdes GP\TIA\xRoadway LOS\Existing Daily Volumes
D-42
the transportation solutions company...
Daily
Roadway Segment Functional Classification Volume V/C V/C LOS
1 . Between the North City Limit and Blackhorse Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 31,123 36,100 0.86 D
2 . Between Blackhorse Road and Silver Spur Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 29,491 36,100 0.82 D
3 . Between Grayslake Road - Highridge Road and Indian Peak Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 39,358 36,100 1.09 F *
4 . Between Grayslake Road - Highridge Road and Granvia Atlamira - Ridgegate Drive 4-Lane Divided Arterial 28,008 36,100 0.78 C
5 . Between Granvia Atlamira - Ridgegate Drive and Eddinghill Drive - Seamount Drive 4-Lane Divided Arterial 21,413 36,100 0.59 A
6 . Between Eddinghill Drive - Seamount Drive and Crest Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 17,394 36,100 0.48 A
7 . Between Crest Road and Vallon Drive 4-Lane Divided Arterial 18,354 36,100 0.51 A
8 . Between Vallon Drive and Palos Verdes Drive West 4-Lane Divided Arterial 17,634 36,100 0.49 A
9 . Between the North City Limit and Hawthorne Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Arterial 14,345 36,100 0.40 A
10 . Between Hawthorne Boulevard and Palos Verdes Drive South 4-Lane Divided Arterial 16,397 36,100 0.45 A
11 . Between Palos Verdes Drive West and Crestmont Lane - Terranea Way 4-Lane Divided Arterial 17,134 36,100 0.47 A
12 . Between Crestmont Lane - Terranea Way and Narcissa Drive 4-Lane Divided Arterial 14,882 36,100 0.41 A
13 . Between Narcissa Drive and Palos Verdes Drive East 2-Lane Divided Arterial 16,197 17,900 0.90 E *
14 . Between Palos Verdes Drive East and the East City Limit 2-Lane Divided Arterial 15,792 17,900 0.88 D
15 . Between the North City Limit and Miraleste Drive 2-Lane Undivided Arterial 11,318 17,000 0.67 B
16 . Between Miraleste Drive and Crest Road 2-Lane Undivided Arterial 8,773 17,000 0.52 A
17 . Between Crest Road and Ganado Drive 2-Lane Divided Arterial 4,009 17,900 0.22 A
18 . Between Ganado Drive and Palos Verdes Drive South 2-Lane Undivided Arterial 3,191 17,000 0.19 A
19 . Between the North City Limit and Indian Peak Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 35,269 36,100 0.98 E *
20 . Between Indian Peak Road and Crest Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 21,049 36,100 0.58 A
21 . South of Crest Road 2-Lane Undivided Arterial 1,840 17,000 0.11 A
22 . Between Hawthorne Boulevard and Highridge Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 11,418 36,100 0.32 A
23 . Between Highridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard 4-Lane Divided Arterial 12,716 36,100 0.35 A
24 . Ganado Drive and Northern City Limits 2-Lane Undivided Collector 798 17,000 0.05 A
25 . Palos Verdes Drive East and Ganado Drive 4-Lane Undivided Collector 3,225 34,300 0.09 A
26 . Between Highridge Road and Crenshaw Boulevard 2-Lane Undivided Arterial 7,802 17,000 0.46 A
27 . Between Hawthorne Boulevard and the City Limit with Rolling Hills Estates 2-Lane Undivided Arterial 9,662 17,000 0.57 A
28 . Between Crenshaw Boulevard and the City Limit with Rolling Hills Estates 2-Lane Divided Collector 7,074 17,900 0.40 A
29 . Between Palos Verdes Drive East and Via Colinita 2-Lane Divided Arterial 14,440 17,900 0.81 D
30 . Between Via Colinita and City’s Limit at 9th Street 2-Lane Divided Arterial 7,094 17,900 0.40 A
31 . Between Silver Spur Road and Rolling Hills Estates City Limits 2-Lane Divided Collector 8,825 17,900 0.49 A
32 . Between the North City Limit and just north of Hawthorne Boulevard 3-Lane Divided Arterial 13,700 27,000 0.51 A
33 . Between Hawthorne Boulevard and Dry Bank Road 4-Lane Divided Arterial 19,115 36,100 0.53 A
34 . Between the North City Limit and Delasonde Drive 4-Lane Divided Arterial 38,863 36,100 1.08 F *
35 . Between Delasonde Drive and Trudie Drive 4-Lane Divided Arterial 39,805 36,100 1.10 F *
36 . Between Trudie Drive and South City Limit 4-Lane Divided Arterial 41,879 36,100 1.16 F *
Notes:
LOS = Level of Service, V/C = Volume to Capacity
V/C= Volume to Capacity Ratio
* Exceeds Level of Service
Palos Verdes Drive East
Table H - General Plan Build Out Weekday Roadway Segment Levels of Service
Year 2040 Conditions
Hawthorne Boulevard
Palos Verdes Drive West
Palos Verdes Drive South
Montemalaga Road
Silver Spur Road
Western Avenue
Crenshaw Boulevard
Crest Road
Crestridge Road
Highridge Road
Indian Peak Road
Miraleste Drive
P:\Rancho Palos Verdes GP\TIA\xRoadway LOS\2040 LOS D-43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
Attachment D Includes:
Project Trip Generation for the 11 Residential Units
D-44
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Trip Rates 9.520 0.188 0.563 0.75 0.630 0.370 1.00
Total Trips 105 2 6 8 7 4 11
MD Peak Hour
In Out Total
Trip Rates 9.910 0.502 0.428 0.93
Total Trips 109 6 5 10
Saturday
ITE1 Code 210: Single
Family Detached
Housing
Quantity2 Daily
11 DU
11 DU
Project Trip Generation for the Other 11 Homes
Weekday
ITE1 Code 210: Single
Family Detached
Housing
Quantity2 Daily
Table 2-7.xlsx [Table 1B] 7/12/2017
D-45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
Attachment E Includes:
Sychro HCM LOS Worksheets
o Existing Traffic Conditions (Year 2017)
o Opening Day (Year 2022)
o Build Out (Year 2040)
D-46
Sychro HCM LOS Worksheets
o Existing Traffic Conditions (Year 2017)
D-47
HCM 2010 TWSC Existing (Year 2017) Plus Project
1: Costa De La Islas & Palos Verde Drive South Timing Plan: AM Pk Hr
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 460 1 1 999 5 2
Future Vol, veh/h 460 1 1 999 5 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 150 150 -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, #0 -- 0 0 -
Grade, %0 -- 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 484 1 1 1052 5 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 484 0 1538 484
Stage 1 - -- -484 -
Stage 2 - -- -1054 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 -6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 -3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1089 -129 587
Stage 1 - -- -624 -
Stage 2 - -- -338 -
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1089 -129 587
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -129 -
Stage 1 - -- -624 -
Stage 2 - -- -338 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 27.7
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)166 - - 1089 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.044 - - 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 27.7 - - 8.3 -
HCM Lane LOS D - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
D-48
HCM 2010 TWSC Existing (Year 2017) Plus Project
1: Costa De La Islas & Palos Verde Drive South Timing Plan: PM Pk Hr
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 822 5 3 527 1 3
Future Vol, veh/h 822 5 3 527 1 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 150 150 -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, #0 -- 0 0 -
Grade, %0 -- 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 865 5 3 555 1 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 865 0 1426 865
Stage 1 - -- -865 -
Stage 2 - -- -561 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 -6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 -3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 787 -151 356
Stage 1 - -- -416 -
Stage 2 - -- -575 -
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 787 -150 356
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -150 -
Stage 1 - -- -416 -
Stage 2 - -- -573 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 18.8
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)265 - - 787 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.016 - - 0.004 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 18.8 - - 9.6 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0 - - 0 -
D-49
HCM 2010 TWSC Existing (Year 2017) Plus Project
1: Costa De La Islas & Palos Verde Drive South Timing Plan: SAT Pk Hr
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Lane Configurations
Traffic Vol, veh/h 649 2 4 702 3 2
Future Vol, veh/h 649 2 4 702 3 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 3
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 150 150 -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, #0 -- 0 0 -
Grade, %0 -- 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 683 2 4 739 3 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 683 0 1430 686
Stage 1 - -- -683 -
Stage 2 - -- -747 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 -6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 -3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 919 -150 451
Stage 1 - -- -505 -
Stage 2 - -- -472 -
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 917 -149 450
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -149 -
Stage 1 - -- -505 -
Stage 2 - -- -470 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 23.2
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)203 - - 917 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.026 - - 0.005 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 23.2 - - 8.9 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
D-50
Sychro HCM LOS Worksheets
o Opening Day (Year 2022)
D-51
HCM 2010 TWSC Opening Day, Year 2022 Plus Project
1: Costa De La Islas & Palos Verde Drive South Timing Plan: AM Pk Hr
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 474 1 1 1033 5 2
Future Vol, veh/h 474 1 1 1033 5 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 150 150 -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, #0 -- 0 0 -
Grade, %0 -- 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 499 1 1 1087 5 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 499 0 1588 499
Stage 1 - -- -499 -
Stage 2 - -- -1089 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 -6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 -3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1075 -120 576
Stage 1 - -- -614 -
Stage 2 - -- -326 -
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1075 -120 576
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -120 -
Stage 1 - -- -614 -
Stage 2 - -- -326 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 29.4
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)155 - - 1075 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.048 - - 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 29.4 - - 8.4 -
HCM Lane LOS D - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
D-52
HCM 2010 TWSC Opening Day, Year 2022 Plus Project
1: Costa De La Islas & Palos Verde Drive South Timing Plan: PM Pk Hr
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 851 5 3 544 1 3
Future Vol, veh/h 851 5 3 544 1 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 3
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 150 150 -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, #0 -- 0 0 -
Grade, %0 -- 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 896 5 3 573 1 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 896 0 1475 899
Stage 1 - -- -896 -
Stage 2 - -- -579 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 -6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 -3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 766 -141 340
Stage 1 - -- -402 -
Stage 2 - -- -564 -
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 764 -140 339
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -140 -
Stage 1 - -- -402 -
Stage 2 - -- -562 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 19.6
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)250 - - 764 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.017 - - 0.004 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 19.6 - - 9.7 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
D-53
HCM 2010 TWSC Opening Day, Year 2022 Plus Project
1: Costa De La Islas & Palos Verde Drive South Timing Plan: SAT Pk Hr
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 671 2 4 726 3 2
Future Vol, veh/h 671 2 4 726 3 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 3
