City of Beverly Hills
GATEWAY LAND USE STUDY
EIP Associates, a division of PBS& J Planning & Urban Design
Gensler Architecture, Design and Planning
Parsons Transportation
Keyser Marston Associates Market and Fiscal Economics
November 22, 2006
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page iii
Contents
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Background ............................................................................................................... 1
Analyses ..................................................................................................................... 2
1. Intersection Analysis ( Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevards) ..................... 2
2. Market Analysis.......................................................................................................... 3
3. Site Development Concepts................................................................................... 7
4. Development Feasibility of Protypical Projects .............................................. 20
5. Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios................................ 36
6. Public Input and Comments................................................................................. 37
Appendices
Appendix A Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard Land Use Study—
Phase 1
Appendix B Gateway Market Conditions
Appendix C Revised Gateway Pro Forma Analysis
Appendix D Wilshire Gateway Phase II Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land
Use Scenarios
Appendix E Public Workshop Summary
Appendix F Written Comments Received
Figures
Figure 1 Intersecton Improvement— Concept 1................................................. 4
Figure 2 Intersecton Improvement— Concept 3................................................. 5
Figure 3 Intersecton Improvement— Concept 5................................................. 6
Figure 4 Scenario 1, Parcel 1 .................................................................................... 8
Figure 5 Scenario 1, Parcel 2 .................................................................................... 9
Figure 6 Scenario 1, Parcel 3 ................................................................................. 10
Figure 7 Scenario 1a, Parcel 1 ............................................................................... 11
Figure 8 Scenario 1a, Parcel 2 ............................................................................... 12
Figure 9 Scenario 1a, Parcel 3 ............................................................................... 13
Figure 10 Scenario 2, Parcel 1 ................................................................................. 14
Figure 11 Scenario 2, Parcel 2 ................................................................................. 15
Figure 12 Scenario 2, Parcel 3 ................................................................................. 16
Figure 13 Scenario 2a, Parcel 1 ............................................................................... 17
Figure 14 Scenario 2a, Parcel 2 ............................................................................... 18
Figure 15 Scenario 2a, Parcel 3 ............................................................................... 19
Figure 16 Urban Form Concept.............................................................................. 21
Figure 17 Low Articulation— View from Southeast........................................... 22
Figure 18 Low Articulation— View from Southwest ......................................... 23
Figure 19 Low Articulation— View of Wilshire/ Santa Monica Intersection . 24
Figure 20 Low Articulation— Gateway Vehicular Views................................... 25
Figure 21 High Articulation— View from Southeast .......................................... 26
Figure 22 High Articulation— View from Northwest........................................ 27
Figure 23 High Articulation— View from Wilshire/ Santa Monica Intersection
...................................................................................................................... 28
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page iv
Figure 24 High Articulation— View of Eastbound Santa Monica Blvd............ 29
Figure 25 High Articulation— View of Eastbound Wilshire View................... 30
Figure 26 High Articulation— View of Eastbound Santa Monica Blvd............ 31
Figure 27 Vehicular Access ...................................................................................... 32
Figure 28 Loading Areas ........................................................................................... 33
Figure 29 Pedestrian Access .................................................................................... 34
Figure 30 Pedestrian Pathways................................................................................ 35
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 1
Introduction
This report presents the findings of the Beverly Hills Gateway Land Use Study. The
study area encompasses the T- 1 zoned parcels 1 and 2, the former railroad
rights- of- way along Santa Monica Boulevard, extending from the western City
limits to east of the Budget Rent a Car site ( see Context Map, page 2). Included in
this report are:
􀂃 Background information of the study area
􀂃 Analysis of right- of- way and improvement options for the intersection of
Santa Monica Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard
􀂃 Analysis or market conditions for potential land uses in the study area
􀂃 Potential configuration and massing of building and parking on the properties
based on the levels of development permitted by the adjoining C- 3 zone, as
well as a reduced level of development
􀂃 Analysis of the development feasibility of prototypical projects for the study
area
􀂃 Traffic and circulation analysis of the land use scenarios
􀂃 Comments received at public workshops
The following summarizes of key findings of each of these analyses. Detailed
analyses are presented in the Technical Appendix.
Context Map of Study Area
Source: City of Beverly Hills Planning Department
Background
In August 2003, the City Council approved contracts between the City and EIP
and between the City and Parsons to conduct a land use study of the T- 1 zones.
Attached is the contract scope of work. The current T- 1 zone allows surface
parking and railway transportation uses ( refer to Beverly Hills Municipal Code
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 2
Section 10- 3.2302). It was determined that an intersection improvement analysis
and land use study for this area was necessary before considering a zone change
application that was submitted by Jeff Wilson to develop a portion of the T- 1
zone with a project that utilizes the maximum allowable C- 3 development
standards ( 2: 1 Floor Area Ratio, three stories/ 45 feet height). The cost of the
study is fully funded by the three owners ( Jeffrey Wilson, Maynard Brittan, and
Jeffrey Mirkin) of the properties being studied, under separate contract between
the City and the owners.
Analyses
1. INTERSECTION ANALYSIS ( SANTA MONICA AND WILSHIRE
BOULEVARDS)
The first phase study consisted of an analysis of five intersection improvement
concepts to facilitate the flow of traffic through the Santa Monica and Wilshire
Boulevards intersection. The analysis was intended to specifically focus on the
improvements of this intersection as it relates to the potential development of the
T- 1 parcels, and what right- of- way implications such concepts might have on the
potential development. The complete analysis is presented in Appendix A.
To determine the scope of improvements required, projected PM peak hour traffic
conditions for the intersection were used. The Metropolitan Transportation
Authority’s ( MTA) 2020 projections were adjusted to reflect the implementation of
the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway. These did not include proposed
improvements for the Hilton and Robinsons- May properties north of the study
area.
The five concepts analyzed were the following1:
a. At- grade widening of the intersection to create additional through lanes and
additional through turn lanes ( no additional lane eastbound on Big Santa
Monica Boulevard).
b. Pedestrian overcrossing ( bridge) to separate pedestrians from the roadway
on the heaviest pedestrian movements across Big Santa Monica Boulevard.
c. Santa Monica Boulevard grade separation ( Santa Monica Blvd. undercrosses
Wilshire), including underground southbound lane turning right onto Wilshire
heading westbound ( heavy turning movement).
d. Grade separated ( underground tunnel lanes) eastbound lefts and southbound
rights ( two largest turning volumes).
e. Minimal widening with minimal acquisition of right- of- way— three through
lanes westbound approach to the intersection ( no additional lane eastbound
on Big Santa Monica Boulevard), dual left turn lanes for both eastbound and
westbound Wilshire Boulevard, and maintain southbound right- turn lane on
Big Santa Monica Boulevard.
1 Schematic diagrams of the intersection concepts are presented in Appendix A.
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 3
Concepts 1, 3, and 5 were selected by the City Council and Planning Commission
to be evaluated as part of the land use phase of the study, to represent a range
of minimum and maximum improvements to the intersection ( as shown in Figures 1,
2, and 3). A maximum of 6 feet of additional right- of- way would be required
along the north side of the Santa Monica Boulevard north roadway to
accommodate these concepts.
The issue of whether all or part of the T- 1 zone should be retained to
accommodate future transportation improvements such as a bus- only lane, transit
system, or transit integrated with development was not addressed as a part of
this analysis.
2. MARKET ANALYSIS
The apartment, condominium, retail, and office market conditions for potential
development in the Gateway study area were evaluated. Local brokers were
contacted and interviewed for general impressions of the markets, rents, and the
best possible uses for the properties. Research into the aforementioned markets,
such as comparable condominium sales and current rents for apartments, retail
and office, was conducted to supplement the information provided by the brokers.
The complete study is presented in Appendix B.
The findings of the market study can be summarized as follows:
a. While the office market likely has the greatest uncertainty, vacancies in the
market area are decreasing and rents are slightly increasing. Given the
current demand in the City, medical providers would likely be the primary
office tenants and the monthly rents would be in the $ 3.00 to $ 4.00 per
square foot range, FSG. This type of development would be best suited at
ground level to the east and west of the intersection and above ground level
for the entire length of the area.
b. The retail market is healthy within the City; however, the parking and
configuration of the parcels will likely limit the retail development to the
ground floor at or near the intersection. Given the rents in the City, this space
could likely lease between $ 3.00 and $ 4.00 per square foot ( triple net).
c. Similar to the office market, the restaurant market is generally healthy but
somewhat uncertain. Overall, this type of development would likely be best
suited at the intersection on either the east or west side. While the rents could
be in the $ 5.00 range at the intersection, the site configuration and
potentially more onerous parking requirements may make this type of
development unpalatable.
d. Generally, the brokers and consultant research indicates this site could be well
suited for residential development. Recent years have seen significant price
increases and substantial demand in the market area. In all likelihood, this
type of development would be best suited above ground level. Given the
current market conditions, condominium units would likely sell in excess of
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 4
FIGURE 1 INTERSECTON IMPROVEMENT— CONCEPT 1
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 5
FIGURE 2 INTERSECTON IMPROVEMENT— CONCEPT 3
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 6
FIGURE 3 INTERSECTON IMPROVEMENT— CONCEPT 5
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 7
$ 500 per square foot while apartment rents would likely be in the $ 33 to
$ 36 per square foot range.
3. SITE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPTS
Physical site development concepts were developed to illustrate the potential
location and massing of buildings on the properties in the study area. They depict
two development scenarios, a floor area ratio ( FAR) of 2.0 consistent with the
permitted intensity on adjoining C- 3 zoned parcels, and a reduced FAR of 1.5. In
both cases, the maximum building height is three- stories and 45 feet. A number of
surrounding buildings at the Wilshire/ Santa Monica intersection exceed the 45-
foot height limit. The concepts vary their mix of land uses including retail
commercial, office, and housing and incorporated parking in accordance with the
City’s Code requirements.
The land use alternatives evaluated included:
􀂃 Scenario 1: FAR 2.0 with ground level retail and parking housing on the
upper level ( Figures 4 to 6)
􀂃 Scenario 1a: FAR 1.5 with ground level retail and parking housing on the
upper level ( Figures 7 to 9)
􀂃 Scenario 2: FAR 2.0 with ground level retail and parking and office on the
upper level ( Figures 10 to 12)
􀂃 Scenario 2a: FAR 1.5 with ground level retail and parking and office on the
upper level ( Figures 13 to 15)
In all scenarios, retail uses are limited to the building frontages closest to the
Wilshire Boulevard intersection and those that front onto Little Santa Monica
Boulevard. Traffic volumes on the north roadway of Santa Monica Boulevard and
the adverse impacts of developing curb cuts would preclude retail uses and active
pedestrian use along this frontage.
Conceptually, the development concepts illustrate two approaches for
development massing. The first emphasizes the establishment of a pedestrian zone
surrounding this intersection; with the building height transitioning upward from the
intersection. This is intended to prevent the visual sense of a building “ wall” along
the street and would allow pedestrians and drivers to view a backdrop of higher
rise buildings that visually frame the intersection. The building massing at both
sides and adjacent to the intersection would consist of single story retail space, at
a height of 18 feet. The taller building massing located away from the
intersection would consist of three stories at a height of up to 45 feet.
The second building massing approach would utilize a full three- story building
height at the intersection. In the opinion of the property owners and economic
consultant, this would afford the opportunity for higher rents and quality of office
space or housing than would be achieved by the first concept. Market analyses
suggest that a Wilshire Boulevard frontage and address would yield greater
values and rents than on Santa Monica Boulevard. The impact of these options on
development feasibility cannot be assessed without detailed land acquisition cost
and land value information, which were not available.
