3.13 TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC As a result of the analysis undertaken in the Initial Study for the Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan, the (LACCD) determined that the proposed project may result in environmental impacts to transportation and traffic. 1 Therefore, this issue is being carried forward for detailed analysis in this EIR. This analysis was undertaken to identify opportunities to avoid, reduce, or otherwise mitigate potential significant impacts to transportation and traffic, as well as to identify potential alternatives. The analysis of transportation and traffic includes a description of the regulatory framework that guides the decision-making process, existing conditions of the proposed project area, thresholds for determining if the proposed project would result in significant impacts, anticipated impacts (direct, indirect, and cumulative), mitigation measures, and level of significance after mitigation. The potential for impacts to transportation and traffic at the proposed project site was evaluated in accordance with the methodologies and information provided by Appendix G of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines 2. 3.13.1 Setting 3.13.1.1 Regulatory Setting The circulation and transportation system in the project area, including streets and public transit, is governed by regulations and requirements of the state, the County, and local plans and requirements. Regional The Congestion Management Program (CMP) for the County of Los Angeles (County) is a state-mandated program that was enacted by state legislature with the passage of Proposition 111 in 1990. The program is intended to address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system. As required by the 2002 CMP for the County, a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) has been prepared for the proposed project to determine the potential impacts to designated monitoring locations on the CMP highway system. The hallmark of the CMP program is that it is intended to address the impact of local growth on the regional transportation system. 1. 6 July 2006. Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan Initial Study. Prepared by: URS Corporation, 915 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90017 2 California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000-15387. Available at http://ceres.ca.gov/topic/env_law/ceqa/guidelines/ 3.13-1
Local The Transportation Element of the City of Los Angeles, Sylmar Community Plan includes the following policies and goals related to traffic and transportation and circulation. Maximize the efficiency of the community's transportation system by integrating various transit modes such as vehicle, commuter rail, bus, bicycle, and local shuttle bus while minimizing any adverse impacts. Need for an efficient regional transportation system. The residents of Sylmar need a coordinated local circulation/transportation service to connect the main business, service, employment, educational, medical and recreational centers within the community. There is a need to change the behavior of commuters to decrease traffic congestion and improve the environment and overall quality of life. There is a need for the preservation, maintenance, and management of streets, highways, and freeways network in the community (and throughout the San Fernando Valley). Need to provide adequate funding for transportation management and for the efficient operation of the transportation network. 3 Goal 10 of the Sylmar Community Plan is to construct a system of highways, freeways, and streets that provide a circulation system which supports existing, approved, and planned land uses while maintaining a desired level of service (LOS) at all intersections. Objective 10-1, which supports Goal 10, is to comply with citywide performance standards for acceptable levels of service and insure that necessary road access and street improvements are provided to accommodate traffic generated by all new development. Policies in place to meet Objective 10-1 include maintaining a satisfactory LOS for streets and highways that should not exceed LOS D for Major Highways, Secondary Highways, and Collector Streets and if existing levels of service are LOS E or LOS F on a portion of a highway or collector street, then the level of service for future growth should be maintained at LOS E (Policy 10-1.1); requiring new development projects be designed to minimize disturbance to existing flow with proper ingress and egress to parking (Policy10-1.2); requiring Highways and Street dedications be developed in accordance with standards and criteria contained in the Highways and Freeways Element of the General Plan and the City s Standard Street Dimensions, except where environmental issues and planning practices warrant alternate standards consistent with capacity requirements (Policy 10-1.3); and discouraging non-residential traffic flow for streets designed to serve residential areas only by the use of traffic control measures (Policy 10-1.4). Objective 10-2, which also supports Goal 10, is to ensure that the location, intensity, and timing of development is consistent with the provision of adequate transportation 3 City of Los Angeles. 1997. Sylmar Community Plan. Available at: http://www.ci.la.ca.us/pln/complan/pdf/sylcptxt.pdf 3.13-2
infrastructure utilizing the City s streets and highways standards. Policy 10-2.2, which is in place to meet Objective 10-2, requires that driveway access points onto major and secondary highways, arterials, and collector streets be limited in number and be located to insure the smooth and safe flow of vehicles and bicycles. Goal 11 of the Sylmar Community Plan is to develop a public transit system that improves mobility with convenient alternatives to automobiles. Objective 11-1, which supports Goal 11, is to encourage improved local and express bus service through the Sylmar community, and encourage park-and-ride facilities to interface with freeways, high occupancy vehicle (HOV) facilities, and rail facilities. Policies in place to meet Objective 11-1 include coordinating with the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to improve local bus service to and within the Sylmar area (Policy 11-1.1), 4 and encouraging the provision of safe, attractive, and clearly identifiable transit stops with user friendly design amenities (Policy 11.1-2). Goal 13 of the Sylmar Community Plan encourages alternative modes of transportation to the use of single occupant vehicles in order to reduce vehicular trips. 