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 150 150 -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, #0 -- 0 0 -
Grade, %0 -- 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 706 2 4 764 3 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 706 0 1479 709
Stage 1 - -- -706 -
Stage 2 - -- -773 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 -6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 -3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 902 -140 438
Stage 1 - -- -493 -
Stage 2 - -- -459 -
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 900 -139 437
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -139 -
Stage 1 - -- -493 -
Stage 2 - -- -457 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 24.4
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)191 - - 900 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.028 - - 0.005 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 24.4 - - 9 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
D-54
Sychro HCM LOS Worksheets
o Build Out (Year 2040)
D-55
HCM 2010 TWSC Build Out (Year 2040) Plus Project
1: Costa De La Islas & Palos Verde Drive South Timing Plan: AM Pk Hr
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 488 1 1 1061 5 2
Future Vol, veh/h 488 1 1 1061 5 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 150 150 -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, #0 -- 0 0 -
Grade, %0 -- 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 514 1 1 1117 5 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 514 0 1633 514
Stage 1 - -- -514 -
Stage 2 - -- -1119 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 -6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 -3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1062 -113 564
Stage 1 - -- -605 -
Stage 2 - -- -315 -
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 1062 -113 564
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -113 -
Stage 1 - -- -605 -
Stage 2 - -- -315 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 31
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)146 - - 1062 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.05 - - 0.001 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 31 - - 8.4 -
HCM Lane LOS D - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.2 - - 0 -
D-56
HCM 2010 TWSC Build Out (Year 2040) Plus Project
1: Costa De La Islas & Palos Verde Drive South Timing Plan: PM Pk Hr
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 874 5 3 558 1 3
Future Vol, veh/h 874 5 3 558 1 3
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 3
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - 150 150 -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, #0 -- 0 0 -
Grade, %0 -- 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 920 5 3 587 1 3
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 920 0 1514 923
Stage 1 - -- -920 -
Stage 2 - -- -594 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 -6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 -3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 750 -133 330
Stage 1 - -- -392 -
Stage 2 - -- -555 -
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 748 -132 329
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -132 -
Stage 1 - -- -392 -
Stage 2 - -- -553 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0.1 20.3
HCM LOS C
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)240 - - 748 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.018 - - 0.004 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 20.3 - - 9.8 -
HCM Lane LOS C - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
D-57
HCM 2010 TWSC Build Out (Year 2040) Plus Project
1: Costa De La Islas & Palos Verde Drive South Timing Plan: SAT Pk Hr
Intersection
Int Delay, s/veh 0.1
Movement EBT EBR WBL WBT NBL NBR
Traffic Vol, veh/h 688 2 4 744 3 2
Future Vol, veh/h 688 2 4 744 3 2
Conflicting Peds, #/hr 0 0 0 0 0 3
Sign Control Free Free Free Free Stop Stop
RT Channelized - None - None - None
Storage Length - - 150 -0 -
Veh in Median Storage, #0 -- 0 0 -
Grade, %0 -- 0 0 -
Peak Hour Factor 95 95 95 95 95 95
Heavy Vehicles, %0 0 0 0 0 0
Mvmt Flow 724 2 4 783 3 2
Major/Minor Major1 Major2 Minor1
Conflicting Flow All 0 0 726 0 1517 728
Stage 1 - -- -725 -
Stage 2 - -- -792 -
Critical Hdwy - - 4.1 -6.4 6.2
Critical Hdwy Stg 1 - -- -5.4 -
Critical Hdwy Stg 2 - -- -5.4 -
Follow-up Hdwy - - 2.2 -3.5 3.3
Pot Cap-1 Maneuver - - 886 -133 427
Stage 1 - -- -483 -
Stage 2 - -- -450 -
Platoon blocked, %- --
Mov Cap-1 Maneuver - - 884 -132 426
Mov Cap-2 Maneuver - -- -132 -
Stage 1 - -- -483 -
Stage 2 - -- -448 -
Approach EB WB NB
HCM Control Delay, s 0 0 25.4
HCM LOS D
Minor Lane/Major Mvmt NBLn1 EBT EBR WBL WBT
Capacity (veh/h)182 - - 884 -
HCM Lane V/C Ratio 0.029 - - 0.005 -
HCM Control Delay (s) 25.4 - - 9.1 -
HCM Lane LOS D - - A -
HCM 95th %tile Q(veh) 0.1 - - 0 -
D-58
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
Attachment F Includes:
o Collision Data on Palos Verdes Drive South
Schooner Drive – Forrestal Drive, Years 2013‐2017
D-59
Location Date Time Main Street Location Severity DOT's Description Weather LightingPavementCollision H & R DUI 21- 65+ Private?
36 2/4/17 10:08 AM PV Dr South 544' w/o Schooner Dr Injury 1 WB Thru (Bicycle vs Ca Unsafe movement from the bike lane Clear DaylightDry Sideswipe No No Yes No Car
36 5/6/17 :30 PV Dr South 600' w/o Conqueror Dr PDO EB Thru Unsafe turning movement Clear Dark Dry Hit Object Yes ? ? ? City bushes, street sign
36 6/29/17 9:22 PM PV Dr South 75' w/o Conqueror Dr PDO EB Thru Following Too Close Clear Dark Dry Rear End No No No No Car
36 8/15/17 10:55 PM PV Dr South 182' w/o Yacht Harbor DrPDO EB Thru Following Too Close Clear Dark Dry Rear End No No No No Car
36 3/16/16 7:50 PM PV Dr South 2956' w/o Schooner Dr PDO WB Thru vs EB Thru Failed to drive on right side of roadwaClear Dark Dry Sideswipe No No No Yes Car
36 5/16/16 6:14 PM PV Dr South at Conqueror Dr Injury - 1 SB Left turn vs WB ThruFailure to yield to oncoming traffic Clear DaylightDry Broadside No No No No Motorcycle
36 5/25/16 1:00 PM PV Dr South 85' e/o Yacht Harbor Dr PDO EB Thru Following Too Close Clear DaylightDry Rear End No No Yes No Car
36 8/21/16 11:34 PM PV Dr South 339' w/o Yacht Harbor DrInjury - 1 EB Thru Asleep/Unsafe turning movement Clear Dark Dry Hit Object No No No No Curb, Private Fence
36 10/26/16 7:00 AM PV Dr South at Conqueror Dr Injury - 1 SB Left turn vs WB ThruFailure to yield to oncoming traffic Clear DaylightDry Broadside No No No No Car
36 11/21/16 1:20 PM PV Dr South .6mi w/o Schooner Dr Injury - 1 WB Thru Following Too Close Clear DaylightDry Rear End No No No No Car
37 11/6/16 10:30 AM PV Dr South 873' e/o Forrestal Dr Injury - 1 EB Thru Unsafe turning movement Clear DaylightDry Rear End No No Yes No Bicycle
82 1/20/16 5:39 PM PV Dr South at Forrestal Dr Injury - 4 NB Left turn vs EB ThruFailure to yield to oncoming traffic Cloudy Dark Dry Broadside No No No Yes Car
36 1/22/15 6:45 PM PV Dr South at Schooner Dr PDO WB Thru vs SB Thru Failed to yield at stop sign Cloudy Dusk Dry Broadside No No Yes No Car
36 3/29/15 7:35 AM PV Dr South at Conqueror Dr Injury - 1 WB Left turn vs NB Thr Failed to yield at stop sign Cloudy DaylightDry Non-Cont No No No Yes Bicycle
36 12/7/15 1:30 PM PV Dr South 200' w/o Schooner Dr Injury - 1 EB thru vs Bicycle Unsafe turning movement Clear DaylightDry Sideswipe No No No No Bicycle
36 3/13/14 8:58 AM PV Dr South 600' w/o Schooner Dr Injury - 1 EB Thru Unsafe turning movement Clear DaylightDry Sideswipe No No No Yes Bicycle
36 7/13/14 1:00 AM PV Dr South at Conqueror Dr Injury - 4 WB Thru vs SB Left turnFailed to yield at stop sign Clear Dark Dry Broadside No No No No Car
36 8/10/14 11:10 AM PV Dr South 430' e/o Schooner Dr Injury - 2 SB Thru Unsafe turning movement Clear DaylightDry Rear End No No No No Bicycle
36 9/12/14 5:12 AM PV Dr South 744' w/o Schooner Dr PDO WB Thru Unsafe turning movement Fog/Cloudy Dusk Dry Hit Object Yes ? No No City Advanced SNS center medi
82 9/19/14 8:14 PM PV Dr South at Trump National Dr PDO NB Left turn vs EB ThruFailure to yield to oncoming traffic Clear DaylightDry Broadside No No No Yes Car
36 4/4/13 5:00 PM PV Dr South 87' e/o Schooner Dr PDO SB Thru Unsafe vehicle/Unsafe speed Clear DaylightDry Hit Object No No No No City traffic sign
36 6/9/13 2:29 PM PV Dr South at Conqueror Dr Injury - 2 SB Left turn vs WB ThruFailure to yield at a stop sign Cloudy DaylightDry Broadside No No No Yes Car
37 4/16/13 6:45 AM PV Dr South 700' e/o Forrestal Dr PDO WB Thru Unsafe turning movement Clear DaylightDry Hit Object No No Yes No City Medain Vegetation
D-60
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
Attachment G Includes:
o Palos Verdes Drive South
Roadway Improvement Plan
D-61
COSTA DE
L
A
I
S
L
A
S
P A L O
S
V E R D E S DRIVE
SOUTH
PORTUGUESE BEND
P A L O S VERDES DRIVE SOUTH
SC
H
O
O
N
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
CO
N
Q
U
E
R
O
R
D
R
I
V
E
EN
D
BE
G
I
N
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
SE
E
R
I
G
H
T
A
B
O
V
E
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
A
A
V E R D E S
PALOS SOUTH
DRIVE
D-62
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES, CALIFORNIA
TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
REGULAR MEETING
MONDAY, AUGUST 28, 2017
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Guerin called the meeting to order at 7 p.m., at the City Hall
Community Room, Rancho Palos Verdes, California 90275.
ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Chair Guerin and Committee Members Kim, Vlaco,
and Liu.
ABSENT: Member Ott (excused absence).
ALSO PRESENT: Nicole Jules, Deputy Director of Public Works
Department; and Sergeant Rick Osburn, Sheriff’s Department.
FLAG SALUTE: Committee Member Liu led the assembly in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair Guerin acknowledged the two items on the agenda
which are as follows:
1. Summerland Street Request for Traffic Calming
2. Tract 50666 – Phase II of Trump National Los Angeles
Development (Proposed Twelve Residential Units).
Deputy Director Jules stated that although a recommendation for the Proposed
Development at Tract 5066 - Trump National was already on the agenda, staff is
proposing that the matter still be heard, open the public hearing and allow the public to
speak, however continue the matter.
ACTION TAKEN:
Vice Chair Vlaco inquired if a motion was needed or consensus sufficed. Deputy
Director Jules agrees to consensus. All Committee Members agree.
Motion approved:
Ayes – 4; Nays – 0
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
August 28, 2017
Page 1 of 13
D-63
CHAIR’S COMMUNICATION:
There was no communication from the Chair.
SHERIFF’S STATUS REPORT:
Sheriff’s Sergeant Rick Osburn spoke about the stats reports for July 2017 and August
2017 switchback enforcement. He stated that in July there were 21 total citations given;
4 of which were given to motorcycles, with 1 being for a loud exhaust. In August, there
were an additional 21 citations, 6 to motorcycles with 4 of them being for loud exhausts.
Two arrests were also made for driving without a license. Other city stats consisted of a
fatal traffic accident which occurred in the early part of August on Palos Verdes Drive
North at the Rolling Hills Estate border. He was on vacation during that time so he didn’t
have a specific date. The accident was believed to have been a DUI at midnight, in
which a 28 year old male was not wearing a seatbelt and was ejected from the vehicle.
Sergeant Osburn stated that the City has implemented the switchbacks enforcement to
continue full time.
PUBLIC COMMENTS (FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA):
Steve, a resident from the Seaview area inquired about how the noise from the
switchbacks is being monitored; whether through sound sensors or residents calling to
inform of loud motorcycles. Sergeant Osburn, explained that no sensors to detect loud
motorcycles are in place, however deputies are out patrolling the area and cite the
motorcycles with modified exhausts when spotted.
