4.4 Transportation and Circulation

Transcription

1 4.4.1 Introduction This section evaluates the potential for construction traffic and operational impacts to result from implementation of the proposed project. This includes the potential for the project to result in impacts on the following facilities: roadway intersections, the regional public transit system, site access, and the provision of parking and bicycle services. Information for this analysis is based on the 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project Traffic Study (Traffic Study), prepared on March 17, 2015, a supplemental Traffic Review - Revised 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project Memorandum, prepared on October 13, 2015, and a Second Supplemental Traffic Review Memorandum for 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project prepared on January 22, 2016 by The Mobility Group. The traffic analysis was prepared in conjunction with the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and conducted in accordance with the LADOT Traffic Study Guidelines. The City of Beverly Hills and the City of West Hollywood were also contacted for input on traffic analysis methodologies used in their municipalities, as the project study area extends beyond the City of Los Angeles into these adjacent communities. In cases where traffic analysis methodologies differed from those employed by LADOT, the traffic analysis was adjusted to comprehensively include those methodologies. The Traffic Study, Traffic Review Revised 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project Memorandum, Second Supplemental Traffic Review Memorandum for 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project, and LADOT s approval of the reports are included in Appendix C of this Draft EIR Environmental Setting Existing Conditions The project site is located within the Wilshire Community Plan area of the City of Los Angeles. The study area extends to Doheny Drive to the west, Olympic Boulevard to the south, Crescent Heights Boulevard to the east, and Melrose Avenue to the north. The streets in the study area are under the jurisdiction of the City of Los Angeles, City of Beverly Hills, and City of West Hollywood. The study area is served by a vast network of freeways and streets. The main roadways serving the project site, as well as the intersections that were selected for analysis, are shown in Figure Freeway System The project site is located close to the western boundary of the City of Los Angeles, adjacent to the Cities of Beverly Hills and West Hollywood. The site is not adjacent to any freeways and is located over two miles north of the Santa Monica Freeway (I-10), approximately four miles west of the Hollywood Freeway (US 101), and over four miles east of San Diego Freeway (I-405). 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

2 Huntley Almont Dr. La Peer Dr. N/S: Doheny Dr. E/W: Beverly Blvd. N/S: Doheny Dr. E/W: 3rd St. N/S: Doheny Dr. E/W: Burton Wy. N/S: Robertson Blvd. E/W: Beverly Blvd. N/S: Robertson Blvd. E/W: 3rd St. N/S: Robertson Blvd. E/W: Burton Wy N/S: Robertson Blvd. N/S: Robertson Blvd. N/S: San Vicente Blvd. N/S: San Vicente Blvd. N/S: San Vicente Blvd. N/S: San Vicente Blvd. E/W: Clifton Wy. E/W: Wilshire Blvd. E/W: Melrose Ave. E/W: Beverly Blvd. E/W: 3rd St. E/W: Burton Wy. Free N/S: La Cienega Blvd. N/S: La Cienega Blvd. N/S: La Cienega Blvd. N/S: La Cienega Blvd. N/S: La Cienega Blvd. N/S: La Cienega Blvd. E/W: Melrose Ave. E/W: 17th Oakwood Ave. E/W: Beverly Blvd. E/W: 3rd St. E/W: Blackburn Ave. E/W: San Vicente Blvd N/S: La Cienega Blvd. E/W: Clifton Wy. N/S: La Cienega Blvd. E/W: Wilshire Blvd. N/S: La Cienega Blvd. E/W: Olympic Blvd. 16 N/S: San Vicente Blvd. E/W: Wilshire Blvd N/S: Crescent Heights Blvd. E/W: Beverly Blvd. 1 N/S: Crescent Heights Blvd. E/W: 3rd St N/S: Crescent Heights Blvd. E/W: Wilshire Blvd X Legend Project Site Study Intersection with Reference Number No LT 7-9 AM and 4-7PM Except Sat and Sun /23/14 CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS Beverly Alden Wy. 3rd St. Burton Dayton Wilshire Clifton Wy. Santa Monica CITY OF LOS ANGELES Wy. Charleville Blvd. Gregory Wy. Olympic Blvd. Doheney Dr. Weatherly Dr. Blvd. Robertson Blvd. Blvd. Wy. CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS Clark Dr. Swall Dr. Blvd. San Vicente Carson Rd. Willaman Dr. Hamel Dr. Dr. Blvd. 10 Melrose Gregory Wy. CITY OF LOS ANGELES 11 Chalmers Dr. Stanley Dr. Le Doux Dr. La Cienega Blvd. 19 Ave Clinton Ave. 21 Oakwood Ave. Hamilton Dr. Orlando Ave. 1st St. 3rd St. 22 Waring Ave. Clinton St. Rosewood Ave. Beverly Blvd Blackburn Ave. 4th St. Colgate Ave. 5th St. 6th St. Wilshire Blvd. Moore D.r Sweetzer Ave. La Jolla Ave. Drexel Ave. 25 San Vicente Blvd. Crescent Heights Blvd. Crescent Heights Blvd. Edinburgh Ave N Not to Scale Figure 2.2 SOURCE: The Mobility Group, La Cienega Blvd Figure Study Intersections