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 8
FIGURE 4 SCENARIO 1, PARCEL 1
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 9
FIGURE 5 SCENARIO 1, PARCEL 2
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 10
FIGURE 6 SCENARIO 1, PARCEL 3
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 11
FIGURE 7 SCENARIO 1A, PARCEL 1
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 12
FIGURE 8 SCENARIO 1A, PARCEL 2
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 13
FIGURE 9 SCENARIO 1A, PARCEL 3
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 14
FIGURE 10 SCENARIO 2, PARCEL 1
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 15
FIGURE 11 SCENARIO 2, PARCEL 2
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 16
FIGURE 12 SCENARIO 2, PARCEL 3
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 17
FIGURE 13 SCENARIO 2A, PARCEL 1
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 18
FIGURE 14 SCENARIO 2A, PARCEL 2
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 19
FIGURE 15 SCENARIO 2A, PARCEL 3
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 20
Figures 16 to 20 illustrate the building massing for the concept reducing the
building height at the Wilshire Boulevard intersection, and Figures 21 to 26
illustrate the building massing retaining the three- story height at the intersection.
All concepts emphasize the need to vary and modulate the building mass along
the length of the north roadway of Santa Monica Boulevard to avoid visual
monotony. They illustrate opportunities to incorporate distinctive architectural
elements on the westernmost portion of the building and at Wilshire Boulevard to
promote identity and a strong sense of entry to the City.
Additionally all concepts provide that vehicular access would occur primarily at
existing intersections, such as Charleville, Moreno Drive, and adjoining North
Linden as shown on Figure 27. Truck loading access would be limited to Little
Santa Monica Boulevard as shown on Figure 28. Pedestrian walkways would be
constructed through the buildings, as shown on Figure 29, and linked to adjoining
pedestrian sidewalks, as shown on Figure 30.
4. DEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY OF PROTYPICAL PROJECTS
The development feasibility of the two primary land use scenarios was evaluated,
in consideration of current market conditions in the area and the consultant’s
experience with similar development proposals in the region. The analysis
assumed a FAR of 2 to 1. To further understand the implications of the FAR on the
land value, projections were also made of the residual land value of a
corresponding development at 1.5 FAR. The complete analysis is presented in
Appendix C.
Scenario 1 ( Retail/ Residential) contemplates the development of 70,400 square
feet of ground floor retail space and 167 residential units. The residential units
are assumed to be a mix of one and two bedroom floor plans at 1,000 and
1,300 square feet, respectively. Parking would include an at- grade parking level
and below grade parking level for the westerly parcel ( Parcel 1) and two levels
of below grade parking for the two easterly parcels ( Parcels 2 and 3).
Scenario 2 ( Retail/ Office) contemplates the same 70,400 square feet of ground
floor retail space and 202,100 square feet of office space. Parking would
include an at- grade parking level and two below grade parking levels for
Parcel 1 and three levels of below grade parking for Parcels 2 and 3.
The evaluation was based on conceptual development programming. No detailed
architectural plans were developed as part of this study. The construction and
development costs were standardized to provide for a consistent analysis.
The following two tables summarize the land residual values for the T- 1 parcels
( combined):
Assuming a 2.0 FAR
Scenario 1:
Retail/ Residential
Scenario 2: Retail/ Office
Total Value $ 41,462,000 $ 28,667,000
Value per Sq. Ft. $ 288 $ 199
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 21
FIGURE 16 URBAN FORM CONCEPT
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 22
FIGURE 17 LOW ARTICULATION— VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 23
FIGURE 18 LOW ARTICULATION— VIEW FROM SOUTHWEST
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 24
FIGURE 19 LOW ARTICULATION— VIEW OF WILSHIRE/ SANTA MONICA INTERSECTION
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 25
FIGURE 20 LOW ARTICULATION— GATEWAY VEHICULAR VIEWS
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 26
FIGURE 21 HIGH ARTICULATION— VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 27
FIGURE 22 HIGH ARTICULATION— VIEW FROM NORTHWEST
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 28
FIGURE 23 HIGH ARTICULATION— VIEW FROM WILSHIRE/ SANTA MONICA INTERSECTION
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 29
FIGURE 24 HIGH ARTICULATION— VIEW OF EASTBOUND SANTA MONICA BLVD.
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 30
FIGURE 25 HIGH ARTICULATION— VIEW OF EASTBOUND WILSHIRE VIEW
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 31
FIGURE 26 HIGH ARTICULATION— VIEW OF EASTBOUND SANTA MONICA BLVD.
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 32
FIGURE 27 VEHICULAR ACCESS
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 33
FIGURE 28 LOADING AREAS
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 34
FIGURE 29 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 35
FIGURE 30 PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 36
Assuming a 1.5 FAR
Scenario 1:
Retail/ Residential
Scenario 2: Retail/ Office
Total Value $ 31,374,000 $ 26,300,000
Value per Sq. Ft. $ 218 $ 183
The results indicate the following:
The residential scenario generates the greatest land value, as the market for this
type of development is currently very strong in the City even though this is not a
prime residential development site.
For the purposes of this analysis, a relatively conservative sales price and
aggressive profit level was assumed for the residential units. If a developer were
to require a higher profit level ( e. g. 15 percent of sales), then the estimated sales
price would likely need to increase 5 to 8 percent to maintain the estimated land
value estimated. Ultimately, a price increase of this magnitude is in the range of
reasonable given the current residential market in the City.
The parking requirements for the office space results in Scenario 2 needing a third
level of subterranean parking. However, it is understood that the entire third level
would not have to be built out to meet the scenario’s parking requirements.
Ultimately, this third level will have a strong impact on the project’s parking costs.
For Parcels 2 and 3, two levels of parking would limit development to
approximately a 1.7 FAR.
Given the parking solution for the office scenario at a 2.0 FAR, where the entire
third level is not completely built out, the underlying land value for the project
may be enhanced if the project FAR is increased to the point where the entire
third level of parking is built out. Based on a preliminary review of the design,
KMA believes the FAR could increase by approximately 0.5 for Parcels 2 and 3
assuming the Scenario 2 land uses. For the other scenario and parcels, the
increase would be more modest. If the 2.0 maximum FAR is maintained, the
developer can improve the land value for Scenario 2 by reducing density or
changing uses to eliminate the need for the third level of subterranean parking.
The alternative density analysis conducted by the consultant indicated the 1.5 FAR
land value would be approximately 25 percent less than a 2.0 FAR for
Scenario 1a. For Scenario 2a, the 1.5 FAR land value would be approximately
8 percent less than the 2.0 scenario. The key difference being the reduced
parking costs in Scenario 2.
5. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION ANALYSIS OF LAND USE SCENARIOS
The transportation impacts of the two land use scenarios were evaluated ( the
complete analysis is presented in Appendix D). Scenario 1 is estimated to
generate approximately 4,097 average daily trips and Scenario 2 is estimated
to generate approximately 5,344 average daily trips. Although the two scenarios
Beverly Hills Gateway LAND USE STUDY
Page 37
were comparable in their development density, Scenario 1 is estimated to
generate approximately 1,247 ( 30 percent) more daily trips than Scenario 2,
including 242 ( 332 percent) more trips during the AM peak hour and 211 ( 75
percent) more trips during the PM peak hour.
The additional trip making attributable to each of the land use scenarios will not
change the levels of service at Big Santa Monica Boulevard and Wilshire
Boulevard or at Little Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevard. They contribute to a
slight increase in delay at these intersections, with slightly more delay occurring
under Scenario 1 than under Scenario 2.
To accommodate the traffic entering/ exiting Parcels 1 and 2 along Little Santa
Monica Boulevard without creating unreasonable delays or unsafe conditions, it is
likely that traffic signals will be needed at the intersections of Moreno Drive and
Charleville at Little Santa Monica Boulevard.
The access for Parcel 3 does not align with the existing T intersection of North
Linden at Little Santa Monica Boulevard. In order to provide safe and efficient
traffic flow between Parcel 3 and Little Santa Monica Boulevard, Parcel 3 access
should either be relocated to align with North Linden Drive, or exiting traffic at
Parcel 3 should be restricted to right turns only.
6. PUBLIC INPUT AND COMMENTS
Workshops for the area’s adjoining residents, commercial businesses, and
property owners were conducted, respectively, on October 10 and 18, 2006.
These were structured to enable participants to define their perceived issues
pertaining to the development of the properties, review possible options for
resolution, and provide input regarding preferred development options.
Generally, much of the residents’ workshop focused on questions about the
potential impacts of development of the T- 1 zone on traffic, parking, and
adjoining residential neighborhoods, as well as the relationship to development
proposals for the Hilton and Robinsons- May properties. A number of participants
suggested retaining the property for parking or improving it as landscaped open
space and/ or with public art.
A diversity of opinions was received at the business and property owner
workshop regarding potential development of the properties. Some supported
development, while others recommended its retention for transportation and/ or
parking purposes. Those supporting development largely prioritized office and
retail uses, questioning the suitability of housing on the site. Parking in the area,
particularly for businesses located on Little Santa Monica Boulevard, is considered
to be deficient and a number of participants suggested increasing parking on this
site above Code requirements to lessen this problem.
Comments received in both workshops are presented in Appendix E, and written
communications are presented in Appendix F.
Appendix A Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire
Boulevard Land Use Study— Phase 1
PARSONS 1
Memorandum
To: Danny Castro
Senior Planner, City of Beverly Hills
From: Dick Ivy
CC: Tijana Hamilton
Bob Steaffens
Cathy Higley
Date: April 28, 2004 , Rev July 30, 2004, Rev August 16, 2004
Re: Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard Land Use Study – Phase I
This memorandum summarizes the procedures and findings by Parsons in the
preparation of a feasibility study of possible improvements that could be implemented at
the intersection of Big Santa Monica Boulevard / Wilshire Boulevard to facilitate traffic
flow and improve traffic conditions at the study intersection in Beverly Hills, CA.
Background
At a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting in October 2002 to consider a
proposed zone change for a portion of the T- 1 zone ( shown as Wilson’s Project Site on
Figure 1), it was agreed that a land use study of the entire T- 1 zone was appropriate
before considering the proposed project. The study is to identify appropriate zoning and
uses based on location, surrounding land use context, and transportation impacts. See
Figure 1, Context Map of Area. In June 2003, the City Council adopted a scope of work
for the study that included an intersection analysis to examine possible physical
modifications to the intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard to
improve traffic flow and what right- of- way ( R/ W) implications on the T- 1 zone these may
have. At the option of the City, the issue of whether all or part of the T- 1 zone be retained
for a future monorail transit system or transit system integrated with the development
could also be addressed at a later date; however, it is not a part of this Phase I analysis.
The owner of the property submitting the application for the zone change requested that
the intersection analysis precede other elements of the land use study. On September
2, 2003, Parsons was authorized to proceed with Phase I of the land use study, the
intersection analysis.
Parsons
2201 Dupont drive, Suite 200
Irvine, ca 92612
Phone: ( 949) 263- 9322 Fax: ( 949) 263- 1225
PARSONS 2
Context Map of Area
Source: City of Beverly Hills
Study Purpose
The intent of this study was twofold:
• To provide the decision makers with the potential R/ W footprints for different
levels of roadway improvements so that, on a sketch- level basis, potential
benefits and impacts of these improvements could be discussed and evaluated.