Mickey Rodich, a Ladera Linda resident, is interested in a traffic study to address
excessive speeding on Forrestal Drive to avoid a serious accident. The resident
suggested speeds bumps or hubs be placed on the road (inaudible after this point).
Additionally, he suggested an acceleration lane (difficult to understand).
He also pointed out that the traffic light signal light is not a preferred choice for residents
(becomes inaudible)
Chair Guerin addresses the public to inquire if there are any further speakers. Deputy
Director Jules informs Chair Guerin that there aren’t any further speakers to discuss
items not on the agenda.
Committee Member Liu addresses Deputy Director Jules to clarify whether the traffic
study request for Forrestal Drive is understood to be a request or if the resident needs
to be directed to make a request in a different fashion. Deputy Director Jules confirms
that staff understands it is a request which will be followed up and added to the future
agenda.
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
August 28, 2017
Page 2 of 13
D-64
NEW BUSINESS
1. SUMMERLAND STREET REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CALMING
Recommendation:
In accordance with the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Manual, initiate a
calming engineering study to identify appropriate traffic calming measures to
address speeding conditions on Summerland Street.
Deputy Director Jules commenced with a background discussion of the Summerland
Street request back in June to install stop signs along Summerland Street at the request
of the residents who live in that neighborhood. She continued to point out that
Summerland Street bisects the jurisdictional boundary between the City of L.A. and the
City of Rancho Palos Verdes, therefore the implementation of stop signs resulted in a
joint jurisdictional project. At the conclusion of that item back in June, two factors were
determined:
• The City does not utilize stop signs as speed control devices
• Stop signs are utilized to assign the Right of Way
She proceeded to explain that the committee did find that it was appropriate to install
one stop sign at the intersection of Summerland and Wycliff, however making an
exception to the intersection at Enrose. Since then, the City of L.A. has begun the
installation of the stop signs with the concurrence of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes,
making this month’s request a follow up from that. She pointed out that the residents
who live on Summerland Street, have identified a speeding problem and that after
conducting a survey for the stop sign analysis, our consulting traffic engineer revealed
that the 85th percentile speeds on Summerland Street exceed the posted speed limit by
about 7 mph, making the average speed limit in this area 37 – 39 mph. Deputy Director
Jules communicated that since then the residents have petitioned the City to further
consider a traffic calming initiative to help reduce the speeding in the area. She
informed the committee that a copy of the petition was provided in the staff report as
well as a specific request for the City’s consulting traffic engineer to look into traffic
calming measures.
Deputy Director Jules proceeded to further provide road information of Summerland
Street as stated below:
• Summerland is a 40 ft. wide roadway with residential houses on both sides.
• It runs east and west, with most traffic traveling from Western Ave. into the
interior of RPV.
• Jurisdictional boundary straddles the streets, with RPV on the north side and
L.A. County on the south side.
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
August 28, 2017
Page 3 of 13
D-65
• There are 6 intersecting streets along Summerland Street; 5 of which terminate
in a T-intersection.
• There is limited site distance on the street due to the topography of the roadway
• And lastly, the 85th percentile speed exceeds the posted speed limit of 25 mph.
She informed the committee that in accordance to the City’s neighborhood traffic
calming program, there are several steps requested of residents to follow when initiating
a traffic calming study, which are stated below:
• The first step is to initiate a complaint in which the petitioner notifies the body of
the speeding problem.
• Followed by a preliminary traffic calming such as a placement of a speed
feedback trailer
• Next would be a neighborhood petition for traffic calming.
• Finally, a traffic calming engineering study would commence.
She concluded by informing the committee of staff’s recommendation; if the committee
agrees with the petitioner and the neighborhood’s request to initiate the traffic calming,
then the City moves forward with the next step in the process. At that point it would be
to engage our consulting traffic engineer, to take a look at speeding conditions and
come up with list of recommendations for traffic calming.
Committee Discussion and Staff Questions
Chair Guerin stated that they have visited this before and will recommend the stop sign
and he is glad it’s going forward.
Public speaker asks Deputy Director Jules if the study will be a joint study or just an
RPV study and inquires if residents pay the cost or will cost be shared by City Deputy
Director Jules informs the resident that it will only be an RPV study and residents are
responsible for cost.
Chair Guerin inquires when study will take place and if it may be within 60 days. Deputy
Director Jules responded that if the committee agrees that we should move forward,
staff will reach out to the consulting traffic engineer and get a proposal. They will
evaluate the area, take a look at the request then determine what the scope will be.
Then, based on the scope and the fee, the consulting traffic engineer will let us know
what the schedule is and she can report back to the body as to how long it will take for
the consultant to prepare the study.
Committee Member Kim asks Deputy Director Jules if the stop at Wycliff, the eastbound
stop sign, and the trimming of the trees already took place. Deputy Director Jules
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
August 28, 2017
Page 4 of 13
D-66
responded that the service request from the City of L.A. has been approved by RPV,
however she is unsure as of today, if the actual stripping and signs have been installed.
Committee Member Kim inquires whether any study will be done after stop signs have
been put in and the new speed limits signs have been put in. Deputy Director Jules
responded yes.
Chair Guerin mentioned that he’s noticed in other cities when new stop signs go up, two
red flags at 45 degree angles are used to draw people’s attention. He proceeded to
inquire with Deputy Director Jules if the City of RPV does the same. Deputy Director
Jules answers that that is correct, however the City of L.A. is paying the full of cost of
installing the stop signs and the city if RPV did not have to contribute financially to it.
Chair Guerin inquired if there were any other discussions on the Summerland Street
item. Deputy Director Jules informs him that there is one speaker for the item and
invites the petitioner, Mr. Adam Dasho, to speak.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Adam Dasho
Mr. Dasho thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak and handed out an
overview that he created of his neighborhood. Basically it showed all the surrounding
streets which have speed traffic control in form of either speed bumps or stop signs.
This is a safety issue which he is hopeful will have a permanent resolution like the
surrounding streets in his neighborhood after the traffic study has been concluded.
Committee Discussion and Staff Questions
Deputy Director Jules informs Chair Guerin that there aren’t any more speakers.
Chair Guerin inquires if there are any other discussions on this matter. Vice Chair Vlaco
stated that a pretty lengthy discussion was had at the last meeting. She said that this
was a great visual and that everyone recognized last time that a placement of some of
these traffic calming measures on other streets that have unintended consequences
and seem to contribute it to increased traffic and speeds on Summerland St. She is very
sympathetic to it so she is in favor of moving forward with traffic calming measures.
Chair Guerin added that speed bumps are not an option because L.A. County Fire
Department (inaudible) so will leave up to staff to see what can be done. He proceeds
to ask if there are any other discussions and ask if they have a motion. Vice Chair Vlaco
moves to approve staff’s recommendation and seconded by Committee Member Liu.
Chair Guerin Closed Public Comment
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
August 28, 2017
Page 5 of 13
D-67
ACTION TAKEN:
Vice Chair Vlaco moved to make a motion to approve staff’s recommendation
which is in accordance with the City’s neighborhood traffic calming manual,
initiate a traffic calming engineering study to identify appropriate traffic calming
measures to address speeding conditions on Summerland Street. Committee
Member Liu seconded the motion.
Motion approved:
Ayes 4, Nays 0
2. Tract 50666 – Phase II of Trump National Los Angeles Development
(Proposed Twelve Residential Units).
Recommendation:
Review the Updated Traffic Impact Study for the Proposed Twelve Residential
Units associated with Tract 50666 – Phase II of Trump National Los Angeles
Development and provide comments. Staff recommends that the matter still be
heard, open the public hearing and allow the public to speak, however continue the
matter.
Deputy Director Jules gave a brief background of an approved vested tentative tract
map of Tract 5066: Trump National Golf Course. She proceeded to explain that this
development includes two separate developments, one which is a consideration of
single family residential homes that are within the tract that are parallel to PV Drive
South. The subsequent phase is to develop a separate set of housing elements. She
indicated that the applicant has prepared a traffic study or what is described as an
updated study that confirms the design of the street that accesses these proposed
homes and remains appropriate according to the applicant under current conditions.
She then stated that the purpose of the committee is to review the study and to provide
comments on the study, not so much on whether or not the committee approves the
project because the tract map has been approved. She proceeded to explain that the
role of the committee is to provide comments on the study and its validity and whether
or not the access into the property have traffic safety implications. She provided a copy
of the vested tentative tract map for lot 50666 that was discussed earlier. She stated
that the map looked a bit granular and kind of hard to see but that was the map that was
approved by city council back in 1997. She proceeded to orientate everyone where the
property and the lots in question are located along a certain portion of the lot.
A map was presented that was subsequently approved in 2005 which showed the
location of the proposed residential lots, Palos Verdes Drive South, and the proposed
entrance driveway that will access the proposed homes. Deputy Director Jules
continued to explain that as included in the traffic study, the proposed area is outlined in
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
August 28, 2017
Page 6 of 13
D-68
the yellow dashed area which is encompassed on the Trump National property. Also,
the intersection in question is a brand new intersection along PV Drive South that
creates a new access drive into the property; to the west of the proposed driveway is
the intersection of Forrestal, Trump National at PV Drive South, and to the west is
Schooner Dr. and the entrance into Portuguese Bend. Duty Director Jules added that
the applicant is proposing minor modifications to the proposed project driveway that will
access the 12 homes. She explained that the driveway will be a two way driveway with
traffic coming inbound on the left and outbound with a single lane which will serve both
left and right turning vehicles. Also to enter into the site from westbound PV Drive
South, the applicant is proposing to construct an exclusive left turn lane by modifying
the existing raised concrete median to accommodate a 150 ft. left turn pocket into the
site. The through lanes on PV Drive South will remain unmodified. Deputy Director Jules
proceeded to explain that the project is anticipating generating 114 daily trips, which is
over the course of the day. Of the 114 trips, 9 are anticipated to occur during the AM
peak hour and 12 are anticipated to occur during the PM peak hour. For purposes of the
study, the AM peak hour was identified as the hours between 7 am to 9 am and the PM
peak hour is from 4 pm to 6 pm. In addition, the study took a look at traffic generations
during the weekends, and it was determined that Saturdays would generate the highest
trip generations; 119 trips are expected to be generated, with a total of 11 trips during
the highest peak hour on Saturday, which is typically around midday.
Deputy Director Jules proceeded to explain that when looking at the trips that are
generated by the project in combination with traffic that currently exists on the
roadways, they evaluate the level service at the project driveway so that one can make
determination if the project would create impacts. After reviewing the level service
analysis that was prepared for this study, three different scenario conditions were
looked at which consisted of, existing condition, build out condition which in year 2022,
and into the future year, 2040, which is consistent with the general plan build out. She
stated that it was concluded that the level service for existing conditions, prior to the
project being built, is that PV Drive South at the proposed project driveway would
operate at a level service D, during the morning time and at a level service C, during the
PM and Saturday peak hours. Five years from now, at project build out, it is anticipated
that the level service for PV Drive South at the project driveway will remain the same.
The study established that the project does not create additional impacts to traffic per
the City’s guidelines.