5 Objective 13-1, which supports Goal 13, is to pursue transportation management strategies that can maximize average trip length, and reduce the number of vehicle trips. Policies in place to meet Objective 13-1 include encouraging non-residential development to provide employee incentives for utilizing alternatives to the automobile (Policy 13.1-1); and requiring that proposals for major new non-residential development projects include submission of a Transportation Demand Management Plan to the City (Policy 13-1.3). Goal 14 of the Sylmar Community Plan is to provide a well maintained, safe, efficient freeway, highway, and street network. Objective 14-1 which supports Goal 14 seeks to integrate Sylmar s signalized intersections with the City s Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) system by the year 2010. Policy 14-1.1 which is in place to meet Objective 14-1 recommends installation of ATSAC equipment at certain intersections by 2010, including three intersections within the project study area: Hubbard Street/ Glenoaks Boulevard, Hubbard Street/Foothill Boulevard and Maclay Avenue/Foothill Boulevard. Goal 15 of the Sylmar Community Plan is to provide a system of safe, efficient, and attractive bicycle, pedestrian, and equestrian routes. Objective 15-1 which supports Goal 15 is to promote an adequate system of safe bikeways for commuter, school, and recreational use. Policies in place to meet Objective 15-1 include planning for and encouraging funding and construction of bicycle routes connecting residential 4 The implementation programs for this policy include recommended bus transit improvements, including improvements to Line 234, which serves the proposed project. The Sylmar Community Plan recommends rerouting Line 234 in the San Fernando/Sylmar area to Sylmar Transit Center via Truman Street and Hubbard Street. 5 The focus of Goal 12 and its supporting policies is the coordinated integration of development around transit stations. The proposed project is not located near an existing or proposed transit station, therefore Transportation Goal 12 is not presented in this section. 3.13-3
neighborhoods to schools, open space areas, and employment centers (Policy 15-1.1); and identifying bicycle routes along major and secondary arterials in the community (Policy 15-1.2). Objective 15-2 which also supports Goal 15 is to promote pedestrian-oriented mobility and the utilization of the bicycle for commuter, school, recreational use, economic use, economic activity, and access to transit facilities. Policy 15-2.1 which is in place to meet Objective 15-2 is to encourage the safe utilization of easements and/or rights-of-way along flood control channels, public utilities, railroad rights-of-way, and streets wherever possible for the use of bicycles and/or pedestrians. Goal 16 of the Sylmar Community Plan is to provide a sufficient system of well designed and convenient on-street parking and off-street parking facilities throughout the Plan area. Objective 16-1 which supports Goal 16 is to provide parking in appropriate locations in accord with City-wide standards and community needs. Policy 16-1.1 which is in place to meet Objective 16-1 is to consolidate parking, where appropriate, to eliminate the number of ingress and egress points onto arterials. 3.13.1.2 Environmental Setting Analysis Methodology The traffic analyses prepared for this study were performed in accordance with City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis Reports, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) project review process, and the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP) requirements. Detailed information on intersection analysis methodologies, standards, and thresholds are discussed in the following sections. The following scenarios were analyzed as a part of this study: Existing Conditions utilized to establish the current level or existing baseline of traffic operations within the study area. Future Year (2010 & 2015) Base Conditions with Ambient Growth and Cumulative Projects establishes a future baseline scenario against which traffic generated by the Master Plan project was compared. Future Year (2010 & 2015) Base with Project Conditions represents future base traffic conditions with the addition of projected trip generation associated with the Master Plan project. Level of Service Descriptions Level of Service (LOS) is an indicator of operating conditions on a roadway or at an intersection and is defined in categories ranging from A to F. These categories can be viewed much like school grades, with A representing the best traffic flow conditions and F representing poor conditions. LOS A indicates free-flowing traffic and LOS F indicates substantial congestion with stop-and-go traffic and long delays at intersections. Table 3.13-1 provides definitions of level of service for signalized intersections using the Transportation Research Board Critical Movement Analysis (CMA), Circular 212 3.13-4
Planning Method methodology. CMA is a method which determines the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio on a critical lane bases and LOS associated with each V/C ratio at a signalized intersection. Table 3.13-1 Level of Service Descriptions Level of Service Description of Operation Range of V/C Ratios A Describes primarily free-flow conditions at average travel 0.00 0.60 speeds. Vehicles are seldom impeded in their ability to maneuver in the traffic stream. Delays at intersection are minimal. B Represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel 0.61 0.70 speed. The ability to maneuver in the traffic stream is slightly restricted and delays are not bothersome. C Represents stable operations, however, ability to change lanes 0.71 0.80 and maneuver may be more restricted than LOS B and longer queues are experienced at intersections D Congestion occurs and a small change in volume increases 0.81 0.90 delays substantially. E Severe congestion occurs with extensive delays and low travel 0.91 1.00 speeds occur. F Characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds and intersection congestion occurs with high delays and traffic queuing. > 1.00 3.13-5
Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Standards and Thresholds This section presents the methodologies used to perform peak hour intersection capacity analysis, including both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Signalized Intersection Analysis The analysis of signalized intersections utilized the analysis procedure as outlined in the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis Reports. This procedure is known as Transportation Research Board Critical Movement Analysis (CMA), Circular 212 Planning Method methodology and defines LOS in terms of Volume-to-Capacity (V/C) ratio. This technique uses 1,600 vehicles per hour per lane (VPHPL) and 2880 (VPHPL) for dual left turn lanes as the maximum saturation volume of intersections. The LOS criteria used for this technique was earlier described in Table 3.13-1. The computerized analysis of intersection operations was performed utilizing Traffix 7.6 traffic analysis software (Dowling Associates, 2003). Unsignalized Intersection Analysis Unsignalized intersections, including two-way and all-way stop controlled intersections were analyzed using the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Section 10) unsignalized intersection analysis methodology. The LOS for a two-way stop controlled (TWSC) intersection is determined by the computed or measured control delay and is defined for each minor movement. Table 3.13-2 summarizes the Level of Service criteria for unsignalized intersections. Table 3.13-2 Level of Service Criteria for Stop Controlled Unsignalized Intersections Average Control Delay (sec/veh) Level of Service (LOS) <10 A >10 and <15 B >15 and <25 C >25 and <35 D >35 and <50 E >50 F Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Special Report 209 The County of Los Angeles considers LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours to be the maximum acceptable intersection LOS. This is consistent with the approach outlined in the Los Angeles County CMP. 3.13-6
Circulation System Roadway System Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan This section describes key roadways segments and intersections, existing daily roadway and peak hour intersection traffic volume information and LOS analysis results for existing conditions. Several regionally and locally significant roadways traverse the study area. Each of the key roadways, as well as associated study intersections within the study area is discussed below. The roadway network in the project area lies diagonally from the northwest to southeast. For clarity, this document will refer to roadways that run parallel to the I-210 as east-west and roadways that run perpendicular to the I-210 as north-south. The LAMC campus is directly bounded by Hubbard Street to the north, Eldridge Avenue to the southwest, El Cariso Golf Course to the northeast, and El Cariso Regional Park to the northwest. Beyond these boundaries are single-family low density residential neighborhoods. North-South Facilities Polk Street This is a north/south-oriented facility located to the west of the project site classified as a Major Highway Class II from Eldridge Avenue south by the City of Los Angeles. This is a four-lane roadway with a full interchange with I-210 one and a half miles from the college. North of the I-210 it provides access to neighborhoods northwest of the project site. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Hubbard Street This is a north/south-oriented facility providing primary access to the project site. It also provides access to the driveway on the northwest side of the campus. Hubbard is classified as a Major Highway Class II from Eldridge Avenue south and provides primary access to neighborhoods in the project area. This is a four-lane roadway with a full interchange with I-210 three-quarters of a mile from the LAMC campus. The posted speed limit is 40 mph. Maclay Street This is a north/south-oriented facility east of the project site. Maclay is designated as a Secondary from Eldridge Avenue south by the City of Los Angeles and provides access to neighborhoods south of the project site. This is a two-lane roadway up to the approach with the I-210 where it transitions to four lanes. It has a full interchange with I-210 one and a half miles from the college. The posted speed limit is 30 mph. 3.13-7
Maclay Avenue/Gavina Avenue (Private Road) This roadway is located directly east of the project site. When Maclay Avenue crosses the Pacoima Wash it becomes a private road for the residential community it serves. To the north it transitions to Gavina Avenue. After crossing the wash again it returns to a public facility. The roadway has a posted speed limit of 35 mph. Several of the communities it serves are gated. Harding Street This is a north/south-oriented facility east of the project site. This roadway is designated as a Collector from Maclay Avenue to Fenton Avenue. This is a two-lane roadway with a post speed limit of 25 mph. East-West Facilities I-210 This is an east/west freeway that traverses the Los Angeles metropolitan area from San Bernardino County to the east and terminating at I-5 to the west. There are three full freeway interchanges to the west and southwest of the project site at Polk Street (1.5 miles), Hubbard Street (.75 miles), and Maclay Street (1.5 miles). In the project vicinity, three eastbound and three westbound lanes are provided. The most direct access to the project site is provided by Hubbard Street. Foothill Boulevard This is an east/west oriented facility to the south of the project site that runs parallel to the I-210 classified as a Major Highway Class II by the City of Los Angeles. This roadway provides primary east-west local access to retail businesses in the project area. This is a four-lane facility with a posted speed limit of 40 mph. Gladstone Avenue This is an east-west local roadway serving local neighborhoods south of the project site classified as a Collector by the City of Los Angeles. The roadway provides two lanes and runs parallel to the I-210 on its north side providing access to neighborhoods in the area. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Fenton Avenue This is a two-lane east/west oriented local street north of Gladstone Avenue and southwest from the project site. The roadway is classified as a Collector by the City of Los Angeles, serves residential neighborhoods in the project area and has a posted speed limit of 25 mph. 3.13-8