• To provide the T- 1 Zone urban design team these footprints so that they could
develop concepts for the T- 1 Zone parcels that would be compatible with future
improvements at this intersection.
Study Procedure Overview
The technical elements of the study were conducted through six tasks, interspersed with
seven progress meetings, followed by workshops with the decision makers and this
summary report. ( For discussion purposes, Big and Little Santa Monica Boulevards are
assumed to be oriented north- south as Wilshire Boulevard is almost due east- west.)
The following tasks were conducted prior to the workshops:
• Baseline data was obtained from existing sources, primarily from City files,
consisting of:
􀀀 Existing ( 2002) PM peak hour turning movements for Wilshire Boulevard at
both Big and Little Santa Monica Boulevards.
PARSONS 3
􀀀 MTA 2020 PM peak hour projections for Wilshire Boulevard at both Big and
Little Santa Monica Boulevards.
􀀀 Roadway, utility and traffic signal plans, signal timing plans, aerials.
• Intersection alternatives initially considered, defined in conjunction with City staff,
were:
􀀀 Widening of intersection at- grade to obtain an acceptable future level of
service ( LOS).
􀀀 Pedestrian grade separation, across south leg of Big Santa Monica
Boulevard.
􀀀 Grade separation, with Big Santa Monica Boulevard under Wilshire
Boulevard.
􀀀 Free- flow Wilshire Boulevard eastbound left turn and Big Santa Monica
Boulevard southbound right turn via a grade separation.
􀀀 Urban interchange grade separation.
􀀀 Roundabout intersection.
􀀀 One- way couplet, with Big Santa Monica Boulevard southbound, Little
Santa Monica Boulevard northbound.
After discussions with City staff, the urban interchange, one- way couplet and
roundabout alternatives were not pursued in detail. It was found that each of
these improvements would result in a much- more complicated set of
intersections, making through movements, as well as access to surrounding
properties, confusing to users.
• Traffic analysis tasks initially consisted of adjusting the 2020 PM peak hour
projections developed by MTA for the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit Parkway
project. The adjustments, mutually agreed upon with City staff, were needed
because MTA coded larger traffic analysis zones with a reduced network outside
their immediate study area and, as a result, the assignments to roadway
segments in the area of the intersection were not at a level of refinement as
desired. Historical volume trends contained in City files, together with more
refined assignments to the south in the Transit Parkway study area, were utilized
to balance the assumed projections at the intersections of Wilshire Boulevard with
Big and Little Santa Monica Boulevards. Table 1, Wilshire Boulevard Intersections
PM Peak- Hour Volumes, summarizes existing peak- hour volumes as well as
PARSONS 4
2020 projections for the turning movements at both Wilshire Boulevard
intersections of Big Santa Monica Boulevard and Little Santa Monica Boulevard.
PARSONS 5
Table 1 - Wilshire Boulevard Intersections PM Peak- Hour Volumes
777 1157 0
925 1660 0
699 35
800 BIG SANTA MONICA 15
1283 1414
2220 Existing PM Peak Hour 2455
26 2020 PM Peak Hour 197
40 320
0 1014 153
0 1800 155
294 572 35
795 1180 45
161 68
455 LITTLE SANTA MONICA 90
1214 1268
1845 Existing PM Peak Hour 1905
45 2020 PM Peak Hour 240
75 385
94 950 313
90 1225 395
SB Big Santa Monica Blvd
WB Wilshire
EB Wilshire
NB Big Santa Monica Blvd
SB Little Santa Monica
EB Wilshire
WB Wilshire
NB Little Santa Monica
PARSONS 6
Alternative Concepts
Five intersection improvement concepts were developed for further analysis. In most
cases, the goal of the concepts were to improve the intersection of Big Santa Monica
Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard to operate at a LOS of E or better under 2020 volume
projections. Level of service ( LOS) was calculated using Intersection Capacity Utilization
( ICU) methodology and TRAFFIX software. The need to minimize property acquisition
was balanced with the need to provide traffic flow improvements. Cognizant of the
desire to maintain the existing fountain in the northwest quadrant of the intersection, in
addition to minimizing proposed property acquisitions in the Beverly Gardens Park, the
Beverly Hilton Hotel, and the T- 1 zone parcels, lane widths were utilized that are
consistent with existing facilities and acceptable to City staff, but less than would have
been used if right- of- way ( R/ W) wasn’t constrained. Through lane widths of 11 feet were
used, except against a curb in which case 13 feet was used; left- turn lane widths of 10
feet were used.
Geometric conceptual plans were prepared on a sketch- planning level for the selected
alignments of each alternative. These conceptual plans are based on existing available
data such as roadway plans, utility plans, R/ W information and aerials furnished by the
City. In addition to the 80- scale plans provided to staff under separate cover, a minimum
of two reduced plans for each concept are included for review in conjunction with the
following concept descriptions, one with an aerial background and a second one without
the background. In all the following concept exhibits, the green area indicates additional
R/ W requirements.
To assist with the following evaluation and comparison of the above alternative
concepts, A Do- Nothing, or No- Build, Alternative was analyzed by assigning the 2020
peak- hour projections shown in Table 1 to the existing intersection lane configurations,
as illustrated in the following two exhibits, and consisting of the following:
Northbound Big Santa Monica Boulevard 2 thru lanes, 1 right- turn lane
Southbound Big Santa Monica Boulevard 2 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right lane, 1 right- turn lane
Eastbound Wilshire Boulevard 1 left- turn lane, 1 left/ thru, 1 thru lane, 1 thru/ right
Westbound Wilshire Boulevard 1 left- turn lane, 2 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right turn
The resulting LOS was found to be F, with a volume to capacity ratio ( v/ c) of 1.88. In
comparison, the intersection with the existing volumes shown in Table 1 operates at LOS
F, but with a 1.13 v/ c. While both scenarios are LOS F, no improvements will mean
even longer queues and more delay than currently experienced.
PARSONS 7
EXISTING GEOMETRICS
PARSONS 8
EXISTING BACKGROUND
PARSONS 9
Concept 1 - At- grade Widening
This concept illustrates the lane requirements for the intersection of Big Santa Monica
Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard to operate at a projected LOS better than F in the
future. Several lane configuration and signal phasing scenarios were analyzed. The
following lane configuration, together with the 2020 PM peak- hour projections, are
proposed to provide a LOS E and a 0.99 volume/ capacity ( v/ c) ratio:
Northbound Big Santa Monica Boulevard 3 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right- turn lane
Southbound Big Santa Monica Boulevard 3 thru lanes, 2 right turn lanes
Eastbound Wilshire Boulevard 3 left- turn lanes, 3 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right- turn lane
Westbound Wilshire Boulevard 2 left- turn lanes, 3 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right- turn lane
Approximately 36 feet of additional pavement would be needed to accommodate the
resulting cross- section on the north side of the west leg of the intersection. While the
required additional width could be obtained from either side of Wilshire Boulevard, the
R/ W acquisition costs would obviously be much less on the north side than the hotel
on the south side. However, the fountain in the northwest quadrant of the intersection
would have to be removed and/ or relocated with the widening on the north side.
On the south leg of the intersection, widening is shown on both sides of Big Santa
Monica Boulevard. The 10 feet on the west side will be taken from the existing wide
sidewalk that is underutilized. Thirteen ( 13) feet of widening would be required on the
east side from the T- 1 parcel. Even with the 10 feet taken on the west side on the
south leg, approximately 19 feet would be needed on the west side of the north leg in
the park area, and approximately 14 feet on the east side along the Budget Rental
Car site.
The fourth eastbound lane, a shared thru/ right- turn lane, would need to become a
right- turn- only lane east of Big Santa Monica Boulevard; four eastbound lanes could
not be carried through the intersection of Little Santa Monica Boulevard without major
building acquisitions east of Little Santa Monica Boulevard. Approximately seven ( 7)
feet of widening will be needed along the south side of Wilshire Boulevard between
Big and Little Santa Monica Boulevards to accommodate the eastbound right- turn-only
lane into Little Santa Monica Boulevard.
Approximately 27 to 30 feet of widening will be needed along the north side of
Wilshire Boulevard between Big and Little Santa Monica Boulevards to accommodate
the proposed alignment of westbound through lanes to clear the three eastbound left
turn lanes at Big Santa Monica Boulevard.
Improvements to the intersection of Little Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard
that are common to most of the alternative concepts are summarized on page 28.
PARSONS 10
CONCEPT 1 – At- grade Widening
PARSONS 11
CONCEPT 1 – Background
PARSONS 12
Concept 2 - Pedestrian Grade- Separation
Pedestrian counts from previous studies, together with field observations, confirm the
heaviest pedestrian movements at the intersection are across the south leg of Big
Santa Monica Boulevard. While an undercrossing was considered as well as an
overcrossing, the overcrossing concept was chosen to be the safest and as well as
the most economical to construct.
The conceptual design illustrates an overcrossing of the south leg perpendicular to
the roadway, as shown on the following two exhibits, to minimize cost. The
conceptual design includes an elevator on both sides, and a widened sidewalk to
eight ( 8) feet on the east side between the overcrossing landing and a widened
sidewalk along Wilshire Boulevard.
This concept alone does not improve traffic operations at the intersection. While it will
remove a significant number of pedestrians crossing Big Santa Monica, which is a
safety betterment, it will not enhance signal operations since a significant amount of
green time is needed anyway to accommodate the heavy eastbound Wilshire
Boulevard movement. This concept could be used in conjunction with other
alternatives if so desired.
PARSONS 13
CONCEPT 2 – Pedestrian Overcrossing
PARSONS 14
CONCEPT 2 – Background
PARSONS 15
Concept 3 - Santa Monica Boulevard Grade Separation
In this concept, north- south traffic is removed from intersection operations by
providing three lanes for each northbound and southbound through traffic on Big
Santa Monica Boulevard under the Wilshire Boulevard intersection. Big Santa Monica
Boulevard would come to grade approximately 440 feet north of the intersection,
requiring an additional 440 feet to transition to the existing northbound lanes; south of
the intersection, Big Santa Monica Boulevard would come to grade approximately 800
feet south of Wilshire Boulevard, requiring approximately an additional 560 feet to
transition to the existing southbound lanes. In addition, a grade- separated free- flow
lane is provided for the heavy southbound Big Santa Monica Boulevard to westbound
Wilshire Boulevard right turn under the fountain on the northwest corner. The free- flow
right- turn lane would come to grade approximately 550 feet west of the intersection,
requiring approximately an additional 750 feet to transition to the existing westbound
lanes on Wilshire Boulevard.
On the south leg of the intersection, approximately 14 feet of additional
roadway/ structure on the west side and 26 feet on the east side will be required. Right
turns from northbound Big Santa Monica Boulevard would not be provided at Wilshire
Boulevard; advance signing would advise the use of Little Santa Monica Boulevard.
Another alternative is to proceed through the intersection and make right turns at an
intersection north of Wilshire Boulevard. The first street where this northbound right
turn movement from Big Santa Monica Boulevard could be made is Bedford Drive.
Widening will be required on both the east and west sides of the north leg of Big
Santa Monica Boulevard, 28 feet and 24 feet, respectively. On the west leg of the
intersection, an additional 30 feet of R/ W is required on the north side of the street to
accommodate the grade- separated southbound to westbound right- turn- lane.
