ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN

Transcription

1 Administrative Draft EIR Completed: August 11, 2003 Draft Check Copy EIR Completed: September 30, 2003 Public Review Draft EIR Completed: October 7, 2003 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN SCH NO Lead Agency: CITY OF GLENDORA 116 East Foothill Boulevard Glendora, California Contact: Mr. David Chantarangsu Prepared by: RBF CONSULTING Alton Parkway Irvine, California Contact: Mr. Glenn Lajoie, AICP October, 2003 JN

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0: Introduction and Purpose Purpose of the EIR Compliance with CEQA EIR Scoping Process Format of the EIR Responsible and Trustee Agencies Incorporation by Reference Section 2.0: Executive Summary Project Summary Environmental Issues/Mitigation Summary Summary of Project Alternatives Section 3.0: Project Description Project Location and Setting Background and History Project Characteristics Specific Plan Policy Framework Phasing Agreements, Permits and Approvals Section 4.0: Basis for Cumulative Analysis Section 5.0: Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures Traffic, Circulation and Parking Air Quality Noise Public Services and Utilities Section 6.0: Long-Term Implications of the Proposed Project The Relationship Between Short-Term Uses of Man s Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity Irreversible Environmental Changes That Would Be Involved In The Proposed Action Should It Be Implemented Growth-Inducing Impacts i

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Section 7.0: Alternatives to the Proposed Project No Project/No Development Alternative Reduced Residential Alternative Environmentally Superior Alternative Section 8.0: Inventory of Mitigation Measures Section 9.0: Inventory of Significance After Mitigation Section 10.0: Effects Found Not To Be Significant Section 11.0: Organizations and Persons Consulted Section 12.0: Bibliography Section 13.0: Mitigation Monitoring Program (Final EIR) Section 14.0: Comments and Responses (Final EIR) Section 15.0: Appendices 15.1 Notice of Preparation and Comments 15.2 Traffic Study 15.3 Air Quality Data 15.4 Noise Data ii

4 LIST OF EXHIBITS 3-1 Regional Vicinity Site Vicinity Aerial Photograph Land Use Districts Study Intersection Locations Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Existing Conditions Study Area Geometry Forecast Project-Generated PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment Forecast Year 2020 Without Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes Mitigated Forecast Year 2020 With Project Study Intersection Geometry Year 2020 Noise Contours Glendora School Location Map Existing Water System Wastewater Facilities Proposed Water System Improvements iii

5 LIST OF TABLES 3-1 Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses Market Demand Analysis Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan Buildout Cumulative Projects List V/C and LOS Ranges Existing PM Peak Hour LOS Proposed Project ITE Trip Rates Proposed Project PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Forecast Year 2020 Without Project PM Peak Hour LOS Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour LOS Mitigated Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour LOS CMP Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour LOS Mitigated CMP PM Peak Hour LOS V/C and LOS Ranges Freeway Segments Forecast Year 2020 With Project Peak Hour I-210 Freeway Segment CMP LOS Local Air Quality Levels Sensitive Receptors SCAQMD Thresholds of Significant Contribution to Regional Air Pollution Construction Emissions Mobile Source Emissions Area Source Emissions Long-Term Project Emissions Projected Carbon Monoxide Concentrations iv

6 LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED CONTINUED) Projected Emission Estimates for SCAB from the 1997 AQMP Compared to Project Emissions Sound Levels and Human Response California Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines City of Glendora Noise Standards City of Glendora Vibration Requirements Sensitive Receptors Existing Traffic Noise Contour Levels Estimated Construction Noise in the Project Area Year 2020 Exterior Noise Exposure Levels Adjacent to Nearby Roadways Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots School Enrollment and Capacity City of Glendora Requirements for Park Facilities Water Demand Factors Existing Estimated Water Demand Water Demand/Wastewater Generation Factors Estimated Wastewater Generation Landfills Summary Proposed Estimated Domestic Water Demand Project Area Sewer System Sewer Line Capacity Proposed Estimated Wastewater Generation Estimated Existing Employment v

7 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE EIR The City of Glendora is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and is responsible for preparing the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Route 66 Specific Plan (State Clearinghouse No ). This EIR has been prepared in conformance with the CEQA (California Public Resources Code Section et seq.), California CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section et seq.), and the rules, regulations, and procedures for implementation of CEQA, as adopted by the City of Glendora. The principal CEQA Guidelines sections governing content of this document are Sections through (Content of an EIR), and Section (Program EIR). The purpose of this Program EIR is to review the existing conditions, analyze potential environmental impacts, and identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant effects. The proposed Project would amend the City of Glendora General Plan (GPA 03-04) creating a Specific Plan Zone (ZC 03-03), adopting a Specific Plan (ZA 03-05) and Design Guidelines (M 03-17), in order to define new land use regulations within the Project area (refer to Section 3.0, Project Description). This EIR has been prepared as a Program EIR in accordance with Section of CEQA. Section states the following: (a) General. A Program EIR is an EIR which may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are related either: (1) Geographically, (2) As logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions, (3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program, or (4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in similar ways. (b) Advantages. Use of a Program EIR can provide the following advantages. The Program EIR can: (1) Provide an occasion for a more exhaustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practical in an EIR on an individual action, (2) Ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis, (3) Avoid duplicative reconsideration of basic policy considerations, (4) Allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the agency has greater flexibility to deal with basic problems or cumulative impacts, and PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Introduction and Purpose

8 (5) Allow reduction in paperwork. (c) Use with Later Activities. Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. (1) If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Program EIR, a new Initial Study would need to be prepared leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration. (2) If the agency finds that pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR, and no new environmental document would be required. (3) An agency shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures and alternatives developed in the Program EIR into subsequent actions in the program. (4) Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environmental effects of the operations were covered in the Program EIR. (5) A Program EIR will be most helpful in dealing with subsequent activities if it deals with the effects of the program as specifically and comprehensively as possible. With a good and detailed analysis of the program, many subsequent activities could be found to be within the scope of the project described in the Program EIR, and no further environmental documents would be required. The discussion following Section describes the proper process for Program EIRs as follows: Use of the Program EIR also enables the Lead Agency to characterize the overall program as the project being approved at that time. Following this approach when individual activities within the program are proposed, the agency would be required to examine the individual activities within the program to determine whether their effects were fully analyzed in the Program EIR. If the activities would have no effects beyond those analyzed in the Program EIR, the agency could assert that the activities are merely part of the program, which had been approved earlier, and no further CEQA compliance would be required. This approach offers many possibilities for agencies to reduce their costs of CEQA compliance and still achieve high levels of environmental protection. In accordance with Section of CEQA, a primary purpose of this EIR is to provide decision makers and the public with specific information regarding the environmental effects associated with development of the proposed project, identify ways to minimize the significant effects and describe reasonable alternatives to the project. Mitigation measures are provided which may be adopted as Conditions of Approval in order to reduce the significance of impacts resulting from the project. In PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Introduction and Purpose

9 addition, this EIR is the primary reference document in the formulation and implementation of a mitigation monitoring program for the proposed project. The City of Glendora, which has the principal responsibility of processing and approving the project, and other public agencies (i.e., responsible and trustee agencies, refer to Section 1.5 of this EIR) that may use this EIR in the decision making or permit process will consider the information in this EIR, along with other information that may be presented during the CEQA process. Environmental impacts are not always mitigable to a level considered less than significant; in those cases, impacts are considered significant unavoidable impacts. In accordance with Section 15093(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, if a public agency approves a project that has significant impacts that are not substantially mitigated (i.e., significant unavoidable impacts), the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons for approving the project, based on the Final EIR and any other information in the public record for the project. This is termed, per Section of the CEQA Guidelines, a statement of overriding considerations. This document analyzes the environmental effects of the project to the degree of specificity appropriate to the current proposed actions, as required by Section of the CEQA Guidelines. This analysis considers the actions associated with the project, to determine the short-term and long-term effects associated with their implementation. This EIR discusses both the direct and indirect impacts of this project, as well as the cumulative impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. CEQA requires the preparation of an objective, full disclosure document to inform agency decision makers and the general public of the direct and indirect environmental effects of the proposed action; provide mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate significant adverse effects; and identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. 1.2 COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Draft EIR is subject to a 45-day review period by responsible and trustee agencies and interested parties. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 15085(a) and 15087(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the City of Glendora, serving as the Lead Agency, will: 1) publish a notice of availability of a Draft EIR in The San Gabriel Valley Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation; and, 2) prepare and transmit a Notice of Completion (NOC) to the State Clearinghouse. (Proof of publication is available at the offices of the Lead Agency.) A copy of the NOC is provided at the front of this document. Any public agency or members of the public desiring to comment on the Draft EIR must submit their comments in writing to the lead agency at the address indicated on the document s NOC prior to the end of the public review period. During the public review period, the Planning Commission of the City of Glendora will hold a public hearing regarding the Draft EIR. The public will be afforded the opportunity to orally comment on the Draft EIR at the public hearing. Such comments are recorded and have the same standing and response requirements as written comments provided during the public review period. Upon the close of the public review period, the Lead Agency will then proceed to evaluate and prepare responses to all oral and written comments received from both citizens and public agencies during the public review period. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Introduction and Purpose

10 The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR, and revisions to the Draft EIR and responses to comments addressing concerns raised by responsible agencies or reviewing parties submitted during the public review period. After the Final EIR is completed and at least 10 days prior to its certification, a copy of the response to comments made by public agencies on the Draft EIR will be provided to the respective agency. 1.3 EIR SCOPING PROCESS In compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Glendora has taken steps to maximize opportunities to participate in the environmental process. During the preparation of the Draft EIR, efforts were made to contact various Federal, State, regional, and local government agencies and other interested parties to solicit comments and to inform the public of the proposed project. This included the distribution of an Initial Study and Notice of Preparation (NOP). INITIAL STUDY In accordance with Section 15063(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the City undertook the preparation of an Initial Study. The Initial Study determined that a number of environmental issue areas may be impacted by construction and build-out of the project. As a result, the Initial Study determined that the Draft EIR should evaluate whether the project would result in significant impacts on environmental issue areas that are addressed in Section 5.0 of this EIR. Based on the Initial Study, no impacts upon aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning and mineral resources are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. As a result, these issues are addressed in Section 10.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of this EIR. NOTICE OF PREPARATION Pursuant to the provision of Section of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the City of Glendora circulated a NOP to public agencies, special districts, members of the public and others requesting such notice for a 30-day period commencing April 1, 2003, and ending May 1, Due to updates in the project description, on May 16, 2003, the City of Glendora reissued the NOP for a second 30-day review, which concluded on June 16, The purpose of both NOP review processes was to formally convey that the City is preparing a Draft EIR for the Route 66 Specific Plan Project, and that the City, as Lead Agency, was soliciting input regarding the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the EIR. The NOP s and comments received in response to the NOP s are provided in Appendix 15.1 of this EIR. NOP AND SCOPING RESULTS The following specific areas of environmental concerns were raised by responses to the NOP for the project (the numerical reference in parenthesis is the EIR Section in PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Introduction and Purpose

11 which the analysis is provided). The NOP responses, and written comments received are contained in Appendix Inclusion of a Traffic Study with appropriate analysis regarding trip generation, Average Daily Trips (ADTs) and inclusion of sufficient mitigation measures (refer to Section 5.1, Traffic and Circulation); Adequacy and availability of potable water, public sewer and wastewater treatment facilities (refer to Section 5.5, Services and Utilities); Impacts to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California s Upper Feeder water facilities (refer to Section 5.5, Services and Utilities); Consistency of project with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Growth Management Plan (refer to Section 6.3, Growth-Inducing Impacts); Inclusion of water conservation measures within the project (refer to Section 5.5, Services and Utilities); Need for a biological assessment of the project area (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); Analysis of project generated wastewater and the capacity of the existing sewer system (refer to Section 5.5, Services and Utilities); Traffic impacts to neighboring jurisdictions and consideration of cumulative impacts (refer to Section 5.1, Traffic and Circulation); and Impacts to the County of Los Angeles Fire Departments service as a result of increased land use density (refer to Section 5.5, Services and Utilities). The EIR focuses primarily on changes in the environment that would result from the proposed project. The EIR identifies potential impacts resulting from construction and operation of the proposed project and provides measures to mitigate potential significant impacts. Those impacts which cannot be mitigated to levels less than significant are also identified. This EIR addresses impacts in the following areas: Traffic and Circulation; Air Quality; Noise; and Services and Utilities. 1.4 FORMAT OF THE EIR The EIR is organized into 15 sections. Section 1.0, Introduction and Purpose, provides CEQA compliance information. Section 2.0, Executive Summary, provides a brief project description and summary of the environmental impacts and mitigation measures. Section 3.0, Project Description, provides a detailed project description indicating project location, background and history, and project characteristics, phasing and objectives, as well as associated discretionary actions required. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Introduction and Purpose

12 Section 4.0, Basis for the Cumulative Analysis, describes the approach and methodology for the cumulative analysis. Section 5.0, Description of Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, contains a detailed environmental analysis of the existing conditions, project impacts, recommended mitigation measures and unavoidable significant impacts. The analysis of each environmental category in this Section is organized as follows: Existing Conditions describes the physical conditions that exist at the time the notice of preparation was published and which may influence or affect the issue under investigation; Significance Criteria provides the thresholds which are the basis for conclusions of significance. The primary resource for the criteria is Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Sections ); Project Impacts describes potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions which may occur if the proposed project is implemented; Cumulative Impacts describes potential environmental changes to the existing physical conditions that may occur if the proposed project is implemented together with all other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts; Mitigation Measures are those specific measures that may be required of the project in order to avoid a significant impact; minimize a significant impact; rectify a significant impact by restoration; reduce or eliminate a significant impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations; or compensate for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environment; and Level of Significance After Mitigation discusses whether the project s impacts and the project s contribution to cumulative impacts can be reduced to levels that are considered less than significant. Section 6.0, Long-Term Implications of the Proposed Project, discusses significant environmental changes that would be involved in the proposed action, should it be implemented, and discusses growth inducing impacts of the proposed project. Section 7.0, Alternatives to the Proposed Project, describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or to the location of the project that could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the project and still feasibly attain the basic project objectives. Section 8.0, Inventory of Mitigation Measures, lists mitigation measures proposed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts. Section 9.0, Inventory of Significance After Mitigation, describes those impacts which remain significant following mitigation. Section 10.0, Effects Found Not to Be Significant, provides an explanation of potential impacts which have been determined not to be significant. Section 11.0, Organizations and Persons Consulted, identifies all Federal, State or local agencies, other organizations and individuals consulted. Section 12.0, Bibliography, identifies reference sources for the EIR. Section 13.0, Mitigation Monitoring Program, identifies responsibilities for monitoring mitigation. Section 14.0, Comments and Responses, will be included in PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Introduction and Purpose

13 the Final EIR and will provide comments and responses pertaining to the Draft EIR. Section 15.0, Appendices, contains technical documentation for the project. 1.5 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES Certain projects or actions undertaken by a Lead Agency require subsequent oversight, approvals, or permits from other public agencies in order to be implemented. Such other agencies are referred to as Responsible Agencies and/or Trustee Agencies. Pursuant to Sections and of the State CEQA Guidelines, as amended, Responsible Agencies and Trustee Agencies are respectively defined as follows: Responsible Agency means a public agency which proposes to carry out or approve a project, for which a Lead Agency is preparing or has prepared an EIR or Negative Declaration. For the purposes of CEQA, the term Responsible Agency includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency which have discretionary approval power over the project. (Section 15381) Trustee Agency means a State agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California. Trustee Agencies include... (Section 15386, part) Responsible and Trustee Agencies and other entities which may use this EIR in their decision-making process or for informational purposes include, but may not be limited to, the following: California Air Resources Board California Department of Transportation City of Azusa City of San Dimas County of Los Angeles County of Los Angeles Fire Department County of Los Angeles Sanitation District No. 22 Glendora Unified School District South Coast Air Quality Management District Southern California Association of Governments 1.6 INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE Pertinent documents relating to this EIR have been cited in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines, which encourages incorporation by reference as a means of reducing redundancy and length of environmental reports. The following documents, which are available for public review at the City of Glendora, are hereby incorporated by reference into this EIR. Information contained within these documents has been utilized in the preparation of this EIR. A brief synopsis of the scope and content of these documents is provided below: City of Glendora General Plan , February The City of Glendora General Plan is the long-range planning guide for growth and PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Introduction and Purpose

14 development for the City of Glendora. The General Plan has two basic purposes: 1) to identify the goals for the future physical, social and economic development of the City; and 2) to describe and identify policies and actions adopted to attain those goals. It is a comprehensive document that addresses seven mandatory elements/issues in accordance with State law. These elements include Land Use, Housing, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, Noise and Safety. An additional element, Hazardous Waste Management, which is an issue that also affects the City, was addressed in the General Plan. The City s General Plan was utilized throughout this EIR as the fundamental planning document governing development on the project site. Background information and policy information from the Plan is cited in several sections of the EIR. City of Glendora General Plan Update Final EIR, December The City of Glendora General Plan Update Program EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts associated with the City of Glendora comprehensive update of its General Plan. Comprehensive mitigation and monitoring and reporting programs were developed, through proposed General Plan policies and programs, to address potential impacts. Implementation of the proposed policies and programs reduced potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels for the majority of impacts. Information in the General Plan EIR was primarily utilized in the Route 66 Corridor EIR as background data. City of Glendora Redevelopment Plan for the Redevelopment Project No.3, November Redevelopment Project No. 3 was adopted in November 1976 by Ordinance No of the Glendora City Council. Redevelopment Project No. 3 includes an estimated 304 acres and is located almost entirely along Alosta Avenue (Route 66). Redevelopment Project No. 3 was adopted due to the negative factors that were impacting the commercial corridor along Route 66; including economic dislocation, structural deterioration and general disuse resulting from faulty planning. The goals of the Redevelopment Plan were to: - Strengthen the economic viabilities of Alosta Avenue area businesses by reducing functional deficiencies making other improvements. - Improving and upgrading residential uses within the area. - Aid in making properties more developable by assisting in land aggregation and eliminating accessibility problems. - Programmed encouragement of the most efficient uses of property and facilities. Background information and policy information from the Plan is cited in sections of the EIR. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Introduction and Purpose

15 2.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2.1 PROJECT SUMMARY The Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan provides a policy and regulatory bridge between the City of Glendora General Plan and individual, project-level development. The Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan provides area-specific land use regulations and development guidelines. Once adopted, the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan will provide the legal development requirements for the project area. The Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan provides a comprehensive set of plans, guidelines and regulatory standards, in addition to administrative and implementation programs, designed to provide for high-quality development within the land use districts, including residential, commercial, office and light industrial/manufacturing uses. The Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area incorporates seven land use districts, including: Barranca Gateway, Grand Avenue Gateway, Town Center Mixed Use, Route 66 Service Commercial, Central Route 66 Residential (CRR), Lone Hill Gateway and Glendora Technology, Commerce and Office. The Specific Plan has an ultimate development potential of 4,432,309 square feet, an increase of 1,876,552 square feet above the current General Plan and zoning allowances. The Residential development potential is 1,228 units, an increase of 537 above current General Plan and Zoning allowances. The Policy Framework for the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan is organized into the following sections: Specific Plan Planning Factors. Identifies the opportunities and constraints that influence and contribute to the successful implementation of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan. Specific Plan Guiding Principles. Provides the broad principles that future development and redevelopment in the Specific Plan area shall implement. Specific Plan Objectives. Provides more explicit policy statements that implement the Specific Plan s Guiding Principles. 2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES/MITIGATION SUMMARY The following is a brief summary of the impacts, mitigation measures, and unavoidable significant impacts identified and analyzed in Section 5.0 of this EIR. Refer to the appropriate EIR Section for additional information. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Executive Summary

16 EIR SECTION IMPACTS 5.1 TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION AND PARKING Traffic Generation Project implementation would result in a significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system and would exceed an established LOS standard. Analysis has concluded that Project implementation would result in a significant and unavoidable impact in this regard. MITIGATION MEASURES 5.1-1a Grand Avenue/Route 66 - Widen the eastbound Route 66 approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane b Grand Avenue/I-210 EB Ramps - Widen the southbound Grand Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and three through lanes to consist of two left-turn lanes and three through lanes c Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps - Widen the northbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from one leftturn lane and two through lanes to consist of three left-turn lanes and two through lanes; the two lane westbound I-210 on-ramp will need to be widened by one lane to accommodate the triple left-turn movement. Widen the southbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from three through lanes and one rightturn lane to consist of four through lanes and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound I-210 off-ramp from one left-turn lane and one shared left- /right-turn lane to consist of two leftturn lanes and two right-turn lanes d Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps - Widen the southbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from one leftturn lane and three through lanes to consist of two left-turn lanes and three through lanes e Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive - Widen the westbound Auto Centre Drive approach from two left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes f Grand Avenue/Baseline Road - Modify the eastbound and westbound Baseline Road approach signal phasing from split-phasing to consist of permitted phasing g City staff shall establish a fair share fee program, correlated to a trip ceiling program of project-generated SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project implementation would result in significant and unavoidable impacts at the Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66 Intersection due to the intersection constraint of the physical right-of-way necessary to implement improvements to mitigated the forecast significant impact. If the City of Glendora approves the Project, the City shall be required to cite their findings in accordance with Section of CEQA and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section of CEQA. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Executive Summary

17 EIR SECTION IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION trips, to fund identified project mitigation measures. Congestion Management Program (CMP) Analysis The proposed Project would exceed standards established by the Los Angeles County CMP. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level Refer to Mitigation Measures 5.1-1b, 5.1-1c and 5.1-1d. Cumulative Impacts Project implementation may cause a cumulatively significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system and may exceed an established LOS standard. Project implementation would result in a significant and unavoidable impact in this regard No additional mitigation measures are recommended. 5.2 AIR QUALITY Short-Term Air Quality Impact Temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions would occur during construction within the Project area. Analysis has concluded that impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level a During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. The following air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable following mitigation: Project Operations: (ROG, CO, NOX and PM10) emissions from Project operations. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. All on-site construction roads with vehicle traffic shall be watered periodically. Project implementation would result in a significant unavoidable impact with respect to consistency with the AQMP. Streets adjacent to the Project reach shall be swept as needed to remove silt that may have accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferable in the late morning Cumulative development would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to regional air quality levels of ROG, NOX, CO and PM10. If the City of Glendora approves the Project, the City shall be required to adopt findings in accordance with Section of the CEQA Gidli d PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Executive Summary

18 EIR SECTION IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION and after work is done for the day. All material transported on-site or off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Guidelines and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. These control techniques shall be indicated on project grading plans. Compliance with this measure shall be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the Project shall be prevented to the maximum extent feasible b Per standard construction practices, the duration of grading activities is specified in order to allow the scheduling of air quality regulations pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403. Project grading plans shall show the duration of grading activities. Ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles shall be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specifications, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Compliance with this measure shall be subject to periodic inspections of construction equipment vehicles by the City c All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material on-site shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. Long-Term Operational Impact The proposed Project would result in an overall increase in the local and regional pollutant load due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and 5.2-2a Should a potential end-user be identified whose land use would cause a particulate diesel index of /m 3 or increase the volume PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Executive Summary

19 EIR SECTION IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas consumption. Combined mobile and area source emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO and PM10. ROG, NOX, CO and PM10 emissions cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, which requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. to capacity ratio (also called the Intersection Capacity Utilization) by 0.02 (2 percent) for any intersection with a LOS of D or worse, a preliminary screening shall be conducted per SCAQMD Rule 1401 and 212 to determine whether a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared b Pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations, prior to the issuance of building permits for any future development, an applicant shall submit, and the Director of Planning and Redevelopment shall approve an operation-emissions mitigation plan. The plan shall identify implementation procedures for each of the following emissions reduction measures and all feasible mitigation measures shall be implemented. If certain measures are determined infeasible, an explanation thereof shall be provided. Utilize built-in energy-efficient appliances to reduce energy consumption and emissions. Utilize energy-efficient and automated controls for air conditioners and lighting to reduce electricity consumption and associated emissions. Utilize light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark roofing materials to conserve electrical energy for airconditioning. Provide shade trees in residential subdivisions as well as public areas, including parks, to reduce building heating and cooling needs, whenever feasible. Ensure that whenever feasible, commercial truck traffic is diverted from local roadways to off-peak periods. Centralize space heating and cooling for multiple-family dwelling units and commercial space. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Executive Summary

20 EIR SECTION IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Orient buildings north/south for reducing energy-related combustion emissions. Use solar energy, when feasible. Use high rating insulation in walls and ceilings c Future employment generating nonresidential development shall comply with the City s TDM Ordinance. Consistency with Air Quality Management Plan The Project would conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Analysis has concluded that the proposed Project is inconsistent with the AQMP criteria. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable No feasible mitigation measures exist. Based on the analysis provided above, the proposed Project would be inconsistent with the regional air quality management plan due to unavoidable impacts associated with Project emissions. Cumulative Impacts Impacts to regional air quality resulting from buildout of the Specific Plan and cumulative projects would significantly impact existing regional air quality levels on a cumulative basis. Impacts in this regard would be significant and unavoidable SCAQMD Standards and City Municipal Code requirements would be implemented on a project-byproject basis. 5.3 NOISE Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts Grading and construction within the Project area would result in temporary noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive receptors. Analysis has concluded that construction noise impacts would be temporary, and subject to the City of Glendora Municipal Code requirements. With compliance to City Code requirements and recommended mitigation measures, impacts are concluded to be less than significant a Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Grading Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department to ensure compliance with the following: All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, to the satisfaction of the City s Building Official. No unavoidable significant impacts related to noise have been identified following implementation of recommended mitigation measures and compliance with applicable requirements set forth by the City of Glendora. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers, to the extent practical, to the satisfaction of the City s Building Official. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Executive Summary