She further explained that in addition, the applicant conducted a queuing analysis which
evaluates whether or not there would be long stacking of vehicles to as they turn into
the site. Since the project is proposing a left turn lane into the project site, a queuing
analysis was conducted for those vehicles traveling westbound and turning left into the
site. The study further concluded that with the 150 ft left turn pocket, along with the
anticipated traffic entering the site, there wouldn’t be any queuing effects based on the
length of the pocket. With the average vehicle length being 20 ft., it is anticipated that
during any given cycle that this pocket would hold about 7 vehicles before traffic spills
over onto PV Drive South. No queuing analysis was conducted for the project coming
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
August 28, 2017
Page 7 of 13
D-69
out as there doesn’t seem to be an issue since the project driveway is deep enough to
accommodate several vehicles.
Deputy Director Jules proceeded to explain that additionally, the applicant took a look at
site distance, traveling both inbound and outbound of the proposed development. An
exhibit was used to demonstrate a vehicle proposing to exit the project driveway, which
the analysis is using to determine the available site distance from a stop position at the
driveway for vehicles that are traveling on PV Drive South. Based on the site distance
analysis, there is a clear visibility area of 495 ft. if looking east for vehicles that ae
traveling westbound. She concluded that based on the standards and the highway
design manual, minimum site distance has been achieved. She presented an insert
photo that showed existing trees that encroach into the visibility that would have to be
trimmed to help mitigate any impacts created to the visibility based on those trees.
Deputy Director Jules mentioned that staff noticed that based on the visibility
calculations, any vegetation that is within the parkway or within the visibility zone, would
have to be trimmed and maintained to a low elevation so as to not create impacts to the
line of site. Lastly, she spoke about the sight distance looking towards the west for
vehicles that are in the proposed left turn pocket that are interested in making a left into
the proposed project driveway. She further explained that the minimum clearance
needed for a vehicle to negotiate the turn is 365 ft., however there is a raised median
with mulch material and any future landscaping on it would have to be maintained to a
minimum level to avoid the stacked vehicles in the left turn pocket from seeing
oncoming traffic.
Deputy Director Jules followed up with the last component of the traffic study which
consisted of truck turning capabilities for the project driveway. She explained that the
project driveway is proposed at 34 ft. wide which accommodates a 17 inch lane in each
direction. The analysis showed that a trash truck or small delivery trucks would be able
to negotiate left turns and right turns into the project driveway without any difficulty,
however, a truck any greater than 20 ft. could present a problem. A comment that was
made is that the project could be conditioned to limit the size of trucks that enter and
exit the site due to conflicts with opposing traffic. She concluded by saying that the idea
was to give an overview of the traffic study, to allow the committee to open the public
hearing, receive public comments and to continue the matter to September. At that point
the public would have greater opportunity to provide comments to the committee, in turn
the committee would provide a memorandum with a summary of comments that would
be forwarded to the Community Development Department and the applicant as well.
Deputy Director Jules acknowledged members of the Community Development
Department that were in attendance in case there were specific questions of the
development that could be forwarded as appropriate.
Committee Discussion and Staff Questions
Chair Guerin inquired if once construction starts and all the big rigs come in, will the
road be established, then the homes be built. Deputy Director Jules explained the
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
August 28, 2017
Page 8 of 13
D-70
multiple phases of construction that would not pose any issues and the conditions that
are created during the construction phase. She followed up by saying that the ultimate
conditions is what they look at, and based on those conditions, the truck size should be
limited to what is presented in the plans.
Committee Member Liu expressed concern about whether the diagram with the truck in
the right lane is a proposal for a second turn lane to be added. Deputy Director Jules
responded by stating that it is a proposal for an entrance lane into the community.
Public speaker inquired if the bike lane is still there. Deputy Director Jules responded
that today there is a bike lane.
Public speaker asked if bike lane on the proposal on both directions. Deputy Director
Jules responds to the public, then apologizes to Chair Guerin for responding to the
public, then proceeds to answer that yes it is proposed for the bike lane to remain.
Vice Chair Vlaco asks if the turn lane going to be similar to the lane that exits that goes
up the switchbacks, which is a bike lane but then becomes a dash. Deputy Director
Jules responds that it is something similar and yes it is to take you out of the main travel
lane and take you into the main project driveway.
Chair Guerin inquires if the turn out will be similar to the turn out into Trump; if going
eastbound to turn south, there is right hand turn lane Deputy Director
Chair Guerin Opened the Public Hearing
Steve Williams
Mr. William thanked Deputy Director Jules for the very detailed study. He proceeded to
state that he feels that the study is unrealistic because traffic along PV Drive South is
already bad during certain times of the day and that the study needs to be looked at
again. Mr. William expressed his concern about the number of homes being built and
the pipe limitations, which he believes should be reconsidered.
Lenee Bilski
Ms. Bilski thanked the committee for their patience with getting all of the late emails that
were received on this day. She communicated that she hoped that they don’t
recommend the approval of the new intersection as safe. She is concerned about the
information that was provided by the developer to the study group to conduct their study
and what exactly they were asked to do. She would like to get a new study that is more
detailed which includes information about the bike lane, the pedestrian path, and the
trails, not just the motor vehicle surveying the 12 residential units. She expressed her
concern about the lack of public parking for anyone wanting to access the trails,
comparing it to the problem in Del Cerro. She pointed out discrepancies with the study
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
August 28, 2017
Page 9 of 13
D-71
which would make this a dangerous intersection. Ms. Bilski read a message from a
neighbor, Peter Vonhaven, expressing his opposition of this plan as proposed. He lives
directly across from PV Drive South from the project. He mentioned that not only
vehicular traffic be impeded but also pedestrian and bicycle traffic as well. He
suggested other alternatives such as coming in through Trump National Dr. Ms. Bilski
proceeded to provide the committee with information about the location of the various
trails that would be impacted.
Discussion between committee members and public occurs about the three minute time
limit needing to be enforced and that the same matter should not be repeated
throughout night.
Sharon Yarber
Ms. Yarber stated that she would be brief and followed up with good evening. She
proceeded to say that she has never heard of a two lane driveway, so to call it what it is,
a street. She stated that she found the report to be unclear about details such as how
long the access lane will be, how many cars it will accommodate, the width, and
whether other vehicles such as horse trailers or fire trucks will be able to access those
homes. She believes it is a very flawed design and thinks the study should be looked at
again.
Mr. Kelvin Vanderlip
Mr. Vanderlip thanked the committee. He communicated to them that he read through
the traffic study that he believes is commissioned by the Trump Organization and not by
the City, however presented by the City. He first inquired about the road in question and
why it doesn’t continue into Trump National Dr. instead of coming out on PV Drive
South. He explained that back in April he got a picture from the Community
Development desk, which he passed around, that showed markups by one of the
engineers. The picture also had comments stating that it would be safer to have the
entrance come off Trump National Dr. The next point that he made was that he didn’t
see anywhere in the traffic study regarding current traffic accidents, fatalities or injuries.
He hopes to get that additional information. Mr. Vanderlip proceeded to explain that he
would be reading an email from his friend, Don Swanson, who unfortunately could not
be there since he is in Boston. In essence, Mr. Swanson expressed that he would prefer
that the access be from Trump National Drive for various reasons. Mr. Swanson also
inquired about who decided that the City should allow a left turn lane since it is not part
of the tract, however an assumption made by the traffic study.
Mr. Mickey Rodich
Mr. Rodich commented on the no matter where the roads are placed for entrance or
egress, it will be the same problem like at PVD South and Forrestal, and unless that
situation is addressed, nothing is really being resolved. He commented on other matters
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
August 28, 2017
Page 10 of 13
D-72
such as a traffic light that residents are not in favor of and about the accelerating lane to
get to San Pedro; until that is corrected mitigating problems will continue at the lots. He
proceeded to express his concern on the study and the involvement of the coastal
commission.
Elizabeth Sax
Ms. Sax read an email about the changes that have occurred in 20 years and
expressed some concerns about weather conditions and the proposed lane that would
lead into the proposed residential units, and the need to keep pedestrians and cyclists
safe. She proceeded to state that PVD South is not very wide considering there is a
two-way street and a bike lane on each side and when factoring in fog, she believes that
a greater opportunity for disaster is being created. She went on to address that having a
traffic signal light or stop sign at the northeast end of Trump Tract 50666, creates a
greater likelihood that a car turning into the tract development would need to make a
right turn through a bike lane with the potential of causing a rear end pile up when the
conditions are not ideal. She further inquired about the date and time frame of the study
Joseph Wong
Mr. Wong spoke about the roadway conflict that he feels was not addressed as well as
the conflict with cyclists and nonexistent speed limits for cyclists that should be further
covered in the study
Jeff Dorsett
Mr. Dorsett thanked the committee for the continuance. He pointed out the first
sentence in the cover letter from Jill Martin at Trump National in which Trump National
does not intend on providing any additional, unnecessary and impertinent studies. He
expressed that he found it to be offensive and requested that the committee carefully
review and exam the issue pertaining to the streets which are already impacted by the
traffic.
Jill Martin
Ms. Martin thanked the committee for addressing the issue and introduced herself as
counsel for Trump National Golf Club. She stated that the statement in the letter to the
City was not intended to personally offend anyone, however, it was to address some
requests that went beyond the scope of what was initially asked of them. She explained
the steps that have been taken over the years to continue to have the right to follow
through with the development and the right to have this street in the proposed location.
Ms. Martin communicated the willingness to address any issues or ambiguities in the
report but made it clear that they are not willing to reopen the right to develop the tract
or the location of the street which has been previously approved.
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
August 28, 2017
Page 11 of 13
D-73
Gerard Taccini
Mr. Taccini thanked counsel and informed everyone that he is one of the bike riders that
were discussed earlier. He made three points that he requested be considered. The first
point is that the tract going down PVD South before Schooner narrows down less than 2
feet and cars are already passing within the 3 ft. minimum that is allowed by law.
Secondly, he stated that the esthetics of the road on PVD South is being changed with
the median for the development of 12 houses. And lastly, a traffic signal will need to be
installed to avoid an accident. He implored that the committee take a good look at all of
this as it is only going to get harder.
Geoff Loui
Mr. Loui explained that his concerns about the bike lanes…(inaudible) were already
addressed and thanked counsel for their attention.
Robert Voll
Mr. Voll stated that he had two points he wanted to address. He expressed concern
over the traffic study and the discrepancies in the maps pertaining to the proposed right
turn lane. His second concern pertains to the present curb and the property line and
how much land would be taken away; for example, the amount of trees that would be
cut down and the removal of the median which in turn would decrease their privacy and
increase noise level. He thanked the committee for their time.
Stephen Stewart
Mr. Stewart expressed concern over the various issues that will be as a result of the
proposed development, such as speeding issues, unsafe turn out lane, tree and median
removal. Another factor he pointed out are the trails and the lack of parking for people
wanting to access the trails. He proceeded to explain that due to the lack of parking,
people will start parking in front of homes, which would in turn require a permit for street
parking and not leaving many parking options for people wanting to access the trails.
Mr. Stewart requested a better review of this situation and stated that they have a lot f
problems in their hands.
CLOSE OF PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Chair Guerin closed the public comments portion of the agenda.
Chair Guerin stated that due to a continuation into next month, the deliberations would
be made then. He stated that the best proposal was to collect further information and
feedback from the City and go from there.
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
August 28, 2017
Page 12 of 13
D-74
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
1. Public Works Report – Ms. Jules provided an update on the Hawthorne
Beautification Project that had been recently reported to the City Council.
2. Storm Drain Deficiency Improvement Project – Ms. Jules gave a brief update on
construction in the Miraleste area, the installation of storm drain pipes and lining
of pipes.