Eldridge Avenue This roadway provides direct access to the project site and the main driveway on the south side of campus. The roadway is an east/west oriented local street with four lanes and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The roadway is classified as a Secondary by the City of Los Angeles and provides access to neighborhoods east and west of the project site. Neighborhood Roadway Segments Neighborhood roadway segments, including Gridley Street, Harding Street, and Fenton Avenue, are analyzed later in this chapter. Site Access Access to the College is currently provided by a main entrance driveway at the intersection of Eldridge Avenue and Pasha Street on the southwest corner of the campus property. Current construction of a parking garage at this location has eliminated the two entrance lanes of the driveway. Access is restricted to the exit lanes, which have been modified for two-way traffic. This driveway currently provides access to two staff parking lots. A secondary driveway exists on Hubbard Street at Lexicon Avenue. This is currently used for on-street parallel parking for staff and faculty and for service and delivery access. It also provides access to a small parking lot behind the Collaborative Studies building. Existing Parking Conditions On-Site Current on-site parking is restricted to the two staff only parking lots on the southwest side of campus and parking along the northwest access road on the northeast side of campus. Parking structure A is currently under construction on the southwest side of campus and will provide 1,200 spaces when completed. Off-Site Off-site parking is located in several areas around the campus, primarily on local roadways. A field study conducted on July 24 th and 25 th indicated that almost all users of the campus are currently utilizing parallel parking along Eldridge Avenue which fronts the school. This type of parking is available on both sides of the street and is most heavily utilized directly adjacent to the campus between Hubbard Street and Cranston Street. Previous studies performed while the school was in session verify this usage pattern. In addition, a satellite parking lot is located between Hubbard Street and Sayre Street along the eastside of the I-210. This temporary lot provides 567 parking spaces and shuttle service to the campus throughout the day. This lot will be used until completion of parking structure A. 3.13-9
Additionally, previous studies have shown that students use the parking lot for the El Cariso County Golf Course that is northeast of the campus. The parking structure A construction should diminish use of this lot and planned future parking discussed below will provide adequate parking for the current needs of the campus which should draw users of the college away from the Golf Course and neighborhoods and closer to campus. Future Parking Conditions A phased parking program would be designed to accommodate approximately 2,400 parking stalls in parking structures and surface parking areas by 2015. For each element of the proposed project, sufficient parking would be constructed to accommodate any existing parking spaces displaced by construction, and sufficient additional parking would also be constructed to accommodate the parking demand generated by the construction of the proposed project element. Table 3.13-3 summarizes the Master Plan Parking by construction phases. Table 3.13-3 Cumulative Master Plan Parking by Phase Under LAMC Campus Harding Street Site Existing Construction Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II Parking Structures - 1,200 1,200 1570-550 (370) Surface Parking 788 a 389 235 117 131 - (-154) (-118) On-Street Parking 128 b 187 c 187 187 - - (-59) Total (by Phase) 916 1,776 1,622 1,874 131 550 a Includes 221 parking spaces on the LAMC Campus and 567 parking spaces at the Sayre Street parking lot. The use of the Sayre Street parking lot will be discontinued once construction of Parking Structure A is completed. b Existing parallel parking c Proposed angled parking Note: Numbers within parenthesis (in Italics) show increase or decrease in the number of parking spaces between phases. On-Site A 1,200-car parking structure is currently under construction at the southern end of the main campus. Under the Project plan, off site land could be used to accommodate a portion of the Master Plan program. Addition below grade parking would be provided for the associated program and additional parking could be added to serve the main campus with a shuttle providing access. Parking Structure B2 which will be located above the Plant Facilities Building will consist of three levels of parking and will have 370 total parking spaces. 3.13-10
In addition to this the college is pursuing the immediate implementation (Fall 2006) of on-street angled parking (44% increase over existing parallel parking) on Eldridge Avenue along the school property and on-site angled parking adjacent to Eldridge Ave (58 new spaces) in Spring 2007. Another temporary lot will be built in 2007 behind Parking Structure A with a capacity of 70 vehicles. In addition, the existing staff parking lot will be expanded. This will result in approximately 1,700 spaces being provided in 2007. These parking lots will utilize existing driveways and provide additional off-street parking for users of the campus. Off-Site The college is developing plans to restripe Eldridge Avenue to implement angled parking on the east side (college side) of the street between Hubbard Avenue and Harding Street. Currently there is unrestricted parallel parking along both sides of this section of Eldridge Avenue. By implementing angled parking along the north side of Eldridge Avenue, the total on-street parking capacity will increase by approximately 44%. This will provide users of the college with a free parking alternative and will encourage users to park on the east side of Eldridge Avenue and will reduce demand for parking spaces in the adjacent neighborhoods and at the Golf Course. Parking Structure B1 is also proposed to be constructed during this third phase of campus construction. This parking structure will be underground and will be located on the south parcel of the Harding Street Site. This facility will be 2 levels and will have 550 parking spaces. Total Future Parking To provide adequate parking to accommodate projected growth the college will construct a total of approximately 2,400 parking spaces by 2015. This includes Parking Structures A, B1, and B2 discussed in the previous sections. Existing Public Transit The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) serves the college directly with two bus lines, lines 234 and 634, with a stop at the corner of Hubbard Street and Eldridge Avenue adjacent to the campus. Route 234 is marked by a route sign on a pole. Route 634 has a route sign attached to a utility pole. A bench and trash receptacle is also provided. When transfer opportunities are considered, much of the Los Angeles metropolitan area is within reach via the bus routes readily available near the college. When rail is considered, regional trips become possible. Transit and rail routes in the immediate vicinity of the college are described below. 3.13-11