21 EIR SECTION IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION During construction and to the satisfaction of the City s Building Official, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors during construction activities b Construction activities within a residential zone or within 500 feet of a residential unit shall not take place between the hours of 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. Long-Term Noise Impacts Analysis has concluded that long-term noise impacts would be less than significant for roadway segments under the Year 2020 buildout traffic scenario No mitigation measures are recommended. Based upon the analysis, mobile source noise level increases would be less than significant. Stationary Noise Impact Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the generation of on-site noise associated with commercial and light industrial activities which include loading/unloading activities, mechanical equipment and activities occurring in parking lots. Analysis has concluded that stationary source impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with adherence to the City of Glendora Municipal Code requirements relating to noise level standards and recommended mitigation measures a Prior to Building Permit issuance, building plans shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Redevelopment, which demonstrates that parking areas, loading dock facilities, rooftop equipment, trash compactors and other stationary noise sources are adequately shielded and/or located at an adequate distance from residential areas in order to comply with the City s noise standards b The hours of operation for nonresidential uses which have the potential to create adverse noise impacts shall be restricted to minimize impacts on on-site and adjoining residential uses c Mixed-use projects shall be designed to minimize noise impacts between residential and non-residential uses. The City shall adopt design guidelines, which provide direction on appropriate design techniques. Cumulative Impacts Implementation of the proposed Project, combined with cumulative projects, would be less than significant No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, impacts would be mitigated on a project-byproject basis, resulting in less than significant impacts. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Executive Summary

22 EIR SECTION IMPACTS 5.4 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Fire Protection The proposed project would not result in significant physical impacts with respect to fire protection. Potential fire service impacts are concluded to be less than significant, following compliance with all applicable requirements, codes and ordinances. Police Protection Project implementation would not result in significant physical impacts with respect to police protection. Analysis has concluded that potential impacts would be less than significant. Schools Project implementation could result in significant physical impacts to existing school facilities. With payment of appropriate fees, impacts to school facilities are concluded as less than significant. Recreation Project implementation could result in increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Analysis has concluded that a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Water Project implementation would increase the demand for water beyond current conditions requiring the expansion of existing facilities. Analysis has concluded that with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are recommended No mitigation measures are recommended No mitigation measures are recommended No mitigation measures are recommended a The Zone 1, 6- and 8-inch diameter pipelines within Route 66, between Barranca and Lorraine Avenue, shall be up-sized to a minimum 14-inch pipeline to serve domestic demands and meet current capacity requirements per the City s Water Master Plan b The Zone 2, 8-inch diameter pipelines within Route 66, from Lorraine Avenue east to Amelia Avenue, shall be upsized to 14-inch or dual 12-inch diameter pipelines to achieve the anticipated 5,000 gpm fire flow requirements of the Route 66 Commercial land use district. SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No unavoidable significant impacts related to public services and utilities have been identified following implementation of the recommended mitigation and compliance with the Glendora Municipal Code. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Executive Summary

23 EIR SECTION IMPACTS MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION 5.4-5c The pipeline in Lorraine Avenue shall be upsized to a minimum 16-inch line for the looped system within Zone 1. Wastewater Project implementation would increase the demand for water beyond current conditions requiring the expansion of existing facilities. Analysis has concluded that with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard The following sewer locations within the Project area shall be required to undergo extended period flow monitoring at the 75- and 95-percent buildout of the Project area to ensure the collection system is operating with adequate excess capacity, for buildout conditions: Elwood Avenue and Route 66; East end of Mauna Loa Avenue; Glendora Avenue and Route 66; Baseline Road and Glendora Avenue; Grand Avenue and Route 66; Baseline Road and Grand Avenue; and Barranca Avenue and Baseline Road. Solid Waste Development of the Project area would result in increased solid waste generation. Project compliance with the City s AB 939 waste reduction requirements would reduce the amount of solid waste and reduce impacts to a less than significant level No mitigation measures are recommended. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative development would result in an increase in the demand for public services and an increase in the consumption rates for public utilities, potentially requiring expansions of the existing utility systems. Analysis has concluded that cumulative development is subject to standards and requirements of reviewing agencies and no additional mitigation is required No mitigation measures are recommended. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Executive Summary

24 2.3 SUMMARY OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes that the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan would not be implemented and the Project area would remain in its current state. The development of an additional 1,876,552 square feet of commercial uses and 537 residential units would not occur. In addition, infrastructure improvements to roadways, water and sewer would not occur. Existing vacant parcels within the Project area would remain vacant. Proposed improvements including streetscape improvements, landscaping, sidewalk and alleyway improvements and development standards would not occur. Traffic and Circulation The projected increase in average daily traffic (ADT) that is expected to occur with implementation of the proposed Project (58,963 ADT) would not occur with this Alternative since the proposed commercial and residential uses would not be developed. Therefore, the significant and unavoidable impacts regarding traffic generation and cumulative impacts would not occur under this Alternative. Thus, this Alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Air Quality Emissions associated with construction activities would not occur with this Alternative since new residential and commercial uses would not be developed. This Alternative would not result in increased operational emissions (combined mobile source and area emissions) since further development would not occur within the Project area. Thus, the No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Noise Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, short-term construction-related noise impacts would not occur as new residential and commercial uses would not be developed. This Alternative would not increase traffic along local roadways since new residential and commercial uses would not be developed. Stationary noise impacts related to the proposed Project s operation of mechanical equipment, daily deliveries and loading/unloading activities would not occur with this Alternative since additional commercial and industrial uses would not be developed. Thus, the No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project. Public Services and Utilities An increased demand for public services and utilities would not occur with this Alternative, as no new land uses would be developed within the Project area. Notwithstanding, although Project development has the potential to impact public services and utilities, with mitigation, impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Regardless, the No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Executive Summary

25 This Alternative would not fulfill the land use objectives of encouraging private investment and establishing land use districts that have unique character areas. In addition, this Alternative would not implement the development guidelines included in the Specific Plan which would provide high quality development that would support increased pedestrian activity and allow for mixed-use development. This Alternative would not improve circulation and transportation, infrastructure capacity and ensure that environmental impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Finally, this Alternative would not include enhanced urban design guidelines that would provide for a streetscape program and enhanced design guidelines for new development, rehabilitation and/or redevelopment. REDUCED RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE This Alternative would assume development as proposed in the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan except 97 residential units would be developed instead of 536. This Alternative would only allow residential development within the Route 66 Residential district. However, the additional 1,876,552 square feet of commercial uses would still be developed and all of the design and development guidelines would still apply. In addition, transportation and infrastructure improvements would be included in this Alternative. Traffic and Circulation The decrease in average daily traffic (ADT) that is expected to occur with implementation of this Alternative (55,096 ADT) would be approximately 6.5 percent less than the proposed Project (58,963 ADT) due to the reduction of residential development under this Alternative. However, the 6.5 percent decrease in ADT would not alter the traffic conditions impacting the Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66 intersection operating at LOS F with this Alternative. In addition, significant and unavoidable impacts may still occur regarding cumulative traffic impacts. Thus, this Alternative would be considered neither environmentally superior nor inferior to the proposed Project. Air Quality The amount of construction activity would be reduced under this Alternative. Therefore, when compared to the proposed Project, emissions associated with construction activities would be less with this Alternative. This Alternative would result in approximately 6.5 percent fewer ADT, resulting in fewer impacts associated with mobile source emissions. However, total operational emissions would still be significant and unavoidable as ROG, CO NOX, SOX and PM10 emissions would still exceed SCAQMD thresholds. In addition, this Alternative would also be inconsistent with the AQMP and would also result in significant cumulative air quality impacts. Thus, this Alternative would be considered neither environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed Project. Noise Although to a lesser degree, as with the proposed Project short-term noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive receptors would occur as a result of grading and construction activities associated with development of this Alternative. Although PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Executive Summary

26 slightly less than anticipated with the proposed Project, noise sensitive receptors would be exposed to increased mobile noise levels with this Alternative. As with the proposed Project, stationary noise impacts related to operation of mechanical equipment, daily deliveries and loading/unloading activities, would occur with this Alternative, as new residential, industrial and commercial uses would be developed. Thus, this Alternative would be considered neither environmentally superior or inferior to the proposed Project. Public Services and Utilities Similar to the proposed Project, an increased demand for public services and utilities, would occur with this Alternative, as additional residential and commercial uses would be developed. However, the demand would be less than that compared to the proposed Project as 440 fewer residential units would be developed. Thus, this Alternative would be considered environmentally superior to the proposed Project. This Alternative would meet the circulation, infrastructure, environmental and urban design objectives of the Specific Plan. However, due to the reduced residential development, which only provides development of 97 residential units within the Route 66 Residential district, this Alternative would fail to meet several land use objectives, including: Allow a mix of residential land uses; and Allow for mixed-use, residential, and commercial development. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE CEQA Guidelines Section indicates that if the No Project/No Development Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The context of an environmentally superior alternative for this EIR is based on the consideration of several factors including the Project s objectives as described in Section 3.0, Project Description, and the Alternative s ability to fulfill the objectives with minimal impacts to the surrounding environment. In consideration of these factors, the No Project/No Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the proposed Project. The other Alternative assessed in this EIR, the Reduced Residential Alternative would result in a reduction in environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Project and would partially fulfill the Project objectives. This Alternative would result in reduced impacts to traffic and circulation, air quality, noise and public services. However, air quality and traffic impacts would still remain significant under the Reduced Residential Alternative. Overall, the Reduced Residential Alternative could be considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative; however, this Alternative would not meet all of the Project s objectives. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Executive Summary

27 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING PROJECT LOCATION The project area is located in the City of Glendora, which is located in the foothills in the northeast portion of Los Angeles County. Glendora is immediately surrounded by the Cities of Azusa to the west, San Dimas to the east and Covina to the south. The City s northern border is formed by the Los Angeles National Forest (refer to Exhibit 3-1, Regional Vicinity). The project area is just north of the Foothill Freeway (210) and east of the San Gabriel River Freeway (605). The project area includes Route 66 and portions of Vecino Avenue, Forestdale Avenue, Grand Avenue, Vermont Avenue, Santa Fe Avenue, Ada Avenue, Carroll Avenue, Vista Bonita Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, Pasadena Avenue, Glenwood Avenue, Loraine Avenue, Elwood Avenue, Le Mar Park Drive, Lone Hill Avenue, Glendora Avenue and Financial Way (refer to Exhibit 3-2, Site Vicinity). The project area involves an approximately 3.5 mile area along the entire Route 66 Corridor, between Barranca Avenue on the west and Amelia Avenue on the east. The project area also extends to the south along the Grand Avenue Corridor and to the north generally between Grand Avenue, Glendora Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. The Specific Plan area contains approximately acres and encompasses more than 343 parcels (refer to Exhibit 3-3, Aerial Photograph). OVERVIEW OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The Specific Plan area is a fully developed commercial corridor and entirely urbanized. Development is typical of post 1950 commercial development characterized by small businesses serving the local community. Primary uses include retail and office uses with limited residential and industrial/manufacturing uses. Residential uses surround the Project area to the north, east, south and west. Existing conditions and surrounding land uses in each of the seven Specific Plan land use subdistricts of the Specific Plan area are summarized in Table 3-1, Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses. 3.2 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY In the summer of 2000, the Glendora City Council formed the Alosta Corridor Committee to oversee and direct City of Glendora staff concerning the revitalization of the Alosta Corridor (Route 66). The Committee met over a period of six months to identify issues, programs and implementation strategies to revitalize the Alosta Corridor. The Committee s membership was 20 people appointed by the City Council, representing the interests of businesses, property owners, and residents. The Committee s task was to identify strategies for revitalization of Alosta Corridor. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

28 10/03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Regional Vicinity Exhibit 3-1

29 Source: GIS Data, City of Glendora. Exhibit /03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Site Vicinity

30 Exhibit /03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Aerial Photograph

31 Table 3-1 Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses District Existing Uses/Conditions Surrounding Uses Barranca Gateway Grand Avenue Gateway Town Center Mixed Use Central Route 66 Residential Route 66 Service Commercial Lone Hill Gateway Glendora Technology/Commercial/ Office Older commercial with a majority of retail and service uses. Newer commercial with larger retail stores (Ralphs, Walgreens, LA Fitness center). Mixed use with commercial strip malls, mobile home parks, single-family residential units. Northern portion includes the Glendora Historic District. Also includes East Valley Hospital. Older mobile home parks, apartments mixed with various minor commercial/service facilities Older commercial strip malls. Southern portion divided by Central Route 66 Residential district. New commercial/service development. Newer business park development with offices and technology centers. North Single family residential South Single family residential East - Commercial/Single family residential West - Commercial/Single family residential (Grand Avenue Gateway) North Single family residential South Single family residential (I-210) East Single family residential (Town Center Mixed Use) West - Commercial/Single family residential (Barranca Gateway) North Commercial within the Historic District; pockets of single family residential South Single family residential East Commercial; single family residential (Route 66 Service Commercial) West Single family residential; commercial (Grand Avenue Gateway) North Single family residential South - Single family residential; multi-family residential; undeveloped hillside East Commercial (Route 66 Service Commercial) West Commercial; single family residential (Route 66 Service Commercial) North Single family residential South Single family residential; multi-family residential; undeveloped hillside East Drainage channel; single family residential West Single family residential; multi-family residential; commercial (Grand Avenue Gateway) North Golf course; single family residential South Single family residential East Business park/office (Glendora Technology/Commercial/Office) West Drainage channel, single family residential North Golf course, new housing development still being built South Single family residential East Single family residential West Golf course, single family residential, commercial/service (Lone Hill Gateway) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

32 Strategies involving commercial, industrial and retail uses were explored as a demand analysis for each category of use was projected on a 20-year horizon. In addition to the land use analysis, the Committee evaluated the need for a common streetscape and architectural review within the corridor. Essential components of the Committee s recommendations to revitalize the corridor include subsequent preparation of a Specific Plan and EIR to implement precise land use policies, adopt a Route 66 streetscape program, increase the supply of corporate office space on the east side of the corridor and support other businesses and retail uses along the corridor. DESCRIPTION OF THE CORRIDOR C The Route 66 corridor contains four key gateways including Barranca Avenue, Grand Avenue, Glendora Avenue and Lone Hill Avenue. Significant retail uses have been developed at all four key intersections. Grand Avenue is the most prominent of the four gateways in terms of its drawing power outside the community. The retail market focus has shifted somewhat from the corridor to Grand Avenue as retail businesses have recognized the benefits of the I-210-freeway access offered by Grand Avenue. Development of the three remaining intersections has been limited to neighborhood commercial retail development. Within the last 20 years, larger corporate users have located to the east side of the corridor, largely through the efforts of the Redevelopment Agency in partnership with the private sector. The Agency was able to assist with parcel consolidation and finance infrastructure improvements east of Lone Hill Avenue to facilitate three office park developments. Parcels in less advantageous locations have experienced significantly less reinvestment than those in prime locations on the corridor. Many are under-utilized. Narrow street frontages and deferred maintenance typically characterize these parcels. On deeper lots, storage of equipment and vehicles is common. Several larger parcels maintain mobile home parks. The Route 66 Corridor is characterized by a lack of architectural compatibility in form, scale and design. Individual architectural design along the corridor does not provide strong physical and functional relationships with adjacent uses and provides limited linkage between Corridor development and streetscape. MARKET ANALYSIS An analysis of the local office, retail and industrial markets was undertaken to determine citywide market demand for various uses over a year planning horizon. The purpose for completing the demand analysis was to extrapolate what types of uses would be viable along this corridor. The analysis first determined the demand on a county-wide basis and then determined what share Glendora would capture. A summary of the analysis is depicted in Table 3-2, Market Demand Analysis. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

33 Table 3-2 Market Demand Analysis Land Use Incremental Square Feet (Conservative Scenario) Incremental Square Feet (Aggressive Scenario) Industrial -- Research & Development 115, , Light Manufacturing 120, , Warehouse/Distribution 536, ,689 Subtotal 772,000 1,151,361 Office 295, ,933 Community/Neighborhood Retail 229, ,000 Hotel 150 Rooms 150 Rooms DEVELOPMENT ISSUES AND A LAND USE PLAN Upon the completion of the market analysis, the Committee divided into teams to evaluate existing land uses and property conditions within the corridor. Thirteen areas were designated. Within each area, the teams evaluated aesthetics, land uses and outside factors influencing the corridor. Issues were identified and a visioning process then took place where the committee debated the types of improvements, businesses and developments it felt was appropriate for the corridor. The Alosta Corridor Committee recommended addressing the following issues: Aesthetics; A need to increase the daytime population (job base) and housing densities in order to attract businesses (such as a restaurant row) and to support other uses; A desire for restaurants and other absent goods and services; The location and condition of mobile home parks; Development of Route 66 theme for the Alosta corridor (including changing the name of Alosta to Route 66); A need to develop north-south corridors (Grand Avenue and Glendora Avenue) as retail corridors and gateways; Linking the corridor to the Downtown Village through streetscape elements; The potential impact of light rail on Route 66 and Glendora Avenues; Narrow parcels; The use of redevelopment programs and business relocation; The need for affordable housing in the corridor via the Housing Element and state mandates; The need for design guidelines; and Building community support and political will for enacting a plan for the corridor. The Committee also identified a potential land use concept for the corridor. Office/ light industrial uses were deemed appropriate east of Glendora Avenue and retail uses west of Glendora Avenue. Traffic patterns and the location needs of various uses heavily influenced this concept. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

34 The Committee recommended that the top priority for implementing the land use plan should be the development of the east side into an office and high-tech area, continuing the Financial Way and Glendora Courtyard developments currently in place. The land use recommendations were based upon the analysis of the office, retail and industrial market in the San Gabriel Valley. One of the key recommendations for the corridor was the incorporation of a Route 66 theme. The Committee indicated that nostalgic elements will enhance the aesthetic quality of the corridor and contribute to retail activity in the corridor and other destination points such as the Village. The Committee indicated that the incorporation of a streetscape program would increase the effectiveness of the Route 66 theme. Building design standards is an area where the Committee could not come to a consensus. The Committee acknowledged that many cities maintain an architectural review board to review building design and it is common for several iterations to be reviewed prior to an applicant receiving final approval. Members of the Committee indicated this process could create a new layer of unnecessary bureaucracy for projects. The Committee did not reach concensus between recommending an architectural review board and having strict building design guidelines, which would be administered by staff. The Committee agreed to recommend policy issues that respond to concerns and issues the Committee believed should be resolved on the corridor. The recommendations were specific with respect to courses of action and recommended programs. Other recommendations are broad in scope, such as the adoption of a land use plan and design guidelines for the corridor. Key strategies included subsequent generation and adoption of a Specific Plan and accompanying EIR to implement a land use plan on the corridor; consolidation of properties; implementing a Route 66 theme; and increasing the supply of office/light industrial space early in the revitalization process. SPECIFIC PLAN PROCESS AND BACKGROUND The preparation of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan was initiated in the summer of A primary objective of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan planning process is to establish a policy and regulatory document grounded in community participation and input. A number of opportunities for public input were offered to City residents, business/property owners, developers and other interested parties. The outreach activities experienced consistent attendance by property owners, local businesses, and the community. The various workshops and meetings assisted in the development of the policy framework for the Specific Plan. The following public outreach activities were held throughout the Specific Plan development process: City Council Scoping Session (City Council Workshop #1) - July, An initial public meeting was held to primarily receive input from the Glendora City Council. The intent of the session was for the City Council to define their expectations pertaining to the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan and to review and clarify the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan scope of work and schedule. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

35 Property and Business Owners Workshop #1 - July, The first of two workshops was held with the property and business owners to accomplish the following objectives: 1) provide an overview of the project; 2) review previous studies along the Route 66 Corridor; and, 3) listen to and document issues, goals, priorities for the Route 66 Corridor. Community Workshop #1 August, The first of two workshops was held for the Glendora community to accomplish a number of objectives, including: 1) provide an overview of the project; 2) discuss previous studies in the corridor; 3) conduct a visual preference survey to determine preferred streetscape amenities and architectural treatments; and, 4) listen to and document issues, goals, priorities for the Route 66 Corridor. City Council Update (City Council Workshop #2) - December, A public meeting was held with the City Council to provide an update on the progress of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan process. The meeting was organized into two sections: 1) What we ve Done (focusing on Public Outreach Activities to date, Land Use Analysis, Urban Design/Streetscape, Design Guidelines, and the Parking Study); and, 2) What is Still Ahead Property and Business Owners Workshop #2 - March, The second of two workshops for property and business owners was held to review and elicit comments pertaining to the following: economic/market analysis; draft land use concepts; urban design/streetscape concepts; and design guidelines concept. Community Workshop #2 - March, The second of two workshops for the Glendora community was held to review and elicit comments pertaining to the following: economic/market analysis; draft land use concepts; urban design/streetscape concepts; and design guidelines concept. City Council Workshop (City Council Workshop #3) - April, A public meeting was held to present and receive comment from the City Council and the community on the framework for the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan. The direction received from the meeting provided the structure for preparing the Public Review Draft of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan. Specific Plan Review Committee - July A Specific Plan Review Committee, consisting of members appointed by the City Council to review and comment on the initial Draft Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Review Committee evaluated all components of the Specific Plan and compiled a consolidated report for review by the City Council. Planning Commission Public Hearing - Date to Be Determined. A public hearing was held with the Planning Commission to receive recommendations and conditions on the Public Review Draft of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan. City Council Public Hearing - Date to Be Determined. A public hearing was held with the City Council to approve the Public Review Draft of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

36 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan provides a policy and regulatory bridge between the City of Glendora General Plan and individual, project-level development. The Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan provides area-specific land use regulations and development guidelines. Once adopted, the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan will provide the legal development requirements for the project area. The Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan provides a comprehensive set of plans, guidelines and regulatory standards, in addition to administrative and implementation programs, designed to provide for high-quality development within the land use subdistricts, including residential, commercial, office and light industrial/manufacturing uses. The Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area incorporates seven land use subdistricts, including: Barranca Gateway, Grand Avenue Gateway, Town Center Mixed Use, Route 66 Service Commercial, Central Route 66 Residential, Lone Hill Gateway and Glendora Technology, Commerce and Office (refer to Exhibit 3-4, Land Use Districts). The Specific Plan has an ultimate development potential of 4,432,309 square feet, an increase of 1,876,552 square feet above the current General Plan and zoning allowances. The Residential development potential is 1,228 units, an increase of 537 above current General Plan and Zoning allowances. Refer to Table 3-3, Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan Buildout. BARRANCA GATEWAY The Barranca Gateway Landuse Subdistrict is intended to serve as the western gateway into the City of Glendora. The Barranca Gateway Landuse Subdistrict seeks to provide the western front door to the City, through the establishment of distinctive architecture, streetscape, hardscape and other on-site and off-site amenities. The Barranca Gateway Landuse Subdistrict is envisioned to capitalize on adjacent market potential introduced by Azusa Pacific University and Citrus College. The development of student housing and supportive retail uses in both horizontal and vertical mixed-use arrangements is strongly encouraged. A high-level of streetoriented development and pedestrian comfort is envisioned to attract nearby students and residents to this subdistrict. Uses appropriate for this land use subdistrict include mixed use, retail sales, restaurants, offices, and other service uses that provide for the daily needs of local residents. The subdistrict is intended to promote stable and attractive commercial development that is compatible with adjacent residential use. Commercial uses are strongly encouraged at intersection locations. GRAND AVENUE GATEWAY The Grand Avenue Gateway Subdistrict is intended to enhance Grand Avenue s function as a primary commercial/retail district within the City. The subdistrict is envisioned to serve as a primary southern gateway to the Route 66 corridor through the provision of higher intensity commercial development catering to the local and regional market. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

37 Source: GIS Data, City of Glendora. 10/03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Land Use Districts Exhibit 3-4

38 This page intentionally left blank. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

39 Table 3-3 Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan Buildout Land Use District Existing Development Specific Plan Buildout Net Increase Land Use Acres SF DU Density (FAR / DU/AC) Total SF Total DU Density (FAR / DU/AC) SF DU Commercial , FAR Barranca Parkway Motel , FAR MF Residential DU/AC Other/Vacant Subtotal , Commercial , FAR SF Residential DU/AC Grand Avenue Parkway MF Residential DU/AC Other/Vacant Subtotal ,322 9 MF Residential DU/AC SF Residential DU/AC Mobile Home DU/AC Motel , FAR Town Center Mixed Use Commercial , FAR Route 66 Service Commercial Route 66 Residential Lone Hill Gateway Hospital , FAR Religious , FAR Other/Vacant Subtotal , MF Residential DU/AC SF Residential DU/AC Mobile Home DU/AC Motel , FAR Commercial , FAR Other/Vacant Subtotal , MF Residential DU/AC SF Residential DU/AC Mobile Home DU/AC Commercial , FAR Other/Vacant 0 Subtotal , Commercial , FAR Other/Vacant 0.05 Subtotal ,558 0 Technology/ Commercial , FAR Commercial/Office Other/Vacant 0.5 Subtotal , , , ,316, FAR 15 DU/AC 0.35 FAR 15 DU/AC 0.50 FAR 25 DU/AC 134, , , , FAR 397, , DU/AC 126, , FAR 130, , FAR 185,304 0 TOTAL ,555, ,432,309 1,228 1,876, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