Widening and R/ W acquisition on both sides of Wilshire Boulevard is shown on the
following exhibits, and discussed in more detail latter under Little Santa Monica
Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard.
Left turns from Wilshire Boulevard onto Big Santa Monica Boulevard are provided via
a center ramp from the intersection, merging between the northbound and
southbound lanes as they meet at grade. This requires merging with through traffic
from the left rather than the right. Taking the turning traffic to the outside of the
through traffic would require even more R/ W.
To accommodate transit service on Big Santa Monica Boulevard, a transit stop would
be provided in the median area below the intersection and would be served by an
elevator.
In order to keep the grades on the approaches and departures of the undercrossing at
five percent or so, the southern portion of the undercrossing will not be at grade in the
PARSONS 16
vicinity of the existing loading docks for the Beverly Hilton Hotel on the west side of
Big Santa Monica Boulevard, south of Wilshire Boulevard. If alternative access to the
docks is not feasible, the docks will require relocation.
The following lane configurations on Wilshire Boulevard, as illustrated on the following
exhibits, together with the 2020 PM peak- hour projections, resulted in a LOS D and a
0.86 v/ c:
Eastbound Wilshire Boulevard - 2 left- turn lanes, 2 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right- turn lane
Westbound Wilshire Boulevard - 2 left- turn lanes, 2 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right- turn lane
PARSONS 17
CONCEPT 3 – Santa Monica under Wilshire
PARSONS 18
CONCEPT 3 – Wilshire At- grade
PARSONS 19
CONCEPT 3 – Santa Monica Under Background
PARSONS 20
CONCEPT 3 – Wilshire At- grade Background
PARSONS 21
Concept 4 - Grade Separate Eastbound Left Turns and Southbound Right Turns
In this concept, the two largest turning volumes are separated from other intersection
movements via two one- lane tunnels connecting the west and north legs of the
intersections, removing the eastbound left turn and the southbound right turn from the
operation of the intersection. See the following four exhibits.
Eastbound left- turn movements would enter the tunnel in the left- turn lane of Wilshire
Boulevard, emerging from the tunnel on the east side of the north leg of Big Santa
Monica Boulevard and merging with northbound traffic on their left just before they
reach the intersection of Roxbury Drive. Southbound right- turn movements would
enter the tunnel in the right- turn lane of Big Santa Monica Boulevard and emerge from
the tunnel on north side the west leg of Wilshire Boulevard, merge with through
westbound Wilshire Boulevard traffic on their left as normal. Widening on Big Santa
Monica Boulevard, between Wilshire Boulevard and Roxbury Drive, will be required to
accommodate these grade- separated turning movements as well as the transition of
the fourth northbound lane through Wilshire Boulevard and a sidewalk along the east
side of Big Santa Monica Boulevard. Additional R/ W of approximately 16 feet on the
west side and 33 feet on the east side of Big Santa Monica Boulevard will be needed.
Some additional widening along both Wilshire Boulevard, as well as approximately 11
feet along Big Santa Monica Boulevard south of Wilshire Boulevard, is required to
accommodate the following lane configurations for the through movements and the
remaining turning movements at a LOS E with a 0.90 v/ c estimated for 2020 peak
hour conditions:
Northbound Big Santa Monica Boulevard 3 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right- turn lane
Southbound Big Santa Monica Boulevard 3 thru lanes
Eastbound Wilshire Boulevard 3 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right- turn lane
Westbound Wilshire Boulevard 2 left- turn lanes, 3 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right- turn lane
Approximately 34 feet of R/ W on the north side of Wilshire Boulevard, west of the
intersection, is required to implement the grade- separated Big Santa Monica
Boulevard southbound right- turn lane, coming to grade approximately 510 feet west of
the intersection, and requiring approximately another 920 feet to transition to the
existing westbound lanes on Wilshire Boulevard. On the north side of Wilshire
Boulevard, east of the intersection, approximately 18 feet of R/ W is needed.
PARSONS 22
CONCEPT 4 – Separate EB Lefts / SB Rights
PARSONS 23
CONCEPT 4 – At- grade Geometrics
PARSONS 24
CONCEPT 4 – Underground
PARSONS 25
CONCEPT 4 – Background
PARSONS 26
Concept 5 - Minimal Widening
This concept provides for some traffic improvement with minimal acquisition of R/ W.
Three through lanes would be provided on all approaches, dual left- turn lanes for both
eastbound and westbound Wilshire Boulevard, plus maintaining the southbound right-turn
lane on Big Santa Monica Boulevard. The intersection approach lanes
summarized below are illustrated on the following two exhibits:
Northbound Big Santa Monica Boulevard 2 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right- turn lane
Southbound Big Santa Monica Boulevard 3 thru lanes, 1 right- turn lane
Eastbound Wilshire Boulevard 2 left- turn lanes, 2 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right- turn lane
Westbound Wilshire Boulevard 2 left- turn lanes, 2 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right- turn lane
To provide the three through lanes in each direction on Big Santa Monica Boulevard,
widening is required along the east side of Big Santa Monica Boulevard,
approximately six ( 6) feet along the T- 1 parcel south of Wilshire Boulevard and
approximately 12 feet north of Wilshire Boulevard. About six ( 6) feet of widening is
also needed from the sidewalk area on the west side of the south leg, along the
Beverly Hilton Hotel.
In addition to the seven ( 7) feet on the south side of Wilshire Boulevard, between Big
and Little Santa Monica Boulevards, approximately five ( 5) feet of additional R/ W will
be required on the north side of Wilshire Boulevard in this same segment.
Although this concept will not provide for a LOS of E or better with 2020 PM peak
hour volumes, it will provide an estimated v/ c of 1.24 during this period, compared to
1.88 if nothing is done. This concept would provide some interim relief, providing an
estimated LOS D ( 0.89) with existing traffic volumes.
Concept 5A, Dual Southbound Right Turns, provides the same geometrics and
lane configurations as Concept 5 except for the addition of a second southbound
right- turn lane on Big Santa Monica Boulevard at Wilshire Boulevard. While this will
provide improved storage and reduced delay for the southbound right turn, it is not a
critical movement when calculating LOS and therefore will not improve the overall
intersection LOS beyond that found for Concept 5. The additional southbound lane
will also encroach into the fountain on the northwest corner. This sub- alternative is not
illustrated or included in the cost comparisons.
PARSONS 27
CONCEPT 5 – Minimal Widening
PARSONS 28
CONCEPT 5 – Background
PARSONS 29
T- 1 Zone Parcels
The estimated R/ W requirements along the east side of Big Santa Monica Boulevard,
and along the north side of Wilshire Boulevard between Big and Little Santa Monica
Boulevards, vary for each concept. Approximately seven ( 7) feet of widening will be
needed along the south side of Wilshire Boulevard, between Big and Little Santa
Monica Boulevards, to accommodate the eastbound right- turn- only lane into Little
Santa Monica Boulevard included in all concepts except Concept 2.
Also, it should be noted that provision of a six ( 6) foot sidewalk is assumed along the
east side of Big Santa Monica Boulevard. This is the minimum width recommended
when considering the lateral placement of a traffic sign from the face of curb, as well
as the ability of a wheelchair to pass between a sign post or street light pole and the
edge of the sidewalk.
Little Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard
The intersection of Little Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard was integrated
into all the alternative concepts for Big Santa Monica Boulevard. However, after
considering many alternatives, it was concluded that the improvement concepts to
this intersection concurrent with those at Big Santa Monica Boulevard would be
limited to the addition of an additional westbound approach lane on Wilshire
Boulevard, together with the modification of the southwest curb return to provide
acceptable truck turning movements. The additional westbound through lane would
be obtained by reducing the existing sidewalk width about six ( 6) feet on both the
north and south side of Wilshire Boulevard east of the intersection with Little Santa
Monica Boulevard. R/ W take on the south side of Wilshire Boulevard between Little
and Big Santa Monica Boulevards is seven ( 7) feet for all widening concepts. R/ W
take on the north side Wilshire Boulevard between Little and Big Santa Monica
Boulevards ranges between five ( 5) feet in Concept 5 to 30 feet in Concept 1.
Furthermore, in order to obtain reasonable alignment of east- west lanes through both
intersections, eastbound left turns at Little Santa Monica Boulevard were deleted and
assumed to be made by one of three different alternate movements, depending on
the direction of approach:
• a left turn on Wilshire Boulevard at Big Santa Monica Boulevard,
• a left turn at an intersection east of Little Santa Monica Boulevard, or
• a northbound through movement on Little Santa Monica Boulevard.
For analysis purposes, it was assumed one- half of the projected eastbound left turns
at Little Santa Monica Boulevard are made at Big Santa Monica Boulevard and the
other half continues through the intersection to an intersection further east.
PARSONS 30
Another improvement, whether implemented in conjunction with Big Santa Monica
Boulevard improvements or at a later date, is the addition of a southbound right- turn
lane on Little Santa Monica Boulevard; this will enhance the LOS at this intersection in
light of this heavy movement through the provision of one exclusive right- turn lane
and a thru/ right- turn lane. This will require widening on the west side of the north leg
of Little Santa Monica Boulevard by approximately 16 feet.
The intersection of Little Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard currently
operates at a LOS F, although close to E, with a v/ c of 1.0. With no intersection
improvements, the v/ c will increase to an estimated 1.68 v/ c. Elimination of the
eastbound left turn, together with a fourth westbound approach lane and a future
southbound right- turn lane, the LOS will still be at F but the v/ c will improve to an
estimated range of approximately 1.2 to 1.3 depending on the diversion of the
eastbound left- turn volumes.
Additional widening to further improve v/ c would require building takes and was
deemed infeasible.
Walden Drive and Carmelita Avenue
In all concepts except Concept 2, cul- de- sacs were included at Walden Drive and at
Carmelita Avenue, prohibiting access to those streets from Big Santa Monica
Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard, respectively, to reduce potential conflicts
associated with the proposed improvements and potential neighborhood intrusion as
traffic volumes continue to increase. Additional cul- de- sacs may be required with the
grade- separated Concepts 3 and 4.
Comparison of Alternatives
A quantitative summary of traffic performance, R/ W requirements and preliminary
construction cost estimates have been prepared, as has potential qualitative benefits
and impacts. The following Table 2, Comparison of Alternatives, summarizes the
LOS, R/ W requirements, and very preliminary estimated construction costs. The
tabulated required R/ W consists of the total for each concept in the parkway area and
the areas north and south of Wilshire Boulevard.
PARSONS 31
Table 2 – Comparison of Alternatives
Concept LOS ( v/ c) R/ W Required
( square feet)
Preliminary
Construction
Cost Estimate
Do- Nothing
F ( 1.88) 0
0
1
At- grade
Widening
E ( 0.99) 67,300
$ 5,000,000
2
Pedestrian
Overcrossing
F ( 1.88) 3,600
$ 1,500,000
3
Santa Monica
Boulevard
Grade
Separation
D ( 0.86) 92,200
$ 22,000,000
4
Grade
Separate
EB Lefts/ SB
Rights
E ( 0.90) 103,000
$ 20,000,000
5
Minimal
Widening
F ( 1.24) 22,300
$ 3,000,000
For further evaluation of the alternatives, the projected LOS for each alternative was
compared to both existing and an interim future year as well as the 2020 future year.