MTA Line 234 Line 234 provides service from Sherman Oaks in the south to the line s northern terminus that is a loop along the western edge of the LAMC campus on Sayre Street, Eldridge Avenue, Hubbard Street, and Simshaw Avenue. Weekday service is provided from approximately 5:00 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. with headways ranging from 15 minutes, to one hour. Weekend and holiday service is provided with approximately one-hour headways between 6:00 a.m. and 7:30 p.m. MTA Line 634 Line 634 provides service from the Metrolink commuter rail station approximately 2.4 miles from the campus. Service is direct along Hubbard Street. Metrolink The Southern California Regional Rail Association (SCCRA) operates the Metrolink train service throughout the greater Los Angeles basin. The nearest Metrolink line, the Antelope Valley line, operates out of downtown Los Angeles running north-south and parallel to the I-5 freeway with stops in the City of Glendale, Burbank, and Sun Valley. Users of Metrolink alighting in Sylmar could transfer to MTA Line 634 for access to the college. Existing Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities, including sidewalks, wheelchair ramps, crosswalks, and pedestrian call buttons at intersections are present throughout the study area. Table 3.13.4 provides an inventory of pedestrian facilities at signalized intersections near the project site: Table 3.13-4 Signalized Pedestrian Crossing Locations No. 1 Intersection Hubbard Street / Eldridge Avenue Leg of Intersection North South East West Crossing Direction Westbound Eastbound Westbound Eastbound Northbound Southbound Northbound Southbound Pedestrian Push Button Type Pedestrian Indicator Type ADA Compliant Ramps None Incandescent Yes None Incandescent Yes None Incandescent Yes None Incandescent Yes 3.13-12
Existing Bicycle Facilities Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan The College provides bicycle racks for users to secure their bicycles while using the College. There are no other bicycle facilities, lanes, or routes in the study area. Existing Public School Sites There are several public schools located in the neighborhoods surrounding Mission College that attract pedestrian traffic: Hubbard Elementary School Northwest of Mission College on Hubbard Street between Kismet Avenue and Fenton Avenue. Harding Street Elementary School Southeast of Mission College at Harding Street and Fenton Avenue. Olive View School Northwest of Mission College on Polk Street south of Fenton Avenue. Foothill Baptist Church & Schools Northwest of Mission College at Herron Avenue and Wheeler Avenue. L A Lutheran High School North of Mission College at Eldridge Avenue and Sayre Street. Of these schools Harding Street Elementary School is the only one directly affected by the Project. This is due to students who are using Fenton Avenue, Harding Street, and Gridley Street as a path to travel to and from the College. These roadway segments are analyzed later in this chapter and mitigations are proposed to divert College traffic away from these streets. 3.13.1.3 Study Intersections In consultation with college staff and comments received during the Notice of Preparation process, the 28 key study area intersections shown on Table 3.13-5 have been identified for analysis in the traffic study. The existing intersection geometrics are shown in Appendix A of Appendix E of this EIR. Existing Study Intersection Volumes Traffic data collected for the Mission College Draft EIR traffic analysis included eight (8) 24-hour roadway counts conducted during the week of September 12-14th. Additionally, twenty-eight (28) AM and PM peak hour study intersection counts were conducted on September 12-14th. 3.13-13
Table 3.13-5 Study Intersections Intersection Jurisdiction 1 Polk Street / Glenoaks Boulevard City of Los Angeles 2 Polk Street / I-210 EB Ramp Caltrans 3 Polk Street / I-210 WB Ramp Caltrans 4 Polk Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles 5 Polk Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles 6 Sayre Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles 7 Sayre Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles 8 Hubbard Street / Glenoaks Boulevard City of Los Angeles 9 Hubbard Street / Foothill Boulevard City of Los Angeles 10 Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramp Caltrans 11 Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramp Caltrans 12 Hubbard Street / Gladstone Avenue City of Los Angeles 13 Hubbard Street / Fenton Avenue City of Los Angeles 14 Hubbard Street / Eldridge Avenue City of Los Angeles 15 Hubbard Street / Lexicon Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles 16 Hubbard Street / Garrick Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles 17 Hubbard Street / Shablow Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles 18 Rajah Street/ Gavina Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles 19 Tibbetts Street / Gavina Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles 20 Pasha Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles 21 Harding Street / Fenton Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles 22 Harding Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles 23 Maclay Avenue / Glenoaks Boulevard City of Los Angeles 24 Maclay Avenue / Foothill Boulevard City of Los Angeles 25 Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramp Caltrans 26 Maclay Avenue / I-210 WB Ramp Caltrans 27 Maclay Avenue / Gladstone Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles 28 Maclay Avenue / Fenton Avenue [1] City of Los Angeles For analysis purposes, AM peak hour data were collected during the 7-9 a.m. peak hours and the p.m. peak hour data during the 4-6 p.m. peak hours. These peak hours are the standard adjacent street traffic peak hours used in the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the majority of traffic analyses documentations. Figure 3.13-1 shows existing AM/PM peak hour traffic volumes for the key study area intersections. The counts are provided in Appendix B of Appendix E of this EIR. 3.13-14