40 Horizontal and vertical mixed use, combined with distinctive architecture and pedestrian amenities compatible with adjacent residences, is encouraged. The land use subdistrict is intended to provide a wide range of retail sales, business and personal services primarily oriented to the automobile customer. The zoning subdistrict is envisioned as a primary node for serving the general commercial needs of the City through the promotion of stable and attractive retail development TOWN CENTER MIXED USE The Town Center Mixed Landuse Subdistrict is intended to provide for a complimentary mix of land uses and development types that are compatible with and reinforce pedestrian activity and transit utilization. The Town Center Mixed Use Subdistrict is envisioned to serve as a unifying area that establishes and/or enhances visual and functional connections between the Route 66 corridor and the Village. The Town Center Mixed Landuse Subdistrict will emphasize a complimentary mix of development types, including single-family and multi-family residential, commercial uses and smaller-scale street-oriented retail development. Quality designed, compact and vertically mixed-use development featuring higher residential densities and development intensities are encouraged within the Town Center Mixed Landuse Subdistrict. ROUTE 66 SERVICE COMMERCIAL The Route 66 Service Commercial Landuse Subdistrict is intended to provide for a variety of smaller-scale commercial, office and light industrial uses. Flexible commercial and low-intensity industrial development allowing for office/assembly and warehousing under one roof is encouraged. The subdistrict is envisioned as a primary node for locally-serving businesses and commercial activity. The Route 66 Commercial Subdistrict is envisioned contribute to a positive visual image along Route 66 through the establishment of streetscape elements, landscaped buffers and quality site design. CENTRAL ROUTE 66 RESIDENTIAL The Central Route 66 Residential Landuse Subdistrict is intended to contribute to the mix of housing choices offered to Glendora residents and provide consistency with the Glendora General Plan Housing Element, through the provision of multi-family residential development. Locally-serving retail and other residential-compatible commercial uses that cater to nearby residents are encouraged within this land use subdistrict. New residential development in this zoning subdistrict is envisioned to establish a positive visual image along the Route 66 corridor and encourage pedestrian connections to adjacent trailways, transit stops, commercial uses, and public sidewalks. LONE HILL GATEWAY The Lone Hill Gateway Landuse Subdistrict is intended to serve as the eastern gateway of Glendora s Route 66 Corridor. The Lone Hill Gateway seeks to provide a welcoming front door through streetscape, quality architecture, views to the San Gabriel Mountains while promoting stable and attractive commercial development that is compatible with neighboring residential uses. The subdistrict is envisioned PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

41 as a node for locally-serving retail uses catering to residents and the day-time population generated by adjacent employment. The subdistrict is envisioned to include a complimentary mix of locally-serving retail, service commercial, and professional offices. GLENDORA TECHNOLOGY, COMMERCE AND OFFICE The Glendora Technology, Commerce, and Office Landuse Subdistrict is intended to serve as a primary employment center within the City of Glendora. The land use subdistrict is intended to promote uses including administrative, professional, research, and retail/service commercial uses limited to accessory uses. The zoning subdistrict is envisioned to promote strong internal and external pedestrian circulation that provides on-site amenities and enhanced connections to adjacent retail and commercial development. 3.4 SPECIFIC PLAN POLICY FRAMEWORK The Policy Framework for the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan is organized into the following sections: Specific Plan Planning Factors. Identifies the opportunities and constraints that influence and contribute to the successful implementation of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan. Specific Plan Guiding Principles. Provides the broad principles that future development and redevelopment in the Specific Plan area shall implement. Specific Plan Objectives. Provides more explicit policy statements that implement the Specific Plan s Guiding Principles. SPECIFIC PLAN PLANNING FACTORS A number of opportunities, constraints, issues, concerns, and positive and negative attributes planning factors exist that influenced the development of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan. Planning Factors that contribute to the ultimate policy actions of this Specific Plan. The sources of these planning factors include: recommendations made by the Alosta Corridor Committee; input received by the community and the City Council during workshops on Route 66; and observations and analysis made throughout the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan process. These planning factors, although not an exhaustive listing, form the policy foundation of the Specific Plan, seeking to optimize the consistency between the Specific Plan s policy direction and the regulations and standards contained within. Throughout the initial stages of the planning process for Route 66, the following primary Planning Factors have been identified for the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan: Planning Factor. A significant body of work was generated under the guidance of the Alosta Corridor Committee with recommendations on property acquisition, land use, rehabilitation assistance, business attraction, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

42 business retention, streetscape, and environment that forms a strong foundation for the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan. Planning Factor. The recent completion of Highway 210, the planned expansion of Azusa Pacific University and Citrus College, growing household income, and strengthening community and political will to improve the Route 66 Corridor offer a base of momentum that can broaden the opportunities for economic and physical development within the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area. Planning Factor. Many distinctive character areas exist within the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan that require tailored land use and urban design treatments to optimize their potential and most effectively respect the existing character unique to Glendora. Planning Factor. Since Glendora is a community that is largely built-out and the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan is an area that includes many small, shallow parcels, economic development and revitalization must be achieved through creative approaches that seek to optimize the potential of already urbanized land. Additionally, several areas within the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area exist that are underutilized, providing opportunities for parcel assemblage. Planning Factor. Growth trends indicate that the City of Glendora grew slowly from 1990 to 2000, and future projections from Southern California Association of Governments indicate that the City s population, households and employment are projected to grow only slightly by Planning Factor. The residents of Glendora strongly desire increased dining and family entertainment opportunities within the City; creating the market to support these amenities is a key challenge within the Route 66 Corridor. Planning Factor. From a regional perspective, the development potential (especially in terms of retail) of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area is challenged by two primary attributes: 1) being obscured from Highway 210 by mountainous area and not easily accessible; and, 2) inadequate demand existing in the area to support significant new retail at the present time (i.e., the volume of households, employment, nearby college population and visitors is not significant enough to attract larger community type anchor stores or large chain restaurants). Planning Factor. Future plans of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority will include the eastward extension of the Gold Line light rail transit system with a transit station in Glendora (at the former railroad station site), providing unique development opportunities in the vicinity of the potential station. Planning Factor. Public and private development within the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area must be respectful of existing adjacent neighborhoods to ensure compatibility and minimize negative impacts to residential stability. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

43 Planning Factor. Notable opportunities to improve the aesthetics of the architecture and streetscape within the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area exist, which may contribute to enhanced economic development potential, improved sense of place, heightened community pride, and a more inviting environment for visitors. Planning Factor. Recognizing that public resources must be distributed for optimal cost-benefit to the community, public investment in a renewed streetscape environment must leverage an image that supports the traditional character of Glendora while promoting a positive identity and serving as a catalyst for private reinvestment. Planning Factor. With the growing need for a variety of housing choices to accommodate a diverse range of income groups within the community, the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area should offer opportunities for new housing (to meet goals in the Housing Element and to comply with State mandates) and enhancing the condition of existing affordable housing (such as mobile home parks located along Route 66). Planning Factor. The infrastructure system within the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area must be adequate to support future development and, therefore, the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan land use buildout assumptions must take into account the need for corresponding infrastructure to support future development. Planning Factor. Grand Avenue and Glendora Avenue, two key corridors between Highway 210 and Route 66, serve as economic nodes connecting regional and local markets and to provide north-south gateways for the City. Planning Factor. Traffic speed is a greater concern than traffic congestion with the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area; therefore traffic calming and enhancing the pedestrian-orientation and safety of streets in the area is important to the community. Planning Factor. A functional and physical disconnect exists between the Village and Route 66 that limits the economic development synergy that could occur between these two areas. Planning Factor. While parking is not a primary issue in the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area, opportunities exist to optimize the future supply of parking through strategic management, such as the promotion of shared/joint-use parking, parking in-lieu fees, and other progressive parking management programs; the design of parking areas should always factor in pedestrian safety and aesthetics. Planning Factor. The development review and approval process employed in the City could benefit both from a timing and human resources standpoint from the integration of discretionary review and incentives, as well as adopted design guidelines to provide applicants with a reference for the quality of development expected by the City of Glendora. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

44 GUIDING PRINCIPLES The following Guiding Principles are intended to serve as a benchmark for the analysis of future proposals and design concepts to determine if they are supportive of the spirit and intent of the plan. The Guiding Principles are as follows: Guiding Principle 1.0: Increase and maintain an increased daytime employment and residential population. Guiding Principle 2.0: Coordinated land use, urban design, transportation, and infrastructure planning. Guiding Principle 3.0: Embracing flexible and diverse land uses that foster economic development opportunities for the Glendora community and contribute to a growing presence in the regional marketplace. Guiding Principle 4.0: Retention and expansion of existing businesses while accommodating the recruitment of new businesses. Guiding Principle 5.0: Improved pedestrian accessibility, vehicular access, and parking to establish safety and comfort throughout the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan Area. Guiding Principle 6.0: Enhanced streetscape and public amenities throughout the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan Area. Guiding Principle 7.0: Tailored land use regulations and design guidelines, and streamlined development review process, to encourage high quality development and rehabilitation. Guiding Principle 8.0: Improved visual and functional linkages between Route 66 and the Village, Grand Avenue and Glendora Avenue. Guiding Principle 9.0: Identification of areas of priority development and property assemblage opportunities to serve as economic development catalysts. Guiding Principle 10.0: Coordinated and focused change rather than remove and replace transformation to enhance sense of place and promote aesthetic improvements. Guiding Principle 11.0: Planning policy for future development that is respectful of the historic character of and community vision for Glendora. SPECIFIC PLAN OBJECTIVES The following Specific Plan Objectives are intended to support the goals and policies of the Glendora General Plan, implement the Guiding Principles identified above in this section, and further the overall spirit and intent of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan: PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

45 Land Use Objectives Specific Plan Objective LU-1: Establish incentives to encourage private investment in the Route 66 Corridor. Specific Plan Objective LU-2: Establish land use districts that create unique character areas within the Route 66 Corridor. Specific Plan Objective LU-3: Establish land use districts that encourage high quality development responsive to market demands and Glendora community objectives. Specific Plan Objective LU-4: Establish land use regulations that support increased pedestrian activity in key focus areas. Specific Plan Objective LU-5: Coordinate land use planning with transportation and infrastructure planning. Specific Plan Objective LU-6: Develop incentives to encourage the reuse of underutilized land. Specific Plan Objective LU-7: Provide specific requirements that enhance public amenities for new development, rehabilitation, and redevelopment. Specific Plan Objective LU-8: Maximize neighborhood retail development opportunities to capture demand and compliment other land uses. Specific Plan Objective LU-9: Allow a mix of residential land uses. Specific Plan Objective LU-10: Allow for mixed-use, residential, and commercial development. Specific Plan Objective LU-11: Allow a mix of land uses to capitalize on the market potential from neighboring college and university. Specific Plan Objective LU-12: Encourage office and business park development. Circulation, Parking and Transportation Objectives Specific Plan Objective CIR-1: Ensure improved pedestrian mobility, safety, and comfort. Specific Plan Objective CIR-2: Ensure potential transportation impacts of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan are identified and mitigated to the greatest extent feasible. Specific Plan Objective CIR-3: Ensure vehicular traffic Level of Service (LOS) within the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area does not exceed adopted citywide standards. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

46 Specific Plan Objective CIR-4: Establish a correlation between compact, mixed-use development in high activity locations and access to existing and planned transportation modes. Specific Plan Objective CIR-5: Introduce traffic calming techniques to improve pedestrian-orientation, aesthetics, and traffic safety. Infrastructure Objectives Specific Plan Objective INF-1: Ensure infrastructure capacity within the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area meets future demands. Environmental Objectives Specific Plan Objective ENV-1: Ensure potential environmental effects of the Specific Plan are mitigated to a less than significant level. Specific Plan Objective ENV-2: Adopt a program-level environmental clearance document to utilize in subsequent development within the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area. Urban Design Objectives Specific Plan Objective UD-1: Establish a streetscape program using signage, street furniture, entry statements, and other visual amenities that conveys the traditional character of Glendora, withstands the test of time, is cost-effective, and achieves a stronger community image and identity. Specific Plan Objective UD-2: Create gateway design treatments that establish entry statements at key high activity locations. Specific Plan Objective UD-3: Adopt design guidelines that are applicable to new development, rehabilitation, and redevelopment. Implementation and Administration Objectives Specific Plan Objective IMP-1: Establish a tier-review process for discretionary development application review to streamline the approval process. Specific Plan Objective IMP-2: Utilize Environmental Impact Report as the primary tiering clearance document to streamline additional project-level environmental reviews. Specific Plan Objective IMP-3: Incorporate incentive-based standards, such as fee assistance for plan check and density/intensity bonuses for the provision of specified amenities, mixed use development, or high quality residential design. Specific Plan Objective IMP-4: Integrate design guidelines within the design review process to streamline discretionary review. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

47 3.5 PHASING The development and/or redevelopment of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan Area will be a multi-year effort. The preferred land use development concept and associated improvements necessary are envisioned to occur over a 20-year period. Therefore, future development and/or redevelopment in the Project area will be responsive to prevailing market conditions making forecasts of the timing and extent of future conditions challenging. Although a phasing plan is not appropriate for this type of project, the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan will provide substantial guidance for future Capital Improvement programming and other city-initiated improvements. 3.6 AGREEMENTS, PERMITS AND APPROVALS The City of Glendora is the Lead Agency for future development and improvements within the Project area and has discretionary authority which includes, but is not limited to, the following: Environmental Review. This EIR requires a certification recommendation by the Planning Commission and is then presented to the City Council for certification. Additional environmental review for future uses is not anticipated but will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. General Plan Amendments. Concurrent to the adoption of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan, the Glendora General Plan shall be amended to provide necessary modifications to provide consistency between the General Plan and Specific Plan. The following amendments to the General Plan shall ensure consistency: - Amending the General Plan (GPA03-04); - Creating a Specific Plan zone (SP03-03); and - Adopting a Specific Plan (ZA03-05) and design guidelines (M03-17). Zone Change/Amendment. The existing Zoning Classifications in the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan area, prior to the adoption of the Specific Plan including C-3, R-3/MHP, PR, MS, CM, C-3/H, CM/MHP, C-2, C-3/MHP, R4, M1 and R-3 classifications shall be repealed within the Specific Plan Project area and the zoning map amendment shall indicate new Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan zoning classification SP-3 including the Barranca Gateway, Grand Avenue Gateway, Town Center Mixed Use, Route 66 Service Commercial, Central Route 66 Residential, Lone Hill Gateway and Glendora Technology, Commerce and Office subdistricts. Tentative Parcel, Tract Maps and Master Plans. Individual tentative parcel or tract maps and master plans may also be processed at a future time for smaller parcels having particular development characteristics or needs. Grading Permits. Future grading for development within the Project area would be subject to the review of plans and approval of grading permits by the City. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

48 Site Plan Review. Individual site plans within the Project area would be subject to the review of plans and approval of site plans by the City. Building Permits. Future construction of structures within the Project area would be subject to the review of plans and approval of building permits by the City. Conditional Use Permits. Development of certain uses, such as the establishment and expansion of institutional uses, would require approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Project Description

49 4.0 BASIS FOR CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS Section of the State California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as amended, provides the following definition of cumulative impacts: Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. Pursuant to Section 15130(a) of the aforementioned Guidelines, cumulative impacts of a project shall be discussed when the project s effect is cumulatively considerable, as defined in Section 15065(c) of the Guidelines. The Initial Study Checklist provided as part of Appendix 15.1 indicates that the proposed project may yield potentially significant cumulative effects. As a result, Section 5.0 of this EIR provides a cumulative impact assessment for each applicable environmental issue, and does so to a degree which reflects each impact s severity and likelihood of occurrence. As indicated above, a cumulative impact involves two or more individual effects. Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the discussion of cumulative impacts shall be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(b), the following elements are necessary in an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts: 1. Either: a. A list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the Agency, or b. A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document, or in a prior environmental document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. 2. A summary of the expected environmental effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference to additional information stating where that information is available; and 3. A reasonable analysis of the cumulative impacts of the relevant projects. An EIR shall examine reasonable, feasible options for mitigating or avoiding the project s contribution to any significant cumulative effects. Table 4-1, Cumulative Projects List, identifies related projects and other possible development in the area determined as having the potential to interact with the proposed project to the extent that a significant cumulative effect may occur. Information integral to the identification process was obtained from the City of Glendora and a review of several secondary data sources. The resulting related projects include primarily only those determined to be at least indirectly capable of interacting with the Project site. Several projects are currently proposed for development in the City of Glendora and the nearby Cities of San Dimas and Azusa. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the type and amount of related projects based on information provided by the Cities of PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Basis for Cumulative Analysis

50 Glendora, San Dimas and Azusa. The selection of the related projects was based on all projects currently being processed for development in the City of Glendora as well as those projects in the Cities of San Dimas and Azusa that are in proximity to the project area. The geographical area that encompasses these related projects is considered adequate to assess transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, population/housing and services/utilities issues because projects in areas beyond this geographical area are not expected to contribute additive impacts with the proposed project. Table 4-1 Cumulative Projects List Address/Location City of Glendora SW Sierra Madre and Barranca Avenue (potential build out) City of Glendora 601 N. Grand Avenue (potential build out) City of Glendora NW Grand Avenue and Leadora Avenue (potential build out) City of Glendora Tract (Gard Ranch) City of Glendora Tract (Gard Ranch) City of Glendora Monrovia Nursery (north of Bennett Avenue potential build out) City of Glendora Tract (north of Lone Hill Avenue) City of Glendora Monrovia Nursery (south of Bennett Avenue- potential build out) City of Glendora Tract (Oakhart estates) City of Glendora Alosta Avenue/Inola Street Site (potential build out) City of Glendora Wildwood Ranch (development application) City of San Dimas Wildwood Ranch City of Glendora NW corner Lone Hill and Gladstone City of Glendora Mixed Use Specific Plan Kaiser Property NE corner Gladstone/Valley Center City of Glendora PM (Los Cerritos Road) City of Glendora PM (Los Cerritos Road) City of San Dimas Southeast corner of Amelia and Baseline City of San Dimas SE Corner of San Dimas and Foothill Boulevard City of San Dimas South side of Foothill Boulevard just east of Dixie Drive Dwelling Units (du)/ Square Footage (sf) 67 du 12 du 6 du 27 du 16 du 41 du 26 du 70 du 22 du 17 du 75 du 92 du 40,000 sf (commercial)/40,000 sf auto dealer 26 du 299,000 sf (retail) 3 du 3 du 4 du 17,000 sf (commercial) 12,000 sf (commercial) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Basis for Cumulative Analysis

51 Table 4-1 Continued Cumulative Projects List Exhibit Location 20 City of San Dimas NE corner of Amelia and Ghant Address/Location 21 City of San Dimas SEC Gladstone Street & Lone Hill Avenue City of Azusa (Azusa Pacific University Specific Plan) Alosta between Barranca & Citrus Avenues City of Azusa (Foothill Center Specific Plan) SWC Citrus/ Alosta Avenues City of Azusa (Monrovia Nursery) North of Foothill Blvd. South of Sierra Madre Ave. W/ of Citrus Ave. East of Pasadena Ave. City of Glendora (Village on the Green) NEC Amelia Avenue & Route 66 City of Glendora (Downtown Mixed Use potential buildout) Glendora Avenue Foothill Blvd. to Bennett Avenue 25 acres Dwelling Units (du)/ Square Footage (sf) 4 du 148,000 sf Costco 3,500 sf fast-food 7,000 sf quality restaurant 61,000 sf retail University Expansion (APU) for additional 1,379 students 56,000 sf supermarket 119,100 sf shopping center townhouses 100 units apartments 130 units 1,575 dwelling units 50,000 sf commercial uses 65 dwelling units 605 dwelling units PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Basis for Cumulative Analysis

52 EIR 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 5.1 TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION AND PARKING This Section is based upon the project Traffic Analysis prepared by RBF Consulting, (September, 2003), which is included as Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study, of this document. The evaluation considers impacts to local roadways, intersections, regional facilities and ingress/egress locations on-site. Mitigation measures are recommended, if necessary, to avoid or lessen impacts. The following analysis scenarios are evaluated in this study: Existing Conditions; Forecast Year 2020 Without Project Conditions; and Forecast Year 2020 With Project Conditions. EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Level of service (LOS) is commonly used as a qualitative description of intersection operation and is based on the capacity of the intersection and the volume of traffic using the intersection. The Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) analysis method is utilized in this study to determine the operating LOS of the signalized study intersections. The ICU analysis methodology describes the operation of an intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A (free-flow conditions) to LOS F (severely congested conditions), based on corresponding Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratios shown in Table 5.1-1, V/C and LOS Ranges. The City of Glendora s performance criteria for peak hour intersection operation is LOS C or better. However, pursuant to Los Angeles County s Congestion Management Plan (County CMP), the City s threshold of significance is whether a proposed project increases traffic demand at a study intersection by two percent of capacity (V/C > 0.02), causing or worsening LOS F (V/C > 1.00). EXISTING AREA ROADWAYS The characteristics of the roadway system in the vicinity of the Project area are described below: I-210 provides regional access for the project site as a six- to eight-lane freeway facility, traversing the San Gabriel Valley in an east-west orientation. Route 66 is a four-lane divided roadway with a raised median, trending in an east-west direction, with on-street parking allowed. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

53 EIR Table V/C & LOS Ranges V/C Ratio LOS < 0.60 A B C D E > 1.00 F Barranca Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway with a painted median, trending in a north-south direction. Vecino Drive is a two-lane undivided roadway, trending in a north-south direction, with on-street parking allowed. Grand Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway with a raised median, trending in a north-south direction. Grand Avenue provides regional interchange access to the project site via an interchange with I-210. Vermont Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway, trending in a north-south direction, with on-street parking allowed. Glendora Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway with a painted median, trending in a north-south direction, with on-street parking prohibited. Pasadena Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway, trending in a north-south direction, with on-street parking allowed. Elwood Avenue is a two-lane undivided roadway, trending in a north-south direction, with on-street parking allowed. Loraine Avenue is a four-lane undivided roadway, trending in a north-south direction, with on-street parking allowed. Lone Hill Avenue is a four- to six-lane divided roadway with a raised median, trending in a north-south direction, with on-street parking prohibited. Lone Hill Avenue provides regional access to the project site via an interchange with I-210. Amelia Avenue is a four-lane undivided roadway with a painted median, trending in a north-south direction, with on-street parking allowed. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

54 EIR Auto Centre Drive is a four-lane divided roadway with a raised median, trending in an east-west direction, with on-street parking prohibited. Auto Centre Drive provides regional access to the project site via an interchange with SR-57. Baseline Road is a four-lane divided roadway with a raised median, trending in an east-west direction, with on-street parking prohibited. The City of Glendora has identified the following sixteen intersections for analysis in this study: Barranca Avenue/Route 66; Vecino Drive/Route 66; Grand Avenue/Route 66; Vermont Avenue/Route 66; Glendora Avenue/Route 66; Pasadena Avenue/Route 66; Elwood Avenue/Route 66; Loraine Avenue/Route 66; Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66; Amelia Avenue/Route 66; Westbound I-210 Ramps/Baseline Road; Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Off-ramp; Westbound I-210 Ramps/Lone Hill Avenue; Eastbound I-210 Ramps/Lone Hill Avenue; Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive; and Grand Avenue/Baseline Road. Exhibit 5.1-1, Study Intersection Locations, illustrates the location of the intersections, which were analyzed. The traffic analysis addresses typical evening peak hour intersection operations for each of the intersections listed. EXISTING CONDITIONS PEAK HOUR LOS To determine the existing operations of the study intersections, a growth rate factor of was applied to existing traffic volumes contained in a Traffic study for the Alosta Avenue Corridor by KAKU Associates (June 2000). The study was prepared in accordance with the 2002 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (Metropolitan Transportation Authority, June 2002) forecasts for cumulative growth in the San Gabriel Valley. This is a conservative assumption since the growth rate factor was applied to all vehicle movements at the study intersections. Additionally, PM peak hour intersection movement counts were taken in June and September 2003 for the following seven intersections: Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66; Westbound I-210 Ramps/Base Line Road; Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Off-ramp; Westbound I-210 Ramps/Lone Hill Avenue; Eastbound I-210 Ramps/Lone Hill Avenue; Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive; and ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

55 BARRANCA AVE VECINO AVE LORAINE AVE GLENDORA AVE VERMONT AVE GRAND AVE PASADENA AVE LONE HILL AVE AMELIA AVE FOOTHILL BLVD ELWOOD AVE ROUTE BASELINE RD 210 AUTO CENTRE DR KEY: STUDY INTERSECTION Source: RBF Consulting, October Exhibit /03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Study Intersection Locations

56 EIR Grand Avenue/Baseline Road. Exhibit 5.1-2, Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, shows existing PM peak hour volumes at the study intersections. Detailed traffic count data is included in Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study. Exhibit 5.1-3, Existing Conditions Study Area Geometry, shows the existing conditions study intersection geometries. Table 5.1-2, Existing PM Peak Hour LOS, summarizes the existing PM peak hour LOS of the study intersections based on existing peak hour intersection volumes shown in Exhibit Table Existing PM Peak Hour LOS Study Intersection Barranca Avenue/Route 66 Vecino Drive/Route 66 Grand Avenue/Route 66 Vermont Avenue/Route 66 Glendora Avenue/Route 66 Pasadena Avenue/Route 66 Elwood Avenue/Route 66 Loraine Avenue/Route 66 Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66 Amelia Avenue/Route 66 Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210 On-ramp Westbound I-210 Ramps/Base Line Road Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive Grand Avenue/Baseline Road PM Peak Hour V/C - LOS C A C A C B B A D A C A F D 0.83 D 0.69 B Note: Deficient intersection operation shown in bold. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