3 Street System The project site is served by a grid of arterial streets. These streets are oriented toward the northsouth and east-west directions. East-West Streets Melrose Avenue: Melrose Avenue is a two-way street to the north of the project site and it is classified as a Collector Street in the City of West Hollywood General Plan. East of La Cienega Boulevard, it is comprised of four travel lanes. West of La Cienega Boulevard, it consists of two travel lanes with on-street angled parking. Beverly Boulevard: Beverly Boulevard is a two-way street providing four travel lanes to the north of the project site. It is classified as an Avenue I (Secondary Highway) in the City of Los Angeles Mobility Plan This facility is classified as an Arterial Street in both the City of Beverly Hills and City of West Hollywood General Plans. On-street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street. 3rd Street: 3rd Street is a two-way arterial street providing four travel lanes immediately to the north of the project site. It is classified as an Avenue II (Secondary Highway) in the City of Los Angeles General Plan. On-street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street with some restrictions. Burton Way: Burton Way is a two-way street providing six travel lanes to the west of the project site. It is classified as an Avenue II (Secondary Highway) in the City of Los Angeles General Plan. On-street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street. Wilshire Boulevard: Wilshire Boulevard is a two-way street providing six travel lanes to the south of the project site. It is classified as an Avenue I (Secondary Highway) in the City of Los Angeles General Plan. This facility is classified as an Arterial Street in the City of Beverly Hills General Plan. On-street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street with some restrictions. Olympic Boulevard: Olympic Boulevard is a two-way street providing six travel lanes to the south of the project site. It is classified as a Boulevard II (Major Highway Class II) in the City of Los Angeles General Plan. On-street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street with some restrictions. North-South Streets Doheny Drive: Doheny Drive is a two-way street providing two travel lanes in the vicinity of the project site. It is classified as an Avenue II(Secondary Highway) in the City of Los Angeles General Plan. This facility is classified as a Collector Street in the General Plans for both the City of Beverly Hills and the City of West Hollywood. Onstreet parking is generally provided on both sides of the street with some restrictions. Robertson Boulevard: Robertson Boulevard is a two-way street providing four travel lanes in the vicinity of the project site. It is classified as an Avenue II (Secondary Highway) in the City of Los Angeles General Plan. This facility is classified as a 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

4 Collector Street in the General Plans for both the City of Beverly Hills and the City of West Hollywood. On-street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street with some restrictions. La Cienega Boulevard: La Cienega Boulevard is a two-way street providing six travel lanes on the east side of the project site. It is classified as an Avenue I (Secondary Highway) in the City of Los Angeles General Plan. This facility is classified as a Collector Street in the City of Beverly Hills General Plan and as an Arterial Street in the City of West Hollywood General Plan. On-street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street with some restrictions. San Vicente Boulevard: San Vicente Boulevard is a two-way street providing six travel lanes south of La Cienega Boulevard. It is classified as a Boulevard II (Major Highway Class II) in the Los Angeles General Plan and as an Arterial Street in the City of Beverly Hills General Plan. North of La Cienega Boulevard, this facility comprises four travel lanes and is classified as a Major Highway Class II in the Los Angeles General Plan as an Arterial Street in the City of West Hollywood General Plan. On-street parking is generally restricted on both sides of the street. Crescent Heights Boulevard: Crescent Heights Boulevard is a two-way street providing four travel lanes to the east of the project site. It is classified as a Modified Avenue III (Secondary Highway) in the City of Los Angeles General Plan. On-street parking is generally provided on both sides of the street with some restrictions. Intersection Operating Conditions Intersections Analyzed A total of 25 study intersections were identified, in conjunction with LADOT, the City of Beverly Hills, and City of West Hollywood staff for inclusion in the traffic analysis. The study intersections are shown in Figure and correspond to locations where potential traffic impacts from the project would be most likely to occur. A total of 16 of the 25 study intersections are located in the City of Los Angeles, 5 study intersections are located in the City of Beverly Hills, and four study intersections are located in the City of West Hollywood. All study intersections are signalized. The intersections identified for analysis are as follows: Intersection Jurisdiction 1. Doheny Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard City of Beverly Hills 2. Doheny Drive and 3rd Street City of Los Angeles 3. Doheny Drive and Burton Way City of Los Angeles 4. Robertson Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard City of West Hollywood 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