Figure 3.13-1 - Existing AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 3.13-15
Existing Level of Service Analysis LOS analyses under existing conditions were conducted using the methodologies described above. The intersection LOS results are discussed below. Intersection Analysis Table 3.13-6 displays intersection LOS for the key study area intersections under Existing Conditions. All intersections are signalized unless otherwise noted. The detailed LOS calculation worksheets for Existing Conditions are provided in Appendix C of Appendix E of this EIR. Table 3.13-6 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results for Existing Conditions # Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour LOS V/C LOS V/C 1 Polk Street / Glenoaks Boulevard B 0.634 B 0.611 2 Polk Street / I-210 EB Ramp E 0.907 A 0.527 3 Polk Street / I-210 WB Ramp C 0.730 A 0.558 4 Polk Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] C 18.3 sec B 12.5 sec 5 Polk Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] B 10.8 sec A 9 sec 6 Sayre Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] C 16.9 sec C 18.3 sec 7 Sayre Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] B 12.3 sec B 11.9 sec 8 Hubbard Street / Glenoaks Boulevard B 0.663 C 0.739 9 Hubbard Street / Foothill Boulevard D 0.842 F 1.006 10 Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramp D 0.896 C 0.714 11 Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramp D 0.855 C 0.778 12 Hubbard Street / Gladstone Avenue C 0.709 A 0.576 13 Hubbard Street / Fenton Avenue B 0.624 A 0.429 14 Hubbard Street / Eldridge Avenue C 0.723 B 0.609 15 Hubbard Street / Lexicon Avenue [1] C 15.2 sec C 18.9 sec 16 Hubbard Street / Garrick Avenue [1] B 12.7 sec B 12.4 sec 17 Hubbard Street / Shablow Avenue [1] A 8.2 sec A 8 sec 18 Rajah Street/ Gavina Avenue [1] A 9.2 sec A 9.6 sec 19 Tibbetts Street / Gavina Avenue [1] A 7.4 sec A 7.5 sec 20 Pasha Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] A 9.1 sec B 10.8 sec 21 Harding Street / Fenton Avenue [1] A 8.5 sec A 7.8 sec 22 Harding Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] A 7.6 sec A 8.5 sec 23 Maclay Avenue / Glenoaks Boulevard C 0.706 B 0.667 24 Maclay Avenue / Foothill Boulevard D 0.841 F 1.077 25 Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramp E 0.913 C 0.786 26 Maclay Avenue / I-210 WB Ramp C 0.736 C 0.764 27 Maclay Avenue / Gladstone Avenue [1] F 75.5 sec F 53.5 sec 28 Maclay Avenue / Fenton Avenue [1] B 14.6 sec D 30.7 sec 3.13-16
As shown in Table 3.13-6, all but five (5) of the study area intersections are currently operating at acceptable LOS D or better under Existing conditions. The following five (5) intersections were forecast to be operating at unacceptable LOS E or F: Polk Street / I-210 EB Ramp (LOS E AM) Hubbard Street / Foothill Boulevard (LOS F PM) Maclay Avenue / Foothill Boulevard (LOS F PM) Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramp (LOS E AM) Maclay Avenue / Gladstone Avenue (LOS F AM, LOS F PM) Roadway Segment Analysis Table 3.13-7 summarized the three 24-hour traffic counts conducted on eight (8) study roadway segments. Table 3.13-7 Study Roadway Segments Existing Daily Volumes Roadway Segment East or Northbound West or Southbound Total Daily Volume Eldridge Avenue West of Hubbard Street 4,459 4,281 8,740 Eldridge Avenue East of Pasha Street 3,274 3,045 6,319 Eldridge Avenue East of Gridley Street 1,847 2,442 4,289 Harding Street North of Eldridge Avenue 878 1,092 1,970 Maclay Avenue South of Harding Street 3,872 3,439 7,311 Maclay Avenue North of Gladstone Avenue 5,802 5,348 11,150 Hubbard Street North of Gladstone Avenue 12,683 14,237 26,920 Polk Street North of Gladstone Avenue 5,722 6,756 12,478 College Traffic Diverting Through Neighborhoods Using the volumes in Table 3.13-7 above the amount of traffic diverting through neighborhoods from Eldridge Avenue and Maclay Avenues can be determined. First, by subtracting the eastbound volumes on Eldridge Avenue east of Pasha Street from the eastbound volumes on Eldridge Avenue east of Gridley Street we can determine how many vehicles turned from Eldridge Avenue south onto Gridley Street. On Eldridge Avenue east of Pasha Street the eastbound volume was 3,274 per day. On Eldridge Avenue east of Gridley Street the eastbound volume was 1,847 per day. From this we can deduct that 1,427 vehicles turned from Eldridge Avenue onto Gridley in a 24- hour period. 3.13-17
Second, by subtracting the eastbound volumes on Eldridge Avenue east of Gridley Street from the northbound volumes north of Eldridge Avenue on Harding Street we can determine how many vehicles turned from Eldridge Avenue south onto Harding Street. On Eldridge Avenue east of Gridley Street the eastbound volume was 1,847 per day. On Harding Street north of Eldridge Avenue the northbound volume was 878 per day. From this we can deduct that 969 vehicles turned from Eldridge Avenue south onto Harding Street in a 24hr period. Third, by subtracting the northbound volumes on Maclay Street north of Gladstone Avenue from the northbound volumes on Maclay Street South of Harding Street we can determine how many vehicles turned from Maclay Avenue west onto Fenton Avenue. On Maclay Street north of Gladstone Avenue the northbound volume was 5,802 per day. On Maclay Street South of Harding Street the northbound volume was 3,872 per day. From this we can deduct that 1,930 vehicles turned from Maclay Avenue west onto Fenton Avenue in a 24hr period. Residents also raised concerns about students traveling from Maclay Avenue, up Gavina Avenue, and around to Hubbard Avenue to reach the school. The direct route from Maclay Avenue to Eldridge Avenue is 1.5 miles. To drive up Maclay Avenue to Gavina Avenue and around to Hubbard Avenue to reach the school is 3.6 miles. There is direct access to the College via Maclay Avenue, Hubbard Avenue, and