57 BARRANCA AVE VECINO DR LORAINE AVE GLENDORA AVE VERMONT AVE PASADENA AVE GRAND AVE , , , , , , LONE HILL AVE FOOTHILL BLVD BASELINE RD ROUTE ELWOOD AVE 226 1, AMELIA AVE , AUTO CENTRE DR KEY: Source: RBF Consulting, October XX PM Peak Hour Volume Exhibit /03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Existing Conditions PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes

58 BARRANCA AVE VECINO DR GLENDORA AVE VERMONT AVE LORAINE AVE PASADENA AVE GRAND AVE LONE HILL AVE AMELIA AVE OV FOOTHILL BLVD 4D BASELINE RD OV 4D 4U 2U 4D 4D 6D 4D 4U 2U 4D 2U 4D 4D 2U 2U ROUTE ELWOOD AVE 2U 2U 4U AUTO CENTRE DR 6D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D 4D F 4D OV OV LEGEND: F Source: RBF Consulting, October OV Exhibit /03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Existing Conditions Study Area Geometry

59 EIR As indicated in Table 5.1-2, the study intersections are currently operating at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) during the PM peak hour according to City of Glendora performance criteria, with the exception of four intersections: Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66; Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps; Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramp; and Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive. PARKING In July 2002, RBF Consulting conducted an inventory of existing parking supply (public on-street and private off-street) within the Project area. Existing parking for residential land uses and newer office developments (i.e., east of Lone Hill Avenue) was not counted per the assumption that these uses are adequately parked with onsite facilities. Additionally, existing parking for vacant lots and buildings was not inventoried, as these uses are idle and do not generate parking demands. Comparisons between existing parking supply and the City s parking requirements generally demonstrate that ample parking supply exists within the Project area. In very few instances parking supply was observed as inadequate, either as a result of small parcel size or unique parking demands of an existing business. During the inventory process, most parking facilities were underutilized, an observation largely supported through the comparison of existing on-the-ground supply and City parking standards. Refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant. ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION Foothill Transit serves the City of Glendora, including the Project area. Local service routes traversing the Project area include the following: Line 187/189: serves the cities of Claremont, Glendora and Pasadena with stops at Route 66 and Lone Hill (Route 189 only), Glendora, Grand, Barranca and Citrus Avenues. Line 281: serves the cities of Glendora and West Covina with stops at Route 66 and Grand and Barranca Avenues. Line 283/284: serves the cities of Glendora, West Covina, Covina and San Dimas. Line 283 stops at Route 66 and Lone Hill and Glendora Avenues. Line 851: serves the cities of Covina and Glendora with a stop at Route 66 and Glendora Avenue. There are no bikeways traversing the Project area, however, several bikeways exist adjacent to the Project area, providing access to local facilities. Refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not to be Significant. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

60 EIR IMPACTS SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The traffic issues related to the proposed land use and development have been evaluated in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the County CMP. The City of Glendora is the lead agency responsible for preparation of the traffic impact analysis, in accordance with both CEQA and CMP authorizing legislations. To determine whether the addition of Project-generated trips results in a significant impact at a study intersection, and thus requires mitigation, the City of Glendora utilizes the following threshold of significance pursuant to the County s CMP: A significant project impact occurs when a proposed project increases traffic demand at a study intersection by two percent of capacity (V/C > 0.02), causing or worsening LOS F (V/C > 1.00). Environmental impact thresholds as indicated in Appendix G, Initial Study Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines were used as significance thresholds in this analysis. As such, the project would create a significant impact if it would cause one or more of the following to occur: Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) (refer to Impact Statement 5.1-1); Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a LOS standard established by the County CMP agency for designated roads or highways (refer to Impact Statement 5.1-2); Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); Result in inadequate emergency access (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); Result in inadequate parking capacity (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); and/or Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant). ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

61 EIR Impacts to traffic and circulation are analyzed below according to topic. Mitigation measures at the end of this Section directly correspond with the identified impact. TRAFFIC GENERATION Project implementation would result in a significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system and would exceed an established LOS standard. Analysis has concluded that Project implementation would result in a significant and unavoidable impact in this regard. As described in Section 3.0, Project Description, the Project area involves an approximately 3.5 mile area along the entire Route 66 Corridor, between Barranca Avenue on the west and Amelia Avenue on the east. The Project area also extends to the south along the Grand Avenue Corridor and to the north generally between Grand Avenue, Glendora Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. Existing land uses include retail and office uses with limited residential and industrial/manufacturing uses. Residential uses surround the Project area to the north, east, south and west. The Project proposes development within seven land use districts, including residential, commercial, office and light industrial/manufacturing uses. As part of the proposed Project, the City will change its LOS target for peak hour intersection operation from LOS C or better to LOS D or better for intersections within the Project area. Project Trip Generation To calculate trips forecast to be generated by the proposed Project, Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates were utilized. Table 5.1-3, Proposed Project ITE Trip Rates, summarizes the ITE trip generation rates used to calculate the number of trips forecast to be generated. Table Proposed Project ITE Trip Rates Land Use (ITE Code) PM Peak Hour Rates In Out Total Daily Trips Specialty Retail Center (814) 1.11/tsf 1.48/tsf 2.29/tsf 40.67/tsf General Office Building (710) 0.25/tsf 1.24/tsf 1.49/tsf 11.01/tsf General Light Industrial (110) 0.12/tsf 0.86/tsf 0.98/tsf 6.97/tsf Residential Condominium/Townhouse (230) 0.36/du 0.18/du 0.54/du 5.86/du Source: 1997 ITE Trip Generation Manual, 6 th Edition Note: tsf = thousand square feet, du = dwelling unit ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

62 EIR Table 5.1-4, Proposed Project PM Peak Hour Trip Generation, summarizes PM peak hour trips forecast to be generated by the proposed Project utilizing the trip generation rates outlined in Table As indicated in Table 5.1-4, the proposed Project is forecast to generate approximately 58,963 additional daily trips, which includes approximately 4,562 PM peak hour trips. Table Proposed Project PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Land Use (ITE Code) PM Peak Hour Trips In Out Total Daily Trips Barranca Gateway tsf General Office tsf Specialty Retail Center 61 du Residential Condominium/Townhouse , Subtotal ,973 Grand Avenue Gateway tsf General Office tsf Specialty Retail Center 126 du Residential Condominium/Townhouse , Subtotal ,334 Town Center Mixed Use tsf General Office tsf Specialty Retail Center 252 du Residential Condominium/Townhouse , ,385 2,774 Subtotal 650 1,209 1,859 24,539 Route 66 Service Commercial tsf General Office tsf Specialty Retail Center tsf General Light Industrial ,748 3,207 1,096 Subtotal ,051 Central Route 66 Residential tsf Specialty Retail Center 97 du Residential Condominium/Townhouse , Subtotal ,729 Lone Hill Gateway tsf Specialty Retail Center ,296 Subtotal ,296 Glendora Technology/Commerce/Office tsf General Office ,041 Note: tsf = thousand square feet, du = dwelling unit Subtotal ,041 Total 1,625 2,937 4,562 58,963 ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

63 EIR Project Trip Distribution and Assignment Exhibit 5.1-4, Forecast Project-Generated PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment, illustrates the assignment of Project generated PM peak hour trips developed utilizing trip distribution for each land use district. Forecast Year 2020 Without Project Conditions Forecast year 2020 traffic volumes (without proposed Project) were obtained from a Traffic Study for the Alosta Avenue Corridor by KAKU Associates (June 2000). Additionally, forecast year (2020) p.m. peak hour traffic volumes at the following seven intersections were determined by applying a growth rate factor of to existing traffic volumes as directed by City staff in accordance with the 2002 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County (Metropolitan Transportation Authority, June 2002) forecast for seventeen years of cumulative growth in the San Gabriel Valley: Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66; Westbound I-210 Ramps/Base Line Road; Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Off-ramp; Westbound I-210 Ramps/Lone Hill Avenue; Eastbound I-210 Ramps/Lone Hill Avenue; Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive; and Grand Avenue/Baseline Road. Forecast Year 2020 Without Project Conditions Peak Hour LOS Exhibit 5.1-5, Forecast Year 2020 Without Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, shows forecast year 2020 without project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. Table 5.1-5, Forecast Year 2020 Without Project PM Peak Hour LOS, summarizes forecast year 2020 PM peak hour LOS of the study intersections. As indicated in Table 5.1-5, the study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS C or better) during the PM peak hour according to City of Glendora performance criteria for forecast year 2020 without project conditions, with the exception of the following five intersections: Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66; Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210 On-ramp; Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps; Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps; and Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive. Forecast Year 2020 With Project Conditions ns Forecast year 2020 with Project traffic volumes were derived by adding Project generated trips to forecast year 2020 without Project traffic volumes. Exhibit 5.1-6, Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes, shows forecast year 2020 with Project PM peak hour traffic volumes at the study intersections. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

64 BARRANCA AVE VECINO AVE LORAINE AVE GLENDORA AVE VERMONT AVE PASADENA AVE GRAND AVE LONE HILL AVE FOOTHILL BLVD ROUTE 66 ELWOOD AVE BASELINE RD AMELIA AVE AUTO CENTRE DR Source: RBF Consulting, October KEY: XX PM Peak Hour Volume Exhibit /03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Forecast Project-Generated PM Peak Hour Trip Assignment

65 BARRANCA AVE VECINO AVE LORAINE AVE GLENDORA AVE VERMONT AVE PASADENA AVE GRAND AVE , , , , , , , LONE HILL AVE FOOTHILL BLVD BASELINE RD ROUTE ELWOOD AVE ,053 1, AMELIA AVE AUTO CENTRE DR Source: RBF Consulting, October KEY: XX PM Peak Hour Volume Exhibit /03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Forecast Year 2020 Without Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes

66 BARRANCA AVE VECINO AVE LORAINE AVE GLENDORA AVE VERMONT AVE PASADENA AVE GRAND AVE , , , , , , ,337 1, , , , , , LONE HILL AVE FOOTHILL BLVD BASELINE RD ROUTE , ELWOOD AVE 147 1, , ,341 1, AMELIA AVE , , AUTO CENTRE DR Source: RBF Consulting, October KEY: XX PM Peak Hour Volume Exhibit /03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes

67 EIR Table Forecast Year 2020 Without Project PM Peak Hour LOS Study Intersection Barranca Avenue/Route 66 Vecino Drive/Route 66 Grand Avenue/Route 66 Vermont Avenue/Route 66 Glendora Avenue/Route 66 Pasadena Avenue/Route 66 Elwood Avenue/Route 66 Loraine Avenue/Route 66 Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66 Amelia Avenue/Route 66 Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210 On-ramp Westbound I-210 Ramps/Base Line Road Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive Grand Avenue/Baseline Road PM Peak Hour V/C - LOS A A B A B A A A E A D B F E 0.95 E 0.80 C Note: Deficient intersection operation shown in bold. Forecast Year 2020 With Project Peak P Hour LOS Table 5.1-6, Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour LOS, summarizes forecast year 2020 with project conditions PM peak hour LOS of the study intersections. As indicated in Table 5.1-6, the following seven intersections would be operating at a deficient LOS (LOS D or worse) during the PM peak hour according to City of Glendora performance criteria for forecast year 2020 with Project conditions: ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

68 EIR Table Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour LOS Study Intersection Forecast Year 2020 Without Project PM Peak Hour Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour Significant Impact? V/C - LOS V/C - LOS Barranca Avenue/Route A C No Vecino Drive/Route A A No Grand Avenue/Route C F Yes Vermont Avenue/Route A C No Glendora Avenue/Route B D No Pasadena Avenue/Route A B No Elwood Avenue/Route A B No Loraine Avenue/Route A B No Lone Hill Avenue/Route E F Yes Amelia Avenue/Route A A No Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210 On-ramp D F Yes Westbound I-210 Ramps/Base Line Road B C No Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps F F Yes Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps E F Yes Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive E F Yes Grand Avenue/Baseline Road 0.80 E 1.04 F Yes Note: Deficient intersection operation shown in bold. Grand Avenue/Route 66; Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66; Grand Avenue/I-210 EB Ramps; Lone Hill Avenue/I-210 WB Ramps; Lone Hill Avenue/I-210 EB Ramps; Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive; and Grand Avenue/Baseline Road. Also, as shown in Table based on City of Glendora thresholds of significance, significant impacts are forecast to occur for forecast year 2020 with Project conditions for the following intersections: Grand Avenue/Route 66; Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66; Grand Avenue/I-210 EB Ramps; Lone Hill Avenue/I-210 WB Ramps; Lone Hill Avenue/I-210 EB Ramps; Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive; and Grand Avenue/Baseline Road. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

69 EIR Forecast Year 2020 With Project Conditions Recommended Improvements The following mitigation measures are recommended to address the project-related significant impacts: Grand Avenue/Route 66 - Widen the eastbound Route 66 approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps - Widen the southbound Grand Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and three through lanes to consist of two left-turn lanes and three through lanes. Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps - Widen the northbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and two through lanes to consist of three left-turn lanes and two through lanes; the two lane westbound I-210 onramp will need to be widened by one land to accommodate the triple left-turn movement. Widen the southbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from three through lanes and one right-turn lane to consist of four through lanes and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound I-210 off-ramp from one left-turn lane and one shared left-/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes. Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps - Widen the southbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and three through lanes to consist of two left-turn lanes and three through lanes. Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive - Widen the westbound Auto Centre Drive approach from two left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes. Grand Avenue/Baseline Road - Modify the eastbound and westbound Baseline Road approach signal phasing from split-phasing to consist of permitted phasing. At the Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66 intersection, a Shell Service Station located in the southwest quadrant and an Arco Service Station located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection constrain the physical right-of-way necessary at this intersection to implement physical improvements to mitigate the forecast significant impact. Assuming implementation of recommended mitigation measures at the six intersections, Table 5.1-7, Mitigated Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour LOS, shows the improved PM peak hour LOS of the intersections for forecast year 2020 with Project conditions. As shown in Table 5.1-7, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce project traffic impacts to a level considered not significant by improving the intersection to LOS E or LOS D from LOS F. Exhibit 5.1-7, Mitigated Forecast Year 2020 With Project Study Intersection Geometry, shows the mitigated forecast year 2020 with Project intersection geometry. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

70 BARRANCA AVE VECINO DR GLENDORA AVE VERMONT AVE LORAINE AVE PASADENA AVE GRAND AVE LONE HILL AVE AMELIA AVE FOOTHILL BLVD ROUTE 66 ELWOOD AVE F BASELINE RD OV OV 210 AUTO CENTRE DR F LEGEND: F OV Source: RBF Consulting, October Exhibit /03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Mitigated Forecast Year 2020 With Project Study Intersection Geometry

71 EIR Table Mitigated Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour LOS Study Intersection Non-Mitigated PM Peak Hour V/C - LOS Mitigated PM Peak Hour V/C - LOS Grand Avenue/Route F E Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps F C Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps F D Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps F D Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive F E Grand Avenue/Baseline Road F D Note: Deficient intersection operation shown in bold. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) ANALYSIS The proposed Project would exceed standards established by the Los Angeles County CMP. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The purpose of the Congestion Management Program (CMP) is to develop a coordinated approach to managing and decreasing traffic congestion by linking the various transportation, land use and air quality planning programs throughout the County. The program is consistent with that of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The CMP program requires review of significant individual projects, which might on their own impact the CMP transportation system. According to the CMP (Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, June 2002), those proposed developments, which meet the following criteria shall be evaluated: All CMP arterial monitoring intersections, including monitored freeway on- or off-ramp intersections, where the proposed project will add 50 or more trips during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours (of adjacent street traffic). Mainline freeway monitoring locations where the project will add 150 or more trips, in either direction, during either the AM or PM weekday peak hours. CMP Study Area Utilizing the CMP guidelines, the following four intersections are forecast to have 50 or more trips added as a result of the proposed Project: I-210 WB Ramps/Baseline Road; Grand Avenue/I-210 EB Ramps; ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

72 EIR I-210 WB Ramps/Lone Hill Avenue; and I-210 EB Ramps/Lone Hill Avenue. CMP Thresholds of Significance To determine whether the addition of Project-generated trips results in a significant impact at a CMP study facility, and thus requires mitigation, the Los Angeles County CMP utilizes the following threshold of significance: A significant project impact occurs when a proposed project increases traffic demand at a CMP study facility by two percent of capacity (V/C > 0.02), causing or worsening LOS F (V/C > 1.00). CMP LOS Analysis Table 5.1-8, CMP Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour LOS, summarizes forecast year 2020 without and with project conditions p.m. peak hour V/C and corresponding LOS of the CMP study intersections; detailed ICU analysis sheets are contained in Appendix Table CMP Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour LOS Study Intersection Forecast Year 2020 Without Project PM Peak Hour Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour Significant Impact? V/C LOS V/C - LOS Grand Avenue/I-210 EB Ramps 0.85 D F Yes I-210 WB Ramps/Baseline Road 0.63 B C No Lone Hill Avenue/I-210 WB Ramps F F Yes Lone Hill Avenue/I-210 EB Ramps E F Yes Note: Deficient intersection operation shown in bold. As also shown in Table 5.1-8, based on Los Angeles County CMP thresholds of significance, three significant impacts are forecast to occur at the following intersections for forecast year 2020 with project conditions: Grand Avenue/I-210 EB Ramps; Lone Hill Avenue/I-210 WB Ramps; and Lone Hill Avenue/I-210 EB Ramps. Recommended CMP Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are recommended to address the project-related CMP significant impacts: ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

73 EIR Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210 On-ramp - Widen the southbound Grand Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and three through lanes to consist of two left-turn lanes and three through lanes. Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps - Widen the northbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and two through lanes to consist of three left-turn lanes and two through lanes. Widen the southbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from three through lanes and one right-turn lane to consist of four through lanes and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound I-210 offramp from one left-turn lane and one shared left-/right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes. Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps - Widen the southbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and three through lanes to consist of two left-turn lanes and three through lanes. Assuming implementation of the recommended mitigation measures at the three intersections, Table 5.1-9, Mitigated CMP PM Peak Hour LOS shows the forecast improved p.m. peak hour LOS of the intersections; detailed LOS analysis sheets are provided in Appendix Table Mitigated CMP PM Peak Hour LOS Study Intersection Non-Mitigated PM Peak Hour V/C - LOS Mitigated PM Peak Hour V/C - LOS Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210 On-ramp F C Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps F D Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps F D Note: Deficient intersection operation shown in bold. As shown in Table 5.1-9, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will reduce project traffic impacts to a level considered not significant by improving the three CMP intersections from LOS F to LOS C or LOS D. CMP Mainline Freeway Analysis CMP freeway mainline LOS is determined through calculation of the volume-tocapacity (V/C) ratio and associated LOS according as shown in Table , V/C and LOS Ranges Freeway Segments. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

74 EIR Table V/C and LOS Ranges Freeway Segments V/C Ratio LOS A > B > C > D > E > 1.00 F Source: 2002 Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County Forecast Year 2020 With Project Conditions I-210 Freeway Segment LOS Existing ADT volume data for I-210 was obtained from the Caltrans web site. Forecast year 2020 traffic volumes (without proposed project) were derived by applying an annual growth rate factor of percent to existing traffic volumes to account for eighteen years of ambient traffic growth in accordance with Exhibit D-1 in the Los Angeles County CMP. Forecast year 2020 with proposed project traffic volumes were derived by adding forecast project-generated trips to forecast year 2020 without project traffic volumes. Table , Forecast Year 2020 With Project Peak Hour I-210 Freeway Segment CMP LOS, summarizes the forecast year 2020 with project conditions p.m. peak hour V/C and corresponding LOS of the CMP study segments. Table Forecast Year 2020 With Project Peak Hour I-210 Freeway Segment CMP LOS Study Segment Forecast Year 2020 Without Project V/C - LOS Forecast Year 2020 With Project V/C - LOS Change in V/C Ratio Significant Impact? I-210 West of Grand Ave C D 0.05 No I-210 WB between Grand Ave & Sunflower Avenue C C 0.02 No I-210 WB between Sunflower Ave & Lone Hill Avenue C C 0.02 No I-210 East of Lone Hill Avenue C C 0.01 No SR-57 South of I C C 0.01 No ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

75 EIR As seen in Table , the addition of project-generated trips at the CMP study segments does not result in a significant impact according to the Los Angeles County CMP established thresholds of significance for forecast year 2020 with project conditions. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Project implementation may cause a cumulatively significant increase in traffic when compared to the traffic capacity of the street system and may exceed an established LOS standard. Project implementation would result in a significant and unavoidable impact in this regard. As noted previously, forecast year 2020 traffic volumes (without proposed Project) were derived by applying a growth rate factor of to existing traffic volumes to account for seventeen years of ambient traffic growth as directed by the City of Glendora staff. It should be noted that the cumulative projects outlined in Section 4.0, Basis for Cumulative Analysis, are inherently included within this annual growth rate factor. As indicated earlier, pursuant to the County CMP, the City s threshold of significance is whether a proposed project increases traffic demand at a study intersection by two percent of capacity (V/C > 0.02), causing or worsening LOS F (V/C > 1.00). As indicated in Table 5.1-6, Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour LOS, based on City of Glendora thresholds of significance, significant impacts are forecast to occur with the addition of Project-generated trips for the Grand Avenue/Route 66, Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66, Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive and Grand Avenue/Baseline Road intersections and for the Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210, Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 and the Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps. As indicated in Table 5.1-7, Mitigated Forecast Year 2020 With Project PM Peak Hour LOS, assuming implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the Grand Avenue/Route 66, Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive and Grand Avenue/Baseline Road intersections and the Grand Avenue/Eastbound I-210, Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 and Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps is improved from LOS F to LOS D or LOS E to mitigate the City of Glendora established threshold of significance. However, there are no feasible recommended mitigation measures to mitigate impacts at the Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66 intersection. Therefore, based on City of Glendora established thresholds of significance, Project implementation would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative traffic impact. MITIGATION MEASURES This section directly corresponds to the identified Impact Statements in the Impacts section. TRAFFIC GENERATION 5.1-1a Grand Avenue/Route 66 - Widen the eastbound Route 66 approach from one left-turn lane, two through lanes, and one right-turn lane to consist of one left turn lane, three through lanes, and one right-turn lane. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

76 EIR 5.1-1b 5.1-1c 5.1-1d 5.1-1e 5.1-1f 5.1-1g Grand Avenue/I-210 EB Ramps - Widen the southbound Grand Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and three through lanes to consist of two left-turn lanes and three through lanes. Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps - Widen the northbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and two through lanes to consist of three left-turn lanes and two through lanes; the two lane westbound I-210 on-ramp will need to be widened by one lane to accommodate the triple left-turn movement. Widen the southbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from three through lanes and one right-turn lane to consist of four through lanes and one right-turn lane. Widen the westbound I-210 off-ramp from one left-turn lane and one shared left- /right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes. Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps - Widen the southbound Lone Hill Avenue approach from one left-turn lane and three through lanes to consist of two left-turn lanes and three through lanes. Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive - Widen the westbound Auto Centre Drive approach from two left-turn lanes and one right-turn lane to consist of two left-turn lanes and two right-turn lanes. Grand Avenue/Baseline Road - Modify the eastbound and westbound Baseline Road approach signal phasing from split-phasing to consist of permitted phasing. City staff shall establish a fair share fee program, correlated to a trip ceiling program of project-generated trips, to fund identified project mitigation measures. CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP) ANALYSIS Refer to Mitigation Measures 5.1-1b, 5.1-1c and 5.1-1d. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS No additional mitigation measures are recommended. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Project implementation would result in significant and unavoidable impacts at the Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66 Intersection due to the intersection constraint of the physical right-of-way necessary to implement improvements to mitigated the forecast significant impact. If the City of Glendora approves the Project, the City shall be required to cite their findings in accordance with Section of CEQA and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section of CEQA. ADMINISTRATIVE DRAFT AUGUST Traffic, Circulation and Parking

77 5.2 AIR QUALITY This Section evaluates air quality associated with short and long-term impacts resulting from buildout of the proposed Project. Information in this Section is based primarily on the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), April 1993 (as revised through November 1993), Air Quality Data (SCAQMD 1998 through 2002); and the SCAQMD Final Air Quality Management Plan (January 1997). EXISTING CONDITIONS SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN The City of Glendora is located in the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), characterized as having a Mediterranean climate (a semi-arid environment with mild winters, warm summers and moderate rainfall). The Basin is a 6,600-square mile area bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east. The Basin includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, in addition to the San Gorgonio Pass area in Riverside County. Its terrain and geographical location determine the distinctive climate of the Basin, as the Basin is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. As a result, the climate is mild, tempered by cool sea breezes. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted infrequently by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. The extent and severity of the air pollution problem in the Basin is a function of the area's natural physical characteristics (weather and topography), as well as man-made influences (development patterns and lifestyle). Factors such as wind, sunlight, temperature, humidity, rainfall and topography all affect the accumulation and/or dispersion of pollutants throughout the Basin. Climate The climate is characterized by moderate temperatures and comfortable humidities with precipitation limited to a few storms during the winter season (November through April). The average annual temperature varies little throughout the Basin, averaging 75 degrees Fahrenheit. However, with a less pronounced oceanic influence, the eastern inland portions of the Basin show greater variability in annual minimum and maximum temperatures. All portions of the Basin have had recorded temperatures over 100 degrees in recent years. January is usually the coldest month at all locations while July and August are usually the hottest months of the year. Although the Basin has a semi-arid climate, the air near the surface is moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for infrequent periods when dry, continental air is brought into the Basin by off-shore winds, the ocean effect is dominant. Periods with heavy fog are frequent; and low stratus clouds, occasionally referred to as high fog are a characteristic climate feature. Annual average relative humidity in the Basin is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern part of the Basin. Precipitation is typically 9 to 14 inches annually in the PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

