Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan Draft ... Settings... · Los Angeles Mission...

Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan Draft Program Environmental Impact Report

Los Angeles Community College District Draft LAMC Facilities Master Plan EIR October 2006

3.13-1

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 Los Angeles Community College District (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) Guidelines2.

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 Los Angeles Community College District. 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/



3.13-2

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 through-

out 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 environ-

mental 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



3.13-3

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 maxi-

mize 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.



3.13-4

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



3.13-5

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

speeds. Vehicles are seldom impeded in their ability to

maneuver in the traffic stream. Delays at intersection are

minimal.

0.00 – 0.60

B Represents reasonably unimpeded operations at average travel

speed. The ability to maneuver in the traffic stream is slightly

restricted and delays are not bothersome.

0.61 – 0.70

C Represents stable operations, however, ability to change lanes

and maneuver may be more restricted than LOS B and longer

queues are experienced at intersections

0.71 – 0.80

D Congestion occurs and a small change in volume increases

delays substantially.

0.81 – 0.90

E Severe congestion occurs with extensive delays and low travel

speeds occur.

0.91 – 1.00

F Characterizes arterial flow at extremely low speeds and

intersection congestion occurs with high delays and traffic

queuing.

> 1.00



3.13-6

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.



3.13-7

Circulation System

Roadway System

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 neigh-

borhoods.

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.



3.13-8

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 south-

west 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.



3.13-9

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 24th 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”.



3.13-10

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

LAMC Campus Harding Street Site

Existing

Under

Construction Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II

Parking Structures - 1,200 1,200

1570

(370)

- 550

Surface Parking 788 a 389 235

(-154)

117

(-118)

131 -

On-Street Parking 128 b 187 c

(-59)

187 187 - -

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.



3.13-11

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.



3.13-12

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. Intersection

Leg of

Intersection

Crossing

Direction

Pedestrian

Push Button

Type

Pedestrian

Indicator

Type

ADA

Compliant

Ramps

Westbound North

Eastbound

None Incandescent Yes

Westbound South

Eastbound


Northbound East

Southbound


Northbound

1

Hubbard

Street /

Eldridge

Avenue

West

Southbound




3.13-13

Existing Bicycle Facilities

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.



3.13-14

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.



3.13-15

Figure 3.13-1 - Existing AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volumes



3.13-16

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

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour # Intersection 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



3.13-17

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.



3.13-18

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.



3.13-19

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 estab-

lished 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).



3.13-20

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 7th 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:



3.13-21

• 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.



3.13-22

Table 3.13-11

2010 Project Trip Generation

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


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




Main Campus Trip Generation 3,427 Students 4,113 274 137 411 226 185 411


27.49 1.55 1.55 3.09 1.16 1.48 2.64


Harding Street Campus Trip

Generation88,000 Square Feet 2,419 136 136 272 102 130 232

TOTAL TRIP GENERATION 6,532 410 273 683 328 315 644

SITE SPECIFIC PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

ADT Rate

ADT RateAM Peak Hour Trip Rates PM Peak Hour Trip Rates

Land Use (ITE Code)

AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips


AM Peak Hour Trip Rates PM Peak Hour Trip Rates

TOTAL PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

PM Peak Hour Trip Rates


Land Use (ITE Code) ADT RateAM Peak Hour Trip Rates



3.13-23

Table 3.13-12

2015 Project Trip Generation





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




Main Campus Trip Generation 4,771 Students 5,725 382 191 572 315 258 572


27.49 1.55 1.55 3.09 1.16 1.48 2.64


Harding Street Campus

Trip Generation118,000 Square Feet 3,244 182 182 365 137 174 312

TOTAL TRIP GENERATION 8,969 564 373 937 452 432 884

PM Peak Hour Trip Rates


Land Use (ITE Code) ADT RateAM Peak Hour Trip Rates



AM Peak Hour Trip Rates PM Peak Hour Trip Rates

Land Use (ITE Code)

TOTAL PROJECT TRIP GENERATION

SITE SPECIFIC TRIP GENERATION

ADT Rate

ADT RateAM Peak Hour Trip Rates PM Peak Hour Trip Rates



3.13-24

Figure 3.13-2 - Mission College Maximum Student Population

Mission College Total Student Population by Day

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

16006:3

0-6

:59

7:3

0-7

:59

8:3

0-8

:59

9:3

0-9

:59

10:3

0-1

0:5

9

11:3

0-1

1:5

9

12:3

0-1

2:5

9

1:3

0-1

:59

2:3

0-2

:59

3:3

0-3

:59

4:3

0-4

:59

5:3

0-5

:59

6:3

0-6

:59

7:3

0-7

:59

8:3

0-8

:59

9:3

0-9

:59

10:3

0-1

0:5

9

Time

Number of Students

Monday Total Student Population

Tuesday Total Student Population

Wednesday Total Student Population

Thursday Total Student Population



3.13-25

3.13.3.2 Project Trip Distribution

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



3.13-26

Figure 3.13-3 - Project Trip Distribution



3.13-27

Figure 3.13-4 – 2010 Project Only AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume



3.13-28

Figure 3.13-5 – 2010 Base AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume



3.13-29

Table 3.13-13 - Related Projects



3.13-30

to Year 2010. Trips generated by cumulative projects were assigned to the roadway

network using standard traffic engineering techniques. An initial analysis revealed that

the last two projects on the list, due to the distance from the project, were not impacting

any analyzed intersections. Therefore, the trips from these projects were not distributed to

the network.

An ambient growth factor of 1% per year was applied to all volumes. Due to the built out

nature of the Sylmar area this factor should account for in-fill growth and unforeseen

future projects.