5 Intersection Jurisdiction 5. Robertson Boulevard and 3rd Street City of Los Angeles 6. Robertson Boulevard and Burton Way City of Los Angeles 7. Robertson Boulevard and Clifton Way City of Beverly Hills 8. Robertson Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard City of Beverly Hills 9. San Vicente Boulevard and Melrose Avenue City of West Hollywood 10. San Vicente Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard City of West Hollywood 11. San Vicente Boulevard and 3rd Street City of Los Angeles 12. San Vicente Boulevard and Burton Way City of Los Angeles 13. La Cienega Boulevard and Melrose Avenue City of West Hollywood 14. La Cienega Boulevard and Oakwood Avenue City of Los Angeles 15. La Cienega Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard City of Los Angeles 16. La Cienega Boulevard and 3rd Street City of Los Angeles 17. La Cienega Boulevard and Blackburn Avenue City of Los Angeles 18. La Cienega Boulevard and San Vicente Boulevard City of Los Angeles 19. La Cienega Boulevard and Clifton Way City of Beverly Hills 20. La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard City of Beverly Hills 21. La Cienega Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard City of Los Angeles 22. San Vicente Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard City of Los Angeles 23. Crescent Heights Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard City of Los Angeles 24. Crescent Heights Boulevard and 3rdStreet City of Los Angeles 25. Crescent Heights Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard City of Los Angeles 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

6 All study intersections are signalized. The intersections that are located in the City of Los Angeles operate under the City s Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) system, which is a centralized control system that provides for the coordination of traffic signal timing to maximize the street capacities and to minimize traffic delays on City streets. Level of Service Methodology Since the list of intersections for analysis contains intersections located within three different jurisdictions, the level of service analysis was conducted using the methodology and significance thresholds established by each of the jurisdictions. All intersections located within the City of Los Angeles were analyzed using the Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) methodology. Intersections located within the City of Beverly Hills were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. Intersections located within the City of West Hollywood were analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the condition of traffic flow, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F. For the CMA and ICU analysis methodologies, these levels of service are defined by a range of volume/capacity (V/C) ratios. For the HCM analysis methodology, level of service is defined by the average delay per vehicle occurring at the intersection. Table defines the range of V/C ratios and delay and their corresponding levels of service for signalized intersections. LOS D is typically recognized as the satisfactory service level in urban areas, and LOS E is often recognized as the standard in downtown areas. TABLE LEVEL OF SERVICE DEFINITIONS FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Level of Service Description Volume to Capacity Ratio Delay (sec) A B C D E F Excellent operation. All approaches to the intersection appear quite open, turning movements are easily made, and nearly all drivers find freedom or operation. Very good operation. Many drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within platoons of vehicles. This represents stable flow. Good operation. Occasionally drivers may have to wait for more than 60 seconds, and backups may develop behind turning vehicles. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. Fair operation. Cars are sometimes required to wait for more than 60 seconds during short peaks. There is no long-standing traffic queues. This level is typically associated with design practice for peak periods. Poor operation. Some long-standing vehicular queues develop on critical approaches to intersection. Delays may be up to several minutes. Forced flow. Represents jammed conditions. Backups from locations downstream or on the cross street may restrict or prevent movement of vehicles out of the intersection approach lanes; therefore, volumes carried are not predictable. Potential for stop-and-go type traffic flow. < > > > > Over >80.0 SOURCE: Transportation Research Board, La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

7 Level of Service Results Recent traffic counts were used for all analyzed intersections. AM and PM peak period traffic counts (between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and between 3:00p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) were conducted for all study intersections in May of The traffic counts were factored up by one percent to represent 2015 conditions. As discussed above, all intersections located within the City of Los Angeles were analyzed using the Critical Movement Analysis (CMA) methodology. Intersections located within the City of Beverly Hills were analyzed using the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology. Intersections located within the City of West Hollywood were analyzed using Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. Table summarizes the existing AM and PM peak hour V/C ratios and corresponding levels of service at the analyzed intersections. TABLE EXISTING CONDITIONS INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Existing Conditions AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No. Intersection Jurisdiction V/C (Delay) LOS V/C Delay LOS 1 Doheny Drive and Beverly Boulevard City of Beverly Hills D D 2 Doheny Drive and 3rd Street City of Los Angeles B B 3 Doheny Drive and Burton Way City of Los Angeles D D 4 Robertson Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard City of West Hollywood (17.3) B (16.5) B 5 Robertson Boulevard and 3rd Street City of Los Angeles B B 6 Robertson Boulevard and Burton Way City of Los Angeles C C 7 Robertson Boulevard and Clifton Way City of Beverly Hills A A 8 Robertson Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard City of Beverly Hills D E 9 San Vicente Boulevard and Melrose Avenue City of West Hollywood (17.3) B (17.3) B 10 San Vicente Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard City of West Hollywood (22.5) C (23.6) C 11 San Vicente Boulevard and 3rd Street City of Los Angeles C A 12 San Vicente Boulevard and Burton Way City of Los Angeles A B 13 La Cienega Boulevard and Melrose Avenue City of West Hollywood (28.5) C (29.8) C 14 La Cienega Boulevard and Oakwood Avenue City of Los Angeles A A 15 La Cienega Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard City of Los Angeles C D 16 La Cienega Boulevard and 3rd Street City of Los Angeles C C 17 La Cienega Boulevard and Blackburn Avenue City of Los Angeles A A 18 La Cienega Boulevard and San Vicente Boulevard City of Los Angeles B A 19 La Cienega Boulevard and Clifton Way City of Beverly Hills A C 20 La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard City of Beverly Hills E E 21 La Cienega Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard City of Los Angeles F E 22 San Vicente Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard City of Los Angeles B C 23 Crescent Heights Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard City of Los Angeles D C 24 Crescent Heights Boulevard and 3rd Street City of Los Angeles C B 25 Crescent Heights Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard City of Los Angeles C B SOURCE: The Mobility Group, La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