The LOS values are summarized in Table 3, Alternatives Level of Service
Comparison. It should be noted that the interim year of 2010 was calculated by taking
half of the projected volume increase for each intersection movement; since the
increase of traffic will not necessarily be linear, or at the same rate for each
movement, the actual year at which the assumed 2010 volumes are achieved may
vary.
PARSONS 32
Table 3 - Alternatives Level of Service Comparison
Big Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard
YEAR
IMPROVEMENT Existing 2010* 2020
ALTERNATIVES v/ c LOS v/ c LOS v/ c LOS
Existing / Do
Nothing 1.13 F 1.50 F 1.88 F
Concept 1 0.71 C 0.86 D 0.99 E
Concept 2 1.13 F 1.50 F 1.88 F
Concept 3 0.55 A 0.74 C 0.86 D
Concept 4 0.71 C 0.75 C 0.90 E
Concept 5 0.89 D 1.07 F 1.24 F
Concept 5A 0.86 D 1.07 F 1.24 F
* Actual year may vary
The scope of this analysis is limited to developing conceptual traffic flow
improvements at the immediate intersection of Big Santa Monica Boulevard and
Wilshire Boulevard, but including Little Santa Monica Boulevard to the extent
necessary to implement these improvements. Various improvements may have
impacts on other intersections, such as the diversion of Wilshire Boulevard eastbound
left turns from Little Santa Monica Boulevard. Such impacts have not been identified
or analyzed, but should be included in a more detailed analysis at the time the
selected concept undergoes environmental analysis and detailed design phases.
Qualitative potential benefits and impacts of the various concepts are listed in the
following Table 4, Benefits and Impacts.
Table 4 – Benefits and Impacts
Santa Monica Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard Improvement Alternatives
DO- NOTHING
Benefits
• No disruption of property
• No construction impacts
• No construction costs
Impacts
• Increased delay/ congestion
• Further reduction of air quality
PARSONS 33
CONCEPT 1 – AT- GRADE WIDENING
Benefits
• Improves LOS to E for year 2020
• No diversion of eastbound left turns at
Little Santa Monica
Impacts
• Cost and R/ W
• Loss of fountain on NW corner
• Traffic and noise increases in NW
quadrant neighborhood
• Construction delays/ noise
• Poor alignment with Little Santa
Monica
• Longer crosswalks
CONCEPT 2 – PEDESTRIAN OVERCROSSING
Benefits
• Improve pedestrian safety crossing Big
Santa Monica
• Minimal R/ W required
• Minimal construction impacts
• Adaptable with other concepts
Impacts
• Does not improve LOS
• Visual impact at gateway
• Potential graffiti target
• Additional maintenance
requirements
CONCEPT 3 – SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD GRADE SEPARATION
Benefits
• Improves LOS to D for year 2020
• Removes north- south traffic, providing
potential intersection accident
reductions
• Enhances east- west pedestrian safety
• Reduced noise levels
• Reduced vehicle emissions
• Potential retention of fountain
Impacts
• Cost and R/ W
• Relocation of Hilton Hotel truck
docks
• Bus stops below grade
• Neighborhood circulation
• EB left turns at Little Santa Monica
diverted, causing potential
secondary impacts at other
intersections
• Construction delays/ noise
• Longer crosswalks
CONCEPT 4 – GRADE SEPARATE EB LEFT TURNS AND SB RIGHT TURNS
Benefits
• Improves LOS to E for year 2020
• Separates heaviest turn movements
• Reduced noise levels
• Reduced vehicle emissions
• Potential retention of fountain
Impacts
• Cost
• EB left turns at Little Santa Monica
diverted, causing potential
secondary impacts at other
intersections
• Construction delays/ noise
• Longer crosswalks
• Potential loss of parking structure
CONCEPT 5 – MINIMAL WIDENING
Benefits
• Provides improved LOS for a few years
• Less delay/ congestion than Do- Nothing
• Minor R/ W requirements
Impacts
• Does not improve LOS for year
2020
• EB left turns at Little Santa Monica
PARSONS 34
• Maintains fountain on NW corner
• Minimal added crosswalk length
diverted, causing potential
secondary impacts at other
intersections
• Construction delays/ noise
CONCEPT 5A – MINIMAL WIDENING WITH DUAL SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN LANES
Benefits
• Reduced delay to southbound Big
Santa Monica
Impacts
• Additional R/ W and cost
• Encroaches into fountain on NW
corner
• Longer crosswalk across north leg
• Moves traffic slightly closer to
residential
Next Steps
The above findings will be presented to the City Council and Planning Commission to
assist them in selecting a concept, if any, to be pursued in the future. At their option,
the City may wish to pursue the Transit Footprint optional task of determining how
much R/ W should be preserved to accommodate a monorail line along the east side
of Big Santa Monica Boulevard, and to determine how much of the T- 1 parcels, as
well as aerial space, needs to be preserved to accommodate this option should the
City decide to implement this in the future.
Once a decision is made as to which conceptual alternative is to be pursued in the
future, the R/ W footprint for those improvements will be provided to the Urban Design
team for the development of land use alternatives for the T- 1 zone parcel sites.
Appendix B Gateway Market Conditions
Appendix C Revised Gateway Pro Forma Analysis
Appendix D Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis
of Land Use Scenarios
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of
Land Use Scenarios
Prepared for:
City of Beverly Hills
Prepared by:
PARSONS
2201 Dupont Drive, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92612
( 949) 263- 9322
December 5, 2005
Revised January 10, 2006
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 1 January 10, 2006
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 2
Key Findings................................................................................................................... 2
Analysis of Land Use Scenarios ..................................................................................... 2
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 4
Background ..................................................................................................................... 4
Phase II Study Purpose ................................................................................................... 5
EXISTING AND FUTURE BASELINE CONDITIONS.............................................. 5
Intersection Improvement Concepts ............................................................................... 9
LAND USE SCENARIOS.............................................................................................. 11
Trip Generation............................................................................................................. 11
Trip Distribution and Assignment ................................................................................ 18
Capacity Analysis ......................................................................................................... 25
ACCESS AND CIRCULATION................................................................................... 25
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 2 January 10, 2006
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Key Findings
• The additional trip making attributable to each of the land use scenarios under consideration
for the T- 1 parcels will not change the levels of service at Big Santa Monica Boulevard and
Wilshire Boulevard or at Little Santa Monica and Wilshire Boulevard. They contribute to a
slight increase in delay at these intersections, with slightly more delay occurring under
Scenario 1 than under Scenario 2.
• To accommodate the traffic entering/ exiting Parcels 1 and 2 along Little Santa Monica
Boulevard without creating unreasonable delays or unsafe conditions, it is likely that traffic
signals will be needed at the intersections of Moreno Drive and Charleville at Little Santa
Monica Boulevard.
• The access for Parcel 3 does not align with the existing T intersection of N. Linden at Little
Santa Monica Boulevard. In order to provide safe and efficient traffic flow between Parcel 3
and Little Santa Monica Boulevard, Parcel 3 access should either be relocated to align with
N. Linden Drive, or exiting traffic at Parcel 3 should be restricted to right turns only.
Background
• The purpose of the Phase II traffic analysis is to evaluate the potential traffic impacts and
proposed circulation of the two alternative land use concepts for the T- 1 parcels along the
east side of N. Santa Monica ( Big Santa Monica) Boulevard, north and south of Wilshire
Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills.
• Based on AM and PM peak hour analysis of future ( 2020) baseline conditions at the
intersections of Big Santa Monica Boulevard at Wilshire Boulevard and Little Santa Monica
Boulevard at Wilshire Boulevard, it is projected that these intersections will operate at level
of service F assuming no improvements are made to the current configurations of these
intersections.
• With the improvements included in Concepts 1 ( at- grade widening of Big Santa Monica
Boulevard at Wilshire Boulevard) and 5 ( minimal widening of Big Santa Monica Boulevard
at Wilshire Boulevard), these intersections will continue to operate at level of service F,
however, the delay at each of these intersections will be reduced to approximately one- third
the level of delay projected in the No Build scenario.
• With the improvements included in Concept 3, the intersection of Big Santa Monica
Boulevard at Wilshire Boulevard is forecast to operate at level of service C. Little Santa
Monica will operate at level of service F but with considerably reduced delay compared to the
No Build condition.
Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
• Two land use scenarios have been evaluated for the T- 1 parcels adjacent to and east of Big
Santa Monica, north and south of Wilshire Boulevard. Scenario 1 included retail and office
uses. Scenario 2 included residential and retail uses.
• Although the two scenarios were comparable in their development density, Scenario 1 is
estimated to generate approximately 1,247 ( 30 percent) more daily trips than Scenario 2,
including 242 ( 332 percent) more trips during the AM peak hour and 211 ( 75 percent) more
trips during the PM peak hour.
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 3 January 10, 2006
• In Scenario 2, the development intensity and therefore the trip making is evenly distributed
across the 3 parcels. In Scenario 1, Parcel 3 is slightly less intensely developed and as a
result has slightly fewer trips.
• The scope of this analysis is limited to evaluating the comparative impacts of the land uses
included in each land use scenario on the conceptual traffic improvements at the intersections
of Big Santa Monica Boulevard at Wilshire Boulevard and at Little Santa Monica Boulevard
at Wilshire Boulevard. The land use alternatives will likely impact other intersections
beyond the immediately adjacent intersections at Santa Monica Boulevard and Wilshire
Boulevard. These impacts have not been identified or analyzed, but should be included in a
more detailed analysis at the time the selected land use scenarios, or the projects that
comprise each scenario moves through the planning approval and entitlement processes.
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 4 January 10, 2006
INTRODUCTION
This memorandum summarizes the procedures and findings by Parsons of the Phase II traffic and
circulation analysis of alternative land use scenarios for the parcels of land within the T- 1 zone
along the east side of N. Santa Monica ( Big Santa Monica) Boulevard, north and south of
Wilshire Boulevard in the City of Beverly Hills.
Background
At a joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting in October 2002 to consider proposed
zone change for a portion ( Parcel 2 – Wilson Property) of the T- 1 zone ( see Figure 1), it was
agreed that a land use study of the entire T- 1 zone was appropriate before considering the
proposed zone change. The study is to identify appropriate zoning and land uses based on
location, surrounding land use context, and transportation impacts.
Figure 1 – Context Map of Area
In June 2003, the City Council adopted a Scope of Work for the two- phased study. The first
phase involved an intersection analysis to examine possible physical modifications to the
intersection of Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard. Phase I study was intended:
• To provide decision makers with the potential R/ W footprints for different levels of
roadway improvements so that, on a sketch- level basis, potential benefits and impacts of
these improvements could be discussed and evaluated.
• To provide the T- 1 Zone urban design team these footprints so that they could develop
concepts for the T- 1 Zone parcels that would be compatible with future improvements at
this intersection.
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 5 January 10, 2006
Phase I of the Wilshire Gateway study was completed in Spring 2005, when the Beverly Hills
City Council approved three improvement alternatives for the intersection of Santa Monica
Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard to be carried forward into the land use analysis phase of the study.
Phase II Study Purpose
Phase II of the Wilshire Gateway Study began with the definition of alternative land use concepts
for the T- 1 parcels. Two alternatives were identified for further analysis. The purpose of this
Phase II traffic analysis is to evaluate the potential traffic impacts and proposed circulation of the
two alternative land use scenarios.