3.13.4.2 Intersection Analysis

Table 3.1-14 displays the results of intersection LOS and volume to capacity analysis

under Future (2010) Base conditions. The detailed LOS calculation worksheets for the

Future (2010) Base conditions are provided in Appendix D of Appendix E of this EIR.

As shown in Table 3.13-14, all but nine (9) of the study area intersections would operate

at acceptable LOS D or better under Future (2010) Base conditions. The following nine

(9) intersections are forecast to have an unacceptable LOS E or F:


• Hubbard Street / Foothill Boulevard (LOS E AM, LOS F PM)

• Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramp (LOS E AM)

• Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramp (LOS E AM)

• Maclay Avenue / Foothill Boulevard (LOS F AM, LOS F PM)

• Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramp (LOS F AM, LOS E PM)

• Maclay Avenue / I-210 WB Ramp (LOS E AM)


• Maclay Avenue / Fenton Avenue (LOS F PM)

3.13.5 Future (2010) Base Plus Project Analysis

The Future (2010) Base Plus Project analysis builds upon the Future (2010) Base

conditions and incorporates all applicable roadway and intersection improvements that

are either constructed or planned for completion by 2010. Future improvements at project

access points are also incorporated. The following improvements were considered in this

analysis:



3.13-31

Table 3.13-14

Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results Future (2010) Base Conditions

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour #

Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay

1 Polk Street / Glenoaks Boulevard C 0.751 B 0.680



5 Polk Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] B 11.2 sec A 9.2 sec



8 Hubbard Street / Glenoaks Boulevard C 0.796 D 0.818

9 Hubbard Street / Foothill Boulevard E 0.955 F 1.105

10 Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramp E 0.962 C 0.784

11 Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramp E 0.928 D 0.870

12 Hubbard Street / Gladstone Avenue C 0.747 B 0.619





17 Hubbard Street / Shablow Avenue [1] A 8.2 sec A 8.2 sec



20 Pasha Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] A 9.2 sec B 11 sec



23 Maclay Avenue / Glenoaks Boulevard D 0.898 C 0.779

24 Maclay Avenue / Foothill Boulevard F 1.174 F 1.267

25 Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramp F 1.150 E 0.956

26 Maclay Avenue / I-210 WB Ramp E 0.927 D 0.843


28 Maclay Avenue / Fenton Avenue [1] D 28.7 sec F 52.2 sec

[1] – Unsignalized Intersection; LOS calculation based on HCM 2000, delay shown in seconds

New East Driveway: In conjunction with the new 1,200 space parking structure on the

southwest corner of the property a new driveway will be constructed. The existing

driveway provides access to two general use parking lots and previously to the large

student parking area. As part of the new construction the existing driveway will remain

in operation and provide access to a visitor parking and pick-up/drop-off area. The new

driveway will give users access to the parking structure that will provide short-term guest

parking, faculty parking, and student parking.



3.13-32

Improved Eldridge Ave / Harding Street Intersection: In conjunction with

construction of the Health, P.E. Fitness Center at the future Harding Street property the

College will improve the Eldridge Avenue / Harding Street to include a roundabout

accessing a new surface parking lot.

New Parking: Expanded parking operations are proposed at multiple locations for the

Master Plan. As discussed in detail above, a new 1,200 parking space structure is under

construction and is scheduled to be competed in 2007. In addition to this the college is

pursuing the immediate implementation (Fall 2006) of on-street angled parking on

Eldridge Avenue itself along the school property and on-site angled parking along

Eldridge Ave (Spring 2007). The school has also entered into discussions with the El

Cariso Golf Course to extend this angled parking along Eldridge Avenue to Harding

Street. As part of the future Harding Street property construction the College will

construct a 100-space surface parking lot to be accessed through the Eldridge Avenue /

Harding Street intersection.

New Turnaround - Pick-up/Drop-off: The existing main driveway will be enhanced to

include a turnaround – pick-up/drop-off area with access to parking as well. This

provides visitors with an alternative to on-street parking and the parking garage for pick-

up/drop-off.

Transit: To improve traffic flow and access to the college via transit, the Master Plan

includes an improved bus-turnout on Hubbard Street with shelter and bench

improvements for transit users. These improvements to the existing transit facilities will

provide a more comfortable user environment and encourage students to use transit to

reach the college.


Table 3.1-15 displays intersection LOS and volume to capacity results under Future

(2010) Base Plus Project conditions. The LOS calculation worksheets for the Future

(2010) Base Plus Project conditions are provided in Appendix E of Appendix E of this

EIR. Figure 3.13-6 displays the traffic volumes for future (2010) Base Plus Project

conditions.



3.13-33

Table 3.13-15

Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results Future (2010)

Base Plus Project Traffic Conditions


Intersection LOS V/C LOS V/C

1 Polk Street / Glenoaks Boulevard C 0.757 B 0.690






8 Hubbard Street / Glenoaks Boulevard D 0.807 D 0.833


10 Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramp F 1.009 D 0.852

11 Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramp F 1.142 F 1.039

12 Hubbard Street / Gladstone Avenue D 0.801 B 0.685

13 Hubbard Street / Fenton Avenue C 0.702 A 0.521

14 Hubbard Street / Eldridge Avenue D 0.860 D 0.817






20 Pasha Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] B 12.1 sec C 16.3 sec


22 Harding Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] A 9.3 sec B 10.3 sec

23 Maclay Avenue / Glenoaks Boulevard E 0.908 C 0.791


25 Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramp F 1.210 F 1.018


27 Maclay Avenue / Gladstone Avenue [1] F 250.4 sec F 136 sec

28 Maclay Avenue / Fenton Avenue [1] F 62 sec F 96.1 sec

[1] – Unsignalized Intersection; LOS calculation based on HCM 2000



3.13-34

Figure 3.13-6 – 2010 With Project AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume



3.13-35

As shown in Table 3.13-15, conditions similar to those found under 2010 Base

Conditions would occur at all of the intersections. All but ten (10) of the study area

intersections would operate at acceptable LOS D or better under Future (2010) Base Plus

Project conditions. The following ten (10) intersections are forecast to have an

unacceptable LOS E or F:



• Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramps (LOS F AM)

• Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramps (LOS F AM, LOS F PM)

• Maclay Avenue / Glenoaks Boulevard (LOS E AM)


• Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramp (LOS F AM, LOS F PM)



• Maclay Avenue / Fenton Avenue (LOS F AM, LOS F PM)

3.13.5.2 Impact Significance

The addition of project traffic would significantly impact ten (10) of the study area

intersections under Future (2010) Base Plus Project conditions. The impacted locations

are summarized below including the underlying cause of the traffic impacts as defined in

the significant impact criteria presented in Table 3.13-9 (Significant Impact Thresholds

for Intersections).




• Hubbard Street / Gladstone Avenue (LOS D AM)









3.13-36

3.13.5.3 Summary of Intersection Analyses

Table 3.13-16 displays intersection Level of Service results for each of the analyzed

scenarios.

The following key points summarize the intersection analyses:

Under Existing (2006) Conditions, the following five (5) intersections are operating at

LOS E or F while all other intersections are operating at LOS D or better.






Under Future (2010) Base Conditions, the following nine (9) intersections were forecast

to operate at LOS E or F while all other intersections would operate at LOS D or better.



• Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramp (LOS E AM)

• Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramp (LOS E AM)






Under Future (2010) Base Plus Project Conditions, the following ten (10) intersections

were forecast to operate at LOS E or F while all other intersections would operate at LOS

D or better.






3.13-37

Table 3.13-16

Summary of Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Results

Existing

Future 2010 Base Plus

Cumulative Projects

Future 2010 Base Plus

Project

No. Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM

1 Polk Street / Glenoaks Boulevard B B C B C B

2 Polk Street / I-210 EB Ramp E A E A E A

3 Polk Street / I-210 WB Ramp C A C A C A

4 Polk Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] C B C B C B

5 Polk Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] B A B A B A

6 Sayre Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] C C C C C C

7 Sayre Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] B B B B B B

8 Hubbard Street / Glenoaks Boulevard B C C D D D

9 Hubbard Street / Foothill Boulevard D F E F E F

10 Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramp D C E C F D

11 Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramp D C E D F F

12 Hubbard Street / Gladstone Avenue C A C B D B

13 Hubbard Street / Fenton Avenue B A B A C A

14 Hubbard Street / Eldridge Avenue C B C B D D

15 Hubbard Street / Lexicon Avenue [1] C C C C C C

16 Hubbard Street / Garrick Avenue [1] B B B B B B

17 Hubbard Street / Shablow Avenue [1] A A A A A A

18 Rajah Street/ Gavina Avenue [1] A A A A A A

19 Tibbetts Street / Gavina Avenue [1] A A A A A A

20 Pasha Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] A B A B B C

21 Harding Street / Fenton Avenue [1] A A A A A A

22 Harding Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] A A A A A B

23 Maclay Avenue / Glenoaks

Boulevard C B D C E C

24 Maclay Avenue / Foothill Boulevard D F F F F F

25 Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramp E C F E F F

26 Maclay Avenue / I-210 WB Ramp C C E D E D

27 Maclay Avenue / Gladstone Avenue

[1] F F F F F F

28 Maclay Avenue / Fenton Avenue [1] B D D F F F










3.13-38

3.13.5.4 Roadway Segment Analysis

The result of adding project traffic to the analyzed roadway segments in 2010 would

result in significant impacts to six roadway segments (see Table 3.13-17).

Table 3.13-17

2010 Roadway Segment Volumes

Daily Volumes

Roadway Segment 2006

2010

Future

Base

2010

With

Project

Percent

Change

Future Base

to Project Impact?

Eldridge Avenue –West of Hubbard St 8,740 9,090 9,510 4.62% No

Eldridge Avenue –East of Pasha St 4,534 4,715 9,045 91.83% Yes

Eldridge Avenue –East of Gridley St 4,289 4,461 6,681 49.77% Yes

Harding Street – North of Eldridge Ave. 1,311 1,363 2,583 89.48% Yes

Maclay Avenue – South of Harding St. 4,478 4,657 5,559 19.37% Yes

Maclay Avenue – North of Gladstone

Ave. 11,150

11,596 13,406 15.61% Yes

Hubbard Street – North of Gladstone

Ave. 26,920

27,997 31,877 13.86% Yes

Polk Street – North of Gladstone Ave. 12,478 12,977 13,142 1.27% No



volumes exceeds the thresholds shown in Table 3.13-10.

Although significant impacts would be realized at six of eight studied roadway segments,

all of these roadways would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS)

through completion of the College Master Plan except Hubbard Street north of Gladstone

Avenue (LOS F). According to the Sylmar Community Plan (see Section 3.5.5) Objective

10-1, roadways should not exceed LOS D. All of the studied roadway segments would

operate at LOS D or better through 2010 except Hubbard Street north of Gladstone

Avenue.

Eldridge Avenue, Maclay Avenue, and Hubbard Street are not local residential streets

and therefore not subject to the thresholds listed in Table 3.13-10.