78 Basin and is rarely in the form of snow or hail due to typically warm weather. The frequency and amount of rainfall is greater in the coastal areas of the Basin. Wind One of the most important climatic factors is the direction and intensity of the prevailing winds. With very light average wind speeds (five to seven miles per hour), the Basin has a limited capability to disperse air contaminants horizontally. Typically, the net transport of air on-shore is greater in the summer, while the net off-shore transport is greater in the winter. Whether there is air movement or stagnation during the morning and evening hours (before these dominant patterns take effect) is one of the critical factors in determining the smog situation on any given day. Sunlight The presence and intensity of sunlight are necessary prerequisites for the formation of photochemical smog. Under the influence of the ultraviolet radiation of sunlight, certain original or primary pollutants (mainly reactive hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen) react to form secondary pollutants (primarily oxidants). Temperature Inversions A temperature inversion is a reversal in the normal decrease of temperature as altitude increases. In most parts of the country, air near ground level is warmer than the air above it. However, Southern California's daily summertime sunshine and high barometric pressure reverse that pattern, creating warmer air at high elevations, which trap pollutants by preventing cooler air from rising to the upper atmosphere. The height of the base of the inversion is known as the mixing height and controls the volume of air available for the mixing and dispersion of air pollutants. The interrelationship of air pollutants and climatic factors are most critical on days of greatly reduced atmospheric ventilation. On days such as these, air pollutants accumulate because of the simultaneous occurrence of three unfavorable factors: low inversions, low maximum mixing heights and low wind speeds. Although these conditions may occur throughout the year, the months of July, August, and September generally account for more than 40 percent of these occurrences. The potential for high contaminant levels varies seasonally for many contaminants. During late spring, summer and early fall, light winds, low mixing heights and sunshine combine to produce conditions favorable for the maximum production of oxidants, mainly ozone. When fairly deep marine layers frequent the Basin during spring and summer, sulfate concentrations achieve yearly peak concentrations. When strong surface inversions are formed on winter nights, especially during the hours before sunrise, coupled with near-calm winds, carbon monoxide from automobile exhausts becomes highly concentrated. The highest yearly concentrations of carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen and nitrates are measured during November, December and January. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

79 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Air Quality Standards Ambient air quality is described in terms of compliance with Federal and State standards. Ambient air quality standards are the levels of air pollutant concentration considered safe to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect people most sensitive to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) were established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) in 1971 for six air pollutants. States have the option of adding other pollutants, to require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods. California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for these pollutants and NAAQS are included in Table 5.2-1, Local Air Quality Levels. The California Air Resource Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the State as attainment, non-attainment, or unclassified for any State standard. An attainment designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A non-attainment designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event, as defined in the criteria. An unclassified designation signifies that the data does not support either an attainment or non-attainment status. State and Federal ambient air quality standards have been established for the following pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM10), and lead (Pb). For most of these pollutants, the State standards are more stringent than the Federal standards. The above-mentioned pollutants are generally known as criteria pollutants. The State has also established ambient air quality standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride and particulate matter. The U.S. EPA in 1997 announced new ambient air quality standards for O3 and PM10. The new standards were intended to provide greater protection of public health. The U.S. EPA proposed to phase out the 1-hour O3 standard and replace it with an 8-hour standard. With respect to PM10, the U.S. EPA proposed a new standard for the smaller particles, PM2.5, or particulates less than 2.5 microns in diameter. The PM2.5 standards included an annual standard and a 24-hour standard. 1 Following announcement of the new national standards, the SCAQMD began collecting monitoring data to determine the region s attainment status with respect to the standards. 1 There are two new Federal PM 2.5 standards: a 24-hour limit set at 65 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ) of ambient air and an annual average limit set at 15 µg/m 3. The current PM 10 standards will be retained. Areas will be considered in attainment for the annual PM 2.5 standard when the three-year average of the annual arithmetic mean is equal to or less than 15µg/m 3. For the new 24-hour standard, attainment will be based on the 98th percentile of PM 2.5 concentrations for each year, averaged over three years, to help compensate for any high concentrations that may be due to unusual meteorological conditions. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

80 Pollutant Carbon Monoxide 2 Ozone 1 (8 Hour) Ozone 1 (1 Hour) Nitrogen Dioxide 1 Sulfur Dioxide 3 California Standard 9.0 ppm for 8 hour NA 0.09 ppm for 1 hour 0.25 ppm for 1 hour 0.25 ppm for 1 hour Particulate Matter (PM10) 2, 5, 6 50 µg/m 3 for 24 hours Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 2,6 NA Federal Primary Standard 9.0 ppm for 8 hour 0.08 ppm for 8 hours 0.12 ppm for 1 hour ppm annual average 0.14 ppm for 24 hours 150 µg/m 3 for 24 hours 65 µg/m 3 for 24 hours Table Local Air Quality Levels Year Maximum 4 Concentration 3.79 ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm µg/m NM 81.0µg/m # of Days State Std. Exceeded NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA # of Days Federal Std. Exceeded NA NA NA NA NA N/A CAAQS/ NAAQS Attainment Status YES/NO NA/NO NO/NO YES/NA YES/YES NO/NO UNCLASSIFIED/ UNCLASSIFIED ppm = parts per million PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less µg/m 3 = micrograms per cubic meter PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less NA = not applicable NM = Not Measured Notes: 1. Data is based on measurements taken at the Glendora-Laurel Monitoring Station located at 840 Laurel Avenue, Glendora, California, approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the Project area. 2. Data is based on measurements taken at the Azusa Monitoring Station located at 803 N. Loren Avenue, Azusa, California, approximately 3.9 miles west of the Project area. 3. Data is based on measurements taken at the Los Angeles-N. Main Street Monitoring Station located at 1630 North Main Street, Los Angeles, California, approximately 26.3 miles southwest of the Project area. 4. Maximum concentration is measured over the same period as the California Standard. 5. PM10 exceedances are based on state thresholds established prior to amendments adopted on June 20, PM10 and PM2.5 exceedances are derived from the number of samples exceeded, not days. Source: California Air Resources Board, ADAM Air Quality data Statistics, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

81 Attainment Status Despite implementing many strict controls, the SCAQMD portion of the Basin still fails to meet the Federal air quality standards for O3, CO and PM10. For State standards, the Los Angeles County portion of the Basin is nonattainment for O3 and PM10. 2 Local Ambient Air Quality The CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air-monitoring stations across the state. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Ambient air pollutant concentrations in the Basin are measured at 37 air quality-monitoring stations operated by the SCAQMD. Local air quality levels within the Project area are monitored by three monitoring stations including the Glendora-Laurel Monitoring Station, the Azusa Monitoring Station and the Los Angeles-North Main Street Monitoring Station. Air quality data from 1998 to 2002 from the monitoring stations is provided in Table Local Air Quality Levels. The following air quality information briefly describes the various types of pollutants. Carbon Monoxide (CO). Carbon monoxide is a colorless and odorless gas. The automobile and other types of motor vehicles are the main source of this pollutant in the Basin. CO concentrations are generally higher along roadways especially in the early mornings. The State and Federal standard for CO is 9.0 parts per million (ppm), averaged over eight hours. The maximum one-hour concentration at the Azusa Monitoring Station averaged 3.5 ppm from 1998 to State and Federal standards were not exceeded between 1998 and The Basin is designated as nonattainment for Federal standards. Ozone (O3). Ozone, a colorless gas with a sharp odor, is one of a number of substances called photochemical oxidants (highly reactive secondary pollutant). These oxidants are formed when hydrocarbons, NOX and related compounds, interact in the presence of ultraviolet sunlight. Both Federal and State standards designate the Basin as being in nonattainment. The State standard for ozone is 0.09 ppm, averaged over one hour. The Federal standard for ozone is 0.12 ppm, averaged over one hour and/or 0.08 ppm, averaged over eight hours. The maximum O3 concentration level measured at the Glendora-Laurel Monitoring Station was in 1998, for the one hour standard and ppm in 1998 for the eight-hour standard. The O3 State standard was exceeded 231 times for the one-hour standard, from 1998 to 2002 and 67 times for the Federal standard, during the same time period. The Federal eight-hour O3 standard was exceeded 114 times from 1998 through Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX or Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)). NO2 is a reddish-brown gas with an odor similar to bleach and is the by-product of fuel combustion which results from mobile and stationary sources. It has complex diurnal concentrations that are typically higher at night. The Basin has relatively low NO2 concentrations, as very few monitoring stations have exceeded the State standard of 0.25 ppm (averaged 2 Obtained from the California Air Resources Board Website updated November 19, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

82 over one hour) since NO2 is itself a regulated pollutant, but it also reacts with hydrocarbons in the presence of sunlight to form Ozone and other compounds that make up photochemical smog. Nitrogen dioxide levels measured at the Glendora- Laurel Monitoring Station have not exceeded the State standard between 1998 and 2002, averaging ppm. The State designates the Basin as attainment for NO2. Oxides of Sulfur (SOX or Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)). SO2 is a colorless gas with a sharp, irritating odor and results from the combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels from mobile and stationary sources. Diurnal concentrations are complex, but are typically higher at night. The State standard for SO2 is 0.25 ppm averaged over one-hour and the Federal standard is 0.14 ppm averaged over 24 hours. The Basin is in attainment for Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), as it has never exceeded the State and Federal standards from 1998 through The highest measured concentration of SO2 occurred in 1999 at ppm. Particulate Matter (PM10). PM10 refers to suspended particulate matter which is smaller than 10 microns or ten one-millionths of a meter. PM10 arises from sources such as road dust, diesel soot, combustion products, construction operations and dust storms. PM10 scatters light and significantly reduces visibility. In addition, these particulates penetrate into lungs and can potentially damage the respiratory tract. On June 20, 2002, CARB adopted a new standard of 50 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m 3 ) averaged over 24 hours. In addition, a new Federal 24-hour standard of 150 µg/m 3 was also established for PM10. Maximum concentrations measured at the Azusa Monitoring Station have fluctuated from 87.0 µg/m 3 over 24 hours in 1998 to µg/m 3 in The Basin is designated as nonattainment for State and Federal PM10 standards. Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5). Due to recent increased concerns over health impacts related to fine particulate matter (particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less), both State and Federal PM2.5 standards have been created. Particulate matter impacts primarily affect infants, children, the elderly, and those with preexisting cardiopulmonary disease. In 1997, the U.S. EPA announced new PM2.5 standards. Industry groups challenged the new standard in court and the implementation of the standard was blocked. However, upon appeal by the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed this decision and upheld the U.S. EPA s new standards. The Federal standard is 65 µg/m 3 averaged over 24 hours. Beginning in 2002, based on three years of monitoring data, the U.S. EPA will designate areas as non-attainment that do not meet the new PM2.5 standards. 3 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs or Reactive Organic Gasses (ROG)). Hydrocarbon compounds are any compounds containing various combinations of hydrogen and carbon atoms that exist in the ambient air. VOCs contribute to the formation of smog and/or may themselves be toxic. VOCs often have an odor and some examples include gasoline, alcohol and the solvents used in paints. There are no specific State or Federal VOC thresholds as they are regulated by individual air districts as O3 precursors. Visibility. Visibility can be defined as the distance that atmospheric conditions permit a person to see at any given time. Technically, visibility is defined as the farthest 3 Environmental Protection Agency Website, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

83 distance an observer can distinguish a large black object against the horizon. Reduced visibility causes aesthetic impairment of surroundings and also interferes with aircraft operations. Visibility may be impaired by natural or man-made sources, including natural aerosols such as precipitation, fog, soil particles, volcanic emissions, vegetation, sea spray and organic decomposition products; and manmade sources such as sulfates and nitrates. The greatest contribution to visibility reduction in the Basin is from light scattering by fine particle aerosols with the size range of 0.1 to 2 microns (a micron is one-millionth of a meter). Based on review of available technical data provided by CARB, visibility was not measured at any of the monitoring stations between 1998 and Total Suspended Particulates (TSP). Total Suspended Particulates (TSP) is the name given to the solid matter suspended in the atmosphere. Approximately 9.5% of TSP is generated by stationary sources. This complicated mixture of natural and man-made materials includes soils particles, biological materials, sulfates, nitrates, organic (or carbon-containing compounds) and lead. A high volume sampler is used to determine TSP concentration by passing a measured column of air through a glass fiber filter. The filter then is weighed to determine the concentration of TSP, after which it is analyzed for lead, sulfate and nitrate by an SCAQMD laboratory. TSP tends to be at higher concentrations in the day and has an unclear seasonal pattern. High dust levels result from strong winds and loose, arid soil. Larger dust particles pose a less serious health threat than small particles produced by fossil fuel combustion. TSP monitoring was discontinued in Lead (Pb). In the Basin, atmospheric lead is generated almost entirely by the combustion of leaded gasoline and contributes less than one percent of the material collected as TSP in Atmospheric lead concentrations have been reduced substantially in recent years due to the lowering of average lead content in gasoline. Exceedances of the State air quality standard for lead (monthly average concentration of 1.50 ug/m 3 ) now are confined to the densely populated portions of Los Angeles County where vehicle traffic is greatest. Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed above, toxic air contaminants (TACs) are another group of pollutants of concern in Southern California. There are many different types of TACs, with varying degrees of toxicity. Sources of TACs include industrial processes such as petroleum refining and chrome plating operations, commercial operations such as gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle exhaust. Public exposure to TACs can result from emissions from normal operations, as well as accidental releases of hazardous materials during upset conditions. Health effects of TACs include cancer, birth defects, neurological damage and death. The SCAQMD implements TAC controls through Federal, State and local programs. Federally, TACs are regulated by EPA under Title III of the CAA. At the State level, the CARB has designated the Federal hazardous air pollutants as TACs, under the authority of AB The Air Toxic Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act (AB 2588) requires inventories and public notices for facilities that emit TACs. Senate Bill 1731 amended AB 2588 to require facilities with significant risks to prepare a risk PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

84 reduction plan (reflected in SCAQMD Rule 1402). SCAQMD also regulates sourcespecific TACs. Diesel exhaust is a growing concern in the Basin area and throughout California. The CARB in 1998 identified diesel engine particulate matter as a TAC. The exhaust from diesel engines includes hundreds of different gaseous and particulate components, many of which are toxic. Many of these toxic compounds adhere to the particles, and because diesel particles are very small, they penetrate deeply into the lungs. Diesel engine particulate matter has been identified as a human carcinogen. Mobile sources (including trucks, buses, automobiles, trains, ships and farm equipment) are by far the largest source of diesel emissions. Studies show that diesel particulate matter concentrations are much higher near heavily traveled highways and intersections. The cancer risk from exposure to diesel exhaust may be much higher that the risk associated with any other toxic air pollutant routinely measured in the region. Prior to the listing of diesel exhaust as a TAC, California had already adopted various regulations that would reduce diesel emissions. These regulations include new standards for diesel fuel, emission standards for new diesel trucks, buses, autos, and utility equipment, and inspection and maintenance requirements for health duty vehicles. Following the listing of diesel engine particulate matter as a TAC, ARB is currently evaluating what additional regulatory action is needed to reduce public exposure. ARB does not plan on banning diesel fuel or engines. ARB may consider additional requirements for diesel fuel and engines, however, as well as other measures to reduce public exposure. With the goal to reduce both toxic and smog-forming air pollutants, the SCAQMD is seeking to shift public agencies to low emissions and alternative fuel vehicles. To enact this policy, the SCAQMD has adopted the following Rules: Adopted Rule 1191 Clean On-Road Light- and Medium-Duty Public Fleet Vehicles Adopted Rule 1192 Clean On-Road Transit Buses Adopted Rule 1193 Clean On-Road Residential and Commercial Refuse Collection Vehicles Adopted Rule 1194 Commercial Airport Ground Access Adopted Rule 1195 Clean On-Road School Buses Adopted Rule 1196 Clean On-Road Heavy-Duty Public Fleet Vehicles Adopted Rule Alternative-Fuel Sweepers Adopted Rule Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels The SCAQMD has proposed that whenever a public fleet operator with 15 or more vehicles replaces or purchases new vehicles, they should be either low-emission or alternative-fueled. The proposal also would cover vehicles in fleets used to transport passengers to and from the region s airports. Odors/Dust Other air quality issues of concern in the Basin include nuisance impacts of odors and dust. Objectionable odors may be associated with a variety of pollutants. Common sources of odors include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

85 facilities, refineries, and chemical plants. Similarly, nuisance dust may be generated by a variety of sources including quarries, agriculture, grading and construction. Odors rarely have direct health impacts, but they can be unpleasant and can lead to anger and concern over possible health effects among the public. Each year, the SCAQMD receives thousands of citizen complaints about objectionable odors. Dust emissions can contribute to increased ambient concentrations of PM10, particularly when dust settles on roadways where it can be pulverized and re-suspended by traffic. Dust emissions also contribute to reduced visibility and soiling of exposed surfaces. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) The SCAQMD has prepared multiple Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs) to accomplish the five percent annual reduction goal. The most recent AQMP was published in To accomplish its task, the AQMP relies on a multi-level partnership of governmental agencies at the Federal, State, regional and local level. These agencies, which include EPA, CARB, local governments, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the SCAQMD, are the cornerstones that implement the AQMP programs AQMP. A 1997 AQMP was prepared and adopted by the SCAQMD on November 15, The 1997 AQMP was adopted by CARB on January 23, The 1997 Plan contains two tiers of control measures: short- and intermediate-term, and long-term. Short- and intermediate-term measures are scheduled to be adopted between 1997 and the year These measures rely on known technologies and other actions to be taken by several agencies that currently have the statutory authority to implement the measures. They are designed to satisfy the Federal CAA requirement of Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) and the CCAA requirement of Best Available Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT). There are 37 stationary source and 24 mobile source control measures in this group. The 1997 AQMP continues to include most of the control measures outlined in the previous 1994 Ozone Plan with minor exceptions, but postpones many marginal measures found to be less cost-effective, drops future indirect-source rules that are now deemed infeasible, and focuses the SCAQMD s efforts on about ten major emission-reduction rules. The SCAQMD will focus its efforts on seven major rules to reduce volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a key ingredient in smog; and the Plan includes new market-based measures giving businesses greater flexibility in meeting emission-reduction requirements, such as intercredit trading and additional credits for mobile source emission reductions. The 1997 AQMP shows that measures outlined in the 1994 Ozone Plan are sufficient to attain the Federal health standards for the two most difficult ingredients in smog, PM10 and ground level O3, by the years 2006 and 2010, respectively. The region already has met the three other Federal health standards for Pb, SO2 and NO2. To help reduce PM10 pollution, the 1997 Plan outlines seven control measures for directly emitted particulates which will reduce emissions from agricultural areas, livestock waste, wood-working operations, construction, and restaurants. The measures will also help control dust from paved and unpaved roads, which accounts for two thirds of the directly emitted particulates. Currently the SCAQMD is PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

86 IMPACTS conducting public hearings regarding the 2003 AQMP Update. The SCAQMD expects to adopt the update by the end of The 1997 AQMP Control Strategies. The 1997 AQMP s off-road mobile source control measures are based on the EPA s proposed Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the Basin. The FIP s proposed control measures are based on a combination of stringent emission standards, declining caps on emission levels and emission/user fees. Sensitive Receptors Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than are the general population. Sensitive populations (sensitive receptors) who are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Land uses which are considered sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers and retirement homes. Table 5.2-2, Sensitive Receptors, identifies land uses in the vicinity of the proposed Project area that are considered sensitive receptors. The distances shown in Table 5.2-2, are approximate measurements measured from Route 66. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA In accordance with CEQA, the effects of a project are evaluated to determine if they will result in a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is required to focus on these effects and offer mitigation measures to avoid or substantially lessen any significant impacts, which are identified. The criteria, or standards, used to determine the significance of impacts may vary depending on the nature of the project. Air quality impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project could be considered significant if they cause any of the following to occur: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan (refer to Impact Statement 5.2-3); Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation (refer to Impact Statements and 5.2-2); Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)(refer to Impact Statement 5.2-4); Exposes sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (refer to Impact Statement 5.2-2); and/or Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant). PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

87 Table Sensitive Receptors Land Use Description/Name Distance in Miles Direction Residential Single-family and multi-family residential North, East, South and West Cullen Elementary School 0.8 North La Fetra Elementary School 0.9 North Sellers Elementary School 0.3 North Stanton Elementary School 0.5 South William Elementary School 0.3 North Glendora High School 0.3 North Schools Whitcomb High School 0.8 North Citrus College 0.2 West Sandburg Elementary School 0.8 North Azusa Pacific University 0.8 West Powell Elementary School 0.6 South Sierra High School 0.8 South Foothill Middle School 0.5 West Vista High School 0.5 South Finkbiner Park 0.6 North South Hills Park 0.4 South Old Hammer Park 0.8 North Big Tree Park 0.0 Sandburg School Park 0.8 North Louie Pompei Sports Park 0.6 South Parks Dawson Avenue Park 0.3 South Centennial Heritage Park 0.2 South San Dimas Canyon Park 0.5 East Horsethief Canyon Park 0.5 East Oakdale Memorial Park 0.4 South Gladstone Park 0.6 South Lone Hill Park 0.6 South Hospitals Huntington East Valley Hospital 0.0 Foothill Presbyterian Johnston Memorial Hospital 0.0 Sources: Los Angeles County, The Thomas Guide, pg. 569, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

88 Based on these standards, the effects of the proposed project have been categorized as either a less than significant impact or a potentially significant impact. Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook establishes thresholds for pollutant emissions generated both during and following construction. Buildout of the proposed project would be required to implement control measures during construction activities in order to reduce the amount of emissions to below the significance thresholds, when possible. SCAQMD construction and operation thresholds are indicated in Table 5.2-3, SCAQMD Thresholds of Significant Contribution to Regional Air Pollution. As previously stated, the Basin is designated non-attainment for State standards for O3 and PM10 and for CO under Federal standards. Table SCAQMD Thresholds of Significant Contribution to Regional Air Pollution Pollutant Threshold of Significant Effect Construction Emissions Operational Emissions Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 100 lbs/day 55 lbs/day Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 lbs/day 550 lbs/day Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 lbs/day 150 lbs/day Source: CEQA Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management District, SHORT-TERM TERM AIR QUALITY IMPACTS Temporary construction-related dust and vehicle emissions would occur during construction within the Project area. Analysis has concluded that impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Short-term air quality impacts would occur during grading and construction operations associated with implementation of the proposed Project. The short-term air quality analysis considers construction emissions as a result of the proposed Project. Temporary impacts include: Clearing, grading, excavating and using heavy equipment or trucks creates large quantities of fugitive dust, and thus PM10; Heavy equipment required for grading and construction generates and emits diesel exhaust emissions; The vehicles of commuting construction workers and trucks hauling equipment generate and emit exhaust emissions; Off-site regional air emissions associated with temporary power lines needed to operate construction equipment (although these emissions are locally PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

89 limited as they are dispersed throughout the western U.S., and individual power plants are required to mitigate air emissions); Emissions from the stationary construction equipment used on-site. Potential odors generated during construction operations are temporary in nature and are not considered to be an impact (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant). It should be noted that emissions produced during grading and construction activities are short-term in nature as they endure only for the duration of construction. Fugitive Dust Emissions Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust (PM10) emissions that may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the Project vicinity. Fugitive dust emissions are associated with land clearing, ground excavation and truck travel on unpaved roadways. Dust emissions also vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific operations and weather conditions. Fugitive dust from grading and construction is expected to be short-term and would cease following Project completion. Additionally, most of this material is inert silicate, rather than the complex organic particulates released from combustion sources, which are more harmful to health. Dust (larger than 10 microns) generated by such activities usually becomes more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem. Of particular health concern is the amount of PM10 (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns) generated as a part of fugitive dust emissions. As previously discussed, PM10 poses a serious health hazard; alone or in combination with other pollutants. The URBEMIS 2002 computer model (adapted from the URBEMIS7G model by the SCAQMD) calculates PM10 fugitive dust as part of the site grading emissions (refer to Table 5.2-4, Construction Emissions). The proposed Project would implement standard construction practices, which include dust control techniques (i.e., daily watering), limitations on construction hours and adherence to SCAQMD Rule 403 (requires watering for inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), which further minimizes fugitive dust emissions. Construction Equipment and Worker Vehicle Exhaust Exhaust emissions from construction activities include emissions associated with the transport of machinery and supplies to and from the Project site, emissions produced on-site as the equipment is used and emissions from trucks transporting materials to/from the site. Emitted pollutants would include ROG, NOX, CO and PM10. However, PM10 emissions would not be significant with implementation of State Vehicle Code Section 23114(b)(F), 23114(e)(2) and 23114(e)(4). Code Section specifies that all trucks that are to haul excavated or graded materials shall be covered in order to prevent material spilling onto public streets and roads. Table 5.2-4, Construction Emissions, presents exhaust emission factors for typical diesel-powered heavy equipment. Computer model results are also included in Appendix The construction model assumes development of approximately 6.25 percent of the total buildout of the Specific Plan per year and buildout by PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

