VAN DE KAMP INNOVATION CENTER
SUBSEQUENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Prepared for
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Prepared by
TERRY A. HAYES ASSOCIATES INC.
MAY 2013
TAHA 2012-061
VAN DE KAMP INNOVATION CENTER
SUBSEQUENT DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Prepared for
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
770 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Prepared by
TERRY A. HAYES ASSOCIATES INC.
8522 National Boulevard, Suite 102
Culver City, CA 90232
May 2013
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1
Purpose of this Report .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2
Authorization and Focus....................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3
Project Applicant and Lead Agency ..................................................................................... 1-1
1.4
Responsible Agency ............................................................................................................. 1-2
1.5
Intended Use of this Subsequent Draft EIR.......................................................................... 1-2
1.6
Subsequent Draft EIR Organization ..................................................................................... 1-2
1.7
Public Review and Comments.............................................................................................. 1-2
1.8
Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved ........................................................................ 1-3
2.0
SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2
Summary of Proposed Project .............................................................................................. 2-1
2.3
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ................................................................................... 2-2
2.4
Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant ................................. 2-2
2.5
Less-Than-Significant or No Impact .................................................................................... 2-2
2.6
Summary of Alternatives...................................................................................................... 2-2
3.0
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................................ 3-1
3.1
Project Background .............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2
Project Location and Surrounding Uses ............................................................................... 3-5
3.3
Project Objectives............................. ................................................................................... 3-6
3.4
Project Description ............................................................................................................... 3-6
3.5
Discretionary Actions and Approvals................................................................................. 3-10
4.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1
Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 4.1-1
4.2
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 4.2-1
4.3
Land Use and Planning...................................................................................................... 4.3-1
4.4
Noise and Vibration........................................................................................................... 4.4-1
4.5
Transportation and Traffic ................................................................................................. 4.5-1
4.6
Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................................... 4.6-1
5.0
ALTERNATIVES............................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1
Project-Level Impacts ........................................................................................................... 5-2
5.2
Alternatives to the Proposed Project .................................................................................... 5-3
6.0
OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................... 6-1
6.1
Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project ................................................. 6-1
6.2
Significant Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided if the Proposed Project
is Implemented ..................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.3
Significant Irreversible Environmental Effects .................................................................... 6-1
6.4
Effects Determined Not to be Significant ............................................................................ 6-2
6.5
Growth Inducing Impacts ..................................................................................................... 6-4
taha 2012-061
ii
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
7.0
PERSONS AND SOURCES CONSULTED ................................................................................. 7-1
7.1
Persons and Agencies Consulted .......................................................................................... 7-1
7.2
Sources Consulted ................................................................................................................ 7-1
7.3
Preparers of this EIR ............................................................................................................ 7-2
TECHNICAL APPENDICES
Appendix A Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comments to NOP
Appendix B Air Quality Data
Appendix C Noise Data
Appendix D Traffic Study
taha 2012-061
iii
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1
Figure 3-2
Figure 3-3
Figure 4.1-1
Figure 4.1-2
Figure 4.1-3
Figure 4.3-1
Figure 4.3-2
Figure 4.4-1
Figure 4.4-2
Figure 4.4-3
Figure 4.5-1
Figure 4.5-2
Figure 4.5-3
Figure 4.5-4
Figure 4.5-5
Figure 4.5-6
Figure 4.5-7
Figure 4.5-8
Figure 4.5-9
Figure 4.5-10
Figure 4.5-11
Figure 4.5-12
Figure 4.5-13
Figure 4.5-14
Figure 4.5-15
Figure 4.5-16
Figure 4.5-17
Figure 4.5-18
Figure 4.5-19
Figure 4.5-20
Figure 4.5-21
Figure 4.5-22
Figure 4.5-23
Figure 4.5-24
Figure 4.6-1
taha 2012-061
Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 3-2
Project Site and Surrounding Land Uses .............................................................................. 3-3
Vehicle Circulation............................................................................................................... 3-4
South Coast Air Basin ....................................................................................................... 4.1-6
Air Quality Monitoring Areas ........................................................................................... 4.1-9
Air Quality Sensitive Receptor Locations ....................................................................... 4.1-11
General Plan Land Use Designations ................................................................................ 4.3-3
Zoning Designations.......................................................................................................... 4.3-5
A-Weighted Decibel Scale ................................................................................................ 4.4-2
Noise Monitoring Locations .............................................................................................. 4.4-7
Noise Sensitive Receptors ................................................................................................. 4.4-9
Location of Project and Analyzed Intersections ................................................................ 4.5-3
Existing 2012 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ....................................................................... 4.5-5
Project Trip Distribution – Existing High School/On-Site Trips ...................................... 4.5-8
Existing High School/On-Site Trips Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .................................... 4.5-9
Existing 2012 Baseline Peak Hour Traffic Volumes....................................................... 4.5-11
Vehicle Circulation.......................................................................................................... 4.5-13
Existing Transit Lines...................................................................................................... 4.5-14
Project Trip Distribution – Community College/Adult Education .................................. 4.5-19
Project Only (Option 1) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...................................................... 4.5-20
Project Only (Option 2) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...................................................... 4.5-21
Project Only (Option 3) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...................................................... 4.5-22
Project Only (Option 4) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes...................................................... 4.5-23
Existing (2012) Baseline Plus Project (Option 1) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............. 4.5-24
Existing (2012) Baseline Plus Project (Option 2) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............. 4.5-25
Existing (2012) Baseline Plus Project (Option 3) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............. 4.5-26
Existing (2012) Baseline Plus Project (Option 4) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes .............. 4.5-27
Existing Baseline Plus Ambient Growth (2014) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes ................ 4.5-29
Location of Related Projects ........................................................................................... 4.5-30
Related Projects Only Peak Traffic Volumes .................................................................. 4.5-32
Cumulative (2014) Base Peak Hour Traffic Volumes..................................................... 4.5-33
Cumulative (2014) Plus Project (Option 1) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................ 4.5-34
Cumulative (2014) Plus Project (Option 2) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................ 4.5-35
Cumulative (2014) Plus Project (Option 3) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................ 4.5-36
Cumulative (2014) Plus Project (Option 4) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes........................ 4.5-37
Related Projects ................................................................................................................. 4.6-1
iv
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1
Table 3-1
Table 3-2
Table 3-3
Table 3-4
Table 4.1-1
Table 4.1-2
Table 4.1-3
Table 4.1-4
Table 4.1-5
Table 4.1-6
Table 4.2-1
Table 4.2-2
Table 4.2-3
Table 4.2-4
Table 4.2-5
Table 4.3-1
Table 4.4-1
Table 4.4-2
Table 4.4-3
Table 4.4-4
Table 4.4-5
Table 4.4-6
Table 4.4-7
Table 4.5-1
Table 4.5-2
Table 4.5-3
Table 4.5-4
Table 4.5-5
Table 4.5-6
Table 4.5-7
Table 4.5-8
Table 4.5-9
Table 4.5-10
Table 4.5-11
Table 4.5-12
Table 4.5-12
Table 4.5-12
Table 4.5-12
taha 2012-061
Significant Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...................................................................... 2-4
Option 1 - College and High School Mix ............................................................................. 3-7
Option 2 - High School and Adult Education/Workforce Training Mix .............................. 3-8
Option 3 - Current Mix ......................................................................................................... 3-9
Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix ........................................................... 3-9
State and National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status for the
South Coast Air Basin ....................................................................................................... 4.1-4
Ambient Air Quality Data ............................................................................................... 4.1-10
SCAQMD Daily Operational Emissions Thresholds ...................................................... 4.1-12
Daily Operational Emissions – Existing Plus Project (2012) .......................................... 4.1-14
Daily Operational Emissions – Future With Project (2014)............................................ 4.1-15
Roadway Carbon Monoxide Concentrations................................................................... 4.1-15
California Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory .............................................................. 4.2-6
Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Existing Plus Project Conditions ........................... 4.2-9
Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Future With Project (2014) ................................. 4.2-10
Project Consistency with Applicable Attorney General Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Measures .......................................................................................................................... 4.2-11
Project Consistency with CAPCOA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures ................... 4.2-11
Applicable General Plan Objectives, Policies and Actions ............................................... 4.3-4
Applicable General Plan Objectives, Policies and Actions ............................................... 4.4-4
Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Environments ......................................... 4.4-5
Existing Noise Levels ........................................................................................................ 4.4-6
Mobile Source Noise – Option 1 - College and High School Mix .................................. 4.4-10
Mobile Source Noise – Option 2 - High School and Adult/Workforce Training Mix .... 4.4-11
Mobile Source Noise – Option 3 - Current Mix .............................................................. 4.4-11
Mobile Source Noise – Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix ................ 4.4-11
Level of Service Criteria for Signalized Intersections....................................................... 4.5-4
Existing 2012 Intersection Level of Service Summary ..................................................... 4.5-7
Existing On-Site Trip Generation...................................................................................... 4.5-7
Comparison of Intersection Level of Service Analysis Existing vs. Baseline
Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 4.5-10
LADOT Criteria for a Significant Intersection Impact.................................................... 4.5-15
Estimated Weekday Trip Generation by Option ............................................................. 4.5-18
Estimated Weekday Trip Generation of Related Projects ............................................... 4.5-31
Summary of Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions Option 1 .... 4.5-38
Summary of Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions Option 2 .... 4.5-39
Summary of Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions Option 3 .... 4.5-40
Summary of Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Existing Conditions Option 4 .... 4.5-41
Summary of Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Future Conditions Option 1 ....... 4.9-42
Summary of Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Future Conditions Option 2 ....... 4.9-43
Summary of Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Future Conditions Option 3 ....... 4.9-44
Summary of Intersection Level of Service Analysis – Future Conditions Option 4 ....... 4.9-45
v
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Page
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.6-1
Table 4.6-2
Table 4.6-3
Table 4.6-4
Table 4.6-5
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 5-3
Table 5-4
taha 2012-061
Related Projects ................................................................................................................. 4.6-1
Cumulative Mobile Source Noise/Option 1 – College and High School Mix................... 4.6-4
Cumulative Mobile Source Noise/Option 2 – High School and Adult Education/
Workforce Training Mix ................................................................................................... 4.6-4
Cumulative Mobile Source Noise/Option 3 – Current Mix............................................... 4.6-4
Cumulative Mobile Source Noise/Option 4 – Office University Collaboration Mix ........ 4.6-5
Summary of Impact Thresholds ........................................................................................... 5-5
No Build Alternative Regional Emissions Comparison ....................................................... 5-6
No Build Alternative GHG Emissions Comparison ............................................................. 5-7
Summary of Better/Worse Impacts Between the Alternatives and Proposed Project .......... 5-8
vi
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
1.0 Introduction
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter provides an overview of the purpose and focus of the Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR), a discussion of the intended use of this Subsequent Draft EIR, a description of the organization
of the Subsequent Draft EIR, and a discussion of the public review process and potential areas of
controversy.
1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
The purpose of an EIR, as defined in Section 15121 (a) of the State Guidelines for the implementation of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6,
Chapter 3 “Guidelines,” is to “inform public agency decision-makers and the public generally of the potential
significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effect and
describe reasonable alternatives to the project.”
The Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) Board of Trustees certified an EIR for the
construction of a satellite campus for Los Angeles City College in 2001. Subsequent to the certification of
this EIR, two Addendums to this EIR were prepared for minor changes to the satellite campus project.
However, due to the budget strains, LACCD’s plans to establish a satellite campus on the project site have
been temporarily scaled back. In the interim, LACCD maintains offices at the project site and leases out
underutilized facilities to tenants with an educational focus. Since the interim uses have the potential to
result in new unforeseen physical impacts to the environment, the purpose of this Subsequent Draft EIR is to
reevaluate potential environmental impacts based on the current and potential future use of the Van de Kamp
Innovation Center facilities. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that a Subsequent EIR shall
be prepared if the Lead Agency determines that there is new information of substantial importance, which
was not known and could not have been known at the time a previous EIR was certified as complete.
1.2 AUTHORIZATION AND FOCUS
This Subsequent Draft EIR has been prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, as amended to
date. The following topic areas are addressed in this Subsequent Draft EIR:
•
•
•
•
•
Air Quality
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Land Use and Planning
Noise and Vibration
Traffic and Transportation
1.3 PROJECT APPLICANT AND LEAD AGENCY
In accordance with Sections 15367 and 15351 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the LACCD is the Applicant
and the Lead Agency. Section 15351 of the CEQA Guidelines defines the Applicant as the person who
proposes to carry out a project which needs a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use or
financial assistance from one or more public agencies when that person applies for the governmental
approval or assistance. Section 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines defines the Lead Agency as the public
agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project.
taha 2012-061
1-1
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
1.0 Introduction
1.4 RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
The City of Los Angeles has been identified as a Responsible Agency, per Section 15381 of the CEQA
Guidelines, with regard to changes to City-maintained infrastructure, such as roads and utilities. Other
agencies that may have a role in project approvals may include, but are not limited to, Los Angeles
Department of Transportation (LADOT) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
1.5 INTENDED USE OF THIS SUBSEQUENT DRAFT EIR
This Subsequent Draft EIR was prepared at the direction and under the supervision of the LACCD, the Lead
Agency for the proposed project. The intended use of this Subsequent Draft EIR is to assist the LACCD in
making decisions regarding the approval of the proposed project.
1.6 SUBSEQUENT DRAFT EIR ORGANIZATION
1.0 INTRODUCTION. As stated above, this chapter contains an overview of the purpose and focus of the
Subsequent Draft EIR, a discussion of the intended use of this Subsequent Draft EIR, a description of the
organization of the Subsequent Draft EIR, and a discussion of the public review process and potential areas
of controversy.
2.0 SUMMARY. This chapter provides a summary of the proposed project, its potential environmental
effects and mitigation measures, and a summary of the alternatives to the proposed project evaluated in this
Subsequent Draft EIR.
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION. This chapter describes the project location, existing conditions, project
objectives, and a description of the proposed project.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. This chapter contains the environmental setting, project analyses,
mitigation measures, and conclusions regarding the level of significance after mitigation for each of the
environmental issues identified above.
5.0 ALTERNATIVES. This chapter provides analysis of each of the alternatives to the proposed project.
6.0. OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS. This chapter provides a discussion of the (1) significant
environmental effects of the proposed project, (2) significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if
the proposed project is implemented, (3) significant irreversible environmental changes that would result
from implementation of the proposed project, and (4) growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project.
7.0 PERSONS AND SOURCES CONSULTED. This chapter lists all of the persons, public agencies, and
organizations that were consulted or contributed and all the references and sources used in the preparation of
this Subsequent Draft EIR.
1.7 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENTS
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for this Subsequent Draft EIR was issued on September 12, 2012 by the
LACCD for a 30-day public review period. A total of 23 comment letters were received. Information, data
and observations resulting from these letters are included throughout this Subsequent Draft EIR where
relevant. The NOP and copies of each comment letter received are included in Appendix A of this
Subsequent Draft EIR.
taha 2012-061
1-2
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
1.0 Introduction
A public scoping meeting was held on September 19, 2012. The purpose of this meeting was to provide
early consultation for the public to express their concerns about the proposed project, and acquire
information and make recommendations on issues to be addressed in the Subsequent Draft EIR.
In accordance with Sections 15087 and 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines, this Subsequent Draft EIR is being
circulated for a 45-day public review period. Responsible and trustee agencies and the public are invited to
comment in writing on the information contained in this document. Persons and agencies commenting are
encouraged to provide information that they believe is missing from the Subsequent Draft EIR and to
identify where the information can be obtained. All comment letters received concerning the Subsequent
Draft EIR will be responded to in writing, and the comment letters, together with the responses to those
comments will be included in a Subsequent Final EIR. Comment letters should be sent to:
Adriana Barrera, Deputy Chancellor
Facilities Planning and Development
Los Angeles Community College District
770 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Fax: (213) 891-2195
E-mail: BarrerAD@email.laccd.edu
1.8 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Potential areas of controversy and issues to be resolved by the decision-makers may include environmental
concerns expressed by the community in the NOP comment letters. Based on the NOP comment letters,
issues known to be of concern to the community include Air Quality and Traffic and Transportation. Refer
to Appendix A for copies of the NOP comment letters.
taha 2012-061
1-3
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
2.0 Summary
2.0 SUMMARY
This chapter of the Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contains an overview of the Van
de Kamp Innovation Center (proposed project), its potential environmental effects and mitigation measures,
and a summary of the alternatives to the proposed project evaluated in this Subsequent Draft EIR.
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) Board of Trustees certified an EIR for the
construction of a satellite campus for Los Angeles City College in 2001. Subsequent to the certification of
this EIR, two Addendums to this EIR were prepared for minor changes to the satellite campus project.
However, due to the budget strains, LACCD’s plans to establish a satellite campus on the project site have
been temporarily scaled back. In the interim, LACCD maintains offices at the project site and leases out
underutilized facilities to tenants with an educational focus. Since the interim uses have the potential to
result in new unforeseen physical impacts to the environment, the purpose of this Subsequent Draft EIR is to
reevaluate potential environmental impacts based on the current and potential future use of the Van de Kamp
Innovation Center facilities. Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines states that a Subsequent EIR shall
be prepared if the Lead Agency determines that there is new information of substantial importance, which
was not known and could not have been known at the time a previous EIR was certified as complete.
2.2 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The future use of the Van de Kamp Innovation Center is envisioned to accommodate multiple uses that could
include a High School, College, Office, and Adult Education/Workforce Training. The four occupancy
options under consideration for the future use of the Van de Kamp Innovation Center include:
Option 1 - College and High School Mix. Under Option 1, the predominant daytime use of the New
Educational Building would be a high school, while the predominant evening use would be a college. The
capacity of persons on-site for the three buildings would be 805 in the morning and afternoon, and decrease
to 665 in the evening.
Option 2 - High School and Adult Education/Workforce Training Mix. Under Option 2, the predominant
daytime use of the New Educational Building would be a high school. The predominant evening use would be
adult education/workforce training. The capacity of persons on-site for the three buildings would be 695 in the
morning, decrease to 635 in the afternoon, and decrease further to 570 in the evening.
Option 3 - Current Mix (High School, Adult Education/Workforce Training, and Office). Option 3 is
comparable to current uses operating on-site and includes high school, adult education/workforce training,
and office uses. The predominant daytime and evening use would be a high school. The capacity of persons
for the three buildings would be 715 in the morning and afternoon, and decrease to 265 in the evening.
Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix. Under Option 4, the predominant daytime and
evening use of the New Educational Building would be a college. The capacity of persons on-site for the
three buildings would be 434 in the morning, decrease to 224 in the afternoon, and increase to 374 in the
evening.
taha 2010-075
2-1
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
2.0 Summary
2.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
Section 15382 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as “a
substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within an area
affected by the project, including land, air, water, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or
aesthetic significance.” In order to approve a project with significant and unavoidable impacts, the lead
agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (in accordance with Section 15093 of the State
CEQA Guidelines) indicating that the benefits of approving the proposed project outweigh the negative
environmental consequences.
Based on the analysis contained in this Subsequent Draft EIR, the proposed project would create significant
and unavoidable impacts related to the following topic:
•
Air Quality (Regional Emissions). Significant and unavoidable impacts related to regional nitrogen
oxide (NOX) emissions have been identified as a result of the implementation of Options 1 and 2.
Regional NOX emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold under existing plus project conditions.
The emissions would not be significant two years later in 2014 as fleet turnover would result in increased
engine efficiency and decreased emissions. LACCD cannot regulate vehicle emissions; therefore, there
is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level.
2.4 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED
TO LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Table 2-1, at the end of this chapter, provides a summary of significant impacts that would result from the
implementation of the proposed project and the mitigation measures that would reduce them to less than
significant.
2.5 LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT OR NO IMPACT
Based on the analysis contained in this Subsequent Draft EIR, the following were found to result in a lessthan-significant impact or no impact:
•
•
•
•
Air Quality (Localized Emissions, Toxic Air Contaminants, Odors, and Applicable Plans, Policies or
Regulations)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Applicable Plans, Policies or Regulations)
Land Use and Planning (Land Use Compatibility, Land Use Consistency and Habitat Conservation Plans)
Noise and Vibration (Noise and Ground-borne Vibration)
2.6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the
project that could feasibly avoid or lessen significant environmental impacts while substantially attaining the
basic objectives of the project. 1 An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. The
range of feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner intended to foster meaningful public
participation and informed decision making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when
addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) are
1
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, § 15126.6.
taha 2010-075
2-2
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
2.0 Summary
environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan
consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent could reasonably
acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.
The alternatives considered for the proposed project include:
Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative is required by Section 15126.6 (e)(2)
of the CEQA Guidelines and assumes that the proposed project would not be implemented. The No Project
Alternative allows decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the
impacts of not approving the proposed project. However, “no project” does not necessarily mean that
development on the project site will be prohibited. The No Project Alternative includes “what would be
reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current
plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” (CEQA Section 15126.6 [e][2]).
In this case, the No Project Alternative is comparable to Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix
of the proposed project. Similar to Option 4, the No Project Alternative assumes the existing charter high
school operating on the project site would relocate to a new location, and the buildings on-site would
eventually be re-occupied with a satellite community college campus for Los Angeles City College. This is
because an EIR and two addendums have already been prepared to analyze potential impacts from a satellite
community college campus. For purposes of this Subsequent Draft EIR, the “project” is one of four mixed
uses, which may or may not include a satellite community college campus.
Under the No Project Alternative, the Old Bakery Building would be used for college classrooms resulting in
more persons on-site compared to Option 4 which assumes that the Old Bakery Building would be used
solely for office uses. 2,3 However, during the peak hours, office uses result in more vehicle trips than college
since class scheduling dictates when students would be on-site. Therefore, the No Project Alternative is
comparable to Option 4.
Alternative 2 – Reduced Options Alternative. The Reduced Options Alternative would include the same
uses as the proposed project (Options 1 through 4). However, under the Reduced Options Alternative, the
academic programs and class schedules would be structured to control peak hour vehicle trips entering and
exiting the project site such that the traffic impacts related to the circulation system would not occur.
Table 5-1 in Chapter 5.0 Alternatives, identifies the maximum use of the project site during the peak hour
and the corresponding level mitigation (i.e., Travel Demand Management Program, (TDM) Adaptive Traffic
Control System (ATCS), and Closed-Circuit Television Signal System (CCTV) that would be required to
reduce traffic impacts to a less-than-significant level. As shown, under the Reduced Options Alternative, the
AM peak hour trips would need to be limited to 211 trips, and the PM peak hour trips would be limited to
182 trips to reduce traffic impacts to a less-than-significant level without mitigation for Options 1 through 3.
Since Option 4 does not have a high school component, the AM peak hour trips would need to be limited to
59 trips and the PM peak hour trips would be limited to 148 trips to reduce traffic impacts to a less-thansignificant level without mitigation for Option 4.
2
The office uses under Option 4 would result in 54 persons on-site.
Assuming 12 classrooms in the Old Bakery Building, 180 students could be on-site.
3
taha 2010-075
2-3
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
2.0 Summary
TABLE 2-1: IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Category
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Significance After Mitigation
Options 1 and 2
Regional Nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions would exceed
the SCAQMD threshold under existing plus project
conditions. The emissions would not be significant two
years later in 2014 as fleet turnover would result in
increased engine efficiency and decreased emissions.
Nonetheless, without mitigation, Options 1 and 2
existing plus project conditions would result in a
significant impact related to regional emissions.
Options 1 and 2
LACCD cannot regulate vehicle emissions, and no
feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce
the significant impact related to regional air emissions to
less than significant.
Options 1 and 2
Significant and Unavoidable
Options 3 and 4
Daily maximum regional operational emissions would
not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds.
Therefore, Options 3 and 4 would result in a less-thansignificant impacts related to regional emissions.
The State one- and eight-hour standards of 20 and
9.0 ppm, respectively, would not be exceeded under
Options 1 through 4. Therefore, Options 1 through 4
would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
carbon monoxide hotspots.
The SCAQMD recommends that health risk
assessments be conducted for substantial sources of
diesel particulates (e.g., truck stops and warehouse
distribution facilities) and has provided guidance for
analyzing mobile source diesel emissions. Options 1
through 4 would not warrant the need for a health risk
assessment associated with on-site activities.
Options 3 and 4
Impacts related to regional emissions were determined
to be less than significant without mitigation.
Options 3 and 4
Less than Significant
Impacts related to localized operational emissions were
determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
Less than Significant
Impacts related to TAC emissions were determined to
be less than significant without mitigation.
Less than Significant
AIR QUALITY
Regional
Emissions
Localized
Emissions
Toxic Air
Contaminants
The emissions would not be significant two years later in
2014 as fleet turnover would result in increased engine
efficiency and decreased emissions.
CARB recommends against locating educational facilities
within 500 feet of roadways with volumes greater than
100,000 average daily vehicles and high diesel truck
volumes. The project site is located within 500 feet of the
Glendale Freeway (SR-2), which supports 149,000
average daily trips per day near the project site. The
absence of recreational areas combined with the low
regional truck volumes associated with SR-2 would
substantially limit student and staff exposure to mobile
source TACs. Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would
result in less-than-significant impacts related to TAC
exposure.
taha 2012-061
2-4
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
2.0 Summary
TABLE 2-1: IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Category
Odors
Applicable Plans,
Policies or
Regulations
Impact
Options 1 through 4 consist of classroom and office
uses. These land uses are not typically associated with
odor complaints. On-site trash receptacles would have
the potential to create adverse odors. Trash receptacles
would be located and maintained in a manner that
promotes odor control and no adverse odor impacts are
anticipated from these types of land uses. Therefore,
Options 1 through 4 would result in less-than-significant
impacts related to operational odors.
Options 1 through 4 would not result in significant
emissions and would not interfere with the attainment of
air quality standards. Operational activity would not
conflict or obstruct implementation of the AQMP.
Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would result in less-thansignificant impacts related to consistency with the
AQMP.
Mitigation Measures
Impacts related to odor emissions were determined to
be less than significant without mitigation.
Significance After Mitigation
Less than Significant
Impacts related to consistency with applicable plans,
policies, and regulations were determined to be less
than significant without mitigation.
Less than Significant
Impacts related to GHG emissions were determined to
be less than significant without mitigation.
Less than Significant
Impacts related to operational consistency with
applicable plans, policies, and regulations emissions
were determined to be less than significant without
mitigation.
Less than Significant
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Applicable Plans,
Policies or
Regulations
taha 2012-061
Option 1 through 4 would result in 4,268, 4,406, 2,546,
and 3,613 metric tons of CO2e per year, respectively.
GHG emissions would be less than the 10,000 metric
tons of CO2e per year quantitative significance
threshold for all four occupancy options. Therefore,
future with project conditions for Options 1 through 4
would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
GHG emissions.
The CARB AB 32 Scoping Plan contains the main
strategies to achieve the 2020 emissions cap. The
Scoping Plan was developed by the CARB with input
from the Climate Action Team and proposes a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall
carbon emissions in California, improve the
environment, reduce oil dependency, diversify energy
sources, and enhance public health while creating new
jobs and improving the State economy. Options 1
through 4 would meet the objectives and overall intent of
reducing GHGs consistent with AB 32. Therefore,
Options 1 through 4 would result in less-than-significant
impacts related to GHG reduction plans and policies.
2-5
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
2.0 Summary
TABLE 2-1: IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Category
Impact
Mitigation Measures
Significance After Mitigation
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Land Use
Compatibility
The operational characteristics and educational focus of
Options 1 through 4 would be similar to one another and
would be compatible with the surrounding commercial
land uses in the vicinity of the project site. The
occupancy options would function in a manner such that
the surrounding commercial land uses would not be
disrupted, divided, or isolated. Therefore, Options 1
through 4 would result in less-than-significant impacts
related to land use compatibility.
Land Use
Options 1 through 4 provide for expanded and improved
Consistency
educational facilities consistent with the applicable
policies and objectives. The educational focus of the
occupancy options is consistent with the City’s policy to
locate vocational schools in commercial or industrial
areas where training opportunities are enhanced by the
surrounding uses. Likewise, the Adult
Education/Workforce Training programs associated with
Options 1 through 4 are consistent with the City’s policy
to encourage school boards to develop programs in
consultation with local businesses to prepare students
for the job market. Therefore, Options 1 through 4
would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
land use consistency.
Habitat
The project site and the surrounding area is highly
Conservation
urbanized. There are no habitat conservation plans or
Plans
NCCPs applicable to the project site or surrounding
area. Therefore, no impacts related to habitat
conservation Plans would occur.
NOISE AND VIBRATION
Impacts related to land use compatibility were
determined to be less than significant without mitigation
Less than Significant
Impacts related to land use consistency were
determined to be less than significant without mitigation
Less than Significant
No impacts related to habitat conservation plans would
occur; therefore, no mitigation measures were required.
Less than Significant
Noise
Impacts related to noise were determined to be less
than significant without mitigation.
Less than Significant
taha 2012-061
A significant mobile noise impact would occur if noise
levels measured at the property line of the affected uses
would increase by 3 decibel CNEL to or within the
“normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable”
categories, or any 5-dBA or more increase in noise level.
To ascertain mobile noise impacts, future roadway noise
levels were calculated based upon the proximity to noise
sensitive uses and with the most increases in traffic
volume. The roadway noise increase attributed to Options
1 through 4 would be less than 3-dBA CNEL increment at
2-6
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
2.0 Summary
TABLE 2-1: IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Category
Impact
all analyzed segments. In addition, it is LACCD policy
that classrooms are constructed such that interior noise
levels do not exceed a Noise Criteria rating of 25
(equivalent to 35 dBA Leq). Therefore, Options 1 through
4 would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
land use compatibility.
Ground-borne
The proposed project would not include significant
Vibration
stationary sources of ground-borne vibration, such as
heavy equipment operations. As a result, the proposed
project operations would not increase the existing
vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptors. The three
main buildings on the project site may experience
vibration generated by heavy-duty truck activity at
nearby land uses. However, rubber-tired on-road
vehicles rarely generate perceptible vibration at any
distance. Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would result in
a less-than-significant impact related to operational
vibration.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC - OPERATIONS
Circulation
System
Options 1 and 2
Under Options 1 and 2, a significant impact occurs at
two of the 15 analyzed intersections. The San Fernando
Road/Fletcher Drive intersection is impacted during both
the morning and evening peak hours while the San
Fernando Road/SR-2 Southbound Ramps intersection is
impacted during the evening peak hour. Therefore,
without mitigation, Options 1 and 2 would result in a
significant impact related to the circulation system.
Mitigation Measures
Impacts related to vibration were determined to be less
than significant without mitigation.
Less than Significant
Options 1 and 2
TT1 San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive. The Options 1
and 2 related impact under existing baseline and
cumulative conditions would be fully mitigated by
implementing a TDM program to reduce auto travel
during peak commute hours, in conjunction with
contribution towards the design and implementation
of the Eagle Rock Adaptive Traffic Control System
(ATCS) and installation of a CCTV camera at this
location. LACCD will make a fair-share contribution
to these improvements in an amount to be
determined by LADOT.
Less than Significant
As part of the TDM program for these options, the
college/adult education component would need to
be limited to four classrooms during the morning
peak hour. During the evening peak hour, a
maximum of 12 classrooms would begin during the
evening peak hour, and only 4 classes would end
during the evening peak hour. The 550-student high
school component of these options can operate as it
taha 2012-061
Significance After Mitigation
2-7
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
2.0 Summary
TABLE 2-1: IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Category
Impact
Option 3
Under Option 3, a significant impact occurs at one of the
15 analyzed intersections. The San Fernando
Road/Fletcher Drive intersection is impacted during the
morning peak hour. Therefore, without mitigation,
Option 3 would result in a significant impact related to
the circulation system.
Option 4
Under Option 4, a significant impact occurs at one of the
15 analyzed intersections. The San Fernando
Road/Fletcher Drive intersection is impacted during both
the morning and evening peak hours. Therefore,
without mitigation, Option 4 would result in a significant
impact related to the circulation system.
Mitigation Measures
currently does during the day.
Option 3
TT2 San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive. The Option 3
related impact under existing baseline and
cumulative conditions would be fully mitigated by
implementing a TDM program to reduce auto travel
during the peak morning commute hour, in
conjunction with contribution towards the design
and implementation of the Eagle Rock Adaptive
Traffic Control System (ATCS) and installation of a
CCTV camera at this location. LACCD will make a
fair-share contribution to these improvements in an
amount to be determined by LADOT.
As part of the TDM program, the adult education
component would be limited to a maximum of four
classrooms during the morning peak hour. The
550-student high school component of these
options can operate as it currently does during the
day. No TDM program would be needed during the
evening peak hour under this option.
Option 4
TT3 San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive. Impacts
related to Option 4 would be fully mitigated by
implementing a TDM program to reduce auto travel
during peak commute hours, in conjunction with
contribution towards the design and
implementation of the Eagle Rock ATCS and
installation of a CCTV camera at this location.
LACCD will make a fair-share contribution to these
improvements in an amount to be determined by
LADOT.
As part of the TDM program, the adult education
component would need to be limited to 12
classrooms during the morning peak hour. The
TDM program is not required during the evening
peak hour.
taha 2012-061
2-8
Significance After Mitigation
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
2.0 Summary
TABLE 2-1: IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact Category
Congestion
Management
Plan
Vehicle and
Pedestrian Site
Access
Public Transit,
Bicycle, or
Pedestrian
Facilities
Impact
The nearest CMP arterial monitoring location to the
project site is the Alvarado Street/Sunset Boulevard
intersection. Based on the incremental project trip
generation, Options 1 through 4 would not add 50 or
more new trips per hour to this location. The nearest
mainline freeway monitoring locations to the project site
include SR-2 at Round Top Road and I-5 at Stadium
Way. Based on the incremental project trip generation
estimates, the proposed project will not add 150 or more
new trips per hour to these locations in either direction.
Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would result in a lessthan-significant impacts related to the CMP.
There are four ingress/egress driveways to the project
site. Two of the driveways are located on Fletcher Drive
and two are located on San Fernando Road. Under all
options, vehicles would continue to access the project
site as they do currently. Therefore, Options 1 through 4
would result in less-than-significant impacts related to
vehicle and pedestrian site access
The project site is served by eight bus lines, which
would continue to operate upon implementation of the
proposed project. Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would
result in less-than-significant impacts related to public
transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
Mitigation Measures
Impacts related to the Congestion Management Plan
were determined to be less than significant without
mitigation.
Significance After Mitigation
Less than Significant
Impacts related to vehicle and pedestrian site access
were determined to be less than significant without
mitigation.
Less than Significant
Impacts related to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities were determined to be less than significant
without mitigation.
Less than Significant
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
2-9
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
3.0 Project Description
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This chapter provides a detailed description of the Van de Kamp Innovation Center (proposed project). The
project description includes a discussion of the background of the proposed project, the project objectives,
and a description of the existing environment at the project site and in the surrounding area.
3.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
In 1999, a new home improvement store development was proposed on the project site. Prior to this, the Van
de Kamp’s Bakery building had been vacant for over 13 years. The project proposed in 1999 consisted of a
new home improvement warehouse (HomeBase) and a fast food restaurant (Burger King). The City of Los
Angeles acted as the Lead Agency for the environmental review process and prepared the EIR for this
project. Originally, the warehouse proposal required the demolition of the vacant bakery building. When the
Draft EIR was completed, significant and unavoidable impacts on air quality, traffic, and historic resources
were identified. A significant number of comments opposing this project were received during the 45-day
Draft EIR public review period. After the publication of the Final EIR in April 2000, the City of Los
Angeles held a public hearing to consider the certification of the Final EIR and the approval of this project.
The lack of public support for this project led the City to deny the certification of the Final EIR and reject the
project. After the rejection of the Final EIR, a new alternative for the Van de Kamp’s Bakery site was
identified. This alternative was an adaptive reuse of the bakery building by the LACCD for a satellite
campus for Los Angeles City College. The LACCD was responsible for acquiring the land, building the
campus, and serving as the Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed satellite campus. The
LACCD Board of Trustees subsequently certified the environmental review for the proposed campus as the
Final EIR Update. This Final EIR Update incorporated the October 1999 Draft EIR and the April 2000 Final
EIR previously prepared by the City of Los Angeles.
Subsequent to the certification of this Final EIR Update, two Addendums to this EIR were prepared for minor
changes to the satellite campus project. Each of the Addendums determined that the vehicle trip generation and
the parking demand created by a satellite college campus would be less than what was analyzed in the Final EIR
Update. The reduction in trips was important for the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) in
accepting a substitute mitigation measure for the creation of an exclusive northbound right turn lane at Fletcher
Drive and San Fernando Road. The substitute mitigation measure revolves around the assertion that LACCD
controls the academic program and class schedule, and therefore, can control peak hour trips entering and exiting
the campus. Towards this end, a 137-vehicle trip limit has been established during a given hour within the
weekday PM peak hour as a mitigation measure for the project site.
Due to the severe budget strains, LACCD’s plans to establish a satellite community college campus on the
project site have been temporarily scaled back. In the interim, LACCD maintains offices at the project site
and leases out underutilized facilities to tenants with an educational focus. The current tenants include a
charter high school (Alliance for Charter Ready Public Schools – Environmental Science and Technology
High School), and various worker training programs. As part of the lease agreements, LACCD has created a
set of mitigation measures to achieve a cap of 137 vehicle trips or below during the PM peak hour.
Nonetheless, the interim uses could result in new unforeseen physical impacts to the environment. These
potential environmental impacts can reasonably be foreseen to take place over the term period of the leases
(possibly five to ten years).