3. Residential Rehab. Area 7 – Deputy Director Jules briefly updated the committee
on the resurfacing of residential roads near PVD East and PVD South.
COMMITTEE MEMBER ORAL REPORTS
There were no reports.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
A. Crest Road Engineering and Speed Surveys
B. Vista Grande School Traffic Improvements
C. Palos Verdes Drive South Traffic Improvements
D. Acceleration Lane from Forrestal onto PVD South
E. Detailed Traffic Study for Traffic long Forrestal Dr.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Recommendation:
Approve the minutes of the June 5, 2017 meeting.
Committee Member Liu made a motion for approval of the minutes, as amended, which
was seconded by Committee Member Vlaco.
Motion approved:
Ayes – 4; Nays – 0
ADJOURNMENT: Meeting adjourned at _____ p.m. Adjourned to Special Meeting on
September 25, 2017, at 6:30 pm.
Traffic Safety Committee Minutes
August 28, 2017
Page 13 of 13
D-75
TO: NICOLE JULES, PE
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
FROM: VANESSA MUÑOZ, PE, TE, PTOE
CONSULTANT CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER
DATE: NOVEMBER 21, 2017
SUBJECT: TRACT 50666 – PHASE II OF TRUMP NATIONAL LOS
ANGLES DEVELOPMENT OPTIONAL INGRESS/EGRESS
ANALYSIS
BACKGROUND
City staff requested that Willdan Engineering (Willdan) provide an analysis of two
alternative designs to provide ingress to and egress from Tract 50666 – Phase II
of Trump National Los Angeles Development. The development consists of 12
new residential units and a new public street, Costa De La Islas, which will intersect
Palos Verdes Drive South as a T-intersection. The Community has expressed
concerns about the development, particularly the geometric layout of Costa De La
Islas and its intersection with Palos Verdes Drive South.
DISCUSSION
Costa De La Islas is a proposed public street that will intersect Palos Verdes Drive
South as a T-intersection with Palos Verdes Drive South forming the top of the Tee
and Costa De La Islas as the stem. Costa De La Islas will be located between
Schooner Drive/Yacht Harbor Drive and Conqueror Drive. The proposed
Geometric Layout shows the existing raised center median to be reconstructed to
allow left turns into and out of Costa De La Islas and create an acceleration lane
for vehicles existing Costa De La Islas and making a left turn onto Palos Verdes
Drive South. The layout also shows proposed bike lanes in both directions, an
eastbound dedicated right turn lane, continuation of a pedestrian foot trail, and the
addition of a bike path. Willdan was requested to provide an analysis of two
alternative designs, Options 2 and 3, that will restrict turning movements at Costa
De La Islas. Option 1 is the current design submitted by the Applicant and allows
for all turning movements into and out of the development.
Option 2
Option 2 proposes to provide only right turn in and right turn out access to Costa
De La Islas. Westbound left turns and northbound left turns will be physically
restricted by the existing raised center median. A new traffic signal at Palos Verdes
E-1
2
Drive South and Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive is also proposed under this
option.
Option 2 reduces turning movement conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicyclists because left turns into and out of Costa De La Islas will be restricted.
According to available accident data, broadside type collisions have a higher
occurrence in this area with drivers failing to stop at the stop sign or failing to yield
to oncoming traffic. Restricting left turns at Costa De La Islas has the potential to
eliminate broadside collisions at the intersection. Because no median break will
be constructed the existing median width can be maintained.
By restricting left turns into and out of the Costa De La Islas, westbound motorist
who wish to enter the development will be required to make a U-turn at Schooner
Drive/Yacht Harbor Drive. Likewise, motorists who wish to exit the development
and travel west must first go east on Palos Verdes Drive South and then make a
U-turn at Conqueror Drive or at Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive. While safety
may be improved at Costa De La Islas by eliminating two turning movements,
drivers will now be forced to make U-turns at adjacent intersections. The sight
distance at Schooner Drive/Yacht Harbor Drive, Conqueror Drive, and Trump
National Drive/Forrestal Drive should be evaluated to confirm that sight distance is
adequate for drivers to safely navigate the U-turn. Factors such as fog, available
roadway lighting, and intersection geometry should be considered as well.
Drivers of large vehicles (30 feet or longer) such as motorhomes, delivery trucks,
and fire apparatus may have trouble negotiating U-turns at Schooner Drive/Yacht
Harbor Drive, Conqueror Drive, and Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive. The
size and geometry of the intersections are such that a multi-point U-turn will likely
be necessary. Negotiating a multi-point U-turn could increase the potential for
collisions at these intersections. Passenger vehicles can negotiate the U-turns
without issue.
Option 3
Option 3 proposes to provide right turn in, right turn out, and westbound left turn in
access to Costa De La Islas. Northbound left turns will be physically restricted by
the modified raised center median. A new traffic signal at Palos Verdes Drive
South and Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive is also proposed under this option.
Option 3 reduces turning movement conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and
bicyclists because left turns out of Costa De La Islas will be restricted. According
to available accident data, broadside type collisions have a higher occurrence in
this area with drivers failing to stop at the stop sign or failing to yield to oncoming
traffic. Restricting northbound left turns at Costa De La Islas has the potential to
eliminate broadside collisions at the intersection. The median break will be
constructed to allow westbound left turns into the development, but will restrict
northbound left turns out. Because a westbound acceleration lane is not required,
the existing median width can mostly be maintained.
E-2
3
By restricting left turns out of Costa De La Islas, motorists who wish to exit the
development and travel west must first go east on Palos Verdes Drive South and
then make a U-turn at Conqueror Drive or at Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive.
While safety may be improved at Costa De La Islas by eliminating one turning
movement, drivers will now be forced to make U-turns at adjacent intersections.
The sight distance at Conqueror Drive and Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive
should be evaluated to confirm that sight distance is adequate for drivers to safely
navigate the U-turn. Factors such as fog, available roadway lighting, and
intersection geometry should be considered as well.
Drivers of large vehicles (30 feet or longer) such as motorhomes, delivery trucks,
and fire apparatus may have trouble negotiating U-turns at Conqueror Drive and
Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive. The size and geometry of the intersections
are such that a multi-point U-turn will likely be necessary. Negotiating a multi-point
U-turn could increase the potential for collisions at these intersections. Passenger
vehicles can negotiate the U-turns without issue.
Traffic Signal
As part of Options 2 and 3, a new traffic signal is proposed at the Palos Verdes
Drive South and Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive intersection. Data from the
Updated Traffic Impact Study prepared by Albert Grover & Associates dated
October 24, 2017 was used to analyze peak hour volumes to assess if the traffic
signal may be warranted. The analysis includes redirected Phase II Trump
National Development traffic volumes (12 residential units) from Costa De La Islas.
The analysis also includes traffic volumes from the future 11-unit single family
residential development. The future 11-unit single family residential development
will be located just southeast of the Phase II development. Due to limited data,
only Warrant 3, Peak Hour was evaluated. A 2015 Palos Verdes Drive South
corridor study evaluated the Palos Verdes Drive South and Trump National
Drive/Forrestal Drive intersection for signal warrants and concluded that a traffic
signal did not meet warrants at that time.
Warrant 3, Peak Hour, is intended for use at locations where traffic conditions are
such that for a minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor street suffers undue
delay when entering or crossing the major street. The warrant should be applied
only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing plants, industrial
complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge a larger
number of vehicles over a short amount of time. Trump National Golf Club Los
Angeles is considered a high-occupancy vehicle facility as the location hosts
weddings, tournaments, festivals, and other events that attract and discharge
many vehicles in a short amount of time. Similarly, Ladera Linda Park located on
Forrestal Drive north of Palos Verdes Drive South hosts weekend AYSO soccer
competitions. The competitions attract and discharge large volumes of traffic in
short periods of time throughout the course of the competitions.
E-3
4
Saturday peak hour traffic volumes satisfy Part B of Warrant 3 (70% Factor) for
Opening Day (year 2022). The 70% Factor applies to communities less than
10,000 population or if the posted or 85th-percentile speed exceeds 40 MPH on the
major street. The below table shows the projected peak hour Opening Day traffic
volumes applied to Warrant 3.
Approach Lanes
85th
Percentile
Speed
(MPH)
AM
(veh/hr)
PM
(veh/hr)
Saturday
(veh/hr)
Palos Verdes Drive
South
(both approaches)
44 1521 1394 1337
Trump National
Drive/Forrestal Drive
(higher approach)
N/A 72 73 122
SUMMARY
The below table outlines the advantages and disadvantages of Options 2 and 3.
Alternative Advantages Disadvantages
Option 2
(right in/
right out)
Reduces turning movement
conflicts
No median break
Maintains current median
width
Reduces collision
probabilities at Costa De La
Islas and at Trump National
Drive/Forrestal Drive with
traffic signal installation
Increases U-turns at
Schooner Drive/Yacht
Harbor Drive, at Conqueror
Drive, and at Trump National
Drive/Forrestal Drive
Inconvenient for motorist
who wish to exit the
development and travel
west.
Inconvenient for westbound
motorist who wish to enter
the development
Difficult U-turn maneuver for
large vehicles at Schooner
Drive/Yacht Harbor Drive,
Conqueror Drive, and Trump
National Drive/Forrestal
Drive
Large trucks (moving trucks)
cannot exit development
May increase emergency
response times
E-4
5
Alternative Advantages Disadvantages
Option 3
(right in/right
out/left in)
Reduces turning movement
conflicts
No U-turns required at
Schooner Drive/Yacht
Harbor Drive
No acceleration lane
required
Minimal impact to raised
center median
Reduces collision
probabilities at Costa De La
Islas and at Trump National
Drive/Forrestal Drive with
traffic signal installation
Improves emergency vehicle
access over Option 2
Increases U-turns at
Conqueror Drive and at
Trump National
Drive/Forrestal Drive
Inconvenient for motorist
who wish to exit the
development and travel west
Difficult U-turn maneuver for
large vehicles at Conqueror
Drive and at Trump National
Drive/Forrestal Drive
Large trucks (moving trucks)
cannot exit development
RECOMMENDATION
Based on our analysis of Options 2 and 3, we recommend Option 1, which allows
all turning movements into and out of Costa De La Islas. Option 1 is the safer
option compared with Options 2 and 3 and its design meets engineering standards.