8 Table shows the results of the analysis of existing AM and PM peak hour V/C ratio delay and corresponding LOS at each of the 25 intersections. As indicated, all of the studied intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during the AM peak hour except for the following two intersections: 20. La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard (City of Beverly Hills) LOS E 21. La Cienega Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard (City of Los Angeles) LOS F In addition, all of the studied intersections currently operate at LOS D or better during the PM peak hour except for the following three intersections: 8. Robertson Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard (City of Beverly Hills) LOS E 20. La Cienega Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard (City of Beverly Hills) LOS E 21. La Cienega Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard (City of Los Angeles) LOS E Public Transit The bus service to the project site and in the project vicinity is provided by a number of local and regional operators. The project is located within a transit priority area as defined by CEQA in Public Resources Code section 21099, subdivision (a)(7). 1 A transit priority area is an area that is within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned. As described further below, a major transit stop is located within one-half mile of the project at the intersection of Wilshire Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard. 2 The project area is currently served by a total of four local and inter-city transit operators. Within a three block radius of the project site, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) operates nine bus lines; LADOT operates one local DASH route; Antelope Valley Transit operates one bus line; and the City of West Hollywood operates a city-wide bus service. Bus lines serving the project area are described below and in Table Metro Bus Service Metro operates a total of nine bus lines in the vicinity of the project site, including one Metro Rapid line and five local lines (including some with limited stop service). Metro Local bus lines 105, 218, 16/316, and Metro Rapid bus line 705 stop at the southwest corner of La Cienega Boulevard and 3rd Street. Metro Local bus lines 20 and 105 and Metro Rapid bus lines 705 and 720 stop at the northwest corner of La Cienega Boulevard and San Vicente Boulevard, which is considered a major transit stop. Metro Local bus line 30/330 stops southeast of the project site, at the intersection of San Vicente Boulevard and Drexel Avenue. The Metro Rapid lines typically operate every 2 to 10 minutes during the weekday AM peak period and every 7 to 12 minutes during the weekday PM peak period. The Metro Local lines operate at a wide range of headways, typically between 3 to 30 minutes during the weekday AM and PM peak periods. Seven local lines serving the project area operate on a 24-hour basis with the 24-Owl Service. 1 ZIMAS, search: 333 S. La Cienega Boulevard, accessed April 27, A major transit stop is defined by California Public Resources Code Section and Senate Bill 743 as a stop with fixed-route bus service with service intervals no longer than 15 minutes during peak commute hours. 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

9 TABLE EXISTING PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICE Approximate Weekday Headway (minutes) Route Description AM Peak PM Peak Metro Rapid 705 West Hollywood- Beverly Hills Los Angeles Vernon Metro Local 10 West Hollywood Downtown Los Angeles Beverly Hills Downtown Los Angeles /316 Century City Downtown Los Angeles /330 West Hollywood- Beverly Hills Los Angeles East Los Angeles West Hollywood Beverly Hills- Los Angeles Vernon Studio City West Hollywood Los Angeles Culver City Beverly Hills Los Angeles LADOT-DASH Dash-Fairfax Gracie Allen and Sherbourne- La Brea and Wilshire West Hollywood City Line Blue Line La Brea/Fountain Gracie Allen/Cedars Sinai Orange Line Gracie Allen/Cedars Sinai La Brea/Fountain SOURCE: The Mobility Group, Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) DASH LADOT operates the DASH local bus circulator system, of which five routes serve the Downtown area and 27 other routes serve various communities. One DASH route (DASH Fairfax) serves the project area. DASH Fairfax route connects the Cedars-Sinai Medical Center and the intersection of La Brea Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. It runs along 3rd Street and La Cienega Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site. The DASH D service operates between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays, and service runs at 30-minutes headway during most of the time. Antelope Valley Transit The Antelope Valley Transit operates one bus line (AV 786) between UCLA and Hollywood, and runs on Wilshire Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site. The line operates with 30- to 60- minute headways in the weekday peak periods. City of West Hollywood City Line City of West Hollywood operates one circulator bus that provides access to various points in the City. It runs Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The service is operated with approximately 30-minute headways during the peak periods. There are currently two lines on the same route: the Blue Line and the Orange Line. The Blue line runs counter-clock wise and the Orange line runs clockwise. Both lines run along San Vicente Boulevard and Beverly Boulevard in the vicinity of the project site. 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