EXISTING AND FUTURE BASELINE CONDITIONS
The analysis of intersection improvement alternatives, conducted as part of Phase 1, was based on
traffic count data collected in 2002, and 2020 traffic forecasts. The 2020 forecasts were
developed using projections developed by the MTA for the Santa Monica Boulevard Transit
Parkway Study, which were then refined using historical count data and more detailed forecasts
from other studies in the immediate area. For this analysis, updated traffic count data, collected
in May 2005 were used. The forecasts were likewise updated to reflect 2020 conditions. The
2005 traffic counts were factored based on the growth between the existing conditions and the
2020 forecasts in the Phase I analysis. Figure 2 shows existing ( 2005) peak hour traffic volume
turning movements at the intersections of Big Santa Monica at Wilshire Boulevard and Little
Santa Monica at Wilshire Boulevard. Figure 3 shows 2020 peak hour forecasts.
The Syncho traffic simulation model, used in the Phase I analysis was used to evaluate
intersection operating conditions in this Phase II analysis. To assist with the evaluation and
comparison of alternative concepts, a Do Nothing or No Build alternative is analyzed by
assigning 2020 peak hour projections to the intersections, assuming existing lane configurations,
as illustrated in Figure 4, and consisting of the following:
Big Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard
Northbound Big Santa Monica Blvd. 2 thru lanes, 1 right turn lane
Southbound Big Santa Monica Blvd. 2 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right lane, 1 right turn lane
Eastbound Wilshire Blvd. 1 left turn lane, 1 left/ thru. 1 thru lane, 1 thru/ right lane
Westbound Wilshire Blvd. 1 left turn lane, 2 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right lane
Little Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard
Northbound Little Santa Monica Blvd. 1 left turn lane, 2 thru lanes, 1 right turn lane
Southbound Little Santa Monica Blvd. 1 left turn lane, 1 thru/ right lane, 1 right turn lane
Eastbound Wilshire Blvd. 2 thru lane, 1 thru/ right lane
Westbound Wilshire Blvd. 1 left turn lane, 2 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right lane
Table 1 summarizes the existing delay and level of service at the intersections of Big Santa
Monica Boulevard at Wilshire Boulevard, and at Little Santa Monica at Wilshire Boulevard.
Parsons 8 January 10, 2006
Figure 4
EXISTING LANE CONFIGURATION
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 9 January 10, 2006
Table 1
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Existing ( 2005) and Future Baseline ( 2020) Conditions
EXISTING CONDITIONS 2020 FUTURE BASELINE
AM Intersection Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
Wilshire - Big Santa Monica 49.7 D 76.7 E 207.5 F 285.1 F
Wilshire Little Santa Monica 66.7 E 53.2 E 200.7 F 203.1 F
Intersection Improvement Concepts
During the Phase I study, the following eight initial concepts to improve the intersection of Big
Santa Monica Boulevard at Wilshire Boulevard were defined:
1. At- grade Widening
2. Pedestrian Overcrossing
3. Santa Monica Boulevard Grade Separation
4. Grade Separate EB Lefts/ SB Rights
5. Minimal Widening
6. Urban Interchange Grade Separation
7. Roundabout Intersection
8. Big Santa Monica/ Little Santa Monica One- Way Couplet
After discussions with City staff, the urban interchange, one- way couplet and roundabout
alternatives were not pursue in detail. It was found that each of these improvements would result
in a much more complicated set of intersections, making through movements, as well as access to
surrounding properties, confusing to users.
Five of the alternatives were subjected to further, more detailed analysis, including traffic
operations analysis, estimates of additional right- of- way required, and estimates of cost to
construct. In coordination with City staff and the property owners adjacent to the intersections,
the three alternatives with the greatest potential to address forecast congestion at the intersections
were further analyzed and refined. Finally, these three alternatives were approved by the Beverly
Hills City Council for study in the land use analysis phase of the project. The three intersection
improvement concepts which have been included in this analysis of land use scenarios are:
Concept 1 – At- Grade Widening
Big Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard
Northbound Big Santa Monica Blvd. 2 thru lanes, 1 right turn lane
Southbound Big Santa Monica Blvd. 3 thru lanes, 2 right turn lanes
Eastbound Wilshire Blvd. 3 left turn lanes, 3 thru lane, 1 thru/ right lane
Westbound Wilshire Blvd. 2 left turn lane, 3 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right lane
Little Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard ( a)
Northbound Little Santa Monica Blvd. 1 left turn lane, 2 thru lanes, 1 right turn lane
Southbound Little Santa Monica Blvd. 1 left turn lane, 2 thru lanes, 1 right turn lane
Eastbound Wilshire Blvd. 3 thru lane, 1 right lane
Westbound Wilshire Blvd. 1 left turn lane, 3 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right lane
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 10 January 10, 2006
Concept 3 – Grade Separation
Big Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard
Northbound Big Santa Monica Blvd. 2 thru lanes, 1 right turn lane
Southbound Big Santa Monica Blvd. 3 thru lanes, 2 right turn lanes
Eastbound Wilshire Blvd. 3 left turn lanes, 3 thru lane, 1 thru/ right lane
Westbound Wilshire Blvd. 2 left turn lane, 3 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right lane
Concept 5 – Minimal Widening
Big Santa Monica Boulevard/ Wilshire Boulevard
Northbound Big Santa Monica Blvd. 2 thru lanes, 1 right turn lane
Southbound Big Santa Monica Blvd. 3 thru lanes, 2 right turn lanes
Eastbound Wilshire Blvd. 3 left turn lanes, 3 thru lane, 1 thru/ right lane
Westbound Wilshire Blvd. 2 left turn lane, 3 thru lanes, 1 thru/ right lane
( a) The lane configuration for the intersection of Little Santa Monica at Wilshire Boulevard is the same in
each of the alternative concepts.
Table 2 shows the results of the intersection capacity of analysis, comparing each of the
alternative concepts to the No- Build future baseline conditions.
Table 2
Intersection Capacity Analysis
Future ( 2020) Baseline Conditions
Intersection Wilshire Boulevard at
Big Santa Monica Boulevard
Wilshire Boulevard at
Little Santa Monica Boulevard
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
SCENARIO Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
No Build 207.5 F 285.1 F 200.7 F 203.1 F
Concept 1- At Grade Widening 68.9 E 63.8 E 82.8 F 69.5 E
Concept 3 – Grade Separation 21.9 C 11.4 B 82.8 F 69.5 E
Concept 5 – Minimal Widening 152.2 F 170.3 F 116.2 F 100.1 F
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 11 January 10, 2006
LAND USE SCENARIOS
This section focuses on the traffic and circulation analysis of land use scenarios for the portions
of the T- 1 parcels along the east side of Big Santa Monica Boulevard north and south of Wilshire
Boulevard. The traffic analysis described in this memorandum focused on two land use
scenarios:
• Scenario 1 – Office and retail uses
• Scenario 2 – Residential and retail uses
Figure 5 shows the site concept for each of the 3 affected T- 1 parcels for each scenario. Table 3
summarizes the land uses included in each scenario.
Trip Generation
Average daily, AM peak hour and PM peak hour trip generation were estimated for each of the
land use scenarios. Trip generation rates provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’
Trip Generation, 7th addition were applied to the land use quantities for each scenario identified
in Table 3. Table 4 summarizes the estimated trip generation rates used in this analysis. Table 5
shows the estimated trip generation for each parcel for each land use scenario.
Table 3
Land Use Scenarios Summary
SCENARIO 1 SCENARIO 2
Land Use Quantity
Land Use Quantity
Parcel 1 Parcel 1
Office 102,400 s. f. Retail 7,100 s. f.
Retail 7,100 s. f. Residential 118 d. u.
Parcel 2 Parcel 2
Office 63,111 s. f. Retail 31,955 s. f.
Retail 31,955 s. f. Residential 50 d. u.
Parcel 3 Parcel 3
Office 36,610 s. f. Retail 36,610 s. f.
Retail 31,307 s. f. Residential 29 d. u.
TOTAL TOTAL
Office 202,121 s. f. Retail 75,665 s. f.
Retail 70,362 s. f. Residential 197 d. u.
Table 4
Trip Generation Rates
Land Use AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Code Description
Units Daily
In Out In Out
710 Office 1,000 s. f. 11.01 1.37 0.19 0.25 1.24
814 Retail 1,000 s. f. 44.32 N. A. N. A. 1.19 1.52
230 Residential 1 D. U. 5.86 0.07 0.37 0.36 0.18
Parsons 12 January 10, 2006
PARCEL 1 – SCENARIO 1
Figure 5a
CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN
PARCEL 1 – SCENARIO 1
Parcel 1
59,723 s. f. 59,723 s. f.
Third 51,000 s. f. 51,000 s. f. 51,000 s. f. 0 units 0 units 146 cars 0 cars 0 cars 0 cars 146 cars
Second 51,000 s. f. 51,000 s. f. 51,000 s. f. 0 units 0 units 146 cars 0 cars 0 cars 0 cars 146 cars
Ground 7,500 s. f. 400 s. f. 7,100 s. f. 7,500 s. f. 0 units 0 units 1 cars 20 cars 0 cars 0 cars 21 cars
Total 109,500 s. f. 102,400 s. f. 7,100 s. f. 0 s. f. 0 s. f. 109,500 s. f. 0 units 0 units 293 cars 20 cars 0 cars 0 cars 313 cars
Residential Office
FAR 2.0 Parking Requirement
Retail Residential Restaurant Total
Area Residential Units
Office Retail Restaurant Total One Bed Two Bed
Parsons 13 January 10, 2006
PARCEL 2 – SCENARIO 1
Parcel 2
47,533 s. f. 95,067 s. f.
Third 31,556 s. f. 31,556 s. f. 31,556 s. f. 0 units 0 units 90 cars 0 cars 0 cars 0 cars 90 cars
Second 31,556 s. f. 31,556 s. f. 31,556 s. f. 0 units 0 units 90 cars 0 cars 0 cars 0 cars 90 cars
Ground 31,955 s. f. 31,955 s. f. 31,955 s. f. 0 units 0 units 0 cars 91 cars 0 cars 0 cars 91 cars
Total 95,067 s. f. 63,112 s. f. 31,955 s. f. 0 s. f. 0 s. f. 95,067 s. f. 0 units 0 units 180 cars 91 cars 0 cars 0 cars 271 cars
Office Retail Residential Restaurant Total One Bed Two Bed Office Retail Residential Restaurant Total
FAR 2.0 Area Residential Units Parking Requirement
Figure 5b
CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN
PARCEL 2 – SCENARIO 1
Parsons 14 January 10, 2006
PARCEL 3 – SCENARIO 1
Figure 5c
CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN
PARCEL 3 – SCENARIO 1
Parcel 3
36,610 s. f. 73,220 s. f.
0 s. f. 0 units 0 units 0 cars 0 cars 0 cars 0 cars 0 cars
Second 36,610 s. f. 36,610 s. f. 36,610 s. f. 0 units 0 units 105 cars 0 cars 0 cars 0 cars 105 cars
Ground 31,307 s. f. 31,307 s. f. 0 s. f. 31,307 s. f. 0 units 0 units 0 cars 89 cars 0 cars 0 cars 89 cars
Total 67,917 s. f. 36,610 s. f. 31,307 s. f. 0 s. f. 0 s. f. 67,917 s. f. 0 units 0 units 105 cars 89 cars 0 cars 0 cars 194 cars
Office Retail Residential Restaurant Total One Bed Two Bed Office Retail Residential Restaurant Total
FAR 2.0 Area Residential Units Parking Requirement
Parsons 15 January 10, 2006
PARCEL 1 – SCENARIO 2
Parcel 1
59,723 s. f. 119,446 s. f.