Polk Street via Eldridge Avenue. There is no logical reason students would travel 2.1 miles further to reach the school. There is also no empirical evidence supporting this claim. Due to these facts the impacts are less than significant and no further analysis or mitigation is warranted. In summary, from these volumes we can see that there are a significant number of vehicles using the Fenton/Harding neighborhood for travel in the study area. 1,427 vehicles turned from eastbound Eldridge Avenue south onto Gridley in a 24-hour period indicating students are using this path. While 1,930 vehicles turned from northbound Maclay Avenue west onto Fenton Avenue in a 24-hour period, this is the main access route for a large residential neighborhood and therefore less certainty is gained from this number in ascertaining how many students are using this path. 969 vehicles turned from eastbound Eldridge Avenue south onto Harding Street in a 24-hour period indicating that students are using this path. This number in particular is a good indicator that students are using this path in their travel to and from the school. Based on this information the number of students using the neighborhoods as a route to and from the College is significant. It should be noted that all of the studied roadways are functioning at an acceptable LOS. Several strategies the College will be implementing to ensure that College generated traffic does not utilize neighborhood streets in the future are discussed in mitigation measure T-17 later in this chapter. 3.13-18
Sayre Satellite Parking Lot Utilization Analysis Table 3.13-8 summarizes the Sayre satellite parking lot count volumes. An intersection turning movement count was performed on the west driveway to catalog student in and out movements during the peak hours. In addition, a 24hr machine count was used on the east driveway to catalog total in and out that captures inbound shuttle bus trips and outbound students. Table 3.13-8 Sayre Satellite Parking Lot Utilization Location Time Period In Out Total West Driveway AM Peak Period 34 8 42 PM Peak Period 48 25 73 East Driveway 24hr count 34 86 120 From these counts we can see that very few vehicles are utilizing this parking lot. These trips were not removed and reassigned on the network due to the low volumes and complexity with removing and reassigning these trips to the network to reflect conditions when the parking garage is open. 3.13.2 Significance Thresholds Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, a project would cause a significant impact to Transportation and Traffic, if it would: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections). b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways. c) 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. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). e) Result in inadequate emergency access. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus system). 3.13-19
3.13.2.1 Determination of Significant Impacts A project is considered to have an individually significant impact on the operation of an intersection if the project related increase in Volume to Capacity (V/C) ratio equals or exceeds the following thresholds shown in Table 3.13-9. Table 3.13-9 Significant Impact Thresholds for Intersections Intersections Pre-project LOS V/C Project V/C Increase C 0.701 to 0.800 0.040 or more D 0.801 to 0.900 0.020 or more E/F 0.901 or more 0.010 or more Source: City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis Reports A project is considered to have an individually significant impact on the operation of a local residential street if the project related increase in average daily traffic (ADT) volumes exceeds the following thresholds shown in Table 3.13-10. Table 3.13-10 Significant Impact Thresholds for Roadways Projected ADT with Project (Final ADT) Project-Related Increase in ADT 0 to 999 16 percent or more of final ADT 1,000 or more 12 percent or more of final ADT 2,000 or more 10 Percent or more of final ADT 3,000 or more 8 percent or more of final ADT Source: City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis Reports 3.13.3 Environmental Impact Analysis 3.13.3.1 Trip Generation A forecast of the expected traffic volumes to be generated from the site was calculated based upon information contained in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation 7 th Edition and projected college enrollment. Tables 3.13-11 and 3.13-12 provide a summary of trip generation for 2010 and 2015. The following information was used to determine future trip generation with Master Plan Implementation: 3.13-20
Current enrollment (Fall 2006) Projected future year (2015) enrollment based on Master Plan Implementation Master Plan Gross Square Footage (gsf) Maximum Student Population Spring 2006 enrollment data provided by the College indicates that at its highest peak, maximum student population during the spring 2006 semester, at any given time or day did not exceed 1,392 students. This peak occurred on Wednesday between 7:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. This data was calculated by tracking the starting class time and ending class time for each student. A formula was then used to generate a running total, i.e., the total number of students on campus at any given time. Figure 3.13-2 shows the total student population by time and day. It shows that the total student population never exceeded 1,400 students at any given time on any day. By using the very conservative total number of students enrolled for the semester (7,526) as the figure by which trip generation (traffic generated by the College) was calculated, the traffic analysis is projecting the worst case scenario. College Peak Periods vs. Adjacent Street Peak Periods The data mentioned above and shown in the Figure 3.13-2 also shows that the peak use of the College, i.e., when the highest numbers of students are on campus, does not correlate with the normal peak period of traffic in the AM but does correlate with the normal peak period of traffic in the PM. For traffic analysis purposes, the AM peak hours are from 7-9 a.m. and the p.m. peak hours are from 4-6 p.m.. These peak hours are the standard adjacent street traffic peak hours used in the ITE Trip Generation Manual and the majority of all traffic analyses documentations. The graph shows that the AM peak of the College begins at 9:00 a.m., when the peak of the adjacent street traffic is ending. The graph also shows that the College has two peaks after 12:00 p.m., one from 3:30 to 6:00 p.m. and one from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. The first peak does correlate with the peak of the adjacent street traffic. The second more severe peak does not. For traffic analysis purposes, the PM peak period is always used as the worst case scenario. The college afternoon peak correlates with the PM peak of the adjacent street traffic. This shows that this traffic analysis is accurately reflecting the traffic conditions in the study area. 3.13-21