The most considerable drawback from Options 2 and 3 is that large vehicles,
including large emergency vehicles, would be forced to make U-turns at adjacent
intersections. The size and geometry of the intersections at Schooner Drive/Yacht
Harbor Drive, at Conqueror Drive, and at Trump National Drive/Forrestal Drive
cannot accommodate large vehicle U-turns. These vehicles will likely be required
to make multi-point U-turns which could increase potential for collisions, and, in
the case of emergency vehicles, increase emergency response times.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLDAN ENGINEERING
Attachments:
Option 2 Turning Movements Diagram
Option 3 Turning Movements Diagram
Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Large Vehicle Turning Templates
E-5
TURNING MOVEMENT DIAGRAMS
Option 2
Option 3
E-6
O
P
T
I
O
N
2
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
R
I
G
H
T
T
U
R
N
I
N
/
R
I
G
H
T
T
U
R
N
O
U
T
A
T
C
O
S
T
A
D
E
L
A
I
S
L
A
S
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
D
R
I
V
E
S
O
U
T
H
DRIVEYACHT HARBOR DRIVESCHOONER
FO
R
R
E
S
T
A
L
COST
A
D
E
L
A
ISLA
S
CONQUERO
R
DRIVE
DR
I
V
E
TR
U
M
P
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
DR
I
V
E
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
-
T
R
U
M
P
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
L
O
S
A
N
G
E
L
E
S
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
E
-
7
O
P
T
I
O
N
3
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
M
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
R
I
G
H
T
T
U
R
N
I
N
/
R
I
G
H
T
T
U
R
N
O
U
T
/
L
E
F
T
T
U
R
N
I
N
A
T
C
O
S
T
A
D
E
L
A
I
S
L
A
S
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
D
R
I
V
E
S
O
U
T
H
DRIVEYACHT HARBOR DRIVESCHOONER
FO
R
R
E
S
T
A
L
COST
A
D
E
L
A
ISLA
S
CONQUERO
R
DRIVE
DR
I
V
E
TR
U
M
P
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
DR
I
V
E
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
-
T
R
U
M
P
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
L
O
S
A
N
G
E
L
E
S
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
E
-
8
WARRANT 3, PEAK HOUR
E-9
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 830
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)
Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014
Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
Standard:
07 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the
following conditions exist for each of any 8 hours of an average day:
A. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition A in Table 4C-1 exist on
the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection; and
B. The vehicles per hour given in both of the 80 percent columns of Condition B in Table 4C-1 exist on
the major-street and the higher-volume minor-street approaches, respectively, to the intersection.
These major-street and minor-street volumes shall be for the same 8 hours for each condition; however,
the 8 hours satisfied in Condition A shall not be required to be the same 8 hours satisfied in Condition B.
On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the same approach during each of
the 8 hours.
Option:
08 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the
intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, the
traffic volumes in the 56 percent columns in Table 4C-1 may be used in place of the 80 percent columns.
Section 4C.03 Warrant 2, Four-Hour Vehicular Volume
Support:
01 The Four-Hour Vehicular Volume signal warrant conditions are intended to be applied where the volume of
intersecting traffic is the principal reason to consider installing a traffic control signal.
Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that, for each of
any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the major street
(total of both approaches) and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street
approach (one direction only) all fall above the applicable curve in Figure 4C-1 for the existing
combination of approach lanes. On the minor street, the higher volume shall not be required to be on the
same approach during each of these 4 hours.
Option:
03 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the
intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure
4C-2 may be used in place of Figure 4C-1.
Section 4C.04 Warrant 3, Peak Hour
Support:
01 The Peak Hour signal warrant is intended for use at a location where traffic conditions are such that for a
minimum of 1 hour of an average day, the minor-street traffic suffers undue delay when entering or crossing the
major street.
Standard:
02 This signal warrant shall be applied only in unusual cases, such as office complexes, manufacturing
plants, industrial complexes, or high-occupancy vehicle facilities that attract or discharge large numbers of
vehicles over a short time.
03 The need for a traffic control signal shall be considered if an engineering study finds that the criteria in
either of the following two categories are met:
A. If all three of the following conditions exist for the same 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute
periods) of an average day:
1. The total stopped time delay experienced by the traffic on one minor-street approach (one direction
only) controlled by a STOP sign equals or exceeds: 4 vehicle-hours for a one-lane approach or 5
vehicle-hours for a two-lane approach; and
2. The volume on the same minor-street approach (one direction only) equals or exceeds 100 vehicles
per hour for one moving lane of traffic or 150 vehicles per hour for two moving lanes; and
E-10
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 831
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)
Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014
Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
3. The total entering volume serviced during the hour equals or exceeds 650 vehicles per hour for
intersections with three approaches or 800 vehicles per hour for intersections with four or more
approaches.
B. The plotted point representing the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches)
and the corresponding vehicles per hour on the higher-volume minor-street approach (one direction
only) for 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day falls above the applicable
curve in Figure 4C-3 for the existing combination of approach lanes.
Option:
04 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 40 mph, or if the
intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure
4C-4 may be used in place of Figure 4C-3 to evaluate the criteria in the second category of the Standard.
05 If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the
traffic control signal may be operated in the flashing mode during the hours that the volume criteria of this
warrant are not met.
Guidance:
06 If this warrant is the only warrant met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the
traffic control signal should be traffic-actuated.
Section 4C.05 Warrant 4, Pedestrian Volume
Support:
01 The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant is intended for application where the traffic volume on a major street
is so heavy that pedestrians experience excessive delay in crossing the major street.
Standard:
02 The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an
engineering study finds that one of the following criteria is met:
A. For each of any 4 hours of an average day, the plotted points representing the vehicles per hour on the
major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians per hour crossing the
major street (total of all crossings) all fall above the curve in Figure 4C-5; or
B. For 1 hour (any four consecutive 15-minute periods) of an average day, the plotted point representing
the vehicles per hour on the major street (total of both approaches) and the corresponding pedestrians
per hour crossing the major street (total of all crossings) falls above the curve in Figure 4C-7.
Option:
03 If the posted or statutory speed limit or the 85th-percentile speed on the major street exceeds 35 mph, or if the
intersection lies within the built-up area of an isolated community having a population of less than 10,000, Figure
4C-6 may be used in place of Figure 4C-5 to evaluate Criterion A in Paragraph 2, and Figure 4C-8 may be used
in place of Figure 4C-7 to evaluate Criterion B in Paragraph 2.
Standard:
04 The Pedestrian Volume signal warrant shall not be applied at locations where the distance to the
nearest traffic control signal or STOP sign controlling the street that pedestrians desire to cross is less than
300 feet, unless the proposed traffic control signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic.
05 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, the traffic control
signal shall be equipped with pedestrian signal heads complying with the provisions set forth in Chapter
4E.
Guidance:
06 If this warrant is met and a traffic control signal is justified by an engineering study, then:
A. If it is installed at an intersection or major driveway location, the traffic control signal should also control
the minor-street or driveway traffic, should be traffic-actuated, and should include pedestrian detection.
B. If it is installed at a non-intersection crossing, the traffic control signal should be installed at least 100 feet
from side streets or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs, and should be pedestrian-
actuated. If the traffic control signal is installed at a non-intersection crossing, at least one of the signal
faces should be over the traveled way for each approach, parking and other sight obstructions should be
prohibited for at least 100 feet in advance of and at least 20 feet beyond the crosswalk or site
E-11
California MUTCD 2014 Edition Page 837
(FHWA’s MUTCD 2009 Edition, including Revisions 1 & 2, as amended for use in California)
Chapter 4C – Traffic Control Signal Needs Studies November 7, 2014
Part 4 – Highway Traffic Signals
_____________________________________________________________________________________
E-12
LARGE VEHICLE TURNING TEMPLATES
E-13
S
U
-
3
0
-
S
i
n
g
l
e
U
n
i
t
T
r
u
c
k
L
A
R
G
E
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
(
S
I
N
G
L
E
U
N
I
T
T
R
U
C
K
,
3
0
'
L
O
N
G
)
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
D
R
I
V
E
S
O
U
T
H
A
T
S
C
H
O
O
N
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
/
Y
A
C
H
T
H
A
R
B
O
R
D
R
I
V
E
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
S
C
H
O
O
N
E
R
D
R
I
V
E
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
D
R
I
V
E
S
O
U
T
H
YACHT HAR
B
O
R
D
R
I
V
E
E
-
1
4
S
U
-
3
0
-
S
i
n
g
l
e
U
n
i
t
T
r
u
c
k
L
A
R
G
E
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
(
S
I
N
G
L
E
U
N
I
T
T
R
U
C
K
,
3
0
'
L
O
N
G
)
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
D
R
I
V
E
S
O
U
T
H
A
T
C
O
N
Q
U
E
R
O
R
D
R
I
V
E
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
D
R
I
V
E
S
O
U
T
H
CONQU
E
R
O
R
D
R
I
V
E
E
-
1
5
S
U
-
3
0
-
S
i
n
g
l
e
U
n
i
t
T
r
u
c
k
L
A
R
G
E
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
T
U
R
N
I
N
G
T
E
M
P
L
A
T
E
(
S
I
N
G
L
E
U
N
I
T
T
R
U
C
K
,
3
0
'
L
O
N
G
)
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
D
R
I
V
E
S
O
U
T
H
A
T
T
R
U
M
P
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
D
R
I
V
E
/
F
O
R
R
E
S
T
A
L
D
R
I
V
E
N
O
T
T
O
S
C
A
L
E
P
A
L
O
S
V
E
R
D
E
S
D
R
I
V
E
S
O
U
T
H
TRUMP
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
FORRE
S
T
A
L
D
R
I
V
E
DRIVE
E
-
1
6
F-1
F-2
F-3
G-1
H-1
I-1
1.Our request for a simplification of the new intersection on P.V. Drive South:
Delete the right turn lane from eastbound P.V. Drive South into Costa de la Islas from the roadworks project
The highway layout accommodating Costa de la Islas was presented to the public at Traffic Safety Committee
hearings in September 2017. The focus of these hearings were the safety of automobiles and bicycles. Nothing in
the agenda nor the discussions focused on the consequences of the new roadworks to the surro unding
environment.
Also, our attention at the Traffic Safety meetings was to try to get access to the 12 homes to be switched to a
driveway off Trump National Drive. However, while this is still a good idea, we are focused in this request on
dealing with the consequences of access via Costa de la Islas.
Having now had time to fully understand the roadworks design for the intersection of P.V. Drive South and Costa de
la Islas, we hereby ask that this plan be modified. We feel that the eastbound right t urn lane is not necessary for
this 12-home driveway. The right turn lane has serious consequences to Coastal Trail users and residents of our
Tract, because the border along P.V. Drive South is narrowed to accommodate the right turn lane.
Building the right turn lane reduces the width of the border in the City’s right of way. This moves the Coastal Trail
aside. It requires removing most of the planting on the City’s right of way, and it shrinks the border shielding our
Tract from the highway. Therefore, since the environment of our tract and the Coastal Trail are negatively affected,
we suggest that the City and developer jointly agree to drop the newly proposed eastbound right turn lane into
Costa de la Islas.
If we all agree that the right turn lane need not be built, then the south side of P.V. Drive South will be left as is. We
save the Coastal Trail, we save the screen planting, and we save the width of the border between the roadway and
our homeowners. We also save the developer some money!
2.Our position on pre-existing development requirements which have to be approved by the City:
a.The proposed 5' - 6' solid wall separating Tract 15640 from Tract 50666 (see Conditional Use Permit 162
paragraph F. 1. c., resolution 2008-85)
Our homeowners association does not intend to negotiate the construction, or lack of construction, of the proposed
5'-6' north-south solid wall on the border between Tract 50666 and Tract 16540 referenced above. This is a matter
for individual lot owners.
A majority of the owners of lots adjacent to the proposed wall have signed requests that this wall be dropped from
the development requirements. Conditions have changed since the requirement for this solid wall was negotiated in
1998 between our tract and Ken Zuckerman, the original developer. Today, this particular wall is no longer desired
by a majority of the lot owners concerned. We hope that the City Council, which has to approve this wall, will
support the requests from our lot owners regarding deleting the requirement for construction of this solid wall.
b.Build the required 30" headlight-blocking slumpstone wall on the northwest portion of Costa de la Islas (see
City Council conditions of Approval of November 11, 1998)
We ask that the required headlight-abating 30" slumpstone wall along the northwest corner of Costa de la Islas kept
in the plans. We need this wall to keep headlights from sweeping Tract 16540. We note that today's SUV’s and
trucks have much higher headlights then were common in 1998 when this 30" wall requirement was created. We
ask that the City review the plan for this 30" wall to ensure that it will serve its intended purpose of blocking
headlights by its location and adequate height above the roadway.
c.Complete the required landscaping plan for the median of P. V. Drive South (see Conditional Use Permit 162
paragraph E. 2., resolution 2008-85)
The developer is required to create a landscape and irrigation plan which are to be approved by the City. This plan
must include landscaping for the central roadway median. We support the landscaping of the central median of
P. V. Drive South with low, drought tolerant planting, for the full length of the new roadworks, from Schooner Drive
to Forrestal Drive. We ask the City to ensure that this condition is met and maintained.