90 Table Construction Emissions Emissions Pollutant (Pounds/Day) Source ROG NOX CO PM10 Unmitigated Emissions SCAQMD Threshold Is Threshold Exceeded Before Mitigation? No No No No ROG = reactive organic gases CO = carbon monoxide NOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 = fine particulate matter Notes: 1 Calculations include emissions from numerous sources including: site grading, construction worker trips, stationary equipment, diesel and gas mobile equipment. Results are based on the maximum amount of site grading, construction and asphalt activity that would occur in one day. Refer to Appendix 15.3, Air Quality Data, for assumptions used in this analysis, including quantified emissions reduction by mitigation measures. Source: Emissions calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 Computer Model as recommended by the SCAQMD and Project specific construction data provided by the Project applicant. The following list of mobile and stationary construction equipment was included in the air modeling calculations. Site Grading 1 Crawler Tractor 8 hours of operation; 1 Off Highway Truck 8 hours of operation; 1 Other Equipment 8 hours of operation; 1 Scraper 8 hours of operation; and 1 Tractor/Loader/Backhoe 8 hours of operation. Building Equipment 1 Concrete/Industrial Saw 8 hours of operation; 1 Other Equipment 8 hours of operation; 1 Rough Terrain forklift 8 hours of operation; and 1 Off Highway Truck 8 hours of operation. As indicated in Table 5.2-4, emissions associated with construction activities within the Project area are not anticipated to exceed SCAQMD construction thresholds. As such, short-term air emissions would be considered less than significant. LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL IMPACTS The proposed Project would result in an overall increase in the local and regional pollutant load due to direct impacts from vehicle emissions and indirect impacts from electricity and natural gas consumption. Combined mobile and area source emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO and PM10. ROG, NOX, CO and PM10 emissions cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, which requires a Statement of Overriding Considerations. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

91 The calculations for the following analysis are based upon the Project Traffic Study (refer to Section 5.1, Traffic and Circulation). Buildout of the Route 66 Specific Plan would occur incrementally over time. However, for analysis purposes, Year 2020 has been assumed as the horizon buildout date. Long-term air quality impacts would consist of mobile source emissions generated from Project-related traffic and from stationary source emissions generated directly from the natural gas consumed and indirectly from the power plant providing electricity to the Project site. Emissions associated with each of these sources are discussed and calculated below. Mobile Source Emissions Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NOX, and PM10 are all pollutants of regional concern (NOX and ROG react with sunlight to form O3 or photochemical smog, and PM10 is readily transported by wind currents). However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source. As previously discussed, the Basin is a nonattainment area for O3 and PM10 (Federal and State) and CO (Federal only) standards. Nitrogen oxides and ROG are regulated O3 precursors (a precursor is defined as a directly emitted air contaminant that, when released into the atmosphere, forms or causes to be formed or contributes to the formation of a secondary air contaminant for which an ambient air quality standard has been adopted). Project-generated vehicle emissions have been estimated using the URBEMIS 2002 computer model (published by the SCAQMD and based on the URBEMIS7G model). This model predicts ROG, CO, NOX, and PM10 emissions from motor vehicle traffic associated with new or modified land uses (refer to Appendix 15.3, Air Quality Data, for model input values used for this Project with the model output). Project trip generation rates were based on the Project Traffic Study and URBEMIS 2002 default settings (refer to Section 5.1, Traffic and Circulation, and Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study). Table 5.2-5, Mobile Source Emissions, presents anticipated regional mobile emissions. Table Mobile Source Emissions Project Pollutant (Pounds/Day) ROG NOX CO PM10 (unmitigated) Mobile Emissions , ROG = reactive organic gases CO = carbon monoxide NOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 = fine particulate matter Source: Based on URBEMIS 2002 modeling results, worst-case seasonal emissions for area and mobile emissions, and trip rate data provided in the Project Traffic Study. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

92 Mobile source emissions (emissions from Project-related traffic) account for the majority of the Project s operational emissions. Operational emissions are based on land use data provided by the Applicant (as discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description), and by assuming buildout occupancy by However, due to the uncertainty of the end users for the proposed Specific Plan, mitigation measures, including the possible analysis for a Health Risk Assessment, will be required of future applicants in order to ensure that particulate diesel emissions do not result in significant impacts to nearby sensitive receptors. Area Source Emissions Area source emissions would be generated due to an increased demand for electrical energy and natural gas consumption with the development of the proposed Project (referred to Table 5.2-6, Area Source Emissions). This assumption is based on the supposition that those power plants supplying electricity to the site are utilizing fossil fuels. Electric power generating plants are distributed throughout the air basin and Western United States and their emissions contribute to the total regional pollutant burden. The primary use of natural gas by the proposed land uses would be for combustion to produce space heating, water heating and other miscellaneous heating or air conditioning. Table Area Source Emissions Project Pollutant (Pounds/Day) ROG NOX CO PM10 (unmitigated) Area Source Emissions ROG = reactive organic gases CO = carbon monoxide NOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 = fine particulate matter Note: 1 Area Source emissions excludes the use of fireplaces and wood burning stoves. Source: Based on URBEMIS 2002 modeling results, worst-case seasonal emissions for area and mobile emissions, and trip rate data provided in the Project Traffic Study. Total Project Operational Emissions: Area and Mobile Sources Table 5.2-7, Long Term Project Emissions, reveals that the mobile source and area emissions associated with the proposed Project would generate pollutant emissions in excess of SCAQMD thresholds. In addition, Table illustrates that despite implementation of the recommended mitigation measures (refer to Mitigation Measures 5.2-2a through 5.2-2c), operational air emissions from the proposed Project would still exceed SCAQMD emission thresholds. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would create a significant and unavoidable impact from ROG, NOx, CO and PM 10 emissions. As the proposed Project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds, the Project would create a significant and unavoidable impact to regional levels of these pollutants. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

93 Project Unmitigated Area Source Emissions 1 Mobile Emissions Table Long-Term Project Emissions Pollutant (Pounds/Day) ROG NOX CO PM , Total Unmitigated Emissions , Mitigated Area Source Emissions 1 Mobile Emissions , Total Mitigated Emissions SCAQMD Threshold Is Threshold Exceeded? (Significant Impact?) Yes Yes Yes Yes ROG = reactive organic gases CO = carbon monoxide NOX = nitrogen oxides PM10 = fine particulate matter Note: 1 Area Source emissions excludes the use of fireplaces and wood burning stoves. Source: Based on URBEMIS 2002 modeling results, worst-case seasonal emissions for area and mobile emissions, and trip rate data provided in the Project Traffic Study. Localized CO Emissions To identify CO hotspots, the AQMD recommends performing a CO hotspot analysis when a project increases the volume to capacity ratio (also called the intersection capacity utilization) by 0.02 (2 percent) for any intersection with an existing (2003) level of service (LOS) D or worse. The following intersections meet this criteria: Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66; Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps; Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps; and Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive. A CALINE-4 analysis was conducted to identify potential CO concentrations at four intersections (refer to Table 5.2-8, Projected Carbon Monoxide Concentrations). Additionally, Appendix 15.3, Air Quality Data, includes modeling output used to estimate air pollutant emissions and atmospheric dispersion of pollutants from traffic generated by buildout of the proposed Specific Plan, in addition to future ambient growth. The downwind concentrations of CO were estimated using a gaussian plume model. The gaussian plume model produces forecasts of atmospheric dispersion by estimating dispersion from forecasts of wind direction, wind speed, cloud cover and cloud ceiling. The atmospheric forecasts are statistically derived surface conditions produced for over 1,000 locations in the United States. Dispersion was estimated for typical worst-case atmospheric conditions that would result in the least dispersion of pollutants. In year 2020, these atmospheric conditions typically occur during the morning hours from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. or 11:00 a.m., when low wind speeds (less than one yard, or one meter per second), stable air and constant wind direction combine to minimize dispersal of pollutants. These conditions are expected to occur in combination for two hours or more on only a few mornings per year. In more PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

94 typical morning conditions, less stable air and substantially more variation in wind direction disperse pollutants over a much wider area, minimizing the area exposed to the highest pollutant levels. During other times of the day, much lower stability and higher wind speeds are typical. Intersection Table Projected Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 1-Hour State Standard 1-Hour CO (ppm) Proposed Project 1 8-Hour State Standard 8-Hour CO (ppm) Proposed Project 1 Lone Hill Avenue/Route ppm 5.7 ppm 9 ppm 4.0 ppm Lone Hill Avenue/Westbound I-210 Ramps 20 ppm 5.5 ppm 9 ppm 3.9 ppm Lone Hill Avenue/Eastbound I-210 Ramps 20 ppm 5.4 ppm 9 ppm 3.8 ppm Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive 20 ppm 5.6 ppm 9 ppm 3.9 ppm Notes: 1. As measured at a distance of 10 feet from the corner of the intersection predicting the highest value. Presented 1-hour CO concentrations include a background concentration of 5.2 ppm. Eight-hour concentrations are based on a persistence of 0.7 of the 1-hour concentration. Source: A CALINE-4 analysis was conducted to identify potential CO concentrations at four intersections. The worst-case conditions were analyzed, which may occur up to five to ten days per year, resulting in a plume of high pollutant concentrations downwind from the four intersections analyzed. Intersection turning movements are based on data supplied by the Project Traffic Report (refer to Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study). The projected traffic volumes were then modeled using the CALINE4 dispersion model. The resultant values were then added to an ambient concentration. For the purposes of this analysis, the ambient concentration is taken as the highest recorded one-hour level from the past five years of available data (6.1 ppm) at the Azusa Monitoring Station. Future ambient concentrations would be far lower than present levels based upon expected trends and advancing technologies. Maximum Year hour CO concentration with the proposed Specific Plan is 5.7 ppm for the Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66 intersection, which is well below the State and Federal standards of 20 ppm and 35 ppm, respectively. The proposed Specific Plan would not result in adverse CO concentrations. Additionally, the maximum future 8-hour CO concentration with the proposed Specific Plan is 4.0 ppm for the same intersection, which is well below the State and Federal standard of 9 ppm. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in adverse CO emissions. CONSISTENCY WITH AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN The Project would conflict with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Analysis has concluded that the proposed Project is inconsistent with the AQMP criteria. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is determined based on two key indicators. These are: Will the project result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations? PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

95 Will the project exceed the assumptions in the AQMP in 2010 or increments based on the year of project buildout phase? According to the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the purpose of the consistency finding is to determine if a project is inconsistent with the assumptions and objectives of the regional air quality plans, and thus if it would interfere with the region s ability to comply with Federal and State air quality standards. If the project is inconsistent, local governments need to consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency. It is important to note that even if a project is found consistent it could still have a significant impact on air quality under CEQA. Consistency with the AQMP means that a project is consistent with the goals, objectives, and assumptions in the respective plan to achieve the federal and State air quality standards. Traffic generation associated with buildout of the proposed Project, in combination with existing and future background traffic would have a significant impact at five of the 15 key study intersections analyzed within the Traffic Study, refer to Section 5.1, Traffic and Circulation. The five locations forecast to operate at an unacceptable LOS with buildout of the proposed Project (Year 2020), include: Grand Avenue/Route 66; Lone Hill Avenue/Route 66; Lone Hill Avenue/I-210 Westbound Ramps; Lone Hill Avenue/I-210 Eastbound Ramps; and Lone Hill Avenue/Auto Centre Drive The remaining ten key study intersections are forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS D or better) during the weekday AM and PM peak commute hours with the addition of Project traffic. Based on Table 5.2-7, Long-Term Project Emissions, calculated for the currently proposed land uses (URBEMIS2002), it is estimated that the net increase in pollutants would be pounds per day (ppd) of ROG, ppd of NOX, 1,522.9 ppd of CO, and ppd of PM10. These net increases would exceed the SCAQMD daily emissions thresholds for all criteria pollutants. The proposed Project would result in the deterioration of the level of service (LOS) at intersections in the Project vicinity following implementation of referenced mitigation. Based upon a significant impact on traffic levels and operational air quality, the proposed Project would conflict with the goals and policies set forth within the AQMP. Therefore, though the Project would not exceed assumptions in the AQMP for Year 2020, the Project could increase the severity or frequency of existing air quality violations. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Impacts to regional air quality resulting from buildout of the Specific Plan and cumulative projects would significantly impact existing regional air quality levels on a cumulative basis. Impacts in this regard would be significant and unavoidable. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

96 The annual short-term and long-term emissions associated with the proposed project would be dependent on the internal phasing of each future development project. Adherence to SCAQMD rules and regulations would help to alleviate potential impacts related to cumulative conditions. A comparison of the projected emissions for the Basin in the 1997 AQMP and the emission estimates from the proposed project help determine the extent of the air quality impacts that the project would have on the environment and surrounding air quality. Projected Basin emission estimates for the Year 2020 are currently unavailable, but have been determined based on the 1997 AQMP estimates for years 2000, 2006 and Projected emissions for each pollutant were extrapolated from the 1997 AQMP based on the trend of each pollutant from 2000 to Table 5.2-9, Projected Emission Estimates for SCAB from the 1997 AQMP Compared to Project Emissions, lists the percent comparison of the cumulative projects (refer to Section 4.0, Basis for Cumulative Analysis) combined with the proposed Project, with the projected Basin estimates. From the emissions presented, it is evident that emissions from the proposed project and cumulative projects would add to the overall pollutant load in the Basin. Therefore, buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would have a significant and unavoidable impact in relation to cumulative impacts. Table Projected Emission Estimates for SCAB from the 1997 AQMP Compared to Project Emissions Pollutant Projected AQMP Emissions 1 Year 2020 Emissions Estimates (lbs/day) Cumulative Projects Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan 2 Total Percent Change ROG 1,182, NOx 839, CO 3,490,000 1, , , PM10 992, Note: 1 - Year 2020 AQMP emissions are linearly extrapolated based on 2000 to 2010 emission trends in the 1997 AQMP. Source: Based on URBEMIS 200 modeling results, worst-case seasonal emissions for area and mobile emissions, and trip rate data provided in the Project Traffic Study. MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures directly correspond to the identified impact statements provided in the impacts Subsection for the proposed Project: SHORT-TERM TERM AIR QUALITY IMPACTS 5.2-1a During clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations, excessive fugitive dust emissions shall be controlled by regular watering or other dust preventive measures using the following procedures, as specified in the South Coast Air Quality Management Districts Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. On-site vehicle speed shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

97 All on-site construction roads with vehicle traffic shall be watered periodically. Streets adjacent to the Project reach shall be swept as needed to remove silt that may have accumulated from construction activities so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. All material excavated or graded shall be sufficiently watered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. Watering shall occur at least twice daily with complete coverage, preferable in the late morning and after work is done for the day. All material transported on-site or off-site shall be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust. The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation operations shall be minimized so as to prevent excessive amounts of dust. These control techniques shall be indicated on project grading plans. Compliance with this measure shall be subject to periodic site inspections by the City. Visible dust beyond the property line emanating from the Project shall be prevented to the maximum extent feasible b 5.2-1c Per standard construction practices, the duration of grading activities is specified in order to allow the scheduling of air quality regulations pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 403. Project grading plans shall show the duration of grading activities. Ozone precursor emissions from construction equipment vehicles shall be controlled by maintaining equipment engines in good condition and in proper tune per manufacturer's specifications, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Compliance with this measure shall be subject to periodic inspections of construction equipment vehicles by the City. All trucks that are to haul excavated or graded material on-site shall comply with State Vehicle Code Section 23114, with special attention to Sections 23114(b)(F), (e)(2) and (e)(4) as amended, regarding the prevention of such material spilling onto public streets and roads. LONG-TERM OPERATIONAL IMPACTS 5.2-2a Should a potential end-user be identified whose land use would cause a particulate diesel index of /m 3 or increase the volume to capacity ratio (also called the Intersection Capacity Utilization) by 0.02 (2 percent) for any intersection with a LOS of D or worse, a preliminary screening shall be conducted per SCAQMD Rule 1401 and 212 to determine whether a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) shall be prepared. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

98 5.2-2b Pursuant to SCAQMD recommendations, prior to the issuance of building permits for any future development, an applicant shall submit, and the Director of Planning and Redevelopment shall approve an operationemissions mitigation plan. The plan shall identify implementation procedures for each of the following emissions reduction measures and all feasible mitigation measures shall be implemented. If certain measures are determined infeasible, an explanation thereof shall be provided. Utilize built-in energy-efficient appliances to reduce energy consumption and emissions. Utilize energy-efficient and automated controls for air conditioners and lighting to reduce electricity consumption and associated emissions. Utilize light-colored roofing materials as opposed to dark roofing materials to conserve electrical energy for air-conditioning. Provide shade trees in residential subdivisions as well as public areas, including parks, to reduce building heating and cooling needs, whenever feasible. Ensure that whenever feasible, commercial truck traffic is diverted from local roadways to off-peak periods. Centralize space heating and cooling for multiple-family dwelling units and commercial space. Orient buildings north/south for reducing energy-related combustion emissions. Use solar energy, when feasible. Use high rating insulation in walls and ceilings c Future employment generating non-residential development shall comply with the City s TDM ordinance. CONSISTENCY WITH AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN No feasible mitigation measures exist. Based on the analysis provided above, the proposed Project would be inconsistent with the regional air quality management plan due to unavoidable impacts associated with Project emissions. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS SCAQMD Standards and City Municipal Code requirements would be implemented on a project-by-project basis. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

99 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The following air quality impacts would remain significant and unavoidable following mitigation: Project Operations: (ROG, CO, NOX and PM10) emissions from Project operations. Project implementation would result in a significant unavoidable impact with respect to consistency with the AQMP. Cumulative development would also result in significant and unavoidable impacts to regional air quality levels of ROG, NOX, CO and PM10. If the City of Glendora approves the Project, the City shall be required to adopt findings in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines and prepare a Statement of Overriding Considerations in accordance with Section of the CEQA Guidelines. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Air Quality

100 5.3 NOISE The purpose of this Section is to analyze Project-related noise source impacts onsite and to surrounding land uses. Mitigation measures are also recommended to minimize the noise impacts of the Project. This Section evaluates short-term construction related impacts as well as long-term buildout conditions. Information in this Section was obtained from the City of Glendora General Plan (February 1992) and the Glendora Municipal Code (June 1996, Amended). Additionally, information was compiled from the City of Glendora Noise Regulation, Chapter 9.44 of the Municipal Code. For the purposes of mobile source noise modeling and contour distribution, traffic information contained in the Project Traffic Study was utilized (refer to Section 5.1, Traffic and Circulation, and Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study). Refer to Appendix 15.4, Noise Data, for the assumptions used in this analysis. EXISTING CONDITIONS NOISE SCALES AND DEFINITIONS Sound is described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (db). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency-dependent rating scale has been revised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dba) performs this compensation by discriminating against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. The logarithmic scale compresses the wide range in sound pressure levels to a more usable range of numbers in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquakes. In terms of human response to noise, a sound 10 dba higher than another is judged to be twice as loud and 20 dba higher four times as loud and so forth. Everyday sounds normally range from 30 dba (very quiet) to 100 dba (very loud). Examples, of various sound levels in different environments are shown in Table 5.3-1, Sound Levels and Human Response. Many methods have been developed for evaluating community noise to account for, among other things: The variation of noise levels over time; The influence of periodic individual loud events; and The community response to changes in the community noise environment. Numerous methods have been developed to measure sound over a period of time. These methods include: 1) the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL); 2) the Equivalent Sound Level (Leq); and 3) Day/Night Average Sound Level (Ldn). These methods are described below. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

101 Table Sound Levels and Human Response db(a) Noise Source Noise Level 150 Carrier Jet Operation 140 Harmfully Loud 130 Pain Threshold Jet Takeoff (200 feet; thence.) 120 Discotheque Unmuffled Motorcycle 110 Maximum Vocal Effort Auto Horn (3 feet; thence.) Rock'n Roll Band Physical Discomfort Riveting Machine Loud Power Mower Jet Takeoff (2000 feet; thence.) Garbage Truck Heavy Truck (50 feet; thence.) Pneumatic Drill (50 feet; thence.) 90 Alarm Clock Freight Train (50 feet; thence.) Vacuum Cleaner (10 feet; thence.) 80 Annoying Response 100 Very Annoying Hearing Damage (Steady 8-Hour Exposure) Freeway Traffic (50 feet; thence.) 70 Telephone Use Difficult Dishwashers 60 Intrusive Air Conditioning Unit (20 feet; thence.) Light Auto Traffic (100 feet; thence.) 50 Quiet Living Room 40 Bedroom Library 30 Very Quiet Soft Whisper (15 feet; thence.) Broadcasting Studio Just Audible 0 Threshold of Hearing Source: Melville C. Branch and R. Dale Beland, Outdoor Noise in the Metropolitan Environment, 1970, page 2. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) The predominant community noise rating scale used in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). The CNEL reading represents the average of 24 hourly readings of equivalent levels, known as Leq s, based on an A-weighted decibel with upward adjustments added to account for increased noise sensitivity in the evening and night periods. These adjustments are +5 dba for the evening, 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., and +10 dba for the night, 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. CNEL may be indicated by dba CNEL or just CNEL. Leq The Leq is the sound level containing the same total energy over a given sample time period. The Leq can be thought of as the steady sound level, which, in a stated PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

102 period of time, would contain the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level during the same period. Leq is typically computed over 1, 8 and 24-hour sample periods. Day Night Average (Ldn) Another commonly used method is the day/night average level or Ldn. The Ldn is a measure of the 24-hour average noise level at a given location. It was adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for developing criteria for the evaluation of community noise exposure. It is based on a measure of the average noise level over a given time period called the Leq. The Ldn is calculated by averaging the Leq s for each hour of the day at a given location after penalizing the sleeping hours (defined as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), by 10 dba to account for the increased sensitivity of people to noises that occur at night. The maximum noise level recorded during a noise event is typically expressed as Lmax. The sound level exceeded over a specified time frame can be expressed as Ln (i.e., L90, L50, L10, etc.). L50 equals the level exceeded 50 percent of the time, L10 ten percent of the time, etc. As previously mentioned, people tend to respond to changes in sound pressure in a logarithmic manner. In general, a 3 dba change in sound pressure level is considered a just detectable difference in most situations. A 5 dba change is readily noticeable and a 10 dba change is considered a doubling (or halving) of the subjective loudness. It should be noted that a 3 dba increase or decrease in the average traffic noise level is realized by a doubling or halving of the traffic volume, or by about a 7 mile per hour (mph) increase or decrease in speed. For each doubling of distance from a point noise source, the sound level will decrease by 6 dba. In other words, if a person is 100 feet from a machine, and moves to 200 feet from that source, sound levels will drop approximately 6 dba. For each doubling of distance from a line source, like a roadway, noise levels are reduced by 3 to 5 decibels, depending on the ground cover between the source and the receiver. Noise Attenuation Noise barriers provide approximately a 5 dba noise reduction (additional reduction may be provided with a barrier of appropriate height, material, location and length). A row of buildings provides up to 5 dba noise reduction with a 1.5 dba reduction for each additional row up to a maximum reduction of approximately 10 dba. The exact degree of noise attenuation depends on the nature and orientation of the structure and intervening barriers. Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards This section describes the laws, ordinances, regulations and standards that are applicable to the proposed Specific Plan. Regulatory requirements related to environmental noise are typically promulgated at the local level. However, Federal and State agencies provide standards and guidelines to the local jurisdictions. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

103 State of California California Environmental Quality Act. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was enacted in 1970 and requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts. Under CEQA, a project has a potentially significant impact if the project exposes people to noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance. Additionally, under CEQA, a project has a potentially significant impact if the project creates a substantial increase in the ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. If a project has a potentially significant impact, mitigation measures must be considered. If mitigation measures to reduce the impact to less than significant are not feasible due to economic, social, environmental, legal, or other conditions, the most feasible mitigation measures must be considered. California Government Code. California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of their comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services as shown in Table 5.3-2, California Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, and clearly unacceptable noise levels for various land use types. Single-family homes are normally acceptable in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and conditionally acceptable up to 70 CNEL. Multiple-family residential uses are normally acceptable up to 65 CNEL and conditionally acceptable up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries and churches are normally acceptable up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial and professional uses. In cities that do not have established noise standards regarding vehicular traffic, the land use compatibility guidelines identified in Table are utilized to determine the significance of noise impacts. City of Glendora Noise Standards Chapter 9.44, Noise Regulation, of the City of Glendora Municipal Code pertains to the regulation of stationary noise sources (i.e., air conditioners, loading docks, etc.). Table 5.3-3, City of Glendora Noise Standards, illustrates the stationary noise standards established by the City of Glendora. Traffic noise is not subject to Chapter 9.44 of the Municipal Code. Rather, the City of Glendora adheres to a CNEL land use compatibility standard (refer to Table 5.3-2). Primary sources of noise associated with the implementation of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan are traffic related. Section , Construction of Buildings and Projects, specifies the noise conditions permitted for construction activities. It is unlawful to operate equipment or perform outside construction activities within a residential zone or within 500 feet of a residential unit between the hours of 9:00 pm to 7:00 am. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