Table 3.13-11 2010 Project Trip Generation TOTAL PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Hour Trip Rates PM Peak Hour Trip Rates Land Use (ITE Code) ADT Rate In Out Total In Out Total Community College (ITE 540) 1.20 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.12 Quantity Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total Base Year Enrollment - Fall 2006 7,526 Students 9,031 602 301 903 497 406 903 Future Year Enrollment - 2010 12,969 Students 15,563 1,038 519 1,556 856 700 1,556 Net Trip Generation (Projected Future - Current) 5,443 Students 6,532 435 218 653 359 294 653 SITE SPECIFIC PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Hour Trip Rates PM Peak Hour Trip Rates Land Use (ITE Code) ADT Rate In Out Total In Out Total Community College (ITE 540) 1.20 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.12 Quantity Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Main Campus Trip Generation 3,427 Students 4,113 274 137 411 226 185 411 AM Peak Hour Trip Rates PM Peak Hour Trip Rates ADT Rate In Out Total In Out Total 27.49 1.55 1.55 3.09 1.16 1.48 2.64 Harding Street Campus Trip Generation Quantity Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips 88,000 Square Feet 2,419 136 136 272 102 130 232 TOTAL TRIP GENERATION 6,532 410 273 683 328 315 644 3.13-22
Table 3.13-12 2015 Project Trip Generation TOTAL PROJECT TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Hour Trip Rates PM Peak Hour Trip Rates Land Use (ITE Code) ADT Rate In Out Total In Out Total Community College (ITE 540) 1.20 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.12 Quantity Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total In Out Total Base Year Enrollment - FALL 2006 7,526 Students 9,031 602 301 903 497 406 903 Future Year Enrollment - 2015 15,000 Students 18,000 1,200 600 1,800 990 810 1,800 Net Trip Generation (Projected Future - Current) 7,474 Students 8,969 598 299 897 493 404 897 SITE SPECIFIC TRIP GENERATION AM Peak Hour Trip Rates PM Peak Hour Trip Rates Land Use (ITE Code) ADT Rate In Out Total In Out Total Community College (ITE 540) 1.20 0.08 0.04 0.12 0.07 0.05 0.12 Quantity Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Main Campus Trip Generation 4,771 Students 5,725 382 191 572 315 258 572 AM Peak Hour Trip Rates PM Peak Hour Trip Rates ADT Rate In Out Total In Out Total 27.49 1.55 1.55 3.09 1.16 1.48 2.64 Harding Street Campus Trip Generation Quantity Description Daily Trips AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips 118,000 Square Feet 3,244 182 182 365 137 174 312 TOTAL TRIP GENERATION 8,969 564 373 937 452 432 884 3.13-23
Figure 3.13-2 - Mission College Maximum Student Population Mission College Total Student Population by Day Number of Students 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 6:30-6:59 7:30-7:59 8:30-8:59 9:30-9:59 10:30-10:59 11:30-11:59 12:30-12:59 1:30-1:59 2:30-2:59 3:30-3:59 4:30-4:59 5:30-5:59 6:30-6:59 7:30-7:59 8:30-8:59 9:30-9:59 10:30-10:59 Monday Total Student Population Tuesday Total Student Population Wednesday Total Student Population Thursday Total Student Population Time 3.13-24
3.13.3.2 Project Trip Distribution Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan Consistent with current college trip distribution patterns, future Master Plan generated trips were assigned to the surrounding local and regional roadway system using residential zip code information provided by the college. The College provided zip code information for each student enrolled in the fall 2006 semester. Using this information, land use patterns, and the roadway and freeway networks; a percentage of students traveling on study area arterials and freeways were determined. Figure 3.13-3, shows the trip distribution assignment used in the traffic analysis. 3.13.3.3 Project Trip Assignment Based upon the project site location in relation to the surrounding roadway system, peak hour trips were assigned to the adjacent roadway network based upon the percentages developed in the previous section. Figure 3.13-4 shows the AM and PM peak project trip assignment at the project study intersections for 2010. 3.13.4 Future (2010) Traffic Conditions This section provides an analysis of Future Year 2010 traffic conditions both with and without the proposed College Master Plan project. The traffic analysis conducted includes the following scenarios: Future (2010) Base Traffic Conditions With Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects (No Project) Future (2010) Traffic Conditions With Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative Projects Plus Master Plan Implementation (With Project) 3.13.4.1 Future (2010) Base Traffic Conditions Based on discussions with LADOT, the nature of the study area, and consistent with the traffic growth assumptions from similar traffic studies within the study area; an ambient traffic growth rate of one percent per year was used to develop future baseline conditions from existing traffic data. Under Future (2010) Base conditions, it was assumed that all planned and funded roadway and intersection improvements would have been implemented by Year 2010. These improvements include all traffic mitigations from other development projects and have been incorporated into the Future (2010) base network. The Future (2010) Base intersection geometric configurations are shown in Appendix A of Appendix E of this EIR. Figure 3.13-5 shows the Future (2010) Base traffic volume. Future (2010) Base Cumulative Projects Table 3.1-12 shows a list of cumulative projects that were included in the traffic analysis. Due to the long-term horizon year (Year 2010) of the Project Master Plan implementation and the nature of the projects it is assumed that all of the projects would completed prior 3.13-25