I-2
3.Our request for additional landscaping:
Add additional landscape planting to the south side of P. V. Drive South in front of Tract 16540
While not called for in the development requirements, the homeowner s of Tract 16540 request that the landscape
plan noted above also include new planting, in front of our Tract, in the City's right of way on the south side of P.V.
Drive South, adjacent to the Coastal Trail. This will enhance the appearance of the highway leading towards Costa
de la Islas, and is required to screen our community from the noise and dust of the road. The City itself has
contributed towards this planting in past years. We will work closely with the City and the developer on the details of
this planting to ensure that it is agreeable to all.
4.A warning about drainage and soil stability from our homeowners:
We request that the City’s Public Works review of the Tract 50666 drainage plan be thorough (see Conditional Use
Permit 162 paragraph P.6)
Our homeowners are acutely aware of the necessity of preventing erosion and water percolation anywhere near
our seaside cliffs. Water, moving across or soaking into the ground, affects the stability of the cliffs above which we
have lived safely for many decades. Our Tract’s storm drain system is inspected annually and maintained at
frequent intervals. Our storm drain system carries water from each lot all the way down the cliffs in large pipes
ending in concrete energy dissipation devices at the beach. We do not allow any runoff to move freely across the
ground, over the cliff, or into any natural waterway.
The City has changed its earlier requirement that the storm water from Tract 50666 be carried to the ocean in
pipes. Instead, the developer asked for and received conditional permission to use Forrestal Canyon to carry storm
water off the Tract. Whatever the reasons for this change, our homeowners urge the City’s engineers to ensure that
no erosion, no percolation, no infiltration, and no other effe cts on the soil, subsoil, and bedding planes be allowed to
take place on Tract 50666 which might in any way affect the stability of our area, and be a cause for future liability
to the City and/or its residents. We are all aware of the Portuguese Bend land -flow, the loss of the 18th hole, the
closure of Paseo del Mar, Laguna Beach, and many other slippages of our cliffs. It would be foolish to ignore these
dangers.
We are confident that our City would never allow a new residential development in our area where water from
hardscape or irrigation can run unconstrained over the ground or in natural waterways or canyons. We pray that the
developer is very aware of the dangers poised by inadequate storm drainage systems to their Tract 50666 and its
surrounding area.
Finally, we hope your review specifically includes the water flow and drainage from Costa de la Islas into the
Coastal Trail and our Tract 16540 lots.
Thank you for hearing our requests. We hope that you and your colleagues within the City will support the
homeowners of our Tract 16540 as we strive to maintain our beautiful and peaceful eastern and northern borders.
Your help with mitigating these factors will enhance the City as a whole, while protecting our geology, our trails, our
planting, and our peace of mind.
Thank you for your willingness to watch over these conditions in the ongoing approval process.
With best regards,
The Board of the Tract 16540 Homeowners Association -
President: Robert Voll
Board Members: Steve Stewart, David Gakenheimer, Charlotte Wiederholt, Kelvin Vanderlip
I-3
Attached signatures
I-4
I-5
From:Joann Gioia
To:PublicWorks
Subject:Vesting Tract Map No. 50666
Date:Friday, July 06, 2018 11:49:02 AM
Hi:
Here are my concerns regarding the Trump Project Track 50666:
!) This project is going to create a traffic nightmare for years. During construction and after
2)There is already way too much traffic on Palos Verdes Drive South, which is negatively
effecting the landslide area.
3)Trump has not even sold all the homes that have already been built
4)We do not need anymore 5 to 10 million dollar homes
There is no reason this project should move forward. Thank you.
Best Regards,
Joann Gioia
J-1
From:Dana Moon
To:Elias Sassoon; PublicWorks; CC; So Kim
Subject:Objection to Trump driveway Tract Map No. 50666
Date:Friday, July 06, 2018 3:02:38 PM
As you all know, many residents are very strongly opposed to the City's proposed approval of
Trump National driveway. The residents suggested an alternative entry to the planned tract
development. To voice their concerns, the residents showed up and filled the meeting rooms
beyond capacity. The City heard the residents' objections concerning the driveway - primarily
for safety reasons.
Ignoring the residents' position, however, the City continued to support the proposed Trump
National driveway despite the strong and sustained objections by the residents.
The City's summary dismissal of the virtually united voice of our residents is based on its
insistence that Trump National has already obtained a permit for the driveway. But City's
position is misleading. Trump National driveway's entry (as some residents have pointed out
at these meetings) was apparently not part of this permit and requires an amendment to be
approved by the City. This point was previously made several times by some residents, but
repeatedly ignored by the City.
The City, as well as other governmental institutions of this nation, is a democratic institution
and must not not continue to ignore the residents' concerns.
Thank you.
Dana
J-2
From:Jeffrey Dorsett
To:John Cruikshank; Ken Dyda; CC; Eric Alegria; Susan Brooks; So Kim; Ron Dragoo; Elias Sassoon; aram@rpv.gov;
Zach.Rehm@coastal.ca.gov; Lenée Bilski; Voll, Robert
Subject:Residents Against Trump driveway and Give Away of Public Right of Way
Date:Friday, July 06, 2018 4:08:49 PM
Dear Mayor Brooks and City Council Members;
I write concerning the Trump "driveway" in the tract map for 50666 and the related give away
of public right of away in and around PV Dr. South that our Public Works and Safety
Committees endorse in order to make that unsafe driveway more safe. And please know that
there is written city policy against allowing additional laterals to the city's main highways.
At several Public Works meetings I have spoken to the issue that residents do not want another
lateral so close to the already unreasonably dangerous Schooner intersection. Nearby
residents want another alternative entry considered which would be safe and not require
altering the public's Right Of Way: access from Trump Drive. There is record of Trump
representative promising exactly that when faced by resistance from a prior iteration of city
government to their new lateral "driveway" off PV Dr. South. I have spoken before the
Safety Committee to inform them that the tract map at issue includes language that the city
may amend the tract map for safety considerations. It is for safety considerations that
residents want the 12 homes to have access via Trump Drive. As you know, there is an
existing lateral from Trump Drive servicing the lots at issue.
Please consider city employees' conduct concerning this controversy. Despite several requests,
the City has not shown residents the original Traffic Study. In addition, in my several
contacts concerning this matter by telephone and in person with the Director of Public Works,
Elias Sassoon, Mr. Sassoon has been consistently disingenuous. Mr. Sassoon initially feigned
ignorance of the clause written into the the tract map that the city may modify it for safety
reasons. Confronted with the writing, Mr. Sassoon countered that Trump's proposal to cut
through the median made the new lateral onto PV. Dr. South safe and that there was little the
residents could do to stop his and the Trump organization's plans. Mr. Sassoon substantially
dismissed resident concerns that exponential traffic increases since the time of the tract map
are relevant to resident safety in relation to the new "driveway."
Mr. Sassoon's and other city employees' conduct beg the question: whom do RPV city
employees (and indeed the city itself) represent, the residents or the Trump organization? If
the latter, there will be an accounting.
Even assuming arguendo true Trump's proposal that the city to gift the Trump organization the
public right of way would make the community safe and it would not, it belies Mr. Sassoon's
mandate to act in the public interest that he refused to consider that residents do not want our
Public Right of Way given up to the applicant in order to make their unsafe plan into a "safe"
entrance to 12 homes.
Honorable Mayor and Esteemed City Council, will you consider your mandate in the public
interest and disallow the Trump "driveway" and give away of the Public Right of Way and
instead require the Trump organization to change access to Trump National?
Sincerely,
J-3
From:Fran Koerner
To:DWillmore@rpvcaca.gov; Elias Sassoon; PublicWorks; CC; So Kim
Subject:New PV Drive South Entrance to 12 homes
Date:Friday, July 06, 2018 5:41:05 PM
To whom it may concern:
Having been a resident of Sea View since 1998 it is painfully obvious that the only people who could
possibly think adding an intersection between Conqueror and Schooner are people who have never tried to
leave our tract. People who have never tried walking across the street from any of the existing
intersections. People who have given no thought to the safety of the people already living here. People
who do not live here.
The proposed new intersection is dangerous. I know this because I live here. I only use the Schooner exit
when I am driving west because the intersection is on a blind curve. The proposed new intersection will be
more hazardous because of the proposed 90 degree angle of the proposed turn.
Bicycle, car and foot traffic have all increased in recent years do to added development. We currently have
a coastal trail head, bike lane and pedestrian path. More development is planned. More development will
consequently create more traffic.
Traffic volume and speed has increased strikingly in recent years. There is currently very little space
between the time a driver or bicyclist can see approaching traffic and have time to react and slow down.
The proposed intersection would make the time between recognition and deceleration impossible to
negotiate safely.
Has any consideration been given to the current residents? The current residents who would be impacted
by these proposed changes to their neighborhood and personal safety. The proposed changes would
decrease the quality of life in the area.
Impact on my neighborhood quality of life and safety could be easily minimized by using the current roads.
That solution would also increase the safety and security of any potential new residents.
It is understood that any opposition to the new intersection would be met with vigorous litigation. I urge
you to weigh the threat of litigation on behalf of the alleged convenience of a few against the sure litigation
that will follow any traffic injuries or worse, fatalities.
Please consider safety of residents and visitors to our city first.
Sincerely,
Fran Koerner
4023 Exultant Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-503-0404
Fran.Koerner@gmail.com
J-4
From:lindorfer
To:CC; PublicWorks
Subject:Tract 50666
Date:Saturday, July 07, 2018 10:52:07 PM
Attachments:french_cat111.gif
butterfly_top.gif
butterfly_bottom.gif
FREE Animations for your email Click Here!
A PVDS resident at Schooner since 1973, I request that
you move the proposed Costa de Las Islas access from
PVDS to the lower volume Trump Nat'l Drive. The
currently proposed access via PVDS will result in more
accidents due to an unnecessary new potential for
collisions with the high volume/high speed traffic,
walking trail pedestrians, and bikes on PVDS.
In future, you should consider adding an acceleration
lane on PVDS for eastbound turns from
Schooner, making such lane even longer than that which
exists at Conqueror.
As traffic volume continues to increase on PVDS, a
traffic light at the Forrestal/Trump intersection would
provide safer vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle crossings and
reduce average speed on PVDS for the safety of all
there and at the nearby Conqueror and Schooner
intersections.
Thank You,
Joe Lindorfer
J-5
1
Nancy Penate
From:SUNSHINE <sunshinerpv@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, July 09, 2018 10:54 AM
To:PublicWorks; Elias Sassoon; So Kim
Cc:CC; Doug Willmore; Cory Linder; Irving Anaya; Trails
Subject:Proposed intersection at PV Drive South to Tract No. 50666
Hello So and Elias,
I am opposed to the addition of another intersection on the arterial highway, PV Drive South. You
have received a lot of intelligent Public Comments during the past several months. The proposed
“driveway” should be declared “unsafe” based on traffic safety principles. The details of the proposed
changes to the public ROW make it even more onerous to the community in general.