10 Bicycle Facilities The 2035 Mobility Element of the City of Los Angeles General Plan establishes the long-term vision for improving bicycle infrastructure in the region and builds upon the 2010 Bicycle Plan. The Mobility Element envisions a Bicycle Enhanced Network, comprised entirely of fully separated, protected bicycle lanes and bicycle paths to provide bikeways for a wide variety of users. This would be considered a low-stress network that provides a higher level of comfort than a striped bicycle lane. Bike access to the project site is currently provided by a Tier I Protection Bicycle Lane along San Vicente Boulevard, which runs along the southwestern edge of the project site. Further, a Tier II Bicycle Lane is located along Burton Way, south of the project site. 3 Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian access to the project site is currently provided by existing sidewalks and pedestrian crossings along La Cienega Boulevard and San Vicente Boulevard. At the south end of the project site, pedestrian access is provided via a single crossing to a small pedestrian island. From this pedestrian island, one crosswalk is provided across San Vicente Boulevard to the southwest corner of the La Cienega Boulevard/San Vicente Boulevard intersection. Another crosswalk is provided across La Cienega Boulevard to the northeast corner of the La Cienega Boulevard/San Vicente Boulevard intersection. There is another crosswalk on San Vicente Boulevard, near the southwest end of the project site. This crosswalk allows pedestrians to travel from the east side of San Vicente Boulevard to the west. The 2035 Mobility Element of the General Plan recognizes the importance of walking as a component of every trip and seeks to establish goals and policies to ensure high-quality pedestrian access in all site planning and public right-of-way modifications to provide a safe and comfortable walking environment. The Mobility Element identifies Pedestrian Enhanced Districts (PEDs) that call out initial analysis done to find out where pedestrian improvements on arterial streets could be better prioritized to provide better walking connections to and from the major destinations within communities. According to the Mobility Element, the project site is located within a PED. 4 Site Access Access to the project site for parking is currently provided by a driveway on La Cienega Boulevard at Blackburn Avenue and a driveway on San Vicente Boulevard just south of 3 rd Street. The above ground parking garage is fully operational and, thus, both driveways are currently in use. Currently, there are no bicycle racks or infrastructure located on the project site. 3 City of Los Angeles, 2035 Mobility Element of the General Plan, , accessed January 28, City of Los Angeles, Proposed Pedestrian Enhanced Districts (PEDs), accessed January 28, La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

11 Emergency Access and Evacuation Plans According to the City of Los Angeles General Plan Safety Element, 5 the project site is located along a designated disaster route on La Cienega Boulevard. Disaster routes function as primary thoroughfares for movement of emergency response traffic and access to critical facilities. The Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is located on Beverly Boulevard, between San Vicente Boulevard and Robertson Boulevard, approximately 0.11 mile from the project site. The Emergency Department at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center is located in the Harry and Ruth Roman Emergency Department, in the North Tower, and emergency vehicle access is provided along Gracie Allen Drive Regulatory Framework State Congestion Management Program The Congestion Management Program (CMP) is a state-mandated program enacted by the State Legislature to address the increasing concern that urban congestion is affecting the economic vitality of the state and diminishing the quality of life in some communities. The 2010 CMP is the eighth CMP adopted for Los Angeles County since the requirement became effective with the approval of Proposition 111 in The CMP program is intended to address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system. Statutory requirements of the CMP including monitoring LOS on the CMP Highway and Roadway network, measuring frequency and routing of public transit, implementing the Transportation Demand Management and Land Use Analysis Program and helping local jurisdictions meet their responsibilities under the CMP. Metro, the local CMP agency, has established a countywide approach to implement the statutory requirements of the CMP in their governing 2010 CMP for Los Angeles County. The countywide approach includes designating a highway network that includes all state highways and principal arterials within the County and monitoring traffic conditions on the designated transportation network; performance measures to evaluate current and future system performance; promotion of alternative transportation methods; analysis of the impact of land use decisions on the transportation network; and mitigation to reduce impacts on the network. If LOS standards deteriorate, then local jurisdictions must prepare a deficiency plan to be in conformance with the countywide plan. The CMP requires that, when an environmental impact report is prepared for a project, traffic and public transit impact analyses be conducted for select regional facilities based on the quantity of project traffic expected to use those facilities. The CMP guidelines state that areas selected for analysis should be those that include the following locations: All CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored on- or off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours of adjacent street traffic; and 5 City of Los Angeles, Safety Element of the General Plan, , accessed November 13, La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