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states that a Subsequent EIR shall be prepared if the Lead Agency
determines that there is new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have
been known at the time a previous EIR was certified as complete.
taha 2012-061
3-1
14
5
210
118
405
5
2
101
134
210
210
10
10
60
605
90
57
710
105
91
405
Pacific
Ocean
110
TA
ST
I
DR
AN
N
SA
DO
AN
RN
FE
RD
ER
DR
H
TC
E
FL
T
2
LS
W
OS
R
CA
S
LI
EL
ST
SI
O
S
TA
P
EA
LA
E
AV
N
IN
M
E
ED
CL
E
AV
PE
E
AV
ER
AT
W
AT
E
AV
ND
A
IT
32
RL
PROJECT
SITE
E
AV
A
ST
RG
31
LA
E
AV
TH
30
D
E
AV
E
AV
E
AV
E
AR
DW
LEGEND:
N
Project Site
Not to
Scale
SOURCE: TAHA and ESRI, 2013.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 3-1
REGIONAL LOCATION
COMMERCIAL
6
N
4
DO
AN
RN
FE
RD
R
E
H
C
T
LE
7
R
D
COMMERCIAL
SA
5
1
F
1
2
2
3
LE
DA
N
E
L
G
Y
FW
M
RO
ET
W
RO
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
2
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
1.
2.
3.
4.
Facilities
Van de Kamp Building
High School
Parking Lot
Autozone Store
5. Denny’s Restaurant
6. El Pollo Loco Restaurant
7. Commercial Parking
0
SOURCE: Google Earth and TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
N
APPROX.
SCALE
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
115
230
FEET
FIGURE 3-2
PROJECT SITE AND
SURROUNDING LAND USES
6
5
4
7
F
RD
1
Pick Up/
Drop Off 1
DO
AN
RN
FE
R
D
N
SA
R
E
H
TC
LE
1
2
Pick
Pick Up/
Up/
Drop
Drop Off
Off 2
2
3
RO
ET
M
2
W
RO
LE
DA
N
E
L
G
LEGEND:
Y
FW
Project Site
Pick Up/ Drop Off Locations
Ingress/Egress
Direction of Vehicle Flow
# Facilities
1. Van de Kamp Building
2. High School
3. Parking Lot
4. Autozone Store
5. Denny’s Restaurant
6. El Pollo Loco Restaurant
7. Commercial Parking
SOURCE: TAHA and Google Earth, 2013.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
N
Approx.
Scale
0
0
85
170
171
Feet
FIGURE 3-3
VEHICLE CIRCULATION
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
3.0 Project Description
Therefore, the purpose of this Subsequent Draft EIR is to reevaluate potential environmental impacts based
on the current and potential future use of the Van de Kamp Innovation Center facilities.
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING USES
The seven-acre project site is located in the City of Los Angeles in the neighborhood of Glassell Park. As
shown in Figure 3-1, the project site is generally bounded by San Fernando Road to the northeast, the
Glendale Freeway (SR-2) to the southeast, Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(Metro) right-of-way to the southwest, and Fletcher Drive to the northwest. The Southern California
Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) operates the Metrolink commuter rail service within the right-of-way.
According to SCRRA there are a total of 83 trains (73 passengers and 10 freight trains) that operate within
the right-of-way.
There are three main buildings on the project site: (1) the Old Bakery Building; (2) a Childcare Building; and
(3) a New Educational Building. LACCD and the worker training tenants currently occupy the
approximately 30,000-square-foot, two-story Old Bakery Building that fronts Fletcher Drive. A charter high
school currently occupies the approximately 45,000-square-foot, two-story, L-shaped, New Educational
Building located to the south these buildings. The charter high school and the worker training tenants
currently share use of the approximately 7,000-square-foot Childcare building. A 249-space parking lot that
provides parking for the charter high school and the other tenants is located south of the New Educational
Building. A portion of the project site located to the northeast of this parking lot is vacant.
Three commercial uses, an AutoZone store, a Denny’s restaurant, and an El Pollo Loco fast-food restaurant
front San Fernando Road and are separated from the project site by a driveway that provides access to the
three commercial uses, as well as to the project site facilities. The three commercial uses share a parking lot
that also separates the project site from the commercial uses. The surrounding area is highly urbanized and
developed primarily with commercial and residential uses. The Ribet Academy, a private school for
preschool to high school students with dormitories for high school students, is located southeast of the
project site, south of SR-2. An aerial photograph of the project site facilities and the surrounding area is
presented in Figure 3-2.
There are four ingress/egress driveways to the project site. Two of the driveways are located on Fletcher
Drive (Fletcher Drive North and Fletcher Drive South), and two driveways are located on San Fernando
Road (San Fernando Road North and San Fernando Road South). Vehicles entering from Fletcher Drive
North typically drop off students at Drop off/Pick up Area 1 and turn left to exit at San Fernando.
Alternately, vehicles from Fletcher Drive North may turn into the school parking lot to drop off students at
Drop off/Pick up Area 2 and continue through the parking lot to exit at Fletcher Drive South. Vehicles
entering from San Fernando Road North also follow the same routes as Fletcher Drive North. The vehicles
that enter from Fletcher Drive South travel through the school parking lot to arrive at Drop off/Pick up
Area 2 and exit at San Fernando Road. Entering vehicles from San Fernando Road South typically drive into
the school parking area to arrive at the Drop off/Pick up Area 2. Figure 3-3 depicts the flow of traffic
throughout the site and the locations of the two drop off/pick up areas.
Surface parking is located south of the New Educational Building for use by charter high school faculty and
the other tenants. Students are not permitted to drive to school. The parking lot to the east of the site is
meant for patrons of the El Pollo Loco restaurant, Denny’s restaurant and the AutoZone store.
taha 2012-061
3-5
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
3.0 Project Description
3.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
In accordance with Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines, EIRs shall include a statement of objectives of
the proposed project. A description of the project’s objectives defines the project’s intent and facilitates the
formation of project alternatives. The objectives of the proposed project are to:
•
•
•
•
Foster a culture of academic excellence by strengthening the educational programs and quality of
teaching that will lead directly to greater student success;
Create community-oriented development that successfully serves students and the community alike;
Provide greater capacity to serve the existing and future demand for educational facilities in northeast
Los Angeles; and
Develop and implement plans and procedures to enhance LACCD’s visibility and reputation for quality
education.
3.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Van de Kamp Innovation Center is envisioned to accommodate multiple uses that could
include a High School, College, Office, and Adult Education/Workforce Training. No single use would
occupy all of the buildings on the project site (i.e., New Educational Building, Old Bakery Building, and
Childcare Building). The four occupancy options under consideration for the future use of the Van de Kamp
Innovation Center include:
Option 1 - College and High School Mix
Option 2 - High School and Adult Education/Workforce Training Mix
Option 3 - Current Mix (High School, Adult Education/Workforce Training, and Office)
Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix
Each of the occupancy options has different operating characteristics; therefore, the number of persons onsite would vary in the morning, afternoon and evening. To calculate the practical capacity of persons on-site
for the four occupancy options, the following assumptions have been made:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Old Bakery Building: 12 classrooms/16,187 square feet usable space
New Educational Building: 24 classrooms/18,900 square feet usable space
Childcare Building: 4 classrooms/3,839 square feet usable space
550 high school students
300 square feet per office
700 square feet per classroom
15 persons per Adult Education/Workforce Training class and College classroom
Option 1 - College and High School Mix. Under Option 1, the predominant daytime use of the New
Educational Building would be a high school, while the predominant evening use would be a college. In the
morning (6:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.) and afternoon (12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.), the New Educational Building
would be occupied by a high school (24 classrooms). In the evening (4:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.), the New
Educational Building would switch to a college (20 classrooms) with some use by the high school (four
classrooms). The peak use period would occur in the morning and afternoon when the New Educational
Building is occupied by a high school. The intensity of use would lessen in the evening when more
classrooms are allocated for College courses. In the morning and afternoon, 550 persons would be in the
New Educational Building. In the evening, the number of persons would decrease to 380.
The predominant daytime and evening use of the Old Bakery Building would be shared by a college
(12 classrooms) and office uses (1,600 square feet). The period of use would remain consistent throughout
taha 2012-061
3-6
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
3.0 Project Description
the day with no peak period of use. From morning until evening, 185 persons would occupy the Old Bakery
Building.
The predominant daytime use of the Childcare Building would be shared by a high school (two classrooms)
and a college (two classrooms). The predominant evening use would be a college. The peak period of use
would occur in the morning and afternoon with all four classrooms occupied. The intensity of use would
decrease in the evening when the entire space is used for a college. In the morning and afternoon, 70 persons
would be in the Childcare Building. In the evening, the number of persons would decrease to 60.
As shown in Table 3-1, the capacity of persons on-site for the three buildings would be 805 in the morning
and afternoon and decrease to 665 in the evening.
TABLE 3-1: OPTION 1 - COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL MIX
Morning
6:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Facility
OFC
HS CR
CC CR
NEW EDUCATIONAL BUILDING
Classrooms
24
Persons On-Site
550
OLD BAKERY BUILDING
Office
1,600
Classrooms
12
Persons On-Site
185
CHILDCARE BUILDING
Office
Classrooms
2
2
Persons On-Site
70
Total Persons On-Site
805
Afternoon
12:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
OFC
HS CR
CC CR
Evening
4:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
OFC
HS CR
CC CR
24
4
550
1,600
20
380
1,600
2
12
185
12
185
2
70
805
4
60
665
Notes: OFC = Office Square Footage; HS CR = Number of High School Classrooms; CC CR = Number of College Courses Classrooms
SOURCE: TAHA, 2012.
Option 2 - High School and Adult Education/Workforce Training Mix. Under Option 2, the
predominant daytime use of the New Educational Building would be a high school. The predominant
evening use would be adult education/workforce training. The peak use period of the New Educational
Building would occur during the morning and afternoon with all 24 classrooms occupied. In the evening, the
intensity of use within the New Educational Building would lessen when the 24 classrooms would switch
from a high school to adult education/workforce training. In the morning and afternoon, 550 persons would
be in the New Educational Building. In the evening, the number of persons would decrease to 360.
The predominant daytime and evening use of the Old Bakery Building would be for adult
education/workforce training. The peak use period of the Old Bakery Building would occur in the evening
when all 12 classrooms are occupied. The intensity of use would decrease in the morning with seven
classrooms occupied and in the afternoon with three classrooms occupied. In the morning, 105 persons
would be in the Old Bakery Building. In the afternoon, the persons would decrease to 45 and later increase
to 180 persons in the evening.
The predominant daytime use of the Childcare Building would be a high school (two classrooms) while the
predominant evening use would be adult education/workforce training (two classrooms). The peak use
period of the Childcare Building would occur in the morning and afternoon when occupied by the high
school. In the evening, the intensity of use would lessen when the building switches to adult
education/workforce training. In the morning and afternoon, 40 persons would be in the Childcare Building.
In the evening, the number of persons would decrease to 30.
taha 2012-061
3-7
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
3.0 Project Description
As shown in Table 3-2, the capacity of persons on-site for the three buildings would be 695 in the morning,
decrease to 635 in the afternoon and decrease further to 570 in the evening.
TABLE 3-2: OPTION 2 - HIGH SCHOOL AND ADULT EDUCATION/WORKFORCE TRAINING MIX
Morning
6:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Facility
OFC
HS CR AE CR
NEW EDUCATIONAL BUILDING
Classrooms
24
Persons On-Site
550
OLD BAKERY BUILDING
Office
Classrooms
7
Persons On-Site
105
CHILDCARE BUILDING
Office
Classrooms
2
Persons On-Site
40
Total Persons On-Site
695
Afternoon
12:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
OFC
HS CR AE CR
Evening
4:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
OFC
HS CR
AE CR
24
550
24
360
3
45
12
180
40
635
2
30
570
2
Notes: OFC = Office Square Footage; HS CR = Number of High School Classrooms; AE CR = Number of Adult Education Classrooms
SOURCE: TAHA, 2012.
Option 3 - Current Mix. Option 3 is comparable to current uses operating on-site and includes high school,
adult education/workforce training, and office uses. The predominant daytime and evening use would be a
high school. The peak use period of the New Educational Building would occur during the morning and the
afternoon. In the evening, the intensity of use within the New Educational Building would lessen, and only
10 of the 24 classrooms would be occupied by a high school. In the morning and afternoon, 550 persons
would be in the New Educational Building. In the evening, the number of persons would decrease to 200.
The Old Bakery Building would be occupied by LACCD offices (1,600 square feet) and six adult
education/workforce training classrooms. The peak use period of the Old Bakery Building would occur
during the morning and afternoon. In the evening, the intensity of use would lessen with only two of the
12 classrooms in the Old Bakery Building used for adult education/workforce training. In the morning and
afternoon, 95 persons would be in the Old Bakery Building. In the evening, the number of persons would
decrease to 35.
The Childcare Building would be occupied by a high school (two classrooms) and adult education/workforce
training (two classrooms). The peak use period of the Childcare Building would occur in the morning and
afternoon when all four classrooms are occupied. In the evening, the intensity of use would lessen when
adult education/workforce training would occupy two classrooms. In the morning and afternoon, 70 persons
would be in the Childcare Building. In the evening, the number of persons would decrease to 30.
As shown in Table 3-3, the capacity of persons for the three buildings would be 715 in the morning and
afternoon and decrease to 265 in the evening.
taha 2012-061
3-8
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
3.0 Project Description
TABLE 3-3: OPTION 3 - CURRENT MIX
Morning
6:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Facility
OFC
HS CR AE CR
NEW EDUCATIONAL BUILDING
Classrooms
24
Persons On-Site
550
OLD BAKERY BUILDING
Office
1,600
Classrooms
6
Persons On-Site
95
CHILDCARE BUILDING
Office
Classrooms
2
2
Persons On-Site
70
Total Persons On-Site
715
Afternoon
12:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
OFC
HS CR
AE CR
Evening
4:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
OFC
HS CR
AE CR
24
10
550
1,600
200
1,600
2
6
95
2
35
2
70
715
2
30
265
Notes: OFC = Office Square Footage; HS CR = Number of High School Classrooms; AE CR = Number of Adult Education Classrooms
SOURCE: TAHA, 2012.
Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix. Under Option 4, the predominant daytime and
evening use of the New Educational Building would be a college. The peak use period would occur in the
morning when all 24 classrooms are occupied. The off-peak period would occur in the afternoon and
evening with only ten and 20 classrooms occupied, respectively. In the morning, 367 persons would be in
the New Educational Building. The number of persons would decrease to 157 in the afternoon and increase
to 307 in the evening.
The predominant daytime and evening use of the Old Bakery Building would be office uses. The period of
use would remain consistent throughout the day with no peak period of use. From morning until evening,
54 persons would be in the Old Bakery Building.
The predominant daytime and evening use of the Childcare Building would be office uses. The period of use
would remain consistent throughout the day with no peak period of use. From morning until evening,
13 persons would be in the Childcare Building.
As shown in Table 3-4, the capacity of persons on-site for the three buildings would be 434 in the morning,
decrease to 224 in the afternoon, and increase to 374 in the evening.
TABLE 3-4: OPTION 4 - OFFICE AND UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION MIX
Morning
6:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
Facility
OFC
HS CR
CC CR
NEW EDUCATIONAL BUILDING
Office
2,093
Classrooms
24
Persons On-Site
367
OLD BAKERY BUILDING
Office
16,187
Classrooms
Persons On-Site
54
CHILDCARE BUILDING
Office
3,839
Classrooms
Persons On-Site
13
Total Persons On-Site
434
Afternoon
12:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.
OFC
HS CR CC CR
Evening
4:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m.
OFC
HS CR
CC CR
2,093
2,093
10
157
16,187
20
307
16,187
54
3,839
54
3,839
13
224
Notes: OFC = Office Square Footage; HS CR = Number of High School Classrooms; CC CR = Number of College Course Classrooms
SOURCE: TAHA, 2012.
taha 2012-061
3-9
13
374
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
3.0 Project Description
3.5 DISCRETIONARY ACTIONS AND APPROVALS
Approvals required for development of the proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:
•
•
Approval from LACCD Board of Trustees
Miscellaneous permits and approvals as necessary from State and/or local agencies to implement the
proposed project and any necessary mitigation measures
taha 2012-061
3-10
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.0 Environmental Impacts
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This chapter evaluates the significant environmental impacts that could result from the implementation of the
proposed project. These potential impacts are analyzed for the following environmental issues: air quality,
greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, noise, transportation and traffic, and cumulative impacts.
Discussion is focused on the identification of changes that may be considered to be environmentally
significant (a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment) relative to the
existing environmental conditions. Analysis of each environmental issue is organized to include the
following subsections:
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK – An identification of applicable federal, State and local regulations.
EXISTING SETTING – A description of existing conditions that precede implementation of the proposed
project.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE – The criteria by which the project components are measured to
determine if the proposed project would cause a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the
existing environmental conditions.
IMPACTS – An analysis of the beneficial and adverse effects of the proposed project, including, where
appropriate, assessments of the significance of potential adverse impacts relative to established thresholds
(relative to existing conditions per CEQA).
MITIGATION MEASURES – Wherever significant adverse impacts relative to existing conditions are
identified in the Impacts subsection, appropriate and reasonable measures are recommended to avoid or
minimize impacts to the extent feasible.
SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION – A discussion of whether a significant and
unavoidable impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level or to no impact after mitigation under
CEQA or remain significant and unavoidable.
taha 2012-061
4-1
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
4.1 AIR QUALITY
This section provides an overview of existing air quality conditions and evaluates the operational impacts
associated with Options 1 through 4. Supporting data and calculations are included in Appendix B. This
analysis focuses on air pollution from two perspectives: daily emissions and pollutant concentrations.
“Emissions” refer to the quantity of pollutants released into the air, measured in pounds per day (ppd).
“Concentrations” refer to the amount of pollutant material per volumetric unit of air, measured in parts per
million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3). The following defines the pollutants discussed in this
analysis.
Pollutants and Effects
The federal and State governments have established ambient air quality standards for outdoor concentrations
of six common pollutants, called criteria pollutants, to protect public health. The criteria pollutant standards
have been set at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These
standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort. Criteria pollutants
include carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter
2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5), particulate matter ten microns or less in diameter (PM10), and lead
(Pb). These pollutants are discussed below.
Carbon Monoxide (CO). CO is a colorless and odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of fossil
fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers,
ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas such as the project site, automobile exhaust accounts for the
majority of CO emissions. CO is a non-reactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly, so ambient
CO concentrations generally follows the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO
concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions, primarily wind speed, topography, and
atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface-based
temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, a typical situation at dusk in urban
areas between November and February. 1 The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months
of the year when inversion conditions are more frequent. In terms of health, CO competes with oxygen,
often replacing it in the blood, thus reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The
results of excess CO exposure can be dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions.
Ozone (O3). O3 is a colorless gas that is formed in the atmosphere when reactive organic gases (ROG),
which includes volatile organic compounds (VOC), and nitrogen oxides (NOX) react in the presence of
ultraviolet sunlight. O3 is not a primary pollutant; it is a secondary pollutant formed by complex interactions
of two pollutants directly emitted into the atmosphere. The primary sources of ROG and NOX, components
of O3, are automobile exhaust and industrial sources. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in O3
formation. Ideal conditions occur during summer and early autumn, on days with low wind speeds or
stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. The greatest source of smog-producing gases is the
automobile. Short-term exposure (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at levels typically observed in Southern
California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to
infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes.
1
Inversion is an atmospheric condition in which a layer of warm air traps cooler air near the surface of the earth, preventing
the normal rising of surface air.
taha 2012-061
4.1-1
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). NO2, like O3, is not directly emitted into the atmosphere but is formed by an
atmospheric chemical reaction between nitric oxide (NO) and atmospheric oxygen. NO and NO2 are
collectively referred to as NOX and are major contributors to O3 formation. NO2 also contributes to the
formation of PM10. High concentrations of NO2 can cause breathing difficulties and result in a brownish-red
cast to the atmosphere with reduced visibility. There is some indication of a relationship between NO2 and
chronic pulmonary fibrosis. Some increase of bronchitis in children (two and three years old) has also been
observed at concentrations below 0.3 ppm.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). SO2 is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily by the combustion of sulfurcontaining fossil fuels. Main sources of SO2 are coal and oil used in power plants and industries. Generally,
the highest levels of SO2 are found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, SO2 concentrations have
been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of SO2 and limits
on the sulfur content of fuels. SO2 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs. It can cause acute
respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. SO2 can also yellow plant leaves and
erode iron and steel. Sulfur oxide (SOX) refers to any of several compounds of sulfur and oxygen, the most
important of which is SO2.
Particulate Matter. Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in
the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter also forms when
gases emitted from industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM2.5 and
PM10 represent fractions of particulate matter. Fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, is roughly 1/28 the diameter
of a human hair. PM2.5 results from fuel combustion (e.g. motor vehicles, power generation, and industrial
facilities), residential fireplaces, and wood stoves. In addition, PM2.5 can be formed in the atmosphere from
gases such as SO2, NOX, and VOC. Inhalable particulate matter, or PM10, is about 1/7 the thickness of a
human hair. Major sources of PM10 include crushing or grinding operations; dust stirred up by vehicles
traveling on roads; wood burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture;
wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric
chemical and photochemical reactions.
PM2.5 and PM10 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can
penetrate the human respiratory system’s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM2.5 and PM10
can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung
diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances, such as lead,
sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly. These substances can be absorbed into the blood
stream and cause damage elsewhere in the body. These substances can transport absorbed gases, such as
chlorides or ammonium, into the lungs and cause injury. Whereas PM10 tends to collect in the upper portion
of the respiratory system, PM2.5 is so tiny that it can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissues.
Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle, as well as produce haze and
reduce regional visibility.
Lead (Pb). Pb in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded gasoline; the
manufacturers of batteries, paint, ink, ceramics, and ammunition; and secondary lead smelters. Prior to 1978,
mobile emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead. Between 1978 and 1987, the phase-out of
leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95 percent. With the phase-out of
leaded gasoline, secondary lead smelters, battery recycling, and manufacturing facilities have become leademission sources of greater concern.
Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human health. Health effects associated
with exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney disease, and in severe cases,
neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Of particular concern are low-level lead exposures during
infancy and childhood. Such exposures are associated with decrements in neurobehavioral performance,
including intelligence quotient performance, psychomotor performance, reaction time, and growth.
taha 2012-061
4.1-2
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). TACs are generally defined as those contaminants that are known or
suspected to cause serious health problems, but do not have a corresponding ambient air quality standard.
TACs are also defined as an air pollutant that may increase a person’s risk of developing cancer and/or other
serious health effects; however, the emission of a toxic chemical does not automatically create a health
hazard. Other factors, such as the amount of the chemical; its toxicity, and how it is released into the air, the
weather, and the terrain, all influence whether the emission could be hazardous to human health. TACs are
emitted by a variety of industrial processes such as petroleum refining, electric utility and chrome plating
operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust and
may exist as PM10 and PM2.5 or as vapors (gases). TACs include metals, other particles, gases absorbed by
particles, and certain vapors from fuels and other sources.
The emission of toxic substances into the air can be damaging to human health and to the environment.
Human exposure to these pollutants at sufficient concentrations and durations can result in cancer, poisoning,
and rapid onset of sickness, such as nausea or difficulty in breathing. Other less measurable effects include
immunological, neurological, reproductive, developmental, and respiratory problems. Pollutants deposited
onto soil or into lakes and streams affect ecological systems and eventually human health through
consumption of contaminated food. The carcinogenic potential of TACs is a particular public health concern
because many scientists currently believe that there is no "safe" level of exposure to carcinogens. Any
exposure to a carcinogen poses some risk of contracting cancer.
The public’s exposure to TACs is a significant public health issue in California. The Air Toxics “Hotspots”
Information and Assessment Act is a State law requiring facilities to report emissions of TACs to air
districts. The program is designated to quantify the amounts of potentially hazardous air pollutants released,
the location of the release, the concentrations to which the public is exposed, and the resulting health risks.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The Clean Air Act (CAA) governs air quality
in the United States and the USEPA is responsible for enforcing the CAA. USEPA is also responsible for
establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). NAAQS are required under the 1977
CAA and subsequent amendments. USEPA regulates emission sources that are under the exclusive authority
of the federal government, such as aircraft, ships, and certain types of locomotives. USEPA has jurisdiction
over emission sources outside State waters (e.g., beyond the outer continental shelf) and establishes various
emission standards, including those for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in
California must meet stricter emission standards established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
As required by the CAA, NAAQS have been established for seven major air pollutants: CO, NO2, O3, PM2.5,
PM10, SO2, and Pb. The CAA requires USEPA to designate areas as attainment, nonattainment, or
maintenance (previously nonattainment and currently attainment) for each criteria pollutant based on whether
the NAAQS have been achieved. The federal standards are summarized in Table 4.1-1. The USEPA has
classified the Los Angeles County portion of South Coast Air Basin (Basin) as attainment for SO2 and
nonattainment for O3, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb.
taha 2012-061
4.1-3
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
TABLE 4.1-1:
Pollutant
STATE AND NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND ATTAINMENT
STATUS FOR THE SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
Averaging
Period
1-hour
Ozone (O3)
8-hour
Respirable
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
24-hour
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
24-hour
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
8-hour
1-hour
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
1-hour
24-hour
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
3-hour
1-hour
Lead (Pb)
4.1 Air Quality
30-day
average
Calendar
Quarter
California
Standards
0.09 ppm
3
(180 µg/m )
0.070 ppm
3
(137 µg/m )
3
50 µg/m
3
20 µg/m
Standards
Attainment Status
Nonattainment
--
--
n/a
Nonattainment
Nonattainment
--
-3
12 µg/m
Nonattainment
9.0 ppm
3
(10 mg/m )
20 ppm
3
(23 mg/m )
0.030 ppm
3
(57 µg/m )
0.18 ppm
3
(338 µg/m )
0.04 ppm
3
(105 µg/m )
-0.25 ppm
3
(655 µg/m )
1.5 µg/m
Federal
Attainment Status
3
Attainment
Attainment
0.075 ppm
3
(147 µg/m )
3
150 µg/m
--
Nonattainment
--
3
Nonattainment
3
Nonattainment
35 µg/m
15.0 µg/m
Nonattainment
9 ppm
3
(10 mg/m )
35 ppm
3
(40 mg/m )
Unclassified
Unclassified
Nonattainment
53 ppb
3
(100 µg/m )
Unclassified
Nonattainment
100 ppb
3
(190 µg/m )
n/a
Attainment
--
--
--
-75 ppb (196
3
µg/m )
--
Attainment
Nonattainment
--
--
Attainment
-0.15 µg/m
-3
Nonattainment
n/a = not available
SOURCE: CARB, Ambient Air Quality Standards, and Attainment Status, June 7, 2012.
Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the CAA Amendments of
1990, whereby Congress mandated that the USEPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air
pollutants. The USEPA has assessed this expansive list in their latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air
Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007) and
identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in their Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS). In addition, USEPA identified seven compounds with significant contributions
from mobile sources that are among the national and regional-scale cancer risk drivers from their 1999
National Air Toxics Assessment. These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butidiene, diesel particulate matter plus
diesel exhaust organic gases (diesel PM), formaldehyde, naphthalene and polycyclic organic matter.
State
California Air Resources Board (CARB). In addition to being subject to the requirements of CAA, air
quality in California is also governed by more stringent regulations under the California Clean Air Act
(CCAA). In California, the CCAA is administered by CARB at the State level and by the air quality
management districts and air pollution control districts at the regional and local levels. The CARB, which
taha 2012-061
4.1-4
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency in 1991, is responsible for meeting the State
requirements of the CAA, administering the CCAA, and establishing the California Ambient Air Quality
Standards (CAAQS). The CCAA, as amended in 1992, requires all air districts in the State to endeavor to
achieve and maintain the CAAQS.
CAAQS are generally more stringent than the corresponding federal standards and incorporate additional
standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. CARB regulates
mobile air pollution sources, such as motor vehicles. CARB is responsible for setting emission standards for
vehicles sold in California and for other emission sources, such as consumer products and certain off-road
equipment. CARB established passenger vehicle fuel specifications, which became effective in March 1996.
CARB oversees the functions of local air pollution control districts and air quality management districts,
which, in turn, administer air quality activities at the regional and county levels. The State standards are
summarized in Table 4.1-1.
The CCAA requires CARB to designate areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for
each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are
designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a State standard for the pollutant
was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly
irregular or infrequent events are not considered violations of a State standard and are not used as a basis for
designating areas as nonattainment. Under the CCAA, the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is
designated as an attainment for CO and SO2 and a nonattainment area for O3, PM10, PM2.5, NO2, and Pb. 2
Local
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The 1977 Lewis Air Quality Management
Act created the SCAQMD to coordinate air quality planning efforts throughout Southern California. This
Act merged four county air pollution control agencies into one regional district to better address the issue of
improving air quality in Southern California. Under the Act, renamed the Lewis-Presley Air Quality
Management Act in 1988, the SCAQMD is the agency principally responsible for comprehensive air
pollution control in the region. Specifically, the SCAQMD is responsible for monitoring air quality, as well
as planning, implementing, and enforcing programs designed to attain and maintain federal and State
ambient air quality standards in the district. Programs that were developed include air quality rules and
regulations that regulate stationary sources, area sources, point sources, and certain mobile source emissions.
The SCAQMD is also responsible for establishing stationary source permitting requirements and for ensuring
that new, modified, or relocated stationary sources do not create net emission increases.
The SCAQMD has jurisdiction over an area of 10,743 square miles, consisting of Orange County; the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties; and the Riverside County portion of
the Salton Sea Air Basin and Mojave Desert Air Basin. The South Coast Air Basin (Basin) is a subregion of
the SCAQMD and covers an area of 6,745 square miles and includes all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. The Basin is bounded by the
Pacific Ocean to the west; the San Gabriel, San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east;
and the San Diego County line to the south (Figure 4.1-1).
2
CARB, Area Designation Maps website, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, June 23, 2011.
taha 2012-061
4.1-5
San Francisco
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
Gorman
Victorville
Palm Springs
Pt. Dume
Santa Monica
Long Beach
San Clemente
San Diego
LEGEND:
South Coast Air Basin
State of California
SOURCE: California Air Resources Board, State and Local Air Monitoring Network Plan, October 1998.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
N
Approx.
Scale
0
75
150
Miles
FIGURE 4.1-1
SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). All areas designated as nonattainment under the CCAA are
required to prepare plans showing how the area would meet the State air quality standards by its attainment
dates. The AQMP is the SCAQMD plan for improving regional air quality. It addresses CAA and CCAA
requirements and demonstrates attainment with State and federal ambient air quality standards. The AQMP
is prepared by SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The AQMP
provides policies and control measures that reduce emissions to attain both State and federal ambient air
quality standards by their applicable deadlines. Environmental review of individual projects within the Basin
must demonstrate that daily construction and operational emissions thresholds, as established by the
SCAQMD, would not be exceeded. The environmental review must also demonstrate that individual
projects would not increase the number or severity of existing air quality violations.
SCAQMD published the 2012 AQMP to continue the progression toward clean air and compliance with
State and federal requirements. It includes a comprehensive strategy aimed at controlling pollution from all
sources, including stationary sources, on- and off-road mobile sources and area sources. The 2012 AQMP
includes attainment demonstration of the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard by 2014 in the Basin through
adoption of all feasible measures while incorporating current scientific information and meteorological air
quality models. It also updates the USEPA approved 8-hour O3 control plan with new commitments for
short-term NOX and VOC reductions.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). The SCAQMD has a long and successful history of reducing air toxics
and criteria emissions in the Basin. SCAQMD has an extensive control program, including traditional and
innovative rules and policies. These policies can be viewed in the SCAQMD’s Air Toxics Control Plan for
the Next Ten Years (March 2000) and Addendum to the Air Toxics Control Plan (March 2004). To date, the
most comprehensive study on air toxics in the Basin is the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATESIII), conducted by the SCAQMD. The monitoring program measured more than 30 air pollutants, including
both gases and particulates. The monitoring study was accompanied by a computer modeling study in which
SCAQMD estimated the risk of cancer from breathing toxic air pollution throughout the region based on
emissions and weather data. MATES-III found that the cancer risk in the region from carcinogenic air
pollutants ranges from about 870 in a million to 1,400 in a million, with an average regional risk of about
1,200 in a million.
EXISTING SETTING
Air Pollution Climatology
The project site is located within the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin. Ambient pollution
concentrations recorded in Los Angeles County are among the highest in the four counties comprising the
Basin.
The Basin is in an area of high air pollution potential due to its climate and topography. The general region
lies in the semi-permanent high pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by
cool sea breezes with light average wind speeds. The Basin experiences warm summers, mild winters,
infrequent rainfalls, light winds, and moderate humidity. This usually mild climatological pattern is
interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The Basin
is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and
high mountains around the rest of its perimeter. The mountains and hills within the area contribute to the
variation of rainfall, temperature, and winds throughout the region.
The Basin experiences frequent temperature inversions. Temperature typically decreases with height.
However, under inversion conditions, temperature increases as altitude increases, thereby preventing air
close to the ground from mixing with the air above it. As a result, air pollutants are trapped near the ground.
During the summer, air quality problems are created due to the interaction between the ocean surface and the
taha 2012-061
4.1-7
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
lower layer of the atmosphere. This interaction creates a moist marine layer. An upper layer of warm air
mass forms over the cool marine layer, preventing air pollutants from dispersing upward. Additionally,
hydrocarbons and NO2 react under strong sunlight, creating smog. Light, daytime winds, predominantly
from the west, further aggravate the condition by driving air pollutants inland, toward the mountains. During
the fall and winter, air quality problems are created due to CO and NO2 emissions. CO concentrations are
generally worse in the morning and late evening (around 10:00 p.m.).
In the morning, CO levels are
relatively high due to cold temperatures and the large number of cars traveling. High CO levels during the
late evenings are a result of stagnant atmospheric conditions trapping CO in the area. Since CO emissions
are produced almost entirely from automobiles, the highest CO concentrations in the Basin are associated
with heavy traffic. NO2 concentrations are also generally higher during fall and winter days.
Local Climate
The mountains and hills within the Basin contribute to the variation of rainfall, temperature, and winds
throughout the region. Within the project site and its vicinity, the average wind speed, as recorded at the
Burbank Wind Monitoring Station, is 3.8 miles per hour, with calm winds occurring approximately ten
percent of the time. Wind in the vicinity of the project site predominately blows from the southeast.
The annual average temperature in the vicinity of the project is 64 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) with an average
winter temperature of 55°F and an average summer temperature of 73°F. 3 Total precipitation in the project
area averages 17 inches annually. Precipitation occurs mostly during the winter and relatively infrequently
during the summer. Precipitation averages ten inches during the winter, four inches during the spring, two
inches during the fall, and less than one inch during the summer. 4
Air Monitoring Data
The SCAQMD monitors air quality conditions at 37 locations throughout the Basin. The project site is
located in SCAQMD’s East San Fernando Air Monitoring Subregion of the San Fernando Forecast Area,
which is served by the Burbank - West Palm Avenue Monitoring Station located on 228 West Palm Avenue,
approximately seven miles northwest of the project site (Figure 4.1-2). Historical data from the Burbank West Palm Avenue Monitoring Station was used to characterize existing conditions in the vicinity of the
project. Criteria pollutants monitored at the Burbank - West Palm Avenue Monitoring Station include O3,
CO, NO2, SO2, PM2.5, and PM10.
Table 4.1-2 shows pollutant levels, the State and federal standards, and the number of exceedances recorded
at the Burbank - West Palm Avenue Monitoring Stations for the years 2009 through 2011. Criteria pollutants
CO, NO2, and SO2 did not exceed the State and federal standards from 2009 to 2011. However, the one-hour
State standard for O3 was exceeded 3 to 16 times during this period. The eight-hour State standard for O3
was exceeded 9 to 28 times while the eight-hour federal standard for O3 was exceeded 4 to 14 times. The 24hour State standard for PM10 was exceeded 0 to 10 times while the 24-hour federal standard for PM10 did not
exceed during this period. The 24-hour federal standard for PM2.5 was exceeded 5 to 11 times and the 24hour State standard for PM2.5 was also exceeded each year from 2009 to 2011.
3
Western Regional Climate Center, Historical Climate Information website, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu, accessed January 9, 2013.
Ibid.
4
taha 2012-061
4.1-8
13
Not part of South
Coast Air Basin
5
210
118
15
405
6
7
101
8
5
PROJECT SITE
134
2
170
2
1
Santa Monica
9
110
210
10
60
10
11
90
710
105
405
3
Pacific
Ocean
LEGEND:
5
12
Torrance
110
91
4
Long Beach
Burbank-West Palm Avenue Monitoring Station
Air Monitoring Areas in Los Angeles County:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Central Los Angeles
Northwest Coastal
Southwest Coastal
South Coastal
Southeast Los Angeles County
West San Fernando Valley
East San Fernando Valley
8. West San Gabriel Valley
9. East San Gabriel Valley
10. Pomona/Walnut Valley (not shown)
11. South San Gabriel Valley
12. South Central Los Angeles
13. Santa Clarita Valley
15. San Gabriel Mountains
SOURCE: South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Monitoring Areas Map, 1999
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
N
Approx.
Scale
0
4.5
9.0
Miles
FIGURE 4.1-2
AIR QUALITY MONITORING AREAS
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
TABLE 4.1-2: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA
Pollutant
Pollutant Concentration & Standards
Ozone (O3)
Maximum 1-hr Concentration (ppm)
Days > 0.09 ppm (State 1-hr standard)
0.15
16
0.11
3
0.12
8
Maximum 8-hr Concentration (ppm)
Days > 0.07 ppm (State 8-hr standard)
Days > 0.075 ppm (National 8-hr standard)
0.10
28
14
0.08
9
4
0.08
10
6
3
0
0
3
0
0
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.9
0
0
2.4
0
|0
2.4
0
0
0.09
0
n/a
0.08
0
n/a
0.07
0
n/a
3
76
10
0
50
0
0
60
2
0
3
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Maximum 1-hr concentration (ppm)
Days > 20 ppm (State1-hr standard)
Days > 35 ppm (National 1-hr standard)
Maximum 8-hr concentration (ppm)
Days > 9.0 ppm (State 8-hr standard)
Days > 9 ppm (National 8-hr standard)
2009
2010
2011
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Maximum 1-hr Concentration (ppm)
Days > 0.18 ppm (State 1-hr standard)
Days > 0.100 ppm (National 1-hr standard)
Respirable Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Maximum 24-hr concentration (µg/m )
3
Days > 50 µg/m (State 24-hr standard)
3
Days > 150 µg/m (National 24-hr standard)
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5)
Maximum 24-hr concentration (µg/m )
3
Exceed State Standard (12 µg/m )
3
Days > 35 µg/m (National 24-hr standard)
68
Yes
11
44
Yes
4
4
Yes
5
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Maximum 24-hr Concentration (ppm)
Days > 0.04 ppm (State 24-hr standard)
Days > 0.14 ppm (National 24-hr standard)
0.003
0
0
0.004
0
0
0.002
0
0
Note: n/a = not available
SOURCE: CARB, Air Quality Data Statistics, Top 4 Summary, http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php, accessed January 9, 2013.