104 Table California Land Use Compatibility Noise Guidelines LAND USE CATEGORY Residential - Low Density, Single-Family, Duplex, Mobile Homes Normally Acceptable COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE Ldn or CNEL, dba Conditionally Acceptable Normally Unacceptable Clearly Unacceptable Residential - Multiple Family Transient Lodging - Motel, Hotels Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals, Nursing Homes Auditoriums, Concert Halls, Amphitheaters NA NA Sports Arenas, Outdoor Spectator Sports NA NA Playgrounds, Neighborhood Parks NA Golf Courses, Riding Stables, Water Recreation, Cemeteries Office Buildings, Business Commercial and Professional Industrial, Manufacturing, Utilities, Agriculture NA NA NA Source: Office of Noise Control, California Department of Health. Notes: 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, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable - New Construction or development should 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. NA: Not Applicable PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

105 Table City of Glendora Noise Standards Land Use Noise Level Time Period 55 dba 7:00 am 7:00 pm Single-Family Residential 50 dba 7:00 pm 10:00 pm 45 dba 10:00 pm 7:00 am 55 dba 7:00 am 7:00 pm Multi-Family Residential 55 dba 7:00 pm 10:00 pm 50 dba 10:00 pm 7:00 am 65 dba 7:00 am 7:00 pm Commercial 65 dba 7:00 pm 10:00 pm 60 dba 10:00 pm 7:00 am 70 dba 7:00 am 7:00 pm Manufacturing 70 dba 7:00 pm 10:00 pm 70 dba 10:00 pm 7:00 am 55 dba 7:00 am 7:00 pm Special Zones 50 dba 7:00 pm 10:00 pm 45 dba 10:00 pm 7:00 am Source: City of Glendora Municipal Code, Chapter 9.44, Noise Regulation. Section , Vibration, specifies the conditions for vibration creation with Commercial or Industrial zones which may impact residential areas. The conditions are based upon frequency (cycles per second), vibration displacement (in inches) and impact. Refer to Table 5.3-4, City of Glendora Vibration Requirements. Table City of Glendora Vibration Requirements Frequency (Cycles per Second) Vibration Displacement (In Inches) Impact Under and over Source: City of Glendora Municipal Code, Section , Vibration. LOCATION OF SENSITIVE E RECEPTORS Certain land uses are particularly sensitive to noise, including schools, hospitals, rest homes, long-term medical and mental care facilities and parks and recreation areas. Residential areas are also considered noise sensitive, especially during the nighttime hours. Table 5.3-5, Sensitive Receptors, includes land uses in the vicinity of the proposed project area that would be considered sensitive receptors. The distances shown in Table 5.3-5, are approximate measurements measured from Route 66. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

106 Table Sensitive Receptors Land Use Description/Name Distance in Miles Direction Residential Single-family and multi-family residential North, East, South and West Cullen Elementary School 0.8 North La Fetra Elementary School 0.9 North Sellers Elementary School 0.3 North Stanton Elementary School 0.5 South William Elementary School 0.3 North Glendora High School 0.3 North Schools Whitcomb High School 0.8 North Citrus College 0.2 West Sandburg Elementary School 0.8 North Azusa Pacific University 0.8 West Powell Elementary School 0.6 South Sierra High School 0.8 South Foothill Middle School 0.5 West Vista High School 0.5 South Finkbiner Park 0.6 North South Hills Park 0.4 South Old Hammer Park 0.8 North *Big Tree Park 0.0 Sandburg School Park 0.8 North Louie Pompei Sports Park 0.6 South Parks Dawson Avenue Park 0.3 South Centennial Heritage Park 0.2 South San Dimas Canyon Park 0.5 East Horsethief Canyon Park 0.5 East Oakdale Memorial Park 0.4 South Gladstone Park 0.6 South Lone Hill Park 0.6 South Hospitals *Huntington East Valley Hospital 0.0 *Foothill Presbyterian Johnston Memorial Hospital 0.0 Notes: * Indicates sensitive receptors located within the Project area. Sources: Los Angeles County, The Thomas Guide, pg. 569, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

107 IMPACTS EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENTS Computer Modeling The existing and future roadway noise levels within the vicinity of the proposed Project were projected using the Federal Highway Administration s Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD ) together with several roadway and site parameters. These parameters determine the projected impact of vehicular traffic noise and include the roadway cross-section (e.g., number of lanes), the roadway width, the average daily traffic (ADT), the vehicle travel speed, the percentages of auto and truck traffic, the roadway grade, the angle-of-view and the site conditions ( hard or soft ). The model does not account for ambient noise levels (i.e., noise from adjacent land uses) or topographical differences between the roadway and adjacent land uses. Noise projections are based on modeled vehicular traffic as derived from the Project Traffic Study. A 40 to 55 mile per hour (mph) average vehicle speed was assumed for existing conditions (varies depending on roadway) based on empirical observations and posted maximum speeds along the adjacent roadways. ADT estimates were obtained from the Project Traffic Report (refer to Appendix 15.2, Traffic Study). Existing Traffic Noise Levels Table 5.3-6, Existing Traffic Noise Contour Levels, indicates the location of the 60, 65, and 70 CNEL noise contours associated with vehicular traffic along local roadways as modeled with the aforementioned FHWA computer model. Vehicular noise along ten roadways was modeled to estimate existing noise levels from mobile traffic. In order to assess the potential for mobile source noise impacts, it is necessary to determine the noise currently generated by vehicles traveling through the Project area. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Appendix G, Initial Study Checklist, of the CEQA Guidelines contains analysis guidelines related to the assessment of noise impacts. These guidelines have been utilized as thresholds of significance for this analysis. As stated in Appendix G, a project may create a significant environmental impact if one or more of the following occurs: Exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies (refer to Impact Statements 5.3-2, and 5.3-4); Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels (refer to Impact Statement 5.3-1); PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

108 Table Existing Traffic Noise Contour Levels Roadway Segment ADT 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline Distance from Roadway Centerline to: (Feet) 60 CNEL Noise Contour 65 CNEL Noise Contour 70 CNEL Noise Contour Amelia N/O Route 66 4, Amelia S/O Route 66 4, Barranca N/O Route 66 12, Barranca S/O Route 66 14, Elwood N/O Route 66 2, Elwood S/O Route 66 1, Glendora N/O Route 66 14, Glendora S/O Route 66 16, Grand N/O Route 66 17, Grand S/O Route 66 22, Grand N/O Baseline 13, Grand S/O Baseline 13, Lone Hill N/O Route 66 12, Lone Hill S/O Route 66 26, Lorraine N/O Route 66 7, Pasadena N/O Route 66 2, Pasadena S/O Route 66 2, Route 66 E/O Amelia 18, Route 66 E/O Lone Hill 20, Route 66 W/O Barranca 16, Route 66 W/O Elwood 24, Route 66 W/O Glendora 18, Route 66 W/O Grand 17, Route 66 W/O Lone Hill 30, Route 66 W/O Lorraine 23, Route 66 W/O Pasadena 23, Route 66 W/O Vecino 16, Route 66 W/O Vermont 19, Vermont N/O Route 66 3, Vermont S/O Route 66 1, Note: Noise level models utilized existing 2002 roadway cross-section data and data contained within the Traffic Report. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

109 A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact Statement 5.3-2); A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (refer to Impact Statement 5.3-1); For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant); and For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant). Based on these standards, the effects of the proposed Project have been categorized as either a less than significant impact or a potentially significant impact. Mitigation measures are recommended for potentially significant impacts. If a potentially significant impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level through the application of mitigation, it is categorized as a significant and unavoidable impact. The standards used to evaluate the significance of impacts are often qualitative rather than quantitative because appropriate quantitative standards are either not available for many types of impacts or are not applicable for some types of projects. Significance of Changes in Ambient Noise Levels Changes from over 5 dba may be noticed by some individuals and, therefore may be considered an environmental impact, since under these conditions sporadic complaints may occur. Changes in community noise levels of less than 3 dba are normally not noticeable and are therefore considered less than significant. 1 Based on this information, the City of Glendora has selected the following thresholds for this analysis: An increase of 5 dba or greater in noise levels occurring from project-related activities would be significant when the No Project noise level is below 65 dba CNEL. Additionally, an increase of 3 dba or greater in noise levels occurring from project-related activities would be significant when the No Project noise level is above 65 dba CNEL. Stationary noise associated with the operation of any facility within the Specific Plan Area is considered significant if it would create, maintain, cause or allow the sound level, when measured on any other property, to exceed the allowable exterior sound levels within Chapter 9.44 of the Municipal Code. 1 Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Bolt, Beranek and Newman, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

110 SHORT-TERM TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS Grading and construction within the Project area would result in temporary noise impacts to nearby noise sensitive receptors. Analysis has concluded that construction noise impacts would be temporary, and subject to the City of Glendora Municipal Code requirements. With compliance to City Code requirements and recommended mitigation measures, impacts are concluded to be less than significant. Construction activities generally occur in a short and temporary duration, lasting from a few days to a period of months. Groundborne noise and other types of construction related noise impacts would typically occur during the initial site preparation, which can create the highest levels of noise. Generally, site preparation has the shortest duration of all construction phases. Activities that occur during this phase include earthmoving and soils compaction. High groundborne noise levels and other miscellaneous noise levels can be created during this phase due to the operation of heavy-duty trucks, backhoes and front-end loaders. In addition to construction noise from a project site, the construction periods would also cause increased noise along access routes to the site due to movement of equipment and workers on the site. The primary heavy construction equipment /vehicles are expected to be moved on-site during the initial construction period and would have a less than significant short-term noise impact affect on nearby roadways. Daily transportation of construction workers is not expected to cause a significant effect since this traffic would not be a substantial percentage of current daily volumes in the area and would not be anticipated to increase traffic noise levels by more than 1 dba. A reasonable worst-case assumption is that the 3 loudest pieces of equipment would operate simultaneously and continuously over at least 1 hour. The combined sound level of three of the loudest pieces of equipment (scraper, bulldozer and heavy truck) is 92 dba measured at 50 feet from the noise source. Table 5.3-7, Estimated Construction Noise in the Project Area, which assumes this combined source level, summarizes predicted noise levels at various distances from an active construction site. These estimations of noise levels take into account distance attenuation, attenuation from molecular absorption and anomalous excess attenuation 2. Construction noise would be most noticeable during the initial months of siteintensive grading. The primary sources of acoustical disturbance will be random incidents, which would last less than one minute, such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts. These impacts, however, are short-term and would cease upon completion of the grading/construction phase. Although development within the Project area would be phased out and built according to market demand, construction noise impacts would primarily be limited to short durations of grading activity. As such, construction impacts are concluded to be less than significant, with implementation of the control measures cited in Section and Section of the City s Municipal Code. Additional mitigation measures are recommended to reduce construction 2 Hoover, R. M., and R. H. Keith Noise control for buildings, manufacturing plants, equipment and products. Houston, TX: Hoover & Keith, Inc. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

111 noise impacts where it is feasible and reasonable to do so (refer to Mitigation Measures). Implementation of the recommended mitigation (i.e., muffling/ placement of construction equipment and stockpiling/staging of construction vehicles) and compliance with Code requirements as outlined above, would serve to minimize the length of time residents are exposed to significant noise levels. Additionally, it should be noted that the estimated construction noise levels do not account for any noise attenuation due to existing walls, berms, intervening structures or topography. These factors may account for an acoustical attenuation level of up to 3 dba. With adherence to the Municipal Code and due to the relatively short period of construction grading periods, noise and vibration impacts are concluded to be less than significant. Table Estimated Construction Noise in the Project Area Distance to Receptor (Feet) Distance Attenuation Sound Level at Receptor (dba) , , , , , , , , NOTE: The following assumptions were utilized: Basic sound level drop-off rate: 6.0 db per doubling distance Molecular absorption coefficient: 0.7 db per 1,000 feet Analogous excess attenuation: 1.0 db per 1,000 feet Reference sound level: 92 dba Distance for reference sound level: 50 feet Assumes simultaneous operation of 1 scraper, 1 heavy truck and 1 bulldozer PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

112 LONG-TERM NOISE IMPACTS Analysis has concluded that long-term noise impacts would be less than significant for roadway segments under the Year 2020 buildout traffic scenario. In accordance with the Project Traffic Study, mobile noise impacts on the surrounding street network were modeled for Existing, Future (2020) and Future (2020) Plus Project conditions (refer to Exhibit 5.3-1, Year 2020 Noise Contours). It should be noted that identified estimates do not adjust for any existing noise barriers or differences in elevation and only identify traffic noise generated along a specific roadway segment as a result of the proposed Project Traffic Noise Levels Table 5.3-8, Year 2020 Exterior Noise Exposure Levels Adjacent to Nearby Roadways, indicates differences in noise levels for the analyzed roadways within the City of Glendora. According to Table 5.3-8, under the 2020 Without Project scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from centerline would range from approximately 53 to 68 dba. The highest noise levels would occur along Route 66, west of Lone Hill. Noise levels along this roadway segment would be 68.3 dba at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The lowest noise levels would occur along Vermont, south of Route 66. Noise levels along this roadway segment would be 52.9 dba at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. In Table 5.3-8, under the 2020 With Project scenario, noise levels at a distance of 100 feet from centerline would also range from approximately 56 to 69 dba. Similar to the 2020 Without Project scenario, the highest noise levels would occur along Route 66, west of Lone Hill. Noise levels along this roadway segment would be 69.4 dba at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The lowest noise levels would occur along Vermont, south of Route 66. Noise levels along this roadway segment would be 56.0 dba at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. Table also compares the 2020 Without Project scenario with the 2020 With Project scenario. The highest noise increase would occur along Vermont, north of Route 66, which would have a noise increase of 3.8 dba. Under the 2020 Without Project Scenario, this roadway segment would be 57.9 dba at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. As noted previously, an increase of 5 dba or less is considered less than significant when the No Project noise levels are less than 65 dba CNEL. Additionally, an increase of 3 dba or greater in noise levels occurring from project-related activities would be significant when the No Project noise level is above 65 dba CNEL. Since the largest traffic noise increase due to Project related traffic is 3.8 dba (along Vermont Street) where the existing traffic noise level is 57.9 dba (less than 65 dba), a less than significant impact regarding mobile noise levels would occur as a result of Project implementation. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

113 Table Year 2020 Exterior Noise Exposure Levels Adjacent to Nearby Roadways (Based on Traffic Volumes) Roadway Segment Existing Plus Growth (2020 Without Project) ADT 100 Feet from Roadway Centerline Distance from Roadway Centerline to: (Feet) 60 CNEL Noise Contour 65 CNEL Noise Contour 70 CNEL Noise Contour ADT Existing Plus Growth Plus Project (2020 With Project) 100 feet from Roadway Centerline Distance from Roadway Centerline to: (Feet) 60 CNEL Noise Contour 65 CNEL Noise Contour 70 CNEL Noise Contour Difference in Feet from Roadway Amelia N/O Route 66 3, , Amelia S/O Route 66 3, , Barranca N/O Route 66 10, , Barranca S/O Route 66 11, , Elwood N/O Route 66 2, , Elwood S/O Route 66 2, , Glendora N/O Route 66 11, , Glendora S/O Route 66 11, , Grand N/O Route 66 18, , Grand S/O Route 66 21, , Grand N/O Baseline 15, , Grand S/O Baseline 16, , Lone Hill N/O Route 66 14, , Lone Hill S/O Route 66 30, , Lorraine N/O Route 66 5, , Pasadena N/O Route 66 2, , Pasadena S/O Route 66 2, , Route 66 E/O Amelia 12, , Route 66 E/O Lone Hill 24, , Route 66 W/O Barranca 13, , Route 66 W/O Elwood 19, , Route 66 W/O Glendora 16, , Route 66 W/O Grand 14, , Route 66 W/O Lone Hill 35, , , Route 66 W/O Lorraine 17, , Route 66 W/O Pasadena 19, , Route 66 W/O Vecino 13, , Route 66 W/O Vermont 16, , Vermont N/O Route 66 3, , Vermont S/O Route , Note: Noise level models computed for 2025 scenarios utilized existing 2002 roadway cross-section data. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

114 Source: RBF Consulting, September /03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Year 2020 Noise Contours Exhibit 5.3-1

115 This page intentionally left blank. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

116 STATIONARY NOISE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed Project would result in the generation of on-site noise associated with commercial and light industrial activities which include loading/unloading activities, mechanical equipment and activities occurring in parking lots. Analysis has concluded that stationary source impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with adherence to the City of Glendora Municipal Code requirements relating to noise level standards and recommended mitigation measures. Currently, the Project area consists of a mix of residential, commercial, light industrial and institutional (educational and religious) uses served by a grid system of local collector streets (refer to Section 3.0, Project Description). The Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan proposes a combination of new uses, expansion of certain existing uses, and development of additional residential units. Thus, major noise sources associated with the proposed Project that may impact nearby noise sensitive receptors include the following: Mechanical equipment (i.e., trash compactors, air conditioners); Slow moving delivery/supply trucks on the Project site, approaching and leaving loading docks; Activities at loading docks (i.e., maneuvering and idling trucks, banging and clanging of equipment); and Parking lots (i.e., car door slamming, engine start-up, and car pass-by). Although several noise sources would be introduced, many of them would operate for only brief time periods, such as delivery truck movements, trash compactors, and parking lot sweepers. These types of sources usually do not operate concurrently. Other noise sources, such as air conditioning equipment, parking lot traffic, and loading dock activities, operate for comparatively longer periods of time. Since this analysis is being conducted at a programmatic level, no site plans are available to determine specific noise impacts to sensitive uses. Mitigation is recommended requiring that subsequent noise analyses be prepared for future uses, as determined necessary by the City of Glendora, which demonstrate that all feasible sound attenuation has been incorporated into the site plans (i.e., landscaping and brushed driving surfaces, barrier walls, etc.), so that noise from stationary uses has been minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Further, it should be noted that the following projected noise levels do not account for noise attenuation due to existing walls, berms, intervening structures or topography. Mechanical Equipment Mechanical equipment, such as generators, trash compactors, heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) units would be included as part of the proposed improvements. Mechanical equipment would typically be utilized in commercial and industrial areas. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

117 Typically, equipment noise is 55 dba at 50 feet from the source. Noise generated from mechanical equipment could impact residential uses and other sensitive receptors within the project vicinity by exceeding the City s 55 dba noise standard. However, the proposed Project would be subject to the provisions of Glendora Municipal Code (Section ), which requires that noise levels emitted from such equipment does not exceed the permitted ambient noise levels by more than 5 dba. Noise levels from mechanical equipment would be further minimized with implementation of mitigation requiring the orientation of equipment away from any sensitive receptors, proper selection of equipment and installation of equipment with proper acoustical shielding. With implementation of the recommended mitigation and compliance with Glendora Municipal Code provisions, potential impacts from mechanical equipment are considered less than significant. Slowly Moving Trucks (Deliveries) It is anticipated that truck deliveries would occur at the proposed commercial uses. The maximum noise levels of slow moving heavy and small trucks range between 73 and 70 dba, respectively, at 50 feet. Noise generated by delivery trucks on the Project site could exceed the City s 55 dba noise standard and a significant impact could occur unless mitigated. Delivery truck noise impacts would be minimized through compliance with the provisions of Glendora Municipal Code (Section ), which would reduce noise impacts from trucks to less than significant levels. It should be noted that delivery truck traffic is not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards that are based on a time averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. Loading Docks Noise sources at loading docks may include maneuvering and idling trucks, truck refrigeration units, fork lifts, banging and clanging of equipment (i.e., hand carts and roll-up doors), noise from P.A. systems and voices of truck drivers and employees. The maximum noise level associated with loading docks is typically 73 dba at 75 feet. 3 The project proposes commercial and industrial uses, as described above that may contain loading docks. Noise generated by loading docks could exceed the City s 55 dba noise standard for residential and/or other sensitive noise receptors. Loading dock noise impacts are considered less than significant following compliance with the provisions of Glendora Municipal Code (Section ), which would reduce noise impacts from loading docks to less than significant levels. Parking Areas The commercial and industrial uses proposed by the Project would include designated parking areas. Traffic associated with parking lots is not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards that are based on a time averaged scale such as the CNEL scale. However, the instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, an engine starting-up and cars passing by may 3 Source: Brown-Buntin Associates, Inc., July PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

118 be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Estimates of the maximum noise levels associated with some parking lot activities are presented in Table 5.3-9, Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots. Conversations in parking areas may also be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receptors. Sound levels of speech typically range from 33 dba at 48 feet for normal speech to 50 dba at 50 feet for very loud speech. 4 Table Maximum Noise Levels Generated by Parking Lots Noise Source Car door slamming Car starting Car accelerating People shouting, laughing Car idling Source: Wieland Associates, Maximum Noise 50 from Source 63 dba 60 dba 55 dba 65 dba 61 dba Parking lot noise levels at the property line of nearby sensitive receptors could exceed the City s 55 dba noise standard. This impact is considered potentially significant unless mitigated. Mitigation has been recommended requiring that subsequent noise analyses be prepared for future uses, as determined necessary by the City of Glendora, which demonstrate that all feasible sound attenuation has been incorporated into the site plans (i.e., landscaping and brushed driving surfaces), so that noise is minimized to the greatest extent practicable. Following mitigation, noise generated by parking lots is not expected to exceed the 55 dba noise standard and a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. Also, it should be noted that noise attenuation from existing walls and intervening vegetation and topography would further lessen potential impacts. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Implementation of the proposed Project, combined with cumulative projects, would be less than significant. Future development associated with implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, combined with development of cumulative projects, would increase ambient noise levels in the site vicinity. This increase would be due to both stationary noise sources associated with development and vehicular traffic noise along local roadways. The evaluation of construction and stationary source noise impacts is typically determined on a project-by-project basis in order to focus mitigation on a particular noise source. As such, future development proposals within the City would require separate discretionary approval and CEQA assessments, which would 4 Handbook of Noise Control, Cyril M. Harris, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

119 address potential stationary source noise impacts and identify appropriate attenuation measures where appropriate. Cumulative impacts associated with vehicular traffic are analyzed in the previous section. As illustrated in Table 5.3-8, future noise levels generated by vehicular traffic under the 2020 With Project scenario would result in less than significant impacts. As previously stated above, the proposed Project, as well as cumulative development projects would be individually required to reduce noise impacts to below applicable standards and demonstrate adherence to Municipal Code requirements. MITIGATION MEASURES This section directly corresponds to the identified Impact Statements in the impacts subsection. SHORT-TERM TERM CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS 5.3-1a Prior to Grading Permit issuance, the Grading Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department to ensure compliance with the following: All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers, to the satisfaction of the City s Building Official. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receivers, to the extent practical, to the satisfaction of the City s Building Official. During construction and to the satisfaction of the City s Building Official, stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as practical from noise sensitive receptors during construction activities b Construction activities within a residential zone or within 500 feet of a residential unit shall not take place between the hours of 9:00 pm and 7:00 am. LONG-TERM NOISE IMPACTS No mitigation measures are recommended. Based upon the analysis, mobile source noise level increases would be less than significant. STATIONARY NOISE IMPACTS 5.3-3a Prior to Building Permit issuance, building plans shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Redevelopment, which demonstrates that parking areas, loading dock facilities, rooftop equipment, trash compactors and other stationary noise sources are adequately shielded PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

120 and/or located at an adequate distance from residential areas in order to comply with the City s noise standards b 5.3-3c The hours of operation for non-residential uses which have the potential to create adverse noise impacts shall be restricted to minimize impacts on on-site and adjoining residential uses. Mixed-use projects shall be designed to minimize noise impacts between residential and non-residential uses. The City shall adopt design guidelines, which provide direction on appropriate design techniques. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS No mitigation measures are recommended. Based on the analysis provided above, impacts would be mitigated on a project-by-project basis, resulting in less than significant impacts. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION No unavoidable significant impacts related to noise have been identified following implementation of recommended mitigation measures and compliance with applicable requirements set forth by the City of Glendora. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Noise

121 5.4 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Information in this Section was based upon correspondence from public service and utility agencies and other reference information. Public services include fire protection, police protection, schools and recreation. Utilities and service systems include water, wastewater and solid waste. This Section includes an Existing Conditions discussion which provides background information necessary to understand potential impacts of the proposed Project. The criteria by which an impact may be considered potentially significant is provided along with a discussion of impacts pursuant to Appendix G of CEQA. Mitigation measures are identified to avoid or lessen potential impacts to less than significant levels. EXISTING CONDITIONS NS FIRE PROTECTION The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the Project area. Fire Station 151, located at 231 West Mountain View Avenue and Station 86, located at 520 South Amelia Avenue, are the jurisdictional stations for the Project area. Fire Station 151 has a threeperson engine and a two-person paramedic squad. Station 86 has a three-person engine and a four-person truck (ladder) company. Also, nearby is Station 85, located at 650 East Gladstone Street, which has a three-person engine company and a twoperson Emergency Support Team for manpower augmentation in major incidents. In 2002, LACFD responded to 2,326 emergency incidents within the City. The average citywide response time was four minutes 28 seconds, which is representative of the response time for the Project area. 1 The southeastern portion of the Route 66 Service Commercial district of the Project area is located within an area described by the Forester and Fire Warden as a Fire Zone 4, Very High Fire Hazards Severity Zone (VHFHSZ). Development within this zone is subject to specific fire code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire hydrants, fire flows, brush clearance and fuel modification plans. POLICE PROTECTION Police protection in the Project area is provided by the Glendora Police Department, located at 150 South Glendora Avenue. There are currently no other police facilities, substations, or storefront operations within the City and there are no plans to expand the existing facility. The Department serves a square mile area and a population of 50,800 persons. The Project area is served by two to six officers/patrol cars, 24 hours a day, seven days a week (58 total sworn officers). The Police Department has a mutual aid agreement with neighboring cities to provide support assistance in life threatening situations. 1 David Leininger, Chief, Los Angeles County Fire Department-Forestry Division, July 23, Confirmed by Brad Yokum of the Los Angeles County Fire Department-Forestry Division, September 10, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