12 Mainline freeway monitoring locations where the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours. Senate Bill 743 On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill (SB) 743 into law and started a process that could fundamentally change transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. These changes will include elimination of auto delay, LOS, and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts in many parts of California (if not statewide). Existing rules treat auto delay and congestion as an environmental impact. Instead, SB 743 requires the CEQA Guidelines to prescribe an analysis that better accounts for transit and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Office of Planning and Research (OPR) selected vehiclemiles traveled (VMT) as a replacement measure in the currently proposed Guidelines. VMT is suggested not only because it satisfies the explicit goals SB 743, but also because VMT is already used in CEQA to study greenhouse gas and energy impacts. VMT is also already used in planning for regional sustainable communities strategies. Therefore, according to OPR, the proposal is not adding a new CEQA requirement; instead, it suggests replacing LOS with an analysis that is already widely used in CEQA. In addition to VMT, the changes under SB 743 will include provisions for land development near transit or in VMT-efficient areas. Specifically, SB 743 would add Public Resources Code Section to CEQA. Subdivision (d)(1) of that section provides that: Aesthetic and parking impacts of a residential, mixed-use residential, or employment center project on an infill site within a transit priority area shall not be considered significant impacts on the environment. Transit priority area is defined as an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section or of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (Public Resources Code, 21099, subd. (a)(7).) Major transit stop is defined in CEQA as a site containing an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning or afternoon peak commuter periods. (Public Resources Code, ) Given the project site s location near a major transit stop, SB 743 would apply to the proposed project. 6 While the CEQA Guidelines update for SB 743 is still in preliminary form, some agencies are beginning to adopt new thresholds in order to assess impacts. It is anticipated that the new Guidelines will officially become law sometime in Typically, lead agencies have up to 120 days to update their guidance to comply with the law, though additional time may be 6 ZIMAS, search: 333 S. La Cienega Boulevard, accessed April 27, La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

13 available before full implementation is required. The new process will not affect projects that submitted their NOP before the Guidelines have become law and, thus, no VMT estimates are provided within this document. Local City of Los Angeles General Plan 2035 Mobility Plan The Mobility Plan 2035 (Plan) provides the policy foundation for achieving a transportation system that balances the needs of all road users within the city. The Plan is an update of the City s General Plan Transportation Element (last adopted in 1999), and incorporates complete streets principles and establishes the following five goals to achieve the city s high-level mobility priorities: (1) Safety First, (2) World Class Infrastructure, (3) Access for all Angelinos, (4) Collaboration, Communication and Informed Choices, (5) Clean Environment and Healthy Communities. The primary purpose of the Plan is to present a guide to the further development of a citywide transportation system which provides for the efficient movement of people and goods. The Plan recognizes that primary emphasis must be placed on maximizing the efficiency of existing and proposed transportation infrastructure through advanced transportation technology, through reduction of vehicle trips, and through focusing growth in proximity to public transit. Wilshire Community Plan The Wilshire Community Plan includes the following transportation related policy that is applicable to the proposed project: Policy : Maintain a satisfactory Level of Service (LOS) above LOS D for Class II Major Highways, especially those which serve Regional Commercial Centers and Community Commercial Centers; and above LOS D for Secondary Highways and Collector Streets. Los Angeles Municipal Code Section 12.21A.4, Off-Street Automobile Parking Requirements, of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) sets forth parking requirements for a range of land uses. 7 Under this code section, a garage or an off-street automobile parking area shall be provided in connection with and at this time of the erection of each of the buildings or structures hereinafter specified, or at the time such buildings or structures are altered, enlarged, converted or increased in capacity by the addition of floor area or seating capacity. The parking space capacity required in garage or parking areas shall be determined by the amount of floor area or seats provided. Under the LAMC, unless superseded as noted below, the parking requirements are one space per 250 square feet of retail area, and depending on type of restaurant, a range of one space per 100 square feet to 250 square feet for restaurant area. For multi-unit residential developments, the requirements are two spaces for units with more than three habitable rooms, 1.5 spaces for units with three habitable rooms and one space for units with less than three habitable rooms. A portion of new or existing automobile parking spaces required by the code for all uses may be replaced by bicycle parking. Up to 30 percent of required automobile parking spaces for nonresidential project or buildings located within 1,500 feet of a portal of a fixed rail transit 7 City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Municipal Code Section Parking, accessed November 10, La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