Will this whole project ever come before the City Council? Based on the Council’s decision about the
“driveway”, there are still a lot of details which need to be addressed. The “conceptual” level of these
entitlement requests are not specific enough to move on to construction permits. Drainage, the Trails
Network Plan update, the California Coastal Trail amenities, signage and habitat restrictions have not
yet been satisfactorily coordinated. I see a lot of interdepartmental discussion on what is the ideal
situation, before, the Developer gets another chance to weigh in.
I look forward to seeing an Agenda Report which recommends diverting the access to these 12
houses onto Trump National Drive. Then, we can get back to negotiating a beautiful and balanced
addition to our Coastal Zone.
SUNSHINE. 310-377-8761
On the July 17, 2018 City Council Meeting at Hesse Park (7:00PM), the City Council will be briefed regarding street
configuration for the new intersection at Costa De La Islas and Palos Verdes Drive South, associated with Vesting Tract
Map No. 50666 for the Trump National Golf Club Project, and will consider possible action to identify the preferred
alternative. You can email your concerns to Public Works at publicworks@rpvca.gov
J-6
1
Nancy Penate
From:Lenée Bilski <leneebilski@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, July 09, 2018 2:04 PM
To:CC; Doug Willmore; Elias Sassoon; PublicWorks; So Kim
Subject:Tract Map #50666 for the Proposed Trump National project on July 17 Council mtg.
Importance:High
Please include this correspondence in the Staff Report for July 17th item
July 9, 2018
Dear RPV Mayor Brooks and City Council members,
I ask that you do not approve this proposed new driveway as "safe" on busy Palos Verdes Dr. South which has
only one lane in each direction in this location. A safe alternative is entry from Trump Nat'l. Drive. You can
amend this map.
Access to the new residential units would be safer and aesthetically more beautiful when entering the new
street from Trump National Dr. rather than from our major arterial road, Palos Verdes Dr. South.
In the proposed location to access the residential units, there are bicycle routes & bicycle and pedestrian trails
and paths which are well used . . .but there is no mention of those in the AGA Traffic Impact Study for the
"driveway" provided by the applicant at the Traffic Safety Committee meetings in 2017. Dangerous plans!
Also, the developer's Traffic Impact Study was done during summer when schools were not in session.
Unfortunately, the developer is unwilling to provide additional traffic studies requested by the City as
evidenced in a letter to the City from Jill Martin which concludes: "We do not intend to provide additional,
unnecessary and impertinent studies."
Things change with time.
The approved Map language provides that the map may be amended by a public agency for safety
considerations.
Look at the VTTM50666 map and at the bottom you will see:
Incorporation By Reference
CONCURRENT APPROVALS REFLECT THE PLANS, STANDARDS AND POLICIES WHICH WERE IN EFFECT AT THE
TIME OF THIS SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. IT IS INTENDED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORIZED BY THIS
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP BE CARRIED OUT IN CONFORMANCE WITH CONCURRENT DISCRETIONARY
APPROVALS UNLESS AMENDED BY THE DEVELOPER OR PUBLIC AGENCY FOR HEALTH OR SAFETY
CONSIDERATIONS.
The proposed Tract was first approved back in 1997. We know how much the traffic has increased since
then!!! The Driving Range was approved in 2005 ‐ that's 13 years ago. Even in the last 4 years the traffic
volume has increased considerably on Palos Verdes Dr. South because of new residential developments, the
renovation of Golden Cove, and the popularity of Terranea Resort and the Preserve.
J-7
2
As a resident of SeaView on PV Drive South, I am already faced with dangerous, busy intersections at
Conqueror Drive, Schooner, Forrestal and the entrance to Portuguese Bend Community. This new T‐
intersection would be unsafe under current conditions.
The VTTM approval only includes a T‐ intersection. The developer's vested rights end at the property line.
Now in order to make this unsafe driveway "safe", the developer is proposing taking the pubic's Right of Way
for their own use. The developer has no vested right to penetrate the median and reconstruct the public Right
of Way for this project. Please, when asked, do not allow this.
The proposed driveway was not included in the Palos Verdes Drive South Corridor Traffic Study Report of
2014. Therefore, I attended the Traffic Study Workshop for PVDr. South in March 2015 to inform the Traffic
Safety Committee of this potentially dangerous cut in PVDr. South. "It would be an accident waiting to
happen," I said. A safe alternative is entry from Trump Nat'l. Drive. The applicant has not been willing to
consider this as an alternative.
Following that Workshop, then Planning Commissioner Bob Nelson wrote to then
Director of Community Development Joel Rojas ‐
From: Nelsongang [mailto:nelsongang@aol.com
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 9:21 PM
To: Joel Rojas
Cc: Melissa Countryman; leneebilski@hotmail.com
Subject: From Bob Nelson: Fwd: Coastal ?: Trump homesites and Traffic Safety Committee info
Director Rojas,
copy Melissa, Lenée
Melissa ‐ can you forward this to Chairman Self? I do not have his email.
Not sure who in Community Development this should go to so, Joel, please forward. Re Trump.
Joel, As you know our Traffic Safety Committee is in the midst of an extensive study of PVDS and safety (for
cars and bikes). Its my backyard so I went to Traffic Safety Committee tonight and Lenée made a presentation
about the homes Trump plans on PVDS and the access road (called Avenue E) that parallels PVDS and now ends
in a cul de sac (see attachments). This section of PVDS is scheduled for the Traffic Safety April 11 meeting,
which Lenée cannot make so she presented tonight.
Her comment being, for traffic safety, could not that road (Ave E) be continued to Trump Ave instead of ending
in a cul de sac?
My 1st thought was, if this is considered by Traffic Safety at it's April 11 meeting, would such an extension
require Coastal Commission approval?
From: Joel Rojas
Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 6:17 PM
To: Robert Nelson
Cc: Melissa Countryman; leneebilski@hotmail.com
Subject: RE: From Bob Nelson: Fwd: Coastal ?: Trump homesites and Traffic Safety Committee info
Bob
The street and lot layout of the tentative tract as described by Lenée was approved by the City Council back in
2005 and by the Coastal Commission last summer. Any changes to the approved street and lot layout would
J-8
3
have to be proposed by Trump National and would need to be approved by the City Council and the Coastal
Commission.
Joel
Apparently Director Rojas was not aware of the LANGUAGE ON THEAPPROVED MAP, or did not want the
public to know that a public agency could amend it for safety reasons. I noticed it last November while looking
at a copy of the approved Map.
In a letter to Ms. Kim the applicant states "the design . . . remains appropriate under the conditions as they
now exist . . ." Since the study did not consider ALL the conditions (cyclists, pedestrians, visitors driving to the
public trails) at that location, I cannot agree that the design is appropriate. A better design would be to enter
from Trump Drive and have the cul de sac on the west end. Unfortunately, the developer is unwilling to
provide additional traffic studies requested by the City as evidenced in the letter from Jill Martin to the City
which concludes: "We do not intend to provide additional, unnecessary and impertinent studies."
There would be a need for additional street signs placed probably in the view corridor for the public and
SeaView residents. Also, there may be an issue with vehicle headlights shining at SeaView and Portuguese
Bend Community homes at night as vehicles exit the new residential street. We have dangerous intersections
already at Schooner and Forrestal/Trump Dr. at PVDR.So. We don't need another!
What about the public driving into the new street looking to park and access the public trails? I doubt that the
new home owners would appreciate it since there is no provision for a public parking lot in this area. Better to
have access from Trump Natl. Drive where there is room to park on that street instead of on the new
residential street. We don't want another Del Cerro type parking problem.
A driveway on Trump Drive has been used by the developer for years during Special Events to access parking
on the Driving Range. An entry can be engineered to access the 12 homesites and reverse the proposed cul‐de
sac, Costa de las Islas.
The residents want another alternative entry considered (besides what the Public Works presents) which
would be safe and not require altering the public's Right Of Way which is access from Trump Drive. Yes, a
new design would have to be submitted to the Coastal Commission for approval. The applicant has had plenty
of time to redo the design since the public has been expressing concerns and objections to this design for over
ten (10) years.
Please do not give away the public's ROW for a developer's convenience . Please listen to the residents and
Deny the request and vote No on the options proposed by the applicant using our public ROW to try to make
entry from PV Dr. So. "safe".
Please assert your authority as elected officials of the residents of RPV.
Thank you for your service.
Ever vigilant,
Lenée Bilski
J-9
From:Charles Agnew
To:PublicWorks
Subject:PV Drive S
Date:Saturday, July 07, 2018 3:50:26 PM
A new street entrance on PV Drive South is unnecessary and will cause
lots of problems.
Have the new development exit on Trump National (Forrestal).
Since that intersection badly needs a traffic light already, add one for
the increased traffic.
Charles Agnew
32261 Phantom Dr.
Rancho Palos Verdes,
CA 90275
(310) 377-0290
cvagnew@cox.net
J-10
From:VIRGINIA PADILLA
To:DWillmore@rpvcaca.gov; Elias Sassoon; PublicWorks; CC; So Kim
Subject:FW: ALERT! Trump "driveway" Tract Map No. 50666 for the Proposed Trump National Golf Club Development
and its Intersection at PVDS
Date:Saturday, July 07, 2018 5:34:59 PM
Importance:High
Please do not allow the new driveway at TNGCD. I live in the Seaview tract and since the lookout
point on PVDS was installed (across from Conqueror) I have witnessed many near misses caused by
illegal, wrong way entry and U-turns another driveway will certainly add to the already existing
danger to our residents.
Unsafe due to increased traffic volume in recent years due to new developments in RPV.
Things change with time! This old plan (1997) needs to be changed as it is unsafe.
This proposed driveway entry was not included in the City's Palos Verdes Drive South Corridor
Traffic Study Report of 2015.
The language of the Map provides that the Map may be amended by a public agency for (the
City Council) safety considerations.
Stress that the residents nearby want another alternative entry considered which would be
safe and would not require altering the public's Right Of Way: access from Trump Drive.
DWillmore@rpvcaca.gov
esassoon@rpvca.gov
publicworks@rpvca.gov
CC@rpvca.gov
sok@rpvca.gov
From: City of Rancho Palos Verdes <listserv@civicplus.com>
Sent: Friday, July 6, 2018 11:16 AM
To: leneebilski@hotmail.com
Subject: Tract Map No. 50666 for the Proposed Trump National Golf Club Development and its
Intersection at PVDS
J-11
View this in your browser
On the July 17, 2018 City Council Meeting at Hesse Park (7:00PM), the City Council will be briefed regarding street
configuration for the new intersection at Costa De La Islas and Palos Verdes Drive South, associated with Vesting
Tract Map No. 50666 for the Trump National Golf Club Project, and will consider possible action to identify the
preferred alternative. You can email your concerns to Public Works at publicworks@rpvca.gov
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This message is been sent by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes as part of a "Notify Me" Listserve
category you are signed up for. Please do not press "reply" when responding to this message, it is
an unmonitored email address. You can make changes to your subscription by
visiting http://www.rpvca.gov/list.aspx.
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to Breaking News on
www.rpvca.gov. To unsubscribe, click the following link:
Unsubscribe
J-12