Third 52,223 s. f. 52,223 s. f. 52,223 s. f. 27 units 14 units 0 cars 0 cars 99 cars 0 cars
Second 59,723 s. f. 59,723 s. f. 59,723 s. f. 31 units 16 units 0 cars 0 cars 114 cars 0 cars
Ground 7,500 s. f. 7,100 s. f. 400 s. f. 7,500 s. f. 0 units 0 units 0 cars 20 cars 0 cars 0 cars
Total 119,446 s. f. 0 s. f. 7,100 s. f. 112,346 s. f. 0 s. f. 119,446 s. f. 58 units 30 units 0 cars 20 cars 213 cars 0 cars
Office Retail Residential Restaurant Total One Bed Two Bed Office Retail Residential Restaurant
FAR 2.0 Area Residential Units Parking Requirement
Figure 5d
CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN
PARCEL 1 – SCENARIO 2
Parcel 1
59,723 s. f. 119,446 s. f.
Third 52,223 s. f. 52,223 s. f. 52,223 s. f. 27 units 14 units 0 cars 0 cars 99 cars 0 cars 99 cars
Second 59,723 s. f. 59,723 s. f. 59,723 s. f. 31 units 16 units 0 cars 0 cars 114 cars 0 cars 114 cars
Ground 7,500 s. f. 7,100 s. f. 400 s. f. 7,500 s. f. 0 units 0 units 0 cars 20 cars 0 cars 0 cars 20 cars
Total 119,446 s. f. 0 s. f. 7,100 s. f. 112,346 s. f. 0 s. f. 119,446 s. f. 58 units 30 units 0 cars 20 cars 213 cars 0 cars 233 cars
Office Retail Residential Restaurant Total One Bed Two Bed Office Retail Residential Restaurant Total
FAR 2.0 Area Residential Units Parking Requirement
Parsons 16 January 10, 2006
PARCEL 2 – SCENARIO 2
Figure 5e
CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN
PARCEL 2 – SCENARIO 2
Parcel 2
47,533 s. f. 95,067 s. f.
Third 31,556 s. f. 31,556 s. f. 31,556 s. f. 17 units 8 units 0 cars 0 cars 60 cars 0 cars 60 cars
Second 31,556 s. f. 31,556 s. f. 31,556 s. f. 17 units 8 units 0 cars 0 cars 60 cars 0 cars 60 cars
Ground 31,955 s. f. 31,955 s. f. 31,955 s. f. 0 units 0 units 0 cars 91 cars 0 cars 0 cars 91 cars
Total 95,067 s. f. 0 s. f. 31,955 s. f. 63,112 s. f. 0 s. f. 95,067 s. f. 34 units 16 units 0 cars 91 cars 120 cars 0 cars 211 cars
Office Retail Residential Restaurant Total One Bed Two Bed Office Retail Residential Restaurant Total
FAR 2.0 Area Residential Units Parking Requirement
Parsons 17 January 10, 2006
PARCEL 3 – SCENARIO 2
Figure 5f
CONCEPTUAL LAND USE PLAN
PARCEL 3 – SCENARIO 2
Parcel 3
36,610 s. f. 36,610 s. f.
0 units 0 units 0 cars 0 cars 0 cars 0 cars 0 cars
Second 36,610 s. f. 36,610 s. f. 36,610 s. f. 19 units 10 units 0 cars 0 cars 70 cars 0 cars 70 cars
Ground 31,307 s. f. 31,307 s. f. 31,307 s. f. 0 units 0 units 0 cars 89 cars 0 cars 0 cars 89 cars
Total 67,917 s. f. 0 s. f. 31,307 s. f. 36,610 s. f. 0 s. f. 67,917 s. f. 19 units 10 units 0 cars 89 cars 70 cars 0 cars 159 cars
Office Retail Residential Restaurant Total One Bed Two Bed Office Retail Residential Restaurant Total
FAR 2.0 Area Residential Units Parking Requirement
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 18 January 10, 2006
Review of Table 5 shows that Scenario 1 is estimated to generate approximately 5,344 average
daily trips. Approximately 315 trips would occur during the AM peak hour ( 277 inbound and 38
outbound), and 492 trips during the PM peak hour ( 135 inbound and 357 outbound). Scenario 2
is estimated to generate approximately 4,097 average daily trips. Approximately 73 trips would
occur during the AM peak hour ( 12 inbound and 61 outbound), and 281 trips during the PM peak
hour ( 144 inbound and 137 outbound). On a daily basis, Scenario 1 generates approximately
1,247 more trips, or 30 percent more trips than Scenario 2. During the AM peak hour, Scenario 1
generates approximately 248 more trips, or 331 percent more trips than Scenario 2. During the
PM peak hour, Scenario 1 generates approximately 211 more trips, or approximately 75 percent
more trips than Scenario 2. The most significant traffic movements are inbound during the AM
peak hour under Scenario 1 ( approximately 277 trips) and outbound during the PM peak hour
under Scenario 1 ( approximately 357 trips).
Under Land Use Scenario 2, development and therefore trip making is distributed fairly evenly
across the three parcels. In Scenario 1, development tends to be a bit more concentrated on
Parcels 1 and 2, with less intensity ( and, therefore slightly fewer trips) on Parcel 3.
Trip Distribution and Assignment
The trips estimated under each land use scenario were distributed to the surrounding roadway
system and assigned to the turning movements at the intersections of Santa Monica Boulevard
with Wilshire Boulevard. Figures 6, 7, and 8 show the trip distribution characteristics of Parcels
1, 2 and 3, respectively. Table 6 shows the project traffic for each scenario.
The project trips for each scenario were added to the 2020 Future Baseline traffic volume
forecasts at the intersections to obtain an estimate of 2020 traffic volumes under each scenario.
Table 7 shows 2020 AM and PM peak hour intersection turning movements for Land Use
Scenario 1 and Land Use Scenario 2.
Table 8 shows the traffic volume entering the intersections at Wilshire Boulevard and Big Santa
Monica Boulevard, and Wilshire Boulevard at Little Santa Monica Boulevard during the AM and
PM peak hour under each land use scenario. It also shows the percentage increase in traffic
volume entering each intersection compared to the 2020 baseline conditions.
Review of Table 8 shows that traffic attributable to Scenario 1 is projected to increase traffic at
the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Big Santa Monica Boulevard by less than 1 percent
during both peak hours. It is expected to increase traffic at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard
and Little Santa Monica Boulevard by less than 1 percent during the AM peak hour, but by
approximately 2.7 percent during the evening peak hour. Scenario 2 will result in slightly greater
increases in traffic volume at the Wilshire Boulevard/ Santa Monica Boulevard intersections.
Scenario 2 will contribute less than 1 percent to the AM peak hour traffic volume and slightly
more than 1 percent to the PM peak hour traffic volume at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard
at Big Santa Monica Boulevard. An increase of 2.6 percent is projected during the AM peak hour
and 4.1 percent during the PM peak hour at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and Little
Santa Monica Boulevard. While the percent increase in traffic volumes at the Wilshire
Boulevard/ Santa Monica Boulevard intersections is fairly small, it is significant because, with the
exception of Wilshire Boulevard at Big Santa Monica Boulevard under Concept 3, these
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 19 January 10, 2006
Table 5
Trip Generation Summary
Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out In Out
SCENARIO 1
Parcel 1
Office 102,400 s. f. 1,127 141 19 26 127
Retail 7,100 s. f. 315 0 0 8 11
Subtotal – Parcel 1 1,442 141 19 34 137
Parcel 2
Office 63,111 s. f. 695 87 12 16 78
Retail 31,955 s. f. 1,416 0 0 38 49
Subtotal – Parcel 2 2,111 87 12 54 127
Parcel 3
Office 36,610 s. f. 403 50 7 9 45
Retail 31,307 s. f. 1,388 0 0 37 48
Subtotal – Parcel 3 1,791 50 7 47 93
TOTAL
Office 202,121 s. f. 2,225 277 38 51 250
Retail 70,362 s. f. 3,118 0 0 84 107
Grand Total – Scenario 1 5,344 277 38 135 357
SCENARIO 2
Parcel 1
Retail 7,100 s. f. 315 0 0 8 11
Residential 88 d. u. 516 7 32 32 16
Subtotal – Parcel 1 830 7 32 40 27
Parcel 2
Retail 31,955 s. f. 1,416 0 0 38 49
Residential 50 d. u. 293 4 18 18 9
Subtotal – Parcel 2 1,709 4 18 56 57
Parcel 3
Retail 31,307 s. f. 1,388 0 0 37 48
Residential 29 d. u. 170 2 11 10 5
Subtotal – Parcel 3 1,557 2 11 47 53
TOTAL
Retail 70,362 s. f. 3,118 0 0 84 107
Residential 167 d. u. 979 12 61 60 30
Grand Total – Scenario 2 4,097 12 61 144 137
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 23 January 10, 2006
Table 6
Project Traffic by Land Use Scenario
NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
Scenario 1
Wilshire/ Big S. M.
AM 0 0 9 0 0 0 8 34 0 3 6 1
PM 0 0 5 0 0 0 7 13 0 36 54 11
Wilshire/ Little S. M.
AM 7 28 3 1 58 3 0 0 43 23 0 5
PM 59 77 27 9 36 41 0 0 18 8 0 4
Scenario 2
Wilshire/ Big S. M.
AM 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 11 1
PM 0 0 5 0 0 0 8 16 0 20 24 5
Wilshire/ Little S. M.
AM 11 16 6 1 5 5 0 0 2 1 0 5
PM 22 39 9 6 35 27 0 0 21 10 0 9
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 24 January 10, 2006
Table 7
2020 Traffic Volumes with Land Use Scenario Traffic
NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR
2020 with Scenario 1
Wilshire/ Big S. M.
AM 0 1,270 176 0 1,569 611 850 1,960 30 238 1,905 9
PM 0 1,524 207 0 1,750 785 884 1,979 29 225 2,171 45
Wilshire/ Little
S. M.
AM 120 850 236 35 1,147 267 0 2,032 104 177 1,765 33
PM 122 1,169 337 52 701 327 0 2,087 100 236 1,991 60
2020 with Scenario 2
Wilshire/ Big S. M.
AM 0 1,270 167 0 1,569 611 842 1,928 30 240 1,910 9
PM 0 1,524 207 0 1,750 785 877 1,982 29 209 2,141 39
Wilshire/ Little
S. M.
AM 124 828 239 35 1,094 269 0 2,032 63 155 1,765 35
PM 85 1,131 319 49 700 313 0 2,087 103 238 1,991 69
Table 8
Change in Peak Hour Volume Entering the Wilshire Blvd./ Santa Monica Blvd. Intersections Under Each Scenario
Volume of Traffic Entering the Intersection During the AM and PM Peak Hour
2020 Baseline 2020 Scenario 1
% Change from
Baseline 2020 Scenario 2
% Change from
Baseline
Intersection
AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM
Wilshire Blvd. at Big Santa
Monica Blvd. 8,557 9,473 8,618 9,599 0.7% 1.3% 8,576 9,543 0.2% 0.7%
Wilshire Blvd. at Little Santa
Monica Blvd. 6,597 6,901 6,766 7,182 2.6% 4.1% 6,639 7,085 0.6% 2.7%
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 25 January 10, 2006
intersections are projected to operate at level of service E or worse during each peak hour even
without the additional traffic attributable to the development of the T- 1 parcels. Additional traffic
will contribute to further deterioration of operating conditions at these intersections and additional
delay.