14 station, bus station, or other similar transit facility, may be replaced with bicycle parking. Up to 15 percent of the required automobile parking spaces for residential development within such an area may be replaced with bicycle parking. Bicycle parking may be installed in existing automobile parking spaces and shall not be considered to violate the maintenance of existing parking. Section 12.21A.16, Bicycle Parking and Shower Facilities, of the Municipal Code requires bicycle parking spaces for new development and additions that increase the floor area of a building. Residential developments are required to provide bicycle parking at a rate of one longterm space per unit and one short-term space for every 10 units. Commercial developments are required to provide bicycle parking at a rate of one-long term space and short-term space for each 2,000 square feet of space. City Planning Department s Residential Parking Policy Section 12.21(A)(4) of the LAMC) sets forth parking requirements for land uses. Parking requirements for condominiums are also set forth in the City s Planning Department s Residential Parking Policy for Division of Land No. AA This policy provides an elevated parking requirement for new condominiums and condominium conversions of two spaces per unit plus 0.25 spaces per unit for guest parking in non-parking congested areas or 0.5 spaces per unit for guest parking congested areas Environmental Impacts Methodology The project s potential to impact Transportation and Circulation is assessed through the evaluation of the following six topics: (1) Construction Traffic; (2) Intersection Traffic; (3) Regional Public Transit System; (4) Site Access; (5) Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Vehicular Safety; and (6) Parking and Bicycle Facilities. (1) Construction Traffic The analysis of construction traffic impacts is based on the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, which identifies four types of in-street construction impacts and a number of factors for determining the significance of a project s construction-related traffic impacts. Each of the four types of construction impacts refers to a particular population that could be inconvenienced by construction activities. The four types of impacts and related populations are: temporary traffic impacts, specifically the potential impacts on vehicular travelers on roadways; temporary loss of access, including potential impacts on visitors entering and leaving sites; temporary loss of bus stops or rerouting of bus lines, including potential impacts on bus travelers; and temporary loss of on-street parking, specifically the potential impacts on parkers. The analysis is based, in part, on an estimate of construction-related trips (i.e., construction worker trips and construction truck trips) that would occur as a result of the proposed project. (2) Intersection Traffic Intersection traffic impacts were evaluated based on identification of existing traffic conditions, the determination of future baseline conditions (without project traffic), the calculation of project 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

15 traffic, the assumed distribution of project traffic to determine the number of project trips at each intersection, and an evaluation of project traffic relative to existing and future traffic conditions. Existing with Project Evaluation Procedures Existing Intersection Conditions. Existing intersection conditions were evaluated to determine the existing roadway service levels using recent traffic counts (between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. and between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.) for all study intersections in May of The traffic counts were factored up by 1 percent to represent 2015 conditions. Existing intersection conditions are listed above in Table Project Trip Generation. The number of trips that the project would add to the transportation network was calculated by applying the trip generation rates for each land use that are presented in Trip Generation, 9 th edition, prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The project is a mixed-use project, and some trips would remain internal without leaving the site. A five percent internal trip reduction was therefore applied for the supermarket and restaurant uses. Trips were also adjusted for potential use of transit and walking. The project is accessible by a number of transit lines and is located in a high density area of Los Angeles. Per LADOT Guidelines, trips for all uses were reduced by 15 percent to account for transit and walk trips. Certain trips for some uses would also be pass-by trips, i.e., trips already on the road system that stop at the project site as an intermediate destination. Per LADOT guidelines, supermarket trips were reduced by 40 percent and restaurant trips by 10 percent for pass-by adjustment. 8 When operating as a Loehmann s store, the project site generated an estimated 464 daily trips including 1 AM peak hour trip and 38 PM peak hour trips. The project site is currently entitled for similar department store use and, thus, the project owner could re-lease the entire site thereby immediately restoring those historic daily trips to the roadway system without need for any further review or approval. LADOT policy permits a credit to be applied for these trips. Existing With Project Conditions. The estimated project traffic was added to the existing conditions traffic volumes to estimate the changes in V/C ratios (or delay time for the unsignalized intersection) and/or related LOS levels. The project s added increment was compared to the significance threshold noted below to determine whether the additional traffic would constitute a significant impact to the roadway system. Future with Project Evaluation Procedures The estimated project traffic was added to the future year (2019) traffic conditions to determine whether increases in V/C ratios and/or LOS would be significant against traffic conditions that would occur with the completion of the proposed project. Future traffic forecasts were estimated by forecasting two separate components of traffic growth within the study area. The first component represents ambient growth that is a general growth in traffic volumes due to minor new developments in the project area, and regional growth and development outside of the study area. A growth rate of 1 percent per year was assumed for this ambient traffic growth, consistent 8 Pass-by trips are defined as vehicle trips made by traffic already using the adjacent roadway and enter the site as an intermediate stop on the way from another destination. The trip may not necessarily be generated by the land use under study, and thus, not considered a new trip added to the transportation system. 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