3.13.6 Future (2015) Traffic Conditions

This section provides an analysis of Future Year 2015 traffic conditions both with and

without the proposed College Master Plan project. The traffic analysis conducted

includes the following scenarios:

• Future (2015) Base Traffic Conditions With Ambient Growth Plus

Cumulative Projects (No Project)



3.13-39

• Future (2015) Traffic Conditions With Ambient Growth Plus Cumulative

Projects Plus Master Plan Implementation (With Project)

3.13.6.1 Future (2015) 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 (2015) Base conditions, it was assumed that all

planned and funded roadway and intersection improvements would have been

implemented by Year 2015. These improvements include all traffic mitigations from

other development projects and have been incorporated into the Future (2015) base

network. The Future (2015) Base intersection geometric configurations are shown in

Appendix A of Appendix E of this EIR. Figure 3.13-7 shows the AM and PM peak

project trip assignment at the project study intersections for 2015. Figure 3.13-8 shows

the Future (2015) Base traffic volume.

Future (2015) Base Cumulative Projects

Table 3.1-13 shows a list of cumulative projects that were included in the traffic analysis.

Due to the long-term horizon year (Year 2015) of the Project Master Plan implementation

and the nature of the projects it is assumed that all of the projects would completed prior

to Year 2015. Trips generated by cumulative projects were assigned to the roadway

network using standard traffic engineering techniques. An initial analysis revealed that

the last two projects on the list, due to the distance from the project, were not impacting

any analyzed intersections. Therefore, the trips from these projects were not distributed to

the network.

An ambient growth factor of 1% per year was applied to all volumes. Due to the built out

nature of the Sylmar area this factor should account for in-fill growth and unforeseen

future projects.



3.13-40

Figure 3.13-7 – 2015 Project Only AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume



3.13-41

Figure 3.13-8 – 2015 Base AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume



3.13-42


Table 3.1-18 displays the results of intersection LOS and volume to capacity analysis

under Future (2015) Base conditions. The detailed LOS calculation worksheets for the

Future (2015) Base conditions are provided in Appendix F of Appendix E of this EIR.

As shown in Table 3.13-18, all but ten (10) of the study area intersections would operate

at acceptable LOS D or better under Future (2015) Base conditions. The following ten

(10) intersections are forecast to have an unacceptable LOS E or F:

• Polk Street / I-210 EB Ramp (LOS F AM)



• Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramps (LOS E AM)







3.13.7 Future (2015) Base Plus Project Analysis

The Future (2015) Base Plus Project analysis builds upon the Future (2015) Base

conditions and incorporates all applicable roadway and intersection improvements that

are either constructed or planned for completion by 2015. Future improvements at project

access points are also incorporated. The following improvements were considered in this

analysis:



3.13-43

Table 3.13-18

Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results Future (2015) Base Conditions


Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay

1 Polk Street / Glenoaks Boulevard C 0.782 C 0.71

2 Polk Street / I-210 EB Ramp F 1.008 A 0.600

3 Polk Street / I-210 WB Ramp C 0.784 A 0.597 4 Polk Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] C 24 sec B 14.1 sec


6 Sayre Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] C 21.7 sec D 25.6 sec

7 Sayre Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] B 13.6 sec B 13 sec



10 Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramp F 1.002 D 0.815

11 Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramp E 0.957 D 0.820

12 Hubbard Street / Gladstone Avenue C 0.779 B 0.644








20 Pasha Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] A 9.3 sec B 11.3 sec

21 Harding Street / Fenton Avenue [1] A 8.7 sec A 8 sec


23 Maclay Avenue / Glenoaks Boulevard E 0.932 D 0.813


25 Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramp F 1.195 E 0.995



28 Maclay Avenue / Fenton Avenue [1] D 34.9 sec F 64 sec

[1] – Unsignalized Intersection; LOS calculation based on HCM 2000, delay shown in seconds

New East Driveway: In coordination with the new 1,200 space parking structure on the

southwest corner of the property, a new driveway would be constructed (2007) providing

access from Eldridge Avenue. The new driveway would give users access to the parking

structure that would provide short-term guest parking, faculty parking, and student

parking.



3.13-44

Eldridge Avenue Extension: The College would extend Eldridge Avenue through the

Harding Street intersection, connecting to Maclay Avenue to partially mitigate

neighborhood impacts from future increases in traffic to and from the campus and to

provide better access and overall connectivity of the local roadway system. Necessary

changes would be made to the intersection at Harding Street and Eldridge Avenue, and

the college would fund the purchase and installation of a new traffic signal at Eldridge

Avenue and Maclay Avenue.

Eldridge Avenue / Maclay Avenue Intersection: As part of the aforementioned

roadway extension, the College will fund and construct improvements at an intersection

at Eldridge Avenue and Maclay Avenue to control traffic.

New Parking: Expanded parking operations are proposed at multiple locations for the

Master Plan. As discussed in detail above, a new 1,200 parking space structure is under

construction and is scheduled to be competed in early 2007. 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. Parking Structure B1 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.

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

(76 new spaces) in Spring 2007.

To provide adequate parking to accommodate projected growth the college would

construct a total of 2,424 parking spaces by 2015. This includes Parking Structures A, B1,

B2, and angled parking discussed above.

New Turnaround – Pick-up/Drop-off: The existing main driveway would be enhanced

to include a turnaround – pick-up/drop-off area with access to parking as well. This

would provide visitors with an alternative to on-street parking and the parking garage for

pick-up/drop-off.

Transit: To improve traffic flow and access to the college via transit, the Master Plan

includes an improved bus-turnout on Hubbard Street with shelter and bench

improvements for transit users. These improvements to the existing transit facilities will

provide a more comfortable user environment and encourage students to use transit to

reach the college.


Table 3.13-19 displays intersection LOS and volume to capacity results under Future

(2015) Base Plus Project conditions. The LOS calculation worksheets for the Future

(2015) Base Plus Project conditions are provided in Appendix G of Appendix E of this

EIR. Figure 3.13-6 displays the traffic volumes for future (2015) Base Plus Project

conditions.