Capacity Analysis
Intersection capacity analyses were performed for each land use scenario, assuming each
improvement concept. Table 9 summarizes the results of the intersection capacity analysis for
each land use scenario with each improvement concept. For comparison purposes, the results of
the capacity analysis for the 2020 baseline ( existing land uses on the T- 1 and adjacent parcels) No
Build and 2020 baseline with each intersection improvement concept are provided.
Review of Table 9 shows that with the exception of those intersections analyzed with
Improvement Concept 3, all of the intersections are forecast to operate at level of Service F in
2020 in the Baseline and with each of the Land Use Scenarios. Not unexpectedly, Scenario 1,
which generates the greater number of trips, also has the greater impact on the immediately
adjacent intersections of Wilshire Boulevard at Big Santa Monica Boulevard and Wilshire
Boulevard at Little Santa Monica Boulevard. However, in general, the land use scenarios
contribute only small amounts of additional delay to the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard at Big
Santa Monica Boulevard compared to the baseline. The impacts to Little Santa Monica are
somewhat greater since all of the parcels have primary access along Little Santa Monica
Boulevard. The prohibition of eastbound left turns on Wilshire Boulevard at Little Santa Monica
Boulevard, causes somewhat circuitous routing to access Parcel 3 from traffic traveling to the site
from west of Little Santa Monica. This traffic must make its way to Little Santa Monica
Boulevard, north or south of Wilshire Boulevard. With Concept 3 ( Grade Separated Wilshire/ Big
Santa Monica Boulevards), the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard at Big Santa Monica is
projected to operate at level of service C and B ( AM and PM respectively) in the baseline and
level of service C during both peak periods with both land use scenarios.
The scope of this analysis is limited to evaluating the comparative impacts of the land uses
included in each land use scenario on the conceptual traffic improvements at the intersections of
Big Santa Monica Boulevard at Wilshire Boulevard and at Little Santa Monica Boulevard at
Wilshire Boulevard. The land use alternatives will likely impact other intersections beyond the
immediately adjacent intersections at Santa Monica Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard. These
impacts have not been identified or analyzed, but should be included in a more detailed analysis
at the time the selected land use scenarios, or the projects that comprise each scenario moves
through the planning approval and entitlement processes.
ACCESS AND CIRCULATION
Primary access to each of the affected T- 1 parcels is via Little Santa Monica Boulevard. Access
to Parcel 1 will be on Little Santa Monica Boulevard at Moreno Drive and at Charleville
Boulevard. Parcel 2 access is also on Little Santa Monica at Charleville Boulevard. There is the
opportunity to link the parking areas and internal circulation for Parcels 1 and 2 so that they
would function as a single large parking reservoir. Access for Parcel 3 is on Little Santa Monica
just south of N. Linden Drive. These intersections are currently controlled by stop signs on the
minor approaches.
Existing traffic count data was not available at these intersections; therefore there was no means
to accurately forecast future traffic volumes. However, based on the forecasts future traffic along
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 26 January 10, 2006
Table 9
Intersection Capacity Analysis
2020 Conditions with Alternative Land Use Scenarios
2020 BASELINE
CONCEPT 1
2020 BASELINE
CONCEPT 3
2020 BASELINE
CONCEPT 5
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Intersection
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
Wilshire - Big Santa Monica 68.9 E 94.9 F 21.9 C 11.4 B 134.8 F 169.0 F
Wilshire Little Santa Monica 82.8 F 102.6 F 116.2 F 100.1 F 72.0 F 90.6 F
2020 SCENARIO 1
CONCEPT 1
2020 SCENARIO 1
CONCEPT 3
2020 SCENARIO 1
CONCEPT 5
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Intersection
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
Wilshire - Big Santa Monica 73.2 E 99.3 F 24.9 C 29.0 C 136.0 F 176.3 F
Wilshire Little Santa Monica 90.5 F 103.8 F 105.3 F 102.6 F 80.6 F 94.3 F
2020 SCENARIO 2
CONCEPT 1
2020 SCENARIO 2
CONCEPT 3
2020 SCENARIO 2
CONCEPT 5
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
Intersection
Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS Delay LOS
Wilshire - Big Santa Monica 72.7 E 96.6 F 22.2 C 28.8 C 138.8 F 167.1 F
Wilshire Little Santa Monica 89.5 F 104.0 F 126.9 F 101.0 F 79.7 F 91.4 F
Wilshire Gateway Phase II
Traffic and Circulation Analysis of Land Use Scenarios
Parsons 27 January 10, 2006
Little Santa Monica Boulevard in the vicinity of Wilshire Boulevard, capacity analyses was
performed for each of these intersections, assuming stop control on the minor streets and using
estimated traffic volumes. This preliminary analysis showed that, given the volume of through
traffic on Little Santa Monica, very long delays would be incurred by traffic exiting the project
sites, turning left onto Little Santa Monica or continuing straight through on the minor streets.
Installation of traffic signals at the intersections of Little Santa Monica Boulevard at Moreno
Drive and at Charleville Boulevard will likely be required to permit safe and efficient movement
of vehicles into and out of Parcels 1 and 2.
It appears from the initial site layouts that the access for Parcel 3 does not align with the T
intersection of N. Linden Drive. This makes safe and efficient traffic control very difficult and
greatly increases opportunities for conflict between vehicles exiting Parcel 3 northbound on Little
Santa Monica Boulevard and vehicles turning from N. Linden Drive onto southbound Little Santa
Monica Boulevard. Preliminary analysis suggests that there are two options to address this issue:
1) Align the access to Parcel 3 ( and any adjoining parcels to the north) with the intersection of N.
Linden Drive: or 2) limit the Parcel 3 exit driveway to right turn only. Under option 1, it is likely
that a traffic signal would be required at this location to efficiently move traffic, particularly from
N. Linden/ parcel access drive. Under option 2, a traffic signal would not be necessary.
Appendix E Public Workshop Summary
BEVERLY HILLS GATEWAY PROPERTY OWNER WORKSHOP
OCTOBER 18, 2006
Traffic/ Circulation/ Parking
􀂄 Tunnel daylight/ when it comes up
􀂄 Traffic lighting— who pays?
􀂄 Detail the tunnel( s). How would it work? How much land?
􀂄 Check the height of the tunnel
􀂄 Use parking/ is it public or private?
􀂄 Who would pay for relocated driveway @ Hilton ( required by tunnel improve)
􀂄 Pedestrian access to parking in parcel one?
􀂄 What about subway line coming Wilshire Blvd.?
􀂄 TT/ C3 blend— is that an option?
􀂄 Any chance of parking here?
􀂄 What about tenants/ land owners and their parking needs?
􀂄 Tunnel raised LOS to C/ D
􀂄 TT— Can it allow parking?
􀂄 Who drove the uses that were studied?
Comments
􀂄 How about public parking on the site.
􀂄 Merchants need parking on this site… going out of business
􀂄 Consider a study of TT/ C3 to allow a monorail, moving scenario?
􀂄 Hilton supports redevelopment of the site. Issues need to be resolved ( parking, traffic). Not
interested in relocating loading dock.
􀂄 NW/ NE corner of Charleville— property owners support redevelopment— want cohesiveness, light
into project, trash
􀂄 Any consideration of what project city needs the most? ( what the city could use?)
􀂄 The land is an eyesore— landowners hands are tied. Give them flexibility to do something here.
􀂄 Concern that if land use changes, landowners will sell it for a lot more $.
􀂄 9952 owner is very supportive of development at the site. New development will generate
investment.
􀂄 We need to see/ have a better entry point. It’s bushted. New development can help invigorate the
area.
􀂄 New development will have parking— not available to others parking. This is a problem. See petition
of property owners/ business owners wanting parking
􀂄 More analysis on T- zoning. Given traffic problems, should this site be preserved for future transit
use?
􀂠 Intersection
􀂠 Widening
􀂠 Can you preserve the corridor and do a development? ( not done)
􀂄 Transit committee said that this site is not a good location for a transit station ( Century City is too
close). Could be a staging area for the station
􀂠 Look at a monorail?
􀂠 Mobility Commission said it should remain transit. If not, then C- 3
􀂠 GP ( current) says transit.
􀂄 Look at preserving for future. Options:
􀂠 Nothing. Add it for future
􀂠 City buys it— but parking could improve it.
􀂠 Combine transit/ parking
􀂄 There are short term transit improvements ( widening) vs. long term transit improvements ( subway)
􀂠 Monorail? Above ground?
􀂄 Other options if city buys it— Will the city look at other options that might benefit the
residents/ business/ community overall?
􀂄 Monorails? How viable? Look at shuttles.
􀂄 Next steps:
􀂠 Planning Comm./ City Council joint meeting ( end of ‘ 06/ early ‘ 07).
􀂠 Hear public comment
􀂠 Give direction to city staff
BEVERLY HILLS GATEWAY PUBLIC WORKSHOP
OCTOBER 10, 2006
Questions of Clarification
􀂄 Could the city purchase the properties for parking?
􀂄 How did the traffic study get update? Was it update? ( from 2002 data) Shouldn’t the numbers be
updated?
􀂄 What is the width of the project site?
􀂄 Were the Hilton/ Macy’s project proposed traffic impacts factored in?
􀂄 Did the project owners fun the study? ( Yes)
􀂄 Any “ public” parking assigned to this project? ( No)
􀂄 Was baseline figures come from traffic eng/ or from city?
􀂄 Clarify the scope of the study.
􀂄 Did one of the widening recommendations say to remove green buffer in park?
Comments/ Observations
􀂄 What about the residential side of the project site? Shouldn’t this be factored in?
􀂄 Concerns about eminent domain use on these properties.
􀂄 Could traffic/ air quality be impacted to residents north of site?
􀂄 West bound traffic— where could one more westbound lane come from?
􀂄 City owns SM Blvd/ no longer state highway.
􀂄 Were # of units residential identified?
􀂄 Will planning take into account the # of vacant residential and retail buildings?
􀂄 What about economic benefits?
􀂄 Concern about decreased parking in this area?
􀂄 SM and Marino building could be considered an icon
􀂄 Did you interview property owners? Did you consider litigation if public parking is not provided?
􀂄 Why wasn’t surrounding area factored into study?
􀂄 Why not more surface parking?
􀂄 What about all the impacts from proposed development? Why not a park/ green belt?
􀂄 Parking today is a problem— we need more parking here to meet needs of merchants. Should city
consider putting public parking for merchants?
􀂄 What about affordable housing?
􀂄 Is C3 rezoning be an unfair advantage to the owners?
􀂄 What will Beverly Hilton do? Let’s see what they are planning to do… be sure that development is
factored in.
􀂄 What is being proposed at Beverly Hilton? What are the traffic impacts?
􀂄 Is there a height limit on Beverly Hilton today?
􀂄 Changes on this site should benefit the public?
􀂄 Why not more parking on the site?
􀂄 No windows on big Santa Monica is ugly.
􀂄 Be sensitive to how the project will impact the neighbors/ residents.
􀂄 There are lots of things that could go here— sculpture, no cement
􀂄 Scale of development and mass are big issues.
􀂄 Who will pay for traffic improvements?
􀂄 What is the process of review? Dec. joint meeting/ hearing.
􀂄 What about a study to look at other uses, parks, green space?
Appendix F Written Comments Received