16 with LADOT recommendations. The existing traffic counts were therefore adjusted upward by a total of 2 percent to represent the ambient growth to the project completion. The second component of future growth relates to the specific development projects located in the study area that are either under construction, approved, or under formal planning consideration and potentially could be in place by the year 2019 when the project would be completed. This approach is conservative in that not all of the related projects may be ultimately built, and not all may be built by 2019 (the buildout year of the project). Along with the fact that the analysis includes a list of specific related projects and a general background growth factor, the analysis likely overstates the future growth in traffic without the project. Future conditions are based on additional traffic due to ambient traffic growth (general regional effects) and traffic generated by specific developments in the vicinity of the project (related projects). The 53 related projects represent known development projects in the vicinity of the project site and are identified in Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1 in Chapter 3, Environmental Setting. As mentioned above, the project site is currently entitled for commercial uses and could be leased today. LADOT Traffic Study Guidelines allow trip credits to be taken for an existing use that was active for at least six months during the past two years (in this case the Loehmann s Department Store). In the Future With Project analysis, the trip generation credit for Loehmann s was applied, and the analysis for the proposed project takes this credit. In the Future Without Project analysis, in order to prepare a conservative analysis, the Loehmann s Store trip generation has been included in the list of related projects, to ensure that the trips are represented in the analysis. The trips that would be generated by the ambient growth and related projects was added to the existing conditions baseline. Trip generation estimates for related projects were generally taken from the environmental and/or traffic studies prepared for the individual projects. Where the information was not available from previous reports, the trip generation was estimated using trip rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual. Similarly, trip distribution estimates were also taken from previous studies where available or were estimated based on an understanding of the type of the project, its location, and the surrounding roadway and circulation system. The trip estimates were then added to the roadway network and combined with existing volumes and ambient traffic growth to provide forecasts for future traffic conditions in the study area for 2019, for both the AM and PM peak periods, representing the future without project conditions. In order to calculate Future With Project Conditions, the project traffic generation rates were added to the Future Without Project Conditions. (3) Regional Public Transit System The estimate of base vehicle trips (unadjusted) for each project land use was converted to person trips by applying a conversion factor of 1.4, as per CMP guidelines. The person trip numbers were then multiplied by the estimated percent taking transit for each land use. These numbers are higher in some cases than the default countywide guidelines in the CMP and therefore more conservative in this instance as they reflect the higher transit use that would occur for the project. 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

17 (4) Site Access An LOS analysis was conducted to evaluate the ability of the project s driveway plan to accommodate the anticipated traffic levels at the access points. All six driveway intersections would be unsignalized, with the exception of the southern driveway on La Cienega Boulevard at Blackburn Avenue. A LOS analysis was utilized for the five unsignalized intersections using the HCM method. (5) Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Vehicular Safety The methodology for the analysis of pedestrian/bicycle safety impacts includes a review of the project s access and internal circulation scheme and a determination of whether the project would substantially increase the potential for pedestrian/vehicle and/or bicycle/vehicle conflicts pursuant to the thresholds of significance defined below. (6) Parking and Bicycle Facilities To analyze whether sufficient automobile and bicycle parking spaces would be provided by the project, the project s proposed parking supply is compared to the number of parking spaces required per the LAMC. Parking demand was calculated for the project based on peak parking demand ratios published in Parking Generation, 4 th Edition The project s proposed parking supply is compared to the parking demand to assess whether the proposed parking supply is sufficient to accommodate the peak demand for the project Significance Thresholds Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant effect on the environmental with regards to transportation and circulation if it would: Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersection, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit; Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways; Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks; Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); Result in inadequate emergency access; or Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. 333 La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /

18 With regard to the above questions from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, it was determined in the Initial Study (see Appendix A), that the proposed project would have no impact regarding consistency with congestion management programs as the project would not add 50 or more trips to any CMP intersection and thus will not be discussed further in the EIR. The proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact regarding a change in air traffic patterns, as the project site is not located near an airport; hazards due to a design feature as the project would not propose any hazardous or incompatible use; or result in inadequate emergency access as the roads providing access to the project site would remain unchanged and the project Applicant would implement PDF 4.4-1, the preparation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan, as described further below, which would include traffic control measures that would be implemented during project construction, thereby reducing potential impacts associated with interruption of emergency access during construction. Therefore, these impact areas will not be discussed further in the EIR. Freeway Impact Analysis A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between LADOT and Caltrans 9 sets forth screening criteria for when a freeway impact analysis should be conducted. LADOT and Caltrans executed the Agreement to address potential freeway mainline and off-ramp impacts in October Per the Agreement, if a project exceeds any of the following thresholds then the additional freeway analysis would be required: The project s peak hour trips would result in a one percent or more increase to the freeway mainline capacity of a freeway segment operating at LOS E or F (based on an assumed capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane); or The project s peak hour trips would result in a two percent or more increase to the freeway mainline capacity of a freeway segment operating at LOS D (based on an assumed capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane); or The project s peak hour trips would result in a one percent or more increase to the capacity of a freeway off-ramp operating at LOS E or F (based on an assumed ramp capacity, of 1,500 vehicles per hour per lane); The project s peak hour trips would result in a 2 percent or more increase to the capacity of a freeway off-ramp operating at LOS D (based on an assumed ramp capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour per lane). An initial evaluation was conducted to determine if the project would meet the criteria requiring a freeway impact analysis. Based on this criterion, the following freeway segments were evaluated during the AM peak hour: 1. I-10 west of Robertson Boulevard 2. I-10 east of Venice Boulevard 3. US-101 south of Beverly Boulevard 9 City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) and Caltrans District 7, Freeway Impact Analysis Procedures, pdf, October La Cienega Boulevard Project ESA /