3.13-45

Table 3.13-19

Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service Results Future (2015)

Base Plus Project Traffic Conditions


Intersection LOS V/C LOS V/C

1 Polk Street / Glenoaks Boulevard C 0.79 C 0.724

2 Polk Street / I-210 EB Ramp F 1.008 B 0.602

3 Polk Street / I-210 WB Ramp C 0.787 B 0.601 4 Polk Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] C 24.8 sec B 14.4 sec


6 Sayre Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] C 21.7 sec D 25.6 sec



9 Hubbard Street / Foothill Boulevard F 1.031 F 1.179

10 Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramp F 1.066 E 0.912

11 Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramp F 1.260 F 1.148

12 Hubbard Street / Gladstone Avenue D 0.855 C 0.736

13 Hubbard Street / Fenton Avenue C 0.753 A 0.570

14 Hubbard Street / Eldridge Avenue E 0.939 E 0.929

15 Hubbard Street / Lexicon Avenue [1] C 22.5 sec D 25.1 sec





20 Pasha Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] B 14.7 sec C 21.8 sec


22 Harding Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] A 9.4 sec B 10.6 sec

23 Maclay Avenue / Glenoaks Boulevard E 0.946 D 0.827


25 Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramp F 1.269 F 1.076

26 Maclay Avenue / I-210 WB Ramp E 0.987 E 0.902


28 Maclay Avenue / Fenton Avenue [1] F 90.7 sec F 127.6 sec

[1] – Unsignalized Intersection; LOS calculation based on HCM 2000



3.13-46

Figure 3.13-9 – 2015 With Project AM/PM Peak Hour Traffic Volume



3.13-47

As shown in Table 3.13-19, conditions similar to those found under 2015 Base

Conditions would occur at all of the intersections. All but eleven (11) of the study area

intersections would operate at acceptable LOS D or better under Future (2015) Base Plus

Project conditions. The following eleven (11) intersections are forecast to have an

unacceptable LOS E or F:


• Hubbard Street / Foothill Boulevard (LOS F AM, LOS F PM)

• Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramps (LOS F AM, LOS E PM)


• Hubbard Street / Eldridge Avenue (LOS E AM, LOS E PM)




• Maclay Avenue / I-210 WB Ramp (LOS E AM, LOS E PM)



3.13.7.2 Impact Significance

The addition of project traffic would significantly impact twelve (12) of the study area

intersections under Future (2015) Base Plus Project conditions. The impacted locations

are summarized below including the underlying cause of the traffic impacts as defined in

the significant impact criteria presented in Table 3.13-9 (Significant Impact Thresholds

for Intersections).

• Hubbard Street / Glenoaks Boulevard (LOS D PM)




• Hubbard Street / Gladstone Avenue (LOS D AM)









3.13-48


3.13.7.3 Summary of Intersection Analyses

Table 3.13-20 displays intersection Level of Service results for each of the analyzed

scenarios.

The following key points summarize the intersection analyses:

Under Existing (2006) Conditions, the following five (5) intersections are operating at

LOS E or F while all other intersections are operating at LOS D or better.






Under Future (2015) Base Conditions, the following ten (10) intersections were forecast

to operate at LOS E or F while all other intersections would operate at LOS D or better.




• Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramps (LOS E AM)







Under Future (2015) Base Plus Project Conditions, the following eleven (11)

intersections were forecast to operate at LOS E or F while all other intersections would

operate at LOS D or better.






3.13-49

Table 3.13-20

Summary of Intersection Peak Hour Level of Service Results

Existing Future 2015 Base Plus Cumulative Projects

Future 2015 Base Plus Project

No. Intersection AM PM AM PM AM PM

1 Polk Street / Glenoaks Boulevard B B C C C C 2 Polk Street / I-210 EB Ramp E A F A F B 3 Polk Street / I-210 WB Ramp C A C A C B 4 Polk Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] C B C B C B 5 Polk Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] B A B A B A 6 Sayre Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] C C C D C D 7 Sayre Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] B B B B B B 8 Hubbard Street / Glenoaks Boulevard B C D D D D 9 Hubbard Street / Foothill Boulevard D F E F F F 10 Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramp D C F D F E 11 Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramp D C E D F F 12 Hubbard Street / Gladstone Avenue C A C B D C 13 Hubbard Street / Fenton Avenue B A B A C A 14 Hubbard Street / Eldridge Avenue C B C B E E 15 Hubbard Street / Lexicon Avenue [1] C C C C C D 16 Hubbard Street / Garrick Avenue [1] B B B B B B 17 Hubbard Street / Shablow Avenue [1] A A A A A A 18 Rajah Street/ Gavina Avenue [1] A A A A A A 19 Tibbetts Street / Gavina Avenue [1] A A A A A A 20 Pasha Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] A B A B B C 21 Harding Street / Fenton Avenue [1] A A A A A A 22 Harding Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] A A A A A B 23 Maclay Avenue / Glenoaks Boulevard C B E D E D 24 Maclay Avenue / Foothill Boulevard D F F F F F 25 Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramp E C F E F F 26 Maclay Avenue / I-210 WB Ramp C C E D E E 27 Maclay Avenue / Gladstone Avenue [1] F F F F F F 28 Maclay Avenue / Fenton Avenue [1] B D D F F F










3.13-50


3.13.7.4 Roadway Segment Analysis

The result of adding project traffic to the analyzed roadway segments in 2015 would

result in significant impacts to six roadway segments (see Table 3.13-21).

Table 3.13-21

2015 Roadway Segment Volumes

Daily Volumes

Roadway Segment 2006

2015

Future

Base

2015

With

Project

Percent

Change

Future Base

to Project Impact?

Eldridge Avenue –West of Hubbard St 8,740 9,527 10,097 5.98% No

Eldridge Avenue –East of Pasha St 4,534 4,942 10,947 121.51% Yes

Eldridge Avenue –East of Gridley St 4,289 4,675 7,585 62.25% Yes

Harding Street – North of Eldridge Ave. 1,311 1,429 2,109 47.59% Yes

Maclay Avenue – South of Harding St. 4,478 4,881 5,384 10.31% Yes

Maclay Avenue – North of Gladstone

Ave. 11,150

12,154 14,554 19.75% Yes

Hubbard Street – North of Gladstone

Ave. 26,920

29,343 34,748 18.42% Yes

Polk Street – North of Gladstone Ave. 12,478 13,601 13,826 1.65% No



volumes exceeds the thresholds shown in Table 3.13-10.

Although significant impacts would be realized at six of eight studied roadway segments,

all of these roadways would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS)

through completion of the College Master Plan except Hubbard Street north of Gladstone

Avenue (LOS F). According to the Sylmar Community Plan (see Section 3.5.5) Objective

10-1, roadways should not exceed LOS D. All of the studied roadway segments would

operate at LOS D or better through 2015 except Hubbard Street north of Gladstone

Avenue.

Eldridge Avenue, Maclay Avenue, and Hubbard Street are not local residential streets

and therefore not subject to the thresholds listed in Table 3.13-10.

3.13.7.5 Parking

As shown in Table 3.13-22, a phased parking program would be designed to

accommodate up to 2,424 parking stalls in parking structures and surface parking areas.

For each element of the proposed project, sufficient parking would be constructed to

accommodate any existing parking spaces displaced by construction, and, as demon-



3.13-51

strated in the following analysis, sufficient additional parking would also be constructed

to accommodate the parking demand generated by the construction of the proposed

project element.

Table 3.13-22

Cumulative Parking by Each Phase

LAMC Campus Harding Street Site

Existing

Under

Construction Phase I Phase II Phase I Phase II

Parking Structures - 1,200 1,200

1570

(370)

- 550

Surface Parking 788 a 389 235

(-154)

117

(-118)

131 -

On-Street Parking 128 b 187 c

(-59)

187 187 - -

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.

Rio Hondo College recently has embarked on an expansion plan to accommodate

increased enrollment. In its parking evaluation, it considered a ratio of 0.181 parking

spaces to the number of daily students to be adequate for planning purposes. Because of

its location apart from residential areas, Rio Hondo College has a lower of fraction of

students who are located in the immediate neighborhood who attend the school, so the

parking needs are likely to be lower at Mission College and using the same demand ratio

would be conservative. Based on the Rio Hondo College ratio, the current level of 4,363

daily students and staff at LAMC generates a demand for 4363 x 0.181 = 790 spaces. The

number of daily students and staff is expected to be 8,610 in 2015. Following the same

methodology, this level of activity would generate a parking demand of 8610 x 0.181 =

1158 spaces. Since 2,424 parking spaces (1,874 on LAMC Campus + 550 spaces on the

Harding Street Site) are planned by that time (see Table 3.13-17), parking would be

adequate under the proposed project, and no significant parking impacts would occur.

3.13.7.6 Congestion Management Program Analysis

The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was created statewide as a result of

Proposition 111 that included a gas tax increase to fund both regional and local

transportation improvements. The CMP implementing arm is usually the local congestion

management agency, and in this region the Los Angeles County Metropolitan

Transportation Authority (LACMTA) is the implementing agency. The CMP for Los



3.13-52

Angeles County requires that the traffic impact of individual development projects of

potentially regional significance be analyzed for CMP traffic impacts. A specific system

of arterial roadways, plus all freeways, comprises the CMP system. A total of 161

intersections had been identified for monitoring throughout the Los Angeles County CMP

system. This section describes the project-related analysis of the CMP system. The

analysis has been conducted according to the guidelines set forth in the 2002 Congestion

Management Program for Los Angeles County. Per CMP Transportation Impact Analysis

(TIA) Guidelines, a traffic impact analysis is conducted where:

• At CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including freeway on- or off-

ramps, where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either

mid-day or PM weekday peak hours.

• At CMP mainline freeway monitoring locations where the project will add

150 or more trips, in either direction, during the either the AM or PM

weekday peak hours.

Intersection Analysis

There are no CMP arterial monitoring intersections in the study area.

Freeway Segment Analysis

The I-210 (Foothill Freeway) is the only CMP route within the project study area. A local

CMP monitoring facility has been defined as the I-210 east of Polk Street. Volumes from

Los Angeles County CMP 2004 report were utilized to define the existing demand on the

I-210 facility. Existing daily volumes on the I-210 freeway to the east of Polk Street is

94,000 vehicles.

Per CMP Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines a traffic impact analysis is

conducted where the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either

the AM or PM weekday peak hours. The project will not add more than 150 trips to this

freeway facility and the monitoring facility during the AM or PM peak hours (see Table

3.13-18). Therefore, no further CMP analysis is warranted.

Table 3.13-23

Project Added Trips at CMP Freeway Monitoring Location

AM Peak Hour

Project Added Trips

PM Peak Hour

Project Added Trips CMP Freeway Analysis Segment EB WB EB WB

Foothill Freeway (I-210) east of Polk Street 30 24 27 27

Based on the CMP analysis guidelines, the freeway segment would not carry in excess of

150 directional project-added trips and therefore does not warrant the need to conduct a

CMP freeway segment analysis, and no significant impact would occur.



3.13-53

3.13.7.7 Future Site Access and Circulation

As discussed in Section 3.13.3.2, the project would make several site access and

circulation improvements. No significant adverse impacts would occur.

3.13.7.8 Cumulative Impacts

By 2015 the related projects listed in Table 3.13-13 coupled with ambient growth and

Project added traffic, would have significant cumulative impacts as defined in the

significant impact criteria presented in Table 3.13-9 (Significant Impact Thresholds for

Intersections) at the sites twelve (12) intersections:

• Hubbard Street / Glenoaks Boulevard

• Hubbard Street / Foothill Boulevard

• Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramps

• Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramps

• Hubbard Street / Gladstone Avenue

• Hubbard Street / Eldridge Avenue

• Maclay Avenue / Glenoaks Boulevard

• Maclay Avenue / Foothill Boulevard

• Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramp

• Maclay Avenue / I-210 WB Ramp

• Maclay Avenue / Gladstone Avenue

• Maclay Avenue / Fenton Avenue

3.13.8 Mitigation Measures

3.13.8.1 Project and Cumulative Impact Intersection Mitigation Measures

The proposed Mission College Master Plan buildout is anticipated to contribute traffic

volume to the surrounding roadway circulation system resulting in significant traffic

impacts at twelve (12) study intersections. The project proponent’s response and plan of

action to mitigate these traffic impacts by phase are as follows:

Phase 1 - 2010

T-1 Hubbard Street / Foothill Boulevard: The District shall provide restriping to add a

westbound right-turn lane at the completion of Project Construction.

T-2 Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramps: The District shall provide fair share contribu-

tion to restriping to add a northbound right turn lane (requires removing parking



3.13-54

from NB leg between Foothill Blvd and EB ramps) at the completion of Project

Construction.

T-3 Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramps: The District shall fund the purchase and

installation of ATSAC control at this location and for inclusion of the intersection

in the ATCS network at the completion of Project Construction.

T-4 Hubbard Street / Gladstone Avenue: The District shall fund the purchase and



T-5 Hubbard Street / Eldridge Avenue: The District shall fund the purchase and


in the ATCS network and restriping to add a westbound left-turn lane with

necessary signal modifications at the completion of Project Construction.

T-6 Maclay Avenue / Glenoaks Boulevard: The District shall fund the purchase and



T-7 Maclay Avenue / Foothill Boulevard: The District shall fund the purchase and



T-8 Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramps: The District shall provide fair share

contributions for restriping to add a northbound through-right and a southbound

left at the completion of Project Construction.

T-9 Maclay Avenue / I-210 WB Ramps: The District shall fund the purchase and



T-10 Maclay Avenue / Gladstone Avenue: The District shall provide fund the purchase

and installation of a traffic signal at the completion of Project Construction.

T-11 Maclay Avenue / Fenton Avenue: The District shall provide fund the purchase

and installation of a traffic signal at the completion of Project Construction.

Phase 2 - 2015

T-12 Hubbard Street / Glenoaks Boulevard: The District shall fund the purchase and



The LOS calculation worksheets for the Future (2015) Base Plus Project (Mitigated)

conditions are provided in Appendix H of Appendix E of this EIR. The traffic signal

warrant analysis is provided in Appendix I of Appendix E of this EIR.



3.13-55

3.13.8.2 Project Roadway Mitigations

The proposed Mission College Master Plan buildout is anticipated to contribute traffic

volume to the surrounding roadway circulation system resulting in significant traffic

impacts at three (3) study roadway segments. The project proponent’s response and plan

of action to mitigate these traffic impacts by phase is as follows.

LADOT guidelines state that if significant traffic impacts occur on roadway segments

and no physical roadway improvements can be realized the project applicant should

coordinate with LADOT to develop a Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Plan.

The affected roadway segments are bordered by single-family residential on one or both

sides. This makes widening these roadways infeasible. Therefore, to mitigate project

traffic impacts to these roadways, a Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan must be

developed.

Phase 1 – 2010 (and updated in Phase II – 2015)

T-13 The District shall develop a Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Plan for

Gridley Street (Eldridge Ave. to Fenton Ave.), Fenton Avenue (Gridley St. to Maclay

Ave.), and Harding Street (Eldridge Ave. to Fenton Ave.). The NTM shall be developed

in consultation with LADOT and shall be finalized by the completion of Project

Construction. The plan shall include the following:

• Public outreach to residents in affected neighborhoods

• Description of existing facility and neighborhood traffic conditions and

new roadway counts if necessary

• Descriptions of proposed neighborhood traffic controls including

preliminary street modification plans

• Analysis of any change in existing or future patterns as a result of

implementation of the plan

• Analysis of new area signage program for orientation

• Presentation of alternatives to the public

• Cost estimate and implementation and monitoring program

• Funding responsibility and guarantees

Potential measures to control College related traffic include:

• Signage in the study area directing users to the College via major

roadways and signage indicating “Neighborhood Traffic Only and “No

Through Traffic”

• Speed Humps (neighborhood initiated, College funded)

• Traffic Circles (neighborhood initiated, College funded)



3.13-56

• Parking Facilities / Access (school initiated new parking, driveways, and

Eldridge Ave. extension)

3.13.9 Level of Significance after Mitigation

Phase 1 - 2010

Implementation of T-1 through T-11 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level

on all intersections except Hubbard Street/I-210 westbound ramps during the a.m. and

p.m. peak hours. Impacts to Hubbard Street/I-210 westbound ramps during a.m. and p.m.

peak hours would remain significant and unavoidable.

Implementation of T-13 would reduce project impacts on Gridley Street, Fenton Avenue,

and Harding Street by diverting College related traffic onto major roadways using

signage and traffic calming measures. These measures would reduce project impacts to

roadways to a less than significant level.

Phase 2 – 2015

Implementation of T-12 would reduce impacts on Hubbard Street / Glenoaks Boulevard

to a less than significant level. Impacts to Hubbard Street/I-210 westbound ramps during

a.m. and p.m. peak hours would remain significant and unavoidable. Table 3.13-24

shows the future (2015) impacts after mitigation implementation.

3.13.10 Significant Unavoidable Impacts

No feasible mitigation measures are available to reduce the project’s future significant

impacts on Hubbard Street/I-210 westbound ramps during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours

at the completion of either Phase 1 - 2010 or Phase 2 - 2015. Impacts to this intersection

remain significant and unavoidable because improvements to this ramp would be

physically and institutionally infeasible. There is insufficient right of way to improve the

intersection by widening it. Since the intersection is owned and operated by Caltrans,

Caltrans would need to initiate a more global interchange improvement before on-ramp

improvements would be made. Caltrans has no published plans to make such

improvements. Completing planning, design, and construction of such a plan would take

many years and has not been funded.



3.13-57

Table 3.13-24 – 2015 Impacts after Mitigation Implementation

LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C2015 AM

with Project

2015 PM with

Project

1 Polk Street / Glenoaks Boulevard C 0.782 C 0.71 C 0.79 C 0.724 C 0.79 C 0.724 No No

2 Polk Street / I-210 EB Ramps F 1.008 A 0.600 F 1.008 B 0.602 F 1.008 B 0.602 No No

3 Polk Street / I-210 WB Ramps C 0.784 A 0.597 C 0.787 B 0.601 C 0.787 B 0.601 No No

4 Polk Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] C 24 sec B 14.1 sec C 24.8 sec B 14.4 sec C 24.8 sec B 14.4 sec No No

5 Polk Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] B 11.7 sec A 9.4 sec B 12.5 sec A 9.8 sec B 12.5 sec A 9.8 sec No No

6 Sayre Street / Gladstone Avenue [1] C 21.7 sec D 25.6 sec C 21.7 sec D 25.6 sec C 21.7 sec D 25.6 sec No No

7 Sayre Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] B 13.6 sec B 13 sec B 14.6 sec B 13.7 sec B 14.6 sec B 13.7 sec No No

8 Hubbard Street / Glenoaks Boulevard D 0.829 D 0.855 D 0.847 D 0.877 C 0.747 C 0.777 No No

9 Hubbard Street / Foothill Boulevard E 0.998 F 1.155 F 1.031 F 1.179 E 0.958 F 1.085 No No

10 Hubbard Street / I-210 EB Ramps F 1.002 D 0.815 F 1.066 E 0.912 D 0.886 C 0.754 No No

11 Hubbard Street / I-210 WB Ramps E 0.957 D 0.820 F 1.260 F 1.148 F 1.160 F 1.048 Yes Yes

12 Hubbard Street / Gladstone Avenue C 0.779 B 0.644 D 0.855 C 0.736 C 0.755 B 0.636 No No

13 Hubbard Street / Fenton Avenue B 0.676 A 0.469 C 0.753 A 0.570 C 0.753 A 0.570 No No

14 Hubbard Street / Eldridge Avenue C 0.789 B 0.668 E 0.939 E 0.929 C 0.762 C 0.711 No No

15 Hubbard Street / Lexicon Avenue [1] B 16.7 sec C 21.6 sec C 22.5 sec D 25.1 sec C 22.5 sec D 25.1 sec No No

16 Hubbard Street / Garrick Avenue [1] B 14.1 sec B 13.9 sec B 14.5 sec B 14.2 sec B 14.5 sec B 14.2 sec No No

17 Hubbard Street / Shablow Avenue [1] A 8.3 sec A 8.2 sec A 8.4 sec A 8.3 sec A 8.4 sec A 8.3 sec No No

18 Rajah Street / Gavina Avenue [1] A 9.3 sec A 9.8 sec A 9.5 sec A 9.9 sec A 9.5 sec A 9.9 sec No No

19 Tibbetts Street / Gavina Avenue [1] A 7.4 sec A 7.6 sec A 7.5 sec A 7.7 sec A 7.5 sec A 7.7 sec No No

20 Pasha Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] A 9.3 sec B 11.3 sec B 14.7 sec C 21.8 sec B 14.7 sec C 21.8 sec No No

21 Harding Street / Fenton Avenue [1] A 8.7 sec A 8 sec A 9.5 sec A 8.6 sec A 9.5 sec A 8.6 sec No No

22 Harding Street / Eldridge Avenue [1] A 7.7 sec A 8.7 sec A 9.4 sec B 10.6 sec A 9.4 sec B 10.6 sec No No

23 Maclay Avenue / Glenoaks Avenue E 0.932 D 0.813 E 0.946 D 0.827 D 0.846 C 0.727 No No

24 Maclay Avenue / Foothill Boulevard F 1.215 F 1.320 F 1.242 F 1.346 F 1.142 F 1.246 No No

25 Maclay Avenue / I-210 EB Ramps F 1.195 E 0.995 F 1.269 F 1.076 E 0.955 B 0.687 No No

26 Maclay Avenue / I-210 WB Ramps E 0.949 D 0.861 E 0.987 E 0.902 D 0.887 D 0.802 No No

27 Maclay Avenue / Gladstone Avenue [1] F 212.5 sec F 108.9 sec F 298.9 sec F 171.4 sec C 0.789 D 0.817 No No

28 Maclay Avenue / Fenton Avenue [1] D 34.9 sec F 64 sec F 90.7 sec F 127.6 sec C 0.731 C 0.730 No No

Impacts (Compared to

2015 Base)

Intersection

Mitigated 2015 with Project

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

2015 Base 2015 with Project

AM Peak Hour PM Peak HourPM Peak HourAM Peak Hour

Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan Draft ... Settings... · Los Angeles Mission...

Documents

Transcript of Los Angeles Mission College Facilities Master Plan Draft ... Settings... · Los Angeles Mission...