CO pollutant concentration was obtained from SCAQMD, Historical Data by Year, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/smog/historicaldata.htm, accessed
January 9, 2013.
Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the
population groups and the activities involved. CARB has identified the following typical groups who are
most likely to be affected by air pollution: children under 14, the elderly over 65 years of age, athletes, and
people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. According to the SCAQMD, sensitive receptors
include residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care
facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. Sensitive receptors near the
project site are shown in Figure 4.1-3 and include the following:
•
•
•
•
Ribet Academy located approximately 705 feet to the southeast
Single-family residences located approximately 335 feet to the west
Single- and multi-family residences located approximately 700 feet to the southeast
Single- and multi-family residences located approximately 425 to 775 feet to the northeast
The above sensitive receptors represent the nearest sensitive receptors to the site with the potential to be
impacted by Options 1 through 4. Additional sensitive receptors are located further from the project site in
the surrounding community and would be less affected by the Options 1 through 4 than the above sensitive
receptors. In addition to the off-site sensitive receptors, the proposed educational facilities would sensitive to
air pollution.
taha 2012-061
4.1-10
N
SA
DO
AN
RN
FE
ER
H
TC
E
L
DR
F
RD
M
W
O
R
E
AV
O
R
T
E
S
TA
SI
A
C
L
EL
SW
RO
ST
2
PROJECT SITE
1
ED
WA
RD
AV
E
E
AL
ND
E
GL
Y
FW
2
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
Air Quality Sensitive Receptors
1.
Ribet Academy
Single- and Multi-Family Residences
SOURCE: Google Earth and TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
N
Approx.
Scale
0
197
394
FEET
FIGURE 4.1-3
AIR QUALITY SENSITIVE
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, Options 1 through 4 would have a significant
impact related to air quality if they would:
•
•
•
•
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; and/or
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
The SCAQMD has developed specific CEQA significance thresholds to assess construction and operational
air quality impacts. Options 1 through 4 would not include construction activity and construction significant
criteria are not relevant.
Significance Criteria. Options 1 through 4 would have a significant impact related to operational activity if:
•
•
•
•
•
Daily emissions would exceed the thresholds presented in Table 4.1-3;
Project-related traffic causes intersection CO concentrations to exceed the one-hour CAAQS of 20 ppm
or eight-hour CAAQS of 9.0 ppm;
Options 1 through 4 would generate significant emissions of TACs;
Options 1 through 4 would create an odor nuisance; and/or
Options 1 through 4 would not be consistent with the AQMP.
TABLE 4.1-3: SCAQMD DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Criteria Pollutant
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC)
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Sulfur Oxides (SOX)
Fine Particulates (PM2.5)
Particulates (PM10)
Pounds Per Day
55
55
550
150
55
150
SOURCE: SCAQMD, 2013.
IMPACTS
The existing environmental setting normally constitutes the baseline conditions against which a lead agency
determines whether an impact is significant. However, the use of past or hypothetical conditions as the
baseline is appropriate where, as here, it is necessary to evaluate current impacts resulting from the existing
uses on the project site. Thus, throughout this document, a comparison of existing conditions against the
conditions that would occur without the interim uses is utilized, in order to provide the actual effects of the
existing interim uses (“Option 3”) on the environment.
METHODOLOGY
This air quality analysis is consistent with the methods described in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook (1993 edition), as well as the updates to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, as provided on the
SCAQMD website. 5
5
SCAQMD, http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html, accessed January 9, 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.1-12
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
Regional and localized operational emissions were analyzed for Options 1 through 4. Operational emissions
of criteria pollutants would come from area sources and mobile sources. Area sources include natural gas for
space heating and water heating, gasoline-powered landscaping and maintenance equipment, consumer
products such as household cleaners, and architectural coatings for routine maintenance. Mobile sources are
vehicle trips that would be made by students and staff, visitors and service personnel and by patrons,
employees, and vendors associated with the businesses.
Operational emissions were estimated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).
CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for
government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria
pollutants emissions for a variety of land use projects. CalEEMod uses EMFAC2011 emission rates to
calculate vehicle emissions. EMFAC2011 is the latest emission inventory model for motor vehicles
operating on roads in California. This model reflects CARB’s current understanding of how vehicles travel
and how much they pollute. EMFAC2011 model can be used to show how California motor vehicle
emissions have changed over time and are projected to change in the future. Mobile source emissions were
calculated using trip generation rates provided in the traffic analysis.
Localized CO emissions were calculated utilizing the USEPA’s CAL3QHC dispersion model and
EMFAC2011. CAL3QHC is a model developed by USEPA to predict CO and other pollutant concentrations
from motor vehicle emissions at roadway intersections. The model uses a traffic algorithm for estimating
vehicular queue lengths at signalized intersections.
EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
Regional Emissions
Option 1 - College and High School Mix. Option 1 would generate 3,524 daily weekday trips (648 AM
peak-hour trips and 419 PM peak-hour trips). Table 4.1-4 shows existing plus project emissions and
Table 4.1-5 shows future with project emissions. Regional NOX emissions would exceed the SCAQMD
threshold under existing plus project conditions. The emissions would not be significant two years later in
2014 as fleet turnover would result in increased engine efficiency and decreased emissions. Nonetheless,
without mitigation, Option 1 existing plus project conditions would result in a significant impact related to
regional emissions. There are no feasible mitigation measures that would reduce this near-term impact to
less than significant.
Option 2 - High School and Adult Education/Workforce Training Mix. Option 2 would generate
3,644 daily weekday trips (556 AM peak-hour trips and 434 PM peak-hour trips). Table 4.1-4 shows
existing plus project emissions and Table 4.1-5 shows future with project emissions. Regional NOX
emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold under existing plus project conditions. The emissions
would not be significant two years later in 2014 as fleet turnover would result in increased engine efficiency
and decreased emissions. Nonetheless, without mitigation, Option 2 existing plus project conditions would
result in a significant impact related to regional emissions. There are no feasible mitigation measures that
would reduce this near-term impact to less than significant.
Option 3 - Current Mix. Option 3 would generate 2,222 daily weekday trips (572 AM peak-hour trips and
182 PM peak-hour trips). Tables 4.1-4 and 4.1-5 show that daily maximum regional operational emissions
would not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, Option 3 would result in a less-thansignificant impact related to regional operational emissions.
taha 2012-061
4.1-13
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
TABLE 4.1-4: DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT (2012)
Pounds per Day
Emission Source
VOC
NOX
CO
SOX
OPTION 1 - COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL MIX
Area Source Emissions
3
0
0
Vehicle Emissions
23
56
211
Total Emissions
26
56
211
SCAQMD Threshold
55
55
550
Exceed Threshold?
No
Yes
No
OPTION 2 - HIGH SCHOOL AND ADULT EDUCATION/WORKFORCE TRAINING MIX
Area Source Emissions
3
0
0
Vehicle Emissions
23
58
219
Total Emissions
26
58
219
SCAQMD Threshold
55
55
550
Exceed Threshold?
No
Yes
No
OPTION 3 - CURRENT MIX
Area Source Emissions
2
0
0
Vehicle Emissions
13
32
123
Total Emissions
15
32
123
SCAQMD Threshold
55
55
550
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
OPTION 4 - OFFICE AND UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION MIX
Area Source Emissions
1
0
0
Vehicle Emissions
19
48
180
Total Emissions
20
48
180
SCAQMD Threshold
55
55
550
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
PM2.5
PM10
0
<1
<1
150
No
0
3
3
55
No
0
35
35
150
No
0
<1
<1
150
No
0
3
3
55
No
0
36
36
150
No
0
<1
<1
150
No
0
2
2
55
No
0
20
20
150
No
0
<1
<1
150
No
0
3
3
55
No
0
30
30
150
No
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix. Option 4 would generate 2,716 daily weekday trips
(343 AM peak-hour trips and 181 PM peak-hour trips). Tables 4.1-4 and 4.1-5 show that daily regional
maximum operational would not exceed the SCAQMD regional thresholds for all the analyzed criteria
pollutants. Therefore, Option 4 would result in a less-than-significant impact related to regional operational
emissions.
Localized Concentrations
Localized CO emissions may potentially occur off-site at congested intersection with high traffic volumes.
CO concentrations in future years are expected to be lower than existing conditions due to stringent State and
federal mandates for lowering vehicle emissions. Although traffic volumes would be higher in the future
both without and with the implementation of Options 1 through 4, CO emissions from mobile sources are
expected to be much lower due to technological advances in vehicle emissions systems, as well as from
normal turnover in the vehicle fleet. Accordingly, increases in traffic volumes are expected to be offset by
increases in cleaner-running cars as a percentage of the entire vehicle fleet on the road.
The State one- and eight-hour CO standards may potentially be exceeded at congested intersections with high
traffic volumes. The SCAQMD recommends a CO hotspot evaluation of potential localized CO impacts
when volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios are increased by two percent at intersections with a level of service
(LOS) – traffic performance at intersections or along roadway segments – of D or worse. The SCAQMD
also recommends a CO hotspot evaluation when an intersection decreases in LOS by one level beginning
when LOS changes from C to D.
taha 2012-061
4.1-14
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
TABLE 4.1-5: DAILY OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS - FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2014)
OPTION 1 - COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL MIX
Area Source Emissions
3
0
0
0
Vehicle Emissions
20
49
181
<1
Total Emissions
23
49
181
<1
SCAQMD Threshold
55
55
550
150
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
No
OPTION 2 - HIGH SCHOOL AND ADULT EDUCATION/WORKFORCE TRAINING MIX
Area Source Emissions
3
0
0
0
Vehicle Emissions
20
51
188
<1
Total Emissions
23
51
188
<1
SCAQMD Threshold
55
55
550
150
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
No
OPTION 3 - CURRENT MIX
Area Source Emissions
2
0
0
0
Vehicle Emissions
12
28
106
<1
Total Emissions
14
28
106
<1
SCAQMD Threshold
55
55
550
150
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
No
OPTION 4 - OFFICE AND UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION MIX
Area Source Emissions
1
0
0
0
Vehicle Emissions
16
42
154
<1
Total Emissions
17
42
154
<1
SCAQMD Threshold
55
55
550
150
Exceed Threshold?
No
No
No
No
0
3
3
55
No
0
35
35
150
No
0
3
3
55
No
0
36
36
150
No
0
2
2
55
No
0
20
20
150
No
0
3
3
55
No
0
30
30
150
No
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
The San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection required further analysis in the morning peak hour. As
shown in Table 4.1-6, the State one- and eight-hour standards of 20 and 9.0 ppm, respectively, would not be
exceeded under Options 1 through 4. Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would result in less-than-significant
impacts related to carbon monoxide hotspots.
TABLE 4.1-6: ROADWAY CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS
1-Hour (parts per million)
Intersection
Existing Plus
Project
(2012)
8-Hour (parts per million)
Future Plus
Project
(2014)
Existing Plus
Project
(2012)
Future Plus
Project
(2014)
OPTIONS 1 THROUGH 4
3
San Fernando Road and Fletcher Drive
State Standard
Exceed Threshold?
3
2.5
9.0
20
No
2.3
No
No
/a/ Existing Plus Project concentrations include year 2012 one- and eight-hour ambient concentrations of 7 and 4.6 ppm, respectively. Future
concentrations include year 2014 one- and eight-hour ambient concentrations of 5.5 and 3.6 ppm, respectively.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.1-15
No
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions
The SCAQMD recommends that health risk assessments be conducted for substantial sources of diesel
particulates (e.g., truck stops and warehouse distribution facilities) and has provided guidance for analyzing
mobile source diesel emissions. 6 The primary source of potential TACs associated with long-term operations
is diesel particulates from delivery trucks (e.g., truck traffic on local streets and on-site truck idling).
Potential localized TAC impacts from on-site sources of diesel particulate emissions would be minimal since
only a limited number of heavy-duty trucks (e.g., delivery trucks) would access the project site, and the
trucks that do visit the site would not idle on the project site for extended periods of time. Based on the
limited activity of these TAC sources, Options 1 through 4 would not warrant the need for a health risk
assessment associated with on-site activities. Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would result in less-thansignificant impacts related to TAC emissions.
The proposed educational facilities may be adversely affected by off-site mobile sources emissions. CARB
recommends against locating educational facilities within 500 feet of roadways with volumes greater than
100,000 average daily vehicles and high diesel truck volumes. The project site is located within 500 feet of
the Glendale Freeway (SR-2), which supports 149,000 average daily trips per day near the project site.
Trucks represent 2.09 percent of the total vehicle volume (3,114 trucks per day). This truck percentage is
lower than the regional average for a freeway, which is typically in the four to six percent range. The
majority of student activity at the project site would occur indoors as there are no athletic areas. This is
significant as outdoor concentrations are typically much higher than indoor concentrations at the same
location. The absence of recreational areas combined with the low regional truck volumes associated with
the SR-2 would substantially limit student and staff exposure to mobile source TACs. Therefore, Options 1
through 4 would result in less-than-significant impacts related to TAC exposure.
Odors
According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses and industrial operations that are
associated with odor complaints include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing
plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies and fiberglass molding. Options 1 through 4
consist of classroom and office uses. These land uses are not typically associated with odor complaints. Onsite trash receptacles would have the potential to create adverse odors. Trash receptacles would be located
and maintained in a manner that promotes odor control and no adverse odor impacts are anticipated from
these types of land uses. Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would result in less-than-significant impacts related
to operational odors.
Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan
The SCAQMD regional significance thresholds were designed to assist the SCAQMD in determining if a
project would worsen air quality conditions in the Basin. Options 1 through 4 would not result in significant
emissions and would not interfere with the attainment of air quality standards. Operational activity would
not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would result in
less-than-significant impacts related to consistency with the AQMP.
6
SCAQMD, Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel
Emissions, December 2002.
taha 2012-061
4.1-16
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
MITIGATION MEASURES
Regional
Option 1 - College and High School Mix and Option 2 - High School and Adult Education/Workforce
Training Mix
The nitrogen oxide regional emissions impact would be caused by on-road vehicle emissions. LACCD
cannot regulate vehicle emissions, and there is no feasible mitigation measure to substantially reduce on-road
emissions.
Option 3 - Current Mix and Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix
Impacts related to regional operational emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are
required.
Localized
Impacts related to localized operational emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation measures
are required.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Impacts related to TAC emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Odors
Impacts related to odor emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Applicable Plans, Policies or Regulations
Impacts related to operational consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations would be less than
significant. No mitigation measures are required.
SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Regional
Option 1 - College and High School Mix and Option 2 - High School and Adult Education/Workforce
Training Mix
Nitrogen oxide regional emissions would be significant under existing plus project (2012) conditions. The
emissions would not be significant two years later in 2014 as fleet turnover would result in increased engine
efficiency and decreased emissions. No feasible mitigation measures were identified to reduce the
significant impact related to regional air emissions to less than significant. Therefore, Options 1 and 2 would
result in a significant and unavoidable impact related to regional air emissions.
Option 3 - Current Mix and Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix
Impacts related to regional operational emissions were determined to be less than significant without
mitigation.
taha 2012-061
4.1-17
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.1 Air Quality
Localized
Impacts related to localized operational emissions were determined to be less than significant without
mitigation.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Impacts related to TAC emissions were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
Odors
Impacts related to odor emissions were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
Applicable Plans, Policies or Regulations
Impacts related to consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations were determined to be less
than significant without mitigation.
taha 2012-061
4.1-18
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
4.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
This section provides an overview of existing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories and regulations
and evaluates the operational impacts associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include
construction emissions and consistency with applicable GHG reduction plans and policies.
GHG emissions refer to a group of emissions that are generally believed to affect global climate conditions.
The greenhouse effect compares the Earth and the atmosphere surrounding it to a greenhouse with glass
panes. The glass panes in a greenhouse let heat from sunlight in and reduce the amount of heat that escapes.
GHGs, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), keep the average surface
temperature of the Earth close to 60 degrees Fahrenheit (°F). Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would
have an average surface temperature of about 5°F.
In addition to CO2, CH4, and N2O, GHGs include hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride,
and water vapor. Of all the GHGs, CO2 is the most abundant pollutant that contributes to climate change
through fossil fuel combustion. In 2002, CO2 comprised 83.3 percent of the total GHG emissions in
California. 1 The other GHGs are less abundant but have higher global warming potential than CO2. To
account for this higher potential, emissions of other GHGs are frequently expressed in the equivalent mass of
CO2, denoted as CO2e. The CO2e of CH4 and N2O represented 6.4 and 6.8 percent, respectively, of the 2002
California GHG emissions. Other high global warming potential gases represented 3.5 percent of these
emissions. 2 In addition, there are a number of human-made pollutants, such as CO, NOX, non-methane
VOC, and SO2, that have indirect effects on terrestrial or solar radiation absorption by influencing the
formation or destruction of other climate change emissions.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
In response to growing scientific and political concern with global climate change, California has adopted a
series of laws to reduce emissions of GHGs into the atmosphere. Applicable regulations are provided below.
Executive Order (E.O.) S-3-05. On June 1, 2005, E.O. S-3-05 set the following GHG emission reduction
targets: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. The Executive Order establishes State
GHG emission targets of 1990 levels by 2020 (the same as AB 32) and 80 percent below 1990 levels by
2050. It calls for the Secretary of California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) to be responsible
for coordination of State agencies and progress reporting. A recent California Energy Commission report
concludes, however, that the primary strategies to achieve this target should be major “decarbonization” of
electricity supplies and fuels, and major improvements in energy efficiency.
In response to the E.O., the Secretary of the Cal/EPA created the Climate Action Team (CAT). California’s
CAT originated as a coordinating council organized by the Secretary for Environmental Protection. It included
the Secretaries of the Natural Resources Agency, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Chairs of the
Air Resources Board, Energy Commission, and Public Utilities Commission. The original council was an
informal collaboration between the agencies to develop potential mechanisms for reductions in GHG emissions
in the State. The council was given formal recognition in E.O. S-3-05 and became the CAT.
The original mandate for the CAT was to develop proposed measures to meet the emission reduction targets
set forth in the executive order. The CAT has since expanded and currently has members from 18 State
1
California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the
Legislature, March 2006, p. 11.
2
Ibid.
taha 2012-061
4.2-1
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
agencies and departments. The CAT also has ten working groups which coordinate policies among their
members. The working groups and their major areas of focus are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Agriculture: Focusing on opportunities for agriculture to reduce GHG emissions through efficiency
improvements and alternative energy projects, while adapting agricultural systems to climate change
Biodiversity: Designing policies to protect species and natural habitats from the effects of climate change
Energy: Reducing GHG emissions through extensive energy efficiency policies and renewable energy
generation
Forestry: Coupling GHG mitigation efforts with climate change adaptation related to forest preservation
and resilience, waste to energy programs and forest offset protocols
Land Use and Infrastructure: Linking land use and infrastructure planning to efforts to reduce GHG
from vehicles and adaptation to changing climatic conditions
Oceans and Coastal: Evaluating the effects sea level rise and changes in coastal storm patterns on human
and natural systems in California
Public Health: Evaluating the effects of GHG mitigation policies on public health and adapting public
health systems to cope with changing climatic conditions
Research: Coordinating research concerning impacts of and responses to climate change in California
State Government: Evaluating and implementing strategies to reduce GHG emissions resulting from
State government operations
Water: Reducing GHG impacts associated with the State’s water systems and exploring strategies to
protect water distribution and flood protection infrastructure
Assembly Bill (AB) 32. In September 2006, the State passed the California Global Warming Solutions Act
of 2006, also known as AB 32, into law. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California, and
requires the CARB to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to Statewide
levels in 1990 by 2020. To achieve this goal, AB 32 mandates that the CARB establish a quantified
emissions cap, institute a schedule to meet the cap, implement regulations to reduce Statewide GHG
emissions from stationary sources, and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure
that reductions are achieved. Because the intent of AB 32 is to limit 2020 emissions to the equivalent of
1990, it is expected that the regulations would affect many existing sources of GHG emissions and not just
new general development projects. Senate Bill (SB) 1368, a companion bill to AB 32, requires the
California Public Utilities Commission and the California Energy Commission to establish GHG emission
performance standards for the generation of electricity. These standards will also apply to power that is
generated outside of California and imported into the State.
AB 32 charges CARB with the responsibility to monitor and regulate sources of GHG emissions in order to
reduce those emissions. On June 1, 2007, CARB adopted three discrete early action measures to reduce
GHG emissions. These measures involved complying with a low carbon fuel standard, reducing refrigerant
loss from motor vehicle air conditioning maintenance, and increasing methane capture from landfills. On
October 25, 2007, CARB tripled the set of previously approved early action measures. The approved
measures include improving truck efficiency (i.e., reducing aerodynamic drag), electrifying port equipment,
reducing perfluorocarbons from the semiconductor industry, reducing propellants in consumer products,
promoting proper tire inflation in vehicles, and reducing sulfur hexaflouride emission from the nonelectricity sector. The CARB has determined that the total Statewide aggregated GHG 1990 emissions level
and 2020 emissions limit is 427 million metric tons of CO2e. The 2020 target reductions are currently
estimated to be 174 million metric tons of CO2e.
The CARB AB 32 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies to achieve the 2020 emissions cap. The Scoping
Plan was developed by the CARB with input from the CAT and proposes a comprehensive set of actions
designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce oil dependency,
diversify energy sources, enhance public health while creating new jobs, and improve the State economy. The
GHG reduction strategies contained in the Scoping Plan include direct regulations, alternative compliance
taha 2012-061
4.2-2
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as
a cap-and-trade system. Key approaches for reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 include:
•
•
•
•
•
Expand and strengthen existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards;
Achieve a Statewide renewable electricity standard of 33 percent;
Develop a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner
programs to create a regional market system;
Establish targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursue
policies and incentives to achieve those targets; and
Adopt and implement measures to reduce transportation sector emissions, including California’s.
CARB also requires GHG reporting for certain types of facilities that make up the bulk of the stationary
source emissions in California. The regulation language identifies major facilities as those that generate
more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 per year. Cement plants, oil refineries, electric generating
facilities/providers, co-generation facilities, hydrogen plants, and other stationary combustion sources that
emit more than 25,000 metric tons of CO2 per year, make up 94 percent of the point source CO2 emissions in
California.
California Green Building Code. The California Green Building Code, referred to as CalGreen, is the first
Statewide green building code. It was developed to provide a consistent, approach for green building within
California. CalGreen lays out minimum requirements for newly constructed buildings in California, which
will reduce greenhouse gas emissions through improved efficiency and process improvements. It requires
builders to install plumbing that cuts indoor water use by as much as 20 percent, to divert 50 percent of
construction waste from landfills to recycling, and to use low-pollutant paints, carpets, and floors.
CEQA Guidelines Amendments. California Senate Bill (SB) 97 required the Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) to develop CEQA Guidelines “for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions
or the effects of greenhouse gas emissions.” The CEQA Guidelines amendments provide guidance to public
agencies regarding the analysis and mitigation of the effects of GHG emissions in CEQA documents.
Noteworthy revisions to the CEQA Guidelines include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lead agencies should quantify all relevant GHG emissions and consider the full range of project features
that may increase or decrease GHG emissions as compared to the existing setting;
Consistency with the CARB Scoping Plan is not a sufficient basis to determine that a project’s GHG
emissions would not be cumulatively considerable;
A lead agency may appropriately look to thresholds developed by other public agencies, including the
CARB’s recommended CEQA thresholds;
To qualify as mitigation, specific measures from an existing plan must be identified and incorporated
into the project. General compliance with a plan, by itself, is not mitigation;
The effects of GHG emissions are cumulative and should be analyzed in the context of CEQA’s
requirements for cumulative impact analysis; and
Given that impacts resulting from GHG emissions are cumulative, significant advantages may result
from analyzing such impacts on a programmatic level. If analyzed properly, later projects may tier,
incorporate by reference, or otherwise rely on the programmatic analysis.
CARB Guidance. CARB published draft guidance for setting interim GHG significance thresholds
(October 24, 2008). The guidance does not attempt to address every type of project that may be subject to
CEQA, but instead focuses on common project types that are responsible for substantial GHG emissions
(i.e., industrial, residential, and commercial projects). CARB believes that thresholds in these important
sectors will advance climate objectives, streamline project review, and encourage consistency and uniformity
in the CEQA analysis of GHG emissions throughout the State.
taha 2012-061
4.2-3
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
SCAQMD Guidance. SCAQMD has convened a GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group to
provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA
documents. Members of the working group include government agencies implementing CEQA and
representatives from various stakeholder groups that will provide input to the SCAQMD staff on developing
GHG CEQA significance thresholds. On December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted the
staff proposal for an interim GHG significance threshold for projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency.
The SCAQMD has not adopted guidance for CEQA projects under other lead agencies.
Green LA Action Plan. The City of Los Angeles has issued guidance promoting green building to reduce GHG
emissions. The goal of the Green LA Action Plan (Plan) is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 35 percent below
1990 levels by 2030.3 The Plan identifies objectives and actions designed to make the City a leader in
confronting global climate change. The measures would reduce emissions directly from municipal facilities and
operations, and create a framework to address City-wide GHG emissions. The Plan lists various focus areas in
which to implement GHG reduction strategies. Focus areas listed in the Plan include energy, water,
transportation, land use, waste, port, airport, and ensuring that changes to the local climate are incorporated into
planning and building decisions. The Plan discusses City goals for each focus area, as follows:
Energy
• Increase the generation of renewable energy;
• Encourage the use of mass transit;
• Develop sustainable construction guidelines;
• Increase City-wide energy efficiency; and
• Promote energy conservation.
Water
• Decrease per capita water use to reduce electricity demand associated with water pumping and treatment.
Transportation
• Power the City vehicle fleet with alternative fuels; and
• Promote alternative transportation (e.g., mass transit and rideshare).
Other Goals
• Create a more livable City through land use regulations;
• Increase recycling, reducing emissions generated by activity associated with the Port of Los Angeles and
regional airports;
• Create more City parks, promoting the environmental economic sector; and
• Adapt planning and building policies to incorporate climate change policy.
The City adopted an ordinance to establish a green building program in April 2008. The ordinance
establishes green building requirements for projects involving 50 or more dwelling units. The Green
Building Program was established to reduce the use of natural resources, create healthier living environments
and minimize the negative impacts of development on local, regional, and global ecosystems. The program
addresses the following five areas:
•
•
•
•
Site: location, site planning, landscaping, storm water management, construction and demolition
recycling
Water Efficiency: efficient fixtures, wastewater reuse, and efficient irrigation
Energy and Atmosphere: energy efficiency, and clean/renewable energy
Materials and Resources: materials reuse, efficient building systems, and use of recycled and rapidly
renewable materials
3
City of Los Angeles, Green LA: An Action Plan to Lead the Nation in Fighting Global Warming, May 2007.
taha 2012-061
4.2-4
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
•
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Indoor Environmental Quality: improved indoor air quality, increased natural lighting, and thermal
comfort/control
EXISTING SETTING
The primary effect of rising global concentrations of atmospheric GHG levels is a rise in the average global
temperature of approximately 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, determined from meteorological measurements
worldwide between 1990 and 2005. Climate change modeling using 2000 emission rates shows that further
warming is likely to occur given the expected rise in global atmospheric GHG concentrations from
innumerable sources of GHG emissions worldwide, which would induce further changes in the global
climate system during the current century. 4 Adverse impacts from global climate change worldwide and in
California include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Declining sea ice and mountain snowpack levels, thereby increasing sea levels and sea surface
evaporation rates with a corresponding increase in atmospheric water vapor due to the atmosphere’s
ability to hold more water vapor at higher temperatures; 5
Rising average global sea levels primarily due to thermal expansion and the melting of glaciers, ice caps,
and the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets; 6
Changing weather patterns, including changes to precipitation, ocean salinity, and wind patterns, and
more energetic aspects of extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves, extreme
cold, and the intensity of tropical cyclones; 7
Declining Sierra Mountains snowpack levels, which account for approximately half of the surface water
storage in California, by 70 percent to as much as 90 percent over the next 100 years; 8
Increasing the number of days conducive to ozone formation (e.g., clear days with intense sun light) by
25 to 85 percent (depending on the future temperature scenario) in high O3 areas located in the Southern
California area and the San Joaquin Valley by the end of the 21st Century; 9 and
Increasing the potential for erosion of California’s coastlines and seawater intrusion into the Sacramento
Delta and associated levee systems due to the rise in sea level. 10
Scientific understanding of the fundamental processes responsible for global climate change has improved
over the past decade. However, there remain significant scientific uncertainties, for example, in predictions
of local effects of climate change, occurrence of extreme weather events, and effects of aerosols, changes in
clouds, shifts in the intensity and distribution of precipitation, and changes in oceanic circulation. Due to the
complexity of the climate system, the uncertainty surrounding the implications of climate change may never
be completely eliminated. Because of these uncertainties, there continues to be significant debate as to the
extent to which increased concentrations of GHGs have caused or will cause climate change, and with
respect to the appropriate actions to limit and/or respond to climate change. In addition, it may not be
possible to link specific development projects to future specific climate change impacts, though estimating
project-specific impacts is possible.
California is the fifteenth largest emitter of GHG on the planet, representing about two percent of the
worldwide emissions. 11 Table 4.2-1 shows the California GHG emissions inventory for years 2000 to 2009.
Statewide GHG emissions slightly decreased in 2009 due to a noticeable drop in on-road transportation,
electricity generation, and industrial emissions.
4
USEPA, Draft Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. 18886, 18904, April 24, 2009.
Ibid.
6
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007.
7
Ibid.
8
Cal/EPA, Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, 2006.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
11
CARB, Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008.
5
taha 2012-061
4.2-5
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
TABLE 4.2-1: CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INVENTORY
Sector
Transportation
Electric Power (In-State)
Electric Power (Imports)
Commercial and Residential
Industrial
Recycling and Waste
Agriculture
Forest Net Emissions
Emissions Total
2000
172
60
46
43
97
7
29
(4.5)
459
2001
175
64
59
41
93
7
29
(4.3)
475
2002
181
51
59
43
94
7
32
(4.2)
475
CO2e Emissions (Million Metric Tons)
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
179
183
186
187
187
49
50
46
51
55
65
66
63
55
60
41
43
41
42
42
92
94
93
92
90
7
7
7
7
7
31
32
33
34
33
(4.2)
(4.2)
(4.0)
(3.9)
(3.9)
472
484
479
478
485
2008
178
55
66
42
87
7
33
(3.8)
481
2009
173
56
48
43
81
7
32
(3.8)
453
SOURCE: CARB, California Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2000-2009, December 2011.
The transportation sector – largely the cars and trucks that move people and goods – is the largest contributor
with 38 percent of the State’s total GHG emissions in 2009. On-road emissions (from passenger vehicles
and heavy duty trucks) constitute 93 percent of the transportation sector total emissions. Of the on-road
vehicles, light duty passenger vehicles accounted for approximately 74 percent of the total sector emissions
in 2009 GHG emissions. Transportation emissions showed a decline from 187 million metric tons of CO2e
in 2007 to 173 million metric tons of CO2e in 2009.
The electricity sector is the next largest contributor at approximately 23 percent of the Statewide GHG
emissions. This sector includes power plants and cogeneration facilities that generate electricity for on-site
use and for sale to the power grid. In 2009, this sector emitted approximately 105 million metric ton of
CO2e. Emissions from imported electricity generation from specified imports, unspecified imports, and
transmission and distribution account for 68 percent, 31 percent, and less than 1 percent, respectively. InState electricity generation includes CHP commercial, CHP industrial, merchant owned, transmission and
distribution, and utility owned. The contributions from CHP commercial is approximately 2 percent, CHP
industrial is approximately 30 percent, merchant owned is approximately 57 percent, transmission and
distribution is approximately 1 percent, and utility owned is approximately 18 percent. Emissions from
natural gas accounts for 87 percent of in-State GHG emissions associated with electricity generation.
The industrial sector is the third largest contributor to the Statewide GHG emissions. California’s industrial
sector includes industrial CHP useful heat, landfills, manufacturing, mining, oil and gas extraction,
petroleum refining, petroleum marketing, pipelines, wastewater treatment, and other large industrial sources.
Of these emitters, petroleum refining, manufacturing accounts for 32 percent, oil extraction accounts for
25 percent, gas extraction accounts for 15 percent, CHP accounts for 12 percent, and landfills accounts for
8 percent.
The sector termed recycling and waste management is a unique system, encompassing not just emissions
from waste facilities but also the emissions associated with the production, distribution and disposal of
products throughout the economy.
Although high global warming potential gases (e.g., PFCs, HFCs, and SF6) are a small contributor to historic
GHG emissions, levels of these gases are projected to increase sharply over the next several decades making
them a significant source by 2020. These gases are used in growing industries such as semiconductor
manufacturing.
The forest sector GHG inventory includes CO2 uptake and GHG emissions from wild and prescribed fires,
the decomposition and combustion of residues from harvest and conversion/development, and wood products
decomposition. The forest sector is unique in that forests both emit GHGs and absorb CO2 through carbon
sequestration. While the current inventory shows forests absorb 3.8 million metric tons of CO2e, carbon
taha 2012-061
4.2-6
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
sequestration has declined since 2000 due to losses of forest area and emission increases from decomposing
wood products consumed in the State. For this reason, the 2020 projection assumes no net emissions from
forests.
The agricultural GHG emissions shown are largely methane emissions from livestock, both from the animals
and their waste. Emissions of GHG from fertilizer application are also important contributors from the
agricultural sector. Opportunities to sequester CO2 in the agricultural sector may also exist; however,
additional research is needed to identify and quantify potential sequestration benefits.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, Options 1 through 4 would have a significant
impact related to greenhouse gases if it would:
•
•
Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment; and/or
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions
of GHG.
CARB and SCAQMD have not adopted a significance threshold for analyzing GHG emissions associated with
land use development projects. The significance threshold is based on the methodologies recommended by the
CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change White Paper (January 2008). CAPCOA conducted an analysis of various
approaches and significance thresholds, ranging from a zero threshold (all projects are cumulatively considerable)
to a high of 40,000 to 50,000 metric tons of CO2e per year. For example, an approach assuming a zero threshold
and compliance with AB 32 2020 targets would require all discretionary projects to achieve a 33 percent reduction
from projected “business-as-usual” emissions to be considered less than significant. A zero threshold approach
could be considered on the basis that climate change is a global phenomenon, and not controlling small source
emissions would potentially neglect a major portion of the GHG inventory. However, the CEQA Guidelines also
recognize that there may be a point where a project’s contribution, although above zero, would not be a
considerable contribution to the cumulative impact (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15130 [a]). Therefore, a threshold
of greater than zero is considered more appropriate for the analysis of GHG emissions under CEQA.
Another method would use a quantitative threshold of greater than 900 metric tons CO2e per year based on a
market capture approach that requires mitigation for greater than 90 percent of likely future discretionary
development. Another potential threshold would be the 10,000 metric tons standard used by the Market
Advisory Committee for inclusion in a GHG Cap and Trade System in California. The basic concepts for the
various approaches suggested by CAPCOA are used herein to determine if GHG emissions are
“cumulatively considerable.”
The most conservative (i.e., lowest) thresholds, suggested by CAPCOA, would not be appropriate for the
proposed project given that it is located in a community that is highly urbanized. Similarly, the 900-ton
threshold was also determined to be too conservative for general development in the South Coast Air Basin.
Consequently, the threshold of 10,000 metric tons CO2e is used as a quantitative benchmark for significance.
IMPACTS
The existing environmental setting normally constitutes the baseline conditions against which a lead agency
determines whether an impact is significant. However, the use of past or hypothetical conditions as the
baseline is appropriate where, as here, it is necessary to evaluate current impacts resulting from the existing
uses on the project site. Thus, throughout this document, a comparison of existing conditions against the
conditions that would occur without the interim uses is utilized, in order to provide the actual effects of the
existing interim uses (“Option 3”) on the environment.
taha 2012-061
4.2-7
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
METHODOLOGY
Greenhouse gas emissions were calculated for mobile sources, natural gas consumption, general electricity
consumption, electricity consumption associated with the use and transport of water, and solid waste
decomposition. Mobile source GHG emissions were obtained from the California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify
potential criteria pollutants and GHG emissions for a variety of land use projects. The model quantifies
direct emissions from construction and operation (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such
as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use.
EMISSIONS ANALYSIS
Greenhouse gas emissions would be generated by generated by on-road mobile vehicle operations, general
electricity consumption, electricity consumption associated with the use and transport of water, natural gas
consumption, and solid waste decomposition.
Table 4.2-2 shows the estimated existing plus project GHG emissions for Options 1 through 4 in comparison
to existing conditions. As shown, Options 1 through 4 would result in 4,248, 4,353, 2,517, and 3,570 metric
tons of CO2e per year, respectively. GHG emissions would be less than the 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per
year quantitative significance threshold for all four occupancy options. Therefore, existing plus project
conditions for Options 1 through 4 would result in less-than-significant impacts related to GHG emissions.
TABLE 4.2-2: ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS - EXISTING PLUS PROJECT CONDITIONS (2012)
Emission Source
OPTION 1 - COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL MIX
Mobile
General Electricity
Water Cycle Electricity
Natural Gas
Solid Waste Decomposition
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (Metric Tons per Year)
3,500
496
90
96
66
Total Emissions
4,248
Regional Significance Threshold
Exceed Threshold?