122 SCHOOLS The Project area is within the Glendora Unified School District, which serves Kindergarten through 12 th grade. Ten existing schools would serve the Project area. Table 5.4-1, School Enrollment and Capacity, shows the school, location, current enrollment and capacity. Table School Enrollment and Capacity School Address Enrollment Capacity Cullen Elementary School 440 North Live Oak Avenue La Fetra Elementary School 547 West Bennett Sellers Elementary School 500 North Loraine Avenue Stanton Elementary School 725 South Vecino Sutherland Elementary School 1330 North Amelia Williams Elementary School 301 South Loraine Avenue Goddard Middle School 859 East Sierra Madre 1,052 1,100 Sandburg Middle School 819 West Bennett 971 1,100 Glendora High School 1600 East Foothill Boulevard 2,579 2,700 Whitcomb High School 350 West Mauna Loa Source: Per communications with Susan Hume, Assistant Superintendent for the Glendora Unified School District, June 17, Exhibit 5.4-1, Glendora School Location Map, shows the location of each school in relation to the Project area. According to the District s enrollment projection study (November 2002), the student generation rate for grades Kindergarten through 6 is per residential unit, for Grades 7 through 8 is per residential unit and for Grades 9 through 12 is per residential unit. There are no plans for school expansions. It is noted that the capacities of the schools include the addition of portable classrooms to existing school campuses. Space for portable classrooms exists in the City; however, parents and community members are not always receptive to temporary buildings set-up for classroom use. The District accepts inter-district transfer students. Inter-district transfers are accepted on a space available basis, where students within the District have first priority. To mitigate development impacts, Glendora Unified School District imposes a developer fee for all development within its District. RECREATION The City of Glendora has a substantial amount of public and private open space for the provision of parks and outdoor recreation areas. Approximately 4,451.7 acres of PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

123 Source: Glendora Unified School District. ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Glendora School Location Map 10/03 JN Exhibit 5.4-1

124 This page intentionally left blank. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

125 public open space area exists within the City of Glendora. The City s urban parks and outdoor recreation system includes Big Tree Park, Centennial Heritage Park, Dawson Avenue Park, Finkbiner Memorial Park, Gladstone Park, Louie Pompei Memorial Park, Glenoaks Golf Course, Linder Equestrian Ring, Ole Hammer Mini Park and Willow Springs Mini Park. These urban parks and outdoor recreation areas total over 72 acres. In addition, the City in conjunction with the Glendora Unified School District and the Charter Oak School District provide recreational programs at most of the schools. This provides an additional 150 acres of recreational facilities for school age children close to their homes. In addition, the City maintains two wilderness type parks, Big Dalton Park, which is approximately 650 acres in size and South Hills Park, which is approximately 225 acres. These wilderness areas provide hiking, riding, picnicking and other activities designed to respect the natural state of the parks. Three parks are located either partially or entirely within the Project area, including Big Tree Park, South Hills Park and Centennial Heritage Park. The City of Glendora has established a standard per population of various recreation/park facilities (refer to Table 5.4-2, City of Glendora Requirements for Park Facilities). In addition, Table identifies the current surplus or deficit of the facilities based upon the established standards. WATER The City of Glendora Water Division provides water service for the Project area. The City obtains water from three underground sub-basins, which are part of the Main San Gabriel Basin. Supplemental water from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is purchased through the local wholesaler, the Three Valley s Municipal Water District (TVMWD). Eight local groundwater wells produce approximately 86 percent of the annual demand and the remaining 14 percent is purchased from the MWD, which is primarily needed to meet seasonal peak demands. With regard to groundwater, the City has prescriptive rights to percent of the annual safe yield of the San Gabriel Groundwater Basin. The prescriptive right for the City of Glendora is 8,226 acre-feet. The City of Glendora s water delivery system was created through the purchase of small private water companies and by the City s own expansion projects. The system is comprised of 11 service zones containing approximately 200 miles of pipe. The Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan Area is located in the City of Glendora s Zone 1 and Zone 2 service areas. The land use districts located in the Zone 1 service area are: Barranca Gateway, Town Center Mixed Use, Route 66 Service Commercial (portion), Grand Avenue Gateway Mixed Use and Central Route 66 Residential. Zone 1 is the largest zone within the City s system and varies in elevation from 620 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at Gladstone Street and Barranca Avenue to 890 feet amsl at Ben Lomond north of Sierra Madre Avenue. Zone 1 is served from a high water elevation of feet amsl by five reservoirs. See Exhibit 5.4-2, Existing Water System, for identification of the existing water system facilities within the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan Area. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

126 Table City of Glendora Requirements for Park Facilities Facility Type Standard Per Population Existing Facilities 3 Resulting Surplus or (Deficit) 2 Football Field 1/20, Soccer Field 1/3, Informal Field 1 1/3, Baseball Diamond 1/25, Softball Diamond/Little League Field 1/2, Practice/T-Ball Field 1/7, Basketball Court 1/3, Handball/Racquetball Court 1/5, Tennis Court 1/3, Volleyball Court 1/3, Swimming Pool 1/25, Amphitheater 1/20, Play Area 1/2, Picnic Area 1/ Community Center 1/20, Gymnasium 1/23, Municipal Golf Course 1/50, Notes: 1. Multipurpose soccer or football 2. Based upon a population of 53,800 persons (2000 Census) 3. School facilities have been discounted due to limited accessibility to the general public: football fields have been counted at 37.5% of actual inventory; softball/little league fields have been counted at 60% of actual inventory; all other school facilities have been counted at 50% of actual inventories. Source: Parks Master Plan, City of Glendora Community Services Department, November The Zone 2 service area is located to the east of Zone 1. The land use districts in the Zone 2 service area are: Lone Hill Gateway, Glendora Technology/Commercial/ Office and the remaining portion of Route 66 Service Commercial. Zone 2 service elevations vary from 810 feet amsl at Alosta Avenue and the Big Dalton Wash to 1,030 feet amsl north of Oak Knoll Drive, with a high water level of 1,090 feet amsl. The Zone 2 system within the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan Area is shown in Exhibit The existing domestic water demand for the Project area was calculated using the current land use and demand factors from the City of Glendora s 1995 Water Master Plan. Demands were calculated for each of the land use districts, based on a field survey identifying existing land uses by visual appearance and information obtained in the City s Geographic Information System (GIS). Table 5.4-3, Water Demand Factors, summarizes the water usage factors used for this study. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

127 Source: GIS Data, City of Glendora. 10/03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Existing Water System Exhibit 5.4-2

128 This page intentionally left blank. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

129 Table Water Demand Factors Land Use Residential Water Demand Factor (gpd/du) Non-Residential Water Demand] Factor (gpd/ac) Commercial - 2,900 Single Family Res Multi Family Res Mobile Home Motel - 2,900 Medical - 4,600 Religious - 2,000 Source: Route 66 Corridor Redevelopment Water and Wastewater Analysis, RBF Consulting, July The existing average daily water demand for the Project area is calculated in Table 5.4-4, Existing Estimated Water Demand, to be 0.98 million gallons per day (mgd). Using the max day factor of 1.85 from the WMP, the existing max day demand is estimated to be 1,254 gallons per minute (gpm). The WMP determined several reaches of pipe within the Project area to be either undersized for fire flow requirements or of such age that replacement was recommended. Most of the existing system currently remains the same as it was at the time of the writing of the WMP. In particular, the backbone to both the Zone 1 and 2 systems is a parallel 8-inch loop running on each side of Route 66. These parallel lines were constructed in and Therefore, the WMP (which set a 50 year lifespan) determined these pipelines require upgrading. Senate Bills 221 and 610. Senate Bills 221 and 610 were signed into law in 2001 and took effect January 1, The two senate bills amended State law to better link information on water supply availability to certain land use decisions by cities and counties. The two companion bills provide a regulatory forum that requires more collaborative planning between local water suppliers and cities and counties. All SB 610 and 221 reports are generated and adopted by the public water supplier. Senate Bill (SB) 610 requires a detailed report regarding water availability and planning for additional water supplies that is included with the environmental document for specified projects. All projects that meet any of the following criteria require the assessment: A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units; A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 ft 2 of floor space; A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 ft 2 of floor space; A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms; PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

130 Table Existing Estimated Water Demand Land Use District Land Use Acres Square Feet DU FAR Factor 1 (gpd/ac) Factor 2 (gpd/du) Demand (gpd) Max Day 3 (gpm) Barranca Gateway Grand Avenue Gateway Town Center Mixed Use Commercial , ,900 47, Motel (54 rooms) , , MF Residential , Other/Vacant SUBTOTAL , , Commercial , , , SF Residential MF Residential ,200 4 Other/Vacant SUBTOTAL , , MF Residential , SF Residential , Mobile Home , Motel (35 rooms) , , Commercial , , , Hospital , ,600 26, Religious , ,000 2,480 3 Other Vacant SUBTOTAL , , MF Residential , SF Residential Mobile Home , Route 66 Service Comm. Motel (37 rooms) , , Route 66 Residential Commercial , , , Other/Vacant SUBTOTAL , , MF Residential , SF Residential , Mobile Home , Commercial ,679 2,900 13, Other/Vacant SUBTOTAL , , Commercial ,558 2,900 57, Lone Hill Gateway Other/Vacant SUBTOTAL , , Commercial ,224 2,900 80, Technology/Comm/Office Other/Vacant SUBTOTAL , , TOTAL ,555, ,101 1,254 (1) Factors provided from the City of Glendora 1995 Water Master Plan. (2) Based on the relatively high density of residential, development proposed, it is recommended that commonly used 'per du' usage factors be used to more accurately estimate current water consumption patterns. Factors based upon common used industry values; Single Family = 600 gpd/du, Multi- Family = 400 gpd/du. (3) Max Day = 1.86 Avg. Day per City of Glendora 1995 Water Master Plan. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

131 A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 ft 2 of floor area; A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified in this subdivision; or A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project. While SB 610 primarily affects the Water Code, SB 221 principally applies to the Subdivision Map Act. The primary effect of this bill is to condition every tentative map for an applicable subdivision on the applicant by verifying that the public water supplier (PWS) has sufficient water supply available to serve it. Under SB 221, approval of certain residential subdivisions requires a written verification of sufficient water supply by the city. SB 221 applies to any subdivision, defined as: A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units, if the PWS has more than 5,000 service connections. Any proposed development that increases connections by 10% or more, if the PWS has fewer than 5,000 connections. WASTEWATER Wastewater services in the Project area are owned by the City of Glendora and maintained by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District (CSMD). Existing local sewer lines in the vicinity of the Project area are identified in Exhibit 5.4-3, Wastewater Facilities. These local sewer lines connect to a trunk sewer system operated by the City Sanitation District #22 of Los Angeles City (District 22). The wastewater system that would be used for the proposed Project is a gravity system that flows to the District 22 trunk sewer lines. The City s gravity sewers collect the generated wastewater flows within the Project area. The general direction of the wastewater flow is east to west. The Lorraine Avenue Trunk and Baseline Road Trunk sewers convey the flows from the existing land uses within the Project area to the main Los Angeles City Sanitation trunk tie-in at the intersection of Barranca Avenue and Baseline Road. The Loraine Trunk Sewer is located in a railroad right-of-way south of the intersection of Compromise Line Road and Valley Center Avenue. This 12-inch diameter trunk sewer has a design capacity of 356 gpm and conveys a peak flow of 1.3 mgd when last measured in The Baseline Road Trunk Sewer ranges from 15 inches to 18 inches (west of Grand Avenue). It is designed to have a capacity of 964 gpm. The wastewater generated from the Project area would be treated at the San Jose Creek Water Reclamation Plan (WRP), located adjacent to the City of Industry. The San Jose Creek WRP has a design capacity of 100 mgd and currently processes an average flow of 88.4 mgd. 2 Wastewater flows that exceed the capacity of the San Jose Creek WRP and all sludge are diverted to and treated at the Joint Water Pollution Control Plant (JWPCP) located in the City of Carson. 2 Per communications with Ruth Frazen, Engineering Technician for the Planning & Property Management Section of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, July 22, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

132 Land Use In the absence of City standards, typical industry-standard water-to-wastewater return ratios were used for estimating wastewater flows. The return ratio figures are derived from standards of similar water agencies within Southern California and are specified in Table 5.4-5, Water Demand/Wastewater Generation Factors. Return Ratio (%) Table Water Demand/Wastewater Generation Factors Residential Water Demand Factor (gpd/du) Wastewater Generation Factor (gpd/du) Non-Residential Water Demand Factor (gpd/ac) Wastewater Generation Factor (gpd/ac) Commercial ,900 2,465 Single Family Res Multi Family Res Mobile Home Motel ,900 2,320 Medical ,600 4,600 Religious ,000 1,600 Source: Route 66 Corridor Redevelopment Water and Wastewater Analysis, RBF Consulting, July Based upon the generation factors identified in Table 5.4-5, the existing average flow for the Project area is calculated as 0.79 mgd (refer to Table 5.4-6, Estimated Wastewater Generation). SOLID WASTE Solid waste from the Project area is hauled by Athens Services who is the exclusive franchised hauler for the City of Glendora. Athens Services transports the solid waste to one of 11 landfills that serve the Project area (refer to Table 5.4-7, Landfills Summary). The Puente Hills Landfill receives the majority of the City s solid waste (86 percent), which is owned and operated by the City of Los Angeles Sanitation District. A total of 44,735 tons a year of solid waste is generated within the City. 3 The combined permitted capacity for the landfills serving the project area is over 636 million cubic yards with a remaining capacity of over 316 million cubic yards (approximately 50 percent). The California Integrated Waste Management Act, AB 939, required jurisdictions to divert 50 percent of the waste stream away from land disposal by the year If the 50 percent goal was not met by the end of year 2000, the jurisdiction would be required to submit a petition for a goal extension to the Integrated Waste Management Board (IWMB). The City of Glendora diversion rate is 52 percent. 4 The California Integrated Waste Management Board is still focused on assisting local officials throughout the State in meeting the 50 percent diversion requirement set for As of January 2003, neither the California Integrated Waste Management Board nor the State Legislature have introduced new legislation to set diversion requirements beyond Jurisdiction Disposal and ADC by Facility, Integrated Waste Management Board, year 4 Per communications with Ruth Frazen, Engineering Technician for the Planning & Property Management Section of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, July 22, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

133 Source: GIS Data, City of Glendora. 10/03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Wastewater Facilities Exhibit 5.4-3

134 This page intentionally left blank. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

135 Table Estimated Wastewater Generation Land Use District Land Use Acres Square feet DU FAR Factor 1 (gpd/ac) Factor 2 (gpd/du) Avg. Flow (gpd) Commercial , ,465 40, Motel (54 ooms) , , Barranca Gateway MF Residential , Other/Vacant SUBTOTAL , , Commercial , ,465 92, SF Residential Grand Avenue Gateway MF Residential ,400 5 Other/Vacant SUBTOTAL , , MF Residential , SF Residential , Mobile Home , Motel (35 rooms) , , Town Center Mixed Use Commercial , , , Hospital , ,600 26, Religious , ,600 1,984 4 Other Vacant SUBTOTAL , , MF Residential , SF Residential Mobile Home , Route 66 Service Comm. Motel (37 ooms) , , Commercial , , , Other/Vacant SUBTOTAL , , MF Residential , SF Residential , Route 66 Residential Mobile Home , Commercial ,679 2,465 11, Other/Vacant SUBTOTAL , , Commercial ,558 2,465 49, Lone Hill Gateway Other/Vacant SUBTOTAL , , Commercial ,224 2,465 68, Technology/ Other/Vacant Comm/Office SUBTOTAL , , TOTAL ,555, ,594 1,098 (1) Factors generated from City of Glendora 1995 Water Master Plan demands reduced according to the return ratios shown in Table (2) Factors based upon common used industry values, 300 gpd/du represents a 50% return of the single family residential demand and a 75% return ratio for multi-family residential. (3) Peaking Factor = 2.7 for the individual districts, and 2.0 for the redevelopment project as a whole, thus sum does not equal total. (4) 2,465 gpd/ac is taken from the 1995 Water Master Plan to represent 2,900 gpd/ac commercial and conservative residential demand times a return ratio of 85%. Peak 3 (gpm) PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

136 Facility Permitted Throughput (tons/day) Table Landfills Summary Permitted Capacity (cubic yards) Remaining Capacity (cubic yards) Closure Date Arvin Sanitary Landfill ,464,719 2,246,339 December 31, 2008 Azusa Land Reclamation City Landfill 6,500 66,670,000 34,100,000 January 1, 2025 Chiquita Canyon Sanitary Landfill 6,000 45,889,550 26,024,360 November 24, 2019 Puente Hills Landfill #6 13, ,400,000 20,200,000 January 1, 2013 Commerce Refuse-To-Energy Facility 1,000 1,000 (tons/day) NA NA Sunshine Canyon SLF City Extension 6,600 23,720,000 16,000,000 January 1, 2004 Bradley Landfill 10,000 38,600,000 4,725,968 January 1, 2007 Prima Deshecha Sanitary Landfill 4,000 89,400,000 81,000,000 December 31, 2040 Olinda Alpha Sanitary Landfill 8,000 74,900,000 50,242,370 December 31, 2013 Frank R. Bowerman Sanitary Landfill 8, ,000,000 81,600,000 December 31, 2022 Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill 7,500 62,000, ,058 April 1, 2033 Total 72, ,044, ,833,095 NA Sources: 1. Jurisdiction Disposal and ADC by Facility, Integrated Waste Management Board, 2. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), Integrated Waste Management Board, IMPACTS In response to AB 939, the City has an existing Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE). The intent of this Element is to establish goals and policies for the City regarding source reduction, recycling and composting and environmentally safe solid waste management alternatives to land disposal. The City of Glendora has identified goals to reduce waste at the source, increase the use of recyclable materials, encourage the use of reusable products and reduce green waste through onsite composting. In addition, the Glendora Municipal Code Sections and specify the requirements for the City to adopt programs to comply with AB 939 and for all residents to comply with AB 939 requirements. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA Pursuant to Appendix G, Environmental Checklist of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would normally have a significant adverse impact on public services if it results in any of the following: Public Services A significant impact would occur if the project would result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services including fire PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

137 protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities (refer to Impact Statements through 5.4-4). Recreation A significant impact would occur if the project... Increases the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated (refer to Impact Statement 5.4-4). Includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment (refer to Impact Statement 5.4-4). Utilities and Service Systems A significant impact would occur if the project... Exceeds wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board (refer to Impact Statement 5.4-6); Requires or results in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (refer to Impact Statements and 5.4-6). Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects (refer to Section 10.0, Effects Found Not To Be Significant (Hydrology and Water Quality)). Has insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlement and resources, and new or expanded entitlement is needed (refer to Impact Statement 5.4-5). Results in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments (refer to Impact Statement 5.4-6). Is served by a landfill that does not have sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs (refer to Impact Statement 5.4-7). Does not comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste (refer to Impact Statement 5.4-7). PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

138 FIRE PROTECTION The proposed project would not result in significant physical impacts with respect to fire protection. Potential fire service impacts are concluded to be less than significant, following compliance with all applicable requirements, codes and ordinances. According to the LACFD, any development within the area, including the proposed Project, would create greater demands on existing fire protection resources. However, due to the Project area s location within acceptable response time of three fire stations, development in accordance with the Specific Plan would not require construction of a new fire station. 5 Proposed development would be subject to compliance with all relevant LACFD General Requirements including the following: General Requirements Specific fire and life safety requirements during the construction phase; Specifications for the accessibility to Fire Department apparatus by way of access roadways; Maximum allowable grade specifications; Specific requirements for subdivisions; and Fire sprinkler systems. The proposed Project involves future development of commercial, institutional and residential uses. The LACFD has identified specific requirements relevant to the proposed land uses. They include the following: Commercial, Institutional and Residential (High-Density and Single-Family) Requirements Fire flow; Fire hydrant location and spacing; Fire Department access; Turning radii and street and driveway width and length specifications; and Identification of fire lanes. In addition to the General and Institutional Requirements outlined above, the LACFD has identified criteria pertaining to limited access devices (gates, etc.), traffic calming measures and applicable code and ordinance requirements as a result of the southeastern portion of the Route 66 Service Commercial located within a VHFHSZ. Due to the proximity of the Project area to three fire stations, response times would not be significantly impacted as a result of Project implementation (including roadway closures and roadway realignments). Following compliance with the requirements of the LACFD outlined above and the Glendora Municipal Code, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to fire protection services. 5 David Leininger, Chief, Los Angeles County Fire Department-Forestry Division, July 23, PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

139 POLICE PROTECTION Project implementation would not result in significant physical impacts with respect to police protection. Analysis has concluded that potential impacts would be less than significant. The current officer to resident ratio is 1.14 per 1,000 residents (58 officers per 50,800 residents). As a result of project implementation, the City s permanent population would increase by 4,396 residents (refer to Section 6.3, Growth Inducing Impacts). Therefore, the Glendora Police Department would need to add five additional officers during the build out of the Route 66 Corridor Specific Plan (approximately 20 years) in order to maintain the current 1.14-officers/1.00 resident ratio. However, the Project area currently requires significant law enforcement resources. While the Project would likely increase vehicular and pedestrian traffic, the Glendora Police Department does not anticipate a significant impact on law enforcement services or the need for alteration of existing police facilities. 6 Therefore, any impacts resulting from Project implementation would be less than significant. SCHOOLS Project implementation could result in significant physical impacts to existing school facilities. With payment of appropriate fees, impacts to school facilities are concluded as less than significant. Students residing in the Project area are within the service area of the Glendora Unified School District. According to the GUSD, the estimated student generation rates for elementary schools are students per residential unit, middle school students per residential unit and high school students per residential unit. 7 The Project involves a net increase of 537 housing units within the Project area. Therefore, Project implementation could result in the addition of 196 elementary school students, 54 middle school students and 93 high school students to the GUSD. According to the GUSD, the District has excess space available at all sites and Project implementation would not result in significant impacts or result in the need to build new school facilities. 8 Potential impacts to GUSD are concluded as less than significant. The GUSD imposes developer fees on all residential and commercial development. Development impact fees for residential development are currently $2.14 per square foot and $0.34 per square foot for commercial development. These fees are subject to review and the Board of Education may consider an increase in Payment of the developer impact fees would reduce any impacts to a less than significant level. RECREATION Project implementation could result in increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Analysis 6 Judith Haines, Captain of Patrol Operations for the Glendora Police Department, June 17, Susan Hume, Assistant Superintendent Glendora Unified School District, June 19, Ibid. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

140 has concluded that a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. As stated, approximately 4,451.7 acres of developed/undeveloped parkland exists within the City of Glendora. Based upon the City of Glendora s requirements for park facilities, the City currently has a surplus of 161 acres of informal fields, practice/tball fields, basketball courts, handball/racquetball courts, volleyball courts and picnic areas. However, the City has a deficit of acreage dedicated to football fields, soccer fields, softball/little league fields, swimming pools, amphitheater, play areas and gymnasiums. 9 Based on an estimate of persons per household (State of California Department of Finance), the development of 537 additional housing units would result in a population increase of approximately 1,602 persons. Therefore, Project implementation would result in the direct need of approximately 8.6 acres of park facilities. 10 Development as a result of the proposed Project would be required to pay park in-lieu and park development fees, reducing any impacts to less than significant. WATER Project implementation would increase the demand for water beyond current conditions requiring the expansion of existing facilities. Analysis has concluded that with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, a less than significant impact would occur in this regard. A water demand analysis was performed for the proposed Project. The existing average day water demand was estimated to be 0.98 mgd with an existing maximum day demand of 1,254 gpm, for the Project area. Identical water usage factors were applied to the existing and proposed land uses for the Project area. The average day demand for the proposed Project would be 1.41 mgd, representing an increase of 432,783 gpd compared to existing conditions (refer to Table 5.4-8, Proposed Estimated Domestic Water Demand). The maximum day demand for the proposed Project would be 1,810 gpm. In order to accommodate the additional demand created by the proposed Project, the system should be planned to current operating standards, or as close to current standards as feasible. According to City staff, the existing system was based upon an approximate 1,250 gpm fire flow for residential and small commercial land use and 2,500 for large commercial. The current fire flow standard for the City of Glendora is: 2,250 gpm for two hours for single-family residential, 2,500 gpm for two hours for multi-family residential, 1,750 gpm for two hours for mobile home and 5,000 gpm for five hours for large commercial. Eight-inch lines under current fire flow standards are typically only sufficient for mobile home or single-family residential land uses. The WMP includes recommendations to replace the two 8-inch lines with a single 18-inch line to serve both sides of Route 66. However, the City has decided to continue maintaining a parallel system. Therefore, it is recommended by RBF 9 Parks Master Plan, City of Glendora Community Services Department, November Based upon the total of all the park facilities standards, per population of 1,602 persons. PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT OCTOBER Public Services and Utilities

141 Source: GIS Data, City of Glendora. 10/03 JN ROUTE 66 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN Proposed Water System Improvements Exhibit 5.4-4