OPTION 2 - HIGH SCHOOL AND ADULT EDUCATION/WORKFORCE TRAINING MIX
Mobile
General Electricity
Water Cycle Electricity
Natural Gas
Solid Waste Decomposition
Total Emissions
3,638
474
86
91
64
4,353
Regional Significance Threshold
Exceed Threshold?
OPTION 3 – CURRENT MIX
Mobile
General Electricity
Water Cycle Electricity
Natural Gas
Solid Waste Decomposition
10,000
No
1,999
341
70
56
51
Total Emissions
2,517
Regional Significance Threshold
Exceed Threshold?
OPTION 4 - OFFICE AND UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION MIX
Mobile
General Electricity
Water Cycle Electricity
Natural Gas
Solid Waste Decomposition
Total Emissions
10,000
No
3,056
358
70
59
27
3,570
Regional Significance Threshold
Exceed Threshold?
10,000
No
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
10,000
No
4.2-8
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Table 4.2-3 shows the estimated future with project (2014) GHG emissions for Options 1 through 4 in
comparison to future no project conditions. As shown in Table 4.2-3, Options 1 through 4 would result in
4,268, 4,406, 2,546, and 3,613 metric tons of CO2e per year, respectively. GHG emissions would be less
than the 10,000 metric tons of CO2e per year quantitative significance threshold for all four occupancy
options. Therefore, future with project conditions for Options 1 through 4 would result in less-thansignificant impacts related to GHG emissions.
TABLE 4.2-3: ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS – FUTURE WITH PROJECT (2014)
Emission Source
OPTION 1 - COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL MIX
Mobile
General Electricity
Water Cycle Electricity
Natural Gas
Solid Waste Decomposition
Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (Metric Tons per Year)
3,551
496
90
96
66
Total Emissions
4,268
Regional Significance Threshold
Exceed Threshold?
OPTION 2 - HIGH SCHOOL AND ADULT EDUCATION/WORKFORCE TRAINING MIX
Mobile
General Electricity
Water Cycle Electricity
Natural Gas
Solid Waste Decomposition
Total Emissions
10,000
No
3,690
474
87
91
64
4,406
Regional Significance Threshold
Exceed Threshold?
OPTION 3 – CURRENT MIX
Mobile
General Electricity
Water Cycle Electricity
Natural Gas
Solid Waste Decomposition
10,000
No
2,028
341
70
56
51
Total Emissions
2,546
Regional Significance Threshold
Exceed Threshold?
OPTION 4 - OFFICE AND UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION MIX
Mobile
General Electricity
Water Cycle Electricity
Natural Gas
Solid Waste Decomposition
10,000
No
Total Emissions
3,613
Regional Significance Threshold
Exceed Threshold?
10,000
No
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
3,099
358
70
59
27
4.2-9
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Applicable Plans, Policies or Regulations
The LACCD Board of Trustees mandates the use of sustainable building practices for its campuses, and all
new buildings that are funded with Measure J Bond monies are required to be “green” buildings and built to
LEED certification standards. As part of achieving LEED certification, the existing building includes design
strategies related to water efficiency, energy, innovation, indoor air quality, materials and resources, and site
design. Design strategies included low flow water efficiency plumbing fixtures, high performance building
envelope, the usage of low volatile organic compounds in building materials, the usage of recycled building
content (e.g., building materials and fly-ash concrete mixture), sustainable wood, and maximizing infiltration
on-site.
The CARB AB 32 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies to achieve the 2020 emissions cap. The
Scoping Plan was developed by the CARB with input from the Climate Action Team and proposes a
comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California, improve the
environment, reduce oil dependency, diversify energy sources, and enhance public health while creating new
jobs and improving the State economy. The California Attorney General has prepared a Fact Sheet listing
various mitigation measures that local agencies may consider to offset or reduce global warming impacts and
ensure compliance with AB 32.
Consistency with the Attorney General Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures and the California Air Pollution
Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) is described Tables 4.2-4 and 4.2-5. Options 1 through 4 would
meet the objectives and overall intent of reducing GHGs consistent with direction/measures of the CAPCOA
and the Attorney General. Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would result in less-than-significant impacts
related to GHG reduction plans and policies.
TABLE 4.2-4:
PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH APPLICABLE ATTORNEY GENERAL GREENHOUSE
GAS REDUCTION MEASURES
Strategy
Project Consistency
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
Incorporate green building practices and design
elements.
Consistent: The New Educational Building includes energy design
strategies. High-performance insulation, optimize shading, and high
performance glazing are part of the building design features.
Meet reorganized green building and energy
efficiency benchmarks.
Consistent: The New Educational Building was designed and
constructed using the USGBC LEED rating system.
Install energy efficient lighting (e.g., light emitting
diodes (LEDS)), heating and cooling systems,
appliances, equipment, and control systems.
Consistent: The New Educational Building includes and energyefficient fixtures.
Use passive solar design (e.g., orient buildings and
incorporate landscaping to maximize passive solar
heating during cooling seasons, minimize solar
heat gain during hot seasons, and enhance natural
ventilation. Design buildings to take advantage of
sunlight.
Consistent: The New Educational Building is strategically oriented to
take advantage of natural heating and cooling effects.
WATER CONSERVATION AND EFFICIENCY
Incorporate water-reducing features into building
and landscape design.
Consistent: The New Educational Building incorporates low-flow
water efficiency plumbing fixtures (i.e., faucets, toilets, and urinals).
Landscaping includes drought tolerant plants and ground-cover to
conserve water and minimize runoff.
SOLID WASTE
Reuse and recycle construction and demolition
waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation,
concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard).
Consistent: The New Educational Building was constructed using
recycled building materials including fly-ash concrete mixture and
sustainable wood (i.e., salvageed, recycled and Forest Stewardship
Council Certified wood products).
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.2-10
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
TABLE 4.2-5:
4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH CAPCOA GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION
MEASURES
CAPCOA-Suggested Measure
EE-1.1. Green Building Ordinance: Adopt a Green
Building Ordinance that requires new development
and redevelopment projects for both residential and
commercial buildings to incorporate sufficient green
building methods and techniques to qualify for the
equivalent of a current LEED Certified rating,
GreenPoints, or equivalent rating system.
EE-2.1. Improved Building Standards: Adopt
energy efficiency performance standards for
buildings that achieve a greater reduction in energy
and water use than otherwise required by state law.
Project Consistency
Consistent: The New Educational Building was designed and
constructed using the United States Green Buildings Council LEED
rating system.
MO 5.2. Landscaping: Evaluate existing
landscaping and options to convert reflective and
impervious surfaces to landscaping, and will install
or replace vegetation with drought-tolerant, lowmaintenance native species or edible landscaping
that can also provide shade and reduce heat-island
effects.
COS-2.2. Water-Efficient Infrastructure and
Technology: Ensure water-efficient infrastructure
and technology are used in new construction,
including low-flow toilets and shower heads,
moisture-sensing irrigation, and other such
advances.
COS-3.1. Water-Efficient Landscapes: Install
water-efficient landscapes and irrigation.
Consistent: Landscaping includes drought-tolerant vegetation.
Consistent: Design strategies included low-flow water efficiency
plumbing fixtures and a high performance building envelop.
Consistent: The New Educational Building includes low-flow water
efficiency plumbing fixtures (i.e., faucets, toilets, and urinals).
Consistent: Landscaping limits the use of project site's potable
water, natural surface or subsurface water resources for landscape
irrigation.
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Applicable Plans, Policies or Regulations
Impacts related to consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations would be less than significant.
No mitigation measures are required.
SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impacts related to GHG emissions were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
Applicable Plans, Policies or Regulations
Impacts related to operational consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations emissions were
determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
taha 2012-061
4.2-11
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.3 Land Use & Planning
4.3 LAND USE AND PLANNING
This section provides an overview of City and/or regional land use plans and polices, and evaluates the
construction and operational impacts associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include land
use compatibility, land use consistency and habitat conservation plans.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal
Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs). HCPs, designated under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), are federal planning documents required when a project will affect a species identified as
listed, non-listed, or eligible under the ESA. An HCP details how project impacts upon affected species
would be minimized, or mitigated, and how the HCP is to be funded. No animal species protected by the
ESA have been identified on the project site, and, thus, there are no applicable HCPs.
State
Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP). NCCP programs of the California Department of
Fish and Game take a broad-based ecosystem approach to planning for the protection and perpetuation of
biological diversity at the State level. 1 The primary objective of NCCPs is to conserve natural communities
while accommodating compatible land use. There are no NCCPs applicable to the project site.
Regional
Regional plans that provide general policies and guidance for growth and development in the project area
include the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP),
Growth Vision Report, and Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). These regional plans and associated
regulatory documents are further discussed below.
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). SCAG’s 2012-2035
RTP/SCS, adopted in April 2012, presents a long-term transportation vision through the year 2035 for the
SCAG region. Specific issues addressed within the RTP/SCS include mobility, sustainability, air quality,
climate change, energy, transportation financing, security and safety, environmental justice and mitigation,
revenues and expenditures, transportation conformity, implementation and monitoring, corridor preservation,
and future connections and growth. The RTP/SCS provides a basic policy and program framework for longterm investment in the regional transportation system in a coordinated, cooperative, and continuous manner.
Transportation investments in the SCAG region that receive State or federal transportation funds must be
consistent with the RTP/SCS and must be included in their Regional Transportation Improvement Plan when
ready for funding. The RTP/SCS also includes population, housing, and employment forecasts that provide
advisory information to local jurisdictions for use in planning activities.
Growth Vision Report. In an effort to maintain the region’s prosperity, continue to expand its economy,
house its residents affordably, and protect its environmental setting as a whole, SCAG has collaborated with
interdependent sub-regions, counties, cities, communities, and neighborhoods in a process referred to by
SCAG as Southern California Compass (Compass). This inter-jurisdiction collaboration resulted in the
development of a shared Growth Vision Report for Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San
Bernardino and Ventura Counties. The underlying goal of the growth visioning effort is to make the SCAG
region a better place to live, work, and play for all residents regardless of race, ethnicity, or income. To
1
California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Community Planning Program, Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/
habcon/nccp/, accessed January 13, 2011.
taha 2012-061
4.3-1
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.3 Land Use & Planning
organize the strategies for improving the quality of life in the SCAG region, a series of principles was
established by the Growth Vision Subcommittee. These principles are contained in the Growth Vision
Report. The four principles are intended to promote and maximize regional mobility, livability, prosperity,
and sustainability. Decisions regarding growth, transportation, land use, and economic development should
support and be guided by these principles. Specific policy and planning strategies are also provided as a way
to achieve each of the principles.2
Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP). The 2008 RCP is an advisory document that describes future
conditions in the region if current trends continue, defines a vision for a healthier region, and recommends an
Action Plan with a target year of 2035. The RCP may be voluntarily used by local jurisdictions in
developing local plans and addressing local issues of regional significance. This plan incorporates principles
and goals of the Growth Vision Report and includes nine chapters addressing land use and housing,
transportation, air quality, energy, open space, water, solid waste, economy, and security and emergency
preparedness. The action plans contained therein provide a series of recommended near-term policies that
developers and key stakeholders should consider for implementation, as well as potential policies for
consideration by local jurisdictions and agencies when conducting project review.
Local
City of Los Angeles General Plan (General Plan). The General Plan addresses community development
goals and policies relative to the distribution of land use, both public and private. The General Plan includes
a Framework Element, Citywide Elements, Specific Plans, and Community Plans, and gives policy direction
to the planning regulatory and implementation programs. The ten Citywide Elements include the Air Quality
Element, Conservation Element, Historic Preservation and Cultural Resources, Housing Element,
Infrastructure Systems Element, Noise Element, Open Space Element, Public Facilities and Services
Element, Safety Element, and the Transportation Element. These elements provide long-range Citywide
policy and direction, taking into account Citywide goals and needs. The Land Use Element of the General
Plan is divided into 35 Community Plans for the purpose of developing, maintaining and implementing the
General Plan. These Community Plans collectively comprise the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
The General Plan Framework is a strategy for long-term growth, which sets a Citywide context to guide the
update of the community plan and Citywide elements.
The project site is located in the Northeast Los Angeles Community Plan area. The General Plan Land Use
Map for the Northeast Los Angeles Community Plan area is shown in Figure 4.3-1. As shown, the General
Plan land use designation of the project site is Limited Manufacturing. Applicable General Plan objectives,
policies and actions related to the proposed project are listed in Table 4.3-1.
Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC). Chapter 1 of the LAMC contains the City’s Planning and Zoning
Code. The Planning and Zoning Code sets forth developments standards and regulations for the City’s
designated land use zones, and was drafted to designate, regulate, and restrict the location and use of
buildings, structures, and land. The LAMC seeks to encourage the most appropriate use of land, conserve
and stabilize the value of property, provide adequate spaces for light and air, prevent and fight fire, prevent
undue concentration of population, lessen congestion on streets, facilitate adequate provisions for community
utilities and facilities, and promote health, safety, and general welfare in accordance with the comprehensive
plan. As shown in Figure 4.3-2, the zoning designation of the project site is Restricted Industrial (MR1-1).
Although the MR1-1 zoning designation is primarily intended for industrial uses such as software
development, printing publishing and media production, this zone also allows for commercial uses such as
banks, clinic, laboratories, and offices.
2
Southern California Association of Governments, Southern California Compass Blueprint, Opportunity Area Maps, City
of Los Angeles-South Area, Available at: http://www.compassblueprint.org/files/la-south.pdf, accessed January 12, 2011.
taha 2012-061
4.3-2
ST
E
AV
W
TA
32
N
SA
E
DR
ST
I
DR
ES
R
TA
A
DO
AN
RN
FE
AN
E
AV
RD
UP
T
RR
LS
EL
SW
RO
R
TE
DR
GU
HE
TC
AR
E
FL
M
SW
EL
LS
2
T
S
OS
E
AV
M
RO
NK
LI
AS
IT
RO
AS
ET
C
E
AV
ST
M
LA
S
LI
AY
W
LE
C
PO
EE
D
EA
E
N
IN
E
AV
LE
FR
DA
RL
PE
M
ST
I
ER
A
IT
N
LE
E
AV
ER
AT
W
AT
E
AV
G
DA
VE
32
E
AV
N
ST
ED
E
AV
E
AV
R
O
WA
R
A
RG
LA
31
CA
L
IL
E
AV
30
2
VE
TA
T
LE
L
HA
LEGEND:
Project Site
Low Residential
Commercial Manufacturing
Low Medium I Residential
Limited Manufacturing
Low Medium II Residential
Heavy Manufacturing
Medium Residential
Open Space
Neighborhood Commercial
Public Facilities
N
General Commercial
Neighborhood Office Commercial
Approx.
Scale
0
SOURCE: SCAG 2008, ESRI and TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
320
640
Feet
FIGURE 4.3-1
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.3 Land Use & Planning
TABLE 4.3-1: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND ACTIONS
Objective/Policy
Objective/Policy Description
LAND USE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
Objective 6.1
To site schools in locations complementary to existing land uses and community character.
Policy 6.1.1
Encourage compatibility in school locations, site layout, and architectural design with adjacent land
uses and community character; use schools, as appropriate, to create logical transitions and
buffers between uses such as multiple-family and single-family residential or commercial and
residential uses.
Objective 13-1
To promote an adequate system of safe bikeways for commuter, school and recreational use.
Policy 17-1.1
Encourage local school boards to develop programs in consultation with local businesses to
prepare students for the job market
Policy 17-1.2
Target job training programs toward groups and geographic areas
COORDINATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC AGENCIES
Schools 2
Consider large vacant or underutilized properties as a first alternative to accommodate the demand
for new schools, prior to the displacement of existing uses.
Schools 3
Encourage vocational schools to locate in commercial or industrial areas where training
opportunities are enhanced by the surrounding uses.
SOURCE: Northeast Los Angeles Community Plan, June 15, 1999.
EXISTING SETTING
Project Site
The approximately seven-acre project site is located within the Northeast Community Plan Area of the City
of Los Angeles. The project site is bounded by San Fernando Road to the northeast, the Glendale Freeway
(SR-2) to the southeast, the Metro right-of-way to the southwest, and Fletcher Drive to the northwest. There
are three buildings on the project site: (1) the Old Bakery Building, (2) a Childcare Building, and (3) a New
Educational Building. LACCD and the worker training tenants currently occupy the approximately 30,000square-foot, two-story Old Bakery Building that fronts Fletcher Drive. A charter high school and worker
training tenants currently share use of the approximately 7,000-square-foot Childcare building located
adjacent to the Old Bakery building. A charter high school currently occupies the approximately 45,000square-foot, two-story, L-shaped, New Educational Building located to the south these buildings. A 249space parking lot that provides parking for the charter high school and the other tenants is located south of
the New Educational Building. A portion of the project site located to the northeast of this parking lot is
vacant.
Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is generally bounded by San Fernando Road to the northeast, (SR-2) to the southeast, the
Metro right-of-way to the southwest, and Fletcher Drive to the northwest. The Southern California Regional
Rail Authority (SCRRA) operates the Metrolink commuter rail service within the Metro right-of-way.
According to SCRRA, there are a total of 83 trains (73 passenger, 10 freight) that operate within the right-ofway. Three commercial uses, an AutoZone store, a Denny’s restaurant and an El Pollo Loco fast-food
restaurant front San Fernando Road and are separated from the project site by a driveway that provides
access to the three commercial uses, as well as to the project site facilities. The three commercial uses share
a parking lot that also separates the project site from these commercial uses. The surrounding area is highly
urbanized and developed primarily with commercial and residential uses. The Ribet Academy, a private
school for preschool to high school students with dormitories for high school students, is located southeast of
the project site, south of SR-2.
taha 2012-061
4.3-4
ST
E
AV
W
32
N
SA
E
DR
TA
ST
I
DR
ES
R
TA
A
DO
AN
RN
FE
AN
E
AV
RD
UP
RR
RO
SW
EL
LS
T
E
AV
32
ER
TE
GU
CH
AR
T
LE
M
F
LS
2
T
RO
E
AV
NK
LI
S
OS
M
ET
E
AV
LE
AY
EW
E
D
E
AV
E
AL
E
FR
ND
RL
PE
I
M
EL
C
PO
A
E
NN
M
AS
IT
AS
C
ST
RO
SW
LA
S
LI
ST
I
ER
DR
A
IT
E
AV
32
ER
AT
W
AT
E
AV
E
GL
DA
VE
E
AV
ST
31
ED
N
E
AV
E
AV
R
O
WA
R
A
RG
LA
CA
L
IL
E
AV
2
30
VE
TA
T
LE
L
HA
LEGEND:
R1
Project Site
One Family Dwelling
C1 Limited Commercial
C2 Commercial
RD1.5 Restricted Density
Multiple Dwelling, One Family
OS Open Space
RD2
Restricted Density
Multiple Dwelling, Two Family
PF Public Facilities
RD3
Restricted Density
Multiple Dwelling,
Apartment Houses
CM Commercial Manufacturing
M2 Light Industrial
MR1 Restricted Industrial
SOURCE: SCAG 2008, ESRI and TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
N
M1 Limited Industrial
Approx.
Scale
640
Feet
FIGURE 4.3-2
ZONING DESIGNATIONS
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.3 Land Use & Planning
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant
impact related to land use and planning if it would:
•
•
•
Physically divide an established community;
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect; and/or
Conflict with any applicable Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.
IMPACTS
The existing environmental setting normally constitutes the baseline conditions against which a lead agency
determines whether an impact is significant. However, the use of past or hypothetical conditions as the
baseline is appropriate where, as here, it is necessary to evaluate current impacts resulting from the existing
uses on the project site. Thus, throughout this document, a comparison of existing conditions against the
conditions that would occur without the interim uses is utilized, in order to provide the actual effects of the
existing interim uses (“Option 3”) on the environment.
LACCD maintains offices at the project site and leases out underutilized facilities to tenants with an
educational focus. The current tenants include a charter high school and various workforce training
programs. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate potential land use and planning impacts based on the
current and potential future use of the buildings on the project site. There are four occupancy options
currently under consideration, which consist of different combinations of high school, college, office, and
adult education/workforce training uses that result in varying numbers of persons on-site in the morning,
afternoon, and evening.
Land Use Compatibility
The analysis of land use compatibility determines whether the proposed project would be compatible in
terms of use, size, density, intensity, and scale with surrounding land uses and development. The analysis is
also intended to determine whether existing community or surrounding land uses would be disrupted,
divided, or isolated by the proposed project. There are three buildings on the project site, and there are three
commercial land uses adjacent to the project site. A parking lot, which serves the commercial uses, separates
the project site from the three commercial lands uses. There are four driveways that provide access to and
from the project site. Two of the driveways are located on Fletcher Drive (Fletcher Drive North and Fletcher
Drive South), and the two other driveways are located on San Fernando Road (San Fernando Road North and
San Fernando Road South). All of the driveways, except for Fletcher Drive South are used by the tenants on
the project and the adjacent commercial uses. Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3.0 Project Description depicts
buildings on the project site and the surrounding land uses. This figure also shows the flow of traffic through
the project site and the adjacent commercial land uses.
Although no new buildings are proposed under Options 1 through 4, the historic Old Bakery Building has
been maintained and restored according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of
historic buildings to accommodate the uses proposed under the occupancy options. Likewise, the New
Educational Building was built to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification
standards. As part of achieving this LEED certification, the New Educational Building includes design
strategies related to water efficiency, energy, innovation, indoor air quality, materials and resources, and site
design. The occupancy options would not require the construction of new facilities or buildings; however,
taha 2012-061
4.3-6
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.3 Land Use & Planning
Options 1 through 4 would result in varying numbers of persons on-site in the morning, afternoon, and
evening. Nonetheless, the operational characteristics and educational focus of Options 1 through 4 would be
similar to one another and would be compatible with the surrounding commercial land uses in the vicinity of
the project site. The occupancy options would function in a manner such that the surrounding commercial
land uses would not be disrupted, divided, or isolated. Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would result in lessthan-significant impacts related to land use compatibility.
Land Use Consistency
The analysis of land use consistency impacts considers whether the proposed project would be in substantial
conformance with applicable plans, policies, and regulations that govern land use on the project site. As
discussed above, the General Plan land use designation of the project site is Limited Manufacturing, and the
site is zoned MR1-1. The MR1-1 zoning designation is primarily intended for industrial and commercial
uses. However, under State law, the LACCD Board of Trustees can exempt LACCD facilities from the local
zoning regulations imposed by the City of Los Angeles by two-thirds vote. In 2000, when the Board of
Trustees certified the Final EIR Update prepared for the development of a satellite college campus on the
project site, the Board of Trustees exempted the facilities constructed on the project site from the local
zoning regulations. Nonetheless, Options 1 through 4 provide for expanded and improved educational
facilities consistent with the applicable policies and objectives listed in Table 4.3-1, above. Specifically, the
educational focus of the occupancy options is consistent with the City’s policy to locate vocational schools in
commercial or industrial areas where training opportunities are enhanced by the surrounding uses. Likewise,
the Adult Education/Workforce Training programs associated with Options 1 through 4 are consistent with
the City’s policy to encourage school boards to develop programs in consultation with local businesses to
prepare students for the job market. Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would result in less-than-significant
impacts related to land use consistency.
Habitat Conservation Plans
The analysis of habitat conservation plans determines whether the proposed project would be located within
an area governed by a habitat conservation plans or NCCP. The project site and the surrounding area is
highly urbanized. There are no habitat conservation plans or NCCPs applicable to the project site or
surrounding area. Since no habitat conservation plans or NCCPs apply to the project site or the surrounding
area, Options 1 through 4 would not conflict with such plans. Therefore, no impacts related to habitat
conservation Plans would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts related to land use compatibility and land use consistency would be less than significant. No
mitigation measures are required.
No impacts related to habitat conservation plans would occur. No mitigation measures are required.
SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Impacts related to land use compatibility and land use consistency plans were determined to be less than
significant without mitigation.
No impacts related to habitat conservation plans would occur.
taha 2012-061
4.3-7
Van De Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.4 Noise & Vibration
4.4 NOISE AND VIBRATION
This section provides an overview of noise and vibration levels and evaluates the operational impacts
associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include long-term operational noise and groundborne vibration. Supporting documentation is presented in Appendix C.
The following background information provides noise and vibration characteristics and effects.
Noise Characteristics and Effects
Characteristics of Sound. Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) and
frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement for sound is the decibel (dB). The human
ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies. The “A-weighted scale,” abbreviated dBA, reflects
the normal hearing sensitivity range of the human ear. On this scale, the range of human hearing extends
from approximately 3 to 140 dBA. Figure 4.4-1 provides examples of A-weighted noise levels from
common sounds.
Noise Definitions. This noise analysis discusses sound levels in terms of Community Noise Equivalent
Level (CNEL) and Equivalent Noise Level (Leq).
Community Noise Equivalent Level. CNEL is an average sound level during a 24-hour period. CNEL is a
noise measurement scale, which accounts for noise source, distance, single event duration, single event
occurrence, frequency, and time of day. Human reaction to sound between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. is as if
the sound were actually 5 dBA higher than if it occurred from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. From 10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m., humans perceive sound as if it were 10 dBA higher due to the lower background level. Hence, the
CNEL is obtained by adding an additional 5 dBA to sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.
and 10 dBA to sound levels in the night from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Because CNEL accounts for human
sensitivity to sound, the CNEL 24-hour figure is always a higher number than the actual 24-hour average.
Equivalent Noise Level. Leq is the average noise level on an energy basis for any specific time period. The Leq
for one hour is the energy average noise level during the hour. The average noise level is based on the energy
content (acoustic energy) of the sound. Leq can be thought of as the level of a continuous noise which has the
same energy content as the fluctuating noise level. The equivalent noise level is expressed in units of dBA.
Effects of Noise. Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. The degree to which noise can impact the
human environment range from levels that interfere with speech and sleep (annoyance and nuisance) to
levels that cause adverse health effects (hearing loss and psychological effects). Human response to noise is
subjective and can vary greatly from person to person. Factors that influence individual response include the
intensity, frequency, and pattern of noise, the amount of background noise present before the intruding noise,
and the nature of work or human activity that is exposed to the noise source.
Audible Noise Changes. Studies have shown that the smallest perceptible change in sound level for a
person with normal hearing sensitivity is approximately 3 dBA. A change of at least 5 dBA would be
noticeable and would likely evoke a community reaction. A 10-dBA increase is subjectively heard as a
doubling in loudness and would cause a community response.
Noise levels decrease as the distance from the noise source to the receiver increases. Noise generated by a
stationary noise source, or “point source,” will decrease by approximately 6 dBA over hard surfaces (e.g.,
reflective surfaces such as parking lots or smooth bodies of water) and 7.5 dBA over soft surfaces (e.g.,
absorptive surfaces such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees) for each doubling of the distance.
taha 2012-061
4.4-1
dBA
Near Jet Engine
130
THRESHOLD OF PAIN
120
Deafening
Rock-n-Roll Band
110
Jet Flyover @1,000ft
100
Loud Auto Horn @ 10ft
Power Mower
90
Motorcycle @ 25ft
Food Blender
Very Loud
80
Garbage Disposal
Living Room Music
70
Loud
Human Voice @ 3ft
60
Residential Air
Conditioner @ 50ft
50
Moderate
Bird Calls
40
Quiet Living Room
30
Faint
20
Average Whisper
Rustling Leaves
10
Very Faint
0
THRESHOLD OF HUMAN AUDIBILITY
SOURCE: Cowan, James P., Handbook of Environmental Acoustics.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.4-1
A-WEIGHTED DECIBEL SCALE
Van De Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.4 Noise & Vibration
For example, if a noise source produces a noise level of 89 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet, then the
noise level would be 83 dBA at a distance of 100 feet from the noise source, 77 dBA at a distance of
200 feet, and so on. Noise generated by a mobile source will decrease by approximately 3 dBA over hard
surfaces and 4.8 dBA over soft surfaces for each doubling of the distance.
Generally, noise is most audible when traveling by direct line-of-sight. 1 Barriers, such as walls, berms, or
buildings that break the line-of-sight between the source and the receiver greatly reduce noise levels from the
source since sound can only reach the receiver by bending over the top of the barrier. Sound barriers can
reduce sound levels by up to 20 dBA. However, if a barrier is not high or long enough to break the line-ofsight from the source to the receiver, its effectiveness is greatly reduced.
Vibration Characteristics and Effects
Characteristics of Vibration. Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the
motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. Vibration can be a
serious concern, causing buildings to shake and rumbling sounds to be heard. In contrast to noise, vibration
is not a common environmental problem. It is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to
be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. Some common sources of vibration are trains, buses
on rough roads, and construction activities, such as blasting, pile driving, and heavy earth-moving
equipment.
Vibration Definitions. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak
particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is
most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings and is usually measured in inches per second.
The root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the
human body. The RMS amplitude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel
notation (Vdb) is commonly used to measure RMS. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of
numbers required to describe vibration.
Effects of Vibration. High levels of vibration may cause physical personal injury or damage to buildings.
However, ground-borne vibration levels rarely affect human health. Instead, most people consider groundborne vibration to be an annoyance that can affect concentration or disturb sleep. In addition, high levels of
ground-borne vibration can damage fragile buildings or interfere with equipment that is highly sensitive to
ground-borne vibration (e.g., electron microscopes).
Perceptible Vibration Changes. In contrast to noise, ground-borne vibration is not a phenomenon that most
people experience every day. The background vibration velocity level in residential areas is usually 50 RMS
or lower, well below the threshold of perception for humans which is around 65 RMS. 2 Most perceptible
indoor vibration is caused by sources within buildings, such as operation of mechanical equipment,
movement of people, or slamming of doors. Typical outdoor sources of perceptible ground-borne vibration
are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If the roadway is smooth, the
vibration from traffic is rarely perceptible.
1
Line-of-sight is an unobstructed visual path between the noise source and the noise receptor.
Ibid.
2
taha 2012-061
4.4-3
Van De Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.4 Noise & Vibration
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Noise
Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD). The LACCD Baseline Design Goals and Standards
state that,
“[C]lassrooms should be spaces where listening conditions are excellent so that students can learn.
Three factors are important in achieving a good listening environment. The first is correct room
acoustics, specifically avoiding the speech-blurring effects of reverberation. The second is good
isolation of sounds from elsewhere, so as to avoid distraction from competing conversations in
adjacent classrooms or interfering sound from street or air traffic. The third factor is adequately
low levels of background sound from heating and ventilation systems equipment. Especially for
students farthest from the teacher, ventilation-system noise often masks the intelligibility of the
spoken word. All three factors are addressed in good classroom designs.
Speech intelligibility, critical for an effective presentation, is directly related to the acoustics of the
room and the Noise Criteria (NC) rating (background noise in the room). The best sound system
cannot improve upon poor acoustics so it is essential to start with a relatively quiet room and good
acoustics. LACCD has established an NC 25 A-weighted for new construction and an NC 30 Aweighted for renovations.”
An NC rating of 25 is equivalent to 35 dBA and an NC rating of 30 is equivalent to 40 dBA.
City of Los Angeles Noise Element of the General Plan. The City of Los Angeles has developed a Noise
Element of the General Plan to guide in the development of noise regulations.3 It addresses noise mitigation
regulations, strategies and programs and delineates federal, State, and City jurisdiction relative to rail,
automotive, aircraft and nuisance noise. Applicable General Plan objectives, policies and actions related to
the proposed project are listed in Table 4.4-1.
TABLE 4.4-1: APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND ACTIONS
Objective/Policy
Objective 3
Policy 3.1
Program P15
Objective/Policy Description
Reduce or eliminate noise impacts associated with proposed development of land and changes in
land use.
Reduce or eliminate noise impacts associated with proposed development of land and changes in
land use.
Use, as appropriate, the “Guidelines for Noise Compatible Land Use”, or other measures that are
acceptable to the City, to guide land use and zoning reclassification, subdivision, conditional use
and use variance determinations and environmental assessment considerations, especially
relative to sensitive uses, as defined by this chapter, within a CNEL of 65 dB airport noise
exposure areas and within a line of sight of freeways, major highways, railroads or truck haul
routes.
SOURCE: City of Los Angeles, Noise Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan, February 3, 1999.
The Noise Element also includes a land use compatibility matrix for community noise environments. The
matrix, shown in Table 4.4-2, displays acceptable and unacceptable exterior noise levels at a typical land
uses. For example, a normally acceptable exterior noise level for a school is 70 dBA or less.
3
City of Los Angeles, Noise Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan, February 3, 1999.
taha 2012-061
4.4-4
Van De Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.4 Noise & Vibration
TABLE 4.4-2: LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE ENVIRONMENTS
Community Noise Exposure (dBA, CNEL)
Land Use Category
55
60
65
70
75
80
Residential - Low Density Single-Family, Duplex,
Mobile Homes
Residential - Multi-Family
Transient Lodging - Motels Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing
Homes
Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters
Sports Arena, Outdoor Spectator Sports
Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks
Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation,
Cemeteries
Office Buildings, Business Commercial and
Professional
Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture
Normally Acceptable - Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional
construction without any special noise insulation requirements.
Conditionally Acceptable - New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and
fresh air supply system or air conditionally will normally suffice.
Normally Unacceptable - New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does
proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.
Clearly Unacceptable - New construction or development should generally not be undertaken.
SOURCE: California Office of Noise Control, Department of Health Services.
City of Los Angeles Municipal Code - Zoning Regulations. The City’s planning and zoning code (LAMC
Section 11 et seq.) contains a variety of provisions that directly or indirectly mitigate noise impacts on, or
impacts that are associated with, different types of land uses. Permit processing is guided by the General
Plan, especially the community plans which together are the City’s Land Use Element. The plans designate
appropriate land use (zoning) classifications. The noise ordinance guides land use considerations by setting
maximum ambient noise levels for specific zones.
taha 2012-061
4.4-5
Van De Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.4 Noise & Vibration
City of Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) - Noise Regulations. The City of Los Angeles has
established policies and regulations concerning the generation and control of noise that could adversely
affect its citizens and noise sensitive land uses. Chapter XI (Noise Regulation) of the LAMC includes
regulations on radios and televisions, mechanical equipment, construction activity, powered equipment,
amplified sound, garbage collection, and vehicles. Of relevance to the proposed project, the LAMC prohibits
the operations of air conditioning or heating units that increase noise levels by 5 dBA at adjacent properties.
Vibration
There are no adopted City standards for ground-borne vibration. The County of Los Angeles vibration
standard is stated in Title 12 (Environmental Protection), Chapter 12.08 (Noise Control), Section 12.08.560
(Vibration) of the Los Angeles County Code. The County Code states that, “Operating or permitting the
operation of any device that creates vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of any
individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property, or at 150 feet (46 meters)
from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way is prohibited. The perception threshold shall be a
motion velocity of 0.01 in/sec over the range of 1 to 100 Hertz.”
EXISTING SETTING
Noise
The existing ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the project site is dominated by vehicular traffic on
the Glendale Freeway (SR-2) and surface streets. Additional sources of noise include trains, occasional
aircraft flyovers, and typical urban activities (e.g., landscaping). Ambient noise measurements were taken
using a SoundPro DL Sound Level Meter between 10:15 a.m. and 11:10 a.m. on February 28, 2013. These
readings were used to establish existing ambient noise conditions and to provide a baseline for evaluating
operational noise impacts. Noise monitoring locations are shown in Figure 4.4-2. As shown in Table 4.4-3,
existing ambient sound levels range between 55.0 and 60.3 dBA Leq.
TABLE 4.4-3: EXISTING NOISE LEVELS
Key to Figure 4.4-2
Noise Monitoring Location
Sound Level (dBA, Leq)
1
Ribet Academy - 2911 N. San Fernando Road
60.3
2
Single-Family Residences - 3038 Casitas Avenue
55.0
3
Single-Family Residences - 3037 Roswell Street
58.5
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Vibration
Similar to the environmental setting for noise, the vibration environment is dominated by traffic from nearby
roadways. Heavy trucks can generate vibrations that depend on vehicle type, weight, and pavement
conditions. As heavy trucks typically operate on major streets, existing vibration in the project vicinity is
largely related to heavy truck traffic on the surrounding roadway network. Field observations indicate that
truck travel is minimal within the vicinity of the project site. Vibration levels from adjacent roadways are
not perceptible at the project site.
taha 2012-061
4.4-6
N
SA
DO
AN
RN
FE
ER
H
TC
E
L
DR
F
RD
M
W
O
R
E
AV
L
EL
SW
RO
O
R
T
E
S
TA
SI
A
C
3
ST
2
PROJECT SITE
E
AL
ND
E
GL
1
ED
WA
RD
AV
E
2
Y
FW
2
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
Noise Monitoring Locations
1.
Ribet Academy - 2911 North San Fernando Road
2.
Single-Family Residence - 3038 Casitas Avenue
3.
Single-Family Residence - 3037 Roswell Street
SOURCE: Google Earth and TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
N
Approx.
Scale
0
197
394
FEET
FIGURE 4.4-2
NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS
Van De Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.4 Noise & Vibration
Sensitive Receptors
Noise- and vibration-sensitive land uses are locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted
sound could adversely affect the use of the land. Residences, schools, hospitals, guest lodging, libraries, and
some passive recreation areas would each be considered noise- and vibration-sensitive and may warrant
unique measures for protection from intruding noise. Sensitive receptors near the project site are shown in
Figure 4.4-3 and include the following:
•
•
•
•
Single-family residences located approximately 335 feet to the west
Single- and multi-family residences located approximately 700 feet to the southeast
Ribet Academy located approximately 705 feet to the southeast
Single- and multi-family residences located approximately 425 to 775 feet to the northeast
The above sensitive receptors represent the nearest sensitive receptors to the site with the potential to be
impacted by the proposed project. Additional sensitive receptors are located further from the project site in the
surrounding community and would be less affected by the proposed project than the above sensitive receptors.
In addition to the off-site sensitive receptors, the planned educational facility is a land use sensitive to high
noise levels.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant
impact related to noise if it would:
•
•
•
•
Expose persons or generate noise in levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
Expose people to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels;
Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project; and/or
Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project.
The proposed project would not include construction activity and construction significance criteria are not
relevant. The following specific operational noise and vibration significance thresholds are relevant to the
proposed project.
Noise. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to operational activity if:
•
•
•
Classroom interior noise levels exceed 35 dBA Leq;
Mobile noise measured at the property line of the affected uses increases by 3 decibels CNEL to or
within the “normally unacceptable” or “clearly unacceptable” categories, as shown in Table 4.4-1, or
any 5-dBA or more increase in noise level; and/or
Stationary source activity increases noise levels 5 dBA Leq or higher at surrounding land uses.
Vibration. The proposed project would have a significant impact related to vibration if:
•
The proposed project would expose individuals situated on adjacent or abutting property, which is zoned
for any use other than manufacturing, to a vibration level of 0.01 inches per second.
taha 2012-061
4.4-8
N
SA
DO
AN
RN
FE
ER
H
TC
E
L
DR
F
RD
M
W
O
R
E
AV
O
R
T
E
S
TA
SI
A
C
L
EL
SW
RO
ST
2
PROJECT SITE
1
ED
WA
RD
AV
E
E
AL
ND
E
GL
Y
FW
2
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
Noise Sensitive Receptors
1.
Ribet Academy
Single- and Multi-Family Residences
SOURCE: Google Earth and TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
N
Approx.
Scale
0
197
394
FEET
FIGURE 4.4-3
NOISE SENSITIVE
RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
Van De Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.4 Noise & Vibration
IMPACTS
The existing environmental setting normally constitutes the baseline conditions against which a lead agency
determines whether an impact is significant. However, the use of past or hypothetical conditions as the
baseline is appropriate where, as here, it is necessary to evaluate current impacts resulting from the existing
uses on the project site. Thus, throughout this document, a comparison of existing conditions against the
conditions that would occur without the interim uses is utilized, in order to provide the actual effects of the
existing interim uses (“Option 3”) on the environment.
METHODOLOGY
The noise and vibration analysis considers operational sources. Stationary source (e.g., mechanical
equipment) noise levels were estimated by (1) making a distance adjustment to the source sound level and (2)
logarithmically adding the adjusted noise source level to the ambient noise level. Mobile noise was
calculated using Federal Highway Administration RD-77-108 noise calculation formulas. Construction
vibration levels are estimated using equipment reference levels and propagation formulas provide by the
FTA.
Off-Site Mobile Noise
Option 1 - College and High School Mix. Option 1 would generate 3,524 daily weekday trips (648 AM
peak-hour trips and 419 PM peak-hour trips). To ascertain mobile noise impacts, future roadway noise levels
were calculated based upon the proximity to noise sensitive uses and with the most increases in traffic
volume (i.e., AM peak-hour trip). Table 4.4-4 shows mobile source noise levels for Existing Plus Project
and Future Plus Project conditions. The greatest project-related noise increase would be 1.5 dBA CNEL
along San Fernando Road. The roadway noise increase attributed to the proposed project would be less than
3-dBA CNEL increment at all analyzed segments. Therefore, Option 1 would result in a less-than-significant
impact related to mobile noise.
TABLE 4.4-4: MOBILE SOURCE NOISE /OPTION 1 - COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL MIX
Estimated dBA, CNEL
Existing
Existing +
Project
Increase
Future No
Project
San Fernando Road and SR-2 Northbound
Off-Ramp Intersection
64.7
64.7
0.0
64.8
66.3
1.5
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to
Larga Avenue
66.6
66.8
0.2
66.6
67.9
1.3
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to
Estara Avenue
66.8
66.9
0.1
66.8
67.8
1.0
Roadway Segment
Future +
Project Increase
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Option 2 - High School and Adult Education/Workforce Training Mix. Option 2 would generate 3,644
daily weekday trips (556 AM peak-hour trips and 434 PM peak-hour trips). Table 4.4-5 shows mobile
source noise levels for Existing Plus Project and Future Plus Project conditions. The greatest project-related
noise increase would be 1.5 dBA CNEL along San Fernando Road. The roadway noise increase attributed to
the proposed project would be less than 3-dBA CNEL increment at all analyzed segments. Therefore,
Option 2 would result in a less-than-significant impact related to mobile noise.
taha 2012-061
4.4-10
Van De Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.4 Noise & Vibration
TABLE 4.4-5: MOBILE SOURCE NOISE / OPTION 2 - HIGH SCHOOL AND ADULT/WORKFORCE
TRAINING MIX
Estimated dBA, CNEL
Existing
Existing +
Project
Increase
Future No
Project
San Fernando Road and SR-2 Northbound
Off-Ramp Intersection
64.7
64.7
0.0
64.8
66.3
1.5
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to
Larga Avenue
66.6
66.7
0.1
66.6
68.0
1.4
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to
Estara Avenue
66.8
66.8
0.0
66.8
67.9
1.1
Roadway Segment
Future +
Project Increase
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Option 3 - Current Mix. Option 3 would generate 2,222 daily weekday trips (572 AM peak-hour trips and
182 PM peak-hour trips). Table 4.4-6 shows mobile source noise levels for Existing Plus Project and Future
Plus Project conditions. The greatest project-related noise increase would be 1.5 dBA CNEL along San
Fernando Road. The roadway noise increase attributed to the proposed project would be less than 3-dBA
CNEL increment at all analyzed segments. Therefore, Option 3 would result in a less-than-significant impact
related to mobile noise.
TABLE 4.4-6: MOBILE SOURCE NOISE /OPTION 3 - CURRENT MIX
Estimated dBA, CNEL
Existing
Existing +
Project
Increase
Future No
Project
San Fernando Road and SR-2 Northbound
Off-Ramp Intersection
64.7
64.7
0.0
64.8
66.3
1.5
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to
Larga Avenue
66.6
66.7
0.1
66.6
68.0
1.4
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to
Estara Avenue
66.8
66.9
0.1
66.8
67.9
1.1
Roadway Segment
Future +
Project Increase
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix. Option 4 would generate 2,716 daily weekday trips
(343 AM peak-hour trips and 181 PM peak-hour trips). Table 4.4-7 shows mobile source noise levels for
Existing Plus Project and Future Plus Project conditions. The greatest project-related noise increase would
be 1.4 dBA CNEL along San Fernando Road. The roadway noise increase attributed to the proposed project
would be less than 3-dBA CNEL increment at all analyzed segments. Therefore, Option 4 would result in a
less-than-significant impact related to mobile noise.
TABLE 4.4-7: MOBILE SOURCE NOISE /OPTION 4 - OFFICE AND UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION
MIX
Estimated dBA, CNEL
Existing
Existing +
Project
Increase
Future No
Project
Future +
Project
San Fernando Road and SR-2 Northbound
Off-Ramp Intersection
64.7
64.6
0.1
64.8
66.2
1.4
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to
Larga Avenue
66.6
66.6
0.0
66.6
67.7
1.1
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to
Estara Avenue
66.8
66.7
(0.1)
66.8
67.7
0.9
Roadway Segment
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.4-11
Increase
Van De Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.4 Noise & Vibration
Parking Noise. A 249-space parking lot that provides parking for the charter high school and the other
tenants is located south of the New Educational Building. Noise sources associated with the parking lot
include car alarms, car horns, slamming of car doors, engine revs, and tire squeals. Automobile movements
would generate a noise level of approximately 58.1 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet.4 The nearest residential
land uses located approximately 335 feet to the east of the existing surface parking lot would result in an
incremental noise level increase of 0.2 dBA Leq due to parking surface lot operations. The existing surface
parking lot-related noise increase attributed to the proposed project would be less than 5 dBA Leq increment
at all sensitive receptors within close proximity to the existing surface parking lot. Therefore, Options 1
through 4 would result in a less-than-significant impact related to surface parking lot activity.
Mechanical Equipment. The proposed project would require building mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC
equipment). Mechanical equipment (e.g., HVAC equipment) typically generates noise levels of
approximately 60 dBA Leq at 50 feet. The nearest residential land uses is located approximate 335 feet to the
east of the mechanical equipment operation. The nearest residences would experience a mechanical
equipment-related noise level of 55.3 dBA Leq , which is an increase of 0.3 dBA Leq from the ambient noise
level. This incremental noise level increase would not be audible at the nearest residential land uses, and
would be less than the 5-dBA significance threshold. Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would result in a lessthan-significant impacts related to mechanical equipment noise.
Land Use Compatibility/Interior Noise Levels. It is important that new school land uses are located in
noise compatible environments and comply with LACCD requirement of 35 dBA Leq interior noise level for
classrooms. It is LACCD policy that classrooms are constructed such that interior noise levels do not exceed
a Noise Criteria rating of 25 (equivalent to 35 dBA Leq). Construction techniques implemented by LACCD
typically include double-paned windows and other noise reducing features. These features would ensure that
automobile and train noise would not disrupt school activities. Implementation of LACCD policy ensures
that classroom noise levels do not exceed 35 dBA Leq and are noise compatible learning environments.
Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would result in less-than-significant impacts related to land use compatibility.
Ground-borne Vibration
The primary sources of operational-related vibration would include passenger vehicle circulation at the four
ingress/egress driveways and surface parking lot, on-site delivery truck activity, and off-site traffic traveling
on roadways in the vicinity of the proposed project site. Vehicular movements would generate similar
vibration levels as existing traffic condition. The proposed project would not include significant stationary
sources of ground-borne vibration, such as heavy equipment operations. As a result, the proposed project
operations would not increase the existing vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptors. The three main
buildings on the project site may experience vibration generated by heavy-duty truck activity at nearby land
uses. However, rubber-tired on-road vehicles rarely generate perceptible vibration at any distance.
Therefore, Options 1 through 4 would result in a less-than-significant impacts related to operational
vibration.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Noise
Impacts related to operational noise would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
Groundborne Vibration
Impacts related to operational vibration would be less than significant. No mitigation measures are required.
4
The reference parking noise level is based on a series of noise measurements completed 50 feet from a parking lot.
taha 2012-061
4.4-12
Van De Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.4 Noise & Vibration
SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Noise
Impacts related to operational noise were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
Ground-borne Vibration
Impacts related to operational vibration were determined to be less than significant without mitigation.
taha 2012-061
4.4-13
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
4.5 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
This section provides an overview of transportation and traffic in the project area and evaluates the
operational impacts associated with the proposed project. Topics addressed include the circulation system,
congestion management plan, vehicle and pedestrian site access, and public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities. This section was prepared utilizing the Traffic Study prepared for the proposed project by Raju
Associates, Inc. The traffic study is included in its entirety in Appendix D.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Federal
There are no federal transportation or traffic regulations applicable to the proposed project.
State
Congestion Management Program (CMP). To address the increasing public concern that traffic congestion is
impacting the quality of life and economic vitality of the State of California, the CMP was enacted by
Proposition 111. The intent of the CMP is to provide the analytical basis for transportation decisions through the
State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) process. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (Metro), the local CMP agency, has established an approach to implement the statutory
requirements of the CMP. The approach includes designating a highway network that includes all State
highways and principal arterials within the County and monitoring the network’s congestion.
Local
A number of regional improvement plans affect transportation in the project area. They include the Los
Angeles County CMP and the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) prepared by Metro, the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Regional Transportation Improvement Plan (RTIP) prepared by Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the STIP prepared by the California Department of
Transportation.
Los Angeles County Congestion Management Program (CMP). The Los Angeles County CMP is a
state-mandated program that serves as the monitoring and analytical basis for transportation funding
decisions made through RTIP and STIP processes. Metro's LRTP is a strategic document that serves as a
framework for meeting the current and projected mobility needs of Los Angeles County. The LRTP
recommends highway, high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, bus, rail, and demand management
improvements, and identifies funding sources and implementation schedules over the 20-year period.
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The RTP is a planning document required under State and federal
statute encompassing the SCAG region. The RTP forecasts long-term transportation demands and identifies
policies, actions, and funding sources to accommodate these demands. The RTP consists of the construction
of new transportation facilities, transportation systems management strategies, transportation demand
management and land use strategies. The RTIP, also prepared by SCAG based on the RTP, lists all of the
regional funded/programmed improvements within the next seven years.
City of Los Angeles General Plan Transportation Element. The City of Los Angeles General Plan provides
growth and development policies by providing a comprehensive long-range view of the City as a whole. The
General Plan provides a comprehensive strategy for accommodating long-term growth should it occur as
projected. The City of Los Angeles General Plan Transportation Element, adopted in 1999, includes a
discussion of the existing roadway infrastructure in the City of Los Angeles. Goals, objectives, and policies are
included in the Transportation Element to ensure the efficient circulation within the City and region.
taha 2012-061
4.5-1
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
EXISTING SETTING
Circulation System
Study Area. The project site is located at 2930 Fletcher Drive on the south side of Fletcher Drive between
Casitas Avenue and San Fernando Road in the neighborhood of Glassell Park in the City of Los Angeles.
Several freeways provide regional access to the project site, including the Glendale Freeway (SR-2) located
approximately 0.15 miles south of the project site, and the Golden State Freeway (I-5) located
approximately.08 of a mile west of the project site. For purposes of the traffic study, study area is bounded by
Glendale Avenue on the north, Division Street on the south, Riverside Drive on the west, and Eagle Rock
Boulevard on the east. Figure 4.5-1 illustrates the location of the project site and the intersection analyzed in
the traffic study.
Existing Street System. The existing street system within the study area consists of a regional highway system
including major and secondary arterials and a local street system including collectors and local streets. The
major and other arterial streets used to access the study area include San Fernando Road, Cypress Avenue,
Eagle Rock Boulevard, Riverside Drive, Glendale Avenue, Fletcher Drive, Verdugo Road, Division Street,
Larga Avenue, Estara Avenue, and Cazador Street. Brief descriptions of these facilities are provided below:
• San Fernando Road. San Fernando Road is classified as a major highway. It runs in a north-south
direction. Within the study area, this roadway offers four travel lanes, two lanes in each direction.
Restricted on-street parking is available between Rosslyn Street and Glendale Avenue on both sides of the
street within the study area. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour.
• Cypress Avenue. Cypress Avenue is classified as a major highway and it runs in a north-south direction
south of the project site, parallel to San Fernando Road. This street is a continuation of Eagle Rock
Boulevard at Verdugo Road and ends at Arroyo Seco Avenue. Within the study area, this roadway
provides four travel lanes, two lanes in each direction with a central left-turn lane. A bicycle lane and onstreet parking is generally available on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit along this facility is
30 miles per hour.
• Eagle Rock Boulevard. Eagle Rock Boulevard is classified as a major arterial roadway. It runs in an
east-west direction. Between Avenue 36 and its terminus at Verdugo Road, this roadway provides four
travel lanes, two lanes in each direction with a central left-turn lane and a bicycle lane on both sides of the
street. North of Avenue 36, Eagle Rock Boulevard provides six travel lanes, three lanes in each direction
with a raised median. A bicycle lane and on-street parking is generally available on either side of the
street. The posted speed limit along this facility is 35 miles per hour.
• Riverside Drive. Riverside Drive is classified as a major highway. It runs in a north-south direction in the
study area. Within the study area, this roadway generally offers four travel lanes, two lanes in each direction
with a central left-turn lane. Restricted parking is available during the off-peak hours along many stretches
of this roadway within the study area. The posted speed limit in this roadway is 35 miles per hour.
• Glendale Avenue. Glendale Avenue is classified as a major arterial roadway. It runs in a north-south
direction. Within the study area, this roadway offers four travel lanes, two lanes in each direction with a
central left-turn lane. Parking is generally available along many stretches of this roadway within the study
area. The posted speed limit in this roadway is 30 miles per hour.
• Fletcher Drive. Fletcher Drive is classified as a secondary arterial roadway and runs in an east-west
direction. Within the study area, this roadway offers four travel lanes, two lanes in each direction.
Restricted parking is generally available on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit in this
roadway is 35 miles per hour.
taha 2012-061
4.5-2
ALE
AVE
GLEN
D
1
RA
TA
ES
U
PR
R
E
AV
RD
O
UG
RD
2
3
LAK
EB
G
EL
E
S
TC
2
AV
E
AN
4
R
IV
E
12
11
R
DR
5
GI
LR
OY
ST
RI
VE
RS
ID
E
HE
K
SILV
ER
LO
S
R
DR
E
FL
ST
EA
VE
O
LI
N
LVD
R
ET
R
RD
U
M
AV
E
VD
BL
14
O
H
ND
N
AV
E
15
13
NA
G
LE
LI
TA
R
FE
LA
R
G
A
E
GL
N
SA
PE
R
CK
RO
C
AD
AZ
OR
ST
10
DIVISION ST
N
AVE
5
UE
8
9
PR
CY
7
33
6
S
ES
E
AV
LEGEND:
#
N
Project Site
Analyzed Intersection
Approx.
Scale
0
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
750
1500
Feet
FIGURE 4.5-1
STUDY INTERSECTIONS
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
• Verdugo Road. Verdugo Road is a roadway within the study area that traverses in a north-south
direction. The segment north of Eagle Rock Boulevard is classified as a secondary arterial roadway.
Within this segment, the roadway generally provides four travel lanes, two lanes in each direction. The
segment south of Eagle Rock Boulevard is classified as collector roadway. Within this segment, this
roadway generally provides two travel lanes, one lane in each direction. On-street parking is generally
available on both sides of the street along both roadway segments. The posted speed limit in the roadway
segment north of Eagle Rock Boulevard is 30 miles per hour. The prima facie speed limit in the roadway
segment south of Eagle Rock Boulevard is 25 miles per hour.
• Division Street. Division Street is a classified as collector roadway and traverses in an east-west direction
south of the project site. The roadway provides two travel lanes, one lane in each direction. On-street parking
is generally available on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour.
• Larga Avenue. Larga Avenue is a classified as collector roadway and traverses in a north-south direction.
The roadway provides two travel lanes, one lane in each direction. On-street parking is generally available
on both sides of the street. The prima facie speed limit in this roadway is 25 miles per hour.
• Estara Avenue. Estara Avenue is a local roadway and traverses in a north-south direction east of the
project site connecting Fletcher Drive to Eagle Rock Boulevard. The roadway provides two travel lanes,
one lane in each direction. On-street parking is available on both sides of the street. The prima facie
speed limit in this roadway is 25 miles per hour.
• Cazador Street. Cazador Street is a local roadway and traverses in an east-west direction south of the
project site. The roadway provides two travel lanes, one lane in each direction. On-street parking is
available on both sides of the street. The prima facie speed limit in this roadway is 25 miles per hour.
Existing Traffic Volumes. Weekday morning and evening peak hour traffic counts were compiled from
data collected at the 15 analyzed intersections in December 2012. These traffic volumes reflect typical
weekday operations during current year 2012 conditions. The traffic volumes in Figure 4.5-2 represent the
Existing 2012 AM and PM peak hour conditions.
Level of Service Methodology. Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative measure used to describe the
condition of traffic flow, ranging from excellent conditions at LOS A to overloaded conditions at LOS F.
LOS D is typically recognized as the minimum acceptable level of service in urban areas. The level of
service definitions for signalized intersections is provided in Table 4.5-1. All 15 of the analyzed
intersections are controlled by traffic signals.
TABLE 4.5-1: LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LOS
Intersection Capacity
Utilization Value (V/C)
A
≤0.600
B
0.601 – 0.700
C
0.701 – 0.800
D
0.801 – 0.900
E
0.901 – 1.000
F
> 1.000
Level of Service Description
EXCELLENT. No vehicle waits longer than one red light, and no approach phase is fully
used.
VERY GOOD. An occasional approach phase is fully utilized; many drivers begin to feel
somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles.
GOOD. Occasionally drivers may have to wait through more than one red light; backups may
develop behind turning vehicles.
FAIR. Delays may be substantial during portions of the rush hours, but enough lower volume
periods occur to permit clearing of developing lines, preventing excessive backups.
POOR. Represents the most vehicles intersection approaches can accommodate; may be
long lines of waiting vehicles through several signal cycles.
FAILURE. Backups from nearby locations or on cross streets may restrict or prevent
movement of vehicles out of the intersection approaches. Potentially very long delays with
continuously increasing queue lengths.
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.5-4
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
H
U
R
O
LI
N
ST
14
2
2
AV
E
3
4
ID
E
ER
LAK
R
IV
ER
DR
12
11
5
ST
RS
G
EL
ES
SIV
L
RI
VE
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
OY
R
DO
GI
LR
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
E
FL
R
HE
TC
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
11
6
8
9
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
S
ES
E
AV
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
ST
ZA
CA
N UE
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
15
13
K
R
CK
RD
ET
RO
UG
O
AV
E
E
VE
RD
N
M
RD
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
AV
E
DO
AN
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
TA
RN
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
A
N
G
LE
R
SA
PE
R
LA
GL
EA
N
Analyzed Intersection
Approx.
Scale
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles
Negligible Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
0
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-2
EXISTING (2012) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
The "Critical Movement Analysis" (CMA) method of intersection capacity analysis was used to determine
the intersection volume to capacity (V/C) ratio and corresponding level of service at the signalized
intersections. Level of service spreadsheets developed by LADOT were used to implement the CMA
(Transportation Research Board, Circular 212 Method) methodology. Table 4.5-1 defines the ranges of V/C
ratios and corresponding levels of service for signalized intersections.
Eleven of the fifteen signalized study intersections are currently controlled by the City of Los Angeles’
Automated Traffic Surveillance and Control (ATSAC) System are part of the Eagle Rock ATSAC System.
A capacity increase of seven percent (0.07 V/C adjustments for ATSAC) was applied to reflect the benefits
of ATSAC control at the following 11 intersections:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive
San Fernando Road/SR-2 Southbound Ramps
San Fernando Road/SR-2 Northbound Off-Ramp
San Fernando Road/Eagle Rock Boulevard
San Fernando Road/Cazador Street
San Fernando Road/Division Street
Cypress Avenue/Cazador Street
Cypress Avenue/Division Street
Estara Avenue/Fletcher Drive
Avenue 36/Eagle Rock Boulevard
SR-2 Northbound Ramps/Verdugo Road/Eagle Rock Boulevard
Three of the fifteen signalized study intersections are currently controlled by the City of Los Angeles’
ATSAC System and Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) are part of the Silver Lake/Echo Park ATSAC
System. A capacity increase of ten percent (seven percent for ATSAC and three percent for ATCS) was
applied to reflect the benefits of ATSAC/ATCS control at the following three locations:
• Riverside Drive/Fletcher Drive
• SR-2 Southbound Off-Ramp/Fletcher Drive
• Larga Avenue/Fletcher Drive
Existing Levels of Service (LOS). The existing traffic volumes presented in Figure 4.5-1, above, for AM
and PM peak hours were used in conjunction with the level of service methodologies described above, and
the current intersection characteristics, to determine the existing operating conditions at the analyzed
intersections. Table 4.5-2 summarizes the results of the intersection capacity analysis for existing conditions
at each of the 15 study intersections. The table indicates the existing V/C ratio during the morning and
evening peak hours and the corresponding LOS at the study intersections. As shown, all 15 of the study
intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better during the morning peak hour. During the evening
peak hour, 14 of the 15 study intersections are currently operating at LOS D or better. The remaining
location, the Riverside Drive/Fletcher Drive intersection, is currently operating at LOS E.
Existing Traffic Conditions. The project site currently includes a high school with 550 students and
associated administrative facilities. Additionally, a small amount of workforce training and adult education
classes are also held on-site. In order to study the effects of the existing school facilities at the project site on
the roadway system within the study area, trip generation surveys were conducted on two typical commuter
weekdays (Tuesday and Thursday) in May 2012 at all driveways serving the project site. These trip
generation surveys involved observing the existing school related traffic (i.e., peak AM and PM trip
generation) between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. at all driveways
serving the project site.
taha 2012-061
4.5-6
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
TABLE 4.5-2: EXISTING 2012 INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
AM Peak Hour
V/C
LOS
0.718
C
0.839
D
0.630
B
0.491
A
0.437
A
0.588
A
0.770
C
0.556
A
0.624
B
0.820
D
0.592
A
0.552
A
0.561
A
0.687
B
0.874
D
Intersection
San Fernando Road/Glendale Avenue
San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive
San Fernando Road/SR-2 Southbound On-Off Ramps
San Fernando Road/SR-2 Northbound Off Ramp
San Fernando Road/Eagle Rock Avenue
San Fernando Road/Cazador Street
San Fernando Road/Division Street
Cypress Avenue/Cazador Street
Cypress Avenue/Division Street
Riverside Drive/Fletcher Drive
SR-2 Southbound Off-Ramp/Fletcher Drive
Larga Avenue/Fletcher Drive
Estara Avenue/Fletcher Drive
Avenue 36/Eagle Rock Avenue
SR-2 Northbound On-Off Ramps/Eagle Rock Avenue
PM Peak Hour
V/C
LOS
0.698
B
0.708
C
0.680
B
0.446
A
0.378
A
0.616
B
0.476
A
0.352
A
0.477
A
0.934
E
0.338
A
0.306
A
0.356
A
0.352
A
0.783
C
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
The existing trip generation evaluation results are summarized in Table 4.5-3. As shown, based on the larger
of the observed driveway counts from May 2012 surveys, the uses on the project site generate a total of
465 trips during the morning peak hour and 149 trips during the evening peak hour. These trips are primarily
school related trips, with minimal trips attributed to the office and workforce training uses.
TABLE 4.5-3: EXISTING ON-SITE TRIP GENERATION
Exiting On-Site Trips /a/
In
249
AM Peak Hour
Out
216
Total
465
In
PM Peak Hour
Out
Total
64
85
149
/a/ Based on traffic counts conducted at the existing on-site driveways on Tuesday, May 8, 2012.
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
This observed existing trip generation was compared to trip generation estimates prepared using the rates
provided in the Trip Generation: An ITE Informational Report, 8th Edition, Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE). It was determined that the observed trip generation of the existing high school was greater
than the ITE trip generation estimates for a private high school. Therefore, the trip generation numbers based
on actual observations have been used for projecting project traffic volume estimates and operating conditions.
In order to determine the school traffic trip distribution, the following methodology was used. Utilizing the
existing observed peak hour traffic counts at the site and student zip-code data provided by the school, the trip
distribution of the existing site trips was determined by geo-coding the zip-code data in a GIS-database. The
regional geographic trip distribution for the existing high school/site trips was determined to be the following:
• To and from the north: 20 percent
• To and from the east: 28 percent
• To and from the south: 25 percent
• To and from the west: 27 percent
The resulting intersection level distribution percentages for existing high school/site trips are shown in
Figure 4.5-3. Based on these distribution patterns and trip generation observed at the existing site, traffic
estimates of existing site trips at the study intersections were developed. The resulting existing site peak
hour trips are presented in Figure 4.5-4.
taha 2012-061
4.5-7
AVE
DALE
K
R
TA
PR
ES
U
GLEN
1
A
R
E
E
AV
GL
N
FE
RD
O
UG
LI
N
RD
K
R
ST
AV
E
VE
U
14
O
LVD
H
R
EB
N
ET
2
2
LAK
LE
M
AV
E
SIL
VER
G
AV
E
TA
RD
A
DO
G
AN
R
LI
15
13
RN
LA
R
VD
BL
EA
SA
PE
C
RO
3
4
LO
S
AN
G
EL
ES
RI
R
IV
ER
VE
RS
ID
E
12
11
DR
ST
5
GI
LR
OY
OR
C
DR
9
S
ES
PR
7
33
8
CY
Analyzed Intersection
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
E
AV
XX% Percent Inbound
(XX%) Percent Outbound
taha 2012-061
DIVISION ST
5
6
Project Site
#
10
UE
LEGEND:
CA
N
AVE
F
T
LE
R
HE
ST
D
ZA
N
Approx.
Scale
0
850
1700
Feet
FIGURE 4.5-3
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION - EXISTING HIGH SCHOOL/ON-SITE TRIPS
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
H
U
R
O
LI
N
ST
2
2
AV
E
3
4
ID
E
ER
LAK
R
IV
ER
DR
12
11
5
ST
RS
G
EL
ES
SIV
L
RI
VE
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
OY
R
DO
GI
LR
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
E
FL
R
HE
TC
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
11
6
8
9
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
ST
ZA
CA
N UE
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
14
K
R
CK
RD
ET
RO
UG
O
AV
E
15
13
E
VE
RD
N
M
RD
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
AV
E
DO
AN
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
TA
RN
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
A
N
G
LE
R
SA
PE
R
LA
GL
EA
S
ES
E
AV
LEGEND:
N
Approx.
Scale
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
12
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
Analyzed Intersection
0
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
13
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
14
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-4
EXISTING HIGH SCHOOL/ON-SITE TRIPS PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
Since the existing site is operational, these existing site trips are currently on the street system and are accounted
for in the existing traffic counts. In order to estimate the overall magnitude of the effects of the existing high
school on the regional transportation system, existing baseline traffic without the existing site trips have to be
determined. This was accomplished by removing the high school/site trips from the existing traffic counts. The
resulting Existing Baseline (without existing site trips) traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 4.5-5. A
comparison of existing traffic conditions to traffic conditions without existing site trips (existing baseline) would
provide the actual effects of the existing high school/site trips on the regional transportation system.
Existing Baseline (without high school/on-site traffic) Conditions vs. Existing Traffic Conditions
(including high school/on-site traffic). The Existing (2012) Baseline (without existing on-site trips) traffic
volumes were analyzed at each of the study intersections to determine the V/C ratio and corresponding level of
service during peak hours. Table 4.5-4 presents the results of the Existing (2012) Baseline traffic analysis and a
comparison to Existing (2012) conditions with existing school/on-site trips. As shown, all 15 of the study
intersections are operating at LOS D or better during the morning peak hour under existing traffic conditions
similar to existing conditions with school trips. Again, similarly, during the evening peak hour, 14 of the 15
study intersections are operating at LOS D or better. The remaining location, the Riverside Drive/Fletcher Drive
intersection, is operating at LOS E. The incremental V/C effects of the on-site school trips on existing traffic
conditions can also be observed in Table 4.5-4. The maximum incremental effect of 4.4 percent V/C increase is
observed at the San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection, which is operating at LOS D.
TABLE 4.5-4:
No.
1
COMPARISON OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS EXISTING VS.
BASELINE CONDTIONS
Intersection
San Fernando Road/Glendale Avenue
2
San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive
3
San Fernando Road/SR-2
Southbound On-Off Ramps
4
San Fernando Road/SR-2
Northbound Off Ramp
5
San Fernando Road/Eagle Rock
Avenue
6
San Fernando Road/Cazador Street
7
San Fernando Road/Division Street
8
Cypress Avenue/Cazador Street
9
Cypress Avenue/Division Street
10
Riverside Drive/Fletcher Drive
11
SR-2 Southbound Off-Ramp/Fletcher
Drive
12
Larga Avenue/Fletcher Drive
13
Estara Avenue/Fletcher Drive
14
Avenue 36/Eagle Rock Avenue
15
SR-2 Northbound On-Off
Ramps/Eagle Rock Avenue
Peak Hour
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Existing (2012) Baseline
Conditions /a/
V/C
LOS
0.710
C
0.695
B
0.795
C
0.683
B
0.597
A
0.656
B
0.473
A
0.439
A
0.420
A
0.374
A
0.571
A
0.607
B
0.759
C
0.471
A
0.545
A
0.350
A
0.619
B
0.475
A
0.813
D
0.931
E
0.584
A
0.331
A
0.543
A
0.299
A
0.535
A
0.346
A
0.666
B
0.347
A
0.868
D
0.782
C
Existing (2012)
Conditions
V/C
LOS
0.718
C
0.698
B
0.839
D
0.708
C
0.630
B
0.680
B
0.491
A
0.446
A
0.437
A
0.378
A
0.588
A
0.616
B
0.770
C
0.476
A
0.556
A
0.352
A
0.624
B
0.477
A
0.820
D
0.934
E
0.592
A
0.338
A
0.552
A
0.306
A
0.561
A
0.356
A
0.687
B
0.352
A
0.874
D
0.783
C
/a/ Exiting 2012 Baseline Condition reflect no high school trips on-site.
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.5-10
Difference
in V/C
0.008
0.003
0.044
0.025
0.033
0.024
0.018
0.007
0.017
0.004
0.017
0.009
0.011
0.005
0.011
0.002
0.005
0.002
0.007
0.003
0.008
0.007
0.009
0.007
0.026
0.010
0.021
0.005
0.006
0.001
ALE
AVE
5
9
GLEN
D
1
1
PR
RA
TA
ES
U
R
E
AV
AV
E
O
LI
N
RD
VE
RD
UG
O
R
RD
AV
E
2
K
N
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
H
U
R
ST
2
AV
E
3
4
G
EL
ES
RI
VE
RS
I
R
IV
ER
12
11
DR
5
ST
DE
SIV
L E
RLA
K
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
GI
LR
OY
R
DO
ZA
CA
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
ER
CH
ET
FL
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
11
6
8
SS
LEGEND:
9
E
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
E
AV
Project Site
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
N
Analyzed Intersection
#
ST
NU E
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
14
O
M
ET
CK
RO
15
13
D
AN
6
LE
RN
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
TA
FE
G
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
N
SA
PE
R
LA
R
G
A
E
GL
EA
Approx.
Scale
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles
Negligible Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
0
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-5
EXISTING (2012) BASELINE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
Congestion Management Plan
The CMP guidelines require that intersection monitoring locations must be examined if the proposed project
will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours. Additionally, the CMP
guidelines require that freeway monitoring locations must be examined if the proposed project will add 150
or more trips (in either direction) during either the weekday AM or PM peak hours. The nearest CMP
arterial monitoring location to the project site is the Alvarado Street/Sunset Boulevard intersection. The
nearest mainline freeway monitoring locations to the project site include SR-2 at Round Top Road and I-5 at
Stadium Way.
Vehicle and Pedestrian Site Access
Figure 4.5-6 depicts the flow of traffic throughout the project site and the locations of the two drop off/pick
up areas. There are four ingress/egress driveways to the project site. Two of the driveways are located on
Fletcher Drive (Fletcher Drive North and Fletcher Drive South), and the two other driveways are located on
San Fernando Road (San Fernando Road North and San Fernando Road South). Vehicles entering from
Fletcher Drive North typically drop off students at Drop off/Pick up Area 1 and turn left to exit at San
Fernando. Alternately, vehicles from Fletcher Drive North may turn into the school parking lot to drop off
students at Drop off/Pick up Area 2 and continue through the parking lot to exit at Fletcher Drive South.
Vehicles entering from San Fernando Road North also follow the same routes as Fletcher Drive North. The
vehicles that enter from Fletcher Drive South travel through the school parking lot to arrive at Drop off/Pick
up Area 2 and exit at San Fernando Road. Entering vehicles from San Fernando Road South typically drive
into the school parking lot area to arrive at the Drop off/Pick up Area 2.
Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facilities
Eight bus lines currently serve the study area. Seven lines, including a ‘Rapid Bus’ line, are operated by
Metro, and one bus line (Commuter Express) is operated by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation
(LADOT). These transit lines are described below and are illustrated in Figure 4.5-7.
• Metro 84. Line 84 is a local north/south line that provides service from Eagle Rock to Downtown Los
Angeles and travels primarily along Eagle Rock Boulevard and Cypress Avenue within the study area.
This line runs everyday, including holidays, at a peak frequency of approximately 13-16 minutes during
commute hours. The northern terminus is at Eagle Rock Plaza in Eagle Rock. The southern terminus is
at the Broadway/Temple Street intersection in Downtown Los Angeles.
• Metro 90-91. Line 90-91 is a local north/south line that provides service from Sunland to Downtown Los
Angeles and travels primarily along Glendale Avenue and San Fernando Road within the study area. This
line runs everyday, including holidays, at a peak frequency of approximately 12-15 minutes during peak
commute hours. The northern terminus is at the Foothill Boulevard/Fenwick Street intersection in
Sunland. The southern terminus is at the Hill Street/Venice Boulevard in Downtown Los Angeles.
• Metro 94. Line 94 is local north/south line that provides service from Sun Valley to Downtown Los
Angeles and travels primarily along San Fernando Road within the study area. This line runs everyday,
including holidays, at a peak frequency of 14-20 minutes during peak commute hours. The northern
terminus is at the Lankershim Boulevard/Strathern Street intersection in Sun Valley. The southern
terminus is at the Hill Street/Venice Boulevard intersection in Downtown Los Angeles.
• Metro 96. Line 96 is local north/south line that provides service from Burbank to Downtown Los
Angeles and travels primarily along Riverside Drive and Fletcher Drive within the study area. This line
runs everyday, including holidays, at a peak frequency of 28-30 minutes during peak commute hours. The
northern terminus is at Burbank Station in Burbank. The southern terminus is at the Olive Street/Venice
Boulevard intersection in Downtown Los Angeles.
taha 2012-061
4.5-12
6
5
R
D
4
7
RD
Pick Up/
Drop Off 1
DO
AN
RN
FE
R
N
SA
E
FL
E
H
TC
1
1
2
Pick
Pick Up/
Up/
Drop Off
Off 2
2
Drop
3
RO
ET
M
2
W
RO
LE
DA
N
E
L
G
LEGEND:
Y
FW
Project Site
Pick Up/ Drop Off Locations
Ingress/Egress
Direction of Vehicle Flow
# Facilities
1. Van de Kamp Building
2. High School
3. Parking Lot
4. Autozone Store
5. Denny’s Restaurant
6. El Pollo Loco Restaurant
7. Commercial Parking
SOURCE: TAHA and Google Earth, 2013.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
N
Approx.
Scale
0
85
170
Feet
FIGURE 4.5-6
VEHICLE CIRCULATION
MTA
90, 9
1
DALE
AVE
,
03
,6
94
GLEN
TA
M
4
79
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
CK
RO
ST
RD
EB
94
M
TA
6
1,
,9
DR
90
03
ER
TA
M
R
VI
RS
ID
E
UG
O
AV
E
AN
EL
ES
9
40
RD
CE
2
MTA
84, 6
85
R
K
LVD
U
O
LI
N
LAK
S
G
RI
VE
H
M
ET
R
AV
E
SIL
VE R
LO
N
AV
E
94
G
LE
R
G
A
LI
TA
VE
LA
R
E
85
GL
,6
EA
84
A
MT
,7
03
,6
94
RD
1,
O
,9
ND
90
NA
TA ER
M
F
N
SA
PE
ST
94
,7
5
GI
LR
OY
OR
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
E 33
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
NU
AVE
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
E
AV
S
ES
94
PR
,7
CY
94
1,
84
,9
TA
90
M
TA
M
City of Los Angeles County (CE)
Commuter Express
03
Los Angeles County (MTA)
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
ST
AD
AZ
DIVISION ST
9
40
,6
96
Project Site
C
CE
TA
M
96
DR
TA
ER
M
CH
T
E
FL
LEGEND:
VD
BL
N
Approx.
Scale
0
750
1500
Feet
FIGURE 4.5-7
EXISTING TRANSIT LINES
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
• Metro 603. Line 603 is local north/south circulator line that provides service from Glendale to Los
Angeles and travels primarily along San Fernando Road and Fletcher Drive within the study area. This
line runs everyday, including holidays, at a peak frequency of 9-11 minutes during peak commute hours.
The northern terminus is at the Glendale Galleria in Glendale. The southern terminus is at the Grand
Avenue/Washington Boulevard intersection in Los Angeles.
• Metro 685. Line 685 is local north/south circulator line that provides service from Glendale to Glassell
Park and travels primarily along Eagle Rock Boulevard within the study area. This line runs Monday
through Friday at a peak frequency of 30 minutes during peak commute hours. The northern terminus is
at the Canada Boulevard/Towne Street intersection in Glendale. The southern terminus is at the Cypress
Avenue/Verdugo Road intersection in Glassell Park. No service is provided on weekends and holidays.
• Metro 794. Line 794 is a north/south ‘Rapid Bus’ line that provides service from Sylmar to Downtown
Los Angeles and travels primarily along San Fernando Road within the study area. This line runs
Monday through Friday at a peak frequency of 20 minutes during peak commute hours. The northern
terminus is at Sylmar Station in Sylmar. The southern terminus is at the Hill Street/Venice Boulevard
intersection in Downtown Los Angeles. No service is provided on weekends and holidays.
• LADOT CE 409. Line 409 is a north/south commuter express line that provides service between Sylmar
and Downtown Los Angeles and travels primarily along San Fernando Road within the study area. This
line runs Monday through Friday at a peak frequency of 14-20 minutes during peak commute hours. The
northern terminus is at the Foothill Boulevard/Glenoaks Boulevard intersection in Sylmar. The southern
terminus is at the Hill Street/12th Street intersection in Downtown Los Angeles. No service is provided on
weekends and holidays.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the proposed project would have a significant
impact related to transportation/traffic if it would:
• Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not
limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit;
• Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service
standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways;
• Result in inadequate emergency access; and/or
• Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
LADOT has established threshold criteria that determine if a project has a significant traffic impact at a
specific intersection. According to the criteria provided by the City of Los Angeles, a project impact is
considered significant if the related increase in the V/C value equals or exceeds the thresholds as shown in
Table 4.5-5.
TABLE 4.5-5: LADOT CRITERIA FOR A SIGNIFICANT INTERSECTION IMPACT
LOS
C
D
E, F
Final V/C Ratio
>0.700 - 0.800
>0.800 - 0.900
>0.900
V/C Increase
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.5-15
> 0.040
> 0.020
> 0.010
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
Using these criteria, for example, a project would not have a significant impact at an intersection if it is
operating at LOS C after the addition of project traffic and the incremental change in the V/C ratio is less
than 0.040. However, if the intersection is operating at a LOS F after the addition of project traffic and the
incremental change in V/C ratio is 0.010 or greater, the project would be considered to have a significant
impact.
IMPACTS
The existing environmental setting normally constitutes the baseline conditions against which a lead agency
determines whether an impact is significant. However, the use of past or hypothetical conditions as the
baseline is appropriate where, as here, it is necessary to evaluate current impacts resulting from the existing
uses on the project site. Thus, throughout this document, a comparison of existing conditions against the
conditions that would occur without the interim uses is utilized, in order to provide the actual effects of the
existing interim uses (“Option 3”) on the environment.
Circulation System
In order to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project on the local street system, estimates of the
project traffic volumes were developed. The traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated and
assigned separately to the street system. The addition of project traffic and existing traffic volumes
represents the Existing (2012) plus Project scenario.
Project Trip Generation. The trip generation estimates for the proposed project was determined using
factors such as the number of students, classrooms, square footage and number of people at the project site.
As described in Chapter 3.0 Project Description, there are four occupancy options under consideration for the
future use of the project site. These options include:
•
•
•
•
Option 1 - College and High School Mix
Option 2 - High School and Adult Education/Workforce Training Mix
Option 3 - Current Mix (High School, Adult Education/Workforce Training, and Office)
Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix
Chapter 3.0 Project Description, includes details of each option and a table indicating the number of persons
on-site during three different time periods: morning (6 a.m.-12 p.m.), afternoon (12 p.m.-4 p.m.), and
evening (4 p.m.-10 p.m.). Additionally, the college/university use and adult education/workforce training
use in these options are also characterized by classrooms offering courses for college level, adult education
and workforce training. The process trip generation calculations and assumptions for each of the options are
as follows:
• High School. The project site is currently occupied by a high school with an enrollment of 550 students.
All the proposed options (1, 2, and 3) with a high school use would continue to have an enrollment of
550 students. The number of classrooms is common for these options and is equivalent to 24 classrooms.
The trip generation estimates for a high school are based on the existing observed trip generation (which
was greater than the trip generation estimates for a private high school developed using the trip rates
provided in Trip Generation: An ITE Informational Report, 8th Edition, ITE).
• Office Use. The trip generation estimates for office were developed on the square footages provided in
each option and the ITE General Office (Land Use 710) trip generation rates. However, if the office use
is defined as a supporting use for the high school, college or adult education, the trip generation estimates
are not calculated separately since they are already accounted for in the trip generation for the use the
office supports.
taha 2012-061
4.5-16
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
• College/Adult Education. Trip generation estimates for college and adult education uses were based on
the number of persons on-site during the morning and evening peak hours, per the project description and
assumptions relative to staff and student composition and student travel characteristics such as mode
splits, arrival/departure patterns and attendance rates.
Table 4.5-6 summarizes the trip generation estimates for each of the option using the assumptions and
methodology described above. As shown, Option 1 would generate approximately 3,524 daily trips of which
648 trips would occur during the morning peak hour and 419 trips would occur during the evening peak hour.
Option 2 would generate approximately 3,644 daily trips of which 556 trips would occur during the morning
peak hour and 434 trips would occur during the evening peak hour. Option 3, which consists of the current
mix of uses on-site plus additional adult education/workforce training classes, would generate approximately
2,222 daily trips of which 572 trips would occur during the morning peak hour and 182 trips during the
evening peak hour. Lastly, Option 4 is estimated to generate approximately 2,716 daily trips of which
343 trips would occur during the morning peak hour and 181 trips would occur during the evening peak hour.
Of the four options, Option 2 generates the greatest amount of daily and evening trips and Option 1 generates
the greatest amount of morning trips.
Project Trip Distribution. The geographic regional trip distribution for the high school component was
determined utilizing the existing peak hour traffic counts at the site, and student zip code data provided by
the high school. For the college/adult education/office component, the geographic regional trip distribution
was based on directional traffic distribution from existing traffic patterns observed in the current counts as
well as professional judgment and local knowledge on travel patterns within the study area. The resulting
regional geographic trip distribution for project components’ trips was estimated to be the following:
•
•
•
•
To and From the North:
To and From the South:
To and From the East:
To and From the West:
High School
20 percent
25 percent
28 percent
27 percent
College/Adult Education, Office
33 percent
19 percent
30 percent
18 percent
Intersection level trip distribution percentages for the high school component are shown in Figure 4.5-4
above, and that for the college/adult education component are shown in Figure 4.5-8. Based on these
distribution assumptions, location and points of access of the project driveways, as well as the trip generation
from the options, traffic estimates of project-only trips were developed for each option. The overall projectonly trips for each of the four options are presented in Figures 4.5-9 through 4.5-12, respectively.
Existing (2012) Baseline Plus Project Traffic Volumes. Utilizing the project-only traffic estimates
developed for both AM and PM peak hours, traffic forecasts for the Existing (2012) Baseline plus Project
conditions were developed. The existing (2012) baseline traffic volumes were combined with the projectonly traffic volumes to obtain the Existing Baseline with Project traffic volume forecasts. The Existing
(2012) Baseline plus Project traffic volumes during both AM and PM peak hours for each of the four options
are presented in Figures 4.5-13 through 4.5-16, respectively.
Future Year 2014 Traffic Projections. In order to evaluate the potential impact of the proposed project on
the local street system, estimates of the Future Year 2014 traffic volumes both with and without the proposed
project were developed. The Future Year 2014 without the Project was first developed including estimates
for background growth in area-wide trip making and trips generated by future development (related projects)
in the vicinity of the study area. The Future (2014) without Project traffic represents the cumulative base
conditions. Next, the traffic generated by the proposed project was estimated and assigned separately to the
street system. The addition of proposed project traffic and the cumulative base traffic represents the Future
Cumulative (2014) plus Project scenario.
taha 2012-061
4.5-17
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
TABLE 4.5-6: ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION BY OPTION
Proposed Project
OPTION 1 – COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL MIX
High School
Classrooms offering courses for College classes, Adult
Education and workforce training /a/
Size
Daily
In
AM Peak Hour
Out
Total
In
PM Peak Hour
Out
Total
550 Students
1,364
249
216
465
64
85
149
14 classrooms - AM
36 classrooms - PM
2160
150
33
183
193
77
270
3,524
399
249
648
257
162
419
1,364
249
216
465
64
85
149
2,280
75
16
91
204
81
285
3,644
324
232
556
268
166
434
1,364
249
216
465
64
85
149
18
2
0
2
0
2
2
840
86
19
105
22
9
31
2,222
337
235
572
86
96
182
Option 1 – Trip Generation Total
OPTION 2 – HIGH SCHOOL AND ADULT EDUCATION/WORKFORCE TRAINING MIX
High School
Classrooms offering courses for College classes, Adult
Education and workforce training /a/
550 Students
7 classrooms - AM
38 classrooms - PM
Option 2 – Trip Generation Total
OPTION 3 – CURRENT MIX
High School
Office
Classrooms offering courses for College classes, Adult
Education and workforce training /a/
550 Students
1,600 square feet
8 classrooms - AM
4 classrooms - PM
Option 3 – Trip Generation Total
OPTION 4 – OFFICE AND UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION MIX
Office
20,026 square feet
220
27
4
31
5
25
30
Classrooms offering courses for College classes, Adult
Education and workforce training /a/
24 classrooms - AM
20 classrooms - PM
2,249
257
55
312
108
43
151
2,716
284
59
343
113
68
181
2.48
54%
46%
0.85
43%
57%
0.27
11.01
88%
12%
1.55
17%
83%
1.49
Option 4 – Trip Generation Total
TRIP RATES
High School /b/
Office (ITE Land Use 710) /c/
Trips per Student
Trips per 1,000 square feet
/a/ Weekday peak hour trip generation estimates for classrooms based on several elements such as the number of persons on-site, number of students, staff, percent present on a given day, and mode split. Daily
trip generation is assumed to be approximately 8 times the peak hour of traffic.
/b/Weekday peak hour trip generation estimates/rates for high school based on counts conducted at driveways serving the existing high school. Daily trip generation rate is based on ITE Land Use 536 - Private
School K-12.
/c/ Trip Generation - An ITE Informational Report , 8th Edition, ITE 2008.
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.5-18
AVE
ALE
GLEN
D
1
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
E
GL
EA
N
SA
14
RD
RD
LO
S
LI
DU
GO
O
N
R
ST
AV
E
VE
R
LVD
K
2
SIL
VER
LAK
EB
U
M
ET
R
AV
E
VD
BL
15
13
DO
H
LI
TA
AN
G
LE
N
AV
E
RN
FE
LA
R
G
A
PE
R
CK
RO
R
TA
PR
2
3
4
AN
G
EL
ES
RI
VE
RS
ID
E
R
IV
ER
12
11
DR
GI
LR
OY
ST
5
FL
DR
DIVISION ST
5
9
SS
7
E3
3
8
E
PR
CY
E
AV
Project Site
#
10
6
LEGEND:
ST
NU
AVE
ER
CH
ET
C
OR
AD
AZ
Analyzed Intersection
XX% Percent Inbound
N
Approx.
Scale
(XX%) Percent Outbound
0
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
850
1700
Feet
FIGURE 4.5-8
PROJECT TRIP DISTRIBUTION - COMMUNITY COLLEGE/ADULT EDUCATION
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
H
U
R
O
LI
N
ST
14
2
2
AV
E
3
4
ID
E
ER
LAK
R
IV
ER
DR
12
11
5
ST
RS
G
EL
ES
SIV
L
RI
VE
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
OY
R
DO
GI
LR
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
E
FL
R
HE
TC
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
11
6
8
9
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
ST
ZA
CA
N UE
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
15
13
K
R
CK
RD
ET
RO
UG
O
AV
E
E
VE
RD
N
M
RD
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
AV
E
DO
AN
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
TA
RN
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
A
N
G
LE
R
SA
PE
R
LA
GL
EA
S
ES
E
AV
LEGEND:
N
Approx.
Scale
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
Analyzed Intersection
0
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-9
OPTION 1 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AVE
DALE
5
9
GLEN
1
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
15
13
14
O
LI
VD
BL
RD
R
CK
GO
ET
RO
2
N
K
DU
AV
E
E
VE
R
U
M
RD
H
AV
E
DO
R
ST
2
AV
E
3
AN
G
EL
E
S
RI
VE
RS
4
LAK
LO
S
EB
LVD
10
ID
E
R
SIL
VER
6
N
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
TA
N
NA
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
R
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
N
G
LE
SA
PE
R
LA
R
G
A
GL
EA
IV
ER
12
11
DR
ST
5
RO
Y
R
DO
GI
L
R
HE
E
FL
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
TC
11
6
8
9
S
ES
PR
CY
7
33
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
UE
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
N
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
ST
ZA
CA
E
AV
LEGEND:
N
Approx.
Scale
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
Analyzed Intersection
0
1350
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-10
OPTION 2 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
H
U
R
O
LI
N
ST
14
2
2
AV
E
3
4
ID
E
ER
LAK
R
IV
ER
DR
12
11
5
ST
RS
G
EL
ES
SIV
L
RI
VE
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
OY
R
DO
GI
LR
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
E
FL
R
HE
TC
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
11
6
8
9
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
ST
ZA
CA
N UE
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
15
13
K
R
CK
RD
ET
RO
UG
O
AV
E
E
VE
RD
N
M
RD
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
AV
E
DO
AN
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
TA
RN
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
A
N
G
LE
R
SA
PE
R
LA
GL
EA
S
ES
E
AV
LEGEND:
N
Approx.
Scale
Project Site
#
Analyzed Intersection
0
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
1350
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-11
OPTION 3 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
AVE
ALE
5
9
GLEN
D
1
1
PR
RA
TA
ES
U
R
E
AV
M
CK
R
ST
15
13
14
RD
UG
O
2
K
2
AV
E
3
4
G
EL
E
RI
VE
RS
S
SIL
VER
N
LAK
E
BLV
D
10
LO
SA
R
IV
ER
DR
12
11
5
GI
LR
O
Y
ST
ID
E
R
HE
DR
OR
ST
10
DIVISION ST
5
TC
E
FL
11
6
8
9
SS
RE
P
CY
7
33
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
D
ZA
UE
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
CA
N
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
RD
ET
R
O
LI
N
AV
E
RO
VE
U
AV
E
RD
H
TA
O
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
A
LI
D
AN
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
G
R
RN
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
LE
N
N
SA
PE
LA
R
E
GL
EA
E
AV
LEGEND:
N
Approx.
Scale
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
Analyzed Intersection
0
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-12
OPTION 4 PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
H
U
R
O
LI
N
ST
14
2
2
AV
E
3
4
ID
E
ER
LAK
R
IV
ER
DR
12
11
5
ST
RS
G
EL
ES
SIV
L
RI
VE
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
OY
R
DO
GI
LR
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
E
FL
R
HE
TC
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
11
6
8
9
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
S
ES
E
AV
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
ST
ZA
CA
N UE
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
15
13
K
R
CK
RD
ET
RO
UG
O
AV
E
E
VE
RD
N
M
RD
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
AV
E
DO
AN
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
TA
RN
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
A
N
G
LE
R
SA
PE
R
LA
GL
EA
N
Analyzed Intersection
Approx.
Scale
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles
Negligible Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
0
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-13
EXISTING (2012) BASELINE PLUS OPTION 1
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
H
U
R
O
LI
N
ST
14
2
2
AV
E
3
4
ID
E
ER
LAK
R
IV
ER
DR
12
11
5
ST
RS
G
EL
ES
SIV
L
RI
VE
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
OY
R
DO
GI
LR
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
E
FL
R
HE
TC
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
11
6
8
9
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
S
ES
E
AV
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
ST
ZA
CA
N UE
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
15
13
K
R
CK
RD
ET
RO
UG
O
AV
E
E
VE
RD
N
M
RD
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
AV
E
DO
AN
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
TA
RN
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
A
N
G
LE
R
SA
PE
R
LA
GL
EA
N
Analyzed Intersection
Approx.
Scale
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles
Negligible Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
0
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-14
EXISTING (2012) BASELINE PLUS OPTION 2
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
H
U
R
O
LI
N
ST
14
2
2
AV
E
3
4
ID
E
ER
LAK
R
IV
ER
DR
12
11
5
ST
RS
G
EL
ES
SIV
L
RI
VE
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
OY
R
DO
GI
LR
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
E
FL
R
HE
TC
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
11
6
8
9
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
S
ES
E
AV
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
ST
ZA
CA
N UE
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
15
13
K
R
CK
RD
ET
RO
UG
O
AV
E
E
VE
RD
N
M
RD
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
AV
E
DO
AN
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
TA
RN
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
A
N
G
LE
R
SA
PE
R
LA
GL
EA
N
Analyzed Intersection
Approx.
Scale
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles
Negligible Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
0
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-15
EXISTING (2012) BASELINE PLUS OPTION 3
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
O
LI
N
2
K
R
ST
14
RD
R
15
13
GO
AV
E
2
AV
E
3
4
ID
E
ER
LAK
R
IV
ER
DR
12
11
5
ST
RS
G
EL
ES
SIV
L
RI
VE
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
OY
R
DO
GI
LR
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
R
HE
E
FL
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
TC
11
6
8
SS
LEGEND:
9
E
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
E
AV
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
ST
ZA
CA
N UE
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
DU
M
ET
CK
RO
VE
R
H
U
AV
E
RD
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
LI
TA
DO
AN
RN
FE
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
G
A
N
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
LE
N
SA
PE
R
LA
R
E
GL
EA
N
Analyzed Intersection
Approx.
Scale
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles
Negligible Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
0
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-16
EXISTING (2012) BASELINE PLUS OPTION 4
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
Cumulative 2014 Base Traffic Projections. The Cumulative (2014) Base traffic projections reflect growth
in traffic from two primary sources. Firstly, the background or ambient growth to reflect the effects of
overall area-wide regional growth both within and outside the study area; and secondly, from traffic
generated by specific related (cumulative) projects located within, or in the vicinity of, the study area.
Area-wide Ambient Traffic Growth. The traffic in the vicinity of the study area was estimated to increase
at a rate of about 1.5 percent per year working closely with the City of Los Angeles Department of
Transportation. Future increases in background traffic volumes due to regional growth and development are
expected to continue at this rate. With the assumed completion date of 2014, the Existing 2012 Baseline
(without existing on-site trips) traffic volumes were adjusted upward by a factor of 3 percent to reflect this
area-wide regional growth. The resulting Existing Baseline plus Ambient Growth (2014) traffic volumes are
illustrated in Figure 4.5-17.
Related Projects Traffic Generation and Assignment. The second potential source of traffic growth in the
study area is that expected from other future development projects in the vicinity. These related or
"cumulative” projects are those developments that are planned and expected to be in place within the same
timeframe as the Proposed Project. Data describing related projects in the area was obtained from the City of
Los Angeles and City of Glendale website. Nine related projects were identified within the study area. The
locations of these projects are shown in Figure 4.5-18.
The trip generation estimates for the related projects were based on different sources including trip
generation rates contained in the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation – An ITE Information
Report, 8th Edition, trip generation estimates provided by the recently completed traffic studies for projects,
and trip generation estimates provided by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation. As shown
in Table 4.5-7, the related projects are expected to generate approximately 744 trips during the morning peak
hour and 1,461 trips during the evening peak hour.
The geographic distribution and the traffic assignment of the related projects were performed and the results
of the same are illustrated in Figure 4.5-19. These related projects’ traffic estimates were combined with the
Existing Baseline plus Ambient Growth traffic to obtain the Cumulative (2014) Base traffic volumes.
Figure 4.5-20 provides the Cumulative (2014) Base traffic volumes at each of the analysis intersections
during both AM and PM peak hours. These volumes represent Future (2014) Cumulative Base (without
project) conditions.
Cumulative (2014) Plus Project Traffic Volumes. Utilizing the project-only traffic estimates developed
for both AM and PM peak hours, traffic forecasts for the Future Year 2014 plus Project conditions were
developed for each option. The Cumulative (2014) Base traffic forecasts were combined with the projectonly traffic volumes to obtain the Future with Project traffic volume forecasts. T he Future Year 2014
Cumulative plus Project traffic volumes during both AM and PM peak hours for each of the four options are
presented in Figures 4.5-21 through 4.5-24, respectively.
taha 2012-061
4.5-28
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
H
U
R
O
LI
N
ST
14
2
2
AV
E
3
4
ID
E
ER
LAK
R
IV
ER
DR
12
11
5
ST
RS
G
EL
ES
SIV
L
RI
VE
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
OY
R
DO
GI
LR
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
E
FL
R
HE
TC
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
11
6
8
9
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
S
ES
E
AV
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
ST
ZA
CA
N UE
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
15
13
K
R
CK
RD
ET
RO
UG
O
AV
E
E
VE
RD
N
M
RD
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
AV
E
DO
AN
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
TA
RN
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
A
N
G
LE
R
SA
PE
R
LA
GL
EA
N
Analyzed Intersection
Approx.
Scale
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles
Negligible Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
0
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-17
EXISTING BASELINE PLUS AMBIENT GROWTH
(2014) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
COLORADO ST
CK BL
VD
2
EAGL
E RO
EN
GOLD
CHEVY CHASE DR
S. BRAND BLVD
PACIFIC AVE
S. CENTRAL AVE
9
ALE BLV
D
S. GLEN
D
O RD
ST
8
VD
BL
LIZ
FE
4
Forest Lawn
Memorial Park
NK
LI
RO
ET
M
1
Silver Lake
Reservoir
EAGL
E RO
CK BL
VD
TC
FL
E
N.
GLENDALE BLVD
5
HE
R
DR
HY
PE
RI
O
N
AV
E
G
LE
ND
AL
E
BL
VD
S
LO
7
MS
DA
6
S. A
Y
5
VERDUG
RR
UP
E FW
STAT
E. CHEVY CHASE DR
N
SA
2
R
FE
Y
FW
O
RD
N
ND
NA
LE
G
E
AL
D
2
3
LEGEND:
#
Project Site
Related Projects
1. Eagle Rock Residential/Retail Development
2. Taylor Yard Village
3. Condominium Project
4. Occidental College Master Plan
5. Condominium Project
6. Los Feliz Charter School
7. Mitaa Plaza Project
8. Glendale Triangle Project
9. Residential Project
SOURCE: MapInfo and TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
N
Approx.
Scale
0
1625
3250
FEET
FIGURE 4.5-18
LOCATION OF RELATED PROJECTS
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
TABLE 4.5-7: ESTIMATED WEEKDAY TRIP GENERATION OF RELATED PROJECTS
N
o.
Project Name
CITY OF LOS ANGELES /a/
AM Peak Hour
Location
Description
Daily
In
Out
PM Peak Hour
Total
In
Out
Total
1
Eagle Rock Residential/Retail
3901 N. Eagle Rock Blvd.
114 du condominiums and 11,200 sf retail
1,034
14
41
55
54
37
91
2
Taylor Yard Village
1555 N. San Fernando Rd.
70 du apartments, 300 du condominiums,
80 du sr. apartments and 25,000 sf retail
2,708
41
121
162
137
87
224
3
Condominium Project
1855 N. Glendale Blvd.
65 du condominiums
543
8
37
45
31
15
46
4
Occidental College Master Plan
1600 Campus Rd.
250 additional students, 5 du single-family, and
35 du apartments
1,161
44
26
70
39
53
92
5
Condominium Project
2600 W. Riverside Dr.
120 du condominiums
703
9
44
53
42
20
62
6
Los Feliz Charter School
2861 W. Los Feliz Blvd.
Elementary school with 280 students
135
46
36
82
0
0
0
8,975
218
124
342
420
472
892
CITY OF GLENDALE
7
Mitaa Plaza Project /b/
435 Los Feliz Rd.
32,503 sf day spa, 35,094 sf supermarket,
45,934 sf medical office, 8,000 sf fine
restaurant, 5,000 sf high-turnover restaurant
and 53,050 sf retail
8
Glendale Triangle Project /b/
3900 San Fernando Rd.
218 du apartments and 54,000 sf shopping
center
232
-83
-18
-101
19
-9
10
9
Residential Project /c/
525 W. Elk Ave.
71 du residential 5-story building with
mezzanine
472
7
29
36
29
15
44
15,963
304
440
744
771
690
1,461
Total Related Project Trip Generation
Note: du = dwelling; sf = square feet
/a/ City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). Trip generation totals provided by LADOT, April 2012. Directional distribution based on Trip Generation: An ITE Informational Report, 8th Edition, 2008.
/b/Traffic Impact Study for LFCSA Relocation Project, prepared by Linscott, Law and Greenspan, July 2009.
/c/ City of Glendale website. Trip generation estimates based on rates included in Trip Generation: An ITE Informational Report, 8th Edition, 2008.
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.5-31
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
ES
U
R
TA
PR
CK
A
R
E
AV
SA
N
PE
FE
R
AV
E
M
R
2
6
2
N
LE
K
N
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
UG
LI
VE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
O
O
H
U
R
ST
2
AV
E
3
10
AN
LAK
S
EB
LO
G
SIL
VER
EL
ES
RI
4
LVD
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
RD
RD
ET
AV
E
E
RD
G
G
R
IV
ER
VE
RS
ID
DR
12
11
5
LR
OY
ST
E
GI
CA
ER
DR
10
CH
11
6
8
9
S
ES
PR
CY
7
E
AV
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
ST
DIVISION ST
5
ET
FL
R
33
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
DO
UE
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
ZA
N
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
RO
14
DO
R
15
13
AN
TA
RN
LI
LA
A
E
L
AG
N
Analyzed Intersection
Approx.
Scale
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles
Negligible Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
0
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-19
RELATED PROJECTS ONLY PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
O
LI
N
2
K
R
ST
14
RD
R
15
13
GO
AV
E
2
AV
E
3
4
ID
E
ER
LAK
R
IV
ER
12
11
DR
5
ST
RS
G
EL
ES
SIV
L
RI
VE
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
OY
R
DO
GI
LR
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
R
HE
E
FL
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
TC
11
6
8
SS
LEGEND:
9
E
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
E
AV
Project Site
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
N
Analyzed Intersection
#
ST
ZA
CA
N UE
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
DU
M
ET
CK
RO
VE
R
H
U
AV
E
RD
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
LI
TA
DO
AN
RN
FE
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
G
A
N
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
LE
N
SA
PE
R
LA
R
E
GL
EA
Approx.
Scale
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles
Negligible Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
0
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-20
CUMULATIVE (2014) BASE PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
H
U
R
O
LI
N
ST
14
2
2
AV
E
3
4
ID
E
ER
LAK
R
IV
ER
DR
12
11
5
ST
RS
G
EL
ES
SIV
L
RI
VE
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
OY
R
DO
GI
LR
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
E
FL
R
HE
TC
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
11
6
8
9
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
S
ES
E
AV
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
ST
ZA
CA
N UE
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
15
13
K
R
CK
RD
ET
RO
UG
O
AV
E
E
VE
RD
N
M
RD
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
AV
E
DO
AN
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
TA
RN
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
A
N
G
LE
R
SA
PE
R
LA
GL
EA
N
Analyzed Intersection
Approx.
Scale
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles
Negligible Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
0
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-21
CUMULATIVE (2014) PLUS OPTION 1
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
H
U
R
O
LI
N
ST
2
2
AV
E
3
4
ID
E
ER
LAK
R
IV
ER
DR
12
11
5
ST
RS
G
EL
ES
SIV
L
RI
VE
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
OY
R
DO
GI
LR
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
E
FL
R
HE
TC
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
11
6
8
9
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
S
ES
E
AV
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
12
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
N
Analyzed Intersection
Approx.
Scale
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles
Negligible Volumes
13
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ST
ZA
CA
N UE
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
14
K
R
CK
RD
ET
RO
UG
O
AV
E
15
13
E
VE
RD
N
M
RD
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
AV
E
DO
AN
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
TA
RN
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
A
N
G
LE
R
SA
PE
R
LA
GL
EA
14
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
0
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-22
CUMULATIVE (2014) PLUS OPTION 2
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
H
U
R
O
LI
N
ST
14
2
2
AV
E
3
4
ID
E
ER
LAK
R
IV
ER
DR
12
11
5
ST
RS
G
EL
ES
SIV
L
RI
VE
AN
EB
LVD
10
LO
S
OY
R
DO
GI
LR
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
E
FL
R
HE
TC
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
11
6
8
9
PR
CY
7
33
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
S
ES
E
AV
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
ST
ZA
CA
N UE
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
VD
BL
15
13
K
R
CK
RD
ET
RO
UG
O
AV
E
E
VE
RD
N
M
RD
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
AV
E
DO
AN
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
TA
RN
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
A
N
G
LE
R
SA
PE
R
LA
GL
EA
N
Analyzed Intersection
Approx.
Scale
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles
Negligible Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
0
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-23
CUMULATIVE (2014) PLUS OPTION 3
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
5
GLEN
DALE
AVE
1
9
1
PR
R
TA
ES
U
A
R
E
AV
U
R
ST
VD
BL
15
13
14
RD
K
UG
O
AV
E
CK
RO
2
VE
RD
H
M
ET
R
O
LI
N
2
AV
E
3
10
LO
S
RI
VE
AN
G
EL
ES
RS
ID
E
SIV
L E
RLA
KE
BLV
D
6
CYPRESS AVE &
DIVISION ST
AV
E
RD
2
SAN FERNANDO RD &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
LI
TA
DO
AN
RN
FE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
GLENDALE AVE
G
LE
N
N
SA
PE
R
LA
R
G
A
E
GL
EA
R
IV
ER
4
12
11
DR
ST
5
GI
LR
OY
R
DO
ZA
CA
3
SAN FERNANDO RD &
CAZADOR ST
7
RIVERSIDE DR &
FLETCHER DR
CH
ET
FL
ER
DR
10
DIVISION ST
5
11
6
E 33
UN
AVE
SAN FERNANDO RD &
FLETCHER DR
ST
8
9
PR
CY
7
S
ES
E
AV
LEGEND:
Project Site
#
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP
4
SAN FERNANDO RD &
SR-2 NORTHBOUND OFF-RAMP
SAN FERNANDO RD &
DIVISION ST
8
CYPRESS AVE &
CAZADOR ST
SR-2 SOUTHBOUND OFF-RAMP &
FLETCHER DR
N
Analyzed Intersection
Approx.
Scale
xxx(xxx) AM(PM) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes
Rounded to the Nearest 5 Vehicles
Negligible Volumes
12
13
14
LARGA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
ESTARA AVE &
FLETCHER DR
AVENUE 36 &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
0
1350
2700
Feet
15
SR-2 NORTHBOUND ON/OFF-RAMP &
EAGLE ROCK BLVD
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
FIGURE 4.5-24
CUMULATIVE (2014) PLUS OPTION 4
PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
Existing (2012) Baseline Plus Project Traffic Conditions. The Existing (2012) Baseline plus Project peak
hour traffic volumes were analyzed at each of the study intersections to determine the V/C ratio and
corresponding level of service. Tables 4.5-8 through 4.5-11 present the results of the Existing (2012)
Baseline plus Project traffic analysis for each of the options. Under all options, all 15 of the study
intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during the morning peak hour. During the evening
peak hour, 14 of the 15 study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better. The remaining
location, the Riverside Drive/Fletcher Drive intersection, is projected to operate at LOS E.
TABLE 4.5-8:
No.
1
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS –
EXISTING CONDITIONS OPTION 1
Intersection
Existing (2012)
Baseline Plus
Option 1
V/C
V/C
LOS
LOS
Project
Increase
in V/C
Signif.
Impact
AM
0.710
C
0.726
C
0.016
No
PM
0.695
B
0.711
C
0.016
No
AM
0.795
C
0.893
D
0.098
Yes
PM
0.683
B
0.782
C
0.099
Yes
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2 Southbound
On-Off Ramps
AM
0.597
A
0.641
B
0.044
No
PM
0.656
B
0.705
C
0.049
Yes
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2 Northbound
Off Ramp
AM
0.473
A
0.493
A
0.020
No
PM
0.439
A
0.453
A
0.014
No
5
San Fernando Rd. & Eagle Rock Blvd.
AM
0.420
A
0.439
A
0.019
No
PM
0.374
A
0.391
A
0.017
No
6
San Fernando Rd. & Cazador St.
AM
0.571
A
0.593
A
0.022
No
PM
0.607
B
0.639
B
0.032
No
7
San Fernando Rd. & Division St.
AM
0.759
C
0.771
C
0.012
No
PM
0.471
A
0.484
A
0.013
No
8
Cypress Ave. & Cazador St.
AM
0.545
A
0.564
A
0.019
No
PM
0.350
A
0.360
A
0.010
No
9
Cypress Ave. & Division St.
AM
0.619
B
0.627
B
0.008
No
PM
0.475
A
0.481
A
0.006
No
10
Riverside Dr. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.813
D
0.822
D
0.009
No
PM
0.931
E
0.939
E
0.008
No
11
SR-2 Southbound Off-Ramp & Fletcher
Dr.
AM
0.584
A
0.593
A
0.009
No
PM
0.331
A
0.348
A
0.017
No
12
Larga Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.543
A
0.552
A
0.009
No
PM
0.299
A
0.315
A
0.016
No
2
3
4
13
14
15
San Fernando Rd. & Glendale Ave.
Peak
Hour
Existing (2012)
Baseline
Conditions
San Fernando Rd. & Fletcher Dr.
Estara Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
Ave. 36 & Eagle Rock Blvd.
SR-2 Northbound On-Off Ramps &
Eagle Rock Blvd.
AM
0.535
A
0.569
A
0.034
No
PM
0.346
A
0.364
A
0.018
No
AM
0.666
B
0.693
B
0.027
No
PM
0.347
A
0.355
A
0.008
No
AM
0.868
D
0.876
D
0.008
No
PM
0.782
C
0.785
C
0.003
No
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.5-38
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
TABLE 4.5-9:
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS –
EXISTING CONDITIONS OPTION 2
Intersection
San Fernando Rd. & Glendale Ave.
San Fernando Rd. & Fletcher Dr.
Peak
Hour
Existing (2012)
Baseline
Conditions
V/C
LOS
Existing (2012)
Baseline Plus
Option 2
V/C
LOS
Project
Increase
in V/C
Signif.
Impact
AM
0.710
C
0.721
C
0.011
No
PM
0.695
B
0.712
C
0.017
No
AM
0.795
C
0.865
D
0.070
Yes
PM
0.683
B
0.786
C
0.103
Yes
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Southbound On-Off Ramps
AM
0.597
A
0.635
B
0.038
No
PM
0.656
B
0.708
C
0.052
Yes
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Northbound Off Ramp
AM
0.473
A
0.492
A
0.019
No
PM
0.439
A
0.453
A
0.014
No
San Fernando Rd. & Eagle Rock
Blvd.
AM
0.420
A
0.437
A
0.017
No
PM
0.374
A
0.392
A
0.018
No
San Fernando Rd. & Cazador St.
San Fernando Rd. & Division St.
AM
0.571
A
0.591
A
0.020
No
PM
0.607
B
0.639
B
0.032
No
AM
0.759
C
0.771
C
0.012
No
PM
0.471
A
0.484
A
0.013
No
0.545
A
0.560
A
0.015
No
8
Cypress Ave. & Cazador St.
AM
PM
0.350
A
0.360
A
0.010
No
9
Cypress Ave. & Division St.
AM
0.619
B
0.625
B
0.006
No
PM
0.475
A
0.481
A
0.006
No
10
Riverside Dr. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.813
D
0.821
D
0.008
No
PM
0.931
E
0.939
E
0.008
No
11
SR-2 Southbound Off-Ramp &
Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.584
A
0.592
A
0.008
No
PM
0.331
A
0.349
A
0.018
No
12
Larga Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.543
A
0.552
A
0.009
No
PM
0.299
A
0.316
A
0.017
No
13
Estara Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.535
A
0.566
A
0.031
No
PM
0.346
A
0.365
A
0.019
No
14
Ave. 36 & Eagle Rock Blvd.
AM
0.666
B
0.691
B
0.025
No
PM
0.347
A
0.355
A
0.008
No
AM
0.868
D
0.875
D
0.007
No
PM
0.782
C
0.785
C
0.003
No
15
SR-2 Northbound On-Off Ramps &
Eagle Rock Blvd.
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.5-39
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
TABLE 4.5-10: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS –
EXISTING CONDITIONS OPTION 3
Existing (2012)
Baseline Conditions
Existing (2012)
Baseline Plus
Option 3
Project
Increase in Signif.
V/C
Impact
No.
Intersection
Peak
Hour
1
San Fernando Rd. & Glendale Ave.
AM
0.710
C
0.723
C
0.013
No
PM
0.695
B
0.700
B
0.005
No
AM
0.795
C
0.871
D
0.076
Yes
PM
0.683
B
0.717
C
0.034
No
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Southbound On-Off Ramps
AM
0.597
A
0.636
B
0.039
No
PM
0.656
B
0.684
B
0.028
No
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Northbound Off Ramp
AM
0.473
A
0.492
A
0.019
No
PM
0.439
A
0.447
A
0.008
No
San Fernando Rd. & Eagle Rock
Blvd.
AM
0.420
A
0.437
A
0.017
No
PM
0.374
A
0.380
A
0.006
No
San Fernando Rd. & Cazador St.
AM
0.571
A
0.591
A
0.020
No
PM
0.607
B
0.619
B
0.012
No
AM
0.759
C
0.771
C
0.012
No
PM
0.471
A
0.477
A
0.006
No
0.545
A
0.562
A
0.017
No
2
3
4
5
6
7
San Fernando Rd. & Fletcher Dr.
San Fernando Rd. & Division St.
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
8
Cypress Ave. & Cazador St.
AM
PM
0.350
A
0.353
A
0.003
No
9
Cypress Ave. & Division St.
AM
0.619
B
0.626
B
0.007
No
PM
0.475
A
0.477
A
0.002
No
10
Riverside Dr. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.813
D
0.821
D
0.008
No
PM
0.931
E
0.935
E
0.004
No
11
SR-2 Southbound Off-Ramp &
Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.584
A
0.593
A
0.009
No
PM
0.331
A
0.339
A
0.008
No
12
Larga Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.543
A
0.552
A
0.009
No
PM
0.299
A
0.307
A
0.008
No
13
Estara Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.535
A
0.567
A
0.032
No
PM
0.346
A
0.357
A
0.011
No
14
Ave. 36 & Eagle Rock Blvd.
AM
0.666
B
0.691
B
0.025
No
PM
0.347
A
0.352
A
0.005
No
AM
0.868
D
0.875
D
0.007
No
PM
0.782
C
0.783
C
0.001
No
15
SR-2 Northbound On-Off Ramps &
Eagle Rock Blvd.
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.5-40
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
TABLE 4.5-11: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS –
EXISTING CONDITIONS OPTION 4
Existing (2012)
Baseline Conditions
Existing (2012)
Baseline Plus
Option 4
Project
Increase in Signif.
V/C
Impact
No.
Intersection
Peak
Hour
1
San Fernando Rd. & Glendale Ave.
AM
0.710
C
0.726
C
0.016
No
PM
0.695
B
0.705
C
0.010
No
AM
0.795
C
0.898
D
0.103
Yes
PM
0.683
B
0.728
C
0.045
Yes
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Southbound On-Off Ramps
AM
0.597
A
0.619
B
0.022
No
PM
0.656
B
0.676
B
0.020
No
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Northbound Off Ramp
AM
0.473
A
0.479
A
0.006
No
PM
0.439
A
0.445
A
0.006
No
San Fernando Rd. & Eagle Rock
Blvd.
AM
0.420
A
0.423
A
0.003
No
PM
0.374
A
0.381
A
0.007
No
San Fernando Rd. & Cazador St.
AM
0.571
A
0.580
A
0.009
No
PM
0.607
B
0.622
B
0.015
No
AM
0.759
C
0.761
C
0.002
No
PM
0.471
A
0.476
A
0.005
No
0.545
A
0.559
A
0.014
No
2
3
4
5
6
7
San Fernando Rd. & Fletcher Dr.
San Fernando Rd. & Division St.
V/C
LOS
V/C
LOS
8
Cypress Ave. & Cazador St.
AM
PM
0.350
A
0.352
A
0.002
No
9
Cypress Ave. & Division St.
AM
0.619
B
0.624
B
0.005
No
PM
0.475
A
0.478
Q
0.003
No
10
Riverside Dr. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.813
D
0.816
D
0.003
No
PM
0.931
E
0.934
E
0.003
No
11
SR-2 Southbound Off-Ramp &
Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.584
A
0.585
A
0.001
No
PM
0.331
A
0.337
A
0.006
No
12
Larga Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.543
A
0.543
A
0.000
No
PM
0.299
A
0.305
A
0.006
No
13
Estara Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.535
A
0.550
A
0.015
No
PM
0.346
A
0.351
A
0.005
No
14
Ave. 36 & Eagle Rock Blvd.
AM
0.666
B
0.677
B
0.011
No
PM
0.347
A
0.349
A
0.002
No
AM
0.868
D
0.872
D
0.004
No
PM
0.782
C
0.783
C
0.001
No
15
SR-2 Northbound On-Off Ramps &
Eagle Rock Blvd.
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.5-41
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
Cumulative (2014) Base Traffic Conditions. The Cumulative (2014) Base without proposed project peak
hour traffic volumes were analyzed at each of the study intersections to determine the V/C ratio and
corresponding level of service. Tables 4.5-12 through 4.5-15 present the results of the Year 2014
Cumulative Base (without project) traffic analysis. Under all options, 14 of the 15 analyzed intersections are
projected to operate at LOS D or better during both the morning and evening peak hours. The remaining
intersections are projected to operate at LOS E and include the following:
•
•
Riverside Drive/Fletcher Drive Intersection – PM peak hour: LOS E
SR-2 Northbound Ramps/Eagle Rock Boulevard Intersection – AM peak hour: LOS E
Cumulative (2014) Plus Project Traffic Conditions. The Cumulative (2014) Plus Project peak hour traffic
volumes were analyzed to determine the volume to capacity (V/C) ratio and level of service (LOS) at each of
the analyzed intersections. Tables 4.5-12 through 4.5-15 also include the results of the Cumulative (2014)
plus Project traffic analysis for each of the options and are summarized below:
TABLE 4.5-12: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – FUTURE CONDITIONS
OPTION 1
No.
1
Intersection
San Fernando Rd. & Glendale Ave.
2
San Fernando Rd. & Fletcher Dr.
3
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Southbound On-Off Ramps
4
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Northbound Off Ramp
5
San Fernando Rd. & Eagle Rock
Blvd.
6
San Fernando Rd. & Cazador St.
7
San Fernando Rd. & Division St.
8
Cypress Ave. & Cazador St.
9
Cypress Ave. & Division St.
10
Riverside Dr. & Fletcher Dr.
11
SR-2 Southbound Off-Ramp &
Fletcher Dr.
12
Larga Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
13
Estara Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
14
Ave. 36 & Eagle Rock Blvd.
15
SR-2 Northbound On-Off Ramps &
Eagle Rock Blvd.
Peak
Hour
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
AM
PM
Cumulative (2014)
Baseline Conditions
V/C
0.767
0.801
0.859
0.768
0.644
0.707
0.503
0.489
0.446
0.414
0.604
0.662
0.795
0.519
0.575
0.382
0.645
0.503
0.855
0.995
0.613
0.359
0.574
0.331
0.565
0.379
0.702
0.379
0.906
0.825
LOS
C
D
D
C
B
C
A
A
A
A
B
B
C
A
A
A
B
A
D
E
B
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
E
D
Cumulative (2014)
Baseline Plus Option 1
V/C
0.782
0.816
0.956
0.863
0.689
0.756
0.522
0.503
0.467
0.432
0.627
0.694
0.808
0.531
0.595
0.394
0.653
0.509
0.864
1.003
0.621
0.376
0.583
0.347
0.598
0.396
0.729
0.387
0.913
0.829
LOS
C
D
E
D
B
C
A
A
A
A
B
B
D
A
A
A
B
A
D
F
B
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
E
D
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.5-42
Project
Increase in Signif.
V/C
Impact
0.015
No
0.015
No
0.097
Yes
0.095
Yes
0.045
No
0.049
Yes
0.019
No
0.014
No
0.021
No
0.018
No
0.023
No
0.032
No
0.013
No
0.012
No
0.020
No
0.012
No
0.008
No
0.006
No
0.009
No
0.008
No
0.008
No
0.017
No
0.009
No
0.016
No
0.033
No
0.017
No
0.027
No
0.008
No
0.007
No
0.004
No
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
TABLE 4.5-13: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – FUTURE CONDITIONS
OPTION 2
Cumulative (2014)
Baseline Conditions
Cumulative (2014)
Baseline Plus Option 2
Project
Increase in
V/C
No.
Intersection
Peak
Hour
1
San Fernando Rd. & Glendale Ave.
AM
PM
0.801
2
San Fernando Rd. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.859
PM
0.768
3
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Southbound On-Off Ramps
AM
0.644
PM
4
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Northbound Off Ramp
AM
5
San Fernando Rd. & Eagle Rock
Blvd.
PM
0.414
A
0.432
A
0.018
No
6
San Fernando Rd. & Cazador St.
AM
0.604
B
0.625
B
0.021
No
PM
0.662
B
0.694
B
0.032
No
AM
0.795
C
0.807
D
0.012
No
PM
0.519
A
0.531
A
0.012
No
AM
0.575
A
0.590
A
0.015
No
PM
0.382
A
0.394
A
0.012
No
AM
0.645
B
0.651
B
0.006
No
PM
0.503
A
0.509
A
0.006
No
AM
0.855
D
0.864
D
0.009
No
PM
0.995
E
1.003
F
0.008
No
7
8
9
10
11
12
San Fernando Rd. & Division St.
Cypress Ave. & Cazador St.
Cypress Ave. & Division St.
Riverside Dr. & Fletcher Dr.
V/C
0.767
LOS
C
V/C
LOS
0.011
Signif.
Impact
0.778
C
No
D
0.817
D
0.016
No
D
0.929
E
0.070
Yes
C
0.868
D
0.100
Yes
B
0.682
B
0.038
No
0.707
C
0.758
C
0.051
Yes
0.503
A
0.521
A
0.018
No
PM
0.489
A
0.503
A
0.014
No
AM
0.446
A
0.465
A
0.019
No
SR-2 Southbound Off-Ramp &
Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.613
B
0.621
B
0.008
No
PM
0.359
A
0.377
A
0.018
No
Larga Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.574
A
0.583
A
0.009
No
PM
0.331
A
0.347
A
0.016
No
AM
0.565
A
0.595
A
0.030
No
13
Estara Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
PM
0.379
A
0.397
A
0.018
No
14
Ave. 36 & Eagle Rock Blvd.
AM
0.702
C
0.727
C
0.025
No
PM
0.379
A
0.387
A
0.008
No
15
SR-2 Northbound On-Off Ramps &
Eagle Rock Blvd.
AM
0.906
E
0.913
E
0.007
No
PM
0.825
D
0.830
D
0.005
No
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.5-43
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
TABLE 4.5-14: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – FUTURE CONDITIONS
OPTION 3
Cumulative (2014)
Baseline Conditions
No.
Intersection
Peak
Hour
1
San Fernando Rd. & Glendale Ave.
AM
PM
0.801
2
San Fernando Rd. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.859
PM
0.768
3
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Southbound On-Off Ramps
AM
0.644
PM
4
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Northbound Off Ramp
AM
5
San Fernando Rd. & Eagle Rock
Blvd.
6
San Fernando Rd. & Cazador St.
7
8
9
10
11
12
San Fernando Rd. & Division St.
Cypress Ave. & Cazador St.
Cypress Ave. & Division St.
Riverside Dr. & Fletcher Dr.
SR-2 Southbound Off-Ramp &
Fletcher Dr.
Larga Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
V/C
0.767
LOS
C
Cumulative (2014)
Baseline Plus Option 3
V/C
LOS
Project
Increase in
V/C
0.012
Signif.
Impact
0.779
C
No
D
0.804
D
0.003
No
D
0.934
E
0.075
Yes
C
0.798
C
0.030
No
B
0.684
B
0.040
No
0.707
C
0.735
C
0.028
No
0.503
A
0.521
A
0.018
No
PM
0.489
A
0.497
A
0.008
No
AM
0.446
A
0.465
A
0.019
No
PM
0.414
A
0.421
A
0.007
No
AM
0.604
B
0.625
B
0.021
No
PM
0.662
B
0.675
B
0.013
No
AM
0.795
C
0.807
D
0.012
No
PM
0.519
A
0.524
A
0.005
No
AM
0.575
A
0.592
A
0.017
No
PM
0.382
A
0.385
A
0.003
No
AM
0.645
B
0.652
B
0.007
No
PM
0.503
A
0.505
A
0.002
No
AM
0.855
D
0.864
D
0.009
No
PM
0.995
E
0.999
E
0.004
No
AM
0.613
B
0.621
B
0.008
No
PM
0.359
A
0.366
A
0.007
No
AM
0.574
A
0.583
A
0.009
No
PM
0.331
A
0.339
A
0.008
No
AM
0.565
A
0.596
A
0.031
No
13
Estara Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
PM
0.379
A
0.389
A
0.010
No
14
Ave. 36 & Eagle Rock Blvd.
AM
0.702
C
0.727
C
0.025
No
PM
0.379
A
0.384
A
0.005
No
15
SR-2 Northbound On-Off Ramps &
Eagle Rock Blvd.
AM
0.906
E
0.913
E
0.007
No
PM
0.825
D
0.827
D
0.002
No
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.5-44
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
TABLE 4.5-15: SUMMARY OF INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS – FUTURE CONDITIONS
OPTION 4
Cumulative (2014)
Cumulative (2014)
Baseline Conditions Baseline Plus Option 4
No.
Intersection
Peak
Hour
1
San Fernando Rd. & Glendale Ave.
AM
PM
0.801
2
San Fernando Rd. & Fletcher Dr.
AM
0.859
PM
0.768
3
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Southbound On-Off Ramps
AM
0.644
PM
0.707
4
San Fernando Rd. & SR-2
Northbound Off Ramp
AM
0.503
PM
5
San Fernando Rd. & Eagle Rock
Blvd.
AM
6
San Fernando Rd. & Cazador St.
7
8
9
10
11
12
San Fernando Rd. & Division St.
Cypress Ave. & Cazador St.
Cypress Ave. & Division St.
Riverside Dr. & Fletcher Dr.
SR-2 Southbound Off-Ramp &
Fletcher Dr.
Larga Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
V/C
0.767
LOS
C
V/C
LOS
Project
Increase in
V/C
0.015
Signif.
Impact
0.782
C
No
D
0.810
D
0.009
No
D
0.962
E
0.103
Yes
C
0.809
D
0.041
Yes
B
0.666
B
0.022
No
C
0.726
C
0.019
No
A
0.508
A
0.005
No
0.489
A
0.495
A
0.006
No
0.446
A
0.456
A
0.010
No
PM
0.414
A
0.421
A
0.007
No
AM
0.604
B
0.614
B
0.010
No
PM
0.662
B
0.677
B
0.015
No
AM
0.795
C
0.797
C
0.002
No
PM
0.519
A
0.523
A
0.004
No
AM
0.575
A
0.590
A
0.015
No
PM
0.382
A
0.386
A
0.004
No
AM
0.645
B
0.650
B
0.005
No
PM
0.503
A
0.506
A
0.003
No
AM
0.855
D
0.859
D
0.004
No
PM
0.995
E
0.998
E
0.003
No
AM
0.613
B
0.614
B
0.001
No
PM
0.359
A
0.365
A
0.006
No
AM
0.574
A
0.574
A
0.000
No
PM
0.331
A
0.337
A
0.006
No
AM
0.565
A
0.579
A
0.014
No
13
Estara Ave. & Fletcher Dr.
PM
0.379
A
0.383
A
0.004
No
14
Ave. 36 & Eagle Rock Blvd.
AM
0.702
C
0.713
C
0.011
No
PM
0.379
A
0.381
A
0.002
No
15
SR-2 Northbound On-Off Ramps &
Eagle Rock Blvd.
AM
0.906
E
0.909
E
0.003
No
PM
0.825
D
0.827
D
0.002
No
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.5-45
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
Cumulative (2014) plus Project - Options 1 and 2. Thirteen of the fifteen study intersections are projected
to operate at LOS D or better during the morning peak hour. During the evening peak hour, 12 of the
15 study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better. The remaining intersections would
operate at LOS E or F and include the following:
•
•
•
San Fernando Road & Fletcher Drive – AM peak hour: LOS E
Riverside Drive & Fletcher Drive – PM peak hour: LOS F
SR-2 Northbound Ramps & Eagle Rock Boulevard – AM peak hour: LOS E
Cumulative (2014) plus Project - Options 3 and 4. Thirteen of the fifteen study intersections are projected
to operate at LOS D or better during the morning peak hour. During the evening peak hour, 14 of the
15 study intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better. The remaining intersections would
operate at LOS E and include the following:
•
•
•
San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive – AM peak hour: LOS E
Riverside Drive/Fletcher Drive – PM peak hour: LOS E
SR-2 Northbound Ramps/Eagle Rock Boulevard – AM peak hour: LOS E
Project Impacts Under Existing Conditions. Tables 4.5-8 through 4.5-11, above identifies the individual
impacts during both AM and PM peak hours at each of the analysis locations for each option and are
summarized below:
Existing (2012) Baseline plus Project - Options 1 and 2. Under Option 1, a significant impact would occur
at two of the 15 analyzed intersections, and under Option 2 a significant impact would occur at one of the 15
analyzed intersections. Under Option 1, the intersections of San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive is impacted
during both the morning and evening peak hours and the San Fernando Road/SR-2 Southbound Ramps
intersection is impacted during the evening peak hour. Under Option 2, San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive
would be impacted during the morning and evening peak hours. Therefore, without mitigation, Options 1
and 2 would result in a significant impact related to the circulation system.
Existing (2012) Baseline plus Project - Option 3. Under Option 3, a significant impact occurs at one of the
15 analyzed intersections. The San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection is impacted during the
morning peak hour. Therefore, without mitigation, Options 3 would result in a significant impact related to
the circulation system.
Existing (2012) Baseline plus Project - Option 4. Under Option 4, a significant impact occurs at one of the
15 analyzed intersections. The San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive Intersection is impacted during both the
morning and evening peak hours. Therefore, without mitigation, Options 4 would result in a significant
impact related to the circulation system.
Project Impacts under Cumulative Conditions. Tables 4.5-12 through 4.5-15, above identifies the
individual impacts during both AM and PM peak hours at each of the analysis locations for each option and are
summarized below:
Cumulative (2014) plus Project - Options 1 and 2. Under Option 1, a significant impact would occur at
one of the 15 analyzed intersections, and under Option 2, a significant impact would occur at two of the 15
analyzed intersections. Under Option 1, the San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection is impacted
during the evening peak hour. Under Option 2, the San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection is
impacted during both the morning and evening peak hours, and the San Fernando Road/SR-2 Southbound
Ramps intersection is impacted during the evening peak hour. Therefore, without mitigation, Options 1 and
2 would result in a significant impact related to the circulation system.
taha 2012-061
4.5-46
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
Cumulative (2014) plus Project - Option 3. Under Options 3, a significant impact occurs at one of the
15 analyzed intersections. The San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection is impacted during the
morning peak hour. Therefore, without mitigation, Option 3would result in a significant impact related to the
circulation system.
Cumulative (2014) plus Project - Option 4. Under Option 4, a significant impact occurs at one of the
15 analyzed intersections. The San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection is impacted during both the
morning and evening peak hours. Therefore, without mitigation, Options 4 would result in a significant
impact related to the circulation system.
Congestion Management Plan
The CMP guidelines for determining the analysis study area for CMP arterial monitoring intersections and
for freeway monitoring locations are as follows:
•
All CMP arterial monitoring intersections where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during
either the AM or PM weekday peak hours of adjacent street traffic.
•
All CMP mainline freeway monitoring locations where the proposed project will add 150 or more trips,
in either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours.
The nearest CMP arterial monitoring location to the project site is the Alvarado Street/Sunset Boulevard
intersection. Based on the incremental project trip generation, the proposed project will not add 50 or more
new trips per hour to this location. No further analysis of CMP arterial monitoring locations is required. The
nearest mainline freeway monitoring locations to the project site include SR-2 at Round Top Road and I-5 at
Stadium Way. Based on the incremental project trip generation estimates, the proposed project will not add
150 or more new trips per hour to these locations in either direction. No further analysis of CMP freeway
monitoring stations is required. Therefore, impacts related to the CMP would be less than significant.
Vehicle and Pedestrian Site Access
The site access scheme for the proposed project is displayed in Figure 4.5-6 above. As discussed above,
there are four ingress/egress driveways to the project site. Two of the driveways are located on Fletcher
Drive (Fletcher Drive North and Fletcher Drive South), and two driveways are located on San Fernando
Road (San Fernando Road North and San Fernando Road South). Under all options, vehicles would access
the project site in a similar manner vehicles currently access the project site. Therefore, under all options,
impacts related to the vehicle and pedestrian site access would be less than significant.
Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facilities
As discussed above, the project site is served by eight bus lines, which would continue to operate upon
implementation of the proposed project Therefore, under all options, impacts related to public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES
Circulation System
The transportation improvement and mitigation program includes the following major components:
1. Implementation of a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program to promote fewer automobiles on the
street network during peak commute hours.
2. Specific intersection improvements, including the provision of ATCS and closed-circuit television
(CCTV) signal system improvements.
taha 2012-061
4.5-47
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program
A TDM Program has the potential to reduce auto travel during peak commute hours which can be
accomplished by class scheduling. This would translate into minimizing the number of classes which could
start during both the morning and evening peak hours, effectively reducing the total numbers of automobile
trips on the street system. Additional/remaining classes up to the maximum number of classes analyzed in
this study could start after or before the peak hours. A TDM plan for the college/adult education component
is recommended for each of the options as discussed in the specific intersection mitigation section below.
City of Los Angeles Signal System Upgrade
Currently, all 14 of the study intersections in the City of Los Angeles are controlled by the City of Los
Angeles’ ATSAC System. Of those 14, three study intersections include ATCS and are part of the Silver
Lake/Echo Park ATSAC/ATCS System. This includes the following locations:
•
•
•
Riverside Drive and Fletcher Drive
SR-2 Southbound Off-Ramp and Fletcher Drive
Larga Avenue and Fletcher Drive
ATCS allows LADOT to provide instant adjustments to the signal’s timing parameters to respond to realtime traffic demands. The City of Los Angeles has determined that ATCS upgrade at intersections within a
sub-system would increase intersection capacity by three percent (a 0.03 improvement in V/C ratio) and
improve traffic operations along the corridors. An integral part of the real-time operation of the traffic signal
timing is the strategic placement of closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras at key intersections. This
provides LADOT with the ability to monitor traffic operations and respond instantly to incidents that delay
vehicles and transit service.
As part of the mitigation program, the proposed project would be solely responsible for implementing signal
system upgrades along San Fernando Road (Eagle Rock ATSAC System) within the study area by providing
ATCS and installing CCTV cameras at the impacted locations. LADOT has determined that the installation
of the CCTV cameras at the locations with ATCS would increase intersection capacity by one percent (a 0.01
improvement in V/C ratio).
Specific Intersection Improvements
In order to address the proposed project’s impacts, the following mitigation measures are recommended for
implementation:
Option 1 - College and High School Mix and Option 2 - High School and Adult Education/Workforce
Training Mix
TT1
San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive. Options 1 and 2 related impact under existing baseline and
cumulative conditions would be fully mitigated by implementing a Travel Demand Management
(TDM) program to reduce auto travel during peak commute hours, in conjunction with contribution
towards the design and implementation of the Eagle Rock Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS)
and installation of a closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera at this location. LACCD will make a
fair-share contribution to these improvements in an amount to be determined by LADOT.
As part of the TDM program for these options, the college/adult education component would need to
be limited to four classrooms during the morning peak hour. During the evening peak hour, a
maximum of 12 classrooms would begin during the evening peak hour, and only 4 classes would end
during the evening peak hour. The 550-student high school component of these options can operate
as it currently does during the day.
taha 2012-061
4.5-48
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
Option 3 - Current Mix
TT2
San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive. Option 3 related impact under existing baseline and
cumulative conditions would be fully mitigated by implementing a TDM program to reduce auto
travel during the peak morning commute hour, in conjunction with contribution towards the design
and implementation of the Eagle Rock ATCS and installation of a CCTV camera at this location.
LACCD will make a fair-share contribution to these improvements in an amount to be determined by
LADOT.
As part of the TDM program, the adult education component would be limited to a maximum of four
classrooms during the morning peak hour. The 550-student high school component of these options
can operate as it currently does during the day. No TDM program would be needed during the
evening peak hour under this option.
Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix
TT3
San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive. Impacts related to Option 4 would be fully mitigated by
implementing a TDM program to reduce auto travel during peak commute hours, in conjunction with
contribution towards the design and implementation of the Eagle Rock ATCS and installation of a
CCTV camera at this location. LACCD will make a fair-share contribution to these improvements in
an amount to be determined by LADOT.
As part of the TDM program, the adult education component would need to be limited to 12
classrooms during the morning peak hour. The TDM program is not required during the evening
peak hour.
Congestion Management Plan
Impacts related to the Congestion Management Plan would be less than significant. No mitigation measures
are required.
Vehicle and Pedestrian Site Access
Impacts related to vehicle and pedestrian site access would be less than significant. No mitigation measures
are required.
Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facilities
Impacts related to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities would be less than significant.
mitigation measures are required.
No
SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS AFTER MITIGATION
Circulation System
Impacts related to the circulation system were determined to be significant without mitigation. As shown,
implementation of Mitigation Measures TT1 through TT3 would reduce the impacts to less than significant
under all options.
Congestion Management Plan
Impacts related to the Congestion Management Plan were determined to be less than significant without
mitigation.
taha 2012-061
4.5-49
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.5 Transportation & Traffic
Vehicle and Pedestrian Site Access
Impacts related to vehicle and pedestrian site access were determined to be less than significant without
mitigation.
Public Transit, Bicycle, or Pedestrian Facilities
Impacts related to public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities were determined to be less than significant
without mitigation.
taha 2012-061
4.5-50
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.6 Cumulative Impacts
4.6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
CEQA defines cumulative impacts as two or more individual actions that, when considered together, are
considerable or will compound other environmental impacts. Cumulative impacts are the changes in the
environment that result from the incremental impact of development of the proposed project and other nearby
projects. For example, traffic impacts of two nearby projects may be insignificant when analyzed separately,
but could have a significant impact when analyzed together. Cumulative impact analysis allows the EIR to
provide a reasonable forecast of future environmental conditions and can more accurately gauge the effects
of a series of projects.
Table 4.6-1 lists current planned and pending projects in the City of Los Angeles and City of Glendale. The
locations of these projects are shown in Figure 4.6-1 and are considered in the cumulative analysis presented
below.
TABLE 4.6-1: RELATED PROJECTS
Key to
Figure 4.6-1
Project Name
CITY OF LOS ANGELES
Location
Land Use
Size
1
Eagle Rock Residential/
Retail Development
3901 N. Eagle Rock Blvd.
Condominium
Retail
114 units
11,200 SF
2
Taylor Yard Village
1555 N. San Fernando Rd.
Apartment
Condominium
Senior Apartment
Retail
70 units
300 units
80 units
25,000 SF
3
Condominium Project
1855 N. Glendale Blvd.
Condominium
4
Occidental College
Master Plan
1600 Campus Rd.
College
Single-family Residential
Apartment
5
Condominium Project
2600 W. Riverside Dr.
Residential
6
Los Feliz Charter School
2861 W. Los Feliz Blvd.
Elementary School
65 units
250 Students
5 units
35 units
120 units
280 Students
CITY OF GLENDALE
7
Mitaa Plaza Project
435 Los Feliz Rd.
Day Spa
Supermarket
Medical Office
Fine Restaurant
High-Turnover Restaurant
Retail
32,503 SF
35,094 SF
45,934 SF
8,000 SF
5,000 SF
53,050 SF
8
Glendale Triangle
Project
3900 San Fernando Rd.
Apartment
Shopping Center
99 Units
54,000 SF
9
Residential Project
525 W. Elk Ave.
Residential
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study For The Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February 2013.
taha 2012-061
4.6-1
71 units
COLORADO ST
CK B L
VD
2
E RO
FWY
TATE
EN S
GOLD
CHEVY CHASE DR
S. BRAND BLVD
PACIFIC AVE
S. CENTRAL AVE
9
DALE B
S. GLEN
VD
BL
4
Forest Lawn
Memorial Park
SF
M
LO
O RD
8
ST
IZ
EL
S
AM
7
6
D
S. A
5
VERDUG
RR
LVD
UP
E A GL
E. CHEVY CHASE DR
ET
RO
LI
NK
N.
GLENDALE BLVD
5
Silver Lake
Reservoir
EAGL
FL
ET
CH
ER
DR
HY
PE
RI
O
N
AV
E
E RO
CK BL
VD
G
LE
ND
AL
E
BL
VD
1
SA
2
N
FE
2
RN
AN
Y
FW
DO
RD
E
AL
D
N
LE
G
3
LEGEND:
#
Project Site
Related Projects
1. Eagle Rock Residential/Retail Development
2. Taylor Yard Village
3. Condominium Project
4. Occidental College Master Plan
5. Condominium Project
6. Los Feliz Charter School
7. Mitaa Plaza Project
8. Glendale Triangle Project
9. Residential Project
SOURCE: MapInfo and TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report
LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
N
Approx.
Scale
0
1625
3250
FEET
FIGURE 4.6-1
LOCATION OF RELATED PROJECTS
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.6 Cumulative Impacts
AIR QUALITY
A significant impact would occur if project development results in a cumulative net increase in any criteria
pollutant above threshold standards. The Southern California Air Quality Management District’s
(SCAQMD) approach for assessing cumulative air quality impacts is based on the Air Quality Management
Plans forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the
federal and State Clean Air Acts. The SCQAMD has set forth significance thresholds designed to assist in
the attainment of ambient air quality standards. Cumulative (2014) Plus Project conditions for Options 1
through 4 would not result in significant regional operational air quality impacts, and none of these options
would involve construction emissions, as no new structures are proposed. Therefore, impacts related to air
quality would not be cumulatively considerable
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The CEQA Guidelines emphasize that the effects of GHG emissions are cumulative, and should be analyzed
in the context of CEQA’s existing cumulative impacts analysis. The GHG analysis, presented in Section 4.2
Greenhouse Gas Emissions, is based on the impact statements contained in the CEQA Guidelines.
Consequently, the analysis also represents the cumulative GHG analysis. Options 1 through 4 would not
result in significant impacts, and would be consistent with applicable GHG plans, policies, and regulations.
Therefore, impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would not be cumulatively considerable
LAND USE AND PLANNING
There are nine related projects in the vicinity of the proposed project site. These related projects are
anticipated to result in the provision of 959 housing units and 341,781 square feet of commercial/institutional
development. This cumulative growth in housing and development would alter the composition of existing
land uses in the area. However, each of the related projects is required to evaluate their respective land use
and planning impact on a project-by-project basis to ensure any change in land use is consistent with the
City’s goals and policies for future development of the area. Based on information available regarding the
related projects, it is reasonable to assume that development of the related projects would implement and
support local and regional planning goals and policies. It is expected that the related projects would be
compatible with the zoning and land use designations for each of the related project sites and their
surrounding properties. Therefore, impacts related to land use and planning would not be cumulatively
considerable.
NOISE AND VIBRATION
When calculating future traffic impacts, the traffic consultant took all related projects into consideration.
Thus, the future traffic results without and with the proposed project already account for the cumulative
impacts from these other projects. Since the noise impacts are generated directly from the traffic analysis
results, the future without project and future with project noise impacts described in this report already reflect
cumulative impacts.
Cumulative (2014) Plus Option 1 – College and High School Mix. Option 1 would generate 3,524 daily
weekday trips (648 AM peak-hour trips and 419 PM peak-hour trips). Table 4.6-2 shows that the greatest
project-related noise increase would be 1.6 dBA CNEL along San Fernando Road. The roadway noise
increase attributed to the proposed project would be less than 3-dBA CNEL increment at all analyzed
segments. Therefore, Option 1 operational noise levels would not be cumulatively considerable.
taha 2012-061
4.6-3
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.6 Cumulative Impacts
TABLE 4.6-2: CUMULATIVE MOBILE SOURCE NOISE/OPTION 1– COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL MIX
Estimated dBA, CNEL
Roadway Segment
Future + Project
Increase
San Fernando Road and SR-2 Northbound Off-Ramp Intersection
Existing
64.7
66.3
1.6
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to Larga Avenue
66.6
67.9
1.3
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to Estara Avenue
66.8
67.8
1.0
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Cumulative (2014) Plus Option 2 – High School and Adult Education/Workforce Training Mix.
Option 2 would generate 3,644 daily weekday trips (556 AM peak-hour trips and 434 PM peak-hour trips).
Table 4.6-3 shows that the greatest project-related noise increase would be 1.6 dBA CNEL along San
Fernando Road. The roadway noise increase attributed to the proposed project would be less than 3-dBA
CNEL increment at all analyzed segments. Therefore, Option 2 operational noise levels would not be
cumulatively considerable.
TABLE 4.6-3:
CUMULATIVE MOBILE SOURCE NOISE/OPTION 2 – HIGH SCHOOL AND ADULT
EDUCATION/WORKFORCE TRAINING MIX
Estimated dBA, CNEL
Roadway Segment
Future + Project
Increase
San Fernando Road and SR-2 Northbound Off-Ramp Intersection
Existing
64.7
66.3
1.6
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to Larga Avenue
66.6
68.0
1.4
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to Estara Avenue
66.8
67.9
1.1
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Cumulative (2014) Plus Option 3 – Current Mix. Option 3 would generate 2,222 daily weekday trips (572
AM peak-hour trips and 182 PM peak-hour trips). Table 4.6-4 shows that the greatest project-related noise
increase would be 1.6 dBA CNEL along San Fernando Road. The roadway noise increase attributed to the
proposed project would be less than 3-dBA CNEL increment at all analyzed segments. Therefore, Option 3
operational noise levels would not be cumulatively considerable.
TABLE 4.6-4: CUMULATIVE MOBILE SOURCE NOISE/OPTION 3 – CURRENT MIX
Estimated dBA, CNEL
Roadway Segment
Existing
Future + Project
Increase
San Fernando Road and SR-2 Northbound Off-Ramp Intersection
64.7
66.3
1.6
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to Larga Avenue
66.6
68.0
1.4
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to Estara Avenue
66.8
67.9
1.1
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Cumulative (2014) Plus Option 4 – Office and University Collaboration Mix. Option 4 would generate
2,716 daily weekday trips (343 AM peak-hour trips and 181 PM peak-hour trips). Table 4.6.5 shows that the
greatest project-related noise increase would be 1.6 dBA CNEL along San Fernando Road. The roadway
noise increase attributed to the proposed project would be less than 3-dBA CNEL increment at all analyzed
segments. Therefore, Option 4 operational noise levels would not be cumulatively considerable.
taha 2012-061
4.6-4
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
4.6 Cumulative Impacts
TABLE 4.6-5: CUMULATIVE MOBILE SOURCE NOISE/OPTION 4 – OFFICE AND UNIVERSITY
COLLABORATION MIX
Estimated dBA, CNEL
Roadway Segment
Existing
Future + Project
Increase
San Fernando Road and SR-2 Northbound Off-Ramp Intersection
64.7
66.2
1.5
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to Larga Avenue
66.6
67.7
1.1
Fletcher Drive from San Fernando Road to Estara Avenue
66.8
67.7
0.9
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
The predominant vibration source near the project site is heavy trucks traveling on the local roadways.
Neither the proposed project nor related projects would substantially increase heavy-duty vehicle traffic near
the project site and would not cause a substantial increase in heavy-duty trucks on local roadways.
Therefore, Options 1 through 4 impacts related to vibration would be not be cumulatively considerable.
TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
The traffic analysis prepared for the proposed project includes regional growth and the nine related projects
in the base conditions. Therefore, no further cumulative traffic impact analysis is required. Tables 4.5-8
through 4.5-11 in Section 4.5 Transportation and Traffic, identifies the impacts during both AM and PM
peak hours at each of the analysis locations for each option and are summarized below:
•
Cumulative (2014) plus Project - Options 1 and 2. Under Option 1, a significant impact would occur
at one of the 15 analyzed intersections, and under Option 2, a significant impact would occur at two of
the 15 analyzed intersections. Under Option 1, the San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection is
impacted during the evening peak hour. Under Option 2, the San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive
intersection is impacted during both the morning and evening peak hours, and the San Fernando
Road/SR-2 Southbound Ramps intersection is impacted during the evening peak hour. Therefore,
without mitigation, Options 1 and 2 would result in a significant impact related to the circulation system.
•
Cumulative (2014) Plus Project - Option 3. Under Options 3, a significant impact occurs at one of the
15 analyzed intersections. The San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection is impacted during the
morning peak hour. Therefore, without mitigation, Option 3would result in a significant impact related
to the circulation system.
•
Cumulative (2014) Plus Project - Option 4. Under Option 4, a significant impact occurs at one of the
15 analyzed intersections. The San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection is impacted during both
the morning and evening peak hours. Therefore, without mitigation, Options 4 would result in a
significant impact related to the circulation system.
The transportation improvement and mitigation program identified for the proposed project includes the
implementation of a Travel Demand Management (TDM) Program to promote fewer automobiles on the
street network during peak commute hours, as well as specific intersection improvements, including the
provision of ATCS and CCTV signal system improvements. The cumulative traffic analysis concluded that
the implementation of Mitigation Measures TT1 through TT3 would reduce the impacts to less than
significant under all options. Therefore, impacts related to transportation and traffic would not be
cumulatively considerable.
taha 2012-061
4.6-5
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
5.0 Alternatives
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
CEQA requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or to the location of the
project that could feasibly avoid or lessen significant environmental impacts while substantially attaining the
basic objectives of the project.1 An EIR should also evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. This
chapter sets forth potential alternatives to the proposed project and provides a qualitative analysis of each
alternative and a comparison of each alternative to the proposed project.
Key provisions of the CEQA Guidelines pertaining to the alternatives analysis are summarized below. 2
•
The discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project including alternative locations that
are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more
costly;
•
The No Project Alternative shall be evaluated along with its potential impacts. The No Project
Alternative analysis shall discuss the existing conditions at the time the notice of preparation is
published, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project
were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community
services;
•
The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a "rule of reason." Therefore, the EIR must
evaluate only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited
to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the proposed project;
•
For alternative locations, only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant
effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR; and
•
An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose
implementation is remote and speculative.
The range of feasible alternatives is selected and discussed in a manner intended to foster meaningful public
participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that may be taken into account when
addressing the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) are
environmental impacts, site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan
consistency, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent could reasonably
acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site.
An EIR must briefly describe the rationale for selection and rejection of alternatives. The lead agency may
make an initial determination as to which alternatives are feasible, and, therefore, merit in-depth
consideration.3 Alternatives may be eliminated from detailed consideration in the EIR if they fail to meet
project objectives, are infeasible, or do not avoid any significant environmental effects. 4
1
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, § 15126.6, 2005.
Ibid.
3
CEQA Guidelines, CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15126.6(f)(3), 2005.
4
CEQA Guidelines, CCR, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, §15126.6(c), 2005.
2
taha 2012-061
5-1
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
5.0 Alternatives
5.1 PROJECT-LEVEL IMPACTS
As addressed in this Subsequent Draft EIR, the proposed project would result in the following significant and
unavoidable impacts:
•
Air Quality (Regional Emissions). Significant and unavoidable impacts related to regional nitrogen
oxide (NOX) emissions have been identified as a result of the implementation of Options 1 and 2.
Regional NOX emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold under existing plus project conditions.
The emissions would not be significant two years later in 2014 as fleet turnover would result in increased
engine efficiency and decreased emissions. LACCD cannot regulate vehicle emissions; therefore, there
is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level.
•
Transportation and Traffic (Circulation System). Without mitigation, Options 1 through 4 would
result in a significant impact related to the circulation system. Under Option 1, a significant impact
would occur at the San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection during the evening peak hour. Under
Option 2, a significant impact would occur at the San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection during
both the morning and evening peak hours, and at the San Fernando Road/SR-2 Southbound Ramps
intersection during the evening peak hour. Under Option 3, a significant impact would occur at the San
Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection during the morning peak hour. Under Option 4, a significant
impact would occur at the San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection during both the morning and
evening peak hours.
To address the proposed project’s circulation system impacts, the following mitigation measures have
been identified for specific intersection improvements:
Option 1 - College and High School Mix and Option 2 - High School and Adult Education/Workforce
Training Mix
TT1
San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive. Impacts related to Options 1 and 2 would be mitigated by
implementing a Travel Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce auto travel during peak
commute hours, in conjunction with contribution towards the design and implementation of the
Eagle Rock Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) and installation of a closed-circuit television
(CCTV) camera at this location. LACCD will make a fair-share contribution to these improvements
in an amount to be determined by LADOT.
As part of the TDM program for these options, the college/adult education component would need to
be limited to four classrooms during the morning peak hour. During the evening peak hour, a
maximum of 12 classrooms would begin during the evening peak hour, and only 4 classes would end
during the evening peak hour. The 550-student high school component of these options can operate
as it currently does during the day.
Option 3 - Current Mix
TT2
San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive. Impacts related to Option 3 would be mitigated by
implementing a TDM program to reduce auto travel during the peak morning commute hour, in
conjunction with contribution towards the design and implementation of the Eagle Rock ATCS and
installation of a CCTV camera at this location. LACCD will make a fair-share contribution to these
improvements in an amount to be determined by LADOT.
As part of the TDM program, the adult education component would be limited to a maximum of four
classrooms during the morning peak hour. The 550-student high school component of these options
can operate as it currently does during the day. No TDM program would be needed during the
evening peak hour under this option.
taha 2012-061
5-2
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
5.0 Alternatives
Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix
TT3
San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive. Impacts related to Option 4 would be fully mitigated by
implementing a TDM program to reduce auto travel during peak commute hours, in conjunction with
contribution towards the design and implementation of the Eagle Rock ATCS and installation of a
CCTV camera at this location. LACCD will make a fair-share contribution to these improvements in
an amount to be determined by LADOT.
As part of the TDM program, the adult education component would need to be limited to 12
classrooms during the morning peak hour. The TDM program is not required during the evening
peak hour.
5.2 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The CEQA statute, the CEQA Guidelines, and related recent court cases do not specify a precise number of
alternatives to be evaluated in an EIR. Rather, “the range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by
the rule of reason that sets forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” 5 At the same
time, Section 15126.6(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that “...the discussion of alternatives shall focus
on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any
significant effects of the project” and Section 15126.6(f) requires, “The alternatives shall be limited to ones
that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.” Accordingly,
alternatives that would not address potentially significant effects are not considered herein. However, the
CEQA Guidelines require that a "No Project" alternative must be included and, if appropriate, an alternative
site location should be analyzed. 6 Other project alternatives may involve a modification of the proposed land
uses, density, or other project elements at the same project location.
Alternatives should be selected on the basis of their ability to attain all or most of the basic objectives of the
project while reducing the project’s significant environmental effects. The CEQA Guidelines state that
“...[t]he EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting alternatives to be discussed [and]...shall
include sufficient information to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the proposed
project.” 7 The feasibility of the alternatives is another consideration in the selection of alternatives. The
CEQA Guidelines state that "[a]mong the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the
feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan
consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations [and] jurisdictional boundaries...”8“The range of feasible
alternatives shall be selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and
informed decision-making.” 9 Alternatives that are considered remote or speculative, or whose effects cannot
be reasonably predicted do not require consideration. Therefore, feasibility, the potential to mitigate
significant project-related impacts, and reasonably informing the decision-maker are the primary
considerations in the selection and evaluation of alternatives.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project
Four options with different operating characteristics (i.e., number of persons on-site would vary in the
morning, afternoon and evening) were evaluated in this Subsequent Draft EIR to provide LACCD and the
public with a comparative assessment of Options 1 through 4. Descriptions of Options 1 through 4 are
provided in Chapter 3.0 Project Description, and the impacts associated with these options are discussed in
5
Section 15126.6(f).
Section 15126.6(e) and Section 15126(f)(2).
7
Section 15126.6(e) and Section 15126(f).
8
Section 15126.6(f)(1).
9
Section 15126.6(f).
6
taha 2012-061
5-3
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
5.0 Alternatives
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Impacts. The following two additional alternatives are evaluated below:
Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative is required by Section 15126.6 (e)(2)
of the CEQA Guidelines and assumes that the proposed project would not be implemented. The No Project
Alternative allows decision-makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the
impacts of not approving the proposed project. However, “no project” does not necessarily mean that
development on the project site will be prohibited. The No Project Alternative includes “what would be
reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current
plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services” (CEQA Section 15126.6 [e][2]).
In this case, the No Project Alternative is comparable to Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix
of the proposed project. Similar to Option 4, the No Project Alternative assumes the existing charter high
school operating on the project site would relocate to a new location, and the buildings on-site would
eventually be re-occupied with a satellite community college campus for Los Angeles City College. This is
because an EIR and two addendums have already been prepared to analyze potential impacts from a satellite
community college campus.
Under the No Project Alternative, the Old Bakery Building would be used for college classrooms resulting in
more persons on-site compared to Option 4 which assumes that the Old Bakery Building would be used
solely for office uses. 10,11 However, during the peak hours, office uses result in more vehicle trips than
college since class scheduling dictates when students would be on-site. Therefore, in regards the peak hour
vehicle trips the No Project Alternative is comparable to Option 4.
Alternative 2 – Reduced Options Alternative. The Reduced Options Alternative would include the same
uses as the proposed project (Options 1 through 4). However, under the Reduced Options Alternative, the
academic programs and class schedules would be structured to control peak hour vehicle trips entering and
exiting the project site such that the transportation and traffic impacts related to the circulation system would
not occur. Table 5-1 identifies the maximum use of the project site during the peak hour and the
corresponding level mitigation (i.e., Travel Demand Management Program, (TDM) Adaptive Traffic Control
System (ATCS), and Closed-Circuit Television Signal System (CCTV) that would be required to reduce
traffic impacts to a less-than-significant level. As shown, to reduce traffic impacts to a less-than-significant
level without any mitigation measures, the AM peak hour trips would need to be limited to 211 trips, and the
PM peak hour trips would be limited to 164 trips. Since Option 4 does not have a high school component,
the AM peak hour trips would need to be limited to 59 trips and the PM peak hour trips would be limited to
148 trips to reduce traffic impacts to a less-than-significant level without mitigation.
Alternatives Considered but Rejected from Further Consideration
As discussed above, a lead agency need not consider every conceivable alternative. However, the EIR
should discuss the rationale for selection and elimination of alternatives. Among the factors that may
eliminate alternatives from meriting a detailed discussion are “failure to meet most of the basic project
objectives, infeasibility, or inability to avoid significant environmental impacts (CEQA Section 15126.6
[c])”. In addition to the two alternatives described above, an Alternative Site was considered and eliminated
from consideration, since LACCD already owns the project site and plans to use it for a satellite campus for
Los Angeles City College as funding becomes available. Therefore, acquiring an Alternative Site is not a
feasible alternative. A Vacant Site Alternative was also considered, under which LACCD would cease all
current uses of the site, and allow it to remain vacant until such time as operating a full satellite community
college campus as the exclusive use of this location became feasible. However, the Vacant Site Alternative
would not meet any of the project objectives, and was thus eliminated.
10
The office uses under Option 4 would result in 54 persons on-site.
Assuming 12 classrooms in the Old Bakery Building, 180 students could be on-site under the No Project Alternative.
11
taha 2012-061
5-4
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
5.0 Alternatives
TABLE 5-1: SUMMARY OF IMPACT THRESHOLDS
Impact Thresholds /a/
Peak
Maximum Use During Peak Hour
Hour
In
Out
Total
OPTION 1 - COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL MIX
OPTION 2 - HIGH SCHOOL AND ADULT EDUCATION/WORKFORCE TRAINING MIX
Fewer than 250 high school students
AM
<211
Fewer than 250 high school students, 5 Adult Education
PM
<164
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures
are required
Classrooms
250 high school students
250 high school students, 5 Adult Education Classrooms
250 high school students, 7 Adult Education Classrooms /b/
550 high school students, 1 Adult Education Classroom
550 high school students, 10 Adult Education Classrooms
AM
PM
AM
PM
550 high school students, 12 Adult Education Classrooms /b/
550 high school students, 4 Adult Education Classrooms
550 high school students, 12 Adult Education Classrooms
AM
PM
550 high school students, 14 Adult Education Classrooms /b/
113
82
98
82
211
164
103
82
185
260
172
218
128
478
300
193
128
321
292
193
225
128
517
321
214
128
342
TDM
TDM & ATCS /c/
TDM, ATCS & CCTV /b/
OPTION 3 - CURRENT MIX (HIGH SCHOOL, ADULT EDUCATION/WORKFORCE TRAINING, AND OFFICE)
Fewer than 250 high school students, 1,600 sq.ft. office
AM
<211 No mitigation measures
Fewer than 250 high school students, 4 Adult Education
PM
<164 are required
Classrooms
250 high school students, 1,600 sq.ft. office
AM
No Impact. Full project description
PM
550 high school students, 1,600 sq.ft. office, 1 college
AM
classroom
No Impact. Full project description
PM
550 high school students, 1,600 sq.ft. office, 4 college
AM
classrooms
No Impact. Full project description
PM
OPTION 4 - OFFICE AND UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION MIX
Less than 20,026 sq.ft. office, 2 college classrooms
AM
Less than 20,026 sq.ft. office, 7 college classrooms
PM
20,026 sq.ft. office, 2 college classrooms
AM
20,026 sq.ft. office, 7 college classrooms
PM
20,026 sq.ft. office, 8 college classrooms /b/
20,026 sq.ft. office, 10 college classrooms
No Impact. Full project description
20,026 sq.ft. office, 10 college classrooms
No Impact. Full project description
AM
PM
AM
PM
113
260
98
218
211
478
TDM
TDM & ATCS /c/
292
225
517
TDM, ATCS & CCTV /b/
-
-
-
50
80
9
68
<59
<148
59
148
No mitigation measures
are required
TDM
91
82
159
135
29
164
TDM & ATCS /c/
156
-32
-188
TDM, ATCS & CCTV /b/
--
--
-
/a/ Trips greater than the threshold will result in a significant impact at the San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection.
/b/ Includes improvement to shift eastbound project trip right turns from San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive to driveway on San Fernando Road
during the evening peak hour.
/c/ Improvement at the San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection.
SOURCE: RAJU Associates, Inc. 2013.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Air Quality
The operating characteristics under the No Project Alternative would be comparable to the operating
characteristics under Option 4. Table 5-2 shows No Build Alternative emissions compared to the project
options. The No Build Alternative would generate fewer emissions than Options 1 and 2, but would generate
greater emissions than Option 3. However, emissions under the No Build Alternative would still be less than
significant, despite the increased emissions as compared to Option 3. Therefore, impacts related to air quality
under the No Project Alternative would be similar to those under Options 1 through 4.
taha 2012-061
5-5
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
5.0 Alternatives
TABLE 5-2: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE REGIONAL EMISSIONS COMPARISON
Pounds per Day
Alternative/Option
VOC
NOX
CO
SOX
PM2.5
PM10
NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE VS. OPTION 1 - COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL MIX
No Build Emissions
17
Option 1 Emissions
Net Emissions
42
154
<1
3
30
23
49
181
<1
3
35
(6)
(7)
(27)
0
0
(5)
NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE VS. OPTION 2 - HIGH SCHOOL AND ADULT EDUCATION/WORKFORCE TRAINING MIX
No Build Emissions
17
Option 2 Emissions
Net Emissions
42
154
<1
3
30
23
51
188
<1
3
36
(6)
(9)
(34)
0
0
(6)
3
30
NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE VS. OPTION 3 - CURRENT MIX
No Build Emissions
Option 3 Emissions
Net Emissions
17
42
154
<1
14
28
106
<1
2
20
3
14
48
0
1
10
3
30
NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE VS. OPTION 4 - OFFICE AND UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION MIX
No Build Emissions
Option 4 Emissions
Net Emissions
17
42
154
<1
17
42
154
<1
3
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Greenhouse Gases
The operating characteristics under the No Project Alternative would be comparable to the operating
characteristics under Option 4. Table 5-3 shows No Build Alternative greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
compared to the project options. The No Build Alternative would generate fewer emissions than Options 1
and 2, but would generate greater emissions than Option 3. However, emissions under the No Build
Alternative would still be less than significant despite the increased emissions as compared to Option 3.
Therefore, impacts related to GHG emissions under the No Project Alternative would be similar to those
under Options 1 through 4.
Land Use and Planning
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing charter high school operating on-site would relocate to a new
location, and the buildings on-site would eventually be re-occupied with a satellite community college
campus. Therefore, the operational characteristics of the No Project Alternative would be comparable to
Option 4 - Office and University Collaboration Mix, which includes office and college uses. Similar to
Options 1 through 4, no new buildings would be constructed under the No Project Alternative. Likewise, the
No Project Alternative would also result in varying numbers of persons on-site in the morning, afternoon,
and evening. The No Project Alternative would be compatible with the surrounding commercial land uses in
the vicinity of the project site similar to Option 1 through 4. In addition, the educational focus of the No
Project Alternative is consistent with the City’s policy to locate vocational schools in commercial or
industrial areas where training opportunities are enhanced by the surrounding uses. Likewise, community
college uses are also consistent with the City’s policy to encourage school boards to develop programs in
consultation with local businesses to prepare students for the job market. Therefore, impacts related to land
use and planning under the No Project Alternative would be similar to those under Options 1 through 4.
taha 2012-061
5-6
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
5.0 Alternatives
TABLE 5-3: NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE GHG EMISSIONS COMPARISON
Alternative/Option
GHG Emissions (Metric Tons per Year)
NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE VS. OPTION 1 - COLLEGE AND HIGH SCHOOL MIX
No Build Emissions
3,570
Option 1 Emissions
4,248
Net Emissions
(678)
NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE VS. OPTION 2 - HIGH SCHOOL AND ADULT EDUCATION/WORKFORCE TRAINING MIX
No Build Emissions
3,570
Option 2 Emissions
4,353
Net Emissions
(783)
NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE VS. OPTION 3 - CURRENT MIX
No Build Emissions
3,570
Option 3 Emissions
2,517
Net Emissions
1,053
NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE VS. OPTION 4 - OFFICE AND UNIVERSITY COLLABORATION MIX
No Build Emissions
3,570
Option 4 Emissions
3,570
Net Emissions
0
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
Noise and Vibration
The operating characteristics under the No Project Alternative would be comparable to the operating
characteristics of Option 4. The increase in 24-hour mobile source noise levels would be approximately the
same for all four options and the No Build Alternative. With regards to vibration, vehicular movements
would generate similar vibration levels as existing traffic conditions and would not be perceptible at nearby
sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts related to noise and vibration under the No Project Alternative would
be similar to those under Options 1 through 4.
Transportation and Traffic
Under the No Project Alternative, the charter high school currently operating on the project site would
relocate to a new location, and the buildings on-site would eventually be re-occupied with a satellite
community college campus. An EIR and two Addendums have already been prepared to analyze potential
transportation and traffic impacts resulting from a satellite community college campus. Each of the
Addendums determined that the vehicle trip generation and the parking demand created by a satellite college
campus would be less than what was analyzed in the original EIR prepared for the project site. The traffic
analysis conducted for the second Addendum established a 137-trip limit during the PM peak hour as a
mitigation measure. The reduction in trips was important for the Los Angeles Department of Transportation
(LADOT) in accepting a substitute mitigation measure for the creation of an exclusive northbound right-turn
lane at the San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection. The substitute mitigation measure revolves
around the assertion that LACCD controls the academic program and class schedule, and, therefore, can
control peak hour trips entering and exiting the campus.
The operational characteristics of the No Project Alternative would be comparable to Option 4 - Office and
University Collaboration Mix, which includes office and college uses. The traffic analysis conducted for
Option 4 determined that transportation and traffic impacts related to Option 4 would be fully mitigated by
implementing a Travel Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce auto travel during peak commute
hours, in conjunction with contribution towards the design and implementation of the Eagle Rock ATCS and
taha 2012-061
5-7
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
5.0 Alternatives
installation of a CCTV camera at the San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection. As part of the TDM
program for Option 4, the adult education component would need to be limited to 12 classrooms during the
morning peak hour. The TDM program is not required during the evening peak hour for Option 4.
Likewise, the traffic analysis conducted for Options 1, 2 and 3 determined that transportation and traffic
impacts would be fully mitigated by implementing a TDM program to reduce auto travel during peak
commute hours, in conjunction with contribution towards the design and implementation of the Eagle Rock
Adaptive Traffic Control System (ATCS) and installation of a closed-circuit television (CCTV) camera at the
San Fernando Road/Fletcher Drive intersection. As part of the TDM program for Options 1 and 2, the
college/adult education component would need to be limited to four classrooms during the morning peak
hour. During the evening peak hour, a maximum of 12 classrooms would begin during the evening peak
hour, and only 4 classes would end during the evening peak hour. The 550-student high school component
of Options 1 and 2 can operate as it currently does during the day. As part of the TDM program for Option
3, the adult education component would be limited to a maximum of four classrooms during the morning
peak hour. The 550-student high school component of these options can operate as it currently does during
the day. No TDM program would be needed during the evening peak hour under Option 3. Therefore,
impacts related to transportation and traffic under the No Project Alternative would be similar to those under
Options 1 through 4.
ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 – REDUCED OPTIONS ALTERNATIVE
Air Quality
The Reduced Options Alternative would include the same uses as the proposed project (Options 1 through 4).
Since the land use intensity is comparable to that of Options 1 though 4, the daily weekday trips under the
Reduced Options Alternative would also be similar to those under Options 1 through 4. Regional emissions
are related to average daily trips generated by proposed land uses. Average daily trips associated with the
Reduced Options Alternative would not be different than the trips presented in the project analysis and the
regional emissions would be identical to the project analysis for Options 1 through 4. As discussed in
Section 4.1 Air Quality, Options 3 and 4 would not result in regional air quality impacts but Options 1 and 2
would result in a near-term regional nitrogen oxide emissions impact under existing plus project conditions.
However, the emissions would not be significant in 2014 as fleet turnover would result in increased engine
efficiency and decreased emissions. Notwithstanding, because LACCD cannot regulate vehicle emissions,
there is no feasible mitigation to reduce this near-term impact to less than significant, and regional air quality
impacts under Options 1 and 2 would be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, impacts related to regional
air quality under the Reduced Options Alternative would be similar to those under Options 1 through 4.
On a peak hour localized level, the Reduced Options Alternative is forecasted to generate fewer total
(inbound and outbound) operational trips. As discussed in Section 4.1 Air Quality, the local carbon
monoxide hotspot analysis conducted for the proposed project shows that the maximum one-hour and eighthour carbon monoxide concentrations would be less than the State standards. Because of fewer peak hour
trips under the Reduced Options Alternative, carbon monoxide concentrations would be less than any of the
project scenarios under Options 1 through 4. Since the localized peak hour carbon monoxide hotspot
analysis for the proposed project did not result in any significant impacts, the Reduced Options Alternative
would also not result in a carbon monoxide hotspot. Therefore, impacts related to carbon monoxide
concentrations under the Reduced Options Alternative would be similar to those under Options 1 through 4.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Reduced Options Alternative would include the same uses as the proposed project (Options 1 through 4).
As a result, the number of average daily trips generated under the Reduced Options Alternative would be
comparable to Options 1 through 4. Regional GHG emissions are related to average daily trips generated by
proposed land uses. As discussed in Section 4.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, greenhouse gas emissions
taha 2012-061
5-8
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
5.0 Alternatives
under Options 1 through 4 would be less than the 10,000 metric tons of CO 2 e per year significance threshold,
and greenhouse gas emissions under the Reduced Options Alternative would also likewise be less than
significant. Impacts related to greenhouse gases under the Reduced Options Alternative would be similar to
Option 1 through 4.
Land Use and Planning
The Reduced Options Alternative would include the same uses as proposed under Options 1 through 4;
however, the vehicle trips generated during the peak hours from these uses would be reduced by structuring
the academic programs and class schedules to control the peak hour vehicle trips entering and exiting the
project site. Similar to the proposed project, no new buildings would be constructed under the Reduced
Options Alternative. The operational characteristics of the Reduced Options Alternative would be similar to
Options 1 through 4 and would be compatible with the surrounding commercial land uses. The educational
focus of the Reduced Options Alternative would be consistent with the City’s policy to locate vocational
schools in commercial or industrial areas where training opportunities are enhanced by the surrounding uses.
Also, similar to Options 1 through 4, the Reduced Options Alternative would be consistent with the City’s
policy to encourage school boards to develop programs in consultation with local businesses to prepare
students for the job market. Therefore, impacts related to land use and planning under the Reduced Options
Alternative would be similar to Options 1 through 4.
Noise and Vibration
The Reduced Options Alternative would include the same uses as the proposed project (Options 1 through
4); however, the vehicle trips generated during the peak hours from these uses would be reduced. As
discussed in Section 4.4 Noise and Vibration, the proposed project would not result in a mobile noise impact.
Because of fewer peak hour trips under the Reduced Operations Alternative, hourly traffic noise levels would
be slightly less than under Options 1 through 4, although the proposed project would not result in a
significant noise impact under Options 1 through 4. No other sources of significant noise were identified.
Thus, impacts related to noise and vibration under the Reduced Options Alternative would be similar to those
under Options 1 through 4.
Transportation and Traffic
Under the Reduced Options Alternative, the academic programs and class schedules would be structured to
control peak hour vehicle trips entering and exiting the project site such that the traffic impacts related to the
circulation system would not occur. Table 5-1 identifies the maximum use of the project site during the peak
hour and the corresponding level mitigation (i.e., TDM, ATCS, and CCTV) that would be required to reduce
traffic impacts to a less-than-significant level under the Reduced Options Alternative. Under the Reduced
Options Alternative, the AM peak hour trips would be limited to 211 trips, and the PM peak hour trips would
be limited to 182 trips to reduce traffic impacts to a less-than-significant level without mitigation for Options
1 through 3. Since Option 4 does not have a high school component, the AM peak hour trips would need to
be limited to 59 trips and the PM peak hour trips would be limited to 148 trips to reduce traffic impacts to a
less-than-significant level without mitigation for Option 4. Therefore, although all traffic impacts under
Options 1 through 4 could be mitigated to a less-than-significant level, impacts related to transportation and
traffic under the Reduced Options Alternative would be less than Options 1 through 4.
taha 2012-061
5-9
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
5.0 Alternatives
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be
selected among the alternatives that are evaluated in the EIR. In general, the environmentally superior
alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the fewest adverse impacts. If the No Project
Alternative is identified as environmentally superior, then another environmentally superior alternative shall
be identified among the other alternatives. A summary of the two alternatives’ impacts relative to the
proposed project (Options 1 through 4) are shown Table 5-5.
The No Project Alternative would have similar impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, land
use and planning, noise and transportation and traffic as compared to the proposed project, and specifically
as compared to Option 4 – Office and University Collaboration Mix. The Reduced Options Alternative
would also have impacts similar to the proposed project in all impact areas except for transportation and
traffic, which would be less under the Reduced Options Alternative than under the proposed project.
taha 2012-061
5-10
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
TABLE 5-5:
Alternative
Alternative 1
No Project
Alternative
Alternative 2
Reduced
Options
Alternative
5.0 Alternatives
SUMMARY OF BETTER/WORSE IMPACTS BETWEEN THE ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED PROJECT
Option 1
Similar to
Air Quality
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Land Use & Planning
Noise
Transportation & Traffic
Air Quality
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Land Use & Planning
Noise
Less than
None
Transportatio
n & Traffic
Option 2
Similar to
Air Quality
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Land Use & Planning
Noise
Transportation & Traffic
Air Quality
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Land Use & Planning
Noise
Less than
None
Transportatio
n & Traffic
SOURCE: TAHA, 2013.
taha 2012-061
5-11
Option 3
Similar to
Air Quality
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Land Use & Planning
Noise
Transportation & Traffic
Air Quality
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Land Use & Planning
Noise
Less than
None
Transportation
& Traffic
Option 4
Similar to
Air Quality
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Land Use & Planning
Noise
Transportation & Traffic
Air Quality
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Land Use & Planning
Noise
Less than
None
Transportation
& Traffic
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
Section 15126 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that all phases of a project must be considered when
evaluating its impact on the environment, including planning, acquisition, development, and operation. As
part of this analysis, the EIR must also identify (1) significant environmental effects of the proposed project,
(2) significant environmental effects that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented,
(3) significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from implementation of the proposed
project, and (4) growth-inducing impacts of the proposed project.
6.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
Please refer to Table 2-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures in Chapter 2.0 Summary and
Sections 4.1 through 4.5 of this Subsequent Draft EIR as they provide a comprehensive identification of the
proposed project’s environmental effects, including the level of significance both before and after mitigation.
6.2 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS THAT
CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
IS IMPLEMENTED
Section 15126.2(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR describe any significant impacts that cannot
be avoided, even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Implementation of the proposed
project would result in the following significant and unavoidable, project-related, and/or cumulative impacts:
•
Air Quality (Regional Emissions). Significant and unavoidable impacts related to regional nitrogen
oxide (NO X ) emissions have been identified as a result of implementation of Options 1 and 2. Regional
NO X emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold under existing plus project conditions. The
emissions would not be significant two years later in 2014 as fleet turnover would result in increased
engine efficiency and decreased emissions. LACCD cannot regulate vehicle emissions; therefore, there
is no feasible mitigation measure to reduce this significant impact to a less-than-significant level.
6.3 SIGNIFICANT
EFFECTS
IRREVERSIBLE
ENVIRONMENTAL
Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of any significant irreversible
environmental changes that would be caused by the proposed project. Specifically, Section 15126.2(c)
states:
Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be
irreversible, since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter
unlikely. Primary impacts and, particularly secondary impacts (such as highway improvement which
provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar
uses. Also irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with the project.
Irreversible commitments of resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption
is justified.
taha 2012-061
6-1
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
Generally, a project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes if any of the following
would occur:
•
•
•
•
The primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses;
The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources;
The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental
accidents associated with the project; and/or
The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project involves the wasteful use of
energy).
Resources that will be permanently and continually consumed by the proposed project’s implementation
include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels; however, the amount and rate of consumption of these
resources would not result in significant environmental impacts related to the unnecessary, inefficient, or
wasteful use of resources. Compliance with all applicable building codes, as well as project mitigation
measures or project requirements, would ensure that all natural resources are conserved or recycled to the
maximum extent feasible. It is also possible that new technologies or systems will emerge, or will become
more cost-effective or user-friendly, that will further reduce the project site’s reliance upon nonrenewable
natural resources. However, even with implementation of conservation measures, consumption of natural
resources would generally increase with implementation of the proposed project. In addition, a long-term
increase in the demand for electrical and natural gas resources would occur. However, the proposed project
would not involve wasteful or unjustifiable use of energy or other resources. Furthermore, the proposed
project has been constructed and will operate in accordance with specifications contained in Tile 24 CCR.
Therefore, the use of energy on-site would occur in an efficient manner.
6.4 EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR contain a brief statement indicating the reasons
that certain possible significant effects of a project were determined to be less than significant and, therefore,
not analyzed in the EIR. Discussions of those impacts found not to be significant are provided here:
Aesthetics
The project site is currently developed with three main buildings and a surface parking lot. While tenant
improvements to the existing facilities may be necessary to accommodate future tenants, Options 1 through 4
would not require the construction of new facilities or buildings. Therefore, no impacts related to aesthetics
would occur.
Agricultural Resources
The project site is currently developed with three main buildings and a surface parking lot, and the
surrounding area is also highly urbanized. There are no agricultural resources on the project site or in the
surrounding area. Therefore, no impacts related to agricultural resources would occur.
Biological Resources
The project site is currently developed with three main buildings and a surface parking lot, and the
surrounding area is also highly urbanized. There are no biological resources on the project site or in the
surrounding area. Therefore, no impacts related to biological resources would occur.
taha 2012-061
6-2
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
Cultural Resources
The project site is currently developed with three main buildings and a surface parking lot. While tenant
improvements to the existing facilities may be necessary to accommodate future tenants, the historic Old
Bakery Building has been maintained and restored according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation of historic buildings. Options 1 through 4 would not require the construction of new facilities
or buildings, and operational activities associated with the occupancy options, would not impact cultural
resources. Therefore, no impacts related to cultural resources would occur.
Geology and Soils
The project site is currently developed with three main buildings and a surface parking lot. The proposed
project consists of four occupancy options for the future use of the existing buildings on the project site.
While tenant improvements to the existing facilities may be necessary to accommodate future tenants,
Options 1 through 4 would not require the construction of new facilities or buildings. Therefore, no impacts
related to geology and soils would occur.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The proposed project consists of four occupancy options for the future use of the existing buildings on the
project site. Options 1 through 4 would not require the construction of new facilities or buildings; however,
operational activities associated with the occupancy options may involve handling small quantities of
chemical substances, such as chemical solvents and lubricants, and fertilizers, pesticide and herbicides for
landscape maintenance, and if the chemistry classes are offered, this may involve a variety of materials for
teaching and laboratory purposes. In general, the operation of the proposed project would involve very little,
if any, use of petroleum products or hazardous materials, and these would be transported, contained, and
disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, State and local regulations. Therefore, no impacts related
to hazards and hazardous materials would occur.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The project site is currently developed with three main buildings and a surface parking lot. The occupancy
options would not require the construction of new facilities or buildings, and the existing drainage pattern on
the project site would not be altered. Furthermore, the operational activities associated with Options 1
through 4 would not create or contribute runoff water that would exceed capacity of stormwater drainage
systems, provide additional sources of polluted runoff, or necessitate the construction of new or expanded
stormwater drainage systems. Therefore, no impacts related to hydrology and water quality would occur.
Mineral Resources
The project site is currently developed with three main buildings and a surface parking lot, and the
surrounding area is also highly urbanized. In addition, the project site is not located within a City- or
County-designated Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) where significant mineral deposits are known to be
present or within a mineral producing area. Therefore, no impacts related to mineral resources would occur.
Population, Housing, and Employment
The project site is currently developed with three main buildings and a surface parking lot. There are no
residential uses on the project site, and the occupancy options, which would not require the construction of
new facilities or buildings, do not include residential uses. Options 1 through 4 involve tenants with an
educational focus and include High School, College, Office, and Adult Education/Workforce Training uses.
Any new jobs created by the occupancy options would not likely cause a substantial number of individuals to
relocate to the area. Therefore, no impacts related to population, housing, and employment would occur.
taha 2012-061
6-3
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
Public Services
The project site is currently developed with three main buildings and a surface parking lot. The occupancy
options would not require the construction of new facilities or building. Options 1 through 4 are comprised
of tenants with an educational focus and include High School, College, Office, and Adult
Education/Workforce Training uses. Private campus police/security is provided and would continue to be
provided for the tenants on-site, and operational activities would not require the expansion of, or the
construction of new police or fire stations to maintain an adequate level of service to the project site.
Therefore, no impacts related to public services would occur.
Utilities and Service Systems
The project site is currently developed with three main buildings and a surface parking lot. The occupancy
options would not require the construction of new facilities or buildings, and the operational activities
associated with Options 1 through 4 would not cause the City to construct new, or expand existing water or
wastewater conveyance infrastructure. Likewise, landfills are anticipated to have sufficient permitted
capacity to receive solid waste generated by the occupancy options. Therefore, no impacts related to utilities
and service systems would occur.
6.5 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
Section 15125.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that growth inducing impacts of a proposed project be
considered. Growth inducing impacts are characteristics of a project that could directly or indirectly foster
economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the
surrounding environment. According to the CEQA Guidelines, such projects include those that would
remove obstacles to population growth (e.g., a major expansion of a waste water treatment plant). In
addition, as set forth in the CEQA Guidelines, increases in the population may tax existing community
service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects.
The CEQA Guidelines also state that it must not be assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial,
detrimental, or of little significance to the environment. The proposed project does not include a residential
component and the net employment generated by proposed project would not exceed the SCAG employment
growth projections of the County of Los Angeles.
The area surrounding the project site is already developed with commercial, industrial, and residential uses,
and the proposed project would help accommodate a portion of anticipated growth by providing a greater
capacity to serve the existing and future demand for educational facilities. With regard to infrastructureinduced population growth, all roadway improvements planned for the proposed project as mitigation are
intended to provide for better circulation flows throughout the area or to improve pedestrian safety and
would not open any large undeveloped areas for new use. In conclusion, the proposed project would be
consistent with the growth forecast for the County of Los Angeles and with regional policies that reduce
urban sprawl, efficiently utilize existing infrastructure, reduce regional congestion, and improve air quality
through the reduction of vehicle miles traveled.
taha 2012-061
6-4
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
7.0 Persons & Sources Consulted
7.0 PERSONS AND SOURCES CONSULTED
A number of technical reports and studies were utilized in the preparation of this Subsequent Draft EIR.
These reports are referenced throughout this document where appropriate. In addition, this chapter
documents all persons and sources that contributed in the preparation of this Subsequent Draft EIR.
7.1 PERSONS AND AGENCIES CONSULTED
Los Angeles Community College District
Adriana D. Barrera, Deputy Chancellor, E-mail correspondence and telephone conversation
Los Angeles Community College District, Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Richard Arvizu, Campus Director & Associate Vice President
7.2 SOURCES CONSULTED
California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team, Climate Action Team Report to
Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, 2006.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and
the Legislature, March 2006, p. 11.
California Air Resources Board, Area Designation Maps website,
http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm, June 23, 2011
California Air Resources Board, Climate Change Scoping Plan, December 2008.
California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Community Planning Program, available at:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ habcon/nccp/, accessed January 13, 2011.
California Department of Transportation, 2011 Annual Average Daily Truck Traffic on the California State
Highway System, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/truck2011final.pdf, accessed
February 21, 2013.
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15124.
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(b).
City of Los Angeles, Green LA: An Action Plan to Lead the Nation in Fighting Global Warming, May 2007.
City of Los Angeles, Noise Element of the Los Angeles City General Plan, February 3, 1999.
City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Municipal Code, Chapter 1.
Federal Highway Administration, Memorandum. Information: Interim Guidance on Air Toxic Analysis in
NEPA Documents, September 30, 2009.
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation - An ITE Informational Report, 8th Edition, 2008.
Linscott, Law and Greenspan, Traffic Impact Study for LFCSA Relocation Project, July 2009.
taha 2012-061
7-1
Van de Kamp Innovation Center
Subsequent Draft EIR
7.0 Persons & Sources Consulted
RAJU Associates, Inc., Traffic Study for the Los Angeles Van De Kamp Innovation Center Project, February
2013.
Southern California Air Quality Management District, http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/hdbk.html, accessed
January 9, 2013.
Southern California Air Quality Management District, Health Risk Assessment Guidance for Analyzing
Cancer Risks from Mobile Source Diesel Emissions, December 2002.
Southern California Association of Governments, Southern California Compass Blueprint, Opportunity Area
Maps, City of Los Angeles-South Area, Available at: http://www.compassblueprint.org/files/lasouth.pdf, accessed January 12, 2011.
State Air Toxics Program (AB 2588).
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Endangerment Finding, 74 Fed. Reg. 18886, 18904,
April 24, 2009.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate
Change 2007.
Western Regional Climate Center, Historical Climate Information website, http://www.wrcc.dri.edu,
accessed January 9, 2013.
7.3 PREPARERS OF THIS EIR
Terry A. Hayes Associates Inc.
8522 National Boulevard, Suite 102
Culver City, CA 90232
CEO:
Senior Planner:
Senior Environmental
Scientist:
Assistant Planner:
Technical Editor:
Graphic Artist:
Terry Hayes, AICP
Kevin Ferrier
Sam Silverman
Celestine Do
Janet Murphy
Joel Wilts-Morrison
In association with:
Transportation and Traffic
Raju Associates, Inc.
505 E. Colorado Boulevard, Suite 202
Pasadena, CA 91101
CEO:
Senior Transportation
Engineer:
taha 2012-061
Srinath Raju
Christopher